Skip to content

The Neverland Five and their Victor Gutierrez Inspiration

June 5, 2011

I was watching Martin Bashir’s second mocumentary “Michael Jacksons Secret World” the other day and Diane Dimond is being interviewed about the photos matching from the search. In it she confronts the issue that Michael Jackson was not arrested when the photos were taken if they were supposedly a match. Her statement is that without an adult eyewitness what could they do? After reading the testimony of the Neverland Five witnesses it would seem that there was an adult eyewitness to the allegations. If there was an adult eyewitness, Michael would have been arrested and the rest would have been history. However there seems to be a big discrepancy in the former statements of Ralph Chacon, who was the guard that was an eyewitness to the alleged abuse and the 2005 testimony of that guard. It seems, according to his 2005 testimony, that in 1994 he identified the wrong boy, alleging that “they looked identical”.

In June of 1994, Thomas Sneddon, Lauren Weiss and 2 Detectives (one from SBSD and the other from LAPD) flew to Melbourne Australia. They flew there with the intent of interviewing Brett Christopher Barnes. The law enforcement officials had “new” evidence that Brett had been molested by Michael Jackson. According to their informants (guards), Michael had allegedly M***** Brett Barnes.

Well, according to court documents and testimony in the 2005 trial, this information was from Ralph Chacon, Kassim Abdool and Adrian McManus. These three, along with two others (Melanie Bagnall and Sandy Domz) would become known as the Neverland Five. The Neverland Five were a group of former employees of Michael Jackson that sued him for sixteen million dollars, stating that they were wrongfully terminated because of what they knew about him and young boys. That was one of the charges, as well as  other charges relating alleged threats by Michael Jackson’s personal security officers, and even an allegation of sexual harassment against one of the personal security officers.

On May 5th 1994 five months after the Chandler suit had settled, and three months before the investigation came to a close on September 22nd 1994, Detective Russell Birchim of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department met secretly with Kassim Abdool and Ralph Chacon at a secluded location at a Gaviota rest stop. Kassim Abdool called Detective Birchim after he had served him with a subpoena to appear before the Los Angeles Grand Jury investigating the allegations against Michael Jackson.  Kassim Abdool met and discussed with Detective Birchim a hypothetical situation regarding the allegations. Apparently in the next 2 days after the original meeting, Ralph Chacon joined Kassim Abdool in a meeting with Detective Birchim, Detective Monk and Tom Sneddon. That is where Ralph Chacon gave a sworn statement to the Grand Jury but was not asked questions! Normally in a Grand Jury proceeding a person would answer questions from the Grand Jury, not just give a statement without Grand Jury examination. So in essence Tom Sneddon’s investigative Grand Jury was not even allowed to investigate, despite his claims that the grand jury was convened “for investigative purposes only”! (That claim was totally debunked in this post.)

Addendum to the post: 6/8/11

In the last few days since completing this post I have discovered this article From CNN about the disbanding of the 1994 Santa Barbara Grand Jury. If you note the date of the article it clearly states May 2nd 1994 as the end of the Santa Barbara Grand Jury proceedings in 1994. Ralph Chacon met with Detective Birchim on May 5th 1994 and again with Detective Birchim and DA Sneddon on May 6th 1994. However in the testimony of Ralph Chacon he states that he did not go to the Los Angeles Grand Jury but instead gave a statement and was sworn in on May 10th, 1994 and this is corroborated by the prosecution. The testimony on this particular point is confusing if you know that the Santa Barbara Grand Jury was disbanded on May 2nd, 1994 ? Apparently he made his statement to an empty room of  Grand Jurors from a disbanded Grand Jury? Then we have this from an article in The LA Times about when the investigation was complete and this is what Sneddon said and confused me even more when Jordan lived right in Santa Monica?

“In addition, they said their investigation–an enormous undertaking that took 13 months, involved two grand juries and relied upon interviews with more than 400 people–had turned up two more children who said Jackson had molested them, but they too were unwilling to take the stand. One of those alleged victims is outside the country and thus outside of court jurisdiction, Sneddon said. In addition, Sneddon said, that child had previously made comments generally denying any wrongdoing by Jackson, which would have complicated a prosecution based on his statements even if he had been willing to testify.”

Fast Forward to 2004 according to court documents submitted by the prosecution for admission of the 1108 evidence in the 2005 trial, Ralph Chacon would testify as an adult eyewitness of the alleged abuse of Jordan Chandler, and Brett Barnes.

In the original 1108 People’s brief they have a list of “eyewitnesses” to the alleged abuse of Wade Robson, Macauley Culkin, Jimmy Safechuck, Jonathan Spence, Brett Barnes, and Jordan Chandler. The list of witnesses to these alleged events was Blanca Francia, Charlie Michaels, Mark Quindoy, Phillipe Le Marque, Orietta Murdoch, ( Orietta Murdoch and Mark Quindoy were not called by the prosecution; they removed them from the witness list themselves), Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus (who did testify that she saw Michael kiss Brett on his cheek and had a hand on his butt), and June Chandler. In the original 1108 evidence people’s brief Kassim Abdool is not mentioned. The original was filed in December of 2004, several objections to it and replies were made, and finally on April 15th the people wanted to call Kassim Abdool to, I guess, bolster a lost cause. That is when they wanted to introduce the infamous Vaseline story from MJWML by Abdool but the judge denied that ( they were no longer alleging that these events happened to Brett barnes and the original statments named him). He did say that he could be called to testify to “verify” that Ralph Chacon had told him what he had seen in regard to Jordan Chandler. Suddenly, there was no adult eye witness to the allegations that these people had made against Michael in regard to Brett Barnes because they were all about Jordan Chandler!

Here is an excerpt from Ralph Chacon’s testimony when he is identifying Jordan as the boy he saw from the photos provided.

MR. SNEDDON: Okay. All right. You can

take that down.

I have three more photographs, I’ve shown

them to counsel, that have been marked as 793, 794,

and 795 for identification purposes. I’d like to

show them to the witness.

THE COURT: All right.

Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Mr. Chacon, I’m going to

show you the photograph marked as 793. You’ve seen

that photograph before?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you recognize the person that you 5184 

believe that that photograph depicts?

  1. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who is that?

A. Jordie.

Q. Is that a depiction of the child as you

recall him back in those days?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And with regard to 794, it has two

photographs on it, one at the top and one at the

bottom. The one at the top is a singular photograph

of an individual, and the one at the bottom has four

people in that. Do you recognize the people in that

photograph?

  1. A. Yes, sir.

Q. And again, who is that?

A. Jordie.

Q. And in the photograph at the bottom, there

are a number of people depicted. Which of them do

you recognize as Jordie?

A. This one here.

Q. Would you please take that black pen and

just put an arrow towards — start on the white,

down below. Okay. Thank you.

And with regard to 795, do you recognize

that?

  1. A. Yes, sir.

Q. And again, there are a number of people

depicted in that photograph, correct? 5185

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you recognize anybody in that

photograph?

A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. Who would that be?

A. That’s Jordie.

Q. By “that” you mean who, in terms of —

there’s one, two, three, four, five people depicted.

A. The fifth one.

Q. All the way over to the left?

A. All the way over to the left.

Q. Are these accurate depictions of the child

as you recall him back in those days?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. SNEDDON: Move that they be admitted

into evidence, Your Honor.

MR. MESEREAU: No objection.

Mr. Mesereau did not object to the photos being entered into evidence because they were photos of Jordan Chandler. If the photos had been of Brett Barnes, then Mesereau would have had to object to the incorrect identification, after all it was like a photo line- up, so one can assume that the photos are of Jordan and that is who Ralph Chacon  is now alleging that  he saw in a sexual situation with Michael Jackson. Is anyone questioning yet why Tom Sneddon, Lauren Weiss, William Hodgeman, Russ Birchim and Glen Monk went to Australia in the first place? In the press release from September of 1994, the two District Attorneys stated that there were 3 boys that were victims of Michael Jackson. The primary would not testify as was his right, one was undergoing therapy and did not want to testify, and one was out of the jurisdiction and had issued a general denial. The boy out of the jurisdiction that issued a general denial was Brett Barnes.

In this video from 2005, Mesereau describes to Jay Leno how Sneddon literally flew all over the world to find “victims” of Michael Jackson!

During the cross examination Ralph Chacon was asked about the lawsuit he and the others had filed against Michael Jackson. Of course, running true to the form of the other witnesses, he had a very selective memory. He could not remember suing Michael for 16 million dollars or telling a therapist that he would rather get a million dollars from Michael Jackson instead of working again. Also he could not remember that he had stolen twenty five thousand dollars’ worth of goods (among them a watch) from him or owed him over a million dollars in legal fees. Of course no amount of showing him the documents can refresh a selective memory like that.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. MESEREAU:

Q. Good morning, Mr. Chacon.

A. Good morning, sir.

Q. Mr. Chacon, my name is Tom Mesereau, and I

speak for Mr. Jackson.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I’d like to ask you a few questions about

that lawsuit you lost. That was the longest civil

trial in the history of Santa Maria, right?

A. I don’t know, sir.

Q. It went about six months, didn’t it?

A. I believe so, yes, sir.

Q. You sued Mr. Jackson and you wanted $16

million, right?

A. Well, I don’t know about the 16 million.

Q. You wanted millions, true?

18 A. No, sir.

Q. Really?

A. Well, I don’t know, sir. Whatever our

attorney was — he’s the one who was speaking for

us.

Q. Okay. We’ll get into that.

You sued Mr. Jackson claiming you were

wrongfully terminated, right?

A. That’s correct, sir.

Q. He sued you claiming you had stolen property

from him, true? 5202

A. That’s correct, sir.

Q. The jury found you were not wrongfully

terminated by Mr. Jackson, correct?

A. But we were, sir.

Q. Answer my question, please. Did the Santa

Maria jury find you were not wrongfully terminated

by Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they also found you had stolen property

from Mr. Jackson, correct?

A. But I didn’t, sir.

Q. Did the Santa Maria jury find you had stolen

property from Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. A judgment was entered against you, Mr.

Chacon, for $25,000, the value of what you had

stolen, correct?

A. For candy bars, sir?

Q. A judgment was entered against you for

$25,000, the value of what the Court found you had

stolen, correct?

A. Well, if a candy bar is worth that much,

yes, sir.

Q. That’s not all you owe Mr. Jackson

currently, is it?

A. No, sir. I don’t owe him.

Q. In fact, Judge Zel Canter of this court,

entered a judgment against you and your 5203

co-defendants for $1,473,117.61, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. He ordered you pay all of Mr. Jackson’s

legal fees and costs, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you ever paid any of that judgment, Mr.

Chacon?

A. No, sir. I filed bankruptcy.

Q. Now, the jury found you not only stole from

Mr. Jackson, but you acted maliciously, correct?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did a judge find you had acted with malice?

A. No, sir.

Q. Is there a judgment against you for acting

with fraud against Mr. Jackson?

A. That I know of, no, sir.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look

at the judgment?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

Oh, it’s there, sir. I didn’t know. Yes,

sir.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

look at that judgment, Mr. Chacon?

A. Do you mean right now?

Q. Yes. 5204

A. Yes, sir.

As you can plainly read Ralph Chacon did have a judgment against him for owing Michael a great deal of money. The former employees filed suit on February 5th, 1995. They had actually had their attorney ready to file suit on December 2nd , 1994 but they needed money to start the suit. In need of ready cash their attorney Michael Ring arranged a meeting with Peter Burt of Splash News, a broker that sold stories to tabloids. Ralph Chacon and Adrian McManus sold their story to Star Magazine and were on Inside Edition. In the meeting with their lawyer was an Author by the name of Victor Gutierrez.

Q. Who was Sandy Domz?

A. She was one of the secretaries at Neverland

Ranch.

Q. Okay. Do you recall Sandy Domz ever 5229

approaching a tabloid?

A. No, sir.

Q. Don’t know anything about it?

A. No, sir.

Q. All right. Do you recall speaking to a book

author named Gutierrez?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And approximately when did you speak to a

book author named Gutierrez?

A. I believe that was before we went to Star,

and — but I don’t remember the — I don’t remember

the date or the time.

Here is more testimony about the change in his story.

Q. Okay. That was to fund the lawsuit where

you sought millions from Michael Jackson, correct?

A. Well, that was the lawsuit, sir.

Q. That was the lawsuit you were trying to fund

by selling stories to tabloids, true?

A. No, sir.

Q. No?

A. I really don’t understand your question.

Q. Sure, I’ll rephrase.

You were taking money from tabloids and

using it to fund costs of your lawsuit against Mr.

Jackson?

A. Oh. Yes, sir. I’m sorry.

Q. And before you went to Mr. Ring, you had

told various people that you never saw anything

inappropriate at Neverland, true?

A. No, sir.

Q. You told various people you’d never seen

Michael Jackson molest anybody, true?

A. No, sir.

Q. So if anybody comes into court and says

that, they’re just not telling the truth, right?

A. That’s correct, sir.

Q. Okay. When you first met with

representatives of the sheriff’s department, did you

tell them everything that you have said today about

Mr. Jackson allegedly molesting young men? 5239

A. Um, when you mean a sheriff, a certain

sheriff, or at the sheriff’s department, or — I

don’t understand.

Q. Let me rephrase.

When you first spoke to a sheriff from Santa

Barbara, did you tell that sheriff everything you’ve

said today in court?

A. No, sir.

Q. The story has changed considerably since

your first meeting with a sheriff, true?

MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

object to the use of the word “considerably” as

argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Would you agree that with

each interview you do, you add more lurid facts

about Mr. Jackson?

A. No, sir.

Q. You would agree your story about what you

20 claim he did has changed through the years, has it

not?

A. No, sir.

Q. Didn’t you just meet with Mr. Sneddon the

other day?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Didn’t you tell Mr. Sneddon you had new

facts that you forgot in 1993?

MR. SNEDDON: Well, wait a minute. I’m 5240

going to object to that question. Your Honor,

that’s not asked in good faith with regard to the —

I can’t do it without a speaking objection, but if

we could approach the bench, because this is not

right.

THE COURT: Overruled.

The question was, “Did you tell Mr. Sneddon

you had new facts that you had forgot in 1993?”

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You told Mr. Sneddon that

you forgot to say certain things in 1993 about Mr.

Jackson allegedly molesting young men, true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. But now you remembered them in 2005, right?

A. Vaguely, yes, sir.

Q. And you said the person that remembered them

with you is Kassim Abdool, true?

A. I haven’t talked to Kassim in years.

If you are reading or have read the testimony it does not look good for Ralph Chacon. His testimony is not going according to the above prosecutions motion for 1108 evidence at all. At one point he even states that he says things just to say them! Well the prosecution had to try to recover some of the testimony, so they questioned him again in redirect. They asked him about the suit and if he was telling the truth, and if he felt Michael Jackson still owed him money.

28 Q. Did you legit — did you feel, yourself, 5278

 

that you were entitled to some money from Mr.

 

Jackson because of the way you were treated on the

 

ranch?

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Q. Do you still feel that way?

 

A. Yes, sir.

MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Move to strike;

relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained; stricken.

That sounds like motive to me; like a motive for money and revenge! They added some details about their meeting and how he was treated by the awful OSS. Tom Sneddon specifically asked him about the author Victor Gutierrez.

Q. And Sergeant — or Commander Birchim was

there during that entire time?

  1. A. Yes, he was.

Q. Mr. Mesereau mentioned something about an

individual called Victor Gutierrez. Do you remember

that?

  1. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you ever paid any money by Mr.

Gutierrez?

  1. No, sir. 5277

Q. Did you ever give him a statement at all?

A. No, sir.

If Ralph Chacon had never given him a statement, then how did all of those lovely quotes end up in that book? He is all over the book MJWML, being quoted about everything from enemas and tampons, to dead baby bones found on Neverland! The saddest part of all is his lie in 1994 about Brett and then changing it to Jordan when it was widely known that Brett had denied it. He of course says that he could not tell them apart, they looked identical.

The reason I say it is sad is that Tom Sneddon believed it for 10 years and even looked for a way to help him perpetuate that same lie by allowing him to change his original statement in 1994 from Brett Barnes to Jordan Chandler! I don’t even know if anyone could possibly be aware that the original child he identified was Brett. If any of them had been adult eyewitnesses to the allegations that had been brought by the Chandler’s in 1993 history would have been rewritten because Jordan would not have had to testify because he had adult corroboration and an adult can be forced to testify. They could have arrested and tried Michael on their testimony alone. There would have been no trip to Australia and Brett never would have been named as a “victim”.

Another thing that we know from the FBI files that the prosecution knew in September 2004 that Jordan refused to testify and even threatened them with legal action if they pursued it.  Well, this is what the prosecution added as a footnote regarding the possibility of Jordan testifying in the trial. The 1108 people’s brief was written on December 10th and filed on December 20th of 2004.

There is additional evidence of defendant’s prior sexual offenses against Jordan Chandler in 1993. Defendant is well aware of that evidence. Mr. Chandler was a child of 13 years at the time. Now, as then, he has a statutory right to decline to testify in a proceeding such as this against the person who molested him. As matters presently stand, the People are uncertain as to whether Mr. Chandler will waive that statutory right. Mr. Chandler’s name is on the witness list to be provided the Court and the defense on December 6, 2004. The People have deferred incorporating Mr. Chandler’s proposed testimony into this motion because of the uncertainty surrounding a waiver.

The evidence that the defendant was well aware of was of course the photos, Tom Sneddon was always hot to use those photos.

When the prosecution added that note it was deliberately misleading the Defense and the Court. That is Prosecutorial misconduct of two different kinds. One is called testilying and the other is allowing false testimony. He allowed false testimony when he allowed Ralph Chacon to get in front of a jury and claim he was identifying Jordan Chandler. That, along with the falsifying of the fingerprints during the Grand Jury, and a few other things I will show you in a few days, makes me wonder why the good people of Santa Barbara County allow this man to have his name on a courthouse. That is a travesty of justice!

I am going to kill two birds with one stone here so this is just a brief aside from Ralph Chacon and his “Jordan and Brett looked identical” BS. According to prosecution’s 1108 brief, in June Chandler’s statement she said on the second weekend they went to Disneyland but Brett did not go. That is not what happened, according to the story of Victor and the Chandler’s, now is it? In their story Michael is observed by June to be “kissing and cuddling” with Brett Barnes (either in the front seat or the back seat of the limo depending on the teller of the story) because he was “testing” her to see if she would react.

June Chandler is the mother of Jordan Chandler. Jordan’s father is named Evan Chandler. At the time that her son, Jordan Chandler, met Michael Jackson, she had divorced Evan and had married but was separated from David Schwartz. David Schwartz runs a rental car agency called Rent-A-Wreck. Evan Chandler had remarried and his then wife was Natalie Chandler.

Michael Jackson first met Jordan and June Chandler in 1992 when his limousine broke down in Malibu. Mr. Schwartz’s business was nearby and he provided Jackson with a car. Jordan was present and exchanged telephone numbers with Jackson. Between two to four weeks later, in either August or September of 1992, Jackson called Jordan at Mrs. Chandler’s Lorenzo Street home in Santa Monica, California. Mrs. Chandler remembers the first conversation as being fairly short and involving some discussions about video games. After a series of telephone conversations, Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler began to develop a friendship that resulted in Jackson inviting Jordan and Mrs. Chandler to visit him at Neverland Valley Ranch. The first visit occurred around February 12, 1993. It lasted two days. During the second day, Jackson took Jordan and his sister Lily to a Toys-R-Us store. The visit occurred after hours when the store was closed. The children were allowed to pick out anything they wanted and Jackson paid for it. On Sunday afternoon around 1:00 p.m., they left Neverland Ranch.

Two days later Jackson called again. They were invited to return to the ranch on Friday, February 19, 1993. They were picked up in a limousine and spent the weekend at the ranch. When they were picked up in the limo for the trip to the ranch on Friday the 19th. Also in the limo were Brett Barnes and a friend of his, and Jackson and Jordan Chandler. They spent the weekend at the ranch. On Sunday, when they were returning in the limo to Los Angeles, instead of going to their Santa Monica home, they went to Disneyland. Brett Barnes did not accompany them.


To show you how much Brett and Jordan do not look alike here is a photo. Just when you think someone is going to get away with one tiny little lie along comes a pesky person with a picture to show you different. I will also add a photo of the friend of Brett’s that was at Neverland that weekend. A young German Prince named Albert von Thurn und Taxis, at the time the richest boy in the world. Victor and the Chandler’s went out of their way in their books to discredit Brett’s mother and anyone else that could say that none of those things happened. This was probably why they added the bit about the German mother calling them and why Victor tried to say that it was Marie Barnes that stole things from Neverland when in fact it was Adrian McManus and her trophy room full of stolen property (court testimony Francine Contreras) instead of empty enema bottles that were mentioned in Victor Gutierrez’ MJWML.  (The story of a German mother calling Evan Chandler about her son being abused by MJ is totally debunked in this post. There were major discrepancies in the stories given by Diane Dimond and Ray Chandler!)

 

I will now add a couple of Photos to end all that silly stuff about the Rubba’s from Blanca Francia’s testimony on several occasions that Ernie Rizzo liked to talk about. Allow me to introduce the Rubba’s.

Funny how the 2005 testimony changed in small ways to exclude any testimony from Brett about specifics isn’t it? In fact it changed to the point that he was not even identified as the boy he had seen in 1992-1993 (he did not even get the year right). There was no identification of him as an alleged “victim” during any testimony in 2005! The only places he is named is in 1994 and in the books by the Chandler’s and Victor Gutierrez!

In Adrian McManus’s testimony she is asked if Jordan was well behaved and about Brett’s behavior. Her testimony said that Brett was polite, but Jordan was demanding and rude. I wonder if that sweet innocent beautiful boy was actually all those things. The way I understand Brett’s testimony he had met him and so had Frank, Eddie and Dominic Cascio. I wonder what they remember about Jordan?

I am inclined to agree with the defense when they say that it was a bunch of disgruntled former employees and paid tabloid informants that backed up the 1993 allegations. But as all of Michael’s detractors will attempt to tell you the only truth is that which is paid for. All of those people that deny the allegations without monetary compensation could not possibly be telling the truth for free. All of  Michael Jacksons friends that would not speak out in his defense at the time were in fact obeying the Courts Protective order regarding witnesses; they were all waiting to testify for him.  However, Ralph Chacon probably said it best when asked why he said something during recross examination.

Q. And you wanted money because you said Mr.

Jackson stared at you on occasion, correct?

A. No, sir.

Q. Why did you say it?

A. Just to say it.

291 Comments leave one →
  1. February 7, 2012 4:07 pm

    “I also just reviewed the People Motion for prior acts and there is where they changed it from Brett to Jordan except there is something wrong with that and his testimony. He says that he saw this, he identifies Jordan in the photos, and he says in both the document from the prosecution and his testimony that it happened in 1992. Can anyone tell me what is wrong with that. Michael met Jordan in May of 1992 for the first time at Rent a Wreck. Then he went on tour. When he got back the first time that Jordan and his Mom and Lily went to Neverland was in February of 1993. They really shouldn’t make the lie so blatant if they want people to believe it right?”

    Lynette, I’ve been thinking about this discrepancy in the bodyguards’ testimony too. For those who didn’t follow it let us review the case.

    Ralph Chacon said that he had witnessed a shower scene between Michael and a boy in late 1992. Initially he was saying that it was Brett. But Brett and his family vehemently denied it and supported Michael. Then in accordance with the prosecution’s agenda the same Ralph Chacon changed the “victim” to Jordan Chandler. However after that a new obstacle arose – Chacon said it was in 1992 while Jordan came to Neverland only in February 1993, and not only didn’t he “shower” with Michael, but he was constantly under his mother’s care at the time (he never once even stayed in Michael’s room!). According to Jordan “things got out of hand” only in May 1993 when they were in Monaco.

    In view of all these discrepancies Michael haters now returned to the original version that it was Brett and not Jordan. It doesn’t actually matter to them who was allegedly “molested” – it is the “fact” that at least someone was which they want to prove.

    Up till now we’ve have only two arguments against it – Brett’s vehement insistence that his friendship with MJ was completely innocent AND Victor Gutierrez’s book where he quotes Jordan saying something like “MJ did not go as far with others (including Brett) as he did with me”. This automatically means that the whole scene described by Ralph Chacon is out of the question (because it was much worse than anything Jordan ever said).

    But now – in addition to the previous arguments – we also have a testimony from police detective Russell Birchim who says that neither of the guards ever told the police anything when they were first interviewed by them. In fact they said they had never witnessed any criminal activity in Neverland. It took those guys quite a time to “recall” the “molestation scene” and the recollection took place only after they tried to find out what they would get from the Prosecution if they spoke about it.

    Unfortunately I cannot find Russell Birchim’s testimony in my usual sources. Can anyone give me a link to his testimony, please?

    Like

  2. February 7, 2012 11:57 am

    “According to them it was that Brett was seen by Chacon being abused by Michael. Then in 2005 it changed from Brett to Jordan when the prosecution found out that Brett and his family would be coming to defend Michael”

    Lynette, for Michael’s haters it is not important who the bodyguards saw – it is the fact that they saw “some boy” in that compromising situation which matters. It only gives them a chance to say that there were a “lot of boys” there. But from what the MJEOL site says about Russell Birchim’s testimony it becomes clear that neither of the bodyguards saw any boy there – neither Brett, nor Chandler, nor ANYONE AT ALL!

    Let me repeat it:

    the defense asked Birchim, “”When you first approached Chacon and Abdool, they didn’t say they saw criminal activity at Neverland, did they?”” To which Birchim responded, “”No, they didn’t”.”

    I haven’t read Russell Birchim’s testimony yet, but it seems there is a lot to dig up there.

    Like

  3. lynande51 permalink
    February 7, 2012 9:55 am

    I also just reviewed the People Motion for prior acts and there is where they changed it from Brett to Jordan except there is something wrong with that and his testimony. He says that he saw this, he identifies Jordan in the photos because if he hadn’t Tome Mesereau would have objested because it misstated the evidence, and he says in both the document from the prosecution and his testimony that it happened in 1992. Can anyone tell me what is wrong with that. Michael met Jordan in May of 1992 for the first time at Rent a Wreck. Then he went on tour. When he got back the first time that Jordan and his Mom and Lily went to Neverland was in February of 1993. they really shouldn’t make the lie so blatant if they want people to belive it right?

    Like

  4. lynande51 permalink
    February 7, 2012 3:53 am

    Shelly yes that is what I was trying to point out in the article that I wrote. Ralph Chacon was the one that reported to Russ Birchim and then signed a statement to the police that it was Brett that he saw in 1993 or 1992. That is why they went to Australia in June of 1994 to tell the Barnes family what was reported to them.According to them it was that Brett was seen by Chacon being abused by Michael. Then in 2005 it changed from Brett to Jordan when the prosecution found out that Brett and his family would be coming to defend Michael and deny the allegations. It shows more just how disingenuous the prosecution was in this case because before that they said that the reason that Michael wasn’t charged was because there was no other corraborating witness or evidence. So how does that work with the description too? Wasn’t that proof? All they would have had to do if it was a match is submit it to the jury along with the photos and Chacons testimony and Jordan wouldn’t even have to be cross examined or he could have given his testimony from a remote room and not have to face Michael in the courtroom. How do they explain that one? The boys looked alike? There is a photo of Brett and Jordan together with Michael at Disneyland in the article what do you think? Then It never even occured to Chacon until about a month before he testifies that he was mistaken for 10 years. Give me a break.

    Like

  5. February 7, 2012 3:09 am

    That part of article is interesting

    “Also called by the defense was Russ Birchim. Birchim, sort of a hostile witness, was called to establish that prosecution witnesses Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool never approached him about any illegal activity when the 1993 investigation began. Unlike the wishful thinking from some pro-prosecution pundits, Birchim clearly established that it was only after Abdool and Chacon weighed their options about selling stories to the tabloids and getting police protection that they came up with their stories back in 1994. Birchim admitted that Chacon and Abdool told him they could make a lot of money by selling their story to the tabloids; something both of them did by the way, and reportedly received tens of thousands of dollars for doing so. Reportedly, the defense asked Birchim, “When you first approached Chacon and Abdool, they didn’t say they saw criminal activity at Neverland, did they?” To which Birchim responded, “No, they didn’t

    Chacon and Abdool also reportedly asked the police what they could get from them if they made allegations of criminal activity at Neverland. These points alone cast Chacon and Abdool’s testimony even more into doubt regardless of how Birchim wanted to protect the prosecution. What’s worse is that through Birchim, the defense made it clear there was a huge chunk of time between when they claim to have seen untoward behavior and when they actually made an allegation to the D.A..

    He is scheduled to continue his testimony tomorrow to which the prosecution may try to delve into the 1993 allegations. The defense, however, isn’t shying away from the 1993 allegations at all and may be prepared to allow the prosecution to walk through a door they opened so that they can continue to blast away at the stale, uncharged, and unfounded 1993 allegation that started all of this mess to begin with. Stay tuned. -MJEOL ”

    http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/defense-witnesses-tear-through-testimony-from-pros.-witnesses-%c2%96-mb-266.html

    Like

  6. October 4, 2011 8:56 pm

    I think Francia was using Gutierrez to blackmail MJ

    http://articles.nydailynews.com/1995-01-26/gossip/17968446_1_blanca-francia-jackson-lawyer-howard-weitzman-victor-gutierrez

    Gutierrez was a source of Tina Weaver who was the editor of Today.

    Like

  7. October 4, 2011 3:05 am

    I think they never prosecute him for what they claimed because they knew it was bullshit.

    Like

  8. Teva permalink
    October 4, 2011 2:57 am

    “when you are up against somebody like Jackson, the burden of proof in the criminal courts is so great, it’s incredibly tough to convict a celebrity.” Christopher Anderson

    I wish someone had told this to Paris Hilton, Martha Stewart, Bernie Madoff, T.I, Lindsay Lohan.

    Like

  9. October 3, 2011 9:14 pm

    From Sanger on April 21st

    “Mr. Abdool’s testimony and whether or not it’s been

    10 refuted by his own words, which I can indicate to

    11 the Court it has been,”

    Like

  10. October 3, 2011 8:46 pm

    DIMOND: Yes, this is one of the group that I call the “Neverland Five.” His name is Kassim Abdool. I heard this Vaseline story many years ago. He is also important to the state because he was the supervisor to Ralph Chacon. Chacon was a security guard who came here not long ago and told the jury that he saw a sex act performed by Michael Jackson on a ’93 accuser, and it’s my understanding, he went immediately to his supervisor, Kassim Abdool — Abdool Kassim, rather — and told him the story and brought him back to the location and showed him some evidence. So, that witness is important for a couple reasons for the state.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/20/lkl.01.html

    Like

  11. October 3, 2011 4:47 pm

    She also said it took the Neverland Five 5 months to find Michael Ring.

    Like

  12. October 3, 2011 4:35 pm

    She also said she did an interview with Orietta Murdoch in January 1994. Murdoch was a Gutierrez source.

    Like

  13. October 3, 2011 4:25 pm

    I just read Christopher Andersen book, in the chapter about the Neverland Five lawsuit, he cited an investigator who told him that the reasons why MJ was never criminally charged for witness intimidation, perjury etc… was because
    “it was better handled in the civil courts. when you are up against somebody like Jackson, the burden of proof in the criminal courts is so great, it’s incredibly tough to convict a celebrity.”

    i think they knew it was bullshit.

    Like

  14. October 3, 2011 4:06 pm

    I am just reading Dimond’s book and she said about Abdool on page 175

    “Long before he was ever called to the grand jury, Abdool recalled the night he received a walkie talkie call from Michael Jackson while on duty at the ranch. Jackson requested a jar of Vaseline be delivered to his bedroom suite immediatly, Abdool said….”

    From what I understand, it means that he was talking to the media way before he spoke to the DA.

    Like

  15. October 3, 2011 1:11 pm

    It’s from Mc Manus cross exam. I don’t understand why Mesereau asked her that

    Q. Now, in that lawsuit, you were suing Mr.

    5 Jackson for a number of different claims, and one of

    6 the claims talked about you having appeared at a

    7 deposition taken by Larry Feldman, and the claim

    8 said that you were a potential material witness

    9 against Jackson in both the civil suit and a

    10 criminal investigation, right?

    11 A. I believe so.

    12 Q. And what that really meant was, by filing

    13 that Complaint with that language, you were

    14 essentially threatening Mr. Jackson that you would

    15 change your testimony unless you were paid, right?

    16 A. I’m not familiar with a lot of attorney

    17 language, so I really don’t know how to answer that.

    She filed her civil suit after the end of the Chandler investigation.

    Like

  16. Teva permalink
    September 14, 2011 5:51 am

    Here is what I want to know. Were they 2 books? VG published MJWML in 1996/7, but is this the finish product of his earlier work, or was there an another/abandoned unfinished manuscript?

    Like

  17. Teva permalink
    September 14, 2011 5:46 am

    “It was resolved 2 or 3 years later, but the original complaint was not about the book.”

    I know it wasn’t about the book, but about the fabricated tape story. I was making the point that at the time N5 sued MJ they were giving interviews to VG for his book, and the judge in the civil suit found them to be ridiculous, hence the book is ridiculous.

    Like

  18. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2011 5:22 am

    Yes, I know that Lynande. But at the time MJ filed his lawsuit the book wasn’t published and there was no statement from VG that MJ was a pedo except for the tape.

    Like

  19. lynande51 permalink
    September 14, 2011 5:13 am

    @ Shelly you can not sue a book, a radio program or a video tape. You have to sue the person that made the remark,spoke in the interview,or wrote the book. You can not sue an object for slander it must be the person that you sue for slander. You can sue them for slander and if they are found to be slanderous in a comment, a book, or an interview it is the person that is slanderous. You can also then because they were found to slander you reasonably know that anything they could write or say would be slander against that person.

    Like

  20. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2011 4:00 am

    It was resolved 2 or 3 years later, but the original complaint was not about the book.

    Like

  21. Teva permalink
    September 14, 2011 3:37 am

    @Shelly,

    “In fact, I am not sure about the book because MJ’s lawyers obviously discovered that the Neverland five did interviews with him in 1996, the lawsuit was filed in 1995.”

    It fits perfectly the book was published in ether 96/97. Correct me if I am wrong. Also the lawsuit was filed in 1995, but it was not resolved in 1995.

    Like

  22. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2011 2:31 am

    Jury Issues $2.7 Million Defamation Verdict to Michael Jackson

    A jury in Los Angeles found Victor Gutierrez liable for defamation after he refused to provide evidence that he had a tape of Michael Jackson having sex with a young boy. The TV show Hard Copy, which broadcast the allegation, and producers at ABC TV and Paramount were dismissed prior to trial. Gutierrez had earlier authored a book, entitled, “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”, for which he was unable to find a publisher. The defense was based on California’s shield law protecting journalists who refuse to divulge their sources. Jackson sued for $100 million, but said he was content with $2.7 million in compensatories. (Reuters, April 9, 1998)

    Like

  23. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2011 2:26 am

    @Teva,

    I don’t think it’s really important if the book was included in it. It’s so obvious that he was a very big liar, if I remember well he said Garcetti knew there was a tape.

    In fact, I am not sure about the book because MJ’s lawyers obviously discovered that the Neverland five did interviews with him in 1996, the lawsuit was filed in 1995.

    Like

  24. Teva permalink
    September 14, 2011 2:05 am

    @lynande51

    I don’t know about the book being allowed in, unless he made the same claims in the book. Wasn’t he being sued for what he said on Hard copy? In addition was the book even published in the USA? I don’t think so.

    Like

  25. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2011 2:02 am

    Another thing I noticed, Abdool is nowhere listed in that document even though he testified in 1994 and could corroborate what Chacon said. I am not speaking about the Vaseline story and that he forgot to tell that to the grand jury in 1994 but remember it very well when he had extensive discussion with Gutierrez.

    Like

  26. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2011 10:44 pm

    I think we also need docs about the Hayvenhurst Five trials.

    Like

  27. lynande51 permalink
    September 13, 2011 6:42 pm

    So do I. I think they would have more information about when he started writing the book. What most people don’t get about that situation is that thebook would have been included as evidence of his slander. It was VG that was found to be slanderous,not a video tape, a tape can’t be sued or be slanderous. He was also found to be acting with fraud and malice as well.Once he had been found slanderous that would have included anything he said or wrote. The tape story is just one exampel of his slander. Once he was found guilty of slander the public could actually assume and rightfully so that he did not and does not tell the truth. At one point he even named Elizabeth Taylor and I think Brooke Shield or Marlon Brando as his source for the tape story so just imagine how big his lies have been over the years.

    Like

  28. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2011 11:22 am

    For Gutierrez, I think it would be very interesting to have the documents from his trial.

    Like

  29. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2011 11:20 am

    I think those documents confirmed what mesereau said about the Neverland 5 trials, the judge was very pissed off by them. He apparently said to their lawyers several times to “stop their nonsense”.

    Like

  30. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2011 10:40 am

    No, unfortunately no. If I understand well, they discovered that they talked to him during the trial. I send you the rest of the documents via email. I think it’s obivous that the judge didn’t like them.

    Like

  31. lynande51 permalink
    September 13, 2011 3:27 am

    Shelly does this say somewhere when they met with Gutierrez?

    Like

  32. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2011 1:57 am

    This is the document I was using

    Kassim ABDOOL, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Melanie Bagnall, Sandi Domz, Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Assoc., and Law Offices of Barber & Gray Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Michael J. JACKSON, James Van Norman, Tony Coleman, Marcus Johnson, Bill Bray, Bettye Bailey, and Andrew Merritt Defendants and Respondents.
    1997 WL 33801664
    Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.
    Appellate Brief

    1997 WL 33801664 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (Appellate Brief)
    Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.
    Kassim ABDOOL, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Melanie Bagnall, Sandi Domz, Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Assoc., and Law Offices of Barber & Gray Plaintiffs and Appellants,
    v.
    Michael J. JACKSON, James Van Norman, Tony Coleman, Marcus Johnson, Bill Bray, Bettye Bailey, and Andrew Merritt Defendants and Respondents.
    No. B104055.
    April 7, 1997.
    Santa Barbara Superior Court No. SM 89344
    Consolidated with SBSC No. SM 91416
    On Appeal from the Santa Barbara County Superior Court The Honorable Zel Canter, Judge Presiding
    Respondents’ Brief

    Katten Muchin & Zavi, Steve Cochran (Bar No. 105541), 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400, Los Angeles, California 90067-6042, (310) 788-4400.

    Sanger & Swysen, Robert M. Sanger (Bar No. 58214), Deborah J. Bishop (Bar No. 176201), Charles E. Tillage (Bar No.177983), 233 E. Carrillo St., Ste. C, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, (805) 962-4887, Attorneys for Respondents.

    *i Table of Contents

    Table of Contents … i

    Table of Authorities … iii

    Statement of the Case … 1

    The Standard of Review on Appeal … 2

    Appealability … 2

    Statement of Facts … 3

    I. The Sanctions for Failure to Produce Documents … 3

    II. The Sanctions for the Deposition of Adrian McManus … 7

    A. The Court Reopened the McManus Deposition … 7

    B. The Morning Session … 9

    C. The Afternoon Session … 11

    D. The Hearing … 12

    Argument … 13

    III. The Sanctions Order Entered on May 24, 1996, For $2,000 is not Appealable … 13

    IV. Appellants were Properly sanctioned $2,000 for Lying About Evidence and for the Failure to Produce ubpoenaed Documents … 15

    A. The Subpoenas were Properly Issued … 15

    B. Even if the Subpoenas Were Defective, Appellants Were Sanctioned for Lying to the Court and Counsel About the Existence of Documents … 17

    V. Sanctions for The McManus Deposition Were Just and Proper … 18

    A. The Waste of Time and Money Caused by Appellants’ Tactics in the Morning Session … 20

    B. The Impropriety of Appellants in the Afternoon Session … 21

    C. Appellants and/or Their Counsel Should Bear the Expense for Time lost, This Motion and Further Depositions of McManus … 21

    *ii D. The Trial Court’s Award of $8,970.50 Sanctions is Amply Supported by the Record … 22

    VI. Appellate Sanctions are Warranted on the Grounds That The Appeal is Totally and Completely Without Merit and is Prosecuted Solely for the Purpose of harassment and Delay is, Therefore, Frivolous … 24

    A. An Appeal is Frivolous When the Appeal Lacks Merit … 24

    B. An Appeal is Frivolous if Prosecuted For An Improper Notice … 24

    C. Sanctions Are Warranted Under the Facts of this Case … 25

    Conclusion … 25
    *iii Table of Authorities

    Case Law

    Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal.App. 3d 1 [207 Cal.Rptr. 233] … 2, 23

    Ballard v. Taylor (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1736 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 384 … 3

    Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256 [24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501] … 20

    Hedley v. Rechti (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1553 [16 Cal.Rptr.2d 151] … 2, 23

    In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637 [183 Cal.Rptr. 508] … 23, 24

    Rail-Transport Employees v. Union Pacific Motor Freight (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 469 [54 Cal.Rptr. 713] … 3, 14

    Ruvalcaba v. Government Employees Ins. Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1579 [272 Cal.Rptr. 541] … 17

    Scherrer v. Plaza Marina Coml. Corp. (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 520 [94 Cal.Rptr. 857] … 2

    Zimmerman v. Drexel, Burnham & Lambert, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 153 [252 Cal.Rptr. 115] … 23, 24

    Statutes

    California Code of Civil Procedure 904.1 … 7, 13, 14

    California Code of Civil Procedure 907 … 24

    California Code of Civil Procedure 1985.3(a)(1) … 15, 16

    California Rule of Court 10(c) … 1

    California Rule of Court 5.1(i)(1) … 1, 2

    California Rule of Court 5.1 (i)(2) … 1, 2

    California Rule of Court 5.1 (j) … 7

    California Rule of Court 13 … 1, 2

    California RuLe of Court 15 … 1, 2

    California Rule of Court 26(a) … 24
    *1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    Appellants are the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ lawyers in the trial court below. Respondents are the Defendants and Respondent Michael Jackson is also a Cross-Complainant below.
    This appeal is apparently taken from two orders imposing monetary sanctions on Appellants (Appellants’ Opening Brief, hereinafter A.O.B., ¶1) although. Appellants have not filed or presented the orders to this Court[FN1]:
    FN1. Appellants have failed to comply with numerous California Rules of Court, including 10(c), 5.1(i)(1) and (2), 13 and 15. They have also made blatant misrepresentations to this Court. These matters are the subject of the Omnibus Motion for Dismissal of Appeal filed concurrently herewith.
    1. An order of May 24, 1996, imposing sanctions in the amount of $2,000 against Appellants for lying about the existence of, and failing to produce documents pursuant to, a subpoena, compliance with which had been ordered on March 25, 1996;
    2. An order of July 23, 1996, imposing sanctions in the amount of $8,970.50, plus additional court reporter fees and costs in an amount to be established, for “obstructionist” tactics during the court ordered re-opened deposition of Adrian McManus[FN2].
    FN2. Thereafter, prior to trial and during trial, Appellants were sanctioned several additional times for lying to the court, perjury by each of the Appellants, collusion by their lawyers, destruction and spoliation of evidence, failure to make discovery and for violation of court orders.
    There are three additional appeals presently pending, B105480, B106880, B108051 and one recently filed that has not been assigned a number as of this writing. In addition, the jury returned a verdict on March 16, 1997, for Respondents. We respecfully ask this court to take judicial notice of said matters.
    A Notice of Appeal was filed on July 23, 1996, and a Notice to Proceed under California Rule of Court 5.1 was filed on August 2, 1996. (Appellants’ Appendix, hereinafter “AA,” 651 and 654)

    *2 THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ON APPEAL

    The standard of review of sanction orders is whether or not there has been an abuse of discretion. ( Hedley v. Ruchti (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1601 [16 Cal.Rptr.2d 151].) The Appellant has the burden of showing that the lower court abused its discretion. ( Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1, 10 [207 Cal.Rptr. 233]; citing Scherrer v. Plaza Marina Coml. Corp. (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 520, 524 [94 Cal.Rptr. 857].) In reviewing discovery sanctions, the appellate court will reverse only when it is shown that the trial court’s decision was “ ‘arbitrary, capricious or whimsical…’ ” ( Hedley v. Ruchti, supra, at 1601; quoting Alliance Bank v. Murray, supra, at 10.)

    APPEALABILITY

    Appellants appeal from two separate sanctions orders. The first discovery sanctions order in the amount of $2,000.00 was issued from the bench on May 24, 1996. (Reporter’s Transcript, hereinafter “R.T.,”, 92.) This first order was based on Appellants’ lying about and failure to comply with the trial court’s orders compelling Appellants’ counsel to produce documents pursuant to the subpoenas duces tecum served on Appellants Barber and Gray and Ring. (AA, Vol. I, 186-195; Vol. I, 270, ¶ 2) The order was entered on May 24, 1996[FN3] and payment was stayed until July 12, 1996. (AA, Vol. III, 585-586.) This order is non *3 appealable under Code of Civil Procedure § 904.1(a)(12) since it is for less than $5,000. Rail-Transport Employees Assoc. v. Union Pacific Motor Freight, (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 469 [54 Cal.Rptr. 713] (under § 904.1(a)(12) only discovery sanctions orders in excess of $5,000 are appealable); Ballard v. Taylor, (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1736 [25 Cal.Rptr. 384] (prior to amendment of § 904.1, all discovery sanctions were non-appealable).
    FN3. Appellants have failed to comply with California Rules of Court 5.1, 13 and 15 and have not submitted a copy of this order. They have also omitted from the Reporter’s Transcript any reference to the actual findings and orders of the trial court. The context of the Reporter’s Transcript submitted makes it clear that the actual orders were made before the transcribed portion begins. (See, R.T. 83-94)
    The second discovery sanctions order is in the amount of $8,970.50 which was issued from the bench on July 23, 1996. (R.T., 180-185.) That sanction order does come within the exception to the code. The appeal from the $2,000 sanction order should be dismissed and sanctions should be assessed against appellants for their frivolous appeal of that order.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    I. THE SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS.
    On January 30, 1996, the Respondents in this case learned that the Star Magazine had published in its February 6, 1996 issue an article entitled “Michael Jackson’s Bizarre Marriage: What Really Went On Behind Closed Doors” based on an interview of the five Appellants in this case and featuring their pictures. (AA, 211.)
    Respondents immediately brought the Star article to the attention of the Court on January 31, 1996, at a hearing on Respondents’ motion to compel deposition of Kassim Abdool and Timothy McManus. (AA, 211.) The Court indicated that discovery about the Star article and media contacts was a permissible area of discovery. (AA, 211.)
    On February 7, 1996, the tabloid television magazine “Inside Edition” featured an interview of Sandi Domz covering the same *4 matters as the Star Article. (AA, 211-212.) Sandi Domz was interviewed at the Santa Barbara Courthouse and at her counsel’s office. (AA, 222.)
    Respondents conducted discovery relating to the Star article and any other media contacts as soon as practicable. They utilized all available means of discovery out of an abundance of caution. However, Appellants stonewalled every effort to obtain discovery in this area. (AA, 212.)
    On February 9, 1996, Respondent Michael Jackson propounded a Demand for Production of Documents on Melanie Bagnall, Ralph Chacon, Kassim Abdool, Adrian McManus and Sandi Domz asking for the production of certain publications. Respondent Jackson also propounded special interrogatories covering the same subject matter, on each individual Appellants. Appellants served their response to the Requests for Production of Documents on March 4, 1996, and their Responses to the Special Interrogatories on March 14, 1996. These responses contained only objections. In addition to boiler plate objections, Appellants objected on the ground that
    “… it calls for the production, identification and/or disclosure of any documents after the date set for the discovery cut-off in this action.” (AA, 202-203,)
    It was revealed during depositions that counsel for Appellants were directly involved in setting up the interview for the Star article and Inside Edition. (AA, 239.) Therefore, on February 15, 1996, Respondents served two subpoenas for the Production of Business Records on the Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates and on the Law Offices of Barber & Gray, respectively. (AA, 186-195.) Said subpoenas ordered the two law offices to produce a *5 series of documents pertaining either to the Star article, the Inside Edition interview or any other media contact. The documents requested were to be produced on March 1, 1996, to the deposition officer, the U.S. Photocopy Service. (AA, 186, 191.)
    On or about March 2, 1996, the day after that designated for the production of the subpoenaed records, the Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates and the Law Offices of Barber & Gray mailed to the deposition officer, but not on Respondents, two pleadings entitled “Objections of Custodian of Records of Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates” and “Objections of Custodian of Records of Law Offices of Barber & Gray”. (AA, 242-247) The envelopes containing the papers were postmarked March 2, 1996 and the papers were received by U.S. Photocopy Service on March 4, 1996. (AA, 244, 247). The two law offices objected to the subpoenas on the ground that they were defective for failure to check the boxes under item 1 and for failure to comply with the consumer notice requirements.
    Meanwhile, Respondents attempted to elicit information about the Star Articld, the Inside Edition segment and any other contact with the media during the depositions of Kassim Abdool, Melanie Bagnall and Sandi Domz. (AA, 212.) Respondents encountered an extraordinary amount of resistance on the part of the deponents. (AA, 212.) The testimony of the Appellants was interrupted by countless conferences between Appellants’ counsel and Appellants. (AA, 212.) In addition, all of the Appellants deposed claimed they could not recall any specifics. (AA, 214-241.)
    On March 13, 1996, Appellants filed a “brief” regarding the subpoenas duces tecum. (AA, 175-200.) Respondents filed their *6 opposition on March 25, 1996. (AA, 201-267.) On March 25, 1996, the Court heard argument and ordered that Appellants’ counsel comply with the subpoenas issued to them relating to transactions with the news and entertainment media and further ordered that all materials be hand delivered by March 29, 1996. (AA, 270.) The documents delivered pursuant to the order were obviously incomplete. (AA, 27-273.)
    Appellants continued to deny that there were any other documents. Appellants faxed two letters claiming that all documents in their possession had been produced. (AA, 280-282.) On April 5, 1996, Respondents made a further ex parte application for compelling compliance with the subpoenas duces tecum, and sought $1,500 in sanctions. (AA, 268-276.) Appellant Ring even filed a declaration under penalty of perjury that all documents had been produced. (AA, 277-279.)
    By May 17, 1996, Respondents had obtained concrete evidence that Appellants had lied about possessing additional documents. On that day, Respondents filed a supplemental declaration in support of the motion to compel compliance by Appellants’ counsel with the subpoenas duces tecum. (AA, 283-344.) The supplemental declaration disclosed evidence that Appellants’ counsel had withheld numerous documents concerning correspondence with members of the tabloid media. (AA, 283-286.) Included in these withheld documents was at least one sketch of Elvis Presley by Michael Jackson, which Appellants Adrian McManus had stolen from Mr. Jackson. (AA, 287.) The motion to compel included a request for $5,000 in sanctions for attorney’s fees on the motion to compel. (AA, 286.)
    *7 On May 24, 1996, the Court heard Respondents’ motion to compel. (R.T., 83-92.)[FN4] The Court granted the motion and awarded $2,000 in sanctions, which were stayed until July 12, 1996. (R.T., 92.)
    FN4. Again, however, Appellants omitted the portion of the transcript during which the trial court made its findings and rulings on Respondents’ motion. Since it was granted, the record before this Court can only leave the conclusion that the trial court made adverse findings, that is that Appellants lied and perjured themselves when denying that they had any additional documents.
    Respondents have sought leave of this Court under California Rule of Court 5.1(j) for the preparation of additional transcripts which will bear this assumption out.
    II. THE SANCTIONS FOR THE DEPOSITION OF ADRIAN MCMANUS.
    A. THE COURT REOPENED THE MCMANUS DEPOSITION
    At the May 24, 1996 hearing, the Court also re-opened discovery .to permit Respondents to take the deposition of Adrian McManus. (R.T., 89.; AA 345-381.) Respondents’ motion to reopen pertained to two areas: (1) discovery of materials stolen from Respondents by Appellants; and (2) contacts with the tabloid media. These two areas were opened up because Respondents had caught Appellants lying about a particular sketch and a particular contact with one tabloid media broker. It was not the intention of themotion or the trial court to limit the questioning to the precise purloined sketch and one conversation which Respondents already knew about and which formed the basis for further inquiry.
    The necessity to reopen McManus’ deposition became apparent during the deposition of tabloid media broker Gary Morgan. Mr. Morgan revealed that Ms. McManus provided him with an original (stolen) sketch of Elvis Presley, drawn by Mr. Jackson, which appeared in a tabloid magazine. (AA, 320) In addition, Mr. Morgan *8 testified that the February 6, 1996 Star tabloid magazine article contains quotes from McManus that were not obtained by him. (AA, 364) Peter Burt wrote the February 6, 1996 article and based upon Morgan’s testimony, spoke directly with McManus or completely made up certain quotes attributed to McManus in the article. (AA, 371) In any case, the need to question both Appellant McManus and Burt became evident.
    Respondents filed a motion with the Court for permission to depose McManus and Burt. (AA, 345-387) No opposition was submitted by the Appellants. The Court granted the motion during the day-long session on May 24, 1996. (R.T., 89.)
    Appellants’ counsel asked the Court to order that Respondents not be allowed to examine McManus about “everything under the sun.” The Court stated that the deposition would be limited and defense counsel agreed. (R.T., 89.) Although the Court did not specify the limitations of McManus’ further deposition, a review of the hearing transcript and Respondents’ moving papers indicates that the trial court meant to restrict examination to discovery previously thwarted by appellants’ lies and deception including documents not turned over and contacts with the tabloid media.
    Pursuant to the Court’s order, Appellant McManus’ continued deposition occurred on Monday, June 24, 1996 at 10:00 am in Santa Barbara. Before that date Respondents learned about other tabloid media contacts by the Appellants. Appellant McManus (as well as Appellants Abdool, Bagnall and Chacon) had extensive conversations with Victor Gutierrez, a so-called journalist Who intended to self-publish a book full of “gossip” about Michael Jackson. Mr. Gutierrez’s book, which was published in Spanish before the McManus *9 deposition, was replete with verbatim quotes attributed to the Appellants. Appellant McManus, herself, is quoted on the dust jacket of the book. (AA, 469)
    Appellants’ counsel, Mr. Ring and Mr. Francis, obstructed the deposition and attempted to limit the questioning to two questions: (1) Did McManus have any contact with Peter Burt; and (2) How did McManus obtain the one sketch that was already discovered?
    B. THE MORNING SESSION
    Kelly Francis represented McManus during the morning session of her deposition on June 24, 1997. He began the morning session by claiming that the deposition was limited to two issues: (1) the Elvis Presley sketch, and (2) her contacts with Peter Burt. To no avail, Respondents attempted several times to meet and confer with Mr. Francis to resolve the dispute. (AA, 419.)
    Appellant McManus refused upon instruction of counsel to answer approximately 78 questions during the morning session of her deposition. McManus testified that she had no contact with Peter Burt. (AA, 419-420.) Mr. Francis then effectively shut down the questioning, refusing to allow questions regarding her denial of contact with Peter Burt, her recollection of other quotes and of the existence of the Morgan-interview transcript, that her counsel claimed he destroyed. Several times, Mr. Francis stated that the Peter Burt issue was over, and if Respondents wanted to question Ms. McManus about the sketch, to go ahead. Tellingly, this is what happened when defense counsel attempted to question McManus about the stolen sketch:
    “Q. BY MR. COCHRAN: Where is the sketch you took from the ranch?
    *10 MR. FRANCIS: Are you referring to the sketch given to Mr. Morgan? Is that what you are referring to?
    MR. COCHRAN: If there are others, I want to know about them, too.
    MR. FRANCIS: I don’t know. Which one are you referring to when you say “the sketch”?
    MR. COCHRAN: How many sketches do you have?
    MR. FRANCIS: What was your question?
    MR. SANGER: Mr. Francis, you are incredibly obstructionist here. You just told us that this was — you told us that this was limited to finding out about the sketch. Mr. Cochran just asked about the sketch. Would you like us to go back to Judge Canter and ask him to tell us what sketch we are talking about?
    MR. FRANCIS: Do you know which sketch they’re talking about?
    MR. COCHRAN: Sure she does, man. She was in court that day.
    Q. You know what sketch we’re talking about, right?
    MR. FRANCIS: The sketch purportedly of Elvis, purportedly drawn by Mr. Jackson? Yes or no?
    Q. BY MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what sketch we’re talking about?
    A. The sketch I found in the trash.
    Q. Is that the only sketch there is?
    A. That’s what I found in the trash.
    Q. Do you have any other sketches?
    MR. FRANCIS: Objection; exceeds the scope of permissible discovery as allowed by the Court. Instruct the witness not to answer.” (AA, 427.)
    *11 Shortly before noon, Mr. Francis asked to break for lunch early. (AA, 437)
    C. THE AFTERNOON SESSION
    During the afternoon session, Appellant Ring appeared for the deposition. Mr. Francis did not return for the remainder of the deposition. Appellant Ring said at first that he was altering Mr. Francis’ position in the morning session, and that McManus could respond to some of the 78 questions she previously refused to answer. Mr. Ring stated that Respondents could ask McManus about statements she made in all of the articles that Gary Morgan had produced. Respondents then requested that Appellants pay for an expedited transcript of the morning session and to continue the deposition to that Wednesday, so that all of those questions could be asked again. Appellant Ring refused.
    Despite the purported offer to cooperate, Appellant Ring instructed Appellant McManus to refuse to answer at least sixteen more questions including questions about Appellants’ contacts with Victor Gutierrez of which Respondents had just learned.[FN5] Then, after being prompted by Appellant Ring, McManus ended the deposition early (before 4:00 pm) stating that “Enough’s enough. Time to go home,” and “I’m tired and I’m hungry. I want to go home. My back hurts, too.” (AA, 469.)[FN6]
    FN5. Most of these questions included the circumstances surrounding her interviews with Gary Morgan; whether she thought about the confidentiality agreement when she submitted to interviews by Gary Morgan; some questions regarding her contacts and other Appellants’ contacts with Victor Gutierrez and, any discussions with her lawyer/agent about selling her story. (See: e.g., AA, 449-50, 455-457, 463, 465.)
    FN6. For approximately twenty minutes after the questioning of McManus, counsel attempted to meet and confer regarding the issues raised during this deposition and with regard to continuing McManus’ deposition. Mr. Ring stated that he stood by Mr. Francis’ position in the morning session, would not agree to pay for the cost of an expedited transcript from the morning session and would not agree to continue McManus’ deposition to dates that were acceptable to Respondents. Thus, Mr. Ring and his client, McManus shut down her deposition without resolving the issues.
    *12 D. THE HEARING
    On July 12, 1996, the parties appeared in court to discuss the conduct of the McManus deposition, among other issues. The Court viewed a videotape of two brief portions of the deposition (quoted above).[FN7] After viewing the first segment, the Court exclaimed in exasperation, “I don’t need to hear any more. Done.” (R.T., 99.) The Court viewed the second clip, and stated, “I’ve heard enough. This is — I’m going to tell you now this is clearly obstructionist. I don’t even want to hear argument. I’m going to impose sanctions on you. (R.T., 99-100.)
    FN7. The videotape is the subject of respondents’ concurrent motion to augment the record pursuant to California Rule of Court 12(a) and case law.
    The Court directed respondents to submit a cost bill to support an award of sanctions, including attorneys’ fees. (R.T., 100.) The cost bill was filed July 19, 1996, seeking $11,482 in fees and costs related to the McManus deposition. (AA, Vol. III, 589-594.)
    On July 23, 1996, the Court held a hearing on the amount of sanctions. Appellants’ counsel, Michael Ring, apologized to the Court for the conduct of his associate, Mr. Francis, at the McManus deposition, stating “He’s got a lot to learn.” (R.T., 145-146, 152-153.) Even though Appellant Ring did not accept responsibility or and blamed Mr. Francis, the trial court accepted Mr. Ring’s *13 statement as an apology. (R.T., 158-159.) At the conclusion of the argument, the Court stated:
    “I believe, from what I saw on the video and from what I’ve heard in argument, and what little I have read of the exhibits that have been set before me, that it was — Mr. Kelly Francis is just going to have to learn. If it’s at your expense, it’s at your expense. This isn’t the first time that he’s blocked the proceedings and caused a great deal of commotion.” (R.T., 180.)
    The Court addressed each element of fees and costs in the cost bill, refused to award some of the requested costs, and ultimately awarded sanction in the amount of $8,970.50. (R.T., 180-185.)

    ARGUMENT

    III. THE SANCTIONS ORDER ENTERED ON MAY 24, 1996 FOR $2,000 IS NOT APPEALABLE.
    Appellants were ordered to pay $2,000 in sanctions by the Honorable Zel Canter on May 24, 1996. (R.T., 83-92) They seek to appeal this as well as the $8,970.50 sanctions order which was entered on July 23, 1996 for different obstructionist conduct.
    Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(12):
    “An appeal may be taken from a Superior Court in the following case: … (12) from an order directing payment of monetary sanctions by a party or an attorney for a party if the amount exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000).”
    In Rail-Transport Employees Association v. Union Pacific Motor Freight[FN8] (1996)46 Cal.App.4th 469, 473 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 713, 716] the court analyzed the legislative history of California Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 and concluded that appeals from *14 sanctions orders for less than five thousand dollars may only be taken upon the conclusion of the case as part of an appeal on the merits of the action or by way of extraordinary writ. The Court stated: “That is, the vast majority of discovery sanctions will not reach the $5,000 threshold and therefore are unappealable. However, those cases involving misuse of the discovery process which result in sanctions exceeding $5,000 are reviewable by direct appeal.” Id. at 475. Thus, only sanctions orders for $5,000 or more may be taken by way of direct appeal.
    FN8. Appellants cite this case and misrepresent to this Court the proposition for which it stands. (A.O.B., Page 2).
    The appeal from the sanctions order of $2,000 entered by the Honorable Zel Canter on May 24, 1996, must be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(12)and well settled case law.
    IV. APPELLANTS WERE PROPERLY SANCTIONED $2,000 FOR LYING ABOUT EVIDENCE AND FOR THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS.
    A. THE SUBPOENAS WERE PROPERLY ISSUED
    In their subpoenas, Respondents sought the production of records relating to an article in the tabloid magazine The Star, to an interview by the tabloid television magazine Inside Edition and possibly contacts with other publications and media for the sale of information regarding Michael Jackson. These subpoenas were served because Respondents discovered on January 31, 1996 and thereafter that the Appellants sold information about Michael J. Jackson to at least The Star and Inside Edition and possibly other media organizations. The subpoenas sought records specifically from the Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates and Barber & Gray because some of the Appellants revealed during their depositions that counsel for Appellants were directly involved in setting up *15 the interviews for the Star article and Inside Edition in an attempt to raise funds for the litigation. (AA, 473.)
    Special procedures are required for the production of personal records of a consumer to protect the consumer’s right to privacy by giving him or her the opportunity to move to quash the subpoena before the production of the records. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3(e)). However, before the special procedures apply to a particular case, the records sought must be “personal records” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1983.5(a)(1). The records requested here were not personal records within that definition.
    Personal records means records pertaining to a “consumer” maintained by an individual listed in 1985.3(a)(1). Attorneys are listed, however, in the present case, the Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates and of Barber & Gray were not acting as attorneys for the Appellants but as a party to the transaction and/or business agent for the Appellants. The lawyers were parties to the transaction and received money to cover expenses related to this litigation that they would otherwise have had to cover themselves.
    It also appears that Appellants’ counsel were acting as business agent for the Appellants to obtain on their behalf the lucrative interviews we know of and possibly others. Business agents and parties to a transaction are not covered by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1985.3(a)(1). Records belonging to a lawyer who makes a media contract to his own benefit are not attorney/client and therefore not personal to the erstwhile clients. Since the records sought were not attorney/client *16 records, no notice to consumer was necessary and the subpoenas were not defective.
    In addition, the Consumer Notice would have required an idle act since the attorneys were presently representing these clients in the very action in which the subpoenas were issued. In fact, the need for the subpoenas at all was occasioned by the bad faith failure to make discovery by Appellants and their counsel at that time.
    Further, in the event that the trial court found that a notice to consumer was necessary in this case, Respondents requested that the court exercise its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1985.3(h) and either waive the notice requirement altogether or shorten the time for reservice of the deposition subpoenas.
    “Upon good cause shown and provided that the rights of witnesses and consumers are preserved, a subpoenaing party shall be entitled to obtain an order shortening time for service of subpoena duces tecum or waiving the requirements of subdivision (b) where due diligence by the subpoenaing party has been shown.”
    B. EVEN IF THE SUBPOENA WERE DEFECTIVE, APPELLANTS WERE SANCTIONED FOR LYING TO THE COURT AND COUNSEL ABOUT THE iEXISTENCE OF THE DOCUMENTS
    The Court ultimately did order production of the documents pursuant to the subpoenas, as it was permitted to do by law and under its discretion. Appellants were properly sanctioned for failing to comply with that order. See, Ruvalcaba v. Government Employees Ins. Co., (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1579, 1583 [272 Cal.Rptr. 541] (court has authority to impose monetary sanctions if party *17 disobeys a court order to respond to a request for production of documents).
    Even if the trial court erred in ruling that Appellants Ring, Barber and Francis were obligated to comply with the subpoenas due to the lack of a consumer notice, it is no defense to the $2,000 sanctions imposed. Appellants have no right to lie and commit perjury in resistance to a direct court order whether or not that court order is technically correct.
    Here, the $2,000 sanctions were imposed after Appellants maintained through correspondence, including letters containing “Rambo” type language, and a declaration under penalty of perjury that they had provided Respondents with copies of all documents required by the subpoena (Respondents’ Appendix, passim; AA, 277-282)[FN9]. Appellants now cite the same self-serving perjurious documents in their Opening Brief to mislead this Court. Appellants fail to apprize this Court of the fact that the trial court found those very statements to be false and perjurious and fail to include or cite to the record wherein the court made such findings. Appellants also continue to make those same self-serving assertions in their brief despite the fact that it was well known by the time of the filing of the brief that they had been caught at withholding the Michael Jackson sketches and notes and the nineteen page single-spaced transcripts by the media broker and handwritten notes by Appellants thereon.
    FN9. A Respondents’ Appendix was necessary because Appellants intentionally omitted key Exhibits from Respondents’ moving papers in Appellants’ Appendix.
    V. SANCTIONS FOR THE MCMANUS’S DEPOSITION WERE JUST AND PROPER
    *18 Respondents requested that McManus’ deposition be reopened because she had talked of people.from the tabloid press. She had made reckless statements about Michael Jackson’s personal life and about the Neverland Valley Ranch, according to the press. She either did or did not have a copy of a transcript of what she told one tabloid media broker (Gary Morgan). She either did or did not have items which she took from the Ranch. Respondents were allowed to find out about all of it. That is what the Court ordered.
    However, at the re-opened deposition of Ms. McManus, her counsel, Mr. Francis, would not even allow Respondents to ask McManus about her denial of contacts with Peter Burt. Mr. Francis simply cut off the questioning after McManus denied speaking with Burt.[FN10] Likewise, Appellant Ring arbitrarily limited examination on probative matters. However, Appellant Ring and Appellant McManus simply shut down the deposition. This total refusal to proceed is what caused Respondents to ask the court for an order compelling her to continue.
    FN10. McManus’ denial created a discrepancy between McManus’ testimony and Mr. Morgan’s, and made her recollection of the other quotes, and the transcript (which Appellants’ counsel threw away) all relevant. Mr. Burt’s attorney did not corroborate McManus’ denial of contact with Mr. Burt. Instead, he invoked the shield law and attempted to prevent Respondents’ from taking Mr. Burt’s deposition. (AA, 476-492.)
    At the May 24, 1996 hearing, the Court ruled that it was necessary to continue the deposition of McManus because statements she made to the media were relevant, at the very least to show Appellants’ bias, prejudice and motives to bring this lawsuit, per Evidence Code § 780. (R.T., 1-94) Respondents also wished to depose McManus to discover any violations of the protective order. *19 The Court did not restrict the deposition to two basic areas, i.e., whether McManus had contact with Burt, and whether she stole the sketch of Elvis Presley. According to the Appellants’ interpretation of the Court’s order, the Respondents would have to seek relief from the Court to question McManus about every media contact discovered between the hearing of the application and McManus’ deposition. This is not what the Court intended.
    The Court intended this deposition to cover all of McManus’ relevant media contacts. These contacts include her conversations with Mr. Morgan and Mr. Burt; others of whom Respondents have recently learned; and any others whom Respondents do not know about yet. The Court indicated that it was concerned about the effect these media contacts will have on Respondents’ ability to have a fair trial, i.e., the effect on the jury pool. The Court said repeatedly that the Appellants’ media contacts were relevant. Thus, Respondents were entitled to follow up on these contacts through discovery in order to have a fair trial.
    Appellants misquote the law. Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256 [24 Cal.Rptr. 501] does stand for the proposition that “discovery sanctions under the discovery statute are reasonable if they include costs incurred in preparing a motion and attending the hearing, but that further sanctions are unreasonable.”. (A.O.B. 18) In fact, the court in Ghanooni holds that an amount levied as a pure punitive measure is improper but that (under Code of Civil Procedure 2023) “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by *20 anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Emphasis added.) That is all the trial court did here. The reasonable expenses included attorneys fees and wasted time at multiple deposition sessions which would have concluded long ago had the Appellants and their counsel just told the truth.
    A. The Waste of Time and Money Caused by Appellants’ Tactics in the Morning Session
    Respondents arranged for the court reporter, a videographer, and at least one of the Respondents traveled from Los Angeles to attend this deposition. Mr. Cochran traveled from Los Angeles to take this deposition.
    Mr. Francis’ tactic of unilaterally limiting the scope of the deposition, and instructing his client not to answer 78 questions, resulted in an enormous waste of time and money and violates the letter and spirit of the Discovery Act.
    B. The Impropriety of Appellants’ Position During the Afternoon Session
    Appellant Ring started the afternoon session by stating that Appellant could answer some of the questions from the morning session, but could not identify specific questions. Since Mr. Francis was not present in the afternoon, he could not assist with this endeavor. Nor would Mr. Ring agree to pay for an expedited transcript of the morning session so that the questions McManus asked in the morning could be asked again. Instead, he arbitrarily limited examination, then ended the deposition early, before 4:00 pm.
    *21 C. Appellants’ And/or Their Counsel Should Bear the Expense for Time Lost, this Motion and Further Deposition Sessions of Ms. Mcmanus
    Appellants and their counsel were properly held to pay the price for their obstructionist tactics. Appellants and their counsel will properly be held to bear the cost of the court reporter, the videographer, the original transcript for the wasted day of deposition on May 24, 1996, as well as for all additional sessions of Appellant McManus’ deposition now required as a result of her improper refusal to answer nearly one hundred questions. (R.T., 134, 194) Appellants also were properly held to bear a portion of Respondents’ costs of coming to seek relief. Respondents gave notice during the deposition that such sanctions would be sought. (AA, 482.)
    The Court carefully considered the costs to Respondents as a result of the obstructionist tactics and awarded an appropriate amount of sanctions. Appellants cannot be heard to complain — in direct contradiction to the record — that the sanctions were punitive. On the contrary, each and every element of the sanctions award was reviewed and considered by the court: $428.50 for the videographer (R.T., 180-181, AA 590); $1,570.50 for the court reporter’s expedited transcript (R.T., 181, AA 590); $3,282.50 for attorney’s fees attending the deposition (R.T., 181-182, AA 590); $2,340 for reviewing the deposition (R.T., 183-184, AA 590); $1,000 for attending the hearing (R.T., 184, AA 590); $140 service fee (R.T., 185, AA 591); $14 filing fee (R.T., 185, AA 590); $195 for preparing cost bill (R.T., 185, AA 591). On several of these *22 elements e.g. reviewing deposition and preparing the cost bill, the Court taxed costs and refused to award the requested amounts.
    Appellants were sanctioned for the direct costs of their obstructionist behavior. The Court was well within its discretion to award such costs as sanctions.
    D. The Trial Court’s Award of the $8,790.50 Sanctions Is Amply Supported by the Record
    Appellants argue that the trial court’s sanction order was a penalty for their “obstructionist” conduct and acts as a “windfall” for Respondents. (App. Brf., p. 19.) The sanctions were for “obstructionist” behavior, which is just what sanctions are designed to deter. However, the amount was based soley on the cost to Respondent of havin to deal with that behavior. (RT, 95-192.) There was no “windfall,” in fact, to the contrary, Appellants’ behavior cost Respondents considerably more that they were awarded. (AA, 589-594.)
    Trial court discovery sanctions will be upheld on appeal when the facts support the ruling. ( Zimmerman v. Drexel, Burnham & Lambert, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 153, 159 [252 Cal.Rptr. 115].) And the discovery sanction orders will only be disturbed on appeal when they are arrived at from “arbitrary, capricious, and whimisical action.” ( Hedley v. Ruchti, supra, at 1601 [16 Cal.Rptr.2d 151]; quoting Alliance Bank v. Murray, supra, at 10 [207 Cal.Rptr. 233]) Here, Judge Canter’s order imposing sanctions was arrived at after a careful review of the discovery abuses, is amply supported by the record, and was correct under any standard of review.
    *23 IV. APPELLATE SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE APPEAL IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT AND IS PROSECUTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARASSMENT AND DELAY AND IS, THEREFORE, FRIVOLOUS.
    A. An Appeal Is Frivolous When The Appeal Lacks Merit
    An appeal lacks merit when the appeal is viewed by any reasonable attorney as totally and completely lacking merit. (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650, [183 Cal.Rptr. 508].) Appellants’ appeal from the $2,000.00 and $8,970.50 sanction orders is totally and completely without merit. The entire appela is prepared in a haphazard fashion, the Rules have not been followed, there is deliberate deception on the part of Appellants on this Court, and the sanctions were more than deserved in the first place.
    B. An Appeal Is Frivolous If Prosecuted For An Improper Motive
    An improper motive is found when the Appellants are seeking to harass the Respondents or delay the effect of an adverse judgment. ( In re Marriage of Flaherty, supra, at 650.) Appellants’ motive is to delay the day of reckoning.
    C. Sanctions Are Warranted Under the Facts of This Case
    Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 907 and California Rule of Court 26(a), the appellate court can and should order sanctions against the Appellants for filing such a blatantly frivolous appeal. Appellate courts have found it quite appropriate to impose appellate sanctions where counsel is frivolous in *24 appealing trial court sanctions. ( Zimmerman v. Drexel, Burnharm & Lambert, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 153, [252 Cal.Rptr. 115].)
    Kassim ABDOOL, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Melanie Bagnall, Sandi Domz, Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Assoc., and Law Offices of Barber & Gray Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Michael J. JACKSON, James Van Norman, Tony Coleman, Marcus Johnson, Bill Bray, Bettye Bailey, and Andrew Merritt Defendants and Respondents.
    1997 WL 33801664 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (Appellate Brief)

    END OF DOCUMENT

    Like

  33. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2011 1:54 am

    “During the afternoon session, Appellant Ring appeared for the deposition. Mr. Francis did not return for the remainder of the deposition. Appellant Ring said at first that he was altering Mr. Francis’ position in the morning session, and that McManus could respond to some of the 78 questions she previously refused to answer. Mr. Ring stated that Respondents could ask McManus about statements she made in all of the articles that Gary Morgan had produced. Respondents then requested that Appellants pay for an expedited transcript of the morning session and to continue the deposition to that Wednesday, so that all of those questions could be asked again. Appellant Ring refused.
    Despite the purported offer to cooperate, Appellant Ring instructed Appellant McManus to refuse to answer at least sixteen more questions including questions about Appellants’ contacts with Victor Gutierrez of which Respondents had just learned.[FN5] Then, after being prompted by Appellant Ring, McManus ended the deposition early (before 4:00 pm) stating that “Enough’s enough. Time to go home,” and “I’m tired and I’m hungry. I want to go home. My back hurts, too.” (AA, 469.)[FN6]”

    lol again

    Like

  34. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2011 1:44 am

    “Pursuant to the Court’s order, Appellant McManus’ continued deposition occurred on Monday, June 24, 1996 at 10:00 am in Santa Barbara. Before that date Respondents learned about other tabloid media contacts by the Appellants. Appellant McManus (as well as Appellants Abdool, Bagnall and Chacon) had extensive conversations with Victor Gutierrez, a so-called journalist Who intended to self-publish a book full of “gossip” about Michael Jackson. Mr. Gutierrez’s book, which was published in Spanish before the McManus *9 deposition, was replete with verbatim quotes attributed to the Appellants. Appellant McManus, herself, is quoted on the dust jacket of the book. (AA, 469)

    Lol

    Like

  35. shelly permalink
    September 12, 2011 2:42 pm

    I think this article might explain what happened between Jack Gordon and MJ in 1993. MJ asked Pellicano to investigate Jack Gordon before Latoya’s book was published, maybe he was very pissed of.

    Tinseltown is a nasty little neighborhood, full of rumors and secrets and tattletales. Just when you think you have made it, someone pops up to soak you or soil you or sic the cops on your tail.

    Somebody has to look out for all those big names and big checkbooks. Somebody has to be gumshoe to the stars. And this year’s Beverly Hills 911 is Anthony J. Pellicano Jr., the least-private private eye in town.

    Here he is on “Larry King Live,” sticking up for Michael Jackson. There he is battling gossip linking a Columbia Pictures executive to accused madam Heidi Fleiss.

    Magazines report that a coterie of stars pooled $2 million each to pay Pellicano for protection from the tabloids. He even made the big screen as a technical adviser on “The Firm.”

    To those closest to him, Pellicano is a onetime punk raised by a divorced single mother who has vowed that his own children will never experience his hard knocks.

    “Family is sacred to me,” he said, his office walls overflowing with photos of his second wife and nine children. His voice grows thick when he recalls the day his 5-year-old autistic son learned to kiss.

    But to those on the business end of his $25,000 retainer fee, Pellicano is part hard-boiled detective and part hardball public relations man, a tough talker in a $1,000 suit who does not carry a gun but whose telephone Muzak is the Sicilian opera used in “The Godfather, Part III.”

    “You always want to be on the right side of Anthony Pellicano,” warned “Top Gun” producer Don Simpson, whom Pellicano helped shield when an ex-secretary took Simpson to court.

    His critics — whom he calls “wimps,” “babies” and worse — agree, in harsher terms.

    “He goes in like a junkyard dog to find dirt,” said Charles Theodore Mathews, lawyer for the plaintiff in the Simpson suit.

    Pellicano, meanwhile, is proud of what he does. “Anybody who wants to malign one of my clients, I dig into their pasts,” he said. “So they gotta take the same heat that they dish out.”

    His beginnings were inauspicious. Kicked out of high school because he was “too interested in being a tough guy,” he acquired discipline and a diploma in the Army Signal Corps.

    In those days, he was Tony Pellican — his grandfather had dropped the “o” when the family left Sicily.

    By the time he finished his stint as an Army cryptographer, he had changed his surname to Pellicano, in honor of his heritage, he said.

    Back in Chicago, he became a bill collector for Spiegel catalog. Working under the pseudonym Tony Fortune, he traced people who had skipped out on debts.

    One day he was scanning the Yellow Pages when he noticed the many ads for detective agencies.

    “So I called the biggest ad in there, and I said, ‘Listen, I’m the best skip tracer there is; I wanna do all your work, give me your hardest case,’ ” Pellicano said. “They had been looking for this (missing) little girl for six weeks, and I found her in two days.”

    By 1969, he had hung out his own shingle.

    “He was a hot dog,” laughed Richard Fries, a Chicago private eye who is a member of the state licensing board. “How did he get ahead? I’ll tell ya — by bein’ pushy. By telling reporters about his deeds, going to affairs. What can I say? It works.”

    But not all his publicity was the kind he liked.

    In 1976, he resigned under pressure from the Illinois Law Enforcement Commission after news reports that he had accepted a $30,000 loan from the son of underworld figure Paul de Lucia, also known as Paul “the Waiter” Ricca.

    Pellicano said that Ricca’s son, Paul de Lucia Jr., was a childhood friend and that he borrowed the money because the cost of starting his agency had driven him into bankruptcy.

    He denied having underworld connections and said he did not believe the younger Lucia had them, either.

    In 1983, Pellicano moved to Los Angeles. His first assignment was helping defend John Z. DeLorean.

    Pellicano was hired by attorney Howard Weitzman to help the former auto executive beat drug-selling charges.

    Pellicano dissected key government tapes and dug up information that helped undermine prosecution witnesses.

    Weitzman said Pellicano’s work was “in large part responsible for my ability to win that case.”

    Pellicano acknowledges that through Weitzman and entertainment lawyer Bertram Fields, he gained entree into the Hollywood A-list. Soon, his clientele included Kevin Costner, Roseanne Arnold, Jackson, Simpson and other celebrities.

    For Jackson, Pellicano investigated his sister La Toya’s husband and manager, Jack Gordon, shortly before the release of her tell-all best seller, “La Toya: Growing Up in the Jackson Family.” As the book debuted, the Chicago papers reported that Gordon was a convicted panderer who had owned massage parlors and changed his name twice.

    But Rod Lurie, a Los Angeles free-lance writer, vividly recalls what it was like to be the target of Pellicano’s brand of damage control. In 1990, Lurie was working on an expose about the National Enquirer’s reporting methods. The newspaper hired an old nemesis, Pellicano, to act as its advocate.

    In an attempt to kill the story, Lurie alleged, Pellicano tailed him, bad-mouthed him to his sources, dug into his credit record, called him on his unlisted telephone and threatened to sue.

    “He told me . . . that he has killed hundreds and hundreds of stories,” Lurie said. “For those who don’t know better, he’s an intimidating character. He’s a classic movie goon. But those stories he doesn’t kill become much bigger because he becomes a central character in them.”

    Pellicano said that he has killed numerous stories but in Lurie’s case did nothing more than run a background check and call the writer to question the premise of his piece. “I wanted him to lay off my clients and act appropriately,” Pellicano said.

    Like

  36. shelly permalink
    September 12, 2011 1:47 pm

    Matthews is also a crazy ass lawyer, he said to Dimond that his accident was caused by MJ’s team as part of a threat, but this is from the judge. He is the appelant, he was fine 24 262 dollars for that

    “FN2. In interviews with the tabloid television show “Hard Copy” and in declarations filed with the trial court, Appellant blamed Respondents for the accident. The trial court pointed out, however, that the California Highway Patrol report places blame for the accident on Appellant. (RT 66:10-12, 94:16-95:5).”

    And for abondonning his client

    “Despite the fact that during the April 22, 1996 hearing, Appellant stated that he would be physically unable to proceed for six to eight weeks, it was later discovered that Appellant conducted a trial during the same time period on another matter in Los Angeles. (RT 9:16-10:4, 35:25-36:5, 81:18-27). During the same time period that Appellant was allegedly disabled, he also managed to (1) conduct an interview for the tabloid television show “Hard Copy”; (2) draft a separate, unrelated complaint for Mr. Johnson against Michael Jackson and others; and (3) make other, unrelated court appearances. (RT 31:12-17, 38:22-39:24, 45:10-46:20, 66:10-67:10).

    The trial court issued a lengthy Order to Show Cause and on August 13, 1996 held a full evidentiary hearing. (RT 1-117). During that hearing, the trial court considered statements made by Appellant, declarations, a videotape and live in-court testimony. (RT 50:26-51:8, 58:11-16; 58:19-64:8, 73:20-74:12; 76:14-77:13). The trial court made numerous factual and legal findings supporting *5 its sanction order. ( See, e.g., RT 89:28-90:7, 90:27-91:19, 93:9-95:13). The trial court held that Appellant not only abandoned his client, but also misled the trial court as to his physical condition, which resulted in the continuance of a court-ordered deposition and of the trial. (RT 9:16-10:4, 89:28-90:7, 90:27-91:19, 93:9-95:13). As to the amount of the sanction, the trial court made line-by-line rulings as to the amount of sanctions requested by Respondents, and did not award the full amount requested. (RT 103:10-106:11).”

    By the way his client was Jerome Johnson who tried to extort 7 millions from MJ during the trial.lol

    Like

  37. shelly permalink
    September 12, 2011 3:21 am

    By the way, Dimond said she interviewed the Hayvenhurst 5 at Charles mattheews office. I know I shouldn’t use her but I think there is a pattern here.

    Like

  38. shelly permalink
    September 12, 2011 2:53 am

    I am not exactly sure but those people filed an appeal after they lost their lawsuit and they had Charles Matthews as a lawyer. Matthews was the lawyer for the Hayvenhurst 5.

    Like

  39. shelly permalink
    September 11, 2011 11:32 am

    It’s the document

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032505suppopp1108.pdf

    Like

  40. shelly permalink
    September 11, 2011 5:39 am

    I mean he forgot to say that to the grand jury but he didn’t forget to tell that to Gutierrez. I really wonder what they really said to Gutierrez, page 6 and 7.

    Like

  41. shelly permalink
    September 11, 2011 5:26 am

    I wonder if Sneddon really believe the Vaseline’s story.

    Like

  42. shelly permalink
    September 11, 2011 5:11 am

    Q. Three months?

    5 A. Yeah.

    6 Q. So that would be the last three months that

    7 you worked in 1994, right?

    8 A. Yeah.

    9 Q. Okay. So you became head of security long

    10 after you claim you saw Mr. Jackson act this way

    11 with Mr. Chandler, correct?

    12 A. That’s correct.

    Like

  43. shelly permalink
    September 11, 2011 5:05 am

    Kassim Abdool cross examination

    And you told the truth —

    2 A. Yes.

    3 Q. — in all of your discussions at those

    4 meetings, correct?

    5 A. Yes, sir.

    6 Q. You told the truth about what you had

    7 observed at Neverland, right?

    8 A. Q. Does the statement you read refresh your

    16 recollection about the statement you signed?

    17 A. Yes, sir.

    18 Q. Okay. And that is your signature on the

    19 statement, correct?

    20 A. Yes, sir.

    21 Q. You told representatives of Mr. Jackson that

    22 you’d never seen Mr. Jackson touch any child in a

    23 sexual manner or in any way that could be construed

    24 as sexual, correct?

    25 A. That’s what I wrote, yeah. I signed to

    26 that, yes.

    27 Q. You said you’d never seen Mr. Jackson

    28 unclothed or in the company of unclothed children, 7419

    1 correct?

    2 A. Yes. I mean, when I say “unclothed,” naked.

    3 If you have on pants, that’s not unclothed.

    4 Q. But you said you’d never seen Mr. Jackson

    5 unclothed or in the company of an unclothed child,

    6 correct?

    7 A. Yes. Yes, sir.14 Q. You said you’d never seen Mr. Jackson engage

    15 in anything sexual with Jordie Chandler, correct?

    16 A. Yes.

    17 Q. And you said that no one working at the

    18 ranch had ever complained about Mr. Jackson doing

    19 anything sexual with children, correct?

    20 A. Right. No, that was before I went to the

    21 grand jury, before I think, before I met with Mr. —

    22 in Mr. Sanger’s office.

    23 Q. The date was January 13th, 1994, right?

    24 A. Right.

    25 Q. Okay.

    Like

  44. shelly permalink
    September 11, 2011 2:35 am

    I notice another thing about Chacon, he said he only met Sneddon for less than an hour before he testified in 2005. So in less than an hour Sneddon had the time to show him the pictures of Barnes and Chandler, to ask him all the questions he was going to ask and Chacon had the time to answer to all of that. Who believe that?

    Like

  45. shelly permalink
    September 10, 2011 9:31 pm

    I was wondering why it wasn’t brought up. It contradicts what Abdool told Mesereau when he said he told MJ’s lawyers that he never saw any sexual activity with children and told Mesereau he had ‘o reason at that time to say the opposite.

    By the way did anyone have a PACER account, they have some Schaffel related stuff but for a reason I don’t know I can’t order it.

    Like

  46. lynande51 permalink
    September 10, 2011 8:36 pm

    @ Shelly none of the 1108 witnesses were called to testify to the 2004 Grand Jury. It would not have been allowed because it was undetermined at the time if the prosecution would use them in the trial and it had nothing to do with the Arvizo case. The reason that the Grand Jury was called was to avoid a preliminary hearing in which the defense would be allowed to present exculpatory evidence to the judge and to add the conspiracy charge to explain why the Arvizos stayed at Neverland and then went shopping and stayed at a 5 star hotel during their abduction and hostage situation.
    As for the vaseline story it had no merit and it could be proven that it was added as sensationalism for a tabloid story.

    Like

  47. shelly permalink
    September 10, 2011 5:07 pm

    Did Abdool testified in front of the 2004 grand jury? Why the vaseline story was never brought up in court in 2005.

    Like

  48. shelly permalink
    September 10, 2011 2:04 pm

    “Review your deposition before trial. Make sure you re-read your deposition testimony before you get to trial. Most cases settle and never reach trial, but not all cases settle. If you are going to trial, it is critical that you know everything you have said under oath, whether in a deposition or interrogatories.”

    http://www.carolannwilson.net/deposition.htm

    Like

  49. shelly permalink
    September 10, 2011 2:01 pm

    @suzy,

    Yes it’s very very odd.

    Like

  50. Suzy permalink
    September 10, 2011 1:43 pm

    @ Shelly

    I also remember Russ Birchim gave money to Chacon. I think that’s in his testimony as well. Maybe there is nothing illegal in a prosecutor lending money to a witness, but I found that odd.

    Like

  51. shelly permalink
    September 10, 2011 1:43 pm

    “To “impeach” your testimony at trial. If you testify at your trial differently than you testified at your deposition then the attorney will point out to the judge that your story has changed. Since you are under oath both at your deposition and at trial, this will cast doubt on the truth of your testimony. When you receive your deposition transcript, you should keep it in a safe place and review it thoroughly before the trial so that there are no contradictions in your testimony. We will also provide you with your medical reports and you should review them in comparison to your deposition testimony to be sure that what the doctor reports that you told him/her is the same thing that you have testified in your deposition.”

    http://www.hurtworker.com/articles/what-is-workers-comp-deposition-in-California.htm

    Like

  52. shelly permalink
    September 10, 2011 1:22 pm

    By the way, McManus said in her testimony that she had a copy of her 1993 deposition at home. It’s probably true for Chacon.

    Like

  53. shelly permalink
    September 10, 2011 1:06 pm

    I really don’t understand why he changed his testimony

    Okay. You met with Prosecutor Sneddon on

    8 April 6th, correct?

    9 A. Yes, sir.

    10 Q. Was anyone else at the meeting?

    11 A. Yes, sir.

    12 Q. Who?

    13 A. Russ Birchim.

    14 Q. Where did the meeting take place?

    15 A. Here in Santa Maria.

    16 Q. And who arranged the meeting?

    17 A. I believe it was Mr. Sneddon.

    18 Q. Did he call you on the phone?

    19 A. Yes, sir.

    20 Q. Did he tell you where to meet?

    21 A. Yes, sir.

    22 Q. How long was the meeting?

    23 A. Probably less than an hour.

    24 Q. Did you discuss anything you were going to

    25 say today?

    26 A. I believe so, yes, sir.

    27 Q. Did Mr. Sneddon tell you what questions he

    28 was going to ask you today? 5254

    1 A. Yes, sir.

    2 Q. Did you tell him what answers you were going

    3 to give to those questions?

    4 A. No, sir.

    5 Q. Did you tell him anything about how you were

    6 go
    ing to respond?A. I just told him that I would speak the

    8 truth.

    9 Q. That’s it?

    10 A. Yes, sir.

    11 Q. How long was the meeting?

    12 A. Probably about — less than an hour.

    13 Q. So during the portion of that hour that you

    14 spoke, all you ever said was, “I’ll tell the truth,

    15 I’ll tell the truth, I’ll tell the truth,” or words

    16 to that effect?

    17 A. No, sir. No, sir.

    18 Q. Okay. He told you what questions he was

    19 going to ask you, correct?

    20 A. I believe so, yes, sir.

    21 Q. You told him what your responses were going

    22 to be, right?

    23 A. Yes, sir.

    24 Q. When was the — excuse me.

    25 Before that meeting, when was the last time

    26 you had met with anyone from the prosecuting office

    27 here?

    28 A. I didn’t meet with anybody. 5255

    1 Q. Did you talk with anyone on the phone?

    2 A. Yes, sir. I was —

    3 Q. Who was that?

    4 A. I believe it was a secretary from Mr.

    5 Sneddon’s office.

    Like

  54. shelly permalink
    September 10, 2011 12:57 pm

    This is from Chacon testimony about the tabloids

    “Q. Before you chose to go to a tabloid, you

    28 knew that others were going to tabloids to try and 5241

    1 tell stories about Mr. Jackson?

    2 A. No, sir.

    3 Q. You were the first, right?

    4 A. That went to the media, to the tabloids?

    5 Q. Yes.

    6 A. Yes, sir.

    7 Q. And when did you go?

    8 A. It was probably ‘94 sometime.”

    So he was the first to go to the tabloid?

    Like

  55. shelly permalink
    September 5, 2011 4:40 am

    I don’t think he was disbarred.

    Like

  56. lynande51 permalink
    September 5, 2011 4:27 am

    I think he would have been lucky if he wasn’t disbarred after that.

    Like

  57. shelly permalink
    September 5, 2011 4:13 am

    I just wonder how much Michael Ring earned for that trial. They had to sell their story in order to pay him and he had to pay 40 000 dollars for hiding evidence.

    Like

  58. lynande51 permalink
    September 5, 2011 2:36 am

    It just bascially means that they lied and intended harm when they lied here are to 2 legal definitions. They are not talking about the crime of fraud but the act of fraud which are 2 different things.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malice
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud

    Like

  59. shelly permalink
    September 5, 2011 2:20 am

    Just a question, what means fraud and malice?

    Like

  60. shelly permalink
    September 2, 2011 11:30 am

    I wonder what what would have happened to their civil suit if Chacon had testified that he saw Jordan being molested. I mean Sneddon would have charged MJ and the trial would have occured the next year.

    They knew they had to wait for the next year for their civil trial because they didn’t have the money.

    Like

  61. shelly permalink
    September 2, 2011 1:05 am

    Mc Manus had 2 lawsuits against her filed by Rosalie Hill one was filed in 1990 case SM082456 and one in 1993 case SM082882

    Like

  62. shelly permalink
    September 1, 2011 11:49 pm

    @vindicate,

    It was in December 1994.

    @Lynande,

    I wonder it too. I read somewhere it’s something like 5 dollars for the first 5 pages and then half the price, but there are thousands of pages. On the other hand I’d really like to have those transcripts.

    Like

  63. lynande51 permalink
    September 1, 2011 11:34 pm

    It costs a lot to get any of the documents, I wonder what the trial transcriptions would cost?

    Like

  64. September 1, 2011 11:30 pm

    Shelly, do I understand it right that the Neverland 5 sued Michael immediately after the settlement with the Chandlers? Am I interpreting the date (12/2/1994) correctly?

    Civil-SM: Kassim Abdool et al vs Michael J Jackson et al
    File Date Case # Party Name
    12/2/1994 SM089344 Plaintiff: Kassim Abdool
    12/2/1994 SM089344 Plaintiff: Melanie Bagnall
    12/2/1994 SM089344 Plaintiff: Ralph Chacon
    12/2/1994 SM089344 Plaintiff: Adrian McManus
    etc.

    Like

  65. shelly permalink
    September 1, 2011 10:54 pm

    This is the case number for the Chacon case CV093543 and this the case number for the Neverland five SM089344

    Like

  66. shelly permalink
    September 1, 2011 10:17 pm

    Another lawsuit from Chacon

    http://www.sbcourts.org/pubindex/parties.php?CasNum=CV093543

    Like

  67. shelly permalink
    September 1, 2011 10:06 pm

    Neverland 5 lawsuit

    http://www.sbcourts.org/pubindex/parties.php?CasNum=SM089344

    Like

  68. shelly permalink
    August 27, 2011 8:37 pm

    No Lynande, there was a book called In search of Young Beauty by Charles Dubois Hodges.

    For Mc Manus, I don’t understand why she had to bring the key from her home, it would mean that he never had a key himself.

    Like

  69. August 27, 2011 6:56 pm

    I posted on Michael´s feelings on angry talk abot Michael Jackson
    haters and the general public under their spell. Maybe I sould have posted it here, but you can check it out under that headline.

    Like

  70. appleh permalink
    August 27, 2011 6:28 pm

    @shelly, I was just making an assumption ! I did not say that you said she put the books there ! There maybe several reasons why she had the key and how the books got into that room !

    Like

  71. lynande51 permalink
    August 27, 2011 6:05 pm

    As for McManus having a key to any room that would be because she was trusted to clean his rooom. The trouble is who knows who she let in there when he wasn’t there. Once the photos were taken in 1993 Michael pretty much stayed away from Neverland. He spent most of his time in Florida, New York, Las Vegas and LA. That was when he and Lisa were dating. Another interesting fact is that in May of 1994 when all of this was going on ( the Neverland Five) he was in the Dominican Republic because that is where Lisa filed for divorce. They had to stay there for 2 weeks before the divorce and then they got married there 2 weeks later.

    Like

  72. lynande51 permalink
    August 27, 2011 5:57 pm

    There were only 2 books found in 1993. Boys Will be Boys and The Boy A Photographic Essay. They each had an inscription on them. In the Boys will be Boys Michael had written just this way:
    “Look at
    The true spirit
    of happiness and
    joy in these boys
    faces.
    this is the spirit of
    Boyhood,A life
    I never had and
    will always
    dream of”.
    And in the other book, The Boy a Photographic Essay a gift from a fan:
    To Michael,
    with Love,
    Rhonda
    xxxoooxxx.
    There was no third book the other book you might be talking about was from 2003 when they went through all of his books.

    Like

  73. shelly permalink
    August 27, 2011 5:27 pm

    I was spEaking about the Boys will be boys and the 2 others books. I am not saying she put the book there, I just don’t unferstand why she kept a key from a Neverland room at her home.

    Like

  74. appleh permalink
    August 27, 2011 5:07 pm

    @shelly, what books do you mean ? To the key, maybe she stole it and placed the books in that room !

    Like

  75. shelly permalink
    August 27, 2011 4:18 pm

    Another thing, according to Rosibel Smith, Mc Manus had, at her home, the key to the room where they found the 3 books. Why did she had that key at her home?

    Like

  76. shelly permalink
    August 27, 2011 2:34 pm

    This is what I am talking about
    Q. What was that?

    17 A. The serial numbers were all, like, in

    18 sequence, which was really neat, because I had never

    19 seen anything like that, and I thought that was

    20 really neat.

    21 Q. How did you happen to have a Xerox copy of

    22 them or a photocopy?

    23 A. Because — I thought it was so neat that I

    24 photocopied it, because I had never seen anything

    25 like that, you know, the sequence of bills like

    26 that.”

    Like

  77. shelly permalink
    August 27, 2011 2:13 pm

    There is something that I don’t get in Mc Manus testimony, she claimed he gave her money after she perjured herself and she said she made a copy of it, why would you do that?

    Like

  78. Suzy permalink
    August 27, 2011 8:43 am

    Adaptation or not, it tells a lot about the media’s agenda when they print articles like this just few days after his death. News of the World did the same. Just a couple of days after his death they had an article up with quoted from “Jordan’s diary” (ie. Gutierrez’s book).
    What was the point? The book wasn’t a new book and even the Chandlers denied it was true. But of course NotW didn’t tell that.

    Seriously, this man could never catch a break and still can’t from tabloid media.

    Like

  79. lynande51 permalink
    August 27, 2011 6:39 am

    I know. I was just looking at the thank you that had the Rubbas listed. If anyone likes to think that Michael writing “I Love You” to anyone means anything nefarious maybe they could explain why he thanked his elephant Gypsy and giraff Jabbar. LOL Sounds like he loved them just as much as he did Anton Schleiter and his sister. So much for that theory.

    Like

  80. August 27, 2011 4:01 am

    Anybody who seriously uses Guitirezz as a source needs to have their
    brains checked.

    Like

  81. shelly permalink
    August 27, 2011 2:41 am

    Or Maybe, it was Lydia Encinas. Do we know if that woman ever worked with VG?

    Like

  82. shelly permalink
    August 27, 2011 2:34 am

    I think she knew very well he was writing a book. VG was a source of DD. Mc Manus was a friend of Francia, at least when she worked for MJ, and Francia spoke to DD before she spoke to the police or Feldman. I wonder who brought up to DD?

    Like

  83. lynande51 permalink
    August 27, 2011 2:19 am

    Yeah right, he was just helping them with their lawsuit. In other words he was telling them what to say.I think now would be a good time to correct a misconception about Gutierrez book and whether or not it was banned. Michael filed a $100 million dollar lawsuit against DD, Hard Copy and the Network in January of 1995 within days of the broadcast of the “video” lie. He included Gutierrez. The others were dropped from the suit using an Anti Slapp defense. He was not because he was determined to be the source. Well that means that Michael sued him for slander. It did not matter which type of media he used whether it was a lie about a video or lies written in a book, slander is slander no matter where the person does it. Next Gutierrez’s book was not published until 1996, right in the middle of all this so like I said slander is slander no matter where he does it. it did not matter if he got on TV and said something or if he wrote it in a book once he was found to be guilty of slander that pretty much covered VG as a slanderer. Just like Michael knew that the Chandlers had a book that they wanted to sell and he covered that in the settlement agreement he would have included any books, TV and the list goes on and on just like the Chandler Settlement.In other words it was Gutierrez that was found to be a liar about Michael Jackson no matter what he said about him.The Neverland Five first met with Michael Ring in May of 1994.Probably right after VG went on Hard COpy again to hawk his book calling it a Diary. That was May 4th.

    Like

  84. shelly permalink
    August 27, 2011 1:18 am

    @lynande,

    It’s very possible. Does anyone knows when they hired Michael Ring?

    Like

  85. shelly permalink
    August 27, 2011 12:35 am

    That poor Mc Manus, she was trashed for free by Gutierrez

    Q. Now, you spent days being interviewed by a

    28 book author named Mr. Gutierrez, right? 5413

    1 A. Days being interviewed?

    2 Q. Yes.

    3 A. No.

    4 Q. Were you interviewed by a book author named

    5 Mr. Gutierrez?

    6 A. I never was interviewed, but I did meet with

    7 him.

    8 Q. And approximately when did you meet with

    9 him?

    10 A. You know, I cannot recall the date.

    11 Q. Well, you certainly had a discussion with

    12 him about the fact that he was writing a book,

    13 didn’t you?

    14 A. No, I did not.

    15 Q. So when you met with him, you didn’t know he

    16 was writing a book?

    17 A. No, when I met with him, he was going to try

    18 to help us in our lawsuit.

    19 Q. Did you ever learn he was writing a book

    20 about Mr. Jackson?

    21 A. I never — I don’t recall him saying that he

    22 was writing a book. I don’t remember that.

    23 Q. Did you give him information about Mr.

    24 Jackson?

    25 A. Um, later I did.

    Like

  86. lynande51 permalink
    August 27, 2011 12:29 am

    Shelly I can’t remember who posted a comment about JRT but the asked him about writing for the Star and he said in the UK they have something called adaptaion. It means basically that they can take part of an article that was written by someone else and add it to an article that they have written. In the case of McManus they were just using what she already sold them through Victor Gutierrez. Same shit different day.

    Like

  87. shelly permalink
    August 26, 2011 10:56 pm

    I just found another example of how Mc Manus is an asshole. This is the story that she sold to News of the World when he died.

    http://www.showbizspy.com/article/188836/michael-jackson-branded-a-monster.html

    Like

  88. lynande51 permalink
    June 25, 2011 4:13 am

    Because the Neverland Five contended that the reason they had to leave was they were being harrassed by the OSS, ( Michael’s personal bodyguards) for what they said they “knew about him and young boys”. Of course their attorney Michael RIng would have asked him about their allegations since it was supposedly the reason they were “forced ” to leave.

    Like

  89. June 24, 2011 9:44 am

    “Yes it was from the Neverland Five lawsuit.They had the lawsuit ready to file on December 2nd 1994 but had to wait until the tabloids bought some of their stories to file.it was February of 1995. THe lawsuit was won by Michael thanks to Bob Sange in June of 1998. It was the longest civil trial in Santa Barbara County”.– Lynande51

    Thanks, Lynette. Yes, Thomas Mesereau says it lasted for 6 months. Now there is one small problem here. There were two lawsuits at the moment – one from the guards for “unlawful termination” (and it had nothing to do with “molestation” – since they wanted their job back evidently they were happy with everything they saw in Neverland) and the second suit was from Michael – for stealing property from him. The second suit was an answer to the first one and Thomas Mesereau makes it clear that without the first there wouldn’t have been the second one.

    Now comes a question about that MJ’s deposition on March 1, 1996.

    Over there, Michael is all of a sudden asked questions about Jordan Chandler (or the case settled three years before that), M.Culkin and the rest. Technically speaking these questions have NOTHING to do with both suits that were running at the time.

    Why I am asking that question is that Michael sounds genuinely surprised that the matter is being raised again though it has nothing to do with the suits.

    Am I right?

    Like

  90. Suzy permalink
    June 19, 2011 6:53 pm

    @ Shelly

    Thanks.

    Like

  91. shelly permalink
    June 19, 2011 6:46 pm

    @suzy,

    Jordan, jason, Brett, Mac, Wade, Jimmy Safechuck, Jonathan Spence.

    Like

  92. June 19, 2011 6:24 pm

    @Julie

    Because the Library of Congress would keep it for the art, Michael would keep it for sinister reasons. Reminds me of how TMZ had a headline once about how MJ had a house full of “Statues of Boys” – then they gave this huge list of all the statues featuring male kids in his house. Wow, MJ was such a freak who idolized young male boys! Look at all that proof! Of course, from that same report they chose to utterly ignore the equivalent number of statues of female kids in his house too, some even in the same context as the male ones (“Male and Female Statue Of Kids Playing With A Dog” etc). It’s insanity. Anything with any male child in it that came into contact with him – other than Dave Dave and Ryan White – was twisted and isolated to fit into a sensational headline.

    Like

  93. Suzy permalink
    June 19, 2011 5:03 pm

    Seven? Who would be those seven?

    Like

  94. shelly permalink
    June 19, 2011 4:06 pm

    By the way, if Sneddon really believed there were 7 alleged victims, why did he say in 1994 that they found “only” 3 alleged victims: Francia, Chandler and Barnes. He had almost the same testimonies in 1994 and in 2005.

    Like

  95. Suzy permalink
    June 17, 2011 3:48 am

    @ Teva

    Marc Schaffel tried to do that too when he and Michael sued each other.

    Like

  96. Teva permalink
    June 16, 2011 11:02 pm

    Using bad publicity to force a settlement from a high profile individual is common place. Gloria Allred operates very much under this principle.

    Like

  97. shelly permalink
    June 16, 2011 9:10 pm

    “Q. Do you know whether or not your lawyer was trying to pressure Mr. Jackson by threatening bad publicity? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever hear of anything like that going on? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. So if that went on, you’d be shocked, true? A. Probably not, sir. Q. Probably not? A. I guess not, no. 5252 (5-16)”

    Like

  98. shelly permalink
    June 16, 2011 9:08 pm

    He did or he didn’t?

    “Q. Do you remember stipulating and agreeing that you had personally acted with fraud, oppression and malice against Mr. Jackson? A. Probably so, sir. Q. You did that, didn’t you? A. No, sir. Q. You didn’t stipulate that you had acted with fraud, oppression, and malice against Mr. Jackson in that case? A. Well, yes, sir.”

    Like

  99. shelly permalink
    June 16, 2011 8:58 pm

    Chacon again on cross exam

    “Q. Did Mr. Sneddon tell you what questions he was going to ask you today? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you tell him what answers you were going to give to those questions? A. No, sir. Q. Did you tell him anything about how you were going to respond? A. I just told him that I would speak the truth. Q. That’s it? 10 A. Yes, sir. … Q. Okay. He told you what questions he was going to ask you, correct? A. I believe so, yes, sir. Q. You told him what your responses were going to be, right? A. Yes, sir. 5254-5255 (27-10, 18-23)”

    Like

  100. shelly permalink
    June 16, 2011 8:50 pm

    Ralph Chacon

    “There was one exchange where Mesereau clearly thought Chacon was B.S.-ing when talking about his actions. He asked Chacon, “you knew people were making money [selling stories to the tabloids], right?” Chacon replied, “No sir.” To which Mesereau replied, “Thought they were doing it all for free, right, Mr. Chacon?” (p 5242)”.

    http://site2.mjeol.com/highlight-history/graphic-testimony-turns-into-a-pile-of-garbage-on-cross-mjeol-bullet-257.html

    Like

  101. hana permalink
    June 15, 2011 9:31 am

    No it means that he’s a liar. Nobody with law enforcement training would sit back and let innocent children get abused. He also admitted that he brought his kids to neverland during an employee event called “family fun day” and this was after he claimed he saw kids getting abused. I honestly don’t understand why any of these liars weren’t charged with perjury.

    Like

  102. lynande51 permalink
    June 15, 2011 1:05 am

    That he doesn’t understand that an adult can’t stand around and watch and not intervene. No wonder he wasn’t a police officer anymore.

    Like

  103. hana permalink
    June 14, 2011 11:33 pm

    Kassim abdool admitted that he was a former police officer..what does that tell you about his credibility?

    Like

  104. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 11:29 pm

    @lynande,

    It’s the main problem with karma.

    Like

  105. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 11:27 pm

    Like

  106. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 11:27 pm

    It’s from Mesereau when he was fighting against the 1108

    Like

  107. Alison permalink
    June 14, 2011 11:21 pm

    @Lynande51 and Shelly:
    “Just think about it for a minute and try to imagine how you would preserve such a thing and the resulting aroma if you did? Makes me wonder about the people living in that house with her. LOL”

    – no, no, no, you are forgetting whose it was, it would have had the aroma of roses and angels!
    LOL!

    but i agree, seriously doubtful the collection existed! nobody would even keep their own never mind someone else’s!! the woman is insane.

    .

    Like

  108. lynande51 permalink
    June 14, 2011 11:14 pm

    Poor Adrian she had no idea that she would talk to VG and he would literally “run” with a story. LOL

    Like

  109. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 11:11 pm

    @lynande,

    Can you imagine when she has friends at her home and she shows them her MJ memorabilia. Can you imagine the face of her friends? Specially if they just finish dinner?

    Like

  110. lynande51 permalink
    June 14, 2011 10:45 pm

    @ Shelly, I know. Just think about it for a minute and try to imagine how you would preserve such a thing and the resulting aroma if you did? Makes me wonder about the people living in that house with her. LOL

    Like

  111. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 10:27 pm

    @lynande51,

    I agree but that part of the book makes me laugh so hard.

    Like

  112. lynande51 permalink
    June 14, 2011 10:09 pm

    You know I really doubt that McManus had a collection of diarrhea tampons.LOL

    Like

  113. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 9:51 pm

    You know I really doubt that he saw McManus collection of tampons with diarrhea

    Like

  114. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 9:49 pm

    @vindicate,

    Yes it’s from Abdool’s testimony. I don’t know for Gutierrez because he took what people told him and obviously creates his own story.

    Like

  115. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 9:45 pm

    “. I don’t knowabout you but it would seem to me that a mere three dollars an hour was not bribery.”

    I believe they did that to avoid having employee talking to the media.

    As for Sneddon, he implied it at least 2 times.

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/041805respdasuppmot.pdf

    Like

  116. June 14, 2011 9:37 pm

    17 Q. And you said that no one working at the
    18 ranch had ever complained about Mr. Jackson doing
    19 anything sexual with children, correct?
    20 A. Right. No, that was before I went to the
    21 grand jury, before I think, before I met with Mr. –
    22 in Mr. Sanger’s office.
    23 Q. The date was January 13th, 1994, right?

    Guys, I am learning so much from you now – you can’t imagine it!
    Shelly, is it part of Abdool’s testimony? If it was Abdool then his statement that “no one working at the ranch had ever complained about Mr. Jackson doing anything sexual with children” is a marvellous rebuttal to his own words in Victor Gutierrez’s book where he allegedly said:

    “When Jordie was visiting that night, I already knew what was going on, and when he called me by radio, I felt sorry for Jordie and Brett, because I knew what he was doing to them in that room.”

    So according to Gutierrez “he knew”, “he felt sorry” and according to Abdool not only him, but all others at the ranch never complained about anything sexual? And not with those two boys, but all children in general?

    Of course Abdool is making a reservation that “it was before the grand jury” and “before he met Mr. Sanger” but it only proves out point – these people didn’t see anything until they met the “right people” or until some money ideas entered their minds.

    Guys, I am reading your comments with great interest and am awfully grateful to you for keeping up the work while I got distracted a little bit by some other things (I am forced to take breaks now and you should know that it gives me terrible pangs of conscience). But I hope that post # 3 about VG’s book will be coming in a few days.

    Like

  117. lynande51 permalink
    June 14, 2011 9:18 pm

    There was more than one reason that Sneddon wanted to introduce the meeting with Michael’s attorneys during the 1993 investigation. One was because he wanted people to think that these people had been pushed to tell a certain story when in fact they weren’t.He was implying that they (the lawyers) attempted to cover up or buy witnesses. He even implies that Michaelbought these people off when he askes if they got raises after there testimony. I don’t knowabout you but it would seem to me that a mere three dollars an hour was not bribery. Number 2 and this is a little hint about my article on Sneddon. In the brief where he seeks to introduce the testimony of Kassim Abdool ( he was not mentioned in the original Peoples brief to admit the 1108 evidence that is why his testimony comes two weeks later) he is talking about him being interviewed by Michael Jackson’s attorney’s. Kassim Abdool and the prosecution say that Bob Sanger, Michaels second chair, was in the meeting. In his reply he corrects that and says that Steve Cochran and Eric Mason used a conference room at his office for the interviews. Wh ydoes that even matter? Well if a lawyer has to become a witness in the case he is trying he must be recused. I will add more to that when I post my article. Unfortunately I was called to work Monday and was not able to finish my article. I will have it finished soon.

    Like

  118. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 8:46 pm

    My point if those meetings were as bad as Sneddon tried to imply, why did he do nothing? I mean when you read the direct testimony you have the feeling that he knew those people were coached.

    Like

  119. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 8:35 pm

    ” Q. Does the statement you read refresh your

    16 recollection about the statement you signed?

    17 A. Yes, sir.

    18 Q. Okay. And that is your signature on the

    19 statement, correct?

    20 A. Yes, sir.

    21 Q. You told representatives of Mr. Jackson that

    22 you’d never seen Mr. Jackson touch any child in a

    23 sexual manner or in any way that could be construed

    24 as sexual, correct?

    25 A. That’s what I wrote, yeah. I signed to

    26 that, yes.

    27 Q. You said you’d never seen Mr. Jackson

    28 unclothed or in the company of unclothed children, 7419

    1 correct?

    2 A. Yes. I mean, when I say “unclothed,” naked.

    3 If you have on pants, that’s not unclothed.

    4 Q. But you said you’d never seen Mr. Jackson

    5 unclothed or in the company of an unclothed child,

    6 correct?

    7 A. Yes.

    8 Q. You said you’d seen Mr. Jackson play with

    9 children, right?

    10 A. Yes, sir.

    11 Q. You said he plays as if he’s a child

    12 himself, correct?

    13 A. Yes.BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Do you remember

    4 signing a statement that discussed what you’d seen

    5 of Jordie Chandler at Neverland?

    6 A. I remember signing a statement. I believe

    7 that statement that I signed was not at Mr. — when

    8 I met with the attorneys. That was a statement that

    9 was prepared by the investigator in his handwriting.

    10 Yes, I did sign it.

    11 Q. And you also corrected the statement before

    12 you signed it, true?

    13 A. My name, I corrected it, yes.

    14 Q. You said you’d never seen Mr. Jackson engage

    15 in anything sexual with Jordie Chandler, correct?

    16 A. Yes.

    17 Q. And you said that no one working at the

    18 ranch had ever complained about Mr. Jackson doing

    19 anything sexual with children, correct?

    20 A. Right. No, that was before I went to the

    21 grand jury, before I think, before I met with Mr. —

    22 in Mr. Sanger’s office.

    23 Q. The date was January 13th, 1994, right?

    Like

  120. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 8:33 pm

    “Q. Do you recall signing a statement on January

    13 13th, 1994?

    14 A. No, sir.

    15 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

    16 you —

    17 A. Sure.

    18 Q. — a statement?”

    Like

  121. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 8:30 pm

    “Q. How many meetings did you have with any

    23 representatives of Mr. Jackson before you testified

    24 before the Los Angeles County Grand Jury in May of

    25 1994?

    26 A. Two meetings.

    27 Q. Okay.

    28 A. Three. Three meetings. 7415

    1 Q. And you told the truth —

    2 A. Yes.

    3 Q. — in all of your discussions at those

    4 meetings, correct?

    5 A. Yes, sir.

    6 Q. You told the truth about what you had

    7 observed at Neverland, right?

    8 A. Yes, sir”.

    Like

  122. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 8:28 pm

    “10 occasion you met at Mr. Sanger’s office in Santa

    11 Barbara, correct?

    12 A. Yes, sir.

    13 Q. And you told the prosecutor that present

    14 were Attorney Steve Cochran, correct?

    15 A. Yes, sir.

    16 Q. And an investigator, right?

    17 A. Yes, sir.

    18 Q. And you told the prosecutor that in response

    19 to questions asked of you by Mr. Cochran and the

    20 investigator, you said you would tell the truth,

    21 correct?

    22 A. Yes, sir.”

    Like

  123. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 8:21 pm

    This is from Abdool testimony, so they all said in 1994 it was Barnes.

    “Q. Now, between the time that you received that

    6 subpoena and the time that you actually appeared

    7 before the grand jury to testify, okay?

    8 A. Okay.

    9 Q. We’re talking about that time frame.

    10 A. Yes.

    11 Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Chacon,

    12 Ralph Chacon, about what he saw the night that you

    13 found the swimming trunks side by side in the rest

    14 room?”

    Like

  124. hana permalink
    June 14, 2011 6:29 pm

    @lanande

    Is it true that during the deliberations, the prosecution was talking about Michael’s “sagging” music career? This was mentioned by meseraeu during his closing.

    Like

  125. lynande51 permalink
    June 14, 2011 4:33 pm

    Yes Kassim Abdool changed it to Jordan too.

    Like

  126. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 8:30 am

    There is something that I don’t get. Did Abdool changed his testimony too? If I remember well he said he spoke to Chacon before going to the grand jury in 1994. In 1994, Chacon said he saw Mj and Barnes. Did Abdool said it was jordy or brett?

    Like

  127. June 13, 2011 11:00 pm

    19 Q. And it turned out to be a tape involving

    20 your son and some music.

    LMAO

    Like

  128. shelly permalink
    June 13, 2011 10:23 pm

    So contrary to what some people think MJ had the right to make a statement after the settlement

    Like

  129. shelly permalink
    June 13, 2011 9:47 pm

    It’s from Kassim Abdool cross examination

    “Q. Now, do you remember in your civil trial a

    15 tape was produced that you claim had some threats on

    16 it?

    17 A. I vaguely remember. I remember there was a

    18 tape, yes.

    19 Q. And it turned out to be a tape involving

    20 your son and some music. Do you remember that?

    21 A. Could be, yeah.

    22 Q. There was no threat at all, correct?

    23 A. Probably, yeah. I don’t recall, but it’s

    24 fine.”

    Like

  130. shelly permalink
    June 13, 2011 6:56 am

    Like

  131. shelly permalink
    June 13, 2011 6:55 am

    From the settlement again

    Like

  132. shelly permalink
    June 13, 2011 6:54 am

    Lynande is right and I should have said so, I took it from the lawsuit.

    It’s from the settlement document

    Like

  133. lynande51 permalink
    June 13, 2011 5:04 am

    To Suzy , yes it is from the original lawsuit not the settlement. You know when DD was out there mixing the 2 together someone should have asked her where the original lawsuit was because it had not been leaked yet so how did she know what it said?

    Like

  134. lynande51 permalink
    June 13, 2011 4:48 am

    Yes they were and it was never put better than that. That case was bullshit and he KNEW it. Sneddon was what we call here a “good ol boy”. It started showing to the public during jury selection when he was able to have every potential black jury member recused except for the one alternate. He was pleased and the real newspeople there said it. It was evident in his folksy rhetoric when addressing the jury and questioning the witnesses he liked. In several of the documents that he submitted to the court the disdain the prosecution felt for Michael dripped from the legal brief with words like “self serving hearsay” and even better,” fawning, self serving hearsay”. He was talking about anything other than the words from the Bashir documentary ” I sleep with boys”. Those were the only words he wanted presented to the jury for the truth as if it were a “confession” of some sort . Whenever they replied to a Motion from the defense you would have thought they expected Michael to read them or at least hoped he would. I hope he didn’t. I can tell you that he was sexist . Whenever Susan Yu submitted a brief their reply was written in a tone so patronizing I was surprised when I didn’t see them write ” oh look at her isn’t she cute, acting like a grown up lawyer”. Where there is one obvious type of prejudice the others are not far behind. The truth behind the Ralph Chacon story says it all. He allowed, and probably agreed that Jordan and Brett looked identical because to him all black or mixed race people look alike. That is the oldest and truest demonstration of racisim there is.

    Like

  135. Suzy permalink
    June 13, 2011 4:23 am

    So what Shelly linked in is from the lawsuit, not the settlement, right?

    Like

  136. nan permalink
    June 13, 2011 4:13 am

    Thank you for clarifying that ,,this, i am afraid, was part of MJ problem.This thing is.not something that can be cleared up in a soundbite….. not happy to say in my opinion , MJ could never prove his innocence, with the people running these two investigations……I know Mesereau attributed it to his wealth and status., that they came after him with such a vengeance,and originally I thought that too,,,..but bigotry was behind this thing for certain..
    ..When you see dimond dissecting the color of his childrens skin on national tv,and you consider her close friendship with sneddon..well I think that is what they had in common….anything that would have cleared him was rejected and that rejection was approved, and encouraged by a fellow bigot…jmo …mj song am i scary for you ? he knew what it was all about …t mezz probably knew it all along but didnt think it would be prudent for the defense to point it out to the general public…….i dont know if i saw this on this site or somewhere else but this matt tiabi article is right on the money………………………………………………………….
    #

    *
    “Ostensibly a story about bringing a child molester to justice, the Michael Jackson trial would instead be a kind of homecoming parade of insipid American types grifters, suckers and no-talent schemers, mired in either outright unemployment… or the bogus non-careers of the information age, looking to cash in any way they can.The MC of the proceedings was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, whose metaphorical role in this American reality show was to represent the mean gray heart of the Nixonian Silent Majority – the bitter mediocrity itching to stick it to anyone who’d ever taken a vacation to Paris.

    The first month or so of the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case – almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse. The early witnesses against Jackson included a bodyguard who missed court because he was in custody facing charges stemming from a series of armed robberies, including holding up a Jack in the Box at gunpoint; a former Neverland maid who’d stolen a sketch Jackson had made of Elvis Presley and sold it to the tabloids for thirty grand; another former employee who’d lost a wrongful-termination suit against Jackson and had to pay part of a $1.4 million settlement as a result.

    And then there was the very key figure in the case, the accuser’s mother, who had to plead the Fifth Amendment on the first day of her testimony to avoid cross-examination on a welfare-fraud allegation – a witness so completely full of sh—t that Sneddon’s own assistants cringed openly throughout most of her five days of testimony. In the next six weeks, virtually every piece of his case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles.

    Sneddon’s hard-on for Jackson was a faith-based vengeance grab every bit as blind and desperate as George Bush’s “case” against Saddam Hussein. If Ahmad Chalabi had ever been to Neverland, Sneddon would have put him on the stand too.

    His case was bullsh—t. California vs. Jackson turned out to be basically a tale of a family of low-rent grifters trying to lay a criminal-molestation charge on a rich celebrity as a prelude to a civil suit.”

    Excerpt from “The Nation in the Mirror” Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone. Iss. 977/978 New York:

    Like

  137. lynande51 permalink
    June 13, 2011 3:36 am

    In other word if you are found to have a liability and the claim is negligence it means that you did not act as any other person reasonably acts. So you were found liable because of negligence.When you read this is removes the Chandler’s charges of sexual M****.

    Like

  138. lynande51 permalink
    June 13, 2011 3:31 am

    Right. Negligence is a legal term and has it’s own legal definition it doesn’t need another one.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Negligence
    .

    Like

  139. nan permalink
    June 13, 2011 3:24 am

    that is what i was wondering..did dimond confuse this and present it to sneddon as if that was part of the settlement??.the actual settlement is not really confusing..to me the way tom mesereau broke it down,it makes perfect sense……,but i think somehow dimond inserted wrong info and it seems to me that sneddon, just my opinion,jumped at it ..

    Like

  140. lynande51 permalink
    June 13, 2011 3:14 am

    You are all doing the same thing that Diane Dimond and Tom Sneddon did. You are taking the Original lawsuits definition of negligence and adding it to the Settlement Agreement. It was redefined in the agreement they are 2 different things.. Read page five paragraph g. to start with. then read how ever many times it defines negligence and separates it from the allegations. I think it is repeated four times.

    Like

  141. lynande51 permalink
    June 13, 2011 2:33 am

    Where is that portion of the original lawsuit?

    Like

  142. nan permalink
    June 13, 2011 2:23 am

    hi i just wanted to ask a quick question to make sure i understand,,the 7th clause that says mj was negligent for doing something illegal to the minor …this was not in the final settlement of course, , was removed..but dimond got a hold of old paperwork, before it was removed, so she thought mj had admitted to this and showed it to sneddon?and sneddon thought mj had admitted to this in a settlement which is why he thought the monetary amount was so much to the family as opposed to being because they were tying up lucrative endorsements.?

    Like

  143. Teva permalink
    June 13, 2011 1:01 am

    This is getting confusing. The 7th clause was part of the final settlement?

    Like

  144. shelly permalink
    June 13, 2011 12:13 am

    I think we should ask Lisa to explain the settlement a little bit.

    Like

  145. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 11:44 pm

    Like

  146. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 11:43 pm

    This the 7th cause

    Like

  147. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 11:34 pm

    @teva,

    Yes it came from the Internet

    Like

  148. lynande51 permalink
    June 12, 2011 11:29 pm

    Actually the 7th was for bodily injury from emotional distress caused by negligence.
    Yeah desperate but so typical of Sneddon.

    Like

  149. Teva permalink
    June 12, 2011 11:19 pm

    ” They downloaded it from the Internet.” – Shelly

    So the final agreement was even sealed from the prosecutor in a criminal trial? I guess it makes sense since the courts approved it being that way, and a civil suit has nothing to do with a criminal. I remembered MJ’s lawyers wanted the judge to bar the prosecution from the testimonies during the civil trial, so that Michael’s defense would not be exposed, but the judge denied the motion. Therefore, it might be within the court’s descretion to prevent Sneddon from access to the copy.

    Damn the internet!! Sneddon got his copy from the internet?!!! That’s desperate.

    Like

  150. lynande51 permalink
    June 12, 2011 10:37 pm

    Geez when you think about what I just wrote these people weren’t even good to each other. Wow.

    Like

  151. lynande51 permalink
    June 12, 2011 10:32 pm

    Absolutely correct. They even say in the motion for the settlement document that they got their copy off the internet but they wanted the whole thing bascially. Maybe theyshould have had Diane give it to them she had it.LOL

    Like

  152. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 10:20 pm

    @teva,

    Even thoug they let the 7th cause of action pending (it’s where he according to the lawsuit, he sexuality molested Jordan with negligence (I am sorry I don’t remember the wording), the document said he settled over the claim of negligence and not ” intentional or wrongful” act of molestation. There is also a paragraph where he denied everything.

    “3. DD supplied Sneddon with the Settlement agreement? There was no legal way for Sneddon to get his hands on the seal version?” They downloaded it from the Internet.

    Like

  153. lynande51 permalink
    June 12, 2011 10:19 pm

    Don’t worry I am going to put his testimony in my piece I am writing. I was going to tell you that he evensays in the one part that there was a book they were writing. Yes his testimony says that and much more. The Chandler’s had the book written before Settlement talks even started or Michael’s lawyers would not have needed to take them into consideration.Prett ygutsy when you think about them not having a happy ending yet.

    Like

  154. Teva permalink
    June 12, 2011 10:09 pm

    “Guys we don’t need Feldman to say anything. The resolution of a civil dispute has nothing to do with admission of guilt by the law.”

    At some point DD/Orth is going to publish another hate piece on MJ; Feldman’s are good points to show their readers.

    Like

  155. Teva permalink
    June 12, 2011 10:05 pm

    “You’re dying the death of a thousands razors up there and you don’t even know.” – Lincoln Lawyer

    I find it amazing that all of this was coming out in court, and Sneddon, Zonen & company had the audacity to go out and have a pre-verdict party!

    So correct me if I am wrong:
    1. Michael did NOT admit to guilt in the settlement agreement like Sneddon was implying in his motion?
    2. The N5 could not be prosecuted for perjury because they changed the accuser from Barnes to Chandler, and he was not present to deny/admit allegations. Chacon said Barnes and Chandler looked alike that is why he got confused, so how does he really know who or what he saw if he is dealing with “identical twins”.
    3. DD supplied Sneddon with the Settlement agreement? There was no legal way for Sneddon to get his hands on the seal version?

    This is an aside. I think the prosecution deliberates chose pictures of Gavin, Francia, and Jordan that looked similar to server their purpose, they could have found pictures that showed obvious dis-similarity.

    Like

  156. June 12, 2011 9:41 pm

    Guys we don’t need Feldman to say anything. The resolution of a civil dispute has nothing to do with admission of guilt by the law.

    Like

  157. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 9:30 pm

    It was during his testimony in 2005

    http://www.box.net/shared/09zmi31anq#/shared/09zmi31anq/2/9455516/94502092/1

    Like

  158. ares permalink
    June 12, 2011 9:26 pm

    Very interesting .Shelly can you post the link of site that you found it. Somebody should quote Larry’s words and use them on their post because he is basically saying what people have been saying all this time.

    Like

  159. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:59 pm

    @ares

    It’s Larry Feldman

    Like

  160. ares permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:48 pm

    -the parents to get the money so that the parents

    22 would be bound by the settlement agreement, so that

    23 the parents couldn’t talk, that the parents couldn’t

    24 write a book, the parents couldn’t go — I mean, we

    25 weren’t precluded from talking to the police. We

    26 were just — they weren’t able to write a book.

    27 They weren’t able to go on television. –

    Shelly, who said this?

    Like

  161. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:30 pm

    “It’s an interesting info, Shelly. I didn’t know Rothman has been disbarred.”

    Yes, it gave more credit to what Geraldine Hugues said.

    Like

  162. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:23 pm

    That part should shut up all the haters

    “HE WITNESS: They told us that they wanted

    21 the parents to get the money so that the parents

    22 would be bound by the settlement agreement, so that

    23 the parents couldn’t talk, that the parents couldn’t

    24 write a book, the parents couldn’t go — I mean, we

    25 weren’t precluded from talking to the police. We

    26 were just — they weren’t able to write a book.

    27 They weren’t able to go on television. They weren’t

    28 able to do anything. And they wanted the parents 4604

    1 bound.

    2 And it’s because of that that I brought in a

    3 retired Court of Appeal Judge to become the new

    4 guardian ad litems, because I didn’t want the

    5 parents taking anything away from the child.”

    Like

  163. Suzy permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:11 pm

    It’s an interesting info, Shelly. I didn’t know Rothman has been disbarred.

    Like

  164. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:06 pm

    Q. And Attorney Barry Rothman has since been

    2 disbarred, correct?

    3 A. I don’t know. Has he?

    4 Q. Yes.

    Like

  165. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:06 pm

    I love that

    “Q. They advised the family that Gloria Allred

    9 was the wrong lawyer and they should come to you,

    10 correct?

    11 A. That’s what I understand.”

    Like

  166. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:00 pm

    It’s about the retainer agreement

    “Q. And in most of those situations, you had

    15 what is called a contingency fee arrangement,

    16 correct?

    17 A. Oh, I’m sure. Yeah. Over the life of my

    18 legal career, that’s absolutely right.

    19 Q. And generally speaking, in a contingency fee

    20 arrangement, the plaintiffs’ lawyer in these cases,

    21 namely you, get a percentage of whatever is

    22 recovered for the client, true?

    23 A. Yes.

    24 Q. And in a strict contingency fee arrangement,

    25 if the lawyer doesn’t obtain any money for the

    26 client, the lawyer might not get paid anything,

    27 correct?

    28 A. Correct. 4547”

    Like

  167. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 7:56 pm

    21 A. We had the settlement language that said

    22 that, and we had a confession of judgment.

    23 Q. You had settlement language that said

    24 neither side admits wrongdoing to the other, and you

    25 also had the confession of judgment you just

    26 described, true?

    27 A. True.

    Like

  168. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 7:55 pm

    Q. And if payments are to be made in the future

    21 by any settling party, you would almost be foolish

    22 not to have a confession of judgment, correct?

    23 A. I don’t know. We’ll let somebody else worry

    24 about who’s foolish. We did it. We thought it was

    25 the appropriate thing. We demanded it. We got it.

    26 Q. Please answer my question, Mr. Feldman.

    27 A. I don’t know what’s foolish for lawyers to

    28 do. I mean, I haven’t thought about it. It’s a 4538

    1 good practice – I did it – to get it. I mean, I

    2 demand to get it for my clients. That’s all I can

    3 tell you.

    4 Q. You demand to get it for your clients

    5 because if payments were to stop, you would have a

    6 faster way —

    7 A. Sure.

    8 Q. — to obtain that value than you would if

    9 you had to sue for breach of a settlement agreement,

    10 right?

    11 A. Yes. That’s what I think I’m saying.

    12 Q. And when you have your clients get a

    13 confession of judgment in a settlement agreement in

    14 a civil case, typically there also is a provision

    15 where neither side admits any wrongdoing to each

    16 other, right?

    17 A. The settlement agreement will say that,

    18 that’s correct.

    19 Q. And that’s what you had in 1993 in the

    20 Chandler case, correct?

    Like

  169. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 7:54 pm

    1 is — my concern was the making sure, if the money

    2 wasn’t paid by Mr. Jackson, we could go into court

    3 and start seizing his assets. That didn’t happen.

    4 He paid. It never happened.

    5 Q. Would you agree that in many civil

    6 settlements of civil cases, you will have both the

    7 provision that says neither side admits wrongdoing

    8 or liability as well as a confession of judgment?

    9 A. It’s rare you get a confession of judgment.

    10 It is very — typical that you get neither party

    11 admits wrongdoing in a release. It’s typical. You

    12 don’t need the confession, because you usually

    13 exchange the release and the money at the same time.

    14 So there isn’t that issue.

    15 Q. But you need a confession of judgment if you

    16 want to secure payments to be made in the future,

    17 right?

    18 A. That you need. That’s right. And that’s

    19 what we got.

    Like

  170. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 7:53 pm

    Q. And typically in a civil settlement, and

    2 you’ve done many of them, obviously, there is a

    3 provision in the settlement agreement which says

    4 that neither side admits liability, or words to that

    5 effect, correct?

    6 A. Generally. Not every one, but generally

    7 that’s true.

    8 Q. And essentially what that means is neither

    9 side admits wrongdoing, correct?

    10 A. Correct.

    11 Q. And the confession of judgment has nothing

    12 to do with an admission of wrongdoing or liability?

    13 A. Well, it would have the same impact if you

    14 had to file it. It would be a judgment for that

    15 amount. I don’t know what impact it’s going to

    16 later be. I’ve never handled a case where you filed

    17 a confession of judgment, and then somebody tried to

    18 use that in another case to say you admitted

    19 something. I frankly don’t know the answer.

    20 Q. It’s never used to say someone admitted

    21 something. It’s simply used to collect the money

    22 you’re owed, right?

    23 A. Sir, I just told you, I’ve never researched

    24 that issue, and — so you can’t — you got the wrong

    25 person. I’ve never had someone where I had to go

    26 use it.

    27 I didn’t have to use it with Mr. Jackson, so

    28 I can’t tell you the answer. I know it’s — it 4537

    Like

  171. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 7:38 pm

    I am reading the Feldman testimony. I guess Sneddon didn’t like that part about the confession of judgment

    “21 So in the Michael Jackson case, because

    22 there were payments going to take place —

    23 Q. Let’s stay away from all that area, okay?

    Like

  172. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 7:56 am

    “Then ask yourself why we have never seen this document if it implied guilt which is what Sneddon was trying to do.”

    I think Feldman said under cross examination that it had nothing to do with guilt.

    Like

  173. lynande51 permalink
    June 12, 2011 3:01 am

    Shelly, that’s just a hunch based on a couple of questions you have to ask. All the testimony has to have foundation based on evidence or knowledge of an event. Now ask yourself why the documents that were stolen by Chacon were brought up? I mean the watch he stole was the greater value of the stolen items ( it was more than a candy bar). Then ask yourself why the Confession of Judgement was even brought into the testimony, and it was introduced by the prosecution not the defense. All the defense did was clarify the purpose of a Confession of Judgement. Go read Feldmans testimony (you can ignore the fawning, self serving hearsay, about his resume`,there is a reason I call it that, but he is very full of himself and I will show you the document in a few days). When Sneddon is asking question on direct he introduces this Confession of Judgement and Feldman (who obviously like to hear himself talk) makes the explanation very long and very vague. He almost tries to evade answering any questions about it’s purpose when he is being crossexamined.Then ask yourself why we have never seen this document if it implied guilt which is what Sneddon was trying to do. How did he know it existed if he got his copy of the settlement from the internet, which is what they say when they are argueing the admissability of the settlement document to the judge. Then go look up what a Confession of judgement is and you will figure it out.

    Like

  174. hana permalink
    June 12, 2011 2:23 am

    “I’m completely innocent. All these stories are totally fabricated. There’s a lot of conspiracy going around. A whole lot if it, and its extremely painful”—-Michael Jackson

    Poor michael. Had to sit in that courtroom day after day listening to all those liars spew their disgusting foolishness. I wish he would have taken the stand and dispute it all.

    Like

  175. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 2:18 am

    @lynande,

    How did you know Chacon gave documents to Sneddon?

    Like

  176. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 1:27 am

    ” I wonder if it was Howard Weitzmen or Johnny cochran /Carl Douglas that told him to do that?”

    Weitzman said he was against the settlement, but he had to work with a team.

    Like

  177. lynande51 permalink
    June 12, 2011 1:21 am

    The Confession of Judgement was a separate document apart from the Confidential Settlement. A Confession of Judgement is a document that says that the defendent says that the plaintiffs have the right to a settlement and waives his right to trial. It has more to do with collecting payment. In the 1994 Settlement Larry Feldman demanded one because the payments were to be over an extended period of time. The reason he demanded it is because if the defendent decides not to pay they can take it to court and say look here it is pay up without suing for a material breech of the previous Settlement. Most of the time they don’t allow this but he demanded it because Michael was going to have his insurance company pay for it but in the event they didn’t he would have to pay the amount himself. Michael’s attorneys have to okay this and he has to okay it to. In his testimony Larry Feldman also says that all of this was determined by the Guardian Ad Litem and the lawyers.In spite of what people think it was Michael’s lawyers that wanted Evan and June to each get money so the would be bound by the confidentiality agreement. It seemed they were already aware that they were writing a book. I think it was the Confession of Judgementthat we have never seen that Chacon took to Sneddon and because he only ever practiced law as a prosecutor he did not understand the actual meaning of it. In Feldmans testimony it is clear that everything Tom Mesereau says about it is true: Michael got very bad business and legal advice n 1994. I wonder if it was Howard Weitzmen or Johnny cochran /Carl Douglas that told him to do that? The reason I ask is because in his Grand Jury testimony Feldman says that he was representing Johnny Cochran at the same time that Cochran was representing Michael. That is a conflict of interest and he should have recused himself from that case. However in his court testimony he implies that he represented him after the case by saying it was around the time of OJ that he represented him. Well Michael’s case was around the time of the OJ case to so that should have been more specific and it was started in 1995

    Like

  178. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 12:53 am

    “I wonder if it was somethingcalled a Confession of Judgement?”

    It’s what I thought too, but why not selling it before 2004?

    Like

  179. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 12:51 am

    “However in his peoples brief for the admission of the 1108/1101 evidence he clearly says that Ralph Chacon testified on front of the Santa Barbara Grand Jury.”

    Yes, but Mesereau siad he spoke in front of a Grand Jury. It’s very confusing.

    Like

  180. lynande51 permalink
    June 12, 2011 12:36 am

    Yes and besides a candy bar or two the testimony says he stole documents which he called “memos” from his work mailbox. Right just memos, right. LOL. I wonder if it was somethingcalled a Confession of Judgement?

    Like

  181. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 12:15 am

    Lol at that

    “15 Q. A judgment was entered against you, Mr.

    16 Chacon, for $25,000, the value of what you had

    17 stolen, correct?

    18 A. For candy bars, sir?

    19 Q. A judgment was entered against you for

    20 $25,000, the value of what the Court found you had

    21 stolen, correct?

    22 A. Well, if a candy bar is worth that much,

    23 yes, sir.”

    Like

  182. lynande51 permalink
    June 12, 2011 12:15 am

    Right, in his testimony he and Sneddon say that he swore an oath that his statement was true. There was 3 people in that room when he supposedly did that, him Sneddon and Birchim. However in his peoples brief for the admission of the 1108/1101 evidence he clearly says that Ralph Chacon testified on front of the Santa Barbara Grand Jury. That whole testimony should have been inadmissable ( thrown out) when it was shown that he tailored the eyewitness account and deliberately mislead the court.

    Like

  183. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 12:09 am

    I love that

    “Q. So what did you see occur at that point in

    22 time?

    23 A. Well, I saw that Mr. Jackson and Brett —

    24 I mean Jordie got off the cart. And Kassim noticed

    25 that they were back, so he just headed back to the

    26 security — security office.

    27 And Mr. Jackson and the boy were in front of

    28 the — they call it the Peter Pan display. It’s a 5194

    1 window where Peter Pan lights up.”

    Like

  184. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:57 pm

    And do you recall where Mr. Jackson was the

    22 first time that you saw him that evening?

    23 A. He was headed for the Jacuzzi.

    24 Q. And do you know whether or not he was alone

    25 or with someone?

    26 A. He was with someone.

    27 Q. And when you say he was with someone, do you

    28 know who that was? 5167

    1 A. Yes, sir.

    2 Q. Who was that?

    3 A. That was Jordie.

    Like

  185. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:52 pm

    In fact Chacon never testified in front of a grand jury

    “Now, you told the ladies and gentlemen of

    26 the jury that you did not appear before the Los

    27 Angeles County Grand Jury. Did you at some time

    28 make a statement under oath with regard to what you 5165

    1 observed?

    2 A. Yes, sir, I did.

    3 Q. And do you recall when that was?

    4 A. I believe it was ‘94. I’m not for certain.

    5 It’s been a while.

    6 Q. Do you recall whether it was at or about the

    7 time when you were supposed to appear before the

    8 grand jury?

    9 A. Oh. Yes, sir. It was probably the day

    10 after.

    11 Q. And do you recall where it was that you were

    12 interviewed?

    13 A. In Santa Barbara.

    14 Q. And do you recall who was present during the

    15 time that you were interviewed?

    16 A. Well, the only ones that I remember is

    17 yourself and Mr. Birchim.

    18 Q. And was that statement given under oath?

    19 A. Yes, sir.”

    Like

  186. lynande51 permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:28 pm

    The way I understand the law, in order to find one or more of the Neverland Five guilty of perjury you have to have impeaching testimony( testimony against what they say). When they changed their “eyewitness” testimony to saying that it was Jordan that they had seen to impeach them Jordan would have had to testify that they did not see what they say they saw. Then the court has to make a determination if the testimony had an effect on the outcome of the verdict.In the instructions to the jury, and during the determination of the admissability of the 1108 eveidence, Judge Melville carefully instructs the jury that the 1108 testimony can only be used to solidify the truth of the complaining witnesses. In other words they had to first believe the Arvizo’s. They did not as a matter of fact the only testimony the jury wanted read back was his. It was his testimony that blew the case for the prosecution not the mothers. If the verdict is guilty and in this case if that testimony was what determined the verdict then when it could have been proven that it was perjury they could have had the verdict overturned and charged them with perjury.
    They were proven perjurers in the Neverland Five trial. During that trial and testimony, one of the female plaintiffs was found to have contradicted her own testimony from morning to afternoon. All of them were found to have contradicted not just their own but each others testimony and committed extortion right in the courtroom.
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/061305juryreqs.pdf

    Like

  187. Julie permalink
    June 11, 2011 10:50 pm

    Oh ok. Sorry I misunderstood your post. I agree with you!

    Like

  188. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 8:16 pm

    @julie

    My point was about the stupidity of their statement. LMP would have stayed in his bedroom if he was trying to convince his staff that he had a real relationship with her. Their all statement is bogus.

    Like

  189. Julie permalink
    June 11, 2011 6:52 pm

    Shelly – if MJ and LMP were not married at the time there is nothing wrong with her sleeping in the guest unit. I believe LMP stated that she never lived at Neverland — only went there for visits, etc. and that Michael lived with her at her house in LA. I remember Diane Sawyer asking her after the divorce about it and LMP stated that whenever MJ was in LA — he was with her. I don’t give any credence to anything Adrian McManus or any of those people said before, during or after the trial. They were all liars.

    Like

  190. Suzy permalink
    June 11, 2011 6:11 pm

    Thanks, Shelly.

    Like

  191. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 6:00 pm

    She stopped working the last day of July 1994.

    Like

  192. Suzy permalink
    June 11, 2011 5:54 pm

    Until when did McManus work for Michael?

    Like

  193. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 5:25 pm

    By the way if you want to convince that you have sex with your wife you don’t let your wife sleep in the guest unit.

    Like

  194. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 11, 2011 4:49 pm

    Those people admitted they lied under oath but they were never charged for that. MJ was never charged for doing that.

    MJ Wasnt charged for what????

    Like

  195. June 11, 2011 4:34 pm

    Were the kinky sex secrets that story they sold way back about how MJ would stuff women’s underwear underneath his bed in order for the maid to find them and think he and Lisa were having sex? LOL

    Because I know when I’m only pretending to have sex but want people to think I’m really having sex with a person then I stuff their underwear down the back of my bed in the hopes that the maid will get the hint and circulate the story.

    These people are just rubbish.

    Like

  196. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 12:28 pm

    @teva

    “How can you charge N5 for failing to report a crime when you didn’t even charge the alleged perpetrator for said crime. These people were 1108 witnesses for prior transgressions for which there was no criminal charges filed.”

    They could have in 1994, they could have charged MJ for that. They could have started investigate their claims. They could charge MJ for molesting Jordan because adult witness to that. The authorities could have reopen the case once they heard what they had to say. You don’t the kids, you just need a witness.

    Like

  197. Teva permalink
    June 11, 2011 12:01 pm

    “But when someone lies under oath doesn’t that has legal consequences?” Ares

    Yes it does, but to charge someone with it is determined by the state.

    Like

  198. Teva permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:57 am

    @Shelly

    Yes but the state will never charge them. How would it look if MJ got acquitted for a crime they believed he committed and they turned around and charged their witnesses.” -Teva

    How can you charge N5 for failing to report a crime when you didn’t even charge the alleged perpetrator for said crime. These people were 1108 witnesses for prior transgressions for which there was no criminal charges filed.

    Like

  199. ares permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:57 am

    But when someone lies under oath doesn’t that has legal consequences?

    Like

  200. Teva permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:52 am

    @Suzy

    Yes, Sneddon had a vendetta, but since these people weren’t charge we should know the legal reason why.

    Like

  201. Teva permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:48 am

    @Shelly

    Yes but the state will never charge them. How would it look if MJ got acquitted for a crime they believed he committed and they turned around and charged their witnesses.

    Like

  202. Suzy permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:45 am

    The aim of the prosecutors were never to serve justice whatever they believed justice was. I mean they named co-conspirators, yet they never charged them. They never charged these people who claimed they saw molestation yet failed to report it.

    Sneddon in the past also failed to prosecute some other CM cases (which had nothing to do with MJ).

    So his obsession was exclusively ruining Michael Jackson, not justice or protecting children, or anything like that. He had a personal vendetta against MJ, it’s so clear.

    Like

  203. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:43 am

    @teva

    Those people admitted they lied under oath but they were never charged for that. MJ was never charged for doing that.

    Like

  204. Teva permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:37 am

    I forgot didn’t Sneddon also use some legal maneuvering to avoid Dimond being charged with slander. I could have done the same for the Neverland 5.

    Like

  205. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:36 am

    15 BY MR. ZONEN:

    16 Q. Mr. Mesereau asked you some questions about

    17 an article that was in a tabloid that quotes you as

    18 saying that you have all kinds of information about

    19 kinky sex secrets between Michael Jackson and Lisa

    20 Marie Presley. He showed you that article and asked

    21 you if it refreshed your recollection as to whether

    22 there was, in fact, such an article, and you said

    23 yes, it refreshed your recollection as to that

    24 article.

    25 About the quotations in the article, are

    26 they accurate?

    27 A. No, they are not.

    28 Q. Did you ever give information about kinky 5434

    1 sex secrets between Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie

    2 Presley to any publication, any media, or any

    3 reporter?

    4 A. No, never.

    5 Q. Do you, in fact, have information of kinky

    6 sex secrets between Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie

    7 Presley?

    8 A. No, I do not.

    9 Q. Have you ever seen Michael Jackson with Lisa

    10 Marie Presley?

    11 A. How do you mean, “seen”?

    12 Q. Was she at the ranch during the period of

    13 time that you were there?

    14 A. Yes, she was.

    15 Q. Were they married during that time?6 A. No.

    17 Q. Were they visiting one another?

    18 A. I believe so.

    19 Q. Do you have any information at all that Lisa

    20 Marie Presley ever stayed with Michael Jackson in

    21 his room?

    22 A. No.

    23 Q. Did you ever see any woman stay with Michael

    24 Jackson in his room in the four years you worked for

    25 him?

    Like

  206. Teva permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:34 am

    About the legal loophole. Didn’t these people say they were threatened by Michael’s other security squad? Couldn’t that be used as a strategy. If Sneddon & Zonen had tried to file charges for something as serious as witholding evidence to child molestation, then these people could face possible jail time, and could come to court and say they saw nothing. The prosecution could not let that happen. Just a thought.

    Like

  207. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:33 am

    About Star magazine

    Q. Do you recall trying to sell what you called

    20 “Mr. Jackson’s sex secrets”? Do you remember that?

    21 A. I know something was written about that, but

    22 I know sometimes tabloids write other stuff that

    23 they like to put in, so I don’t know.

    24 Q. You were quoted in an issue of Star magazine

    25 titled “Five of His Closest Servants Tell All.

    26 Kinky Sex Secrets of Michael and Lisa Marie’s

    27 Bedroom,” right?

    28 A. I don’t believe I said that. 5428

    1 Q. Have you seen that article before?

    2 A. I did during my deposition.

    3 Q. Was that the first time you’d ever seen this

    4 article?

    5 A. Yes.

    6 Q. You are quoted in the article, correct?

    7 A. I don’t know. I could be. I don’t know.

    8 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just

    9 show you —

    10 A. Sure, you can.

    11 MR. MESEREAU: May I, Your Honor?

    12 THE COURT: Yes.

    13 THE WITNESS: Kind of hard to see that.

    14 Okay.

    15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

    16 look at that article?

    17 A. Yes.

    18 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about you

    19 being quoted in that article?20 A. Yes.

    21 Q. You were going to tabloids and saying that

    22 you were the only person with a key to Mr. Jackson’s

    23 bedroom and you had information to sell, right?

    24 A. Um, as I’ve said, I know we did interview —

    25 the interview with Gary Morgan. But a lot of the

    26 times with those tabloids, those tabloids write

    27 other stuff and put it in there, and it makes it

    28 look like I said it, when I didn’t say it. So I 5429

    Like

  208. Teva permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:29 am

    “the only possible answer is that the prosecution did not really believe them.” – Allison

    If the prosecution did not believe them and called them as witnesses that’s illegal, and should be grounds for disbarment. I think they believed them, but Sneddon and Zonen found some legal loophole to avoid filing criminal charges.

    Like

  209. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:27 am

    About June Chandler

    . You said you had never seen Mr. Jackson and

    3 June Chandler in any romantic relationship, right?

    4 A. Correct.

    5 Q. You weren’t aware of her sleeping with Mr.

    6 Jackson, right?

    7 A. No.

    8 Q. But you saw her in his room?

    9 A. To bring in the clothes, yes.

    10 Q. Well, you didn’t say “to bring in the

    11 clothes” in the deposition, right?

    12 A. I don’t know what’s in the deposition.

    13 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look

    14 at that page?
    Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what

    2 you said about June Chandler being in Mr. Jackson’s

    3 room?

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. You said you had seen June Chandler in his

    6 room, right?

    7 A. Yes.

    8 Q. You didn’t explain it in terms of her coming

    9 there for clothes, or with clothes, right?

    10 A. I guess not, no.

    Like

  210. Teva permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:23 am

    Or the prosecution believed them and offered immunity.

    Like

  211. Alison permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:18 am

    @ Shelly
    “Can someone explain to me why all those people who claimed they saw child abuse but did nothing were not prosecuted?”

    the only possible answer is that the prosecution did not really believe them.

    Like

  212. ares permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:16 am

    So those people still owened MJ money in 2005? Did the media reported that or there wasn’t any space left for actuall events.after the rubba or pijama thing. If MJ had gone to jail in 2005, would that fact affect in some way their obligation to pay MJ the money? I don’t know the legal stuff and maybe i am making things up here but maybe they wanted MJ to go to jail because then they wouldn’t have to pay him those money? Doesn’t anyone knows? And something else that is very improtant. Why didn’t Sneddon or anyone else prosecuted Neverland 5 for failing to report child abuse? I don’t understand. How can Sneddon do all those things and everyone turn a blind eye? All those legal people that gave their advices back then, Nancy Grace, did they ever examine those things or they were so much blinded by their personal opinion regarding MJ, that they somehow overlooked or deliberately ingored so much crucial information?For me ,the media is equal responcible for what happended to MJ.

    Like

  213. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:10 am

    I love that part

    ” Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Ralph Chacon stopped

    21 working at Neverland the same day you stopped,

    22 right?

    23 A. I don’t believe so.

    24 Q. Kassim Abdool stopped working there the same

    25 day you stopped, didn’t he?

    26 A. I don’t believe so.

    27 Q. All — excuse me.

    28 Now, you sued someone named Bill Bray, 5410

    Like

  214. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 10:56 am

    Her civil suit was filed in December 1994.

    Q. And the Complaint you filed against Michael

    21 Jackson, along with Ralph Chacon, was December 2nd,

    22 1994, a year later, approximately a year later,

    23 right?

    24 A. I believe so.

    25 Q. Okay. Would it refresh your recollection

    26 just to take a look at the Complaint?

    27 A. Sure.

    Like

  215. hana permalink
    June 11, 2011 10:55 am

    “If these former employees actually saw these acts happening, then it is of my opinion that they to should be prosecuted for failing to immediately report it to the authorities. I wonder if they saw a purse snatcher, a hit and run accident, or even a murder, would they then report it?”——former prosecutor Anne Taylor

    Like

  216. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 10:11 am

    I can’t believe those pQ. And after you told Judge St. John your 5356

    1 position under oath, he found that you and your

    2 husband willfully and maliciously defrauded these

    3 children out of the money in the estate, true?

    4 A. I believe so.

    5 Q. Judge St. John found that that money was to

    6 be held in trust for the benefit of those two

    7 children, right?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. He found that you and your husband

    10 dissipated those funds, right?

    11 A. I believe so.

    12 Q. He found that you and your husband violated

    13 that trust, right?

    14 A. I believe so.

    15 Q. He entered a judgment against you and your

    16 husband for $30,000 — excuse me, 30,584.89,

    17 correct?eople

    Like

  217. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 9:54 am

    Mc Manus still owed him money in 2005

    “So that debt still exists today?

    2 A. Yes.

    3 Q. You owe Mr. Jackson $1.6 million?

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. Is that for all the attorney’s fees and the

    6 court costs?

    7 A. Yes.”

    Like

  218. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 9:48 am

    Mc Manus about Jordan Chandler

    “Q. And Jordie Chandler, describe his behavior

    13 for us during the time that he was there.

    14 A. He was rude.

    15 Q. In what way?

    16 A. Very demanding.

    17 Q. In what way demanding?

    18 A. Like if I was in the laundry room washing

    19 clothes, he’d come and say, “Where’s my shirt?” You

    20 know, “I want my shirt.” Just not nice to where you

    21 ask, “Do you have my shirt?” Just kind of “Give it

    22 to me now,” like that.

    23 Q. Was his behavior like that fairly

    24 consistently during the entire time that you were

    25 exposed to him?”

    Like

  219. shelly permalink
    June 11, 2011 9:42 am

    This is what McManus said under direct examination

    “And I was on the landing after you

    21 get on the stairs, and I kind of looked over the

    22 landing, and he was walking away with Brett to his

    23 room, and I saw him put his hand on Brett’s rear

    24 end, and he gave Brett a kiss on the cheek.

    25 Q. In like fashion to what you described you

    26 had seen with Macaulay Culkin?

    27 A. Yes.”

    Like

  220. shelly permalink
    June 10, 2011 11:52 pm

    “Suddenly, there was no adult eye witness to the allegations that these people had made against Michael in regard to Brett Barnes because they were all about Jordan Chandler”

    In the prior bad act document Sneddon said McManus saw Barnes being molested by Jackson. I don’t remember if she said something about that during her testimony.

    Like

  221. shelly permalink
    June 10, 2011 10:44 pm

    I find that article and it says exactly what I think

    “Witnesses to abuse who do nothing also are guilty
    Publication:Chicago Sun-Times Publish date:April 14, 2005 Author:Mary Mitchell More results for: Witnesses to abuse who do nothing also are guilty

    0ShareI Iremember relishing the moment that Perry Mason (you remember him, don’t you?) would break down a witness on the stand and expose the real culprit in a criminal trial.While the crook was pointing the finger at the accused, Mason, who was easily the best TV lawyer ever, would point out a fact that caused the accuser to either slump down in the chair or rise up to flee. So far, there’s been several of those moments in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial.

    But Thomas Mesereau Jr., Jackson’s defense attorney, can only work with the script he’s given.

    Don’t get me wrong, Jackson brought these troubles upon himself.

    Still, I hate to sit by silently and watch a legal lynching. And that is what this is. In an effort to put Jackson away as a pervert, the court seems to have changed its rules. For starters, for a judge to allow testimony about past allegations that Jackson was never charged with is nearly unprecedented.

    That ruling has allowed prosecutors to run amok in establishing that Jackson has a “pattern of inappropriate sexual contact with boys going back more than a decade.”

    Witnesses should be on trial

    The witnesses prosecutors have produced are a scandal unto themselves. According to what has been said, Jackson, an entertainer who was respected worldwide, surrounded himself with the scum of the earth.

    Take his former security guard, Ralph Chacon, who testified he saw Jackson kiss, fondle and perform oral sex on a 10-year-old boy who later received a multimillion-dollar settlement.

    Why didn’t he run to the nearest police station or call the child abuse hotline?

    If teachers, health professionals, and other public officials who are in contact with children are required by law to report this kind of abuse to child welfare authorities in most states, why should Chacon be let off the hook? Perry Mason would have turned Chacon’s testimony into an indictment.

    I am not having a hard time believing that Chacon tried to extort $16 million from Jackson, just as Mesereau claims, and I doubt a jury will consider him a credible witness. In fact, if Chacon saw what he testified he saw, he would still be rolling in dough on a private island somewhere — at Jackson’s expense.

    Bedtime for a price

    And how about Adrian McManus, a former maid at Neverland, who also testified for the prosecutors. She testified that she saw Jackson kissing and fondling boys, including one of the boys who received a multimillion-dollar settlement. She also said she was interested only in seeking justice — not money.

    If McManus cared about justice, instead of trying to shake Jackson down through bogus civil lawsuits, she would have turned him in.

    At any point during the four years she worked at Neverland and saw Jackson molesting boys, she could have called a hotline and triggered an investigation. Instead, McManus joined with other employees and sued Jackson in a civil case that didn’t have anything to do with him molesting boys.

    But the worst, the absolute worst witness has been the mother of the boy who received more than $25 million, a sum being published by reporters covering the trial. The mother admitted she accepted lavish gifts, including expensive jewelry and trips after she agreed to let her then 13-year-old son sleep in Jackson’s bed.

    According to the mother, Jackson broke down in tears while begging her to let her son sleep in his room. When she relented, Jackson brought her a Cartier bracelet.

    The mother said she let Jackson sleep overnight with her son about 30 times in her home.

    During that time, the single mother was being treated to shopping sprees.

    A civil suit was filed in 1993, but the family refused to cooperate with prosecutors.

    There’s not much difference between that woman and a mother who was arrested Tuesday in Florida for forcing her 12-year-old pregnant daughter into prostitution. Police also are accusing the 39-year-old mother of trading her 14-year-old daughter for a car.

    The greatest tragedy

    The Florida mother has been charged with aggravated child abuse and sexual performance by a child, the Associated Press reported.

    The greatest tragedy in the Jackson trial is that Michael Jackson is the only one on trial.

    Anyone who testified that they saw Jackson molest boys, but didn’t report it, is guilty and should have been indicted as co- conspirators to the sexual crime. The parents of the sexually abused children not only failed to protect them, they dangled their children in front of Jackson like bait over a fish pond.

    If Jackson is convicted, all of the multimillion-dollar parents who got paid after letting their boys have sleepovers at Neverland — and opportunists who watched the crimes unfold — should have prison cells nearby.

    Perry Mason would have loved the irony in that.”

    Can someone explain to me why all those people who claimed they saw child abuse but did nothing were not prosecuted?

    Like

  222. shelly permalink
    June 9, 2011 10:40 pm

    The Santa Barbara grand jury being disbanded is confirmed by at least 2 others articles

    Jackson case
    Publication:The Independent (London, England) Publish date:May 2, 1994 More results for: grand jury michael jackson

    0ShareThe Santa Barbara County grand jury, one of two California grand juries investigating sex-abuse allegations against Michael Jackson, has ended its deliberations without returning an indictment, a local television station reported on Saturday, Reuter reports from Los Angeles.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=e0lWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KesDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2669,9502&dq=grand+jury+michael+jackson&hl=en

    Like

  223. hana permalink
    June 9, 2011 10:04 pm

    Why was Sneddon so obsessed with Michael Jackson? I honestly want to know.

    Like

  224. June 9, 2011 8:58 pm

    “You are doing such a magnificent job Helena and the team, I thank you from the bottom of my heart”

    Thank you, dear. It is a great comfort for us to know that we are being helpful. It means that our present awfully hectic way of life is worth it.

    Like

  225. lynande51 permalink
    June 9, 2011 8:03 pm

    Right and when you click on the document embedded in the addendum you will notice the paragraph where the prosecution is telling the the court that the defense must not mislead the court or judge by an artifice,or mistatement of fact or law. How rich is that when they are doing just that in the very motion of oppostition they are filing.

    Like

  226. Alison permalink
    June 9, 2011 7:35 pm

    William Wagener’s documentary isn’t going to go anywhere near far enough is it, but its a very good start. I hope he reads this site. One day the world will be forced to acknowledge the truth.
    You are doing such a magnificent job Helena and the team, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

    Like

  227. June 9, 2011 7:16 pm

    “You know what really gets to me is the fact that these people lied about Michael and Brett without so much as a blink about what it might do to Brett. Naming him as a victim and then ten years later when it no longer fit the prosection they say “oops they looked identical”? What is that?”

    Yes, Lynette, these people are the real abusers of children. They were practically destroying Brett and his future without batting an eyelid and none of them have any pangs of conscience for what they did. Now that these new details are being disclosed (stories first told about “Brett” and then changed into “Jordan”) it seems that the first candidate they nominated for the role of a “victim” was Brett Barnes – only he and his family did not go for it. And when the Barnes disappointed them by taking Michael’s side all those so-called “witnesses” transformed their testimonies about Brett into those about Jordan. It was all the same for them whom they were covering with mud – the end ($16 million) justified the means.

    Despite what those rogues said about Brett I need to add that Victor Gutierrez says on NUMEROUS occasions that the “furthest” MJ allegedly went to was with Jordan – so all stories told by the same Victor Gutierrez about “penetration” of everything and everyone around are the fruit of his absolutely pathological mind. This makes all those Ralph Chacon’s stories about seeing Brett (sorry, Jordan) with MJ somewhere in a bathroom and the two “being naked”, etc., etc. just another big piece of BS from Gutierrez – like his BS about a lion “which lived in filth” or “a skeleton found in the grave”.

    Like

  228. lynande51 permalink
    June 9, 2011 7:04 pm

    Another thing that you might want to look at in Chacon’s testimony is during the cross by Tom Mesereau he is being asked about the things that he stole form Neverland. He keeps saying candy bars but surprisingly it was also a briefcase he says had memos in it from his box at Neverland when in fact it was documents that he had lifted from the house. What do you guys think another possible source for the settlement agreement that Diane Dimond bought? From now on whenever anyone tells you that it was more than $15,331,250.00 ask them where they get that figure and then show them the retainer and tell them to do the math.

    Like

  229. June 9, 2011 6:52 pm

    “when I show you what else he did you will know why Michael had to leave the country. I hope to make that post on Monday for the 6th anniversary of Michael’s acquittal.”

    Lynette, we’ll be looking forward to your post very much indeed!

    Like

  230. lynande51 permalink
    June 9, 2011 6:38 pm

    Exactly. It wasn’t until Chacon went to them and made his allegations that they went to Australia and tried to tell the Barnes family that they had a witness to MJ allegedly abusing Brett. The words came first from Jordan and then when they weren’t finding other “victims” and Brett was deying it up popped Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool. I believe that is when Gutierrez found these people and said this is how you can get rich. You know what really gets to me is the fact that these people lied about Michael and Brett without so much as a blink about what it might do to Brett. Naming him as a victim and then ten years later when it no longer fit the prosection they say “oops they looked identical”? What is that? That is the point where if you are a prosecutor just doing his job you say no I won’t have these people come in to testify because obviously they aren’t telling the truth. But not Sneddon. Instead he bulldozes ahead damaging everything and everyone he can in order to get a conviction. The 2005 trial is a perfect example of how he knew the facts didn’t fit but didn’t care as long as he got a win and he used the Sheriff’s department and his office to do it. I think a Federal lawyer should look at this because it might stil lbe able to be done on that level as an abuse of power.

    Like

  231. June 9, 2011 6:16 pm

    So they were basically saying Brett was a victim because someone had “witnessed” the abuse and not because Brett had ever said he was?

    Like

  232. lynande51 permalink
    June 9, 2011 6:05 pm

    That’s right in 1994 he was talking about Brett who had given them a denial because he was at Neverland when it was searched the first time. He then went on TV with Wade and his family and they made that televised statement. If you read the document that is embedded you will also see that Sneddon is saying that Ralph Chacon went before the Santa Barbara Grand Jury on May 10th 1994. However it was disbanded on May 2nd. So in 2005 when Chacon testifies in court he has changed his testimony to Jordie because the prosecution knows that he isn’t coming to testify so they are safe saying that and they know that Brett is coming to testify for Michael. So it is true that Chacon lied throughout his testimony and Sneddon helped him do it. You know there are numerous cases of prosecutorial misconduct in th eUS every year that is just a small example of what Sneddon did and what he knew and covered up about the Arvizo’s. The reason he wasn’t prosecuted is that it would have been up to Michael to file it and when I show you what else he did you will know why Michael had to leave the country. I hope to make that post on Monday for the 6th anniversary of Michael’s acquittal. How did you like the Rubba’s?

    Like

  233. shelly permalink
    June 9, 2011 5:48 pm

    ““In addition, they said their investigation–an enormous undertaking that took 13 months, involved two grand juries and relied upon interviews with more than 400 people–had turned up two more children who said Jackson had molested them, but they too were unwilling to take the stand. One of those alleged victims is outside the country and thus outside of court jurisdiction, Sneddon said. In addition, Sneddon said, that child had previously made comments generally denying any wrongdoing by Jackson, which would have complicated a prosecution based on his statements even if he had been willing to testify.”

    Sneddon was talking about Barnes, not Chandler

    Like

  234. Alison permalink
    June 8, 2011 9:01 pm

    @ visitor
    ” psychologically it refers to an older man whose emotional life has remained at an adolescent level, usually coupled with too great a dependence on the mother. The puer typically leads a provisional life, due to the fear of being caught in a situation from which it might not be possible to escape. He covets independence and freedom, chafes at boundaries and limits, and tends to find any restriction intolerable.[1]”

    You have obviously met my ex-boyfriend! LOL!!
    this describes him exactly – and i promise you he was NOTHING like Peter Pan – or Michael Jackson unfortunately!
    I wish i had known about this, i could have called him a puer when i broke up with him!

    Like

  235. shelly permalink
    June 8, 2011 7:22 pm

    It’s part of Mesreau’s pleading the 28th of March

    One of the plaintiffs in that civil case

    20 against Mr. Jackson where the plaintiffs lost and

    21 were awarded — Mr. Jackson was awarded over a

    22 million dollars in legal fees and costs. But

    23 someone named Adrienne McManus, her deposition, I am

    24 informed, was taken eight times in that case.

    25 That’s just one witness. And apparently in her

    26 trial transcripts, which we have, she is changing

    27 her testimony so often that she gets back and forth,

    28 the testimony is prolonged, and the point I’m making 3772

    1 is that’s just one witness. Eight depositions plus

    2 six months of trial testimony.

    Like

  236. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 8, 2011 6:58 pm

    @Alison i checked out that Programme very informative and so many comparisons to michael Shame😦

    Like

  237. visitor permalink
    June 8, 2011 5:04 pm

    @lynande51

    My comment was addressed to Elle’s post. It is my personal opinion that Michael had many characteristics with “Puer aeternus, the eternal Child”.

    Like

  238. June 8, 2011 4:41 pm

    Visitor there is no such syndrome as “Peter Pan”, it’s not scientifically researched and accepted and no one is using it in psychology nor it it treated as such. Someone coined the “term” to put a title in his book. Jung referred to archetypes which are a different thing, it’s a psychoanalytic concept and has a huge analysis for me to lecture here.

    Like

  239. lynande51 permalink
    June 8, 2011 4:09 pm

    Visitor , Actually no. your point is lost on me.Are you suggesting that it is Michael Jackson or the writer of the article to which you are commenting that reminds you of the Peter Pan Syndrome. If it is the author of the above post that would be very difficult to understand considering it is primarily males that are labled with this Peter Pan syndrome. If Michael Jackson had Peter Pan syndrome would he have been the one actively seeking and performing the role of fatherhood. No he would not. Perhaps you could explain futher in your own words what the Peter Pan syndrome is to you and how it correlates to the above discussion.

    Like

  240. visitor permalink
    June 8, 2011 11:37 am

    I had posted a comment here yesterday but for some reason it got deleted so i post it again. It’s about the comment that a person here “received” in her youtube account. So i ask again, do those characteristics on this post remind you of someone?

    Puer aeternus

    Dionysus and Eros, Naples Archeological Museum

    Puer aeternus is Latin for eternal boy, used in mythology to designate a child-god who is forever young; psychologically it refers to an older man whose emotional life has remained at an adolescent level, usually coupled with too great a dependence on the mother. The puer typically leads a provisional life, due to the fear of being caught in a situation from which it might not be possible to escape. He covets independence and freedom, chafes at boundaries and limits, and tends to find any restriction intolerable.[1]

    Puer in mythology

    The words, puer aeternus, come from Metamorphoses, an epic work by the Roman poet Ovid (43 BCE – c.17 CE) dealing with Greek and Roman myths. In the poem, Ovid addresses the child-god Iacchus as puer aeternus and praises him for his role in the Eleusinian mysteries. Iacchus is later identified with the gods Dionysus and Eros. The puer is a god of vegetation and resurrection, the god of divine youth, such as Tammuz, Attis and Adonis.[2] The figure of a young god who is slain and resurrected also appears in Egyptian mythology as the story of Osiris.

    The puer in Jungian psychology

    Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung developed a school of thought called analytical psychology, distinguishing it from the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud (1856–1939). In analytical psychology (often called “Jungian psychology”) the puer aeternus is an example of what Jung called an archetype, one of the “primordial, structural elements of the human psyche”.[3]

    The shadow of the puer is the senex (Latin for “old man”), associated with the god Apollo—disciplined, controlled, responsible, rational, ordered. Conversely, the shadow of the senex is the puer, related to Dionysus—unbounded instinct, disorder, intoxication, whimsy.[4]

    Like all archetypes, the puer is bi-polar, exhibiting both a “positive” and a “negative” aspect. The “positive” side of the puer appears as the Divine Child who symbolizes newness, potential for growth, hope for the future. He also foreshadows the hero that he sometimes becomes (e.g. Heracles). The “negative” side is the child-man who refuses to grow up and meet the challenges of life face on, waiting instead for his ship to come in and solve all his problems.

    “For the time being one is doing this or that, but whether it is a woman or a job, it is not yet what is really wanted, and there is always the fantasy that sometime in the future the real thing will come about…. The one thing dreaded throughout by such a type of man is to be bound to anything whatever.”[5]

    “Common symptoms of puer psychology are dreams of imprisonment and similar imagery: chains, bars, cages, entrapment, bondage. Life itself…is experienced as a prison.”[6]

    When the subject is a female the Latin term is puella aeterna, imaged in mythology as the Kore (Greek for “maiden”).[7] One might also speak of a puer animus when describing the masculine side of the female psyche, or a puella anima when speaking of a man’s inner feminine component.
    [edit] Writings
    Cover of 1915 edition of J.M. Barrie’s novel, first published in 1911.

    C.G. Jung wrote a paper on the puer aeternus, “The Psychology of the Child Archetype”, contained in Part IV of The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (Collected Works, Vol. 9i). The hero-child aspect and his relationship to the Great Mother is dealt with in chapters 4 and 5 of Part Two of Symbols of Transformation (Collected Works, Vol. 5).[8] In his essay “Answer to Job” (contained in Psychology and Religion: West and East, Vol. 11 of the Collected Works; but also published separately) Jung refers to the puer aeternus as a figure representing the future psychological development of human beings.

    “That higher and ‘complete’ (teleios) man is begotten by the ‘unknown’ father and born from Wisdom, and it is he who, in the figure of the puer aeternus—’vultu mutabilis albus et ater'[9]—represents our totality, which transcends consciousness. It was this boy into whom Faust had to change, abandoning his inflated onesidedness which saw the devil only outside. Christ’s ‘Except ye become as little children’ prefigures this change, for in them the opposites lie close together; but what is meant is the boy who is born from the maturity of the adult man, and not the unconscious child we would like to remain.”[10]

    The Problem of the Puer Aeternus is a book based on a series of lectures that Jungian analyst Marie-Louise von Franz gave at the C.G. Jung Institute, Zurich, during the Winter Semester, 1959–1960. In the first eight of twelve lectures, von Franz illustrates the theme of the puer aeternus by examining the story of The Little Prince from the book of the same name by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. The remaining four lectures are devoted to a study of a German novel by Bruno Goetz, Das Reich ohne Raum (The Kingdom Without Space), first published in 1919. Of this novel von Franz says:

    “It is interesting that it was written and published before the Nazi movement came into being in 1933, before Hitler was ruminating on his morbid ideas. Bruno Goetz certainly had a prophetic gift about what was coming, and … his book anticipates the whole Nazi problem, throwing light upon it from the angle of the puer aeternus”.[11]

    Now or Neverland is a 1998 book written by Jungian analyst Ann Yeoman dealing with the puer aeternus in the form of Peter Pan, one of the most well-known examples of the concept in the modern era. The book is a psychological overview of the eternal boy archetype, from its ancient roots to contemporary experience, including a detailed interpretation of J. M. Barrie’s popular novel and play.

    “Mythologically, Peter Pan is linked to…the young god who dies and is reborn…as well as to Mercury/Hermes, psychopomp and messenger of the gods who moves freely between the divine and human realms, and, of course, to the great goat-god Pan…. In early performances of Barrie’s play, Peter Pan appeared on stage with both pipes and a live goat. Such undisguised references to the chthonic, often lascivious and far from childlike goat-god were, not surprisingly, soon excised from both play and novel.”[12]

    Peter Pan syndrome

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puer_aeternus#Peter_Pan_syndrome

    Like

  241. Alison permalink
    June 8, 2011 8:11 am

    David I just watched that clip – did I hear right? was he acknowledging Michael Jackson was falsely accused?? i know it was the other guy that said it but he left it in the film.

    i was going to say something else but when i tried to post this comment the comment box came up with my earlier comment in, couldn’t get an empty box, had to delete the comment first.

    Like

  242. lcpledwards permalink
    June 8, 2011 1:30 am

    @ Teva, Suzy, & Allison
    Yes, MJ did have a photo of Arbuckle by his bedside because of the similarities that the two had, in terms of being falsely accused and vilified by the press. It was in his latest documentary that aired last December called “Michael Jackson’s Secret Hollywood”, beginning at 4:47

    Like

  243. Teva permalink
    June 8, 2011 1:02 am

    According to Jacques Peretti Michael Jackson had a picture of Artbuckle on his bedside table.

    Like

  244. June 8, 2011 12:23 am

    Allison, I tried to watch, but I don’t have access in the US to view the BBC iplayer. I’ve heard of Arbuckle before, if I recall I believe there was some information about what happened to him on TCM (Turner Classic Movies). Not sure though it was few years back.

    Like

  245. visitor permalink
    June 8, 2011 12:14 am

    @Elle

    Read the post below and tell us if it reminds you of someone

    Puer aeternus

    Dionysus and Eros, Naples Archeological Museum
    Puer aeternus is Latin for eternal boy, used in mythology to designate a child-god who is forever young; psychologically it refers to an older man whose emotional life has remained at an adolescent level, usually coupled with too great a dependence on the mother. The puer typically leads a provisional life, due to the fear of being caught in a situation from which it might not be possible to escape. He covets independence and freedom, chafes at boundaries and limits, and tends to find any restriction intolerable.[1]

    The puer in mythology

    The words, puer aeternus, come from Metamorphoses, an epic work by the Roman poet Ovid (43 BCE – c.17 CE) dealing with Greek and Roman myths. In the poem, Ovid addresses the child-god Iacchus as puer aeternus and praises him for his role in the Eleusinian mysteries. Iacchus is later identified with the gods Dionysus and Eros. The puer is a god of vegetation and resurrection, the god of divine youth, such as Tammuz, Attis and Adonis.[2] The figure of a young god who is slain and resurrected also appears in Egyptian mythology as the story of Osiris.

    The puer in Jungian psychology

    Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung developed a school of thought called analytical psychology, distinguishing it from the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud (1856–1939). In analytical psychology (often called “Jungian psychology”) the puer aeternus is an example of what Jung called an archetype, one of the “primordial, structural elements of the human psyche”.[3]

    The shadow of the puer is the senex (Latin for “old man”), associated with the god Apollo—disciplined, controlled, responsible, rational, ordered. Conversely, the shadow of the senex is the puer, related to Dionysus—unbounded instinct, disorder, intoxication, whimsy.[4]

    Like all archetypes, the puer is bi-polar, exhibiting both a “positive” and a “negative” aspect. The “positive” side of the puer appears as the Divine Child who symbolizes newness, potential for growth, hope for the future. He also foreshadows the hero that he sometimes becomes (e.g. Heracles). The “negative” side is the child-man who refuses to grow up and meet the challenges of life face on, waiting instead for his ship to come in and solve all his problems.

    “For the time being one is doing this or that, but whether it is a woman or a job, it is not yet what is really wanted, and there is always the fantasy that sometime in the future the real thing will come about…. The one thing dreaded throughout by such a type of man is to be bound to anything whatever.”[5]
    “Common symptoms of puer psychology are dreams of imprisonment and similar imagery: chains, bars, cages, entrapment, bondage. Life itself…is experienced as a prison.”[6]

    When the subject is a female the Latin term is puella aeterna, imaged in mythology as the Kore (Greek for “maiden”).[7] One might also speak of a puer animus when describing the masculine side of the female psyche, or a puella anima when speaking of a man’s inner feminine component.

    Writings

    Cover of 1915 edition of J.M. Barrie’s novel, first published in 1911.

    C.G. Jung wrote a paper on the puer aeternus, “The Psychology of the Child Archetype”, contained in Part IV of The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (Collected Works, Vol. 9i). The hero-child aspect and his relationship to the Great Mother is dealt with in chapters 4 and 5 of Part Two of Symbols of Transformation (Collected Works, Vol. 5).[8] In his essay “Answer to Job” (contained in Psychology and Religion: West and East, Vol. 11 of the Collected Works; but also published separately) Jung refers to the puer aeternus as a figure representing the future psychological development of human beings.

    “That higher and ‘complete’ (teleios) man is begotten by the ‘unknown’ father and born from Wisdom, and it is he who, in the figure of the puer aeternus—’vultu mutabilis albus et ater'[9]—represents our totality, which transcends consciousness. It was this boy into whom Faust had to change, abandoning his inflated onesidedness which saw the devil only outside. Christ’s ‘Except ye become as little children’ prefigures this change, for in them the opposites lie close together; but what is meant is the boy who is born from the maturity of the adult man, and not the unconscious child we would like to remain.”[10]

    The Problem of the Puer Aeternus is a book based on a series of lectures that Jungian analyst Marie-Louise von Franz gave at the C.G. Jung Institute, Zurich, during the Winter Semester, 1959–1960. In the first eight of twelve lectures, von Franz illustrates the theme of the puer aeternus by examining the story of The Little Prince from the book of the same name by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. The remaining four lectures are devoted to a study of a German novel by Bruno Goetz, Das Reich ohne Raum (The Kingdom Without Space), first published in 1919. Of this novel von Franz says:

    “It is interesting that it was written and published before the Nazi movement came into being in 1933, before Hitler was ruminating on his morbid ideas. Bruno Goetz certainly had a prophetic gift about what was coming, and … his book anticipates the whole Nazi problem, throwing light upon it from the angle of the puer aeternus”.[11]
    Now or Neverland is a 1998 book written by Jungian analyst Ann Yeoman dealing with the puer aeternus in the form of Peter Pan, one of the most well-known examples of the concept in the modern era. The book is a psychological overview of the eternal boy archetype, from its ancient roots to contemporary experience, including a detailed interpretation of J. M. Barrie’s popular novel and play.

    “Mythologically, Peter Pan is linked to…the young god who dies and is reborn…as well as to Mercury/Hermes, psychopomp and messenger of the gods who moves freely between the divine and human realms, and, of course, to the great goat-god Pan…. In early performances of Barrie’s play, Peter Pan appeared on stage with both pipes and a live goat. Such undisguised references to the chthonic, often lascivious and far from childlike goat-god were, not surprisingly, soon excised from both play and novel.”[1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puer_aeternus#Peter_Pan_syndrome

    Like

  246. Alison permalink
    June 7, 2011 11:12 pm

    Suzy Thanks for that. if you get to see the programme, you will see how the ‘evidence’ given by the delmont woman was not possible, and not backed up by any physical evidence – but willingly accepted by the prosecutor even tho he realised she was not a reliable witness and didn’t put her on the stand!

    i read the other day and i’m racking my brains to remember where now, that in 91 / 92 , before the whole chandler thing, Michael made an announcement that he had formed a film company and was going to make family films with a healing message. when i saw the arbuckle thing i thought how the film industry and media would not want the most famous man on the planet, the biggest and brightest star with countless fans, to be making films that suggest the opposite messages to what most films are about – sex, violence et.c makes mega bucks. just a thought, sorry if its irrelevant, i just thought it seemed possible with so much money at stake. WHY did Moonwalker not get accepted for the cinemas?? JRT said Michael blamed Dileo for not trying hard enough, but i think there’s a lot more to it than that. i think it was too moral for the film corporations. Michael Jackson was a threat to them. if they decided he had to be got out of the way its not too far fetched to think they could have used vg to do it., even if vg also had his own agenda.

    Like

  247. Suzy permalink
    June 7, 2011 10:07 pm

    @ Alison

    I have never heard of Roscoe Arbuckle, but I was looking him up now in Wikipedia. Indeed seems like a lot of parallels with Michael!

    “Arbuckle’s trial was a major media event; exaggerated and sensationalized stories in William Randolph Hearst’s nationwide newspaper chain damaged his career. The story was fueled by yellow journalism, with the newspapers portraying him as a gross lecher who used his weight to overpower innocent girls. In reality, Arbuckle was a good natured man who was so shy with women that he was regarded by those who knew him as, “the most chaste man in pictures”.[2] Hearst was gratified by the Arbuckle scandal, and later said that it had “sold more newspapers than any event since the sinking of the RMS Lusitania.”[19] The resulting scandal destroyed Arbuckle’s career and his personal life. Morality groups called for Arbuckle to be sentenced to death, and studio executives ordered Arbuckle’s industry friends (whose careers they controlled) not to publicly speak up for him. Charlie Chaplin was in England at the time; Buster Keaton did make a public statement in support of Arbuckle; film actor William S. Hart, who had never worked with Arbuckle, made public statements which presumed that Arbuckle was guilty.

    The prosecutor, San Francisco District Attorney Matthew Brady, an intensely ambitious man who planned to run for governor, made public pronouncements of Arbuckle’s guilt and pressured witnesses to make false statements.[1] Brady at first used Delmont as his star witness during the indictment hearing.[1] Although the judge threatened Brady with dismissal of the case, Brady refused to allow Delmont, the only witness accusing Arbuckle, to take the stand and testify. Delmont had a long criminal record with convictions for racketeering, bigamy, fraud, and extortion, and allegedly was making a living by luring men into compromising positions and capturing them in photographs, to be used as evidence in divorce proceedings.[20] The defense had also obtained a letter from Delmont admitting to a plan to extort payment from Arbuckle. In view of Delmont’s constantly changing story,[1] her testimony would have ended any chance of going to trial. Ultimately, the judge found no evidence of rape. After hearing testimony from one of the party guests, Zey Prevon, that Rappe told her “Roscoe hurt me” on her deathbed, the judge decided that Arbuckle could be charged with first-degree murder. Brady had originally planned to seek the death penalty.The charge was later reduced to manslaughter.[1]”

    “By the time of the third trial, Arbuckle’s films had been banned, and newspapers had been filled for the past seven months with stories of alleged Hollywood orgies, murder, and sexual perversion. Delmont was touring the country giving one-woman shows as “The woman who signed the murder charge against Arbuckle”, and lecturing on the evils of Hollywood.”

    “Although cleared of all criminal charges, the scandal and trials had greatly damaged his popularity among the general public, and Will H. Hays, who served as the head of the newly-formed Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) Hollywood censor board, cited Arbuckle as an example of the poor morals in Hollywood.[23] On April 18, 1922, six days after Arbuckle’s acquittal, Hays banned Roscoe Arbuckle from ever working in U.S. movies again.[23] He had also requested that all showings and bookings of Arbuckle films be canceled, and exhibitors complied. In December of the same year, Hays elected to lift the ban,[23] but Arbuckle was not able to secure work as an actor for a long time.[23] Most exhibitors still declined to show Arbuckle’s films, several of which now have no copies known to have survived intact. One of Arbuckle’s feature-length films known to survive is Leap Year, which Paramount declined to release in the United States due to the scandal. It was eventually released in Europe.”

    “Arbuckle tried returning to filmmaking, but industry resistance to distributing his pictures continued to linger after his acquittal. He retreated into alcoholism. In the words of his first wife, “Roscoe only seemed to find solace and comfort in a bottle”.

    “In 1932 Arbuckle signed a contract with Warner Brothers to star under his own name in a series of two-reel comedies, to be filmed at the Vitaphone studios in Brooklyn. These six shorts constitute the only recordings of his voice. Silent-film comedian Al St. John (Arbuckle’s nephew) and actors Lionel Stander and Shemp Howard appeared with Arbuckle. The films were very successful in America, although when Warner Brothers attempted to release the first one (Hey, Pop!) in the United Kingdom, the British Board of Film Censors cited the 10-year-old scandal and refused to grant an exhibition certificate.

    Roscoe Arbuckle had finished filming the last of the two-reelers on June 28, 1933. The next day he was signed by Warner Brothers to make a feature-length film.[30] He reportedly said, “This is the best day of my life.” He suffered a heart attack later that night and died in his sleep.[6] He was 46. “

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Arbuckle#The_scandal

    Like

  248. June 7, 2011 9:34 pm

    @elle
    Re the comment in your comment;The infamous Dr Stanley KATZ who found 369 victims of sex abuse out of 400 kids at the McMartin Preschool children. He and his students,whom he supervised.

    Like

  249. shelly permalink
    June 7, 2011 9:16 pm

    According to Dimond, that statement from Staikos comes from Murdoch

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/050905respdatrlbrf.pdf

    In quiet conversation, there was talk among the office staff about all those extravagant gifts Jackson doled out to the boys, the ones [Norma] Staikos called his “little boyfriends.” They’d talk about his sense of possessiveness toward them, too. At one point, Staikos even warned Murdoch to keep close watch on her own son–and never leave the boy alone with the star. Staikos never explained why, and Murdoch was too afraid to ask any questions.
    Murdoch said she took Staikos’s warning seriously and never brought her son to the office when she believed Jackson was going to be there.

    Like

  250. Alison permalink
    June 7, 2011 9:14 pm

    @ Elle, anyway its a stupid thing for that person to say, Jackson and lawyers never used ‘the mind of a child’ thing as any defense, its just other people like to say it, not sure why, and I hate it, its really rude. He didn’t have a mind of a child. He DID try to keep the childlike and fun side of life, and why not?. do just children go to Disneyland, do just children enjoy Shrek and a host of movies and programmes that are childish fun? it makes me SO mad!

    I don’t know if viewers outside of UK have access to BBC iplayer, but anyone who does and who hasn’t watched ‘ Paul Merton’s The Birth of Hollywood’ episode 2, please please watch it if you can, its mainly about Roscoe Arbuckle (aka ‘Fatty Arbuckle’ but he didn;t like the name). I had NO IDEA about this man and what he was put through by liars and the press in the 20’s and went through 3 trials for murder before anyone bothered to check out the medical facts that proved the girl had not died through murder at all and the prosecutor saw the case as an opportunity to further his own political ambitions!!!, he was DESTROYED by this and he was a genius comic and the top earning star of his day – it blew my mind to see the similarities to what they did to Michael, then when he was on the eve of a comeback, things were going better, he died of a heart attack in his sleep. you have just over a week to see the episode, just google BBC iplayer and search in the box.

    Like

  251. lynande51 permalink
    June 7, 2011 9:00 pm

    Okay so now we have the proof that they did sell their story. Drew up the original lawsuit on December of 1994 and their lawyer wouldn’t file until he got money from the tabloid brokers for their story in the next 2 months. The Gutierrez book was copyrighted in 1995 in Chile and published in March 1996. I think I have an article that says when it’s release date was let me look.

    Like

  252. lynande51 permalink
    June 7, 2011 8:28 pm

    Shelley then there is the testimony of the cops after that who said that they hadn’t gotten them into the DOJ until after. The first examination he is talking about was inconculsive if you want to go through the testimony about the fingerprints it is pretty boring. I don’t think you would have to go through all of it though I think when they recall some of the fingerprint experts you will find out that up until then the findings were inconclusive. So again Sneddon was lying (or at least trying to misrepresent the evidence, wait that is a lie) something a prosecutor shouldn’t do.

    Like

  253. stacy2 permalink
    June 7, 2011 8:22 pm

    @elle

    I honestly don’t understand why people like that always assume that just because Michael Jackson was a celebrity, that’s the reason why he got off. Did it ever occur to them that maybe he was acquitted because the accusing family were an absolute disaster? I mean, how many lies under oath does it take to realize that the case was a fraud?

    Like

  254. lynande51 permalink
    June 7, 2011 8:19 pm

    Yes that is what happens all the time. What else is laughable is the inconsistency of the lecture itself. Katz says a 10 year old they glom onto it and reduce it by five. I think all of these people went to the Diane Dimond School of Mathematics the way they subtract when there is no subtraction to be done and add when it is supposed to be subtraction . They like to multiply instead of divide and it is a perfect example of why the US student had such poor scores in math for so many years.

    Like

  255. shelly permalink
    June 7, 2011 8:12 pm

    Tom Sneddon said that about the fingerprints

    Now we have the

    6 evidence from the people to show that those

    7 fingerprints were on magazines that weren’t even in

    8 the grand jury, so they couldn’t have been put on

    9 in the grand jury. Those magazines were at the

    10 Department of Justice being examined for trace

    11 evidence at the very time that the defense alleged

    12 somebody put their fingerprints on them.

    Like

  256. Suzy permalink
    June 7, 2011 8:09 pm

    @ Elle

    Ridiculous indeed. Someone giving a lecture on what the evidence was when he/she is apparently not familiar with it. Just took up some soundbites he/she took up from tabloid media.

    Like

  257. shelly permalink
    June 7, 2011 7:51 pm

    I love that part from Mesereau

    Then we have Jordie Chandler, who everyone

    5 tells us, and apparently was announced on television

    6 this morning, is not going to testify. So who do

    7 they want to bring in to testify to that? First of

    8 all, Your Honor, I would note that in their motion,

    9 they mention someone named Bob Jones. And in very

    10 graphic — in a very graphic manner they told the

    11 Court that Mr. Jones had worked for Mr. Jackson for

    12 years, had traveled internationally with him, and

    13 would testify to all sorts of improprieties with

    14 children. We just were produced a police report by

    15 the prosecution where Mr. Jones flat out denies

    16 virtually everything they said in their motion. He

    17 has told the Santa Barbara Sheriffs, with counsel,

    18 that he never saw anything inappropriate happen when

    19 Mr. Jackson was in the company of any of these

    20 children.

    http://www.box.net/shared/09zmi31anq#/shared/09zmi31anq/2/9455516/94502436/1

    Like

  258. lynande51 permalink
    June 7, 2011 7:05 pm

    Shelley I have had that problem from time to time I don’t know what causes it. What I do is just post it again. Do you still have the link? If so just do it again if you would. I would like a few more about the process of that lawsuit because thearticle I have are more about the outcome. If I find enough articles maybe I can put together a timeline of the progression of the interviews they gave and pinpoint when it was that they started. We know that they were selling articles about his marriage to Lisa when they weren’t even living there. I haven’t been able to find that Star article they talk about in the testimony of Adrian McManus and that would be really valuable to just have the date that it appeared.
    Elle you can always use the facts presented in this post if you want to reply to that comment, which is just a blanket statement of what most of the detractors believe.

    Like

  259. shelly permalink
    June 7, 2011 6:54 pm

    The other article said those people have to pay because they were evasive when MJ’s lawyers asked if they have talked to 2 writers.

    Like

  260. shelly permalink
    June 7, 2011 6:51 pm

    @lynande,

    I posted another article this morning but the message never appeared on the blog. I don’t know why.

    Like

  261. lynande51 permalink
    June 7, 2011 4:22 pm

    That was a great article Shelley. I think I might have to add a link to another document I don’t know if I added it or not. It is the defense objection to the 1108 motion.

    Like

  262. Dialdancer permalink
    June 7, 2011 7:19 am

    @ Hana,

    ‘The Michael Jackson trial will no doubt go down in history as the biggest mockery of the justice system and abuses of power in the history of California.”

    In order for that to happen the history of the trial and its participates have to be recorded truthfully. All history is littered with lies, coverups and distortion of events. Change the events to protect the guilty.

    @ Cam,
    “I’ve always wondered why a public inquiry wasn’t done on this trial.”

    There were complaints and inquiries, but they were kept quiet. They were known to the Media, but were not reported. Keeping it quiet was a face saving measure on the part of the State of California and the Media. The Media had become a willing tool for prosecutorial misconduct. The State’s refusal to properly investigate Michael’s abuse at the hands of the SB Police, the leaking of the Grand Jury Transcripts, allowing an illegal bail amount to stay in place, using a PR firm for a case that had a Gag Order and should have barred them receiving information and the Atty Gen’s Office refusal to recuse the entire SB DA Office, they had to allow this travesty to go unpunished.

    Do You Have the Right Not To Be Framed?
    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/do_you_have_the_right_not_to_be_framed/

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/05/local/la-me-prosecutorial-misconduct-20101005

    Helena, I thought you might find this interesting. The Veritas Initiative:

    http://www.veritasinitiative.org/our-work/prosecutorial-misconduct/pm-preventable-error-a-report-on-prosecutorial-misconduct-in-california/pm-research-report-highlights/#download

    Like

  263. lynande51 permalink
    June 7, 2011 3:41 am

    Now that would be good information as to when they talked to him wouldn’t it. To bad those documents about that case aren’t available on line.I’m sure there would be a wealth of information in those. And the fact that he denied it is absolute proof of perjury.

    Like

  264. shelly permalink
    June 7, 2011 3:20 am

    @vindicate,

    They did talk to Gutierrez. If I remember well, one the reason the judge found him and the rest of Neverland 5, in 1996, is because they said they never talked to Gutierrez while Jackson’s lawyers had evidence that they did talk to him.

    Like

  265. lynande51 permalink
    June 6, 2011 10:17 pm

    I agree that it was his invention and then he went looking for and found people greedy enough to tell his story for him. It is too bad for them that yet another jury was able to see through their colusion with VG and found them guilty of fraud and malice.

    Like

  266. June 6, 2011 9:47 pm

    Lynette, thank you very much for the remarkable post!

    Several of the things you mentioned will be helpful in my own examination of VG’s book. Isn’t it interesting that we are doing parallel research of these people and that it is narrowing down to Gutierrez more and more?

    One of the very helpful things you’ve noticed is that Ralph Chacon said he hadn’t made any statements to Victor Gutierrez. Given that VG quotes him on every other page this is indeed a remarkable statement which proves that the MJWML book is a complete invention on Gutierrez’s part.

    It is too late a time here but we will certainly return to the subject tomorrow.

    Like

  267. Jan permalink
    June 6, 2011 6:38 pm

    see:

    part 2:

    part 3

    part 4

    Like

  268. lynande51 permalink
    June 6, 2011 3:51 pm

    Shelley all of the relevant links are imbedded. If you click on the highlighted words there are links to all of the documents you should read.

    Like

  269. nan permalink
    June 6, 2011 1:24 pm

    Amazing to me, that Dateline hired this Victor after he had already lost his court case with Michael..It is so disturbing, that they had absolutely no regard for facts or the truth.
    http://englishgrammarrules.net/days/compa342765tdoor/

    Like

  270. shelly permalink
    June 6, 2011 7:41 am

    “Actually it isn’t until after 2005 and you find out through the court pleadings is that the original story was Brett not Jordan .”

    Do you have the link?

    Like

  271. lynande51 permalink
    June 6, 2011 3:46 am

    Actually it isn’t until after 2005 and you find out through the court pleadings is that the original story was Brett not Jordan . If it had been Jordan they could have charged Michael without Jordan theywouldn’t have needed him. That was Victor Gutierrez trying to find other victims so he helped these people come up with their story. All he needed was willing participants.
    Shelley the part about the statment and not a testimony in the Grand Jury is in his testimony. You can read the testimony in full by clicking on the imbedded link.

    Like

  272. Teva permalink
    June 6, 2011 12:31 am

    @Shelly

    Exactly, That’s what I have been asking! Why didn’t Sneddon file charges in 1994, or at least arrest Michael Jackson, and the only reason I could come up with was – he didn’t think he could get a conviction.

    Like

  273. shelly permalink
    June 5, 2011 11:14 pm

    “If any of them had been adult eyewitnesses to the allegations that had been brought by the Chandler’s in 1993 history would have been rewritten because Jordan would not have had to testify because he had adult corroboration and an adult can be forced to testify.”

    I remember very well a video with Joanna Spilbor on the MJeol website. She said she thought the 1108 witness were bullshit, because Sneddon never filed charges against Jackson for molesting Barnes and Chandler. She said he didn’t need the kids because he had adults witness and the law allows you to bring charges if you had an adult who is a direct witness.

    So Sneddon had a matching description, an adult who saw MJ molesting Chandler and he did nothing?

    Like

  274. shelly permalink
    June 5, 2011 10:49 pm

    “That is where Ralph Chacon gave a sworn statement to the Grand Jury but was not asked questions! Normally in a Grand Jury proceeding a person would answer questions from the Grand Jury, not just give a statement without Grand Jury examination.”

    Where did you read that Chacon was not asked questions?

    Like

  275. June 5, 2011 9:08 pm

    Jan:Thank you for the William Wagener tape and the one on Murray´s prelim last year.;Murray will ask for postponements til eternity.And they let him.

    Like

  276. Carm permalink
    June 5, 2011 5:45 pm

    I just watched the William Wagner video. Wow!!!!! Thanks Jan.

    Like

  277. Carm permalink
    June 5, 2011 5:28 pm

    Good point, Hana. Lylande, you are right on when you talk about “travesty of justice” committed by Sneddon. I’ve always wondered why a public inquiry wasn’t done on this trial. In my country when there is a waste of taxpayer money or injustice against individuals because of ineptitude or corruption in the government, justice system, etc. there are investigations done so that similar mistakes are not repeated and that new laws or rules could be put in place. I assume it is the same in the U.S. Does anyone with a legal background know the answer to this question?

    Like

  278. Jan permalink
    June 5, 2011 5:10 pm

    see william wagener latest:

    Like

  279. Suzy permalink
    June 5, 2011 5:04 pm

    Thanks Lynette!

    I still wonder how Sneddon was able to get away with all this. That man should be in jail. (Along with all the false witnesses, of course.) He built most of his case on a tabloid book! Unbelievable that this can happen.

    Like

  280. Hana permalink
    June 5, 2011 4:10 pm

    The amount of money that was spent on this joke of a trial could have gone to a real case with real victims. The Michael Jackson trial will no doubt go down in history as the biggest mockery of the justice system and abuses of power in the history of California.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 4 of 7: So-Called “Christians” Who Have LIED Against Michael! | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
  2. Wade Robson: What the Heck Is Really Going On?-Pt 5 | AllForLoveBlog
  3. Transcript of Matt Drudge’s vehement defense of Michael Jackson in 2005, part 2 of 3 « Vindicating Michael

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: