Skip to content

Lesson for the naysayers of William Wagener’s initiative: A NOT GUILTY VERDICT CANNOT BE OVERTURNED

August 17, 2012

UPDATED

Here is a quote from a site of Michael Jackson’s supporters:

  • Let’s discuss this whole William Wagener affidavit to the court in the most calm way possible. We encourage discussion because it’s the only way to get to the essence of any issue in the MJGlobal community.  

Okay, let’s discuss it in the most calm way possible. I agree that it is the only way to get to the essence of the issue in general and in the MJ Global community in particular.

The criterion for finding out the truth is very well worded by reader Krisheywood who looks at every action in the MJ fan community from the point of view whether it is harming or helping Michael Jackson’s legacy. This is indeed the best criterion for taking the right decisions and determining who is who among Michael’s supporters.

The arguments provided by naysayers of William Wagener’s affidavit are amazing. Let me omit their assurances that “every Michael Jackson fan would love to see Sneddon pay” for his malicious practices (in the circumstances these assurances seem unconvincing to me), and proceed directly to their arguments why we shouldn’t support the affidavit to hold Sneddon accountable for his crimes:

Quote:

  •  “This type of case cannot be brought by anyone else except the person it was perpetrated against. Since ONLY Michael could bring such a case and the statutes of limitations have run out this is a moot point.”

After reading the above we are evidently expected to drop the issue altogether and go home to attend to some other businesses instead. What’s the point of discussing it if Michael is dead and cannot bring a case against Sneddon?

If you adhere to this point of view the rest of this post is not for you – you can go on comfortably sleeping while we will proceed and ponder on the “ramifications of having Wagener’s affidavit accepted” as these people suggest we do:

Quote:

  • “Let’s ponder on the ramifications of having William Wageners affidavit accepted and the verdict voided. Do we want the Not Guilty verdicts voided? We think not.”

No, we don’t want the Not Guilty verdict to be voided.

However, even if were the most vicious haters of Michael Jackson and wanted it to happen it would still be impossible to do so as  in criminal trials not guilty verdicts are never overturned.

A non-guilty verdict in a civil trial  can be overturned as a civil trial is a very much different matter. However Michael went through a criminal trial, and it makes all the difference in the world in terms of overturning the verdict – what is possible in a civil trial is totally ruled out in a criminal one.

By the way while studying the legal sources I found that the jury in a civil trial does not deal with the alternative of “guilty” or “not guilty” verdicts at all.  The jury is asked to look into the evidence and decide the matter on the basis of its “preponderance” (superiority in weight, force, importance, or influence).  The dictionary explains this term in plain English and says that it roughly means “more likely than not.”

Let us educate ourselves a bit on the difference between criminal and civil cases in the US.  This education will be all the more valuable as it will help to understand the essence of the Chandlers’ lawsuit against Michael Jackson (which was money of course):

A criminal case takes place when the government seeks to punish someone for an act that has been classified as a crime by Congress or a state legislature.

A civil case, on the other hand, usually involves a dispute over the rights and duties that people and organizations legally owe to each other (for example, business disputes, consumer disputes, and family law matters).

Among the important differences between criminal and civil cases are these:

Who controls the case? In a criminal case, a prosecutor, not the victim, institutes and controls the case. The prosecutor may file criminal charges even if the victim doesn’t approve, or may refuse to file criminal charges despite the victim’s desire that criminal charges be filed. This method of initiating the case contrasts with civil cases, where the injured party is the one who decides whether to sue and starts the ball rolling.

Civil cases don’t result in jail sentences. People convicted of crimes may pay a fine or be incarcerated or both. People held liable in civil cases may have to pay money damages or give up property, but do not go to jail or prison. (We don’t have debtors’ prisons for those who can’t pay a civil judgment.)

Who pays the lawyers? In criminal cases, government-paid lawyers represent defendants who want but can’t afford an attorney. Parties in civil cases, on the other hand, usually have to represent themselves or pay for their own lawyers.

What’s the burden of proof? In criminal cases, the prosecutor has to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, the plaintiff only has to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is liable for damages.

Who gets a jury? Defendants in criminal cases almost always are entitled to a jury trial. A party to a civil action is entitled to a jury trial in some types of cases, but not in others.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/the-hallmarks-a-criminal-case.htm

This makes us realize once again that the lawsuit filed by the Chandlers was all about money and Michael Jackson faced paying millions whichever direction the case took, irrespective of its outcome. Losing millions was his only option in the 1993 case – whether through a settlement with the Chandlers or due to the many months of the litigation process and not being able to work. Hence the difficult decision to settle which he had to take.

All this is very nice for our understanding of the impasse the Chandlers put Michael into in 1993, but how does it help us to see why a Not Guilty verdict in a criminal trial cannot be overturned?

The answer to that is given by experts who analyze another case (Anthony Casey’s) following a barrage of questions from citizens who wonder whether her Not Guilty verdict can be overturned one day. The legal answer given to them is a flat No –  the Not Guilty verdict in a criminal trial cannot be overturned:

“No no no. You are thinking of civil verdicts (e.g., JNOV- a judgment notwithstanding the verdict). A criminal verdict can NEVER be overturned. This is because under the U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment (and as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment), where there has been a FINAL verdict in a criminal case, a defendant may not be retried.

The only “exceptions” (but they aren’t really exceptions, because in these cases there is no final verdict) are:
a mistrial. There is no final verdict. A prosecutor can retry. For example, if the indictment was defective, the case can be dismissed and retried.
a hung jury. Where, in a case where a unanimous verdict is required (by the way, you don’t need unanimous verdicts where juries are 12, just juries of 6. But most states have constitutions that independently say you need jury unanimity).
an appeal by defendant: say OJ was convicted instead of acquitted in 1995. He can appeal (not the final jury verdict, but the appeal court decision. Remember, the jury verdict itself cannot be overturned).
a plea agreement: where the defendant agrees to a plea agreement, but then does not do what he promised in the plea. Say that the DA offers to not prosecute if Joe does something (maybe testifies). If he fails to do what he promises, the DA can recharge Joe with the original crimes.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110709122602AAzu9oI

None of the above exceptions apply to Michael Jackson’s case of course.

It was not a mistrial as the jury returned 14 final verdicts all of which said Not Guilty, and it wasn’t a hung jury either as the verdict was unanimous. Since the verdict was Not guilty, there was nothing to appeal for by the defendant and nothing to bargain about with the prosecution in a plea agreement (a plea agreement is when the defendant cracks under the stress of waiting for the jury verdict and pleads guilty to a lesser offense rather than take a chance with the jury. If the plea deal is agreed by both sides the jury is thanked for the service and is dismissed by the judge).

No, all this was absolutely not Michael’s case – he was found innocent from head to toe by the unanimous jury after several months of being tortured by Sneddon in a criminal trial. And in a criminal trial the verdict of the jury is considered FINAL and is NEVER overturned irrespective of the circumstances.

If you are still unsure here is an excerpt from an article which explains it in a marvelous way:

Overturning a “Not guilty” verdict

This is one delusion that needs to be nipped in the bud. Plenty of people are under the delusion that a judge can overturn a “not guilty” verdict returned by a jury. And I know from reading around that this is due to a major confusion regarding our entire court system, not just the criminal justice system.

First in a civil case such as a lawsuit, the jury does not hand down a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty”. Instead the jury is asked to evaluate several questions against the evidence and determine, by a preponderance of that evidence, the likely answers to those questions.

Civil cases have much, much more lenient standards at play – and the only provision of the Bill of Rights that comes into play is the right to have that dispute heard by a jury. However civil cases never involve cases where a person’s liberty may be taken away. They are never subject to any jeopardy. As such, a jury’s verdict in a civil trial can be overturned, even by the original trial judge, regardless of in which direction the jury ruled.

Yet many are attempting to use a civil case as an example of how a verdict of “not guilty” in a criminal trial overturned.

Never, as I’ve already discussed, never can a judge set aside an acquittal, yet too many people do not want to believe that, especially with regard to cases like OJ Simpson and, most recently, Casey Anthony. Now I’m open to be surprised – and this would be one hell of a surprise. If you can find a genuine case in the United States where a judge presiding over a criminal trial has set aside a jury’s verdict of “not guilty”, I welcome the presentation. I’d even be willing to put money on it, but I don’t like to gamble, even though this would quite literally be the equivalent of a sure bet.

http://www.kennethballard.com/?p=305

If even the above does not convince you here is an answer obtained by Cadeflaw from two lawyers who were asked a very specific question concerning an officer of the court who is thought to have committed “Fraud upon the court” (implying Tom Sneddon of course):

QUESTION: If the officers of the court are found to have committed “Fraud Upon the Court” does this overturn the not guilty verdict for the defendant?

ANSWER: The answer to your question is “no.” The defendant was found not guilty and that’s how things will remain. The defendant cannot be tried twice for the same crime (double jeopardy). 

QUESTION: Can you explain the legal principles that are related to the facts I’ve described so that we can better understand the “why” of things.

ANSWER: The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides: [N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . .”

Since the defendant has already been acquitted, under the Constitution, he cannot be tried again for the same crime. The Constitution does not allow it. The not guilty verdict stands.

QUESTION: Is there any problem with me posting these answers in a public forum to resolve a legal dispute?

ANSWER: The Fifth Amendment is a part of a public document. You can post this link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-

10-6.pdf

Best wishes!

~~ J.B.

Dialdancer supplements the answers with an excerpt from the Fifth Amendment:

RIGHTS OF PERSONS – FIFTH AMENDMENT

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,…; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Our big thanks go to all those who took care to make these clarifications. For those people who were brainwashed into thinking that the verdict will be “void” if Sneddon is found guilty, the lawyers’ opinion is putting  the final touch to the already clear picture – if Sneddon is found guilty of a fraud, Michael’s Not guilty verdict will still be valid and remain unchanged.  It will not affect the outcome of the trial but will show that Sneddon was so desperate about lacking real evidence against Jackson that he fell as low as fabricating this evidence against him!

Since the verdict will not be void the premise our opponents started with was totally wrong. No wonder it took them on the road to further distortion of the truth:

QUOTE:

  • “if a fraud upon court is proven all of the orders and judgments are voided and this voids the verdict – How would this affect Sneddon? If the Board of Supervisor’s did open an investigation and found that Sneddon did participate in “fraud upon the court” what will happen to Sneddon? Nothing.
  • The most they can do is suspend his license to practice law or disbar him- but as we all know Sneddon is retired and blissfully pulling in a government pension.

I cannot believe that this is said in full seriousness! So if Sneddon is found guilty of a fraud upon the court “nothing” will happen?

Really? I wonder how these people will feel if they find themselves in Sneddon’s shoes (i.e. are caught in a fraud). Will they continue to live in a bliss as Sneddon supposedly will? And will they like it if the general public learns of it and start doubting each of their words as the public surely will if Sneddon is found guilty of this crime?

Won’t Sneddon’s fabrication of evidence against Michael cast a heavy doubt on all other Sneddon’s words – for example, his statement that Michael’s photos allegedly matched Jordan Chandler’s description? Especially since NO ONE else confirmed this statement and all the others said that they were just “told” that it was a match?

Yes, all of them said that they didn’t have a chance to compare the photos and the description, including the very person who was supposed to make the final determination in the matter – Dr. Richard Strick who was specially summoned for the case and was representing the authorities!

And won’t the disclosure of Sneddon’s fraudulent deeds make the public look with different eyes on the veracity of stories by Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth?

These ladies were Sneddon’s special media friends through whom he constantly leaked to the public one-sided and unproven information about Michael Jackson.  If Sneddon is found guilty of a fraud their close contacts with a Prosecutor, who fabricated evidence against the defendant, will turn from their big advantage into a dubious argument in their favor overnight…

All of the above is the highly anticipated (by MJ’s supporters) outcome which can result from William Wagener’s initiative –  if it is successful of course. If it is not successful the very least the initiative will do is make more people aware of the gross misconduct Sneddon allowed himself during the 2005 trial – which is not a bad outcome either.

However instead of supporting the initiative which works both ways our opponents claim that William Wagener’s affidavit “should never have been put to the Board of Supervisors’! What are we supposed to think after that?  That the people who claim it do not want any of the above to take place?

And what do they suggest doing instead?

NOTHING???

Quote:

  • “it’s a lose, lose proposition and this Affidavit of William Wageners should NEVER have been put to the Board of Supervisor’s of Santa Maria County, NOR should ANY of Michael Jacksons fans supported this ill-thought out presentation and cause. ….
  • All we ask from the MJGlobal family is to ask questions before you support a cause, understand the implications and ramifications of supporting it before you do”.

As regards the last point I agree and also ask the MJ Global family to think about the implications and ramifications of some people’s ideas before they rush to support them.

However there is one thing our opponents are totally right about:

  • “We are all human and make mistakes – but as long as we learn from them they become lessons”.

If this is simply their mistake, let them think it over and learn their lesson.

But what if it is not and the whole thing is intentional?

The mere idea of it is so awful that I don’t even want to think in this direction…

*  *  *

Well, no sooner had I written the above when a disclaimer came from the same site. It may have been there for some time – sorry that I’ve noticed it just now! 

These are the words of wisdom which I appreciate very much:

Please RT – Cadeflaw, Mary Brookins & William Wagener CLARIFY the issues.

Rather than taking an extra step and researching CA law more we posted a twitlonger yesterday, about an issue that we had not fully fleshed out and we are big enough to admit when we’ve made an error.

We, asked questions on that TL regarding the William Wagener Affidavit that he presented August 14th 2012 to the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors.

We asked if he was successful in proving “Fraud on the Court” would it overturn the not guilty verdict of Micheal Jackson. We asked if this is what the Mj fanbase wanted.

We worried because of the information and wording in the 7th court tled us to believe that it would.

7th Circuit states “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

This is vague and we should have dug further for answers and we do regret not taking that extra step.

How ever wrong our approach, we have asked questions and now we are being supplied with the govt links that are pertinent.

Our concerns were picked up by Mary Brookins of the Cadeflaw group, and she took the iniatitive to speak to TWO lawyers – which is what we should have done and what we will do.

THIS IS WHAT MARY POSTED ON FACEBOOK – LINK https://www.facebook.com/groups/408561919190327/

These questions that Mary Brookins took to these two lawyers shows a great proactive response on her part and she also had an emergency Blog talk radio show to have William Wagener to speak to our concerns.

We ended our last twitlonger with this sentence:

We are all human and make mistakes- but as long as we learn from them they become lessons.

This still applies. Our mistake was not taking the extra steps that Mary Brookins took to clarify this issue before posting our twitlonger yesterday.

We do apologize for any unnecessary angst it spurred in anyones heart, as we have never been out to stop Justice for Michael. We are pleased, however, that it opened up a much needed dialogue that we need in Michael’s community.

We would appreciate that this twitlonger be posted and retweeted as much as the twitlonger we posted yesterday so this information can be seen by the majority of the MJGlobal family.

AND

Please listen do listen to Mary Brookins blogtalk show -William Wagener speaks during the last 20 minutes of the program

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cadeflaw/2012/08/16/william-wageners-affidavit-a-rolling-stone-part-2

It is good that I have not seriously thought of the other, second possibility… None of us are free from mistakes and it makes you really happy to see people getting on the right track again. It takes a lot of courage and intergrity to admit the mistake so openly and so quickly!

Thank you for being courageous and non-hesitant in doing the right thing!

UPDATE August 18, 2012

Here is an important addition I need to make. I’ve read a comment on Facebook by the people who fear the consequences of holding Sneddon accountable for misusing his power against Michael Jackson:

“Please read more carefully. If fraud upon a court is committed, then any resulting judgements/verdicts become void. Such a motion is not the same as a verdict being overturned. So again, YES, going after Tom Sneddon for fraud upon a court would come at the price of Michael’s vindication. The not guilty verdicts would be voided. Voided verdicts do not lead to Michael being retried.

http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm

(For more on this please go to the next post or the comments section in the current post)

72 Comments leave one →
  1. newrodrigo permalink
    June 23, 2013 5:55 am

    It’s a downer.

    But I knew it would happen myself.

    The crime was there, but I’d be stupid to believe they would vindicate Michael. Corruption and cover ups, as Wagener put it.

    Like

  2. June 22, 2013 12:06 pm

    “I’m not certain, but I think Wagener confirmed on his YouTube channel that the affidavit against Sneddon and the rest is dead. It’s been pretty much ignored.” – newrodrigo

    I am not surprised.

    Like

  3. newrodrigo permalink
    June 22, 2013 9:03 am

    I’m not certain, but I think Wagener confirmed on his YouTube channel that the affidavit against Sneddon and the rest is dead.

    It’s been pretty much ignored.

    Like

  4. newrodrigo permalink
    April 16, 2013 8:01 pm

    I wasn’t aware Wagener had Jason Francia in his home days before he took to the stand in court.

    He admitted to Wagener that Michael was good to him and had done nothing wrong…

    Like

  5. February 22, 2013 2:45 am

    Not to misunderstand, the verdict of not guilty was ofcourse relief for Michael.As we know it did not stop DD& many others from just continuing with their slander,

    Like

  6. February 22, 2013 2:41 am

    It was Sneddons frenzy before the verdicts by the jury trial and their verdict that brought Michael so much distress,And Sneddon committed fraud and misconduct. I don´t have the details on Zonen and Auchinschlos at hand. And the prosecutions cosy, close relationship with Diane Dimond and some other media.ie that which got Michael judged guilty in the media (or many of them,and this goes on to this day).

    Like

  7. February 22, 2013 1:09 am

    Here is another piece of news – this time from William Wagener. Before we read it let us keep our fingers crossed:

    William J. Wagener 12:27am Feb 22
    Hello, all. In case you did not hear.

    Atty. [Ms. ] Joni Gray, friend of Sneddon did indeed lose the election last year. She was just plain bad in many ways. but her replacement by election is good for us, who want Justice for MJ.

    It was a close election. Peter Adam replaced her and that is good for us.
    Peter was screwed by the same county , Santa Barbara, and the same District Attorney’s Office that MJ was screwed over by… Sneddon & his snakes.

    Yes, Peter is busy. He has canceled the meeting we had today, but we will get re-scheduled. Gray was our enemy. So having Peter there, in part, because a dozen or so of us demanded JUSTICE last August 14, and it made the front page of S.B. News-Press. We influenced the outcome, and I am still alive to talk about it. So It was a good move. I am working on many sides of the ISSUE to get Sneddon indicted, & Zonen & Auchincloss.

    It is best for us that I not speak too much, until the eggs hatch. … If you know what I mean. Pray that when Peter & I meet, we can do something mutually beneficial, and it leads to the first step for INDICTment of the “DIRTY 4” Prosecutors: Sneddon, Zonen, Auchincloss, Nicola. PRAY for my safety. And to all those who I have not had time to return a letter to in response, forgive me.🙂 First step is to put it on the OFFICIAL agenda to appoint a special Prosecutor to INDICT the Dirty 4.

    Like

  8. August 22, 2012 3:18 pm

    “should any judge be crazy enough to TRY and overturn an “innocent verdict” it would be career suicide plus become an immediate matter for U.S. Supreme Court.” – Dialdancer

    Dial, I have read hundreds of pages in search of respective information and all of them say that neither judge, nor anyone is able to overturn the verdict reached by the jury in a criminal trial.

    Like

  9. August 22, 2012 11:42 am

    For you information:

    Santa Barbara Count Board of Supevisors website.
    http://www.countyofsb.org/bos/default.aspx?id=404#current

    Agenda and Minutes:
    http://santabarbara.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx#current

    Like

  10. aldebaranredstar permalink
    August 22, 2012 8:08 am

    Thanks for that detailed timeline, Sanemjfan. Michael sure was in constant motion. Can’t believe the role Gloria Allred played in getting the criminal investigation going, as well as trying to take his kids away. Was Randy his manager around the time T. Mez was hired? Seems like it. Thanks again.

    Like

  11. stacy permalink
    August 22, 2012 5:56 am

    @sanemjfan,

    The timeline pretty much explains why the Arvizos kept on changing their stories and why they couldn’t nail down specific dates. You can’t commit a crime if your not at the crime scene.

    Like

  12. sanemjfan permalink
    August 22, 2012 5:30 am

    @aldebaranredstar

    Here’s a link from the blogroll that also summarizes the timeline of 2002-2003:

    http://doubledutchblogs.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/events-prior-to-the-trial-2/

    Like

  13. August 22, 2012 2:32 am

    Helena, I have not had an opportunity to read all of your commentary, however, I am sure you reminded everyone that should any judge be crazy enough to TRY and overturn an “innocent verdict” it would be career suicide plus become an immediate matter for U.S. Supreme Court. Do you think the Justices want the trial of Michael Jackson coming before them?

    Like

  14. Alison permalink
    August 21, 2012 10:45 am

    On the MJTruthnow website there is a video on the homepage showing those 2 journalists.

    Like

  15. aldebaranredstar permalink
    August 21, 2012 10:35 am

    Thanks, Vindicatemj, Sanemjfan, and Lynande51 for your responses, info, and links (I will check out your link, Sanemjfan, thanks). I am wondering about the 2 English guys, Kevin Smith and Gary Morgan of Splash TV, that Lynande51 mentions who were buying up all the docs in 93 they could get hold of. I am wondering if they coordinated the release of the declaration with LWMJ, so it would have maximum effect. Bashir wanted this to be a major coup and media event, and he ended up with a high-paying job at ABC. It could also have been someone at Granada TV or ITV. Granada made millions on this. Or these 2 guys could have sold the docs to someone who coordinated the release with LWMJ.

    I am trying to start a timeline for 2003. It’s incomplete.

    2/3/2003. LWMJ airs in UK (ITV) 14 million viewers.
    2/6/03. LWMJ airs on ABC, introduced by B. Walters, 27 million viewers.
    2/03 Ed Bradley is at Neverland to interview MJ but when MJ learns about the declaration being in the media he ‘disappears.’
    2/8/03 Jordan’s declaration leaked. Smoking Gun.
    2/20/03. Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See. Maury Povitch. Fox. 14 million viewers.
    2/03. MJ Unmasked. Dateline. NBC. 14 million viewers.
    2/03 Sneddon announces an investigation has begun.

    (Andrew Lack, President of NBC, becomes SONY chair in 03.)

    2003. Branca fired.

    4/2003. Maureen Orth’s article in Vanity Fair: “Losing His Grip.” Most of the article is about 93 accusations. 3/2004 another article: “Neverland’s Lost Boys.” (Orth married to Tim Russert, vice pres. of NBC News. Orth in contact with DD, VG, Sneddon, prosecutors. T. Russert, like Sneddon, a devout Catholic.)

    11/17/03 Number Ones released worldwide. MJ’s last album.
    11/03. One More Chance released. MJ’s last single.
    11/18/03 Number Ones released USA.
    11/18/03 Neverland searched. 14 hour search by 70 detectives.
    11/19/03 arrested warrant issued.

    12/25/03 Ed Bradley interviews MJ for 60 Minutes. CBS.
    12/28/03 Ed Bradley interviewed aired. 18.8 million viewers.
    1/2/04. Michael Jackson The One, CBS Special airs. It was supposed to have been released when Number Ones was released in Nov. but CBS wanted MJ to address the accusations before they aired the show.

    Like

  16. sanemjfan permalink
    August 21, 2012 5:43 am

    @aldebaranredstar

    Helena, I think we need a timeline for all the important events that took place in 2003. To me, this was a watershed year in which things went bad for MJ and various forces lined up against him–both law and media. I think we need to look at the players and the chain of events in detail.

    here is a summary of the opening statements of the prosecution and defense, in which they lay out the timeline of events between the beginning of Feb. 2003 all the way to MJ’s arrest. I highlighted the discrepancies and LIES in Sneddon’s arguments! http://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/february-28th-march-1st-2005-trial-analysis-summary-of-sneddon-and-mesereaus-opening-statements/

    Like

  17. August 21, 2012 2:43 am

    “Mr. Wagener presented us with a new opportunity. Our first victory was uncovering Michael’s name at Gardner School and we have accomplished more since. Perseverance is key to William’s effort as do all sincere efforts. As for those who doubt William Wagener, allow me to repeat, if Mr. Wagener were out to make $$ from his fights for justice, he would already have been a millionaire prior to the delivery of this affidavit.” – Elizabeth Olney

    Elizabeth, yes, this is a new opportunity which cannot be missed. And I don’t doubt William Wagener’s effort to make a film either – he is so dedicated to the idea and is so set on making Sneddon answer for all the evil he did to everyone (including himself) that he will rather put his own money into this project rather than misspend a penny out of the collected sum.

    “This is an open door that William opened for us to move full throttle to bring awareness to the public of Michael’s innocence !
    We must continue passing the petition, writing letters to the DAs AND encouraging support to the FCBK group, “SUPPORT TO WILLIAM WAGENER ON FACEBOOK”- https://www.facebook.com/groups/408561919190327/

    YES, YES and YES! The effort that goes into this project simply cannot miss. Everything we do in its support will make the public more aware of Michael’s innocence. It needs a thundering support! So that it bangs on Sneddon’s and Diane Dimond’s ears every day and they realize that it is never too late to hold them accountable for what they did. Let them live and listen to this constant banging. And the public finally waking up to the truth!

    Like

  18. August 21, 2012 2:28 am

    “Wagener, while not perfect, did what he thought was right. He thought standing up for Michael was right…and we shouldn’t be arguing about that. We should be fighting in his corner, cause that’s what good MJ fans do. Standing up for any MJ supporter, is standing up with Michael himself. If things screw up, then we start again and fight back twice as hard. But fighting amongst ourselves is not the answer…our attention should be focused on the fight that’s ahead of us all”. – Rodrigo

    VERY WELL SAID, RODRIGO!

    Like

  19. August 21, 2012 2:17 am

    “I was one of the first to sign this and I did it because I understand what it is that William Waggner is trying to do. At the Federal level there is no Statute of limitations to bring charges until after the investigation starts. MJ fans should get behind this and get behind it now. Sneddon was nothing but a big fish in a small pond and his case shows that mentallity.It is time for someone to show him that the pond is much much bigger than the corner he’s been hiding in.”

    Lynette, I am very happy to hear that you are supporting this action. Your comment about the need to take it to the Federal level is very enlightening. This way it might indeed work, as in the Santa Barbara county it seems to have little chance. Michael’s fans should really get behind it and get behind it NOW.

    Like

  20. Alison permalink
    August 21, 2012 2:16 am

    Lynnette,
    If it has now been determined that Mann has no right to all the stuff, as Vacarro didn’t either, doesn’t that mean the document was stolen, by Vaccarro, and cannot the Estate get it back from DD as stolen property?with all the pages.? isn’t DD then guilty of receiving stolen goods?
    Not that it means we would ever necesssarily get to see it so it ,might be pointless anyway.

    Like

  21. August 21, 2012 2:10 am

    “Here on page 15 line one item four is the Child Molest Documents that Dimond went after in 2004.When you know that she was there and was handeling the docs in March and then know the timeline of the Vaccaro case it only makes sense that he sold them to her to pay for his legal and shipping fees against Michael. https://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/3-14-11-mann-exhibit-5-6-request-judicial-notice.pdf– Lynande51

    Interesting. The Settlement agreement with the Chandlers was made public on June 15, 2004, so it could have been Diane Dimond who did it after Henry Vaccaro contacted her.

    However the release of Jordan’s declaration in February 2003 was most probably Tom Sneddon’s doing.

    Like

  22. August 21, 2012 1:43 am

    “I don’t know about the declaration and who might have released it for certain but I do know that it was passed around to press on January 10th,1993 when Feldman attached it to his motion for MJ to produce a financial statement so it could have come from anyone in the media that had an interest to bring these allegations to the public eye once again”.

    Lynette, it might have been the media too, but on the other hand the collection of the Los Angleles Times articles as well as the Santa Barbara archive sent to us by Thetis, does not have a single mention of Jordan’s declaration released at the time. I don’t remember it now exactly but the most of what they said then was reiteration of the old thing about “the boy’s graphic account”. So though Larry Feldman did attach Jordan’s statement to his motion, it seems that the text of it was not published by the media in 1993.

    This was why it was such a terrible shock for Michael (and the sensation for the public) when it suddenly appeared from the blue ten years later in 2003, and the next day after Bashir’s documentary at that.

    Just another of those coincidences?

    Like

  23. August 21, 2012 1:30 am

    “Helena, I think we need a timeline for all the important events that took place in 2003”.

    Aldebaranredstar, yes, we need a timeline. I’ll see what I can do about it. As regards Jordan Chandler’s statement accidentally released the next day Bashir’s documentary was shown in the US I was the first to think that it was Larry Feldman (as I wrote in a post about the lawyers and the Fifth amendment).

    But Feldman vehemently denied it and even hinted to Roger Friedman that a little connecting of the dots would give the name of the one who did it. So out of these two – Feldman and Sneddon – that leaves us with Sneddon after all.

    Quote from Roger Friedman:

    Interestingly, in February 2003, literally right after the special “Living with Michael Jackson” aired on ABC, the highly salacious complaint against Jackson from the 1993 case, which had also been sealed, surfaced.

    The papers had a court stamp and were drawn up on Feldman’s letterhead, something I asked him about at the time. He insisted they did not come from him, but said the guilty party was close at hand and that “just a little connecting of the dots” was needed to get a name.

    Now that sealed documents have twice surfaced and wound up in the same place — Court TV/The Smoking Gun Web site — maybe it’s time to think about who had access to them and how they could possibly have gotten out.

    Source: FoxNews; Fox411 Roger Friedman by special permission / MJFC

    Like

  24. lynande51 permalink
    August 21, 2012 1:09 am

    I was one of the first to sign this and I did it because I understand what it is that William Waggner is trying to do. He is not asking the Santa Barbara County Board to indict Sneddon but for one of them on the board to investigate the case and refer it to a Federal Prosecutor for possible charges of Prosecutorial Fraud at the Federal not the State level. At the Federal level there is no Statute of limitations to bring charges until after the investigation starts. What he is doing in essence is what I suggested two years ago or thought someone might be able to help with. That is a charging him with a Hate Crime amounting to an abuse of power. They have to have a specific crime to charge him with in this case it happens to be prosecutorial fraud amounting to an abuse of power for violating Michael’s Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights under the US Constitution. A civil rights violation vernacularly called “the abuse of the blue” in reference to the color of police uniforms and those in positions of authority. It is much more common here in the US than people think and there are several instances where comments made by Sneddon could lead to someone seeing his racial prejudice against blacks.
    To do that someone on the board must refer it to a Federal Prosecutor and ask for an investigation. Then Federal Investigators ( the FBI and others) could go in and examine the case, the police investigation and go back to 1993 to look at that case to see if Sneddon did anything that would amount to fraud.In order to do that they must be shown cases within the case that show all of the instances of perjured testimony and fraudulent evidence and there are many more than just the ones that he is talking about. MJ fans should get behind this and get behind it now. Sneddon was nothing but a big fish in a small pond and his case shows that mentallity.It is time for someone to show him that the pond is much much bigger than the corner he’s been hiding in.

    Like

  25. lynande51 permalink
    August 20, 2012 10:42 pm

    I have added a link to this document here because it is no longer available on the Rose Speaks website.I have had it for over a year when the case of the Estate versus Mann in the copyright infriingement case. They use the original case to say the MJ has no copyright over the memorabilia because he dropped the case in 2007.We now know that the federal judge in the case has said they do not have the copyrights as the Jackson Secrety Vault and Vintage Pop Media claim that was determined last week. Here on page 15 line one item four is the Child Molest Documents that Dimond went after in 2004.When you know that she was there and was handeling the docs in March and then know the timeline of the Vaccaro case it only makes sense that he sold them to her to pay for his legal and shipping fees against Michael.
    https://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/3-14-11-mann-exhibit-5-6-request-judicial-notice.pdf

    Like

  26. lynande51 permalink
    August 20, 2012 10:27 pm

    “I don’t know who released the statement. It is important to know it was a statement and not a deposition, a legal document. It was very vague–like ‘MJ molested me on many occasions’–never saying where and when.”

    I don’t know about the declaration and who might have released it for certain but I do know that it was passed around to press on January 10th,1993 when Feldman attached it to his motion for MJ to produce a financial statement so it could have come from anyone in the media that had an interest to bring these allegations to the public eye once again. I make this an educated guess because in 1993 two men from the UK were busy buying up the documents available to the press at the time (there never was a gag order in that case) and they were Kevin Smith and Gary Morgan of Splash TV. They are also metioned in the authors notes of VG’s book. One of them was also in the court house meeting with the Neverland Five when they were meeting with their lawyer and Victor Gutierrez about their case and they purchased their statements from them and sold them to the British tabloids. That is how it came into the possesion of the English Tabloids and let’s face it no one had a more vested interest than the British tabloid media in perpetuating this lie because it had sold millions of copies for them.
    Then in June of 2004 Diane Dimond bought the settlement document from Henry Vaccaro and released it to the public on the Court TV website minus the eight pages that break down the settlement and names the insurance companies that paid it. She went to see Vaccaro’s collection in March of 2004 and if anyone remembers held up a pair of underwear on TV saying that the prosecution could use them for DNA analysis. At first Vaccaro would not let her have the documents because he had already sold the entire collection to a “European Buyer” that has never been disclosed. He said it was goin to be shipped and it was. Michael found out that he had it the same way that everyone else did and sued to get his belongings back because Vaccaro had no right to them as Mj was not part of the original lawsuit. He filed that on March 9th and Vaccaro said he would fight it. It went to a Federal Judge in New Jersey that said MJ was right and the stuff had to come back,at Vaccaro’s expense. I believe that is when Vaccaro contacted Diane Dimond to tell her that he would sell her a copy of the Settlement in order to pay for the shipping and his legal expenses.I now know that it is true that Diane Dimond purchased and withheld the eight pages because screen shots of Vaccaro’s website were submitted to the court in Howard Mann’s case that the Estate brought against him. It is on 15 line one item four of the evidence provided by Mann to the court saying that Michael lost the original case so therefore he has a right to sell that memorabilia.That along with the timeline tells me that Diane Dimond has deliberatly withheld the full settlement document because it shows what I have said all along…That MJ did not pay 30 million dollars to settle that case.It was $15,331,250.00 and then it was split up among Feldman per his retainer,Jordan, Evan and June Chandler.And Diane Dimond knows it but she likes to make it grow and grow because the whole game she has played all along was to help the prosecution and the Chandlers make MJ sound more guilty. I personally think that it is time to ask her to show us those pages.

    Like

  27. aldebaranredstar permalink
    August 20, 2012 9:57 pm

    About the 03 charges, right after Bashir’s LWMJ came out in Feb. 2003, CBS’s Ed Bradley was at Neverland to interview MJ. He was later interviewed by Larry King and revealed some interesting things. He said the Arvizos were there and were praising MJ–they were hanging out in the kitchen in the main house. Ed B. was going to interview MJ but just before the interview, MJ got a call from Marlon Brando in London, who said he heard that the sealed statement from Jordan Chandler about the alleged molestation was somehow in the hands of the media. MJ went ballistic and cancelled the interview b/c he was so upset. It was later held on Christmas Day December 25, 2003, after MJ had been charged by Sneddon in November.

    I don’t know who released the statement. It is important to know it was a statement and not a deposition, a legal document. It was very vague–like ‘MJ molested me on many occasions’–never saying where and when. Some think it was Larry Feldman. I am not sure if it was in fact Sneddon, since it was released in the UK not USA (apparently). So who did release it?

    Helena, I think we need a timeline for all the important events that took place in 2003. To me, this was a watershed year in which things went bad for MJ and various forces lined up against him–both law and media. I think we need to look at the players and the chain of events in detail.

    Like

  28. stacy permalink
    August 20, 2012 9:52 pm

    Rodrigo,

    There’s no doubt that the whole thing was a set up. If you read the declaration of Michael’s personal assistant Evvy Tavasci, then you will clearly see that Bashir purposely set out to make him look very bad.

    Like

  29. Rodrigo permalink
    August 20, 2012 7:26 pm

    After Bashir’s documentary, it was all Sneddon from day 1. Was the documentary deliberately designed as a catalyst for Sneddon’s actions? I don’t know, but there is evidence of it. I just fail to believe Bashir was a poor innocent journalist, who made a bad act of judgement in saying things and setting things up that would give someone like Sneddon
    something to feed on for his vendetta against Michael. He knew EXACTLY what controversy it would cause…

    Sneddon was so desperate to get back at Michael, he leaked the 1993 case documents. Coached a pack of liars. Falsyfied and tampered with evidence. He used every dirty Goddamn trick in the book.

    If the old SOB don’t get don’t get done for something, then I’m going to lose a lot of faith in this world.

    Like

  30. August 20, 2012 4:21 pm

    “So while they were happy he was being publicly smeared, I think they wanted to retry the case anew and correct mistakes”, – Nannoris

    Oh, in theory it was quite possible. However Sneddon could not correct anything even if he wanted it very much. Despite what Michael’s detractors say he didn’t make any mistakes except the crucial mistake of going after an innocent person and concocting the Arvizo case at all.

    Sneddon did not have any other candidates for a victim’s role and had to do with what he had. It was not in his power to cross out the fact that after Bashir’s documentary the Arvizos spoke very highly of Michael in the rebuttal video they made. Sneddon had to change the date of “molestation” to the date after that video, which made the whole thing completely ridiculous of course, but again – it was not in his power to change it.

    Another “mistake” (over which Larry Feldman lamented at the Frozen in time seminar, which shows how “unbiased” he is) was that Sneddon allowed Janet Arvizo to testify. But if Sneddon had not subpoenaed her, Thomas Mesereau would have, so what’s the point? Thomas Mesereau met her before the trial and said: “You just wanted her to talk. It almost didn’t matter what she said.”

    So whatever tricks Sneddon used for disrupting justice none of them worked. And if he had had the case retried nothing would have changed either. I truly believe that God was on Michael’s side, because it is not in the power of human beings to set such a spectacular scene of lies being defeated by the truth – no matter how the lies try.

    Like

  31. nannorris permalink
    August 20, 2012 2:45 pm

    Vindicate MJ
    Nannoris, I am afraid the prosecution never wanted the judge to dismiss the trial. On the contrary they wanted it to go on and go on and go on, because the longer it went the more damaging effect it had on Michael’s image. So many witnesses to testify! So much evidence to look into! And moreover – so many “prior bad acts” from Michael’s past!
    I think the prosecution was very much interested in having this trial go on forever because they wanted utmost publicity for the case. Sneddon is no fool and knows that even if he lost the case in court, the court of public opinion would still convict Michael due to the massive campaign against him in the media. And this is why he illegally leaked all those documents to Diane Dimond so that she made the most of them for the public.
    ————————-
    I agree they wanted it to go on and on , but I dont think Sneddon was content to just have the court of public opinion..
    I think he intentionally kept forcing the hand of the defense , so that they would object and ask for the case to be dismissed, when they saw their case going south..
    They pretty much had carte blanche to do what ever they wanted and spend whatever they wanted to get a conviction..
    So while they were happy he was being publicly smeared, I think they wanted to retry the case anew and correct mistakes…After all in that town , Sneddon called all the shots ,that is how this ball got rolling in the first place..No other district atty would have gone forward with the Arvizo obvious pack of lies..
    So if the judge did dismiss the jury I think Sneddon would have just retried the case and and fixed some errors..
    According to Mesereau that is whay he didnt rest after the prosecutors put their case on …because if he got a hang, he knew Sneddon would retry MJ .
    As it was , even after these verdicts, Sneddon was still looking into charges against Jackson..He is a sick sick man..jmo🙂

    Like

  32. August 20, 2012 12:35 pm

    The Findlaw columnist Jonna Spilbor said about Sneddon in 2004 that a mere suppression at the trial of wrongly obtained evidence is not enough sanction against the prosecutor (so how much more does it refer to fraudulent evidence?). However she admits that the justice system is somewhat lacking tools to hold the prosecution accountable for their misconduct. She says that there are three possibilities of sanctions:

    1) imposing fines, but this is not an option for a serious offense like the one committed by Sneddon

    2) recusing the individual Prosecutor or the entire District Attorney office (!). The dictionary explains recusing as “disqualifying or seeking to disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement”. Jonna Spilbor says that this remedy is rarely used.

    3) dismissal of the charges. This is the most serious sanction the law allows for cases of grave prosecutorial misconduct (so I was not that extravagant in assuming that in case of Sneddon’s fraud the trial should have been stopped then and there).

    This must be rarely used too as there is a danger that someone really guilty will avoid justice this way. However Michael was completely innocent and the not guilty verdict proved it. So looking back at what happened if the judge had applied this sanction and Michael had been released then and there it would have been just the right thing to do!

    Excerpt from Jonna Spilbor’s article:

    Why the DA’s search of Michael Jackson’s PI’s office was unlawful
    Jonna M. Spilbor, FindLaw Columnist
    Special to CNN.com
    Monday, July 26, 2004 Posted: 11:43 AM EDT (1543 GMT)

    …There is a fine line between zealous prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct — and it’s a line this district attorney may be dangerously close to crossing. Sneddon’s apparent vendetta against Jackson has caused him to act improperly in the past, as well.

    Suppressing evidence is not enough of a sanction when serious prosecutorial misconduct is at issue — as seems to be the case here. Only additional sanctions will properly punish and deter.

    Unfortunately, however our system of justice is not exactly set up to mete out punishment to those who are supposed to be trusted officers of the court. Imposing fines against the attorneys themselves is always an option. Another possible (though rarely used) remedy for prosecutorial misconduct would be to recuse the individual offending attorney — or the entire District Attorney’s office.

    This remedy can be proper if the court is convinced that the district attorney’s office has employed its discretionary powers to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Did that happen here? Certainly, there is a strong argument that it did — based on the blatant violation of warrant procedures and the resulting seizure of potentially privileged material.

    Finally, in the most serious of cases, there is but one remedy that both ensures a just resolution for an accused, and punishes prosecutors who fail to play by the rules: Dismissal of the charges. But it does so at a potentially great cost to the victim when the defendant is indeed guilty of the crime charged. Here, however, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt is tenuous at best — and what evidence exists, may be less than credible.

    In this case, then, dismissal might not be too extreme a sanction. The critical import, however, is that suppression of evidence is not enough when misconduct is as grave as occurred here.
    —————

    Jonna M. Spilbor, a FindLaw columnist, is a frequent commentator on television news networks. In the courtroom, she has handled hundreds of cases as a criminal defense attorney, and also served in the San Diego City Attorney’s Office, Criminal Division, and the Office of the United States Attorney in the Drug Task Force and Appellate units. She is a graduate of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where she was a member of the Law Review.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/26/spilbor.jackson.sneddon/index.html?iref=allsearch

    Like

  33. August 20, 2012 12:11 pm

    “Why no support or encouragement from the Jackson family for W.W. affidavit?”

    Kaarin, the Jacksons may simply be afraid. They live in the area where Sneddon was a supreme authority and ruled like a small tsar. His influence must be still very much felt there.

    Like

  34. August 20, 2012 11:37 am

    “Aside from the fraud stuff, I think the prosecutors made such blatant missteps and things of that nature hoping the judge would dismiss the trial , so they could try him over again and fix some of their mistakes…get a different jury also because Mesereau pretty much cut them off at the knees when he accepted the jury before putting a black juror on….”

    Nannoris, I am afraid the prosecution never wanted the judge to dismiss the trial. On the contrary they wanted it to go on and go on and go on, because the longer it went the more damaging effect it had on Michael’s image. So many witnesses to testify! So much evidence to look into! And moreover – so many “prior bad acts” from Michael’s past!

    I think the prosecution was very much interested in having this trial go on forever because they wanted utmost publicity for the case. Sneddon is no fool and knows that even if he lost the case in court, the court of public opinion would still convict Michael due to the massive campaign against him in the media. And this is why he illegally leaked all those documents to Diane Dimond so that she made the most of them for the public.

    People quickly get bored and cease following the real events in court but will avidly look for “sensational” news the way it is presented by the press. Michael was tried in court for professionals only – while for the public he was tried in the media. And though the professionals lost the media won as numerous comments of the public show even now.

    Many people still think that Michael was acquitted 1) because the jury was “starstruck” or/and 2) because it was Sneddon’s fault. But the situation was exactly the opposite – the jury was objective and sometimes even hostile (remember those two jurors?) and the Sneddon did what a dozen prosecutors could not have done. He brought every witness on earth to testify against Michael and even forged some evidence – however in spite all that Michael was found innocent!

    It seems that lies and hate are not that powerful after all. Michael relied on God for the truth and God won.

    Like

  35. August 20, 2012 10:58 am

    “Thanks for the update…it eased a little pressure from the heart.” – SemiRefinedJunkie

    SMJ, I am no legal expert and cannot speak for the Superior Court of course, but the way I see it there has been no precedent yet when a maliciously prosecuted but fully acquitted person went after the prosecutor who committed fraud upon the court. Evidently once a not guilty verdict is reached people are so happy with it that no one asks for more.

    The precedents all of us looked into (and quoted here) deal only with cases when as a result of fraud upon the court a guilty verdict was passed. These cases are so gross that people are forced to seek justice for themselves in order to void wrong verdicts and reverse them – otherwise they risk to go to jail for nothing.

    Mind you that there might also be cases when the prosecution committed fraud but the person may still be guilty of a crime, so it is in the interests of the justice system (even the prosecution) to retry this person, starting the process afresh and getting to the bottom of it. This is why they nullify the previous result and start it all over again.

    But Michael’s case had nothing to do with any of the above – despite Sneddon’s fraudulent tricks he won a crashing victory over Sneddon and was acquitted on all counts. In other words it was a clean victory, despite all the dirt he was confronted with. I’ve read that Thomas Mesereau wanted to continue with a case against Sneddon and hold him accountable for malicious prosecution (will try to find the article where I read about it), but evidently due to Michael’s frail condition the case was not pursued further.

    However Sneddon’s manner of prosecuting Michael was SO malicious and he did SO much injustice to Michael (forged fingerprints, leaked the documents to prejudice the jury and nation against Michael, probably even induced the Arvizos to start a case against Michael as he left his card under Janet’s door at a time when they were not even making any allegations!) and went on with his vendetta against Michael for SO long, that it would be a crime to leave it at that.

    No, Sneddon should answer for what he did.

    And if it is to be the first case when the defendant was fully acquitted but the prosecutor will still have to answer for his fraud – let it be!

    Michael was always the first in everything he did, so let him be the first here too. He cannot do it himself, so it will have to be done by us.

    If not us who will?

    Like

  36. nannorris permalink
    August 20, 2012 8:56 am

    Aside from the fraud stuff, I think the prosecutors made such blatant missteps and things of that nature hoping the judge would dismiss the trial , so they could try him over again and fix some of their mistakes…get a different jury also because Mesereau pretty much cut them off at the knees when he accepted the jury before putting a black juror on….

    Like

  37. kaarin22 permalink
    August 20, 2012 4:02 am

    Why no support or encouragement from the Jackson family for W.W. affidavit?He has
    been supportive via his mother to cousins ,uncles and even to Joe´s out of wedlock child
    and her mother.
    On a more positive note I happened to listen to a consert by Justin Bieberg he gave in
    Norway.The man who brieffy interviewed afterwards: Congratulatated him on doing so well,though almost being a childstar.He also mentioned him doing so well–uh hm -not going like Michael Jackson and Britney Spears..J.B. just continued by stating how much support he got and gets from his family.A little later this man asks who has most inspired him. J.B. answer:Michael Jackson and Anita Franklin.

    Like

  38. August 20, 2012 1:59 am

    Thanks for the update…it was very well explained and eased a little pressure from the heart. Finding Sneddon guilty of fraud upon court would doubtless *bolster* the not-guilty verdict. Obviously they will consider the context of the situation before they even think about tampering with the verdict!

    Like

  39. August 19, 2012 10:40 pm

    “So even if someone was wrongfully found not guilty due to fraud upon the court, they cannot be retried. However, the person who committed fraud can be charged with contempt of court and can be charged with perjury and tried on those charges”

    Linda, you sound like a legal expert, and it is nice to hear a confirmation that whatever Sneddon did Michael could not be retried. But I have several questions regarding your comment.

    It is pretty obvious that if the verdict or any decision was based on the fraud it becomes void. But what happens if the jury’s decision was NOT based on the fraud and was taken irrespective of it?

    You say that even if someone was wrongfully found not guilty due to fraud upon the court they cannot be retried, however the verdict will become void. But if someone was rightfully found not guilty despite the fraud, why should it become void? The fraud did not even affect or taint the verdict! How many times do prosecutors “stretch the truth” with regard to defendants and if the defense finds proof that the prosecution is …well… lying, does it mean that if someone wants to hold the prosecutor accountable for his lies, it will be the innocent defendant who will pay by having his not-guilty verdict nullified? Isn’t it absurd?

    Doesn’t it amount to saying “Be happy that you were acquitted and don’t seek any further justice for yourself”?

    Another question: If Sneddon’s fraud was uncovered during the trial and the forensic experts admitted that the fingerprints were obtained in the wrong (fraudulent) way, shouldn’t the trial have been stopped then and there? The fact of the fraud upon the court by the prosecution was practically proven, so why was the trial taken to its end? In order to nullify it if someone raised the subject again? Isn’t it absurd again?

    And does the whole thing mean that everyone pretended that no fraud had taken place for the trial to go on?

    P.S. I had to correct some questions. Sorry for the wrong wording of some.

    Like

  40. August 19, 2012 6:35 pm

    Concerning void and not voidable verdicts in criminal cases. Fraud makes the verdict or any decision based on that fraud void, a nullity as if it never existed. Voidable verdicts are when there has been an error that can be overturned on appeal. It is clear that if there was fraud tainting the verdict, then the case is void. However, double jeopardy trumps retrial. So even if someone was wrongfully found not guilty due to fraud upon the court, they cannot be retried. However, the person who committed fraud can be charged with contempt of court and can be charged with perjury and tried on those charges.

    Like

  41. Susannerb permalink*
    August 19, 2012 12:19 pm

    Thank you, Helena, this is an important discovery. And you don’t have to study law to understand it, common sense is enough. A conviction of Sneddon would only underpin the not guilty verdict.

    Like

  42. August 19, 2012 2:01 am

    Here is an important addition I need to make. I’ve read a comment on Facebook by the people who fear the consequences of finding Sneddon accountable for misusing his power against Michael Jackson:

    “Please read more carefully. If fraud upon a court is committed, then any resulting judgements/verdicts become void. Such a motion is not the same as a verdict being overturned. So again, YES, going after Tom Sneddon for fraud upon a court would come at the price of Michael’s vindication. The not guilty verdicts would be voided. Voided verdicts do not lead to Michael being retried.

    http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm

    The link to this site was initially provided by Mary Brookins of the Cadeflaw team. She consulted two lawyers about the possible ramifications for Michael Jackson of finding Sneddon guilty of a fraud on the court, and both lawyers replied that in no way Michael’s Not guilty verdict could be overturned – it will stand even if the prosecutor is found guilty of a fraud on the court.

    However the source Mary herself is providing does not speak of overturning the verdict but says that the verdict will become void:

    – “It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything”.
    – “Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court”.
    – “Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

    Though the lawyers have given a definitive answer that Michael’s Not-guilty verdict will never change I still decided to look for details of this void business to see what’s what.

    The idea behind it is of course the need to immediately void the guilty verdict which was returned by the jury on the basis of the fraud committed by the Prosecutor. If the prosecutor led the jury to believe his fraudulent evidence and they reached a guilty verdict on the basis of it, but then the fraud was found out, the verdict immediately becomes void because it was based on false facts and not true evidence.

    The source mentioned above explains that the verdict arising from fraud is not a decision at all as it is not final. The ‘finality’ point is very important because this is what makes the verdict a verdict – without finality there is no verdict. The non-final verdict can be overturned while the final one cannot (at least in a criminal court)

    The document says:

    ” The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

    Let me repeat – the decision never becomes final if it was produced by fraud upon the court. However if the decision was not produced by the fraud, it means that the verdict was not affected by it and therefore stands.

    It is simple common sense – if the fraud worked, the resulting decision will be voided, but if the fraud did not work the decision will stand because it was taken despite the fraud and was not affected by it.

    The latter was Michael Jackson’s case. Even though the Prosecution was telling fairy tales about him the jury managed to look through them and reached their verdict disregarding these lies.

    Tom Sneddon said that the boy’s fingerprints on the adult magazine were found because Michael had allegedly shown him this magazine, but the defense found out that firstly, the Prosecutor obtained those fingerprints by fraud (by letting the accuser handle the magazine without gloves in full view of the Grand jury) and secondly, the Prosecutor spoke of the magazine which would be published several months after the last time the boy saw Michael Jackson at all.

    No wonder the jury did not believe the lie and took their decision on the basis of the defense arguments. And if the truth won even despite the prosecutor’s fraudulent methods, disclosing them afterwards cannot overturn the verdict but will only add to it more value and weight. Michael was acquitted irrespective of the prosecutor’s dirty tricks – and this makes Michael Jackson’s Not guilty verdict not only stand, but stand stronger than ever before, because he was found innocent even in the circumstances of malicious prosecution.

    If he had not been acquitted, the situation would have been different – the fraud upon the court could have given the defense a reason to declare the case a mistrial and the verdict not final:

    Mistrial” should be granted . . . as a result of some occurrence upon the trial of such a character that it is apparent to the court that because of it the defendant cannot have a fair trial and the whole proceedings are vitiated. The defendant must prove to the trial court that the remarks made . . . were so prejudicial that the defendant was deprived of the opportunity for a fair trial and the entire proceedings were tainted. http://www.scribd.com/doc/29601708/State-Fraud-Upon-the-Court

    So if the prosecutor’s fraud produces a wrong jury decision it is then that their decision becomes void. Voiding is the first step before reversing the verdict:

    Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void … even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. http://prosechicago.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/massive-federal-memorandum-of-law-proving-il-attorney-general-lisa-madigan-judges-lack-immunity-liable-for-malicious-suit/

    In case the jury decision is not made on the basis of the prosecutor’s fraud, there is no need to seek reversal in opposition to such a decision. The law stands on the guard of only those to whom injustice was done due to a fraud. And if the verdict was just and does not need to be reversed it will not, while the court officer responsible for the fraud will still answer for what he did.

    Such a conclusion is based on simple common sense which lays the basis for all laws.

    The law does not allow for absurdities. If the not-guilty verdict automatically became void due to any fraud committed in court the trial would lose the point of it – the prosecution would go for frauds intentionally in the hope that all unwelcome verdicts become void.

    P.S. The post has been updated with this information.

    Like

  43. August 18, 2012 1:46 pm

    For those who are studying the 2005 trial here is a link to the site which provided pretty good summaries of EACH day of it:

    Days 1 -26 (March 1 – April 6) http://mj-upbeat.com/TrialMJJSource.htm
    Days 27-45 (April 10 – May 4) http://mj-upbeat.com/TrialMJJSourcePG2.htm
    Days 46-71 (May 5 – June 13) http://mj-upbeat.com/TrialMJJSourcePG3.htm

    To make things easier for everyone doing the research I think I’ll make a special category of Helpful Links and Sources

    Like

  44. August 18, 2012 12:44 pm

    Thank you Helena,

    We have a copy which great for us, but does not help the new person doing independent research. It is so much easier to share the link to the page than to try and share the pages.

    Like

  45. August 18, 2012 11:09 am

    “DearGavin site is gone or either been moved. Any alternate site suggestions for anyone wishing to read or download trial transcripts?”

    Dial, here is a site created by the Floacist which has all transcripts of the 2005 trial:

    https://www.box.com/shared/09zmi31anq/2/9455516/94502092/1#/s/09zmi31anq/1/9455516

    I had to take away the link to DearArvizo site (my huge thanks to its authors for giving us help for so long) and created a new link in the blogroll called ALL Transcripts of the 2005 trial.

    Here is a guide to who testified when:

    Court Transcript June 03 2005

    Description: Closing Arguments Day 2. Defense (Contd), Prosecution.

    Court Transcript June 02 2005

    Description: Closing Arguments Day 1. Prosecution, Defense.

    Court Transcript June 01 2005

    Description: Jury Instructions. No witnesses called

    Court Transcript May 31 2005

    Description: No witnesses called. The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence and hearing of the jury.

    Court Transcript May 27 2005

    Short Description: Craig Bonner (Re-called) Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Steve Robel (Re-called) Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross.

    Court Transcript May 26 2005

    Short Description: Gina Villegas Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Donna Aggers Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct; George Erwin Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Theresa Marquez Direct, Cross; William Dickerman Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Christin

    Court Transcript May 25 2005

    Short Description: Chris Tucker Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Timothy Patrick Rooney Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Shane Meridith Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Jesus Salas Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Victor Alvarez Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross.

    Court Transcript May 24 2005

    Short Description: Jay Leno Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct; Sulli McCullugh Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Monica De La Santos Wakefield Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Elizabeth Mary Holzer Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Anthony Ranieri Direct; Karen

    Court Transcript May 23 2005

    Short Description: Maria Gomez (Re-called) Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Mike Radakovich Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Mercy Dee Manrriquez Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Marian Arvizo Direct, Cross; Connie Keenan Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross.

    Court Transcript May 20 2005

    Short Description: Laurence Nimmer Direct, Cross (contd), Re-direct, Re-cross; Mark Geragos (Re-called) Cross (Contd).

    Court Transcript May 19 2005

    Short Description: Larry King (nonjury) Direct; Michael Viner (nonjury) Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Azja Pryor Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Laurence Nimmer Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript May 18 2005

    Short Description: Simone Pech Jackson Direct (Contd), Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Rijo Jackson Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Michelle Henriette Jackson Direct, Cross; Christian Robinson Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Vernee Watson Johnson Direct.

    Court Transcript May 17 2005

    Short Description: Angel Vivanco Direct (Contd), Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Irene Lavern Peters Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct; Karen Walker Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Simone Pech Jackson Direct.

    Court Transcript May 16 2005

    Short Description: Jean Lorraine Seamont Direct, Cross; Tiffany Haynes Direct, Cross; Carole McCoy Direct; Kathryn Bernerd Direct; Maria Gomez Direct, Cross; Shane Meridith Direct, Cross; Brian Salce Direct, Cross; Russell Robert Birchim Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross

    Court Transcript May 13 2005

    Short Description: David G. Legrand Cross (Contd), Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct, Further Re-cross; Mark Geragos Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript May 12 2005

    Short Description: Carlos Velasco Direct, Cross, Re-direct; David G. Legrand Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript May 11 2005

    Short Description: Joseph Marcus Re-cross (contd), Further Re-direct; Macaulay Culkin Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; James F Van Norman Direct, Cross, Re-direct.

    Court Transcript May 10 2005

    Short Description: Joseph Marcus Direct (contd), Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross.

    Court Transcript May 09 2005

    Short Description: Francin Contreras Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Gayle Goforth Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Violet Silva Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct; Ramon Velasco Direct, Cross; Joseph Marcus Direct.

    Court Transcript May 06 2005

    Short Description: Joy Robson Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct; Chantal Robson Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct, Further Re-cross; Marie Lisbeth Barnes Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Karlee Barnes Direct, Cross, Re-direct,

    Court Transcript May 05 2005

    Short Description: Wade J Robson Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct, Further Re-cross; Brett Christopher Barnes Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript May 04 2005

    Short Description: Rudy Provencio Direct (Contd), Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct.

    Court Transcript May 03 2005

    Short Description: David Saunders Direct, Cross; Jeff Klapakis (Re-called) Direct, Cross; Craig Bonner (Re-called) Direct, Cross; Paul Zelis (Re-called) Cross (Contd); Steve Robel Direct, Cross; John Duross O’Bryan, Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Further Re-direct, Further Re-cross

    Court Transcript May 02 2005

    Short Description: Beverly Wagner Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Craig Bonner (Re-called) Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Paul Zelis (Re-called) Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript April 29 2005

    Short Description: Rosibel Ferrufino Smith Direct; Craig Bonner Direct, Cross; Harry Koons Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Rosibel Smith Direct, Cross; Ian Drew Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript April 28 2005

    Short Description: Deborah Rowe Jackson Direct (Contd), Cross, Re-direct; Iris Joan Finsilver Direct; Andrew R Dietz Direct; Jeffrey Schwartz Direct, Cross; Crystalee Danko Direct; Jennifer Simmons Direct; Joe J Corral Jr Direct.

    Court Transcript April 27 2005

    Short Description: Hamid Moleshi Cross (contd), Re-direct, Re-cross, Terry Paulsen Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Gabriel Dominguez Direct, Cross; Anne Morie Sims Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Joseph Shebroe Direct, Cross; Jeanne Mulcahy Direct; Deborah Rowe Jackson Direct.

    Court Transcript April 26 2005

    Short Description: Cynthia Montgomery Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct; Jeff Klapakis Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Hamid Moleshi Direct.

    Court Transcript April 25 2005

    Short Description: Kassim Abdool Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Jeff Klapakis (Recalled) Direct, Cross; Craig Bonner (Recalled) Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct; Victor Alvarez Direct.

    Court Transcript April 21 2005
    Short Description: Brian Barron Cross (Contd), Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct, Further Re-cross; Stephen Cleaves Direct, Cross; Timothy Sutcliffe (Re-called) Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Timothy Rooney Direct, Cross; Steven Moeller Direct, Cross; Jeff Klapakis

    Court Transcript April 20 2005

    Short Description: Brian Barron Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript April 19 2005
    Short Description: Janet Jackson Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct; Victor M Alvarez Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Mario A Ventura, Direct; William F Caldwell Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Rod Forney Direct, Cross; Michael Davey Direct, Cross; Janet Williams Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript April 18 2005
    Short Description: Janet Jackson Cross (Contd), Re-direct.

    Court Transcript April 15 2005
    Short Description: Janet Jackson Direct (Contd), Cross.

    Court Transcript April 14 2005
    Short Description: Janet Jackson Direct (Contd).

    Court Transcript April 13 2005
    Short Description: Jay D Jackson Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct, Further Re-cross; Janet Jackson Direct.

    Court Transcript April 12 2005
    Short Description: Jay D Jackson Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript April 11 2005
    Short Description: Bob Jones Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct; Stacy Brown Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; June Chandler, Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Dwayne Swingler Direct, Cross, Re-direct.

    Court Transcript April 08 2005
    Short Description: Adrian Marie McManus (Contd) Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct; Phillip LeMarque Direct Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct, Further Re-cross.

    Court Transcript April 07 2005
    Short Description: Ralph Chacon Direct, Cross, Re-dircet, Re-cross; Adrian Marie McManus Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript April 05 2005
    Short Description: Jason Francia (Contd) Direct, Cross; Kris Kallman Direct, Cross; Blanca Francia Direct, Cross, Re-dircet, Re-cross.

    Court Transcript April 04 2005
    Short Description: Jesus Salas (Contd) Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Jason Francia Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript April 01 2005
    Short Description: Jeff Klapakis (Contd) Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Jack Green Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct; Larry Feldman, Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct, Further Re-cross; Jesus Salas Direct.


    Court Transcript March 30 2005

    Short Description: Cynthia Ann Bell Re-direct, Re-cross, Re-direct continued; Stan J Katz Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct; William Dickerman Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Jeff Klapakis (Recalled) Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript March 29 2005
    Short Description: Robert Spinner Direct (contd), Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Jamie Masada Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Cynthia Ann Bell Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript March 28 2005
    Short Description: 1108 motion ruling; George Lopez Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Ann Serrano Lopez Direct, Cross, Re-direct; Robert Spinner Direct (re-called) (re-opened).

    Court Transcript March 25 2005
    Short Description: Timothy Sutcliffe Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Direct, Further Cross; Alicia Romero Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Nancy Diana Torres Direct, Cross; Michelle Shelley Direct, Cross, Re-direct; James Wittenbrock Direct, Cross, Re-di

    Court Transcript March 24 2005
    Short Description: Dr. Antonio Cantu Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Direct, Further Cross; Lisa Susan Roote Henman Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Direct, Further Cross; Charlene Marie Direct & Cross; Heriberto Martinez JR. Direct & Cross; Timo

    Court Transcript March 23 2005
    Short Description: Robert Charles Cooley Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross; Freddy Padilla Direct, Cross; Craig Bonner Direct, Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross Further Direct, Further Cross; Dr. Antonio Cantu Direct & Cross.

    Court Transcript March 22 2005
    Short Description: Louise Palanker Direct, Cross, Redirect, Re-cross & Further Redirect.

    Court Transcript March 21 2005
    Short Description: Conn Abel Direct & Cross; Anthony Joseph Urquizo Direct, Cross, Redirect & Recross; Lauren Wallace Direct, Cross & Redirect; Louise Palanker Direct.

    Court Transcript March 18 2005
    Short Description: Court proceedings were held in open court outside the presence and hearing of the jury.

    Court Transcript March 17 2005
    Short Description: Fritz Coleman – Direct, Cross & Redirect. Kiki Fournier – Direct & Redirect. Ruby Wolff – Direct & Redirect. Shawn O’Grady – Direct & Redirect. Jeffery Ellis – Direct & Redirect. Conn Abel – Direct & Redirect.

    Court Transcript March 16 2005
    Short Description: Steve Robel Cross, Re-direct, Re-cross. Paul Zelis Direct, Cross.

    Court Transcript March 15 2005
    Short Description: Gavin Cross, Re-direct & Re-cross, Terry Flaa, Jeff Klapakis & Steve Robel Testimony.

    Court Transcript March 14 2005
    Short Description: Gavin Cross Testimony

    Court Transcript March 10 2005
    Short Description: Gavin Direct and Cross Testimony

    Court Transcript March 08 2005
    Short Description: Star Cross Testimony

    Court Transcript March 07 2005
    Short Description: Davellin Cross and Star Testimony

    Court Transcript March 04 2005
    Short Description: Davellin Cross Testimony

    Court Transcript March 03 2005
    Short Description: Lafferty & Davellin Testimony

    Court Transcript March 01 2005
    Short Description: Martin Bashir & Ann Gabriel Testimony

    Court Transcript February 28 2005
    Short Description: Opening Statements

    Like

  46. Rodrigo permalink
    August 18, 2012 10:04 am

    The bottom line is, MJ’s supporters HAVE to stick together on this.
    We’ve all seen how different opinions can almost destroy the fight for Michael…

    And I have a feeling, whether Wagener’s stand against Sneddon will pay off or not, someone, somwhere in the media is going to retaliate. You can bet on that. They’re not just going to let us fans get away with hauling Sneddon’s old ass out of retirement, with the hopes of charging him and his cronies with crimes against Michael. It would totally discredit everything Sneddon and the media worked together on, cause a lot of the truth will undoubtedly come out. So we can expect a huge storm coming our way when this goes down.

    And wouldn’t it be great if the whole MJ community is fighting amongst themselves just about letting it happen in the first place, when our attention should be on vindicating and supporting Michael, whatever the outcome?

    Wagener, while not perfect, did what he thought was right. He thought standing up for Michael was right…and we shouldn’t be arguing about that. We should be fighting in his corner, cause that’s what good MJ fans do. Standing up for any MJ supporter, is standing up with Michael himself. If things screw up, then we start again and fight back twice as hard. But fighting amongst ourselves is not the answer…our attention should be focused on the fight that’s ahead of us all.

    Like

  47. August 18, 2012 3:56 am

    Fine, it did take some humility to admit wrongdoing. What bothers me is this, “We, asked…” (more than once) Asked ??
    Actually, the original TL was made up of out-right statements & contentions with a couple of sarcastic-like questions.
    I could have stomached it a little better if what was said had been put in the form of open questions of actual inquiry.

    OK… so be it; moving forward. What’s done is done. What matters most now is that all Michael Jackson innocence advocates try to work united. The mission to make certain an honorable MJ leagcy is imperative for Michael’s children, his Mother and the history books, let alone to the public at large. The time is now to give Michael the respect he lacked so we cannot afford to be divided as we move forward.

    It’s really profoundly simple to reach common ground with our efforts. We just need to continually refer to our purpose. Not everyone will get along and agree yet, WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT MICHAEL’S LEGACY MATTERS. This is our foundation. We simply pursue the repetition of discounting the lies with truth every opportunity we get. Mr. Wagener presented us with a new opportunity. Our first victory was uncovering Michael’s name at Gardner School and we have accomplished more since. Perseverance is key to William’s effort as do all sincere efforts.
    As for those who doubt William Wagener, allow me to repeat, if Mr. Wagener were out to make $$ from his fights for justice, he would already have been a millionaire prior to the delivery of this affidavit.

    Helena, what stands out to me as being the most meaningful thing you said (as all you wrote here matter) is, Yes, yes, at the “very least the initiative will do is make more people aware of the gross misconduct Sneddon allowed himself during the 2005 trial –
    THIS IS SOOO IMPORTANT !!

    We cannot afford to think black & white like if the affidavit is followed up, great OR in the event it isn’t we figure, oh well, we tried. No, This is an open door that William opened for us to move full throttle to bring awareness to the public of Michael’s innocence !
    We must continue passing the petition, writing letters to the DAs AND encouraging support to the FCBK group, “SUPPORT TO WILLIAM WAGENER ON FACEBOOK”- https://www.facebook.com/groups/408561919190327/

    Thank youou Helena for confronting this and setting the record straight.
    ♥ & ☼ in Michael’s ☼ of ♥
    And may this article help to unite fans and be inspired to do more to clear the good name of Michael Jackson.

    Like

  48. Alison permalink
    August 18, 2012 1:47 am

    @ Dialdancer

    i just googled this to find out more, but can’t see why they would say he didn’t bring proof soon enough – it makes no sense. must be about covering something up or something.

    i then googled kamala harris, the AG, AND tom sneddon, just for the sake of it, and it brought up an article, not about the 2 of them but about sneddon going after some nursing homes for poor care, in which he says, i quote:

    “….NO PERSON OR ENTITY IS ABOVE BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE”

    Ha, Ha, Ha, No Tom, they are NOT!!!

    Like

  49. August 18, 2012 12:57 am

    “I am not finished with Sneddon either as there are a couple of things I would like to say too.
    It is rather difficult for me to write about injustice to Michael in the US, while in my own country injustice towards people is reaching all possible limits. The three girls from Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years of labour in a colony after singing a political song in a church”

    Helena that is what this affidavit should stand for, a denunciation. It should be about a demand for change from the old ways which only serve the select few. Believe me horrific injustices occur everywhere. Some just get more attention.

    An example:

    “Daniel Larsen is innocent: he knows it, the three witnesses who testified at his post-conviction hearing helped prove it, and a judge exonerated him and said he should be released. But even though Daniel was declared innocent two years ago, he’s still in prison — all because the California Attorney General says he did not present his evidence of innocence quickly enough.” (Say what… there is a time limit for releasing an innocent man. There is a reason for keeping an innocent man imprisoned?)

    Like

  50. Rodrigo permalink
    August 18, 2012 12:57 am

    Dialdancer

    You should ask Dave (sanemjfan) about the trial transcripts, he would know more since he’s analysing everything that went on.

    Like

  51. kaarin22 permalink
    August 18, 2012 12:43 am

    Thank you Dialdancer,this should be a process and not only a one or a few days thing
    Anybody in a position to do more research as you will should do so..

    Like

  52. August 18, 2012 12:33 am

    DearGavin site is gone or either been moved. Any alternate site suggestions for anyone wishing to read or download trial transcripts?

    Like

  53. Susannerb permalink*
    August 17, 2012 11:28 pm

    Sue:
    “For your information I did sign the petition and originally I did send $10 for this documentary that he’s supposed to be making; this was some 2 years ago and I’ve heard NO update; NO progress on how that is doing! So I have not and will not send any more! Enough said, I believe!”

    Sue, I kindly would like to point out that there were several updates from Mr. Wagener. The most important message he gave in July, which was spread all over the internet, when he told that he now has a director for the documentary (Bill Still) and that they signed a letter of intention. They even posted a Youtube video together. This is a big progress. Also everyone could listen to the blogtalkradio shows of Cadeflaw where he answered questions and gave further information.

    Like

  54. August 17, 2012 11:10 pm

    “I am putting together a new list of felonies. A new letter/email which will begin with 3 initial felonies and include several not presented on Aug 14, 2012 is to be prepared.” – Dialdancer

    Good. The more information is collected about Sneddon’s misdeeds and sent around the better it is. I am not finished with Sneddon either as there are a couple of things I would like to say too.

    It is rather difficult for me to write about injustice to Michael in the US, while in my own country injustice towards people is reaching all possible limits. The three girls from Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years of labour in a colony after singing a political song in a church and there is more to come as dozens were detained during peaceful protests and are awaiting trial. If two years were given for “defiling the sanctity of the place” and allegedly “inciting religious hatred” these other young people may get life sentences for snatching police helmets while being detained.
    With so much injustice around one can hardly breathe.

    “No one knows what the end result of the Petition and Affidavit will be. You cannot win if you do not enter the game”

    Right.

    Like

  55. aldebaranredstar permalink
    August 17, 2012 11:05 pm

    It is sad what seems to be happening to the ‘fan community’ where people take sides and split the base or core with attacks on each other. I am very happy to read the comment from Dialdancer that a more extensive list of the felonies is being prepared. The point is that WW got the ball rolling and someone needed to do it. (Yes, I was smh at the paper bag too. I think the semen reference was to the underpants unearthed in the Vaccaro secret vault and given to Sneddon by DD–or was it found somewhere on the premises of Neverland in the theatre? Not sure. I know it was brought up as ‘evidence’ at the trial, so that’s probably the person wanted to draw attention to it as another example of constructed evidence.) I agree we need to overlook what we might see as gaffes and focus on the major point of the effort people made–justice for Michael.

    “Tired of Injustice, Tired of the scheme, Tired of discussing ‘What does it mean?”–damn it!”

    There are some blogs where the bloggers attack commenters who do not totally genuflect to their POV, and that is very upsetting to me. I think we need room for respectfully presented differences. I like what Helena just did by exploring in depth the arguments against supporting WW’s move. This is what we need to do–explore and search for what is really true and what is rumor or opinion, and to do this in a calm, respectful manner, as Helena did. Big Kudos!

    Like

  56. August 17, 2012 9:23 pm

    Helena,

    Thank you and everyone on this site who has said they signed the Petition. You voice has counted.

    I am putting together a new list of felonies. The felonies are a matter of record, can be found in either the trial transcripts or lawyer(s) documents; many which are listed on this site. A new letter/email which will begin with 3 initial felonies and include several not presented on Aug 14, 2012 is to be prepared.

    The new felonies will looked over by an attorney to ensure each meets the test for “fraud on the Court”. The letter was to have gone out today, but the workload and number of parties involved needed to reassure the senders of it accuracy will take a little more time.

    This is what Vindication Advocates have studied, saved and worked so long for. This is where we can help, it is what many of you do better than any other. Find the info and present it for the world to see.

    No one knows what the end result of the Petition and Affidavit will be. Fraud on the court has been used before, but for nothing like this. You cannot win if you do not enter the game. If you don’t bring your “A” game.

    Like

  57. TatumMarie permalink
    August 17, 2012 9:18 pm

    @Krishey
    Exactly, completely agree.

    Like

  58. August 17, 2012 9:15 pm

    The 2005 trial broke Michael´s heart, spirit and health. It was a prelude to what was to happen in 2009.

    Like

  59. August 17, 2012 9:01 pm

    “The people you’re objecting to SHOWED UP. The rest of us didn’t. Why be embarrassed? Public speaking comes hard to many. I give them kudos for trying. Putting their faces on the line for their beliefs in in that particular place couldn’t have been easy. I applaud their courage and dedication. So what if they weren’t polished? I kind of winced at that paper bag, too, but at least every one who spoke, including WW, came across as honest, unrehearsed folks hoping to address a great wrong.”– krisheywood

    I fully agree and subscribe to each of your words.

    Like

  60. August 17, 2012 8:56 pm

    “I happened to watch the video with William Wagener in court the other day; his two minutes to speak were spent with him taking his documents out of a paper bag, yes really – couldn’t he stretch to bringing along a briefcase; it would have at least given a more professional appearance! And then it was all about him and didn’t ever really touch on why he was there! As for Taaj Malik; oh my God; that woman was simply there to gain more followers on her Twitter account; ie it was ALL about her!! And the woman who stood up and mentioned Michael’s underpants; I have NEVER been more embarrassed in my life! If this was a representation of Michael and MJ’s fan communitythere, God help us all!” – Sue Jackson

    The points you are making may be correct but they are absolutely not the main ones. The main point is that due to the effort of these people Sneddon’s fraudulent actions are brought to public attention at last. Yes, some of these people are not used to making public speeches, some want more followers on Twitter and some carry paper bags instead of briefcases, but it is nevertheless through these people that justice for Michael is being done (or at least attempted to do be done).
    We stayed at home while they went there, and for this alone we should be grateful to them.

    Like

  61. August 17, 2012 8:33 pm

    I don’t understand why there is always so much controversy in the fan community. I used to be an active part of it and considered many people my MJ family, but after witnessing such hateful behavior, threats and name calling, I pulled away. I never participated in it fighting, but it hurt immensely and still does to watch. This is not what Michael was about. I want to see his name cleared more than anything and for those who wronged him to be brought to justice, but I can’t be a part of confusion. I will always do my part on my own to fight for justice for Michael and will participate in peaceful group demonstrations, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why people don’t consider if how they act is helping or hurting the cause. The more insane we appear, the less credibility we have. The media has long been feeding on sensationlism surrounding Michael for most of his life. We are known in some circles as those “crazy Michael Jackson fans.” I don’t mind being called that for being loyal to him, but not for sowing discord. I am fanatical about him, but not to help destroy what he stood for.

    A reputation goes a long way and if the fans can not come together to fight for justice or any cause, then what can we come together for? It’s all for love and Michael. That’s what we should remember because I don’t believe he would be happy with all this bickering.

    Much love ♥

    Like

  62. Dee permalink
    August 17, 2012 8:16 pm

    Well said, Krishey Wood. I wholeheartedly support William and all others who are intent on bringing about some justice which is long overdue. It is easy to act as an internet warrior, hiding behind a keyboard, criticising the efforts and tarnishing the reputations of others. Much harder to act in forgiveness and compassion, and moving forward in UNITY and LOVE, just as Michael would have wanted.

    Like

  63. August 17, 2012 7:43 pm

    @Sue Jackson The people you’re objecting to SHOWED UP. The rest of us didn’t. Why be embarrassed? Public speaking comes hard to many. I give them kudos for trying. Putting their faces on the line for their beliefs in in that particular place couldn’t have been easy. I applaud their courage and dedication. So what if they weren’t polished? I kind of winced at that paper bag, too, but at least every one who spoke, including WW, came across as honest, unrehearsed folks hoping to address a great wrong.

    Like

  64. Truth Prevail permalink
    August 17, 2012 7:02 pm

    @Sue Jackson

    Why do you call William a con-man perhaps you know something i don’t?

    Like

  65. TatumMarie permalink
    August 17, 2012 5:09 pm

    @sue
    Overall, what was the purpose of Wagner being at the court house? What was he trying to achieve? Justice for Michael. Why so critical? I would admit there were some individuals that made me think..oh no, but some made very strong points as well.

    Like

  66. TatumMarie permalink
    August 17, 2012 4:57 pm

    This article addresses the nay sayer, the ones who feel this fight will hinder Michaels legacy in some way and are scared to get involved. If you are fighting against Sneddon then my words were not directed towards you, plain and simple.

    Like

  67. August 17, 2012 4:28 pm

    @Tatum Marie: I believe ALL fans including myself are after Tom Sneddon and, for one, nothing would please me MORE than seeing the bastard fry on earth as much as in hell, trust me! We are NOT cowards as far as I’m concerned but don’t believe the way to go is for William Wagener to spearhead this; he’s a self-serving con-man, albeit one who knows how to speak to fans and manipulate their emotions from all I’ve heard so far and, I admit, at first I was taken in.

    For your information I did sign the petition and originally I did send $10 for this documentary that he’s supposed to be making; this was some 2 years ago and I’ve heard NO update; NO progress on how that is doing! So I have not and will not send any more! Enough said, I believe!

    Like

  68. August 17, 2012 4:16 pm

    Being as that William Wagener has made a written and verbal attack against anyone who dares challenge or question his methods; even going so far as insinuate that fans who would not support him are fake fans in effect! That is not on and indeed an insult and offense against people who have been fans of Michael’s many years!

    I happened to watch the video with William Wagener in court the other day; his two minutes to speak were spent with him taking his documents out of a paper bag, yes really – couldn’t he stretch to bringing along a briefcase; it would have at least given a more professional appearance! And then it was all about him and didn’t ever really touch on why he was there! As for Taaj Malik; oh my God; that woman was simply there to gain more followers on her Twitter account; ie it was ALL about her!! And the woman who stood up and mentioned Michael’s underpants; I have NEVER been more embarrassed in my life! If this was a representation of Michael and MJ’s fan communitythere, God help us all!:-/

    Like

  69. August 17, 2012 7:02 am

    I can’t believe the personal sh-it I’m seeing people throw into this epic argument. “He called me a fake!” “I heard this” “you called me what?!” “I want an apology!” yadayadayada, as if someone’s personal behavior invalidates what’s written onto paper…This arguing is beating me up physically…all MJ ever did was try to be a good person in life, try to set an example like ALL OF US SHOULD, even despite his fame…why can’t we all take a little hint and try to do the same?! This is driving me crazy!!

    At least here I can find some nice, sane people, who aren’t willing to eat others alive. Thanks for that.

    Peace out, and L.O.V.E., if that even exists anymore.

    Like

  70. August 17, 2012 4:55 am

    Good article. I am not reflecting the views of anyone else here but in my opinion, fans who don’t want to fight Sneddon are cowards . Bring him to justice would not hinder Michael being found not guilty- it only drives the point home to the media even further that he was innocent.

    Like

  71. Elaine permalink
    August 17, 2012 4:20 am

    Keep up the good work, team. I cannot understand the reasons advanced for objecting to this initiative. I support it 100 percent and pray that it will be successful. If we want justice for MJ, how can we not support initiatives that help to inch us closer to our objectives?

    Like

  72. August 17, 2012 3:58 am

    I supported this initiative, signed the petition, and sent letters to the California authorities. I will support those who try to vindicate Michael and punish his enemies. We must stand together, not attack each other. It is all for L.O.V.E., remember

    Like

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: