Official March 11 hearing thread

Motions are to be heard today. From my undestanding the proceeding will begin at 8:30am and Michael is not required to attend this court proceeding.

Motions to be discussed

8:30 AM In Camera Hearing re Motion to Compel Compliance with Teal Subpoena
Objections by William Dickerman to Subpoena Duces Tecum

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 3, 2005 by District Attorney on Bernstein, Fox, Whitman & Co. [Filed on behalf of Subpoenaed Party]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 3, 2005 by District Attorney on Bernstein, Fox, Whitman & Co. [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 23, 2005 by District Attorney on Bernstein, Fox, Whitman & Co. [Filed on behalf of Subpoenaed Party]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 23, 2005 by District Attorney on Bernstein, Fox, Whitman & Co. [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 3, 2005 by District Attorney on Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt LLP. [Filed on behalf of Subpoenaed Party]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 3, 2005 by District Attorney on Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt LLP. [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 23, 2005 by District Attorney on Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt LLP. [Filed on behalf of Subpoenaed Party]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 23, 2005 by District Attorney on Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt LLP. [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Served To Bank of America Dated November 3, 2005 [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on Bank of America on January 19, 2005 [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on Bank of America Served on February 23, 2005 [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Permit Broadcast Response

Motion for Clarification that “Gag Order” Does Not Apply to Jay Leno

Motion Requesting Timely Access to Copies of All Videotapes That Have Been and Will be Played in Open Court and For Public Release of Such Videotapes and Other Exhibits Introduced as Evidence Throughout the Trial

Motion for Jury View

Motion in Limine to Restrict Mention of Certain Issues re Jane Doe and Major Jackson

Motion to Seal Motion in Limine to Restrict Mention of Certain Issues re Jane Doe and Major Jackson and Opposition Thereto

NEW
CRIMINAL CALENDAR: March 11, 2005
[Added] Motion to Admit Evidence of Sexual Conduct
[Added] Motion for Ruling on Admissibilty of Documentary and Non-Expert Testimony Concerning Defendant's Financial Condition During Relevant Times

AMENDED CRIMINAL CALENDAR: March 11, 2005
 
Melville better elminate all of those subpoenas directed from the prosecution!

If I'm undestanding the majority of the content which is to be be discussed and ruled by the judge, the prosecutions motivation is to obtain financial documents which relate to Michael. I'll be very interested in the way that Melville decides to rule regarding these motions. I'm quessing that he'll probably ask them to limit their subpoena to the time period in question, and not to introduce Michael's past financial details which date back to times where they have no relevence to the posecutions arguement.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Judge Says Leno Can Joke About Jackson

By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno may joke about Michael Jackson (news) despite a gag order on the prospective witness in the molestation case, the judge ruled Friday at a hearing in which prosecutors also claimed the singer may be "on the precipice of bankruptcy" and sought access to his financial records.

Responding to a request by Leno's attorney, Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville clarified that the gag order would not prevent the comic from making jokes about Jackson in his monologues.

Leno, who may be called to testify about a phone call with Jackson's accuser, has been having other celebrities tell Jackson jokes on his show since being subpoenaed. Media attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. argued for the clarification on grounds Leno's First Amendment rights were violated.

The judge said the gag order barred Leno from talking about the specific areas on which he may testify, but it wouldn't prevent him or anyone else covered by the gag order from commenting generally about Jackson.

He said he would not even try to make Leno stop telling jokes that assume Jackson is guilty.

"I am not attempting to prevent anybody from making a living in the normal way that they make their living," he said.

The judge also joked: "I'd like him to tell good jokes ... but I guess I can't control that."

Jackson attorney Robert Sanger said Leno has made "very cruel jokes" about Jackson that could affect how he might testify and he urged the judge to restrict Leno further.

"We're not putting him out of his business if he can't talk about Michael Jackson for a few weeks," Sanger said.

The judge said he didn't believe such a limit would be constitutional.

The defense is expected to call Leno as part of its effort to show that the accuser's family has sought money from many celebrities including the "Tonight Show" host. According to the defense, Leno called police after talking with the accuser because he thought accuser's family was looking for a "mark."

Sanger noted that Leno's testimony would be favorable to the defense.

The judge said that during questioning, Jackson's lawyers would be free to note that Leno has made jokes about Jackson if they think it's relevant.

The ruling came during a day of arguments on numerous motions. The accuser, who on Thursday testified in graphic detail about the alleged molestation and came under tough cross-examination, was scheduled to return to the stand on Monday for more defense questioning.

Jackson, who on Thursday came to court late and under threat of arrest after seeking hospital treatment of what was described as a serious back problem, did not have to attend Friday's session.

On other issues, the judge listened to arguments over the prosecution's request to explore Jackson's finances but he did not immediately rule.

Assistant District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss said prosecutors believe financial problems may have motivated Jackson to take part in an alleged conspiracy to hold his accuser's family captive and try to get them to help rebut a February 2003 TV documentary that damaged the singer's public image.

Auchincloss first said prosecutors believe Jackson may be $300 million in debt, then said he may have $400 million in liabilities and that his financial troubles "will all come crashing down on him in December of 2005."

"All we are looking for is a concise snapshot of the defendant's financial condition," Auchincloss said.

Prosecutors want to review records from Jackson's accountants. The defense says the records aren't relevant.

Melville cautioned the lawyers that he didn't want to spend too much time focusing on Jackson's money.

"It's not an area that I wish to extend this trial by spending a lot of time on the details of his finances," he said

Jackson attorney Robert Sanger said that Auchincloss' statements, "whether they are accurate or not, and I don't believe they are, are totally irrelevant to this."

Sanger said that what was at issue was Jackson's financial picture in February and March 2003, the time of the alleged conspiracy. He said existing case law should prevent admission of evidence about any possible financial motive.

Sanger disputed the notion that examining Jackson's finances would clear up a possible motive for a conspiracy. He said it would make more sense to bring in an expert on entertainment to talk about whether the documentary in which Jackson acknowledged sharing his bed with children would hurt his image in the long term.

"Woody Allen (news) had certain episodes that were repeated in the press and it didn't seem to hurt his career," Sanger said.

Auchincloss said Jackson was a "spend-aholic" who spent about $35 million a year between 1999 and 2003. That was about three times as much as he was earning in those years, Auchincloss said.

"He has a billionaire's spending habits but only a millionaire's budget," the prosecutor said.

Sanger objected, saying Auchincloss loves to have "sound bites for the media" but that his statements were irrelevant to the legal issues.
At the request of the defense, the judge said he would consider allowing Jackson to do an extensive rebuttal to last month's ABC-TV special by Martin Bashir, the same man who did the 2003 "Living With Michael Jackson" documentary that sparked the case against the singer.

"Mr. Jackson is free to submit to me a rebuttal if he wants to make one," the judge said.

Jackson lawyer Brian Oxman told him: "What we would like to do is an in-kind rebuttal to what Mr. Bashir did."

The judge said he had expected a request for such an action and wanted both sides to confer about it before he approves it.

Oxman warned him: "This will be a more extensive request. ... We don't want some witness to be able to do it and Mr. Jackson has to just sit here and take it."

Bashir was called as a prosecution witness but refused to answer many questions.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...ckson&printer=1
 

Pugsbuni

New member
There's a real nasty skank over on the CTV boards that has really been bad mouthing MJ real bad. But yet the swine is coming over here to get transcripts and post over on the CTV board. I wish there was some way these fuccks couldn't have access to the supporters boards. This is what she wrote..

Linda5NJ
Senior Member

Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Sandy Fan
Posts: 4373
Transcripts are ready for downloading!

http://www.mjjforum.com/main/index....selectcat&cat=4

Enjoy, thanks to FF's at MJJForum!

______________________________________________________________
BTW...FF stands for Fanatical Fan. Anyone that defends MJ is called this...This one is a real pig the way she beats down MJ.. I'm pretty sure this skank is probably coming here also to get info to bring back to CTV... :hitting
 

Cristine87

New member
So, Jay Leno was all that was ruled on today? & why the hell do they want to expose Michael's financial records so bad? He was broke, so he held the family hostage so they could some tape to ressurect his career? Do they have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? These people are something else!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
People, please stop reporting what these idiots at CourtTV do! We don't care!


Update:
Judge allowing momma's elective surgery into evidence (tummy tuck).
Judge denied visit to Neverland. (they can still use video!)
 

betty boop 84

New member
Originally posted by NevaehDreamz


Assistant District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss said prosecutors believe financial problems may have motivated Jackson to take part in an alleged conspiracy to hold his accuser's family captive and try to get them to help rebut a February 2003 TV documentary that damaged the singer's public image.


I really can't understand how holding them captive and molesting Gavin would bring Mike money.
 

whisperAdmin

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by Cristine87
So, Jay Leno was all that was ruled on today? & why the hell do they want to expose Michael's financial records so bad? He was broke, so he held the family hostage so they could some tape to ressurect his career? Do they have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? These people are something else!
The prosecution said they "have reason to believe" and then they rattled off a bunch of unconfirmed, unsubtantiated allegations about his finances. Just like they did when claiming he's a child molester. They can get up in court and say whatever they want to say. Doesn't mean any of it is even remotely true. And they're probably using sources that don't know $hit about his current finances.

He ruled that Jay Leno can continue to tell jokes, but that Mike too can submit a proposal for a detailed point by point contradiction to the 2 hour malicious (my word) Bashir documentary aired in Feb 2005.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Originally posted by betty boop 84
I really can't understand how holding them captive and molesting Gavin would bring Mike money.


By forcing them to say good things about him, he was trying to generate good publicity, which they say would translate into album sales...ect. = more money.
 
Well according to Savannah Guthrie, he denied it in part, and said he was inclined to allow some of the evidence in. So he didn't deny it outright.

This is promising. I think it's only fair for the Judge to allow the defense to include evidence which is relevent to the family's history. After all.. the defense's main argument regarding these allegation's, are to show that the family have a reputation and have the liability to lie before a court in order to gain a financial sum.
 

Cristine87

New member
Originally posted by NevaehDreamz
By forcing them to say good things about him, he was trying to generate good publicity, which they say would translate into album sales...ect. = more money.
Please! They have yet to convince anyone that they were FORCED to say anything!
 

SpecialJanet25

New member
You know Gordon Auchincloss needs to learn when to mind his own f***ing business when it comes to Michael's finances. How the hell you know how much Michael spends his money? That's nobody business but his. Now why would he clam Michael is in debt, panic,hold the family hostage and then started to molested the accuser? Bullshit! That don't make no sense. Like you said, Cristine, these fools are something else. Complete a**holes!
 

Danielle Oliver

New member
There is a thing that I don´t get about Gavin and Jordan. Michael is not their father, uncle, stepfather or nothing. So he has no power over them. They didn´t live with Michael and they have parents. If a guy shows to you his penis, what do you do? Act like nothing happens? Come on! They are not four or five years old children. They could say I don´t want to see you again, period. They didn´t have any reason to come back to Neverland.
 

mjlovergurl

New member
i dont see how Michael's money situtation has anything to with his life being on the line. who cares about his money thats Michael's business. this is such bullshit.
 
Top