New Defense Motions and other docs!

How do you feel about Michael Jackson? Got any info you want to share?

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
whisper
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9130
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by whisper » Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:41 pm

:nav Memorandum in Support of Motion for Mental Examination

Excerpts:

2. The witnesses changed the dates and facts for the Indictment

The indictment was markedly different from the December 18 2003 Complaint. The Complaint contained seven (7) counts of Lewd Acts Upon a Child, where the Indictment contained only four (4), plus one of Attempted Lewd Act Upon a Child. Somewhere, the perception of the facts in this case was significantly altered, and the Indictment no longer followed the details and chronology recounted by Psychologist Katz.

In addition, the Complaint alleged two (2) counts of Administration of an Intoxicant, where the Indictment alleged four (4). In view of repeated interviews and witness statements, the change in facts, counts and dates has created an irreconcilable inconsistency with no explanation.

The dates of the alleged crimes also changed. The Complaint said five (5) of the seven (7) "lewd acts" allegedly occurred "on or between February 7 2003, and March 10 2003" and all the other counts occurred between February 20 and March 10 2003. But the Indictment now says that all but the new conspiracy charges occurred between February 20 and March 12 2003. Now it is a conspiracy starting Feb 7, but no lewd act until February 20. This was not just a narrowing of the time period, but it was also a lengthening of the time period. Suddenly, something happened on March 12 that was not included in the Complaint.

In the Indictment, Mr. Jackson was charged with conspiracy to engage in Child Abduction, False Imprisonment and Extortion. He was not indicted on the actual objects of the conspiracy itself, nor were these acts charged as stand-alone crimes or attempted crimes. Not even the alleged co-conspirators are charged with the crimes. pg 10-11


60 pages :popcorn



:nav Mr. Jackson's Opposition to District Attorney's Request that Court Modify it's Teal Motion


Excerpts:

"Teal" recognized that defense lawyers have a right to develop and investigate their cases without telegraphing their intentions to the prosecution. The holding of "Teal" would be meaningless if the District Attorney is provided with information regarding each subpoena and is allowed to be heard on each subpoena. There are two parties to this lawsuit. The other party has used more than 80 search warrants to promote their interpretation of the facts of the case. Mr. Jackson is entitled to investigate the case and prepare a defense. Counsel for Mr. Jackson should be allowed to continue issuing subpoena's without providing the prosecution with information regarding those subpoenas in order to protect Mr. Jackson's right to investigate and develop his defense.

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

The District Attorney claims that he is not attempting to act as an attorney for the complaining witnesses and that he is merely bringing facts to the Court's attention. (Motion, page 8) This claim is belied by fact that the District Attorney repeatedly asserts the rights of the witnesses as a basis for his motion. (Motion, pages 17-20) Under the guise of "protecting" the interests of the complaining witnesses the District Attorney is attempting to shield the witnesses from cross-examination by counsel for Mr. Jackson and appropriate scrutiny by the Court and the trier of fact. The District Attorney has no legitimate interest in hiding deception, bias and a motive to mislead the Court or the jury on the part of critical witnesses.

User avatar
whisper
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9130
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by whisper » Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:19 pm

:bump

~Vicky~

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:54 pm

I love the defense. :laugh

Not that they are incompetent but I'm so glad they brought the date change to attention. That is so crucial...it doesn't make any sense.

I wonder what Melville will do, I bet he'll take sides with the prosecution and say that they defense doesn't need all the mental records and such.

dangerous
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 2098
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:00 am

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by dangerous » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:33 pm

i HATE how Melville redacts things such a way where we know NOTHING of the defense stragedy, but the prosecutions lying filth is out for everyone to read.

the motion was on point. Id hope to see this one granted. If Stan Katz is brought to testify in credence to their mentality, the why should the defense not have cause to bring in someone to verify the claims?
[align=center]Image[/align]

Cristine87
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 3864
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:00 pm

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by Cristine87 » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:03 am

This motion better be granted cause I'm sick of the judge siding with the prosecution. How the hell is the defense supposed to defend there client when obvious shit like this is being over looked?

mj_fan_for_life31
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:00 pm

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by mj_fan_for_life31 » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:09 am

I hope & pray that melville will rule in the defense's favor.

K.M.A.
Prince Charming :wink

User avatar
whisper
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9130
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by whisper » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:28 am

Just skimmed through and made a few notes:


:nav Order for Release of Redacted Docs - Declaration of Brian Oxman (11-24-04)

4. In direct violation of this Court's July 9 2004 order __________________ have informed the prosecution of the existence of a subpoena. Their disregard for this Court's orders after being served with a copy of the July 9 2004 Order, demonstrates an overriding bias that is the product of their vested financial interest in this case that is so strong that it compels them to violate court orders. These individuals have no excuse for their inexcusable flaunting of the July 9 2004 Order. (pg 3)

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

6. Plaintiff produced a medical report dated August 12 2004, from ____________ claiming the complaining mother was physically incapacitated and unable to attend court. (Exhibit "A"). Plaintiff then asks this Court to block Mr. Jackson's subpoena that seeks to verify the medical representations that the prosecution and the complaining witness made to this Court. There was no limitation on the August 12 2004, _____________, and not only did plaintiff open the door to permit Mr. Jackson's inquiry into the medical representations made in that letter, but also under Evidence Code section 998, there is no physician-patient privilege in criminal proceedings. Evidence Code section 998. (pg 4)

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

14. Laboratory tests for the complaining witnesses are critical in this case because the prosecution has claimed that Mr. Jackson was part of a vast conspiracy to dump a urine sample jar so that alcohol would not be detected in the older son's urine. {Redacted information}. There was sufficient urine to test on the occasion in question, and the laboratory reports will demonstrate that fact.

15. The defense believes additional and other urine samples from both the mother and her children will demonstrate _________ is the complaining witnesses who has raised these issues and opened the door to the examination of their medical records. Mr. Jackson is entitled to subpoena those records
...

17. Mr Jackson's subpoena seeks the complaining mother's most recent medical treatments at UCLA and seeks gynecological records only to the extent they reflect her treatment, prescription of drugs, and her use or non-use of drugs. The subpoena seeks all of her medical records, and the mother's gynecological records are relevant to this proceeding because the mother became pregnant at the same time she has given testimony in this case. Her medical records contain a history of the use of {Redacted Information} drugs, and {Redacted Information}. The records are relevant because they disclose other medical information dealing with the truth of her claims and not for the sake of the gynecological portion of the records.

18. {4 lines of redacted information}. The complaining mother's gynecological records will demonstrate the fact she failed to take her medication.
...

20. {3 lines of redacted information}. The medical bills from heath care provides (sic) will demonstrate the mother defrauded Michael Jackson. (5-7)

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

23. While the prosecution claims her medical records are irrelevant to this proceeding, the mother is the one who claims physical injuries to her and her children because of Michael Jackson. It is improper for anyone to offer a doctor's report to a court of law {redacted info} and then to attempt to hide the medical records. Mr. Jackson has a right to determine the veracity of not only the complaining mother, but also the physicians involved, and the court should compel production of the medical reports

24. Mr. Jackson seeks records of the complaining witnesses American Express credit card.
{5 lines of redacted info}

25. Attached as Exhibit "C" and "D" are copies of two (2) checks from the County of Los Angeles made out to _______________. The first check (Exhibit "C") is dated January 2 2003, in the amount of $769.00, and was cashed ________________ on January 2 2003, the same day the check was issued. {redacted info}

26. {5 lines of redacted info}. That American Express card is also the means by which the funds collected by Fritz Coleman and others are expended.

27. But the second check (Exhibit "D") is ___________________ a check dated February 19 2003, in the amount of $769.00 from the County of Los Angeles ______________. It was ____________ cashed through _______________ bank account on February 24 2003, right in the middle of the alleged child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion. {3 lines of redacted info} (pg 8-9)

:popcorn

dangerous
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 2098
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:00 am

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by dangerous » Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:49 am

17. Mr Jackson's subpoena seeks the complaining mother's most recent medical treatments at UCLA and seeks gynecological records only to the extent they reflect her treatment, prescription of drugs, and her use or non-use of drugs. The subpoena seeks all of her medical records, and the mother's gynecological records are relevant to this proceeding because the mother became pregnant at the same time she has given testimony in this case. Her medical records contain a history of the use of {Redacted Information} drugs, and {Redacted Information}. The records are relevant because they disclose other medical information dealing with the truth of her claims and not for the sake of the gynecological portion of the records.
hot DAMN! whooose baby is that shit??? NASTTYY.
[align=center]Image[/align]

HeavenSent
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 10007
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by HeavenSent » Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:53 am

Originally posted by whisper
27. But the second check (Exhibit "D") is ___________________ a check dated February 19 2003, in the amount of $769.00 from the County of Los Angeles ______________. It was ____________ cashed through _______________ bank account on February 24 2003, right in the middle of the alleged child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion. {3 lines of redacted info} (pg 8-9)

dayum! hahaha :popcorn
[align=center]Image[/align]

dangerous
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 2098
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:00 am

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by dangerous » Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:46 am

oxmans motion was FILLED with case laws, my eyes were going blurry from readin them all.

I like how Oxman said they were testing the credibility of the family, but their competency (pg31). I thought that was excellent. It was also interesting to note that Melville didnt redact that sentence. Kinda like saying, these "mental examinations" dont mean the ppl are lying.

I also liked the case law where the Judge ruled that the trials court couldnt bring in their own physchiatrist, but then the Superior Court of Appeals overruled it, and said the judge abused his role and the law. I hope Melville read that twice.

Im also interested in this doctor, working with the defense.

2001- was that the JC penny lawsuit. LMAO. Coming back to bite them in the ass.

and WHO IS Sneddon to be complaining about the way things are redacted? His "potential evidence" is out for the world to see!

I think i need a pic of Oxman now. It was hard not seeing Cochran's name on the declaration :(
[align=center]Image[/align]

Tiger Lilly
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 3134
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 1:00 pm

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by Tiger Lilly » Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:40 am

***tired and confused***

ASHLEEEEY!!! :D

dangerous
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 2098
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:00 am

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by dangerous » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:12 am

whats up gem? what dont you get? :popcorn
[align=center]Image[/align]

Tiger Lilly
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 3134
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 1:00 pm

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by Tiger Lilly » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:17 am

This...
27. But the second check (Exhibit "D") is ___________________ a check dated February 19 2003, in the amount of $769.00 from the County of Los Angeles ______________. It was ____________ cashed through _______________ bank account on February 24 2003, right in the middle of the alleged child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion. {3 lines of redacted info} (pg 8-9)
Why is that good? *re-reads* ....That's G-mama's check right? First time I read it I thought it was Mike's and was like "whaa...?"

dangerous
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 2098
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:00 am

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by dangerous » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:20 am

it means Michael let her leave NL during the time of their false imprisonment, extortion and abduction to deposit welfare checks. Wasnt that so kind hearted of him? Our Michael is the most loving criminal around.


:laugh
[align=center]Image[/align]

Tiger Lilly
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 3134
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 1:00 pm

New Defense Motions and other docs!

Post by Tiger Lilly » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:22 am

LOL I get it now! Dayum, I feel stoopid! :laugh I've been making cardboard tractors with 8-9 year-old children all afternoon and my mind wasn't ready to read court docs. :laugh

Ya know, so far I haven't heard ONE thing to make me think Michael did any of this stuff. :D

:sneddoncr <<< Sneddon

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests