The state Attorney General’s Office opposes the request of Michael Jackson’s defense lawyers to remove Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon from the child molestation case against their client.

The defense lawyers have asserted that Mr. Sneddon is “blinded by his zeal to convict Michael Jackson” and that the personal bias and conflict he has in prosecuting this case is “so grave it is unlikely that Mr. Jackson will receive a fair trial.”

But Attorney General Bill Lockyer disagrees and has requested that Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville deny the defense request at Thursday’s pretrial hearing.

Mr. Jackson’s lawyers failed to demonstrate that Mr. Sneddon has acted improperly or “that any conflict is so grave as to render it unlikely (Mr. Jackson) will receive a fair trial,” stated the 35-page request filed with the court and released on Friday.

“Besides failing to specifically demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct, (the defense lawyers’) recusal motion has also failed to show generally that the District Attorney’s zeal in prosecuting the case was not born of an objective and impartial consideration of the case,” Supervising Deputy Attorney General Steven Matthews stated in the motion.

Mr. Matthews wrote that it is the duty of a prosecutor to “prosecute with ‘earnestness and vigor’ and ‘to use every legitimate means to bring about a just conviction,’ and that he may accomplish this by striking ‘hard blows’ but not foul ones.”

If Judge Melville grants the defense request, the Attorney General’s Office would take over prosecution.

It is not clear how the state’s request will affect Judge Melville’s decision, because the Attorney General’s Office also opposed a defense request to remove the District Attorney’s Office from another local case.

The state penal code says a request to disqualify a district attorney should not be granted unless a conflict exists that would “render it unlikely the defendant would receive a fair trial.”

Mr. Jackson’s defense team, led by Thomas Mesereau, accuses Mr. Sneddon having a vendetta because the prosecutor was unable to file child molestation charges against the entertainer a decade ago. That case crumbled when the young accuser’s family accepted a multimillion-dollar settlement in a simultaneous civil suit and then refused to testify.

Mr. Jackson’s lawyers “claim the District Attorney has had a nearly decade-long grudge against him because he received ’sharp criticism’ for not filing charges against the defendant resulting from the 1993-1994 investigation,” Mr. Matthews stated. “But (Mr. Jackson’s lawyers) merely speculate that any of the District Attorney’s ‘zeal’ was in fact a long-delayed reaction to any ’sharp criticism’ he may have received. In fact, such zeal is much more likely attributed to the deep and abiding conviction of the District Attorney in the strong evidence supporting defendant’s guilt in this case.”

He also pointed out: “A District Attorney’s general feelings of personal antagonism toward a defendant do not necessarily establish a reasonable basis for recusal of a prosecutor. To warrant recusal, the personal feelings of the prosecutor must be so intense and personal that they present a real danger that he is unable to perform his duties effectively in an objective fashion.”

The defense also accused Mr. Sneddon of misconduct during grand jury proceedings, saying he “bullied,” “threatened” and intimidated witnesses — allegations the defense listed when asking Judge Melville to set aside the indictment against Mr. Jackson.

Judge Melville denied that request. He said Mr. Sneddon’s conduct was “regrettable” but did not rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.

Source: News Press

“Which artists from the 1980’s will join the Founding Members in the UK Music Hall of Fame?

Its your vote that counts, so Call Now!
Vote for Michael…

UK Call: 09011 33 11 33

OUTSIDE UK Call: 44 09011 33 11 33

Calls cost 5op (16p of which goes to charity) - VOTE NOW!
Lines close 6pm Saturday 30th October 2004.

Michael Jackson fans are organising a protest against MTV who are supporting the broadcast of Eminem’s video “Just Lose It” which parody’s the King Of Pop.

The following press release comes from the event organiser:

ATTENTION ALL MICHAEL JACKSON FANS:

FANS ARE PROTESTING TO HAVE EMINEM’S VIDEO REMOVED FROM MTV. THE NEW EMINEM VIDEO WAS DONE IN POOR TASTE AND AT THE EXPENSE OF THE KING OF POP. EMINEM HAS SHOWN BAD JUDGEMENT IN TRYING TO CAPITALIZE OFF OF THE ICON STATUS OF MICHAEL JACKSON. THIS PROTEST IS ABOUT FANS COMING TOGETHER AS ONE AND KEEPING OUR EYES ON THE GOAL. WE HAVE A VOICE AND WE WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE

WE WILL MEET OUTSIDE OF THE MTV STUDIO ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11 2004 AT 4:00 PM
COME WITH POSTERS AND YOUR VOICE. TAKE A STAND YOUR VOICE WILL BE HEARD.

CONTACT INFORMATION : mailto: PubItUp@aol.com or 562-458-9680

ANGEL

FINDING NEVERLAND COULD GIVE JACKSON HOPE

New JM BARRIE biopic FINDING NEVERLAND could be used in MICHAEL JACKSON’s defence against charges of child molestation, according to JOHNNY DEPP.

The movie centres around PETER PAN author Barrie’s relationship with the LLEWELYN DAVIES family and the boys he used as the inspiration for his LOST BOYS characters.

And Depp fears that today such a relationship would lead to a police investigation, as demonstrated by the legal action levelled against Jackson.

When asked if the THRILLER star should cite the movie in court, 41-year-old Depp replies, “Yeah, maybe. But with Barrie, a lot of the criticism is unjust; it goes back to what (MARLON) BRANDO used to say, ‘Were you there? No, you weren’t.’

“Those kids were interviewed later in life and said in no uncertain terms that there was no molestation, no fiddle-faddle; Barrie was just a great man. He loved those kids and they loved him. That’s what it boils down to.”

Source: Female First

Michael Jackson wants to be able to approve sketches drawn of him in court and even wants to handpick the court artist.

The King of Pop is concerned that he could be made out to look strange unless he has control over the sketches and has asked his lawyers whether he can have “final approval”, the Daily Star reports.

Jackson wants to make sure he is not portrayed in a bad light.

“Michael is well aware that he gets stick from critics and the media about his looks,” a source told the Star.

“He is seriously worried that since cameras can’t go into the courtroom then the drawings might make him look like a freak or a clown. He wanted an artist who would draw him in a flattering light.”

But court officials are unlikely to succumb to the pop star’s demands, insisting that he will be treated the same as anyone else ordered to attend court.

“We do not allow defendants to choose who does the daily sketches,” a spokesman for the Santa Monica court told the newspaper.

“The judges will not even hear an application to that effect.”

Source: The Star

Jermaine Jackson issued a statement late last week saying that the tabloids have been fabricating quotes by him about his brother Michael.

“Recent stories in the National Enquirer, London Sun and other media outlets have attributed quotes to me stating that I thought my brother Michael would commit suicide if he is convicted,” Jermaine said. “These thoughts have never entered my thinking.”

He’s seeking a retraction for the “dastardly untruths” and is threatening to sue for punitive damages. …

Source: MTV

On tonight’s “At Large With Geraldo,” it was reported that, according to Michael’s spokesperson Ramone Bain, a statement could be issued as early as tomorrow naming other artists who are joining in their support of having the Eminem video pulled from MTV airplay.

In response to accusations by Michael Jackson’s lawyers that Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon has misused his power and should be removed from their client’s case, prosecutors fought back in a tersely worded motion released Friday.

Defense lawyers have repeatedly questioned Mr. Sneddon’s conduct, accusing the veteran prosecutor of having a “vendetta” against Mr. Jackson stemming from the failure of a 1993 case.

There is not “one scrap of evidence” to support the “vendetta” theory, Senior Deputy District Attorney Gerald Franklin stated in the response motion.

His motion stated that it would be reasonable if Mr. Sneddon does “not have warm personal regard for” Mr. Jackson, since the prosecutor had substantial evidence that the entertainer molested at least one boy in 1993 and “molested another lad 10 years later.”

Mr. Franklin added: “The defendant does not have a constitutional right to a District Attorney who likes him, nor to one who is indifferent about prosecuting him successfully. He has a constitutional right to be prosecuted fairly, by prosecutors who confine their zeal within legal and ethical limits.”

The request to disqualify Mr. Sneddon and his office from prosecuting the Jackson case is scheduled to be heard Nov. 4. If approved, the Attorney General’s Office would take over. The state office has submitted its opinion, which has not been released by the court. The attorney general is expected to have a representative at the hearing.

State Penal Code states that requests to take cases away from a district attorney “shall not be granted unless it is shown by the evidence that a conflict of interest exists such as would render it unlikely that the defendant would receive a fair trial” — which the defense has alleged but the prosecution says is baseless.

This is the third in a string of defense motions alleging prosecutorial misconduct, including that Mr. Sneddon “bullied” witnesses during the grand jury proceeding, crossed the line by acting like an investigator and violated attorney-client privilege during a search. Judge Rodney Melville recently denied the request to set aside the indictment and to bar evidence seized from Neverland Valley Ranch and a private investigator’s office. The defense team, led by Thomas Mesereau, will likely challenge those decisions with the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Jackson is out on bail and has pleaded not guilty to charges of child molestation and conspiracy. Trial is scheduled to begin in January.

In response to defense accusations that Mr. Sneddon is “overzealous,” Mr. Franklin replied that he is doing the job he was elected to do: “Just as the Santa Barbara District Attorney was duty-bound not to commence a criminal prosecution in 1994 without testimonial evidence to support it, he was duty-bound to charge Michael Jackson in 2003 when evidence warranted it.”

Defense lawyers had lambasted Mr. Sneddon for “bullying,” “threatening” and “intimidating” witnesses during the grand jury proceeding. While Judge Melville found this was insufficient reason to set aside the indictment, he did characterize Mr. Sneddon’s tone as “regrettable.”

Mr. Franklin acknowledged that there may have been a “certain lack of cordiality,” but the district attorney’s “apparent impatience with two distinctly hostile witnesses of the 40 who were examined by one or another of the prosecutors in the grand jury proceeding is not evidence of a conflict sufficient to disqualify him as one of defendant’s prosecutors at trial.”

Defense lawyers also attacked Mr. Sneddon’s performance at a press conference Nov. 19, 2003, when a warrant was issued for Mr. Jackson’s arrest, because he joked with reporters.

Mr. Sneddon later apologized on national television for not having a more serious tone.

Source: News Press

Sony have now officially released an online streaming version of the Michael Jackson song “Cheater”. Following a recent leak the song is available to stream in Real Audio, Windows Media and Quicktime.

Source: Sony / MJJSource

Prosecutors in the child molestation case against Michael Jackson say they’ve turned over thousands of pages of documents and hundreds of audio- and videotapes generated during their investigation to the entertainer’s defense lawyers but have yet to receive anything in return.

So far, the prosecution has provided the defense with 12,425 pages of documents and reports, 193 CD-ROMS, 112 audiocassettes, 78 videotapes and more than 200 photographs, according to a court document released Thursday.

The motion from the prosecution comes after months of legal filings and courtroom complaints by defense lawyers that they have been receiving material piecemeal. But when prosecutors have asked defense lawyers for their material, they’ve been told each time the defense has none to provide.

“This case was filed almost one year ago,” Senior Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss stated in his motion for discovery, the pretrial procedure by which each side gains access to certain information held by the other.

“Since that time, the defendant has hired six different law firms and employed at least 10 attorneys plus investigators to work on his behalf,” Mr. Auchincloss stated. “To represent at this late date that he has not identified a single witness or piece of evidence he intends to introduce at trial is simply not believable.”

The defense team contends that by law, it does not have to turn over material until 30 days before trial. The prosecution asserts the law compels both parties to disclose material “at least” 30 days prior to trial. This is the prosecution’s first request for Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville to order defense lawyers to turn over information they’ve developed in their investigation. The judge will take up the matter at the next hearing in the case, scheduled for Nov. 4.

The motion is the latest legal wrangling in the high-stakes case scheduled to start trial Jan. 31. The defense team — which includes four lawyers — also recently requested that the judge order the prosecution to turn over material, including the identities of informants and forensic material it still needs to have analyzed. The judge granted both defense motions.

Mr. Jackson, who is free on $3 million bail, pleaded not guilty in April to charges of committing a lewd act upon a child, administering an intoxicating agent and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

Judge Melville has repeatedly made it clear that he wants the trial to start on time.

Mr. Auchincloss noted in his motion that he has repeatedly requested information from the defense, the last time on Oct. 18.

“At that time, counsel for the defense, Robert Sanger, reiterated that the defense has no duty to provide discovery until 30 days before trial,” Mr. Auchincloss stated. “Apart from saying the defense would follow the law and would meet and confer with the prosecution, Mr. Sanger would not provide any information regarding defense discovery.”

Both sides must turn over the list of people they plan to call as witnesses; relevant written or recorded statements of witnesses or reports about the witness statements; and the results of any physical, mental or scientific examinations that will be used at trial.

Prosecutors must also provide the defense with defendant statements, seized evidence and all evidence favorable to the defendant.

Source: News Press