迈克尔杰克逊中文网  - 歌迷论坛

 找回密码
 加入MJJCN

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

搜索
楼主: mkgenie

MJCFC新闻工作队注意,在这里接任务

[复制链接]
mkgenie 该用户已被删除
 楼主| 发表于 2005-4-23 00:28:51 | 显示全部楼层
Editorial: Sneddon's finale a lesson for America If this isn't Judge Melville's last case, it should be... by Jennifer Monroe SANTA MARIA, CA -- (OfficialWire) -- 04/22/05 -- I have intentionally left this story alone because I recognized the sensitive nature of the charges, believing that reporting the story at its conclusion would satisfy any obligation we have toward our readers. But enough is enough. For far too many years, California District Attorney Tom Sneddon (shown here) has sought to capitalize on both the popularity of some and eccentricities of others, including pop legend Michael Jackson, in the furtherance of his own career. In the case of Jackson, Sneedon is clearly motivated by personal animosity toward the singer. Enough is enough. It's time for Judge Rodney Melville to call an end to this exercise in libel masquerading as a trial, while there is still a chance for him to reclaim some of his integrity. When this most recent Sneddon-debacle began in December 2003, Hattie Kauffman, national correspondent for The Early Show speaking about the District Attorney, said: "I think people do feel that he is a man on a mission. You know, this is going to be the signature case of his career." Sneddon has said the Jackson case will be his last, before he retires to perform pro-bono work with children. The problem is that Sneddon has a history for pursuing cases that should never have been brought to trial. One such case was against defense attorney Gary Dunlap. Dunlap said: "...I was wrongfully prosecuted for a number of crimes, crimes I did not commit." Sneedon had charged Dunlap, a frequent critic of the DA's department, with perjury and witness intimidation. "We went to a jury trial and I was acquitted on all counts," Dunlap said. Dunlap continued, "He said he had a very strong case against me. The problem was that his whole strong case was manufactured." On January 30, 2005 Jackson made a court-approved video statement, saying: "Please keep an open mind and let me have my day in court. I deserve a fair trial like every other American citizen. I will be acquitted and vindicated when the truth is told." With no credible evidence, a case supported by no end of lies advanced by a woman who is so obviously mentally ill, no other American would have to suffer such an injustice.

3

主题

64

帖子

1万

积分

王者传奇

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

积分
14691
QQ
发表于 2005-4-23 01:41:50 | 显示全部楼层
226
mkgenie 该用户已被删除
 楼主| 发表于 2005-4-24 11:07:23 | 显示全部楼层
Feminism, the WKKK, and the Gender-Lynching of Michael Jackson April 21, 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by David R. Usher -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the onset, it was apparent that the Michael Jackson case bore all the hallmarks of a classic false child abuse allegation. The pleadings were overloaded with wild allegations beyond reconciliation in even the worst dime-store novel. The case had the appearance of a charcoal rubbing of the McMartin preschool abuse trial (which incidentally involved heinous acts involving hot-air balloons). The case reeked of an odor reminiscent of the Little Rascals ritual abuse case, over which Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote eloquently for many years to free the innocents convicted on emotion alone. Like so many cases, there were glaring financial motives, most notably involving an attorney who had previously pick-pocketed Jackson for $20 million dollars on similar, apparently unfounded allegations. Going into the trial, everyone already knew that the mother was an accomplished liar who had coached her children how to make money using sexual allegations. And this is just a whiff of what fills the room after you open the Limburger cheese. The case has fallen apart. The mother can hardly remember what time it is (unless it might make her a fast buck). If she were a farmer, she would have to get somebody else to call her cows for her. In a display of journalistic candidness, Fox news is calling for an end to the trial (perhaps to save the jury from wasting any more of their lives). Understanding the drivers behind the Jackson case requires an acute awareness of the history of feminism. Once you understand feminism for what it truly is, the Jackson case is pretty much self-explanatory. Lets open this history book, perhaps for the first time. Feminism is the post-modern Women’s Ku Klux Klan It is time everyone come to grips with history and imprint an important fact on our brains: Feminism as we know it is the direct ideological and political descendant of the Women’s Ku Klux Klan (WKKK). This fact is documented in the book “Women of the Klan”, by Kathleen L. Blee. In addition to reading this book, everyone should also take the time to study the DadsNow web site, which has a good timeline and an analysis tracing feminism from its roots in the WKKK of the late 1800’s through today. For those who just want a few high-level facts, here is the shirtsleeve high-level: The WKKK and KKK used the informal networks and legitimacy of the Protestant church to spread its thinking. The slogan “the hand that rocks the cradle has the power to rule the world” did not first appear in a Betty Friedan book. It was first published in the late 1880’s in an Evansville, Indiana WKKK broadside. Today, it appears on everything from Christian websites to radical feminist websites alike. Just like today’s feminists, WKKK feminists thought that housework and childrearing was drudgery and an insult to women; but simultaneously insisted on maintaining their place on the pedestal of motherhood. WKKK feminists used sexual fears about what black men might do to white women to motivate white society to do their bidding. This kept them in a powerful position “on the pedestal”, while men ran around at night doing horrid things to blacks. The end goal of this teamwork was control of property and politics – sexual fears were the gasoline used to power the movement. Child support was first “collected” via the KKK. KKK men went around beating up men who were accused of not supporting their women properly. The suffrage movement and WKKK were closely intertwined. Even the reknowned Elizabeth Cady Stanton was deeply sexist, writing “We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men..." The Aryan Brotherhood thinks whites are infinitely superior to other races. By 1920, a congressional investigation concluded that a woman by the name of Elizabeth Tyler was the true power behind the KKK. She seized control using allegations derived by her “catering to the weaknesses of men”, and then using sexual terrorism to take over control. The movie “Rosewood” is a sad film based on a true incident that occurred in a small Florida town in 1923. It illustrates how a white woman’s false claim that she was raped by a black man brought about the lynching of many blacks and burning of their entire town. By 1925, the WKKK had over four million members – a tremendous organization in those days. It networked out via the Protestant Church, the YWCA, and various temperance and other apparently legitimate women’s organizations. Today, we see the exact parallel: Membership in the National Organization of Women transmogrifies via networks into radical activism by many “apparently legitimate” organizations and groups. By the late 1920’s, the WKKK no longer needed the KKK, as women had the right to vote. Women left the Klan in the 1930’s. In the early 1930’s Margaret Sanger used the idea of contraception to front a eugenics movement targeting blacks. She founded Planned Parenthood as the alternate choice for forced sterilization. Today, feminists use contraception to control men. Invisible forms of contraception create the illusion that intercourse is just another form of entertainment. But men often become the targets of reproductive fraud and socioeconomic abuse when women lie about use of birth control in order to have a child out of wedlock and get paid for it at the social demise of husbandry. Between 1930 and 1960, post-WKKK feminists became enamored with Freudian sexual psychology and Marxist theory, which was imported to America with the wave of activists and “professionals” in those fields who immigrated here after World War I. Between 1930 and 1960, feminist agenda was intertwined with Freudianism and Marxism, yielding a potent combination of passive-aggressive victim-driven sexual propaganda, usable to achieve any desired end and justify it with false data backed by massive anecdotal claims. Feminists built this into a false science, which came to full blossom in the feminist movement of the 1960’s and beyond. Throughout its history, feminism has been an odd mix of gender hate fronted by some sort of politically-correct egalitarian goal. Certainly, some of the frontpieces were worthy, such as the 19 th Amendment and equal rights for women in the workplace. But many of the others, such as “same sex marriage” and domestic violence, are smokescreens to distract us from paying attention to their core agenda. Post modern feminists invoke the code language of the WKKK in contemporary writings. Sheila Cronin exposed feminism’s direct roots when she wrote "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution”. Is post-modern feminism radical, equalitarian, or both? Radicality is still the core of the feminist movement. It is not merely a problem of a few rotten apples tainting and otherwise equalitarian movement. Cathy Young says it best: “Critics of radical feminism have been often accused of exaggerating the importance of a handful of male-haters in the movement. Yet Dworkin was never relegated to the lunatic fringe where she belonged: Her texts have been widely assigned in women's studies courses, and prominent feminists from activist Gloria Steinem to philosopher Martha Nussbaum have offered their praise, treating her hatemongering as extremism in defense of the oppressed. (I prefer the view that hate is hate.)”. The core feminist movement includes abortionists and an army of ivory-tower professionals who build entire institutions on replacing good husbands with feminist-patriarchal government. The core is presently comprised of women (most of whom masquerade as lesbians) who want “marriage” to become a license for any two women to marry each other and take over family and society altogether. They spawn countless reports containing false data on subjects such as child support and domestic violence – all of which are ultimately debunked ten to twenty years after the policies go into effect. Feminists constantly wail about marriage being a “trap” or a method of slavery. They don’t want it, or men. They pretend that husbands are a danger to women, when in fact husbands are the lowest risk group for child abuse and abuse of women. And they want no-fault divorce so they win easily without even having to prove fault on the part of the husband. But feminists only throw away their half of the marital contract. They still expect society to steal men’s money to provide them all the benefits of marriage. They also demand government provide all the other services that men normally provided in marriage, including parenting, health care funding, housing, discipline, and even love. And we actually do this – etched in ink all up and down federal and state law. If conservatives have ever had an issue to take up, this is it. Feminists have mastered the art of turning hateful screed into politically-correct public policy. Their political ancestors were masters at this too. This leads us to an important realization: The word “feminism” is an irreconcilable paradox. It is impossible to be equalitarian or balanced when viewing everything solely from the women’s perspective. There is no evidence that the core of feminism believes in equality. The primary point: Feminism is evil. There is no longer any reason to cater to it, or its supporters, and no one should fear reprise for speaking out against those who identify it. A Prediction: Equalitarian Feminists will abandon feminism entirely It is astonishing that “equalitarian feminists” who truly believe in equality between men and women haven’t found the nerve to reject the feminist movement entirely and instead form a true pro-social movement based on sound values. Having “gender feminists”, “radical feminists”, and “equalitarian feminists” all calling themselves “feminists” is the political paradox of all time. We could as easily collapse all political parties in America into a one-party system and then wonder why it stands for everything and nothing at the same time while the bad guys get away with political murder. This is convenient arrangement inures to the political benefit of radical feminists, who feign equalitarianism in the political spotlight while doing just the opposite when behind closed doors in perfume-filled rooms. The mere presence of equalitarianists in the movement provides the political cover and very legitimacy they need to operate. It also provides cover for the average woman, who likes to think that feminism is “all about equality”, knowing she can change her mind and pursue selfish interests at the expense of men whenever she feels like it. True equalitarianists (both men and women alike) can never realize their goals, under the auspices of feminism because radicals misuse their ill-gotten legitimacy to poison the work of equalitarianists. Why do equalitarian feminists insist on clinging to a word bearing so many evil roots that has hardly stood for equality since passage of the 19 th amendment? It makes no sense whatsoever. Christina Hoff Summers and Wendy McElroy would have a huge movement on their hands if they simply walked away from feminism and started a new movement with a discrete identity. When Democrats get sick of socialism, they become Republicans. Equalitarianists have a historic opportunity. They should walk out the feminist door and never look back. They have the knowledge, skills, and support to form a very powerful movement comprised of both men and women seeking change along solid pro-social terms, perhaps under the auspices of the “Millenium Marriage Movement”. Sheer numbers ensure a relatively quick political victory: There are a lot more equalitarian men and women out than there are radical feminists. Why do I suggest “The Millenium Marriage Movement”? Marriage is not a trap: it is the greatest institution in the history of civilization guaranteeing social, sexual, and economic equality as between men and women, for the successful raising of children in moral society. Once this transformation has been accomplished, the new equalitarianists can attack feminism with full force without also attacking themselves at the same time. The WKKK, modern feminism, and Moral Relativism Neither the KKK, the WKKK, nor modern feminism lives according to a definable yardstick of values (except for sexism, of course). The political values are entirely malleable according to the power goals of liberal feminists and their complex of lawyers, politicians, psychologists, and administrative agencies who make a living inculcating feminism as legitimate policy. On April 18 th of this year, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger issued a warning in a pre-conclave homily describing the problem of feminism in both the Church and Western culture. He stated, “A dictatorship of relativism is being formed, one that recognizes nothing as definitive and that has as its measure only the self and its desires.” We know that feminist culture is driving gay politics, pressuring the Church to allow gay priests and gay marriage; and we also know it is feminist culture that attacks the church when gay priests abuse children. This defines the keystone tactic of predatory politics practices every day by liberal feminists -- demand the implantation of moral relativism into legitimate institutions (and larger society) in the name of false equality and freedom, and then sue whomever they don’t like (or whoever is rich) for doing anything feminists imagine that their liberalized target might have done wrong. It is truly astonishing that conservatives and religious institutions (at best) merely turn a blind eye to feminism. It weakens their institutions, prevents achieving a moral society, keeps the national deficit unmanageable, and prevents the core of the Republican party from achieving its goal of improving marriage rates and stabilizing society as a whole. A message to Conservatives If you want to send liberalism back to the hole it crawled out of forever, all you have to do is reject feminists and their lobbyists, and go around them to the constituency. Policies helping families work through the normal processes of marriage and aging are what most folks want and need. They don’t like the present system, where the only two choices are “living with it” or “getting a divorce”. Most government employees working in social services, psychologists, lawyers, and medical practitioners only care about their jobs. They aren’t going to fight you, and in fact most will support you, if you push for enactment of legislation that will (finally) make their jobs positive, healing work. The Hardball Analysis of the lynching of Michael Jackson What does the postmodern WKKK have to do with Michael Jackson? Everything! When feminists left the KKK, they simply forgot the word “black”. In its place, they merely substituted the word “men”. Please hit your rewind button and reread the previous sentence until the full meaning sinks in. They continued working the same feminist agenda using the same political techniques and networks established in the WKKK, but using the veil of “women’s rights”, victimization, operating behind the legitimate mantle of suffrage to subdue anyone questioning their agenda. Even today, anyone who questions a feminist is likely to be accused of trying to revoke the 19 th Amendment, if not accused of being a chauvinist pig or a probable wife abuser.. Racial discrimination is illegal and offensive to almost everyone. Surprisingly, most folks have not recognized that sexism and racism are equally offensive and dangerous. The difference between racism and sexism is this: sexism has been deemed worthy of affirmative action, entitlements, and special protections, shielded by the sanctity of single-motherhood. So, feminists throw out the wildest allegations about men every day in courtrooms across America. They have seized control of over half the marriages, families, small businesses, and assets in America while pushing husbands into the bottomless pit of deadbeat politics. And it appears that Michael Jackson may have helped the woman he befriended do this to her husband, while setting himself up for the mother-of-all lawsuits all at the same time. In the Jackson case there is perhaps residual racism at work. But this is not the main issue. The main issue is the fact that Jackson is a male. Stop and real the previous sentence again. In working with black activists, I have never had anyone disagree with my thesis: The greatest problem faced by blacks is not racism itself. Sexism and discrimination against the black male both in family and society, is the greatest single factor keeping blacks a desperate underclass. The only difference between racism and sexism is the target for socioeconomic slavery. What was once a problem of racial discrimination has become a major problem of social gender discrimination subsequently justifying institutionalized economic discrimination against men. This attitude extends deeply into most major black political organizations, and even churches. They blame black men for the ills of black society, and in the same sentence demand entitlements which have the effect of balkanizing more black families forever. This leaves black families poor, weak, and forever demanding entitlements from Democrats. This is not new information. We have known it since 1965 and still have done nothing about it. In the Moynihan Report, Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out that rising rates of single mothers and illegitimacy, divorce and separation, unemployment and welfare dependency among blacks were destabilizing and weakening the black family. Organizations selling out their own constituency to big government have created chronic deep-seated mistrust between black men and women. The depth of the cultural damage is evidenced by the prevalence of gender warfare mantras pervasive in hip-hop music and culture. Michael Jackson and Democrats both from entitlement demand problems. But there is one huge difference. A family of known welfare fraud artists discovered how to work the feminist entitlement system. They are at his front door hurling a barrage of sexual allegations and demanding a ton of money. Jackson is extremely rich and is a legend of eccentricity. I have seen Jackson’s work at Disneyland, and been behind the scenes there too. It takes a dreamer of incredible imagination and technical skill to put together the shows he did for Disney. He loves the thrill, the shock, the awe, and often does it at the eye level of a child. This is show business, and show business is all about grandiosity and outdoing the next guy. Those in the glam race often come across like aliens from Mars. Indeed, some of them are. Jackson has lived a fantasy world for many years. Neverland is just the part of it he happens to reside in. And he liked (note the use the “past tense”) to help kids, and heap luxuries on poor families with problems. This is not unusual – lots of rich folks do that in one way or another. So the new WKKK set out to perform a lawyerly lynching of Michael Jackson. Every mob motive is present. He is a male. He is very rich, eccentric, and black too. It was an irresistible invitation to misuse false allegations of sexual improprieties, for profit and political gain. Michael Jackson is not a saint. But it takes a lot more imagination than Jackson will ever have to conclude he is the child sexual molester and family kidnapper that a family of self-confessed liars would have us believe. If Jackson is acquitted (which I predict he will be), I hope there is enough evidence on the record to put the lynch mob on trial, and convict them instead.
mkgenie 该用户已被删除
 楼主| 发表于 2005-4-24 11:50:06 | 显示全部楼层
Nominees for 'Greatest American' unveiled SILVER SPRING, MD. - Playboy founder Hugh Hefner, pop singer Michael Jackson and New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton are among the nominees for television's Greatest American series. The seven-part series, which debuts June 5 on the Discovery Channel, aims to pick the most remarkable and admired American in the history of the United States. Abraham Lincoln, seen here in 1863, is in the running to be named the 'Greatest American.' (AP photo) The top 100 nominees were announced Monday. The 100 names were the most popular choices from among more than half a million votes that had been submitted online. The nominees span the entire history of the United States – from the country's first president, George Washington, to present-day talk-show host Oprah Winfrey. Other politicians on the list include Abraham Lincoln, Bill Clinton and the current occupant of the White House, George W. Bush. The entertainment community is represented by people like former Tonight Show host Johnny Carson, actor John Wayne, singer Madonna and Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger, the bodybuilder-turned-action star who is now California's governor. The Discovery Channel show follows in the footsteps of the 2002 BBC series Great Britons. In November, CBC viewers picked former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas as the winner in The Greatest Canadian series. Alexander Graham Bell, the Scottish-born inventor of the telephone, is also in the running for Greatest American honours. Claimed likewise by Canada, Bell finished ninth in voting for The Greatest Canadian. Greatest American will be hosted by Today show personality Matt Lauer. The first episode will end with the naming of the top 25 greatest Americans. The second instalment will whittle that list down to the top five. Subsequent episodes will feature celebrity advocates debating who should be named the eventual winner on June 26. Viewers will be able to vote for their choice over the internet using America Online.

4

主题

317

帖子

9598

积分

侠之大者

Rank: 4

积分
9598
QQ
发表于 2005-4-25 07:18:29 | 显示全部楼层
不好意思来晚了,接走229
mkgenie 该用户已被删除
 楼主| 发表于 2005-4-27 10:33:56 | 显示全部楼层
Potential witness in Jackson case denies New Jersey sex charge Associated Press PATERSON, N.J. - An 18-year-old man who is a potential defense witness in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial has pleaded innocent to a child sex charge. Ahmad Elatab of Clifton is accused of having sex with a 14-year-old Paramus Catholic High School girl. His lawyer, Joseph Pospis, on Monday entered a plea of not guilty on Elatab's behalf to charges of sexual assault, criminal sexual contact and impairing the morals of a minor. Elatab remains free on $25,000 bail. He could be sentenced to as many as 10 years in prison if convicted of sexual assault. Pospis and Elatab declined comment after the hearing in state Superior Court, but Said Elatab, the defendant's father, told reporters, "We are having this problem because we support Michael Jackson." "Now, my son may not be able to testify to help him, and Michael Jackson cannot help my son anymore," the father said. Said Elatab said he has another, younger son suffering from brain cancer. "I think Michael Jackson is innocent, and I think my son is innocent also," Said Elatab said. Police said the 14-year-old girl knew Elatab from a belly-dancing class, and invited him to her home while her parents were sleeping on April 11. They watched pornographic discs and other computer-generated images that Elatab had brought, police said, and the girl told them Elatab bragged that he had been at Jackson's Neverland ranch and had seen the pop star seduce a girl. But Elatab told police he never said that. The only comments he claimed to have made about Jackson is that the pop star is "smooth" with women. In previous interviews with The Associated Press, Elatab said he never saw Jackson engage in any inappropriate conduct with children at Neverland, describing him as a father figure to youngsters there.

136

主题

4881

帖子

11万

积分

超级版主

Professor of Chronic Suicide

Rank: 10Rank: 10Rank: 10

积分
110897

普里策新闻奖特别贡献奖

QQ
发表于 2005-4-27 22:08:00 | 显示全部楼层
接231~~
I'll Never Let You Part, For You're Always In My Heart.
mkgenie 该用户已被删除
 楼主| 发表于 2005-4-28 11:07:38 | 显示全部楼层
Court upholds judge's decision to seal Jackson records By TIM MOLLOY Associated Press Writer An appellate court said in a ruling Wednesday that the judge in the Michael Jackson trial was right to seal dozens of records in the child molestation case, saying he had successfully balanced Jackson's right to a fair trial with the public's right to know. A three-judge panel of the state's 2nd District Court of Appeal agreed with news organizations that the indictment against Jackson should be released, but the decision has no practical application because Judge Rodney S. Melville read its contents in open court to the jury on Feb. 28. The appellate court said the indictment should be edited before its release to remove the names of five men prosecutors have named as Jackson's alleged co-conspirators in a plot to hold the family of Jackson's accuser captive. But Melville identified the men by name when he read the indictment to jurors. News agencies, including The Associated Press, had asked the panel to grant the public access to several documents. They included the affidavit that accompanied a search warrant for Jackson's Neverland ranch, a request by Jackson's defense team that the indictment be dismissed, and a motion by the defense alleging misconduct by prosecutors. The panel found that Melville's decision to seal the documents was justified because of the intense news coverage of the case. Melville has said releasing the documents publicly could have poisoned the jury pool by prejudicing potential jurors against Jackson. The panel said Melville "displayed sensitivity and insight into these issues," and that his rulings allowed flexibility in balancing the rights of Jackson and the public. "We're pleased that the court ruled in our favor on the indictment issue, but we're very disappointed that the court did not discuss or strike down the unconstitutional procedures that led to the sealing of massive quantities of documents," said Theodore J. Boutrous, an attorney for the news organizations. Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old former cancer patient and giving the boy alcohol and conspiring to hold him and his family captive. In a separate case, Boutrous filed an urgent request to another division of the appeals court Wednesday asking that documents be unsealed in a lawsuit against Jackson by F. Marc Schaffel, one of the unindicted alleged co-conspirators in the criminal case. Schaffel produced two TV specials in early 2003 meant to salvage Jackson's image. He claims in the breach-of-contract suit that he's still owed $800,000 of the $3 million promised him for the specials, and $2.3 million for payments and loans for Jackson over the past three years. Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Connor was to hear arguments in the civil case on Thursday in closed court in Santa Monica. Media organizations including four TV networks, CNN and USA Today asked that the courtroom be open to the public, but Connor denied the request Wednesday without a hearing.
mkgenie 该用户已被删除
 楼主| 发表于 2005-4-28 11:13:30 | 显示全部楼层
233
mkgenie 该用户已被删除
 楼主| 发表于 2005-4-28 21:40:17 | 显示全部楼层
Defense Request for a Mistrial Denied On Wednesday the defense argued for a mistrial over the prosecution's questioning about the 'Living with Michael Jackson' documentary. The documentary has prompted much of the prosecution's investigations and claims against Jackson. Returning to the stand on Wednesday was former Jackson videographer Hamid Moslehi who filmed the allegation filled rebuttal video and Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe also testified. The outcome of an earlier hearing barred the defense from showing the jurors the outtakes of the Martin Bashir documentary and hence was ruled that the prosecution questioning should be limited to a certain scope. Moslehi who as Jackson's personal videographer filmed the scenes both included and excluded from the documentary under prosecution questioning said that when he saw the documentary prepared by British journalist Martin Bashir, he realized it did not include everything. "The way it was edited, Mr. Jackson sounded different than if they had continued another two or three seconds of that statement," he testified. Judge Rodney S. Melville interrupted the questioning, warning prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss that he was delving into an area the judge had ruled off-limits. Defense attorney Robert Sanger asked for a mistrial, suggesting that the prosecutor asked the questions to plant ideas in the jurors' minds. "He wanted them to hear about the issue of sleeping with boys," Sanger said. Judge denied the request for a mistrial. In what would certainly discredit the prosecution's vain attempts to corroborate the accuser抯 mother's claims of being rehearsed and scripted in the rebuttal video for Jackson, Moslehi testified that the Arvizo siblings arrived at his home only a few hours prior to the filming and their mother only about a hour prior and that he saw no rehearsing on scripting of what was to be said. Moslehi also testified to being somewhat of a confidante of the mother at times and said that she voiced no fears of receiving death threats, being held against her will, that Jackson had given her children alcohol or that the singer improperly touched her son. He said she also never asked him to call police.
mkgenie 该用户已被删除
 楼主| 发表于 2005-4-28 23:21:24 | 显示全部楼层
235
mkgenie 该用户已被删除
 楼主| 发表于 2005-4-29 16:28:33 | 显示全部楼层
Judge denies lien on Michael Jackson ranch CHRIS T. NGUYEN Associated Press LOS ANGELES - A judge in a civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson on Thursday denied a request to place a lien on the singer's Neverland Ranch that would help guarantee the payment of millions of dollars he allegedly owes, an attorney said. F. Marc Schaffel, a former producer and business associate of Jackson - and an unindicted alleged co-conspirator in Jackson's child molestation trial - sued the singer in November on claims he hadn't been paid for more than $3 million in loans and producing fees. Schaffel wanted a lien put on the ranch until the conclusion of Jackson's criminal trial. During a closed hearing in Santa Monica, Judge Jacqueline A. Connor ruled that evidence was lacking in the lawsuit, but allowed evidence to be presented at a later time, said Schaffel's attorney, Howard King. Phone calls to Jackson attorney Brian Oxman were not immediately returned. The breach-of-contract lawsuit recounts numerous loans to Jackson and payments made on his behalf, including claims the singer failed to fully pay Schaffel for producing two television specials. The specials, which aired on Fox in 2003, were designed to counter a damaging portrayal of Jackson in televised interviews with British journalist Martin Bashir. Schaffel claims Jackson still owes him $800,000 for producing the television specials, according to the lawsuit. He also claims he made payments or loans for the singer totaling $8.6 million since 2001 but has only gotten back $6.3 million. The lawsuit details Jackson's lavish spending habits, including a request for $600,000 to buy jewelry for Elizabeth Taylor and $1 million for the late Marlon Brando for appearing in the singer's concert and his music video. On another occasion, Jackson asked for and received $500,000 following the Sept. 11 terror attacks "in case he needed to take shelter underground somewhere with his family," the lawsuit said. In a related mater, the 2nd District Court of Appeal put Connor on notice after she closed the courtroom to attorneys for media organizations without a formal explanation. Five television networks and USA Today had requested the courtroom be open to the public. Media attorney Michael H. Dore said court procedure requires a judge to either hold a hearing on the matter or issue findings before closing a courtroom. Jackson Witness Files Report of Threats Rudy Provencio has filed a report with the West Los Angeles division of the LAPD claiming he's received several recent threats, law enforcement officials tell "CJ." As we first reported, Provencio worked for unindicted co-conspirator Marc Schaffel and was present for numerous conversations during the time of the alleged conspiracy. "CJ" has confirmed Provencio kept a journal detailing the conversations and that prosecutors say it goes to the core of the conspiracy case against Jackson.

33

主题

3268

帖子

5万

积分

圣殿骑士

守护他一辈子

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

积分
54717
QQ
发表于 2005-4-29 17:32:41 | 显示全部楼层
237楼 我接:)
无时无刻的想念
mkgenie 该用户已被删除
 楼主| 发表于 2005-4-30 17:52:22 | 显示全部楼层
除了NANNAN本人,如果有其他朋友接了新闻 请翻译完成后,发往: Godnan@sohu.com 我要外出度假。谨记。
Supernannan 该用户已被删除
发表于 2005-5-1 17:45:23 | 显示全部楼层
Jackson prosecution derailed by ex-wife's testimony By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles 01 May 2005 The prosecution in the Michael Jackson trial always knew it had a witness credibility problem, since the family at the centre of its child molestation allegations has an acknowledged track record of lying under oath. Now, with just days to go before it hands the case over to the defence, the prosecution has developed a new problem of credibility - its own. The appearance of Jackson's ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, on the witness stand last week was little short of a disaster for Santa Barbara County district attorney Tom Sneddon and his team. For weeks they had announced how Ms Rowe would testify that she was pressed into giving a scripted interview for a propaganda video in the wake of Martin Bashir's damaging documentary Living with Michael Jackson. Ms Rowe was intended to be the prosecution's climactic witness. Her promised allegations of coercion were to be an important element bolstering the contentions of the Arvizo family that they were effectively held hostage at Jackson's Neverland Ranch. As late as Monday, prosecutor Ron Zonen assured jurors Ms Rowe would describe giving "a highly scripted interview" and that her incentive for doing so was access to her children, Prince Michael, eight, and Paris, seven. Jackson's lawyers were worried enough to try to have her testimony disqualified before it started. When Ms Rowe appeared on Wednesday, however, shedescribed Jackson as a friend, a great father and a "brilliant" companion to children. She said unequivocally that her interview for the video was unscripted and uncoerced. Jurors will now find it harder to believe anything the prosecution tells them - which has to be excellent news for Jackson and his team. 翻译完请发到Godnan@sohu.com Thanx~
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 加入MJJCN

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|迈克尔杰克逊中文网(Michael Jackson Chinese Fanclub)[官方认证歌迷站] ( 桂ICP备18010620号-7 )

GMT+8, 2024-11-15 07:11

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表