[trahy-uhl, trahyl]
–noun
1. Law .
a. the examination before a judicial tribunal of the facts put in issue in a cause, often including issues of law as well as those of fact.
b. the determination of a person's guilt or innocence by due process of law.
2. the act of trying, testing, or putting to the proof.
3. test; proof.
For our needs, Murray is the one on "trial".
For? Murder.
The facts pertaining to that inadvertanly or not, Murray killed MJ.
If your here reading this, then you beLIEve MJ is alive.
What exactly is being "tried"?
Anyone of you here could provide a most compelling case as to "a shadow of a doubt", Murray did not kill MJ. Yes you. And certainly one of you would persuade ONE juror to such. So there is doubt, therefore aquittal is a possibility.
So what does Murray's aquittial provide? So why have a trial?
Even "IF" proven guilty, what does a conviction provide?
Either way, a trial is a complete waste of time. Unless......
A trial would provide what? Who would watch/care? A "sting" involved as to legitamacy provides what?
Oppurtunity.....
What does Murray's acquittal provide? How about judicial impropriety, somehow, letting ANOTHER doctor WALK from pumping tons of drugs into wealthy people? The common Joe is not able to get more than a "safe" supply of their prescriptions---not EVEN to stockpile for when the crap hits the fan next year. THIS is a nonsensical SMOKESCREEN of "propriety" <!-- s:x -->:x<!-- s:x --> to throw off the feds that any doctor or network could be doing wrong with pharmaceuticals...
There is a network of big Pharma making their money ANY way they can, and everyone KNOWS that no doctors are EVER jailed for their part in a death. Usually they work in "teams", so no one really knows any more, who "malpracticed" what or when...but in Anna Nicole Smith's case (God rest her poor soul) and MJ's "case", the doctors KNOWINGLY prescribed millions of dollars of drugs to various unsubstantiated names' actual identity.
There are safeguards in place to keep addicts from multiple prescriptions in a period of time, but NO restraints on doctors, where the buck stops (that there is a bonafide human individual), to prescribe ANYTHING they wish over the fax or phone, for as many bogus nonexistent people as they can dream up!
[Perhaps, MJ, like millions of us, just had enough of this sick greedy business, and decided to sting BACK. <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) --> ]
When ANS's doctors AND handler, that snake, Stern, who thought her being practically mentally VACANT every day of her life, was amusing... <!-- s:x -->:x<!-- s:x --> <!-- s:evil: -->:evil:<!-- s:evil: --> WALKED, I was OUTraged <!-- s:!: -->:!:<!-- s:!: --> <!-- s:!: -->:!:<!-- s:!: --> I wished for a CHAMPION, even an underworld vigilante, but she really had no one to avenge her. The thing was, though, WHY did these people walk scott free???????
HOW?????
Dirty Judicial kickbacks, maybe??? IDK. But, think about THAT. There HAS to be a trial.
Murray will be acquitted.
FBI will swoop in.
JAIL FOR JUDGES!! yeah!
This IS BIG.
BAM. <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
MJ, My hero!
<!-- sbearhug -->bearhug<!-- sbearhug -->
It is NEEDED. Is this the plan? MJ's plan? Well... I like it better than, the whiney, "there's NO real trial, it won't happen". <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Oh, BTW, Itsneverasitseems, Welcome! I see you like to dish it out. Can you take it? <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> <!-- smj_dance/ -->mj_dance/<!-- smj_dance/ --> ha ha ha
I know some are sick of me saying this but, did we not hear MJ mention doctor Murray in his Smooth Criminal video? What does it mean? When you access the lyrics, they are not there, but I know what I heard him sing in video, and many others heard the same thing. Is it an illusion? It doesn't make sense for it not to be a message from MJ. The song was on his album Bad, and ON the VIDEO is when we hear it and see him. O-BEE's lyrics in - All Around the World - "I'm a radio monster and a video beast." Sorry Omer, but you are not a radio monster or video beast. Now why would MJ use those two words? MONSTER/BEAST My God!
I still say that since MJ hoaxed his death, then it most likely would have been a "hoax court." I wondered if a trial would ever take place myself. Didn't someone research once and showed that when people made films, they at times receive permission to rent/utilize public buildings? I thought they also showed where they could make a rented room look like a real room (i.e. - courtroom or courthouse). In movies we see on the big screen or on TV, one sees actors walking up to buildings with signs that read as if they were real (San Malachi Courthouse - The Book of Malachi). Matlock (the detective) comes to mind. Perry Mason, et al. Doesn't some City, County and State officials allow these Hollywood types to use real buildings at times?
And speaking of Doc Murray, Lol, I don't think that he is a real doctor. At one time, he wasn't even known to be the attending official until two days later (it was Thome-Thome). Even when Jermaine the announcement, we didn't know the doc's name. One pic until................? And on and on. His video pleading his case was too Michaelish. Many of his so-called patients on his attorney website are people noted in history for something and have passed. He was on the beach with a lady that was also with PP&B in Hawaii last year. Lol
And last but not least, please give me a break, but there is no way that just the Doc would be charged. They charged Howard Stern and a doctor for Anna Nicole, and on and on. The Jackson would have raised holy terror if MJ had really passed. I don't care what Jermaine tweets, because he is just keeping with the illusion. I don't think Mj went to the airport. Remember that picture with MJ and Blanket getting off of an airplane. That probably was taken before 6-25-09. Remember in the Jackson Family Dynasty, Jermaine makes a big production of having this recurring dream that MJ was trying to get a message to him, so they go to FL (?) to what, ask MJ to speak to them thru a seance? Lol
I think this is a ARG/Documentary/Thriller II production. Of course, when MJ comes back, he'll look similar to a scene from video below, but he will also have serious a message to share with the world. It may be July when he busts a move.
You all have posted some interesting thoughts/theories and I'm trying to consider everything you are saying. I'm left with several puzzle pieces in my head not quite fitting together yet, but I'm listing my stream of consciousness for now and will come back to this later to flesh out:
1. Real court. Why delayed?
2. If a Sting, no need for real court involving Murray but real court involving someone else being taken down by the sting. Perhaps TS is telling us it is a sting although he wants us to prove that for ourselves, not just take his word for it. If not a sting, why use the image of a scorpion to indicate the next level? Why not a court room? Why the FBI hat as first image in the last thread? These things go together, sting/FBI. Murray as undercover agent? Good question. Why not? Need to work through the pros and cons of this.
3. All the people trying to take advantage of Michael and how to bring them down in a sting. There could be many and all. There were many. Leonard Rowe's book discusses this clearly for me. Odd time related to 6/25/09 to rehire certain people fired previously... But who? Branca? NOI? DiLeo? Thome Thome? Klein? It has to be huge, much bigger than individuals. Sony? It involves the public good but also Michael's assets. Doesn't have to be either/or.
FBI and sting requires MJ to hoax his death.
4. When I listen to Morphine, I come to conclusion that Michael hated drugs. He hated what they were doing to people's lives/to celebrities. Michael said in Moonwalker he would never succumb. He mentioned so often the broken celebrities, beaten down and given drugs. Doctors giving out drugs like candy. Perhaps the stockpile of Propofol was to catch everyone who'd give it to him. Entrapment? Yes/No? MJ was too aware to be addicted and he tells us in Morphine.
5. Can't forget he said he would die like Elvis. LMP said this was not a good idea.. Not the right response to someone who was addicted to drugs or forsees their own tragic death. Had to be another reason she said that.
6. All those images in the 80's with Michael and law enforcement. Reagan. Bush. Latoya is a police officer. Marlon and his FBI hat with that big happy (knowing) grin.
7. So many parallels to Elvis. What else parallels? A trial and a secret witness mentioned...
Article:For years, the man known only as Elvis to the public, has caused world wide confusion concerning his supposed death on August 16, 1977 after entertaining and dazzling the world for over 20 years. Elvis Aaron Presley, did not die on that fateful day. He was only removed from the public eye to continue in his fight against drug use.
It had been rumored that he had died from a drug overdose. It is a well known and documented fact that Elvis had always been a strong believer and fighter against communism and drug use. In a meeting with President Richard Nixon on December 20, 1970, Elvis stated his true feelings against drugs and communism, believing that the two were definitely related. At that time, the President appointed him to be a Special Agent in the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (now known as the Drug Enforcement Agency or DEA). What a perfect way to stage his escape from the limelight and publicity to move into undercover activities to prevent the use of drugs, than to say that he had died from the use of drugs.
In that meeting between the President of the United States and the King of Rock-n-Roll, President Nixon told Elvis that his image, reputation and credibility with his fans especially the younger kids and the hippie crowd, must not be tarnished. Elvis needed to maintain, in the public's eye, what had already been established. If Elvis were to go public about becoming a part of the war on drugs, suspicions would surely arise and any future plans of Elvis being able to be an effective force for the government would be destroyed.
Elvis was able to keep his involvement with the government, his public life and his private life completely separate but all the same. His involvement in bringing down drug dealers, and activities by the Mafioso, musicians and Hollywood actors came about as he performed and made public appearances as his family traveled and joined him most of the time. He was able to keep his activities with the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and his involvement with the Federal Bureau of Investigations secret from his fans and family. The only one in his family that knew of Elvis's activities was his father Vernon. Vernon knew far more than all of Elvis's entourage, assistants, the government, his family and fans all put together.
In 1976 Elvis had become a part of a sting operation orchestrated by the FBI against the Mafia. Vernon had needed to raise some extra cash since the private jet that Elvis was leasing was a major hemorrhage in their expenses. Vernon was approached by Fredrick Pro, president of Air Cargo Airlines out of Florida. Fredrick was known to the FBI as Alfredo Poc, president of Trident Consortium in New York, and under investigation for racketeering, fraud and other Mafia activities. An agreement was reached between Vernon and Fredrick on how to refinance the plane, lease it to Fredrick, and gain an extra $10,000 a month on the plane. AT first Vernon was completely niave of what Pro and his co-horts were up to. As checks that were promised to come in from Pro were either not appearing or were bounced. Vernon had contacted the FBI.
The FBI had been monitoring Pro and his other Mafia connections since the mid 1960's.The FBI assigned two of their best Special Agents to go undercover in Elvis's entourage to infiltrate the mob activities. Vernon and Elvis were briefed on the continuing investigation and were excited to help the FBI in their operation.
By July 1977, the FBI felt it had enough evidence to arrest and convict the world wide Mafia ring that defrauded the Presley family of over one million dollars and many other organizations around the world.Arrest warrants for everyone in the fraud ring were issued on August 16, 1977. Not surprisingly enough that was the day Elvis "died".
The night before, Elvis was extremely agitated. He seemed unusually worried about everything. The next day when he was announced to be dead, the paramedics showed up two hours after they were supposedly called, on their arrival they put on a terrific show trying to revive the King. The coroner's official report has never been released. Pictures of Elvis in his coffin have never been proven to be him. Handwriting experts have proven that the signature on his death certificate is Elvis's own handwriting.
In Elvis's last concert tour in the early summer of 1977, he left clues that he was not going to be around much longer in public. Elvis had said several times in that tour, "I dont look very good now, but I will look good in my coffin". He also stated that he was tired of living the way that he was, and that his life would change. He also said he would be just himself instead of an image.
Vernon had asked many of Elvis's close friends and family not to come to the funeral, but to come to Graceland a week later. He also would not accept the American flag, which is usually awarded to dead war veterans. At Elvis's request, Vernon did not order any new jumpsuits in 1977, which is quite odd, since he usually ordered at least two new ones a month.
Six weeks before his "death?", several publications released pictures of Elvis with his newly issued badge and identification from the DEA. He also was seen and photographed on a drug raid that same week wearing the typical DEA jogging suit.
Just two weeks before his "death", Elvis had met with then President Carter, who had issued a tribute to the world concerning his death. The tribute was released the moment Elvis's death was made public. On October 18, 1977, Pro had finally been arrested along with many other men involved in the Presley fraud case. In September of 1978, they finally went to trial. During that trial, a secret witness testified. He told of things that only Elvis himself would know. The name of that witness has never been released publicly.
Getting Elvis out of public, private and Mafia sight was the only way the government could guarantee a conviction of Pro and his henchmen.In return the government had made Elvis one of their top undercover agents in the DEA. As a special undercover DEA agent, he would be traveling around the globe, which explains why there are many "Elvis sightings" around the world.
During his entertainment days, Elvis would travel using fictitious names such as Col. James Burrows, Al Jefferies and others. Their have been photos of men traveling around the country, appearing on stage, and involved in drug and Mafia arrests that have gone by the names that Elvis used when publicly performing. The mysteriousness of his "death" is good for Elvis so he can maintain his secret undercover identity and still be seen in public.
In a very recent interview, a source that must remain anomoyus, said, "I saw Elvis in the mall exiting the J. Crew store. He was carrying large bags full of clothes and was traveling with some kids that seemed 'undesireable' and may be drug dealers or users". The clues that leave no doubt that Elvis did not die on August 16, 1977, are endless and rock solid proof that he is working undercover for the federal government. <!-- selvis_/ -->elvis_/<!-- selvis_/ -->
Hmmmm. If I believe MJ's situation is similar to this, I would say Murray is working undercover too as was said by someone else on this thread. Maybe the only difference between what Elvis did and what MJ is doing, is that MJ is making it bigger, better and HIGH TECH to reach the universe. "He thinks planets." So, the movie theory comes into play as well. Quoting Back: "it's not a comeback, it's a TAKEOVER." Game Over indeed.
There could be a real trial because of a sting (it just won't be Murray on trial when it finally comes around. And with the help MJ has given authorities, they agree to some things he wants to do as in GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH and the continual success of all his projects he's delayed at least since 2001. He's unfolding it with spiritual numbers he started planning long ago... Thanks to hoaxland, there's been an audience and a witness every step of the way. I <!-- sbow/ -->bow/<!-- sbow/ --> to you, MJ.
Ah, back to thinking and working through these thoughts. This I know for sure: THE TRUTH WILL PREVAIL.
Oh yeah, I wanted to add this as proof that a sting would protect a famous man's assets:
Suspected Bootleg Operation Uncovered
August 02, 2010
In a major sting operation in Los Angeles, Elvis Presley Enterprises (EPE) has filed charges and is actively working with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department who have recently conducted raids and have uncovered a major bootleg and fraudulent product operations of unauthorized Elvis Presley merchandise. Further details cannot be released at this time due to the ongoing investigation, but EPE is making it very clear that be it back room businesses, suburban garages, or via the Internet, they will not tolerate the gross and illegal abuse of the name, image and likeness of Elvis Presley.
Hey SoldierofLove. Great stuff. MJ is claiming all that is rightfully his (to include HIS GOOD NAME). Most of his adult life, he has had some shady characters around him, but I don't think it was all of his fault. I think at one time, someone did shoot him up with a drug/Morphine/Demoral for evil purposes. Someone may have tried to hook him to drugs in the past. Someone may have put in the press that MJ had a prescription drug problem that in reality they created. And when we hear his parents and sisters and brothers say it, it may be because he did indeed develop this problem on his own back then (I don't believe he is a drug addict) or it could mean that someone(s) else tried to make him into a drug addict, and this is their (family's) sly way of saying that back then when this happened, it was forced on MJ and not something he did for pain.
Plus, certain powers that be can plant all of the drug related stories they want. When they want someone to die of a heart attack, they sometimes say that he/she committed suicide, but in actuality, they were suicided. It may turn out to be that MJ was at one time shot up with demoral having to do with mind control and MK Ultra based nefarious undertakings. This is may haps what it all ties into. Plus, on the old board, I brought up the fact that if in fact there were supposedly all of these prescriptions being written in MJ's name didn't mean that someone around him (crooked bodyguard types) and/or others were faking his signature (if that story was true at all). May haps in the past when he was under mind control, they commanded that he write his signature on this or that document. They messed with MJ all the way round back then.
Plus don't forget, I think that he could have been cloned and/or had doubles that looked just like him. One of his clones/doubles could be mentioned below. I keep thinking about what his father had to say. They all are busting at the seams in wanting to get the real truth out. There were many people that worked overtime to make the REAL Michael Joe Jackson look bad, drag, sad et al, for their evil agendas and purposes.
If one were to research it, they'd find that just like they are doing with this Osama thing, they may be doing with Tiger, Oprah (some say she is mind-controlled) and many others in the entertainment industry. I know many have, but have some others ever wondered why these athletes get so much money (promised so much) for playing a GAME? Football, basketball, baseball, soccor, et al is big business. Do some of these people ever wonder where this money is coming from? Let's take a look at this. This one just got 60 million to sign with North Carolina. Oprah is worth over 1 billion. These athletes (entertainment types too) are supposedly worth up to 100 million, etc. IT IS JUST MONOPOLY MONEY. IT IS FIAT MONEY. IT IS PAPER MONEY. IT IS FAKE MONEY. IT IS WORTHLESS.
The dollar is suppose to be based on the Gold Standard. So in essence, not one of these wealthy people to include Trump, Gates, et al can go into a bank and say, I want my dollars turned into GOLD (out of Africa). That is what is so sad with a lot of these so-called wealthy people. They don't think for themselves. They aren't rich in wisdom, because if they were, they would know that the US is bankrupt, the gold at Fort Knox is fake, and they can't get Gold coins for their millions of dollars that are on the books. They are being scammed, but many don't care as long as they can live what they call the good life. Please don't get me wrong, some do care and some know just what is happening. They also know that when they speak to their God, they tell Him that they think they deserve to be compensated for their good works and contributions to whatever field or industry - because they are honest and good people with hearts filled with love. It's not their fault that the world's financial system is based on fraud. Some of us knew what JFK was trying to do in bringing the coins back and disbanding the federal reserve.
And if what some say is true, they want to chip us to control us more, and therefore if we don't get that vaccine the nationalist doctor wants to give us, and if we get too out of line, and if we speak ill of the government, they can turn a switch and we'll be no more, because they would have activated the cease to resist and exist switch thru our chips.
Like MJ said, "Fame, Fortune, they are all illusions." In other words, our man knows the truth. He knows that for him and others that are wealthy on paper, doesn't equate to the reality. They just have one gigantic CREDIT/DEBIT card. Some are saying that soon, all of us will be forced to carry a card for all of our needs.
"Weight and drug addictionChanges to his face were, in part, due to periods of significant weight loss.[27] Jackson became slimmer in the early 1980s because of a change in diet and a desire for "a dancer's body".[16] By 1984, Jackson had lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg), bringing his weight to 105 pounds (48 kg) on a 5 foot 9 (1.75 m) frame, the slimmest he had ever been as an adult.[28] Witnesses reported that Jackson was often dizzy and speculated that he was suffering from anorexia nervosa.[28] Following accusations of child molestation in 1993, Jackson stopped eating, losing even more weight.[29] In late 1995, Jackson was rushed to a hospital after collapsing during rehearsals for a televised performance (which was subsequently cancelled); a non-related writer claims that the incident was caused by a stress-related panic attack,[30] while medics cited irregular beats, gastro-intestinal inflammation, dehydration, and kidney and liver irregularities.
[31] in none of these hospitalizations, including this one, did medics find drugs in Jackson's system.[32][33] The BBC reported that during his 2005 trial, the singer again suffered from stress-related illnesses and severe weight loss.[34]
A biographer claims that in 1993, the entertainer admitted taking painkillers, Valium, Xanax and Ativan to deal with the stress of the child sexual abuse allegations made against him,[35] while Jackson himself does not mention sedatives and states that painkillers actually were prescribed to soothe excruciating pain that he was suffering after recent reconstructive surgery on his scalp.[36] A few months after the allegations became news, Jackson had lost approximately 10 pounds (4.5 kg) in weight and had stopped eating.[29] In a court deposition unrelated to alleged child abuse, Jackson was visibly drowsy, lacked concentration and repeatedly slurred while speaking. He could not remember the dates of his prior album releases or names of people he had worked with. It took him several minutes to name some of his recent albums."
Wow! MJ has been thru a lot. Hopefully, he will come out on top.
Hi Souza. Sorry for going off topic. I will try to reform. <!-- spenguin/ -->penguin/<!-- spenguin/ -->
I know some are sick of me saying this but, did we not hear MJ mention doctor Murray in his Smooth Criminal video? What does it mean? When you access the lyrics, they are not there, but I know what I heard him sing in video, and many others heard the same thing. Is it an illusion? It doesn't make sense for it not to be a message from MJ. The song was on his album Bad, and ON the VIDEO is when we hear it and see him. O-BEE's lyrics in - All Around the World - "I'm a radio monster and a video beast." Sorry Omer, but you are not a radio monster or video beast. Now why would MJ use those two words? MONSTER/BEAST My God!
I still say that since MJ hoaxed his death, then it most likely would have been a "hoax court." I wondered if a trial would ever take place myself. Didn't someone research once and showed that when people made films, they at times receive permission to rent/utilize public buildings? I thought they also showed where they could make a rented room look like a real room (i.e. - courtroom or courthouse). In movies we see on the big screen or on TV, one sees actors walking up to buildings with signs that read as if they were real (San Malachi Courthouse - The Book of Malachi). Matlock (the detective) comes to mind. Perry Mason, et al. Doesn't some City, County and State officials allow these Hollywood types to use real buildings at times?
And speaking of Doc Murray, Lol, I don't think that he is a real doctor. At one time, he wasn't even known to be the attending official until two days later (it was Thome-Thome). Even when Jermaine the announcement, we didn't know the doc's name. One pic until................? And on and on. His video pleading his case was too Michaelish. Many of his so-called patients on his attorney website are people noted in history for something and have passed. He was on the beach with a lady that was also with PP&B in Hawaii last year. Lol
And last but not least, please give me a break, but there is no way that just the Doc would be charged. They charged Howard Stern and a doctor for Anna Nicole, and on and on. The Jackson would have raised holy terror if MJ had really passed. I don't care what Jermaine tweets, because he is just keeping with the illusion. I don't think Mj went to the airport. Remember that picture with MJ and Blanket getting off of an airplane. That probably was taken before 6-25-09. Remember in the Jackson Family Dynasty, Jermaine makes a big production of having this recurring dream that MJ was trying to get a message to him, so they go to FL (?) to what, ask MJ to speak to them thru a seance? Lol
I think this is a ARG/Documentary/Thriller II production. Of course, when MJ comes back, he'll look similar to a scene from video below, but he will also have serious a message to share with the world. It may be July when he busts a move.
Thank you, <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) --> Peacock7, I cried, too. The actual SEEing of "the sport of utter humiliation", literally stunned me. Very disheartening that Stern, especially, got away free. Perhaps what comes around goes BACK around, and he'll get stung yet with his own modus operandi.
Itsneverasitseems, your posts are making a lot of sense, im agreeing with everything you write. Especially about the delay of the trial, numerology has played a very big role in this hoax, as explained by TS. So, I'm really curious about your answer. When do you think bam will be and why? I believe it will fit in with numerology, of course it will.
Caylee Marie Anthony (August 9, 2005 – c. June 16, 2008) was an American toddler who disappeared in June 2008 and was subsequently discovered dead, attracting national attention. Her mother, Casey Anthony, was indicted on October 14, 2008, and is in jail with a trial set for May 2011. Casey, her lawyers, and her family maintain that she did not harm her child and that she is innocent of all charges.
Posted: 4:58 pm EDT May 4, 2011
Updated: 5:28 pm EDT May 4, 2011
ORLANDO, Fla. -- An order came down on Wednesday, involving the possible delay of Casey Anthony's murder trial. The public may have to wait an extra 48 hours to find out when the trial will start.
The latest order came from a panel of judges who are deciding whether a petition filed by media outlets, that do not include WFTV, have a right to know before the trial, where the jury will come from.
Casey's trial date was set for May 9, but now, it's up in the air.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal panel is giving Chief Judge Belvin Perry, prosecutors, defense lawyers and the State Attorney General until Friday morning at 10:00am, to weigh in on the media outlet's challenge.
The three Fifth District Court of Appeal judges deciding whether a media challenge will delay Casey's murder trial are Jacqueline Griffin, Kerry Evander and William Palmer.
WFTV was told they were considering the matter on Wednesday afternoon, behind closed doors. A "2 to 1" or unanimous vote carries.
WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said the conservative makeup of that panel indicates to him that the news organizations wanting to force the immediate disclosure of the secret jury selection location will lose.
"They, like Judge Perry, are going to be more concerned with Casey Anthony's right to a fair trial than the right of early disclosure to the news media," Sheaffer said.
Perry is concerned that the probable flood of publicity that would wash over that county would taint the jury pool there and make a May, 2011 fair trial impossible.
Almost three years into the case, he's concerned about lost witnesses and lost memories.
"Memories are not like fine wine, they don't get better with age, do they?" Perry said.
If the Fifth DCA panel sides with Perry, Sheaffer said it would be based on sound reasoning.
A petition to the Florida Supreme Court would stand an even lesser chance.
WFTV was told there will be a Fifth DCA ruling. The issue will not just drop.
If there's no opinion or explanation accompanying that ruling, that would be the end of it; no Supreme Court review. Perry also has to decide if some never-before-used scientific air test evidence will be used against Casey.
TS_comments wrote: We are now at the most important level: who is the focus of The Sting? Keep in mind the possibility that more than one person or entity is the focus.
Most specifically, though, we need to investigate whether the entire court is in on the hoax, or could the court itself be the focus of the FBI investigation (or part of the investigation).
We also know that for years the FBI investigated MJ, and the pedophile claim; but they found nothing against MJ. Could it be that in the process of this investigation, the FBI found evidence of corruption in the LA prosecution and the MJ trial? Could it be that as a result, the FBI in cooperation with MJ decided to make the LA court system the focus of a sting operation?
Yes I do believe this to be the case. However I also think that there is more than one person and entities that are under scrutiny and focus of the sting operation. I say it is a sting court.
Caylee Marie Anthony (August 9, 2005 – c. June 16, 2008) was an American toddler who disappeared in June 2008 and was subsequently discovered dead, attracting national attention. Her mother, Casey Anthony, was indicted on October 14, 2008, and is in jail with a trial set for May 2011. Casey, her lawyers, and her family maintain that she did not harm her child and that she is innocent of all charges.
Posted: 4:58 pm EDT May 4, 2011
Updated: 5:28 pm EDT May 4, 2011
ORLANDO, Fla. -- An order came down on Wednesday, involving the possible delay of Casey Anthony's murder trial. The public may have to wait an extra 48 hours to find out when the trial will start.
The latest order came from a panel of judges who are deciding whether a petition filed by media outlets, that do not include WFTV, have a right to know before the trial, where the jury will come from.
Casey's trial date was set for May 9, but now, it's up in the air.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal panel is giving Chief Judge Belvin Perry, prosecutors, defense lawyers and the State Attorney General until Friday morning at 10:00am, to weigh in on the media outlet's challenge.
The three Fifth District Court of Appeal judges deciding whether a media challenge will delay Casey's murder trial are Jacqueline Griffin, Kerry Evander and William Palmer.
WFTV was told they were considering the matter on Wednesday afternoon, behind closed doors. A "2 to 1" or unanimous vote carries.
WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said the conservative makeup of that panel indicates to him that the news organizations wanting to force the immediate disclosure of the secret jury selection location will lose.
"They, like Judge Perry, are going to be more concerned with Casey Anthony's right to a fair trial than the right of early disclosure to the news media," Sheaffer said.
Perry is concerned that the probable flood of publicity that would wash over that county would taint the jury pool there and make a May, 2011 fair trial impossible.
Almost three years into the case, he's concerned about lost witnesses and lost memories.
"Memories are not like fine wine, they don't get better with age, do they?" Perry said.
If the Fifth DCA panel sides with Perry, Sheaffer said it would be based on sound reasoning.
A petition to the Florida Supreme Court would stand an even lesser chance.
WFTV was told there will be a Fifth DCA ruling. The issue will not just drop.
If there's no opinion or explanation accompanying that ruling, that would be the end of it; no Supreme Court review. Perry also has to decide if some never-before-used scientific air test evidence will be used against Casey.
TS_comments wrote: We are now at the most important level: who is the focus of The Sting? Keep in mind the possibility that more than one person or entity is the focus.
Most specifically, though, we need to investigate whether the entire court is in on the hoax, or could the court itself be the focus of the FBI investigation (or part of the investigation).
We also know that for years the FBI investigated MJ, and the pedophile claim; but they found nothing against MJ. Could it be that in the process of this investigation, the FBI found evidence of corruption in the LA prosecution and the MJ trial? Could it be that as a result, the FBI in cooperation with MJ decided to make the LA court system the focus of a sting operation?
Yes I do believe this to be the case. However I also think that there is more than one person and entities that are under scrutiny and focus of the sting operation. I say it is a sting court.
I agree, and that would explain the delay as well...Something else is happening as we speak. Dont be suprised if the Judge is changed at the last minute too
This is probably one of many such cases. So it has me leaning toward the court sting theory as well. I don’t like to post such long posts, but in case anyone has trouble with the link, here it is.
"Cite as 01 C.D.O.S. 5526
THE PEOPLE, Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent;
RODRIGO ALBERTO JIMENEZ, Real Party in Interest.
No. B148656
In the Court of Appeal of the State of California
Second Appellate District
Division One
(Super. Ct. No. BA207717)
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; Petition for a Writ of Mandate, Stephen E. O' Neil, Judge. Granted.
COUNSEL
Steve Cooley, District Attorney, George M. Palmer, Head Deputy District Attorney, and Brent Riggs, Deputy District Attorney, for Petitioner.
Michael P. Judge, Public Defender, Judith Greenberg, Mark Harvis and John Hamilton Scott, Deputy Public Defenders, for Real Party in Interest.
No appearance for Respondent.
Filed June 28, 2001
When a defendant' s motion to suppress evidence has been granted and the action against him dismissed and then refiled, the defendant' s subsequent motion to suppress evidence "shall be heard by the same judge who granted the motion at the first hearing if the judge is available." (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (p).) The question in this case is this: If a peremptory challenge is filed in the second action to disqualify the judge who granted the motion in the first action (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6), is the judge "available" to hear the second suppression motion? Our answer is no.[FOOTNOTE 1]
BACKGROUND
In April 2000, Rodrigo Alberto Jimenez was charged by felony complaint with one count of possessing cocaine. In August, Jimenez' s motion to suppress the cocaine was granted (Hon. Michael E. Pastor) and the case was dismissed. In October, a second felony complaint was filed charging Jimenez with the same offense based on the same incident. Jimenez again moved to suppress the cocaine. The motion was set for hearing before the Honorable Marlene Kristovich but was transferred to Judge Pastor and set for hearing on February 6, 2001. On January 19, the People filed a peremptory challenge against Judge Pastor (§ 170.6) and the case was transferred back to Judge Kristovich. When Jimenez appeared in Judge Pastor' s court on February 6, he learned (for the first time) that the People had filed a peremptory challenge. On February 6, Judge Kristovich transferred the case back to Judge Pastor. Judge Pastor reminded the parties that he had been disqualified and transferred the case back to Judge Kristovich. On February 7, at Jimenez' s request, Judge Kristovich continued the hearing on the suppression motion to March 6.
On February 13, Jimenez filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court, alleging that he was entitled to have his suppression motion heard by Judge Pastor. On February 26, in the absence of both sides and without first requesting opposition from the People, the superior court (Hon. Stephen P. O' Neil) granted the petition, issued a writ of mandate, and ordered Judge Pastor to hear Jimenez' s motion to suppress.
The People then filed a petition for a writ of mandate in our court, asking us to command Judge O' Neil to vacate his order of February 26 and to issue a new order denying Jimenez' s superior court petition. We stayed proceedings in the trial court, issued an order to show cause, set a briefing schedule, and set the matter for hearing.
DISCUSSION
In a series of related arguments, the People contend the effect of Judge Pastor' s disqualification may be reviewed by us but not by another trial judge (that is, that Judge O' Neil had no jurisdiction to determine the effect of Judge Pastor' s disqualification); that Judge O' Neil should have solicited opposition before he issued a writ; and that, notwithstanding the general rule that a second motion to suppress should be heard by the judge who granted the first motion, Judge Pastor is disqualified from presiding over any part of this case and thus cannot hear Jimenez' s pending motion. We agree.[FOOTNOTE 2]
I.
We agree with the People that Judge O' Neil had no jurisdiction to determine the validity or effect of the peremptory challenge. By its plain language, section 170.3, subdivision (d), provides that "[t]he determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal . . . ." (Italics added; see also People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 268-275; People v. Webb (1993) 6 Cal.4th 494, 522-523; Curle v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 1063.)
Although Jimenez filed a petition within 10 days after notice of Judge Pastor' s disqualification, he did not file it in the Court of Appeal and he did not attack the ruling on the peremptory challenge. Instead, he claimed in his superior court petition that, notwithstanding the peremptory challenge, subdivision (p) of section 1538.5 gives him the right to have Judge Pastor hear the suppression motion and that, to the extent this might be inconsistent with the effect of a peremptory challenge, the Penal Code trumps the Code of Civil Procedure. As explained below, Jimenez is wrong. Leaving that point to one side, Jimenez' s characterization of his superior court petition as one based on section 1538.5 cannot confer jurisdiction on the superior court to make an order that it has no jurisdiction to make. Since any decision about Judge Pastor' s ability to preside over Jimenez' s case is necessarily a determination about the effect of the People' s peremptory challenge, it is a determination that Judge O' Neil had no jurisdiction to make.[FOOTNOTE 3]
II.
Jimenez contends his right to have Judge Pastor hear his second motion to suppress necessarily means that, at least as to that motion, the People' s peremptory challenge is irrelevant. We disagree.
A.
As relevant, subdivision (p) of section 1538.5 provides that if "a defendant' s motion to . . . suppress evidence in a felony matter has been granted twice, the people may not file a new complaint . . . in order to relitigate the motion or relitigate the matter de novo at a special hearing in the superior court . . . unless the people discover additional evidence relating to the motion that was not reasonably discoverable at the time of the second suppression hearing. Relitigation of the motion shall be heard by the same judge who granted the motion at the first hearing if the judge is available." (Italics added.) The italicized language applies to all relitigation of the suppression motion, "not just to suppression motions which have been heard two times." (Soil v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 872, 880.)
B.
Once a peremptory challenge has been timely filed, the challenged judge is no longer "available" in that case. (§ 170.6, subd. (1) [upon acceptance of a peremptory challenge, the judge may not try any civil or criminal action or hear any matter therein].) The things that a disqualified judge may do are specifically enumerated in section 170.4, subdivision (a) -- and they do not include ruling on a motion to suppress.[FOOTNOTE 4] Any question about matters not mentioned in subdivision (a) is resolved by subdivision (d) of section 170.4: "Except as provided in this section, a disqualified judge shall have no power to act in any proceeding after his or her disqualification or after the filing of a statement of disqualification until the question of his or her disqualification has been determined." (Italics added.) In our view, the italicized language is about as clear as any legislative mandate could be. (Paredes v. Superior Court (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 24, 35 [we must give effect to the plain meaning of the statute].)
C.
Section 1538.5, subdivision (p), is entirely consistent with sections 170.4 and 170.6. Subdivision (p) of section 1538.5 plainly contemplates situations where a judge will be unavailable to hear a second or third motion to suppress (§ 1538.5, subd. (p) ["if the judge is available" ]), and there is nothing in section 1538.5 to suggest a legislative intent to distinguish between disqualification by peremptory challenge on the one hand, and disqualification by death, disability or retirement on the other. We can' t think of any reason to make such a distinction, and Jimenez offers no suggestions -- he simply asserts without authority that, "[o]bviously, Judge Pastor was ' available' to hear the motion, since the motion was calendared in his court, but then transferred due to the People' s challenge."
We appreciate Jimenez' s concerns about prosecutorial forum shopping, and agree with our colleagues in Division Two that subdivision (p) was added to section 1538.5 to remedy that very problem (Soil v. Superior Court, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 880). If (under the circumstances of this case) the Legislature intended a different definition of "available" than suggested by the plain language of the statute, the Legislature can easily clarify its position by amending either section 170.4, subdivision (a), or section 1538.5, subdivision (p).[FOOTNOTE 5] Unless and until that is done, the plain language of the statutes compels the conclusion that a disqualified judge is not "available" to hear a second or subsequent suppression motion.[FOOTNOTE 6]
It follows that the People are entitled to the relief sought.
DISPOSITION
The petition is granted; a peremptory writ shall issue to direct the trial court to vacate its order granting Jimenez' s petition and to enter a new order transferring this case to a judge other than Judge Pastor. Our order to show cause is discharged and our stay order is dissolved.
VOGEL (MIRIAM A.), J.
We concur: SPENCER, P.J., and ORTEGA, J.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: FOOTNOTE(S):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
FN1. All references to section 1538.5 are to that section of the Penal Code; all other undesignated section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
FN2. Jimenez contends our order to show cause is ineffective because it was "signed by only a single justice of this court [and a] single justice of this court does not have authority to issue an Order to Show Cause . . . ." He is mistaken. An order to show cause is not case-dispositive. It is nothing more than notice to the parties that the court has decided to address the merits of the petition; it is a notice of the dates for filing further papers and of the date for oral argument. For that reason, an order to show cause is issued by the Clerk of the court and is merely initialed by one justice. Although an alternative writ constitutes a determination that the petitioner has satisfied the prerequisites to writ review, and although an alternative writ may by its terms suggest to the trial court that it ought to change its order (Eisenberg, Horvitz & Wiener, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals & Writs (2000) Writs, § 15.151 et seq.; 6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Writs, § § 69, 89, 98), an order to show cause is nothing more than the appellate equivalent of a clerk' s notice of hearing. And where, as here, an order to show cause is accompanied by an order staying further proceedings in the trial court, it does not permit (let alone encourage) the lower court to change its order pending our review of the merits of the petition.
FN3. There is one other procedural point. Absent exceptional circumstances, a court that has jurisdiction to issue a writ cannot do so in the first instance unless it has received or solicited opposition from the party or parties adversely affected. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178-180; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1239-1241.) Moreover, it is only when the petitioner' s entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue that a writ should issue in the first instance and without a hearing. (Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1223.) If Judge O' Neil had jurisdiction to rule on Jimenez' s petition, he should have solicited opposition and held a hearing. Since he had no jurisdiction, these points are moot.
FN4. A disqualified judge may: take action or issue any order necessary to maintain the court' s jurisdiction pending reassignment of the case; request another judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and act in the disqualified judge' s place; hear and determine purely default matters; issue an order for possession prior to judgment in eminent domain proceedings; set proceedings for trial or hearing; and conduct settlement conferences. (§ 170.4, subd. (a).)
FN5. Of course, that opens another can of worms. What happens when the judge who rules on the first suppression motion is thereafter disqualified for cause (§ 170.1) instead of by whim (§ 170.6)? What happens if (after the first case is dismissed) the defendant hires a new lawyer who is related to the judge who heard the first motion? (See § 170.1, subd. (a)(5) [a judge is disqualified if a lawyer or a spouse of a lawyer in the proceeding is the spouse, former spouse, child, sibling, or parent of the judge or judge' s spouse or if such person is associated in the private practice of law with a lawyer in the proceeding].) We could go on, but we think we' ve made the point.
FN6. As Jimenez concedes, Judge O' Neil' s reliance on People v. Gallegos (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 252, 266-268, was misplaced. Although the prosecutor had attempted to challenge the trial judge in Gallegos, the challenge was not allowed and the second suppression motion was heard by the same judge who heard the first motion. On appeal, the appellant complained that a 1993 amendment to subdivision (j) of section 1538.5 was unconstitutional because it provides that, under specified circumstances, the ruling granting a motion to suppress is not binding when the case is refiled and the motion renewed. (§ 1538.5, subd. (j); People v. Gallegos, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 261.) At the end of a lengthy discussion confirming the constitutionality of the amended statute, the Gallegos court mentions, in passing, that the appellant' s second "motion was heard by the same judge who granted his earlier motion, as required by section 1538.5, subdivision (p). The same would be true as to defendants in general. Appellant received a full and complete hearing on his motion to suppress, which is all that due process requires." (People v. Gallegos, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 268.) Plainly, the Gallegos court did not consider the issue raised in our case, and we therefore treat Gallegos as inapposite. (People v. Mazurette (2001) 24 Cal.4th 789, 797 [a case is not authority for a proposition it has not considered].)"
Based on all that Michael has been put through, I can see him being approached and asked to participate in such a sting, and based on the same I can see him agreeing!! "V"
onthewingsoflove ..i also found that on another site as well and posted the link, so I guess we are on the right track..
I knew this had to be big..its never really happened before....A JUDGE being JUDGED by jury...we have Mj and the FBI to thank for that...and of course Murray.
onthewingsoflove ..i also found that on another site as well and posted the link, so I guess we are on the right track..
I knew this had to be big..its never really happened before....A JUDGE being JUDGED by jury...we have Mj and the FBI to thank for that...and of course Murray.
i have compassion for those whose denial misinforms them, but this increasing hoax talk is wrong and helps no-one. love you all
5 minutes ago via web
Reply Retweet . it saddens me to read tweets that believe Michael is still alive. He is not. Pls stop hurting yourselves with this false belief
17 minutes ago via web
Reply Retweet . I hadn't wished to address this, because I find it hard to accept that people think this way, but...
20 minutes ago via web
I think we have the answer once and for all.
I think not <!-- salbino/ -->albino/<!-- salbino/ -->
i have compassion for those whose denial misinforms them, but this increasing hoax talk is wrong and helps no-one. love you all
5 minutes ago via web
Reply Retweet . it saddens me to read tweets that believe Michael is still alive. He is not. Pls stop hurting yourselves with this false belief
17 minutes ago via web
Reply Retweet . I hadn't wished to address this, because I find it hard to accept that people think this way, but...
20 minutes ago via web
I think we have the answer once and for all.
I think not <!-- salbino/ -->albino/<!-- salbino/ -->
I think that we are alone... again! <!-- spale/ -->pale/<!-- spale/ -->
Can we please get back on topic? Jermaine's tweets can be discussed in the Twitter thread. To remind you all, here is the original topic:
It’s time for another level. <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
We are now at the most important level: who is the focus of The Sting? Keep in mind the possibility that more than one person or entity is the focus.
Most specifically, though, we need to investigate whether the entire court is in on the hoax, or could the court itself be the focus of the FBI investigation (or part of the investigation). Some have already proposed this possibility, while others have summarily dismissed it. As always, please do not dismiss any theory until it has been thoroughly debunked. And whatever theory you personally believe, try to debunk your own theory; many hoax investigators are still not doing this.
In favor of the court sting theory, let me point out a few things. Some say that the court did the right thing back in the 2005 acquittal, so why would it be investigated? The reality is that the defense and jury did the right thing, but what about the prosecution? We already know about Aphrodite’s testimony, and Tom Sneddon (TS <!-- s --><!-- s --> ), etc.
We also know that for years the FBI investigated MJ, and the pedophile claim; but they found nothing against MJ. Could it be that in the process of this investigation, the FBI found evidence of corruption in the LA prosecution and the MJ trial? Could it be that as a result, the FBI in cooperation with MJ decided to make the LA court system the focus of a sting operation? Please remember that the “top priority” of the FBI is “public corruption” in government agencies; and their investigation specifically includes “verdicts handed down in courts”
{http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/corruption}.
We are also at the point, which I mentioned earlier, of running two different coherent theories in parallel. And as we try to put all the pieces together—including the research of previous levels, as well as the new information that we will get during the hearings—hopefully one of the two theories will fall into place, and the other one will fall apart.
Although there are endless minor variations within these two main coherent theories, for the purpose of this level we are only examining two basic theories: the court is in on the hoax, or the court is not in on the hoax (other than the defense, and maybe a few other key people). For the sake of discussion, we can refer to these two theories as “hoax court” and “sting court”.
In level one, we found that the ambulance photo was staged in advance. In level two, we found that at least a few key people in the FBI are helping with the hoax (and cooperating with one or more in the LAFD). In level three, there are still a few different ideas about who or what (if anything) went in the ambulance on the stretcher to UCLA; most agree however that a corpse was not used.
Even though level three is still unresolved, yet we can and should start investigating level four (The Sting). Actually, level three and four are closely related—so much so that if we get a clear answer to level four, then level three will probably be easy to resolve (and vice versa).
To be more specific: if it’s hoax court, then there would be little if any need to use a corpse; but if it is sting court, then the corpse theory has a strong case. This would not only reduce the people who would need to be in on it, but it would also allow witnesses to testify truthfully in real court under oath (both witnesses who are in on it, and those who are not).
It has been suggested that this would constitute entrapment; but sting versus entrapment does not depend on using a dummy versus a corpse. It would be possible to use a dummy, and still qualify as entrapment, if the job was done so airtight that nobody could figure it out. On the other hand: it would be possible to use a corpse, and not qualify as entrapment, as long as there are plenty of clues and evidence that MJ is still alive. If the hoax forums can figure out that MJ is alive, when most of the members are not even professional investigators, then what excuse would the LA prosecution have for not figuring it out?
Please do not let this thread become the primary discussion for all the things that happen during the hearings; there will be other threads for that purpose. Just bring into this thread discussion and evidence related to the focus of The Sting, and especially whether it is hoax court or sting court.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Ok...
I believe that TS already gave the answer subliminally.
A scorpion in the beginning of the post and some statements he made. I believe it is a sting, but the more complicated is whether the focus. Must be a great number of people, considering that this began for many years ... start with the mafia organized against Michael in 1993 or perhaps sooner. Tom Sneddom has to be one of the targets.
My question is: in 2005 all took place in Santa Maria and Santa Barbara. The court in LA can work against them anyway?
<!-- smj_bad/ -->mj_bad/<!-- smj_bad/ -->
Maybe Murray is the FBI agent. Man of a thousand faces, no clear history, no clear records, never seen unless he wants to be...
Murry working undercover as MJs doctor to expose... what or who? No idea but it would answer a lot of questions about Murray's background or lack thereof.
There's been a lot of stories about Murray with women, usually much younger, and who seem to be aspiring dancers, actresses, etc. What would he possibly be working on in conjunction with these young women to expose/catch/convict?
Just kicking it out there.
Ps. thanks Paula for reminding us about the charge of manslaughter itself, I had forgotten this. For those who only skimmed or even skipped her article that she posted, the short version is: the actual charge that Murray is in the system as being on trial for, as it is written and recorded in those official records heartphantom posted earlier, do not exist in the California Penal Code. It's not a real, legitimate charge at all. Good reminder, I knew there were more reasons why I know court is a hoax court, it's just been so long I forgot some of them. This is a great thread because it will compile this information in one place. Court is not as real as it appears!
Pps. But what is real? We were kicking this around earlier too. What exactly constitutes real? If court is a physical event taking place does that by itself make it real? Or is reality defined by real defense of a real accused by a real complaint filed by the real DA with real prosecutors assigned to the case with the express purpose of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a real judge? Because when I say hoax court I do define it as the former but not as the later.
if this is the first "alleged" murderer who is treated like a celebrity. And at the arraignment on 08 February 2010, no media were persente, is this a normal situation? <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
or that day the court was not decorated with some toys? <!-- s --><!-- s -->
No I didn't mean it like that. No one forces people to participate in TIAI threads. Those of us who want to, do it of our own accord. People have free choice to participate or to choose not to. There has always been controversy surrounding the mystery and motives of TS. We have a thread here on the board specificly for that. And this latest flare up is small potatoes in comparison to previous bumps in the road. Previous collective tantrums have not resulted in demands being met or addressed. And much to his credit, ridicule and peoples opinions have neither diverted him from his direction and plan. He must have rhinoscerous skin. But as for us, today specificly we are tired our emotions have had a jolt with the prospect of a lengthy delay in the trial start, but we will settle ourselves again and find our composure. This I believe.
Now I had better add my view on the trial so as to at least appear to stick to topic
Trial is a hoax trial. The questionare for the jury was too crazy to be real. And has anybody ever seen a mug picture of Murray? If there was one I'm sure TMZ would have posted it. They do those sort of things.
And for the record. TS, I remember saying for you to take as long as you like in a previous thread but somehow I wasn't expecting this long. However I am here for the l-o-n-g haul.
It is not only about the trial delay. I made this post before the trial delay happened.
In level one, we found that the ambulance photo was staged in advance. In level two, we found that at least a few key people in the FBI are helping with the hoax (and cooperating with one or more in the LAFD). In level three, there are still a few different ideas about who or what (if anything) went in the ambulance on the stretcher to UCLA; most agree however that a corpse was not used.
TS, I've been following you and making comments on all of these threads. I have a huge respect for you but I do not see a progress or conclusion in any of your threads like you stated.
In level one, you say that we found that the ambulance photo was staged in advance. But I do remember that we talked about the possibilities about where and when it could have been taken. We never got to a conclusion like it was taken in advance. You are saying it right now. ALSO what happened to the leaf pattern inside of the ambulance? We discussed a lot about it but where's the conclusion?
In level two, you say that we found at least a few key people in the FBI are helping with the hoax. Where did we come to this conclusion? You were the one who suggested us that the FBI's possible involvement and again you are the one who is saying us that a couple of FBI agents are helping the hoax. How do we know it if you didn't say it to us? We didn't get to that conclusion in our discussion.
In level three, you say that we made progress. IF creating irrational theories and talking about if the bushes outside of the house changed is a progress, then yes we did lots of progress! Other than that, everyone stated their opinion and most of them were entitled to their opinions. How do we know which one is the right one? If there is no conclusion, why do we start discussing about it? What's the purpose? And as I wrote above, I do not see any conclusions on those threads like you stated and some of the things we discussed about are left behind without any mention about them like the leaf pattern.
I will be still stating my opinion about the trial and keep reading the posts and I do hope that we get to a conclusion at the end of it. Blessings.
I do not see any progress or conclusion at these threads. What happened to the leaf pattern issue that we discussed for pages? Why anyone is asking about this? I still stated my opinion about the trial and I'm not going to repeat myself but I do know that people will start to chase their own tails over and over and this will be named as a "progress". Yes, nobody forced us to read TS' posts and I do appreciate all the info he has given to us. But after some point, it started to look like a distraction tactic to me. And I see that many people who were not forced to read TS' posts started to feel the same like me. And afterall, I do not think that it hurts someone to be sure that TS has genuine information about the hoax. You can be calm and ok for another year or years with the hoax but personally my patience is almost over like most of the others. If Michael is not going to come back, I want to go back to my hoax free life. I'm tired, I'm frustrated, I'm disappointed. I've had migraine in the last 2 years and the headache is killing me. I do not need to count what the hoax has done to me psychologically I think. This lasted so so long and we're all so tired. Well at least most of us. I want it to end and I want to see Michael happy and healthy. And after 2 years I think we deserve an unfold on TS' mystery and his mysterious identity.
I never thought TS was in insider,nor Michael nor any of the family member. He or she is just a person like you and I, who has more knowledge of law.. I have been reading his posts, he sends us investigating we never really concluded anything, only speculations. I am a very positive person, but I am starting to agree with Purelove and the rest, it does not mean I lost faith NO Way, but i feel this hoax is taking most of my time, and I have better things to do. I am a psychologist, and when I have time in between my patients, I am here reading posts to see if Michael is back. Do you find this normal behaviour? NO.. talking as a psychologist NO this is not normal. I feel that the trial has been moved due to the fact Michael wanted it this way. Bin Landen mystrious death may have been the cause, who knows? One thing I DO NOT REGRET is I made friends with a lot of you people all over the world and it is amazing, well some ate my head time to time but it's all is good. I love everyone in this forum. When I read that some of you are going crazy and depressed again, that is not good. That's why i wrote on a thread, please do something else with your life, life goes on, and life is beautiful.. Do things that makes you happy. If Michael comes back in 10 yrs from now, he is fine, but you are getting sick over Michael , he does not want that. Just enjoy your life. I will have to go back to work now, my patient awaits for me <!-- slolol/ -->lolol/<!-- slolol/ --> time is money !!!! <!-- slolol/ -->lolol/<!-- slolol/ -->
when if first saw that scorpion i thought about the idea of how a scorpion is supposed to sometimes be so overzealous about the kill that he will often kill himself in the process. so i was thinking that with the 2005 situation that is what they managed to do was hang themselves. problem is when i looked this up it said that is a myth that the venom doesn't have the same effect on them or their kind. <!-- spale/ -->pale/<!-- spale/ --> sorry maybe i just wasted space but that's where my head went. ( by the way i can hear all of you who think my head is just always wastin' space) <!-- sconfused/ -->confused/<!-- sconfused/ --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Could the lawyers be the focus of the sting <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> ?
Just saying that because in 1993 Michael was advised by the lawyers to settle the case, in his disadvantage, maybe the lawyers were corrupted to persuade MJ to settle.
Anyway, it looks like the sting is focused on the court - but I don't know if it's the judge, the lawyers or the prosecution.
But there's a problem with this: if the court is the focus, why the case is delayed so much? It doesn't make sense.
I don't think it is normal a sting to last for so long.
OK, if I think the trial is taking too long, maybe we have a hoax court, the trial being a distraction for those who are the real focus of the sting, for one reason or another those who are the real focus have to believe Michael is dead, that's why we're having a trial, so there would be no doubt Michael is dead.
But this theory places the sting focus persons outside the court, so who could they be?
Branca and the Estate lawyers? Drug dealers? I feel we don't have enough information to be able to tell who they are.
Anyway, I think it's safe to tell that for the sting to succed, it is essential they must believe Michael is dead.
This is the link that didn't open.......due to the forum being down for a while, I could not post it any sooner..
February 28, 2011
(Original date)
The following is the federal criminal-civil rights Complaint that was filed in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, CA against Superior Court judge Michael Pastor and the Medical Board of California (MBC) on January 24, 2011. The Complaint speaks for itself, but I believe it demonstrates why judge Pastor cannot preside over Dr. Murray's involuntary manslaughter trial without violating Murray's constitutional due process and other rights. If the U.S. Constitution has any meaning at all, and if judge Pastor and the Superior Court of California has any respect at all for the Constitution, there must be a new judge assigned to preside over Dr. Murray's involuntary manslaughter trial in March, in order to protect, inter alia, Murray's right to a fair trial.
But then again, who and what is fair in the court system. The attorney's are controlled by the Government, not their clients
Comments
Haha! That's funny! <!-- s
Btw.. Doesn't Itsneverasitseems sound familiar to you guys?? <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
There is a network of big Pharma making their money ANY way they can, and everyone KNOWS that no doctors are EVER jailed for their part in a death. Usually they work in "teams", so no one really knows any more, who "malpracticed" what or when...but in Anna Nicole Smith's case (God rest her poor soul) and MJ's "case", the doctors KNOWINGLY prescribed millions of dollars of drugs to various unsubstantiated names' actual identity.
There are safeguards in place to keep addicts from multiple prescriptions in a period of time, but NO restraints on doctors, where the buck stops (that there is a bonafide human individual), to prescribe ANYTHING they wish over the fax or phone, for as many bogus nonexistent people as they can dream up!
[Perhaps, MJ, like millions of us, just had enough of this sick greedy business, and decided to sting BACK. <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) --> ]
When ANS's doctors AND handler, that snake, Stern, who thought her being practically mentally VACANT every day of her life, was amusing... <!-- s:x -->:x<!-- s:x --> <!-- s:evil: -->:evil:<!-- s:evil: --> WALKED, I was OUTraged <!-- s:!: -->:!:<!-- s:!: --> <!-- s:!: -->:!:<!-- s:!: --> I wished for a CHAMPION, even an underworld vigilante, but she really had no one to avenge her. The thing was, though, WHY did these people walk scott free???????
HOW?????
Dirty Judicial kickbacks, maybe??? IDK. But, think about THAT. There HAS to be a trial.
Murray will be acquitted.
FBI will swoop in.
JAIL FOR JUDGES!! yeah!
This IS BIG.
BAM. <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
MJ, My hero!
<!-- sbearhug -->bearhug<!-- sbearhug -->
It is NEEDED. Is this the plan? MJ's plan? Well... I like it better than, the whiney, "there's NO real trial, it won't happen". <!-- s
Oh, BTW, Itsneverasitseems, Welcome! I see you like to dish it out. Can you take it? <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> <!-- smj_dance/ -->mj_dance/<!-- smj_dance/ --> ha ha ha
I still say that since MJ hoaxed his death, then it most likely would have been a "hoax court." I wondered if a trial would ever take place myself. Didn't someone research once and showed that when people made films, they at times receive permission to rent/utilize public buildings? I thought they also showed where they could make a rented room look like a real room (i.e. - courtroom or courthouse). In movies we see on the big screen or on TV, one sees actors walking up to buildings with signs that read as if they were real (San Malachi Courthouse - The Book of Malachi). Matlock (the detective) comes to mind. Perry Mason, et al. Doesn't some City, County and State officials allow these Hollywood types to use real buildings at times?
And speaking of Doc Murray, Lol, I don't think that he is a real doctor. At one time, he wasn't even known to be the attending official until two days later (it was Thome-Thome). Even when Jermaine the announcement, we didn't know the doc's name. One pic until................? And on and on. His video pleading his case was too Michaelish. Many of his so-called patients on his attorney website are people noted in history for something and have passed. He was on the beach with a lady that was also with PP&B in Hawaii last year. Lol
And last but not least, please give me a break, but there is no way that just the Doc would be charged. They charged Howard Stern and a doctor for Anna Nicole, and on and on. The Jackson would have raised holy terror if MJ had really passed. I don't care what Jermaine tweets, because he is just keeping with the illusion. I don't think Mj went to the airport. Remember that picture with MJ and Blanket getting off of an airplane. That probably was taken before 6-25-09. Remember in the Jackson Family Dynasty, Jermaine makes a big production of having this recurring dream that MJ was trying to get a message to him, so they go to FL (?) to what, ask MJ to speak to them thru a seance? Lol
I think this is a ARG/Documentary/Thriller II production. Of course, when MJ comes back, he'll look similar to a scene from video below, but he will also have serious a message to share with the world. It may be July when he busts a move.
<!-- m -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oARx7PP ... re=related<!-- m -->
It's Her, great post, and I agree 100%. The below video is not for the faint of heart, so please don't watch. I cried.
<!-- m -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lMyc7suUM0<!-- m -->
It's BS.
Hey SoldierofLove. Great stuff. MJ is claiming all that is rightfully his (to include HIS GOOD NAME). Most of his adult life, he has had some shady characters around him, but I don't think it was all of his fault. I think at one time, someone did shoot him up with a drug/Morphine/Demoral for evil purposes. Someone may have tried to hook him to drugs in the past. Someone may have put in the press that MJ had a prescription drug problem that in reality they created. And when we hear his parents and sisters and brothers say it, it may be because he did indeed develop this problem on his own back then (I don't believe he is a drug addict) or it could mean that someone(s) else tried to make him into a drug addict, and this is their (family's) sly way of saying that back then when this happened, it was forced on MJ and not something he did for pain.
Plus, certain powers that be can plant all of the drug related stories they want. When they want someone to die of a heart attack, they sometimes say that he/she committed suicide, but in actuality, they were suicided. It may turn out to be that MJ was at one time shot up with demoral having to do with mind control and MK Ultra based nefarious undertakings. This is may haps what it all ties into. Plus, on the old board, I brought up the fact that if in fact there were supposedly all of these prescriptions being written in MJ's name didn't mean that someone around him (crooked bodyguard types) and/or others were faking his signature (if that story was true at all). May haps in the past when he was under mind control, they commanded that he write his signature on this or that document. They messed with MJ all the way round back then.
Plus don't forget, I think that he could have been cloned and/or had doubles that looked just like him. One of his clones/doubles could be mentioned below. I keep thinking about what his father had to say. They all are busting at the seams in wanting to get the real truth out. There were many people that worked overtime to make the REAL Michael Joe Jackson look bad, drag, sad et al, for their evil agendas and purposes.
If one were to research it, they'd find that just like they are doing with this Osama thing, they may be doing with Tiger, Oprah (some say she is mind-controlled) and many others in the entertainment industry. I know many have, but have some others ever wondered why these athletes get so much money (promised so much) for playing a GAME? Football, basketball, baseball, soccor, et al is big business. Do some of these people ever wonder where this money is coming from? Let's take a look at this. This one just got 60 million to sign with North Carolina. Oprah is worth over 1 billion. These athletes (entertainment types too) are supposedly worth up to 100 million, etc. IT IS JUST MONOPOLY MONEY. IT IS FIAT MONEY. IT IS PAPER MONEY. IT IS FAKE MONEY. IT IS WORTHLESS.
The dollar is suppose to be based on the Gold Standard. So in essence, not one of these wealthy people to include Trump, Gates, et al can go into a bank and say, I want my dollars turned into GOLD (out of Africa). That is what is so sad with a lot of these so-called wealthy people. They don't think for themselves. They aren't rich in wisdom, because if they were, they would know that the US is bankrupt, the gold at Fort Knox is fake, and they can't get Gold coins for their millions of dollars that are on the books. They are being scammed, but many don't care as long as they can live what they call the good life. Please don't get me wrong, some do care and some know just what is happening. They also know that when they speak to their God, they tell Him that they think they deserve to be compensated for their good works and contributions to whatever field or industry - because they are honest and good people with hearts filled with love. It's not their fault that the world's financial system is based on fraud. Some of us knew what JFK was trying to do in bringing the coins back and disbanding the federal reserve.
And if what some say is true, they want to chip us to control us more, and therefore if we don't get that vaccine the nationalist doctor wants to give us, and if we get too out of line, and if we speak ill of the government, they can turn a switch and we'll be no more, because they would have activated the cease to resist and exist switch thru our chips.
Like MJ said, "Fame, Fortune, they are all illusions." In other words, our man knows the truth. He knows that for him and others that are wealthy on paper, doesn't equate to the reality. They just have one gigantic CREDIT/DEBIT card. Some are saying that soon, all of us will be forced to carry a card for all of our needs.
<!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Standard_Act<!-- m -->
From Wiki.
"Weight and drug addictionChanges to his face were, in part, due to periods of significant weight loss.[27] Jackson became slimmer in the early 1980s because of a change in diet and a desire for "a dancer's body".[16] By 1984, Jackson had lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg), bringing his weight to 105 pounds (48 kg) on a 5 foot 9 (1.75 m) frame, the slimmest he had ever been as an adult.[28] Witnesses reported that Jackson was often dizzy and speculated that he was suffering from anorexia nervosa.[28] Following accusations of child molestation in 1993, Jackson stopped eating, losing even more weight.[29] In late 1995, Jackson was rushed to a hospital after collapsing during rehearsals for a televised performance (which was subsequently cancelled); a non-related writer claims that the incident was caused by a stress-related panic attack,[30] while medics cited irregular beats, gastro-intestinal inflammation, dehydration, and kidney and liver irregularities.
[31] in none of these hospitalizations, including this one, did medics find drugs in Jackson's system.[32][33] The BBC reported that during his 2005 trial, the singer again suffered from stress-related illnesses and severe weight loss.[34]
A biographer claims that in 1993, the entertainer admitted taking painkillers, Valium, Xanax and Ativan to deal with the stress of the child sexual abuse allegations made against him,[35] while Jackson himself does not mention sedatives and states that painkillers actually were prescribed to soothe excruciating pain that he was suffering after recent reconstructive surgery on his scalp.[36] A few months after the allegations became news, Jackson had lost approximately 10 pounds (4.5 kg) in weight and had stopped eating.[29] In a court deposition unrelated to alleged child abuse, Jackson was visibly drowsy, lacked concentration and repeatedly slurred while speaking. He could not remember the dates of his prior album releases or names of people he had worked with. It took him several minutes to name some of his recent albums."
Wow! MJ has been thru a lot. Hopefully, he will come out on top.
Hi Souza. Sorry for going off topic. I will try to reform. <!-- spenguin/ -->penguin/<!-- spenguin/ -->
BACK <!-- sbounce/ -->bounce/<!-- sbounce/ -->
Will Casey Anthony's Murder Trial Be Delayed?
<!-- m -->http://www.wftv.com/news/27777709/detail.html<!-- m --> <!-- styping/ -->typing/<!-- styping/ --> <!-- srr/ -->rr/<!-- srr/ -->
Yes I do believe this to be the case. However I also think that there is more than one person and entities that are under scrutiny and focus of the sting operation. I say it is a sting court.
I agree, and that would explain the delay as well...Something else is happening as we speak. Dont be suprised if the Judge is changed at the last minute too
<!-- m -->http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/opinion ... 8656.shtml<!-- m -->
This is probably one of many such cases. So it has me leaning toward the court sting theory as well. I don’t like to post such long posts, but in case anyone has trouble with the link, here it is.
"Cite as 01 C.D.O.S. 5526
THE PEOPLE, Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent;
RODRIGO ALBERTO JIMENEZ, Real Party in Interest.
No. B148656
In the Court of Appeal of the State of California
Second Appellate District
Division One
(Super. Ct. No. BA207717)
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; Petition for a Writ of Mandate, Stephen E. O' Neil, Judge. Granted.
COUNSEL
Steve Cooley, District Attorney, George M. Palmer, Head Deputy District Attorney, and Brent Riggs, Deputy District Attorney, for Petitioner.
Michael P. Judge, Public Defender, Judith Greenberg, Mark Harvis and John Hamilton Scott, Deputy Public Defenders, for Real Party in Interest.
No appearance for Respondent.
Filed June 28, 2001
When a defendant' s motion to suppress evidence has been granted and the action against him dismissed and then refiled, the defendant' s subsequent motion to suppress evidence "shall be heard by the same judge who granted the motion at the first hearing if the judge is available." (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (p).) The question in this case is this: If a peremptory challenge is filed in the second action to disqualify the judge who granted the motion in the first action (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6), is the judge "available" to hear the second suppression motion? Our answer is no.[FOOTNOTE 1]
BACKGROUND
In April 2000, Rodrigo Alberto Jimenez was charged by felony complaint with one count of possessing cocaine. In August, Jimenez' s motion to suppress the cocaine was granted (Hon. Michael E. Pastor) and the case was dismissed. In October, a second felony complaint was filed charging Jimenez with the same offense based on the same incident. Jimenez again moved to suppress the cocaine. The motion was set for hearing before the Honorable Marlene Kristovich but was transferred to Judge Pastor and set for hearing on February 6, 2001. On January 19, the People filed a peremptory challenge against Judge Pastor (§ 170.6) and the case was transferred back to Judge Kristovich. When Jimenez appeared in Judge Pastor' s court on February 6, he learned (for the first time) that the People had filed a peremptory challenge. On February 6, Judge Kristovich transferred the case back to Judge Pastor. Judge Pastor reminded the parties that he had been disqualified and transferred the case back to Judge Kristovich. On February 7, at Jimenez' s request, Judge Kristovich continued the hearing on the suppression motion to March 6.
On February 13, Jimenez filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court, alleging that he was entitled to have his suppression motion heard by Judge Pastor. On February 26, in the absence of both sides and without first requesting opposition from the People, the superior court (Hon. Stephen P. O' Neil) granted the petition, issued a writ of mandate, and ordered Judge Pastor to hear Jimenez' s motion to suppress.
The People then filed a petition for a writ of mandate in our court, asking us to command Judge O' Neil to vacate his order of February 26 and to issue a new order denying Jimenez' s superior court petition. We stayed proceedings in the trial court, issued an order to show cause, set a briefing schedule, and set the matter for hearing.
DISCUSSION
In a series of related arguments, the People contend the effect of Judge Pastor' s disqualification may be reviewed by us but not by another trial judge (that is, that Judge O' Neil had no jurisdiction to determine the effect of Judge Pastor' s disqualification); that Judge O' Neil should have solicited opposition before he issued a writ; and that, notwithstanding the general rule that a second motion to suppress should be heard by the judge who granted the first motion, Judge Pastor is disqualified from presiding over any part of this case and thus cannot hear Jimenez' s pending motion. We agree.[FOOTNOTE 2]
I.
We agree with the People that Judge O' Neil had no jurisdiction to determine the validity or effect of the peremptory challenge. By its plain language, section 170.3, subdivision (d), provides that "[t]he determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal . . . ." (Italics added; see also People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 268-275; People v. Webb (1993) 6 Cal.4th 494, 522-523; Curle v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 1063.)
Although Jimenez filed a petition within 10 days after notice of Judge Pastor' s disqualification, he did not file it in the Court of Appeal and he did not attack the ruling on the peremptory challenge. Instead, he claimed in his superior court petition that, notwithstanding the peremptory challenge, subdivision (p) of section 1538.5 gives him the right to have Judge Pastor hear the suppression motion and that, to the extent this might be inconsistent with the effect of a peremptory challenge, the Penal Code trumps the Code of Civil Procedure. As explained below, Jimenez is wrong. Leaving that point to one side, Jimenez' s characterization of his superior court petition as one based on section 1538.5 cannot confer jurisdiction on the superior court to make an order that it has no jurisdiction to make. Since any decision about Judge Pastor' s ability to preside over Jimenez' s case is necessarily a determination about the effect of the People' s peremptory challenge, it is a determination that Judge O' Neil had no jurisdiction to make.[FOOTNOTE 3]
II.
Jimenez contends his right to have Judge Pastor hear his second motion to suppress necessarily means that, at least as to that motion, the People' s peremptory challenge is irrelevant. We disagree.
A.
As relevant, subdivision (p) of section 1538.5 provides that if "a defendant' s motion to . . . suppress evidence in a felony matter has been granted twice, the people may not file a new complaint . . . in order to relitigate the motion or relitigate the matter de novo at a special hearing in the superior court . . . unless the people discover additional evidence relating to the motion that was not reasonably discoverable at the time of the second suppression hearing. Relitigation of the motion shall be heard by the same judge who granted the motion at the first hearing if the judge is available." (Italics added.) The italicized language applies to all relitigation of the suppression motion, "not just to suppression motions which have been heard two times." (Soil v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 872, 880.)
B.
Once a peremptory challenge has been timely filed, the challenged judge is no longer "available" in that case. (§ 170.6, subd. (1) [upon acceptance of a peremptory challenge, the judge may not try any civil or criminal action or hear any matter therein].) The things that a disqualified judge may do are specifically enumerated in section 170.4, subdivision (a) -- and they do not include ruling on a motion to suppress.[FOOTNOTE 4] Any question about matters not mentioned in subdivision (a) is resolved by subdivision (d) of section 170.4: "Except as provided in this section, a disqualified judge shall have no power to act in any proceeding after his or her disqualification or after the filing of a statement of disqualification until the question of his or her disqualification has been determined." (Italics added.) In our view, the italicized language is about as clear as any legislative mandate could be. (Paredes v. Superior Court (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 24, 35 [we must give effect to the plain meaning of the statute].)
C.
Section 1538.5, subdivision (p), is entirely consistent with sections 170.4 and 170.6. Subdivision (p) of section 1538.5 plainly contemplates situations where a judge will be unavailable to hear a second or third motion to suppress (§ 1538.5, subd. (p) ["if the judge is available" ]), and there is nothing in section 1538.5 to suggest a legislative intent to distinguish between disqualification by peremptory challenge on the one hand, and disqualification by death, disability or retirement on the other. We can' t think of any reason to make such a distinction, and Jimenez offers no suggestions -- he simply asserts without authority that, "[o]bviously, Judge Pastor was ' available' to hear the motion, since the motion was calendared in his court, but then transferred due to the People' s challenge."
We appreciate Jimenez' s concerns about prosecutorial forum shopping, and agree with our colleagues in Division Two that subdivision (p) was added to section 1538.5 to remedy that very problem (Soil v. Superior Court, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 880). If (under the circumstances of this case) the Legislature intended a different definition of "available" than suggested by the plain language of the statute, the Legislature can easily clarify its position by amending either section 170.4, subdivision (a), or section 1538.5, subdivision (p).[FOOTNOTE 5] Unless and until that is done, the plain language of the statutes compels the conclusion that a disqualified judge is not "available" to hear a second or subsequent suppression motion.[FOOTNOTE 6]
It follows that the People are entitled to the relief sought.
DISPOSITION
The petition is granted; a peremptory writ shall issue to direct the trial court to vacate its order granting Jimenez' s petition and to enter a new order transferring this case to a judge other than Judge Pastor. Our order to show cause is discharged and our stay order is dissolved.
VOGEL (MIRIAM A.), J.
We concur: SPENCER, P.J., and ORTEGA, J.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: FOOTNOTE(S):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
FN1. All references to section 1538.5 are to that section of the Penal Code; all other undesignated section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
FN2. Jimenez contends our order to show cause is ineffective because it was "signed by only a single justice of this court [and a] single justice of this court does not have authority to issue an Order to Show Cause . . . ." He is mistaken. An order to show cause is not case-dispositive. It is nothing more than notice to the parties that the court has decided to address the merits of the petition; it is a notice of the dates for filing further papers and of the date for oral argument. For that reason, an order to show cause is issued by the Clerk of the court and is merely initialed by one justice. Although an alternative writ constitutes a determination that the petitioner has satisfied the prerequisites to writ review, and although an alternative writ may by its terms suggest to the trial court that it ought to change its order (Eisenberg, Horvitz & Wiener, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals & Writs (2000) Writs, § 15.151 et seq.; 6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Writs, § § 69, 89, 98), an order to show cause is nothing more than the appellate equivalent of a clerk' s notice of hearing. And where, as here, an order to show cause is accompanied by an order staying further proceedings in the trial court, it does not permit (let alone encourage) the lower court to change its order pending our review of the merits of the petition.
FN3. There is one other procedural point. Absent exceptional circumstances, a court that has jurisdiction to issue a writ cannot do so in the first instance unless it has received or solicited opposition from the party or parties adversely affected. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178-180; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1239-1241.) Moreover, it is only when the petitioner' s entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue that a writ should issue in the first instance and without a hearing. (Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1223.) If Judge O' Neil had jurisdiction to rule on Jimenez' s petition, he should have solicited opposition and held a hearing. Since he had no jurisdiction, these points are moot.
FN4. A disqualified judge may: take action or issue any order necessary to maintain the court' s jurisdiction pending reassignment of the case; request another judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and act in the disqualified judge' s place; hear and determine purely default matters; issue an order for possession prior to judgment in eminent domain proceedings; set proceedings for trial or hearing; and conduct settlement conferences. (§ 170.4, subd. (a).)
FN5. Of course, that opens another can of worms. What happens when the judge who rules on the first suppression motion is thereafter disqualified for cause (§ 170.1) instead of by whim (§ 170.6)? What happens if (after the first case is dismissed) the defendant hires a new lawyer who is related to the judge who heard the first motion? (See § 170.1, subd. (a)(5) [a judge is disqualified if a lawyer or a spouse of a lawyer in the proceeding is the spouse, former spouse, child, sibling, or parent of the judge or judge' s spouse or if such person is associated in the private practice of law with a lawyer in the proceeding].) We could go on, but we think we' ve made the point.
FN6. As Jimenez concedes, Judge O' Neil' s reliance on People v. Gallegos (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 252, 266-268, was misplaced. Although the prosecutor had attempted to challenge the trial judge in Gallegos, the challenge was not allowed and the second suppression motion was heard by the same judge who heard the first motion. On appeal, the appellant complained that a 1993 amendment to subdivision (j) of section 1538.5 was unconstitutional because it provides that, under specified circumstances, the ruling granting a motion to suppress is not binding when the case is refiled and the motion renewed. (§ 1538.5, subd. (j); People v. Gallegos, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 261.) At the end of a lengthy discussion confirming the constitutionality of the amended statute, the Gallegos court mentions, in passing, that the appellant' s second "motion was heard by the same judge who granted his earlier motion, as required by section 1538.5, subdivision (p). The same would be true as to defendants in general. Appellant received a full and complete hearing on his motion to suppress, which is all that due process requires." (People v. Gallegos, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 268.) Plainly, the Gallegos court did not consider the issue raised in our case, and we therefore treat Gallegos as inapposite. (People v. Mazurette (2001) 24 Cal.4th 789, 797 [a case is not authority for a proposition it has not considered].)"
Based on all that Michael has been put through, I can see him being approached and asked to participate in such a sting, and based on the same I can see him agreeing!! "V"
Stay blessed!
OnTheWingsOfLove
I knew this had to be big..its never really happened before....A JUDGE being JUDGED by jury...we have Mj and the FBI to thank for that...and of course Murray.
<!-- m -->http://laurackdbray.blogspot.com/2011/0<!-- m --> ... board.html
Have you seen this video about the corruption in the LA court system ??
The page doesn't exist.
noooooooooooo
<!-- slolol/ -->lolol/<!-- slolol/ -->
I think not <!-- salbino/ -->albino/<!-- salbino/ -->
I think that we are alone... again! <!-- spale/ -->pale/<!-- spale/ -->
Can we please get back on topic? Jermaine's tweets can be discussed in the Twitter thread. To remind you all, here is the original topic:
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."I believe that TS already gave the answer subliminally.
A scorpion in the beginning of the post and some statements he made. I believe it is a sting, but the more complicated is whether the focus. Must be a great number of people, considering that this began for many years ... start with the mafia organized against Michael in 1993 or perhaps sooner. Tom Sneddom has to be one of the targets.
My question is: in 2005 all took place in Santa Maria and Santa Barbara. The court in LA can work against them anyway?
<!-- smj_bad/ -->mj_bad/<!-- smj_bad/ -->
if this is the first "alleged" murderer who is treated like a celebrity. And at the arraignment on 08 February 2010, no media were persente, is this a normal situation? <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
or that day the court was not decorated with some toys? <!-- s
I never thought TS was in insider,nor Michael nor any of the family member. He or she is just a person like you and I, who has more knowledge of law.. I have been reading his posts, he sends us investigating we never really concluded anything, only speculations. I am a very positive person, but I am starting to agree with Purelove and the rest, it does not mean I lost faith NO Way, but i feel this hoax is taking most of my time, and I have better things to do. I am a psychologist, and when I have time in between my patients, I am here reading posts to see if Michael is back. Do you find this normal behaviour? NO.. talking as a psychologist NO this is not normal. I feel that the trial has been moved due to the fact Michael wanted it this way. Bin Landen mystrious death may have been the cause, who knows? One thing I DO NOT REGRET is I made friends with a lot of you people all over the world and it is amazing, well some ate my head time to time but it's all is good. I love everyone in this forum. When I read that some of you are going crazy and depressed again, that is not good. That's why i wrote on a thread, please do something else with your life, life goes on, and life is beautiful.. Do things that makes you happy. If Michael comes back in 10 yrs from now, he is fine, but you are getting sick over Michael , he does not want that. Just enjoy your life. I will have to go back to work now, my patient awaits for me <!-- slolol/ -->lolol/<!-- slolol/ --> time is money !!!! <!-- slolol/ -->lolol/<!-- slolol/ -->
Just saying that because in 1993 Michael was advised by the lawyers to settle the case, in his disadvantage, maybe the lawyers were corrupted to persuade MJ to settle.
Anyway, it looks like the sting is focused on the court - but I don't know if it's the judge, the lawyers or the prosecution.
But there's a problem with this: if the court is the focus, why the case is delayed so much? It doesn't make sense.
I don't think it is normal a sting to last for so long.
But this theory places the sting focus persons outside the court, so who could they be?
Branca and the Estate lawyers? Drug dealers? I feel we don't have enough information to be able to tell who they are.
Anyway, I think it's safe to tell that for the sting to succed, it is essential they must believe Michael is dead.
February 28, 2011
(Original date)
The following is the federal criminal-civil rights Complaint that was filed in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, CA against Superior Court judge Michael Pastor and the Medical Board of California (MBC) on January 24, 2011. The Complaint speaks for itself, but I believe it demonstrates why judge Pastor cannot preside over Dr. Murray's involuntary manslaughter trial without violating Murray's constitutional due process and other rights. If the U.S. Constitution has any meaning at all, and if judge Pastor and the Superior Court of California has any respect at all for the Constitution, there must be a new judge assigned to preside over Dr. Murray's involuntary manslaughter trial in March, in order to protect, inter alia, Murray's right to a fair trial.
But then again, who and what is fair in the court system. The attorney's are controlled by the Government, not their clients
<!-- m -->http://laurackdbray.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... board.html<!-- m -->