http://www.eonline.com/Ne...html?tnews

TICKET TO RIDE: R. Kelly's been cleared to attend the Grammys February 8 in Los Angeles but is ordered to stay away from Michael Jackson. Kelly faces child pornography charges while Jackson's facing child molestation charges.

sosgemini said:

Can't have the pedophiles associating with each other until they're in prison, I suppose. They might exchange "sensitive information".

sosgemini said:

Are you kidding me?

Here's a real winner.

MATERIAL TRIAL: A trial date in a lawsuit against Madonna and husband Guy Ritchie has been set for May 4; the couple are being sued by a man who claims that they cut him out of credit and compensation for the box-office flop Swept Away, directed by Ritchie and starring Madonna.

Are you fucking kidding me? What, does he want to share in the debt that the film has? Big Dumbie Lamont!
[This message was edited Wed Jan 28 11:09:16 PST 2004 by VinnyM27]

Holy hotdogs!

sosgemini said:

this is just another example of our court system propagating the 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality. this is awful. these people have not been found guilty in a court of law for these crimes yet they are being treated like criminals. our judicial system is in such a state of disarray. now, i'm not saying it would be good for either person's image to be seen with each other, but it seems incredibly unconstitutional that r kelly was ordered to stay away from mj.

Rkelly Mike the whole deal

SassyBritches said:

Did you ever stop to consider that the judge might be doing R a favor. The order, if obeyed, prevents him from being tainted with guilt by association in the eyes of the public before his trial.

The presumption of innocence in court is a pillar of our judicial system. I'm all for it. But outside of that system -- in the court of public opinion -- people are free to express their beliefs based on what they know or believe to be true.

I think I'm perfectly capable of sitting in a jury box and listening to the evidence presented about R or MJ -- excluding everything else -- and rendering a verdict based only on that evidence.

Regardless of where I might come out based on that evidence, I've seen and heard enough to know that nobody but a damned fool would leave a boy overnight with MJ or a girl with R. I wouldn't trust either of these (not-yet-convicted, simply rich enough to have very good lawyers who might get them off) pedophiles around my kids.

SassyBritches said:

Yeah, but Sassy fact is R. married Aaliyah when she was fifteen.

OneMoJam said:

Plainly you're not capable of rendering a verdict based only on that evidence then.

Hopefully you or somebody like you is not on the jury of either case.

Marrk said:

Just download the R. Kelly sex tape. I think you'll see within about 5 seconds that he's guilty.

VoicesCarry said:

just Michael's case then!

.
[This message was edited Wed Jan 28 15:49:39 PST 2004 by Marrk]

VoicesCarry said:

uhh..u sure u wanna do that? kiddie porn is against the law...

sosgemini said:

Good point.

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

oh i know what your sayin' orger, i just don't wlike the idea of a judge making that kind of decision. if you bend the law of civil rights for one person (regardless of reasoning) then you threaten every citizen's civil rights. just the fact that the video exists has me a little more than concerned. but the fact is that i don't know all the merits of the case and it does bother me that the media is ultra quick to convict a celebrity just for scandal sales.

SassyBritches said:

That's why the celebrities hire PR firms to handle the media. I wouldn't lose sleep at night over their ability to cope. If all else fails, he'll just buy his way out I'm sure

But, I think we can safely say that R likes 'em too young.

VoicesCarry said:

oh baby, i am not tryin' to lose sleep over this, LOL! just expressing my disdain for our media and judicial system.

SassyBritches said:

HALLE-FUCKIN'-LUJAH!!!

theblueangel said:

hee hee, i love it when you talk dirty!

I Heard About A New College Named After Micheal Jackson:Bring Em Young.Also Heard Him And Sears Have Something In Common:They Both Have Little Boys Pants Half-Off,He Should Of Listened To Pink Floyd:Leave Those Kids Alone!!!

boston3 said:

Marrk said:

There's a huge difference between (a) believing someone committed a misdeed and acting on that belief within the sphere of your personal life and (b) answering the question in court of whether a prosecutor has presented evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support the conclusion that the misdeed was committed.

I'm going to be charitable and assume that we can both grasp the distinction.

Example: I know O.J. did it, but I know the prosecution failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There's nothing incompatible with those two conclusions. Just as there is nothing incompatible with believing/knowing R & MJ have violated children, but insisting that a prosecutor would have to prove it to me beyond a reasonable doubt before I voted to deprive the child molesting bastards of their liberty in a court of law.

OneMoJam said:

i think that is a very fair statement! i personally don't know much at all about the r kelly case and, as far as i'm aware, there was never any evidence presented in the mj situations. i actually think mj is innocent...so far. but what you're saying is very smart and hopefully will be similar to the mindset of any potential juror.

What a f#cking joke.

I don't care what you think about either of these men's legal situations. What this judge did has violated their constitutional rights to presumed innocence until PROVEN otherwise. Does MJ have ANYTHING to do with the Kelly case?! Unless he was the one taping the shit, the name "Michael Jackson" should have never even been brought up. The fact that a judge would be so foolish as to make a ruling like this, whether he meant it seriously or not...wow! I'm floored. Then again, this is only the latest in a string of bizarre, legally flawed, and seemingly unconstitutional happenings in the MJ case.

re--dic--u--lous!!!

SefraNSue said:

exactly!

CherrieMoonKisses said:

Co-sign! My friend Tommy told me about that earlier, and I didn't think he was serious!