I've decided that to help cutout the excess of MJ flooding the forum
Everything Legally related to Michael jackson will be posted here
so if anybody has something they want to share here
post it here instead of creating anoher thread
Thank you....

DA Changes Dates of Accusations


Does the Santa Barbara District Attorney really know what happened between Michael Jackson and his accuser? The latest charges filed againt Jackson suggest that Tom Sneddon is either confused or unsure. In the first charges, filed by Sneddon on Jan. 31, he accused Jackson of committing nine different acts between Feb. 7 and March 10, 2003.


In the revised filing, Sneddon has changed the dates considerably. Now he says Jackson did whatever he's alleged to have done between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003. What? This means there was a two week mistake in the first filing. Is anyone paying attention to this? And the new final date — March 12 — seems impossible too by all accounts.


Jacko 'Associates': No Immunity Wanted


If Frank Tyson or Vincent Amen, the Michael Jackson employees who watched over the family involved in the child molestation case, are indicted or named as co-conspirators, they will not be taking immunity and testifying for the prosecution, according to my sources.


It's also unlikely that Marc Schaffel, the videographer to whom the young men reported during that period of time, would accept a deal like that either.


My sources are fairly vehement about this. Tyson has known Jackson since he was five years old. Jackson has been a regular guest at Tyson's family home in New Jersey for years. Tyson's siblings and parents have spent great quantities of time with the singer at Neverland and on trips. They all consider each other family.


In February 2003, Schaffel brought Tyson out to Los Angeles to help him work on the "rebuttal" video Jackson had sold to Fox TV. Tyson asked Amen, a college buddy who wanted to work in video and music, to come along with him. Initially, my sources report, there was no idea that they would get involved with the accuser and his family.


But prior to their arrival on the scene, for about a week, the family, especially the mother, had been in conflict with Jackson's then manager, the German Dieter Wiesner. The two were like oil and water, with Wiesner's imposing personality doing nothing to assuage the mother.






"It started the day everyone got back to Neverland, February 7," the source says. For a week Wiesner kept the family at Neverland. It's possible the mother felt she could not leave. She later made accusations to the police that Wiesner had harassed her. Wiesner, who has returned to Germany, has not been questioned.


It was around Valentine's Day that Schaffel, who had spoken to Wiesner, turned the family over to Tyson and Amen. The 23-year-old college students are both soft spoken, laid back guys. They had little interest in being babysitters, but that's what they became to the family. They also acted as chauffeurs. When the mother had to go to family court against her ex-husband, it was Amen who drove her. When she demanded to go shopping or to visit her parents' home, Amen drove.


"You don't know what she was like," Amen has told friends. If anyone felt like they were being hostage, it was Amen himself.


The mother apparently was relentless in her opportunism. When Tyson and Amen talk about their experiences with her, it's with weariness, not anger. They were often responsible for looking after her three children while she was socializing or spending time with her boyfriend, Army Reserves Major Jay Jackson.


Amen will testify that the mother was "up to something." He sensed a problem on March 11, 2003 after the mother won added child support from her ex-husband in family court. Amen told her how happy he was for her. The mother replied that she was upset because, after weeks at Neverland and fighting the husband, she expected more. "Michael promised he'd make my kids stars," she said.


Within a few days, she and her children would be gone from Neverland, having moved in with Jay Jackson and seeking legal advice. But it would not be until May, after their attorney sent them to Larry Feldman, who'd represented the family in the Jackson case 10 years ago, that any accusation of child molestation would be made.


Source: Jacko Accuser's Mother Uses Court Props


I've recently learned that the father of the 14-year-old boy at the center of the Michael Jackson case and his attorney, H. Russell Halpern, testified before the grand jury that last week indicted the singer.


Before Judge Rodney Melville issued his gag order to all participants, the father reportedly questioned his ex-wife's truthfulness on subjects ranging from their divorce to the family's involvement with Jackson.


In one instance, at a family court appearance in 2001 concerning the divorce, I am told that the boy's mother arrived and remained in a wheelchair — much the same way TV characters wear fake neck braces and splints on sitcoms.


"No one could figure it out," a source tells me. "There was nothing wrong with her."

things are getting clearer

I just watched Larry King Live with Nancy. It is so pathetic! The show was called 'MJ is guilty and please don't ask why'.

BlueNote

Attorney Gary Dunlap sues Tom Sneddon and files a 102-page complaint


Solvang attorney Gary Dunlap, who described his arrest and prosecution last summer as an emotional drain on his family and a financial fiasco for his practice, has filed a $10 million federal lawsuit against Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon. Dunlap was acquitted in June of six charges, including perjury, witness intimidation, filing false documents and preparing false documents stemming from a case against one of Dunlap's clients. If convicted, Dunlap could have served up to 12 years in prison.

A 102-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles last month alleges that Sneddon and his office violated Dunlap's civil rights. The complaint seeks $10 million for compensatory and special damages and asks for punitive damages and attorney's fees. Dunlap and his attorneys, Burbank-based Joe Freeman & Associates, have requested a jury trial to resolve the suit. The district attorney's office conspired against Dunlap, maliciously prosecuted him, and is guilty of racketeering and witness tampering, according to the complaint. It also accuses Sneddon and his office of conducting illegal searches of Dunlap's property, violating his civil rights and defaming him.

Luv4oneanotha said:

Yeah, I heard him in an interview, where he stated that this county is under Sneddon's control. The whole thing seems so obivious. I guess, it all will fall apart when his facts will see the light of reality.

BlueNote

Prosecutors Use Conspiracy To Gird Case

02/05/2004

In charging Michael Jackson last week with conspiracy, Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon turned to a favorite tool of prosecutors confronted with difficult cases, an allegation that focuses on a plan to cover up a crime, legal experts said.

It is the type of charge that led to Martha Stewart's conviction on grounds of lying about stock transactions without ever being charged with the underlying crime of insider trading.

"The conspiracy charge is the darling of prosecutors," said Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor. "It's fairly easy to prove and you only need a concerted action, not an express agreement. The conspiracy means the crime didn't necessarily happen but there was a plan for it to happen."

Thus, she said, Jackson could be acquitted of molestation charges but convicted of conspiring to abduct the child and his family, falsely imprison them and commit extortion by threatening grave consequences if they accused him.

Those allegations were specified in the Jackson indictment as being among 28 overt acts involved in the conspiracy charge.

"It's not the crime you commit. It's what you do to cover it up," said Levenson.

Asked how the indictment affects Jackson's future, Levenson said, "He is in a heap load more trouble than he was yesterday. This is a much more serious case today than it was yesterday. The only hope for the defendant is that the prosecution overreached and exposed more weaknesses in their case."

Levenson and another legal source close to the case said they had expected Sneddon to use the conspiracy tool to lay out his theory of the case without being tied to specific evidence.

The listing of 28 overt acts in the conspiracy sounds overwhelming but the acts may be as simple as a phone call or a conversation with someone. And the prosecution need prove only one overt act to prove its case.

"One reason the judge may not be releasing the overt acts could be that they contain information intended only to dirty up the defendant. They may not be provable," said Levenson.

"It's not a conspiracy to molest," Levenson stressed. "It's a conspiracy to cover up. A cover-up can show a guilty conscience, and even if there is no molestation he could still be convicted."

Another legal source said that the conspiracy allows the prosecutor to lay out the theory of his case, step by step, providing jurors with a roadmap to the evidence. The time period can be broad and hearsay evidence can be used.

The source suggested that Sneddon is relying on it because evidence supporting the molestation counts is weak.

The elements of the conspiracy require testimony from others who allegedly conspired with Jackson. It is likely that others could be arrested and then offered immunity to testify, Levenson said.

"I would caution that even if there is now a broader indictment, it's not a slam dunk for the prosecution," she said. "The big question exists: How good are the witnesses and is there physical evidence to corroborate them?"

The conspiracy charge gives the case a new aura, she noted.

"It takes it beyond an act of molestation to a criminal plot. It makes it much more dramatic."

Conspiracy charges became fashionable in the 1970s and '80s, including the Watergate cases.

"It's the all-purpose statute. It works from gangs to Mafia to white-collar criminals," Levenson said.

Source: Associated Press

heres some more stuff

The Michael Jackson Case:
The Effect of the New Charge, and New Attorney, And What Jackson's Best Defense May Be
By JONNA M. SPILBOR
----
Tuesday, May. 04, 2004



Michael Jackson's appearance isn't the only thing changing shape these days. His criminal case just underwent a radical facelift. Jackson has famously fired two of his lawyers -- replacing them with his current counsel, Tom Mesereau. Jackson also faces a new, unexpected criminal charge.


On January 5, Jackson -- who had been arrested in November 2003 -- was formally arraigned on a criminal complaint. Then, in mid-April, a two-week long, secret grand jury investigation ended with the return of a ten-count indictment. The indictment charges the King of Pop not only with multiple counts of "lewd acts against a child," as expected, but also with a surprising new charge: conspiracy. Jackson has pleaded not guilty to all counts.


In this column, I will explore a series of related questions: What is the significance of prosecutors' decision to opt for an indictment, rather than a complaint? What effect will the new conspiracy charge in the indictment have? And, what might be Jackson's best defense strategy for winning the case?


The Prosecutors' Unusual Decision to Opt for An Indictment


First, let's consider the decision to opt for a grand jury indictment. In California, prosecutors may initiate a criminal action either by filing a complaint, or by obtaining a grand jury indictment. But the overwhelming majority of felony cases in California are done by complaint. (In contrast, federal courts and many other states utilize grand jury practice almost exclusively).


Originally, the Jackson case proceeded on a complaint. But then D.A. Sneddon changed tactics. Why? Probably because under California law, once a grand jury indictment is filed, as is the case here, the defendant loses his right to a preliminary hearing.


Under California Penal Code § 859, once a felony complaint is filed, "both the defendant and the people have the right to a preliminary examination...within ten court days of the date the defendant is arraigned."


Among those who have taken -- or who plan to take -- advantage of this right are O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, Scott Peterson, Phil Specter; and Courtney Love. So do many non-celebrity defendants.


Why is the right to a preliminary hearing valuable to the defendant? Technically, a preliminary hearing is meant to satisfy the judge that there is enough evidence for the prosecution to go forward. But in practice, its import is quite different.


Generally speaking, a preliminary hearing forces the prosecution to present the basis of its case on the record -- and therefore allows the defense to better prepare itself for trial.


Moreover, the preliminary examination is an opportunity for the defense to set its own stage. Specifically, the defense can present affirmative defenses; try to negate an element of an offense; and try to impeach prosecution witnesses.


What might the Jackson preliminary hearing have looked like? It probably would have focused on impeaching the testimony of the alleged victim.


But now, Jackson has lost that opportunity, due to the D.A.'s switch-a-roo. While it is technically legal, this switch is unfair. As noted above, as soon as the complaint was filed, Jackson gained a right to a preliminary hearing. Now the prosecutors have defeated the very right they themselves triggered -- and apparently, they've done so simply to put the defendant at a tactical disadvantage.


Even if the law allows them to have their cake and eat it too this way, that doesn't mean it's right. The prosecution took advantage of all the negative publicity their complaint engendered. Now its trying to magnify that advantage with the negative publicity the indictment is causing. And meanwhile, the only real chance Jackson had to combat that publicity -- at the preliminary hearing -- has been ripped out from underneath him.


The Indictment Versus the Complaint


Having considered why the indictment was filed, let's now compare the indictment to the complaint.


First, the alleged victim is the same -- and no other alleged victims are mentioned. Despite publicity suggesting there may be other accusers, the indictment does not reference them.


Second, the basic charges as to what was allegedly done to the accuser victim are the same -- though the number of counts has changed.


The complaint alleged seven counts of Lewd Act Upon a Child; the indictment alleges four, plus one count of Attempted Lewd Act Upon a Child. (This count describes Jackson allegedly having a child perform such an act upon him.) So what happened to the two missing lewd acts -- and why wasn't the attempt described as such in the first place?


The complaint alleged two counts of Administration of an Intoxicating Agent; the indictment alleges four. What does this mean -- that between the complaint and the indictment, the accuser remembered two more instances in which Jackson supposedly gave him intoxicating substances? If so, what possible explanations are there for his renewed memory?


Unlike fine wine, memories generally do not get better with the passage of time. Instead, typically, they fade. When a witness' memory of an event sharpens over time, this is a phenomenon that mustn't be ignored by either side -- prosecution or defense.


Weirdly, the dates have changed too. The complaint said that five of the seven "lewd acts" allegedly occurred "on or between February 7, 2003 and March 10, 2003," and all the other counts occurred between February 20 and March 10, 2003. But the indictment says that all but the new conspiracy charge (which I will discuss next) occurred between February 20, 2003 and March 12, 2003.


Note that this isn't just narrowing the time period -- it's also lengthening it! Suddenly something happened on March 12 that was not included in the complaint. But why not?


Either the accuser was confused or had memory problems, or the prosecution bungled its complaint, or the grand jury refused to indict on some charges, and corrected the dates on others -- or all of the above. Any way you slice it, it's not good for the prosecution.


The original charges -- the backbone of this case -- were the product of months of investigation. For this reason, the grand jury indictment not to match the complaint, is curious at best, and at worst, potentially disastrous for the prosecution.


The Indictment's Strange Conspiracy Charge: No Names Given; No Acts Described


Then there is the new charge: a single count of Conspiracy, alleged to have occurred between February 1st and March 31st, 2003.


The indictment lists three ominous-sounding objects of the alleged conspiracy: Child Abduction, False Imprisonment, and Extortion. (In the law, "false imprisonment" is essentially keeping someone a prisoner on the premises.)


Not only is this charge new, it is the top charge in the indictment -- the one that exposes Jackson to the greatest prison term if convicted. Thus, it deserves careful scrutiny.


Unfortunately, even defense counsel will not have access to the sealed specifics of the charge until May 3, and the rest of us will be denied access until the court rules otherwise.


The result is that the 28 "overt acts" alleged in the indictment remain unknown -- a crucial omission, as a conspiracy, by law, requires not only an agreement but also an overt act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. In other words, it can't be just thought; it must, at some point, be proved to have resulted in an action or actions. But the indictment never answers this question: What were those actions?


Even this limited description of the conspiracy count raises some potential problems with this charge. At least two people must participate in a conspiracy, by law. A conspiracy is essentially a criminal agreement, and it takes two to agree. Yet no co-conspirators are named.


Also, if there truly were conspirators in the alleged abuse of a child, why have they too not been charged? Perhaps they are negotiating pleas to charges that, thus far, the prosecutor has only been able to threaten, in exchange for their cooperation.


If plea negotiations are indeed ongoing, then the conspiracy charge may be even more troubling than it looks. It may well have been added on not to terrify Jackson with an even longer prison sentence, but to terrify those they believe may be co-conspirators with similarly lengthy sentences. These persons are likely members of the Jackson entourage, especially those who worked at Neverland.


Conspirators can be sentenced for each other's actions as if they themselves committed the target offense personally - even if "all" certain participants did was "conspire" to commit a target offense, but not actually get their hands dirty, so to speak. Under California law, any alleged co-conspirators could be facing as long a sentence as Jackson faces.


Prosecutors may have added the conspiracy charge simply to gain greater leverage, or garner certain evidence it so far lacks.


After all, the idea that a group of people agreed Jackson would molest children seems very unlikely. More likely, if the molestation allegations are true, would be aiding and abetting


-- not conspiracy -- by members the entourage. But to charge aiding and abetting would require naming names; adding a conspiracy charge so far has not.


Again, while it may (or may not) be legal for an indictment to have so many crucial gaps, it's not the right thing to do to allow those gaps to stand. Defendants need to know who they supposedly conspired with, and what they supposedly conspired to do -- and to know it when the indictment is issued, not later.


Another Issue: A Multiple-Choice Conspiracy, Standing Alone, Suggests Weak Proof


Meanwhile, another potential problem with the conspiracy is indicated by the fact that the conspiracy count is written like a multiple-choice quiz. Typically, a prosecutor who believed a conspiracy had these objects might charge them this way: one count of "Conspiracy to Commit Child Abduction," one count of "Conspiracy to Commit False Imprisonment," and one count of "Conspiracy to Commit Extortion."


Charging a single count but including three possible objectives may suggest that the prosecutor's knowledge of the conspiracy is limited, and that he is hoping the evidence will support at least one of these alleged objects.


But if the co-conspirators are going to be witnesses -- which would probably be necessary to prove a conspiracy -- then shouldn't the prosecutor know all about the conspiracy?


Stranger still, is that Jackson has not been indicted on the actual objects of the conspiracy itself. In other words, the crimes of Child Abduction, False Imprisonment and Extortion are not charged as stand-alone crimes -- nor are they even charged as attempted crimes.


What is really going on here? Perhaps the missing charges mean the grand jury refused to indict despite the evidence presented. Or, perhaps prosecutors were not able to present the grand jury with evidence to support the missing charges -- because supposed co-conspirators in Jackson's entourage would not, or did not, testify against him. Perhaps no such evidence exists, and the entourage is telling the truth after all.


The Best Strategies for the Defense to Pursue


Obviously, all these issues surrounding the indictment may end up boosting the defense.


Another strong argument on the part of the defense was made by Jackson's former defense team, Mark Geragos and Ben Brafman, and probably will be pursued by Jackson's current attorney.


In essence, defense counsel contended that the over-the-top security measures employed by the prosecution, in an effort to keep the grand jury proceedings under wraps, may have intimidated witnesses and grand jurors. In a prior argument, Geragos urged, "If you believe what is reported, we've got people covered up, wrapped in blankets, put into vans driven around like they're Osama bin Laden's lieutenants and put into a training facility, then admonished in the procedure and then spirited out into the afternoon sun."


The defense may also make points by emphasizing evidence of D.A. Sneddon's vendetta against Jackson. As discussed by Julie Hilden in a prior column, there is copious evidence of this vendetta, and a good argument that the jury should hear it.


Alternatively, the defense could try to convince the judge to dismiss the indictment based on this vendetta, or at least to force Sneddon to be recused -- or, indeed, to disqualify the entire Santa Barbara District Attorney's office -- from the case. Sneddon's unusual decision to take Jackson's right to a preliminary hearing away by indicting after first filing a complaint, will add support to such a motion.


Under California Penal Code § 1424, a criminal action, the defense may move to recuse (also called disqualify) the prosecutor when there is a "conflict of interest" that is likely to prevent the defendant from receiving a fair trial. The motion may be directed to an individual prosecutor, or to the entire prosecutor's office in the county in which the action has been brought.


To prevail, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the D.A. (or D.A.'s office) is not exercising its discretion against him in an evenhanded manner. If the court is persuaded that the district attorney's office has employed its discretionary powers to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, the motion may be granted.


Jackson's best tactic is probably just to move to recuse Sneddon -- for several reasons. First, even if the motion doesn't succeed, it's worth alerting the judge to all of Sneddon's behavior; this way, the judge may be all the more vigilant to protect Jackson's rights as the case proceeds to trial.


Second, recusing the office is not only unlikely, but could be detrimental. The case would then be placed either with the office of the California Attorney General, or a special prosecutor. Some of you may recall California Attorney General Bill Lockyer himself making inappropriate comments in April of last year when the Scott Peterson case finally broke.


It was Mr. Lockyer who took to a public microphone and referred to the case against Scott Peterson as a "slam dunk" -- this within hours of his arrest.


Although the district attorney in this case has been battle-ready for some time, I have a feeling Michael Jackson has only just begun to fight.

in the legal system it doesn't matter if your innocent or guilty
all that matters is the proof that your guilty or innocent....
The Pressure Is On Two Former Jackson Staff

07/05/2004

USA Today quoted Joseph Tacopina, a lawyer for two former Jackson staffers, as saying that Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon wants to prove that Jackson acted with aides to bully the accuser and his family out of telling authorities about Jackson's crimes.

"If Jackson's found guilty of conspiracy, then he can be punished with the punishment of the entire crime, even if the crime itself has not been fully proved. That is how it is," Simon said.

Prosecutors just have to convince a jury that two people had an agreement to commit a crime, Simon explained.

Although Jackson was hit with the fresh charge, it still relates to the same alleged victim.

Debra Obri, an attorney who sat with Jackson's mother and father in court on Friday, said the family had been devastated by the addition of the "heinous" conspiracy charge.

"The family is terrorised. Their child is facing imprisonment," she said.

Legal experts opined that more charges had been added in a bid to keep Jackson's sizeable legal team fully occupied on several fronts.

"I think this is the most serious charge against Michael Jackson," said Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson.

"The charges say that not only Michael Jackson may have sexually abused a child but he also tried to cover it up.

"They also say there are witnesses who will cooperate in a trial against him."

Marrk said:

thanx mods 4 makin it a sticky

It really does seem like the mom is a total star fucker. But why wouldn't MJ/MJs family/MJs staff protect him from stuff like this in the first place? He has to have these kids over? MJ needs major therapy so he can live a life as he's supposed to.....as an adult and not some person clinging onto a youth he never had. I'm still unsure about whether he's guilty or not, he fits the profile of a pedophile, but then again this woman is a rel fuckin prize herself.

Good luck MJ.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Actually in all actuallity its much easier to believe , tom sneddon is a Pervert who molest young girls
then to give MJ the blame
Facts are there is no Clear Profile for pedophilia, it comes out in all shapes in sizes
the only profile that modern Science can come up with for this DISEASE
is that ALL pedophiles Canot conttain themselves when arond children
this is a fact!
Michael jackson ands of children including his own family (nephews neieces)
pedophiles can't resist their urges
if michael jackson is a pedophile where are the army of accusers?
Fear? Money?
Beats me
i don't know
Pedophilia is a sickness that can be cured by advance therapy
2 children
11 yer period?
C'mon
Majority of Child Psycologist Don't see jackson as a child abuser
Now Legally Speaking its a different story
i'll keep ya posted...

NO DEAL!
LOS ANGELES — The attorney for two former employees of Michael Jackson (search) said Thursday they won't cut a deal with prosecutors if they are indicted.






An indictment unsealed last week in Jackson's molestation case said the singer and multiple co-conspirators plotted to commit abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.


The charges are believed to involve an attempt to intimidate Jackson's accuser and his family.


The names of the alleged co-conspirators were removed from the copy of the indictment released to the public.


New York attorney Joseph Tacopina said he believes from news reports and conversations with law enforcement officials that his clients, Frank Tyson and Vince Amen, may be among those who will be indicted.


Tacopina said both were invited to testify before the grand jury that heard evidence against Jackson last month. He declined to have them appear.


"They didn't do anything wrong," Tacopina said. "I just don't believe this is an open-minded sort of prosecution."


He also said he didn't want to give prosecutors a "sneak preview of our defense" if his clients are charged.


"If someone made the mistake of charging these guys with a crime, we would absolutely be going to trial. There would be no pleas," he said.


Legal experts have said prosecutors might seek to charge Jackson's associates and then offer them a deal if they agreed to testify against the singer.


Tyson, 23, was Jackson's personal assistant. Tacopina said he believes prosecutors might accuse him of threatening to kill the younger brother of Jackson's alleged victim if he told authorities Jackson had given the boy alcohol.


He said prosecutors may accuse Amen, 24, who worked for Jackson's production company, of holding the family at Jackson's Neverland estate against their will.


Tacopina said he would not make them available for comment. A message left for Amen with his mother in New Jersey was not immediately returned, nor was a message left with a cousin of Tyson's, also in New Jersey.


Jason Karpf of Tellem Worldwide, a firm handling media inquiries for prosecutors, said he had no information on any future indictments. Prosecutors have declined comment, citing a gag order.






The molestations allegedly occurred while the boy, now 14, was staying at Jackson's Neverland Ranch (search). Jackson has pleaded not guilty.

Luv4oneanotha said:

You're welcome... now if only everyone keeps the MJ stuff on this thread.

We'll see.

June7 said:

Looks like it's working so far .

o0o0o0o I SO love Will You Be There

AHem

for thoe interested on Pedophilia, the Disease
sugest you read these books...

1. Pedophilia and Sex Behaviors: Index of New Information
2. Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers
3. Sex and Pedophilia: Index of New Information Including Analysis & Results
4. Psychiatry, Pedophilia, and the Catholic Church
5. The Hidden Monster: Pedophilia

Sites

http://www.internet-encyc...Pedophilia
http://www.ncjrs.org/html...tents.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/....htm#child
http://www.kidsafenetwork...istics.htm

Injoy
[This message was edited Sat May 8 19:59:46 2004 by Luv4oneanotha]

Jacko Pal: TV's Webster Coined 'Rubbaheads'


Yesterday's news reports about Michael Jackson's unearthed personal belongings were long on innuendo and short on fact. They'd also been reported earlier in People and The National Enquirer, but that's another story.


Much has been made of some kind of secret club Jackson may have had called the "Rubbaheads," which had typed rules and regulations.


A note to other Rubbaheads was found in the Jackson family storage bin purchased by a man in New Jersey. There's an implication that because Jackson called some boys "Rubbas," it connotes any number of unseemly things.


So I asked one of the boys, now grown, about the alleged Rubbahead Club of 10 years ago, when all this happened. He says when he heard about all this a few weeks ago and again yesterday, he was stymied.


"First of all, there was no Rubbahead Club. Rubba was a name Emmanuel Lewis, who played Webster, came up with," he explained. "Everyone called everyone Rubba. It didn't mean anything. What we did have was the Applehead Club, and that was from 'The Three Stooges.' Everyone was an Applehead because Michael loved 'The Three Stooges.'"


This was 10 years ago, when a number of well-known 13-year-old boys were coming and going from Neverland. They included Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson, Lewis, the young man I spoke with and the young man from the Jackson case 10 years ago.


"It's nothing sexual," my source continued. "Michael even called one of the younger kids Baby Rubba. It didn't mean anything."


So what about the typed list of rules found in the storage bin? They included requiring members to be "idiots and act crazy at all times"; be vegetarians who fast on Sundays and avoid drugs; watch two episodes of "The Three Stooges" daily; know the Peter Pan story by heart; and when seeing another member, "give the peace sign, and then half of it."


In fact, insists my source, "there were no rules at Neverland. The whole thing was about not having rules and having a good time. It was all from Peter Pan. There was no club, no initiation, and I never heard of a 'club kit' or anything else."






What's clear about all this is that, when witnesses are called in the Jackson trial next winter, many things will be left to interpretation. What may seem prurient to the public on first impression may turn out to be completely innocent. It will be up to Jackson's lawyers to help a jury understand that.


Ironically, there was a serious misinterpretation in yesterday's reports about the meaning of a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow called "The Children's Hour." In the poem, the narrator addresses three little girls, not little boys, which was the impression given in the reports.


I say "ironically" because a play called "The Children's Hour" by Lillian Hellman, inspired by the poem, was about two female teachers whose lives are ruined because of unfounded gossip that they are secretly lovers.

Luv4oneanotha said:

Ummm.....that'll just be YOU then

---

Luv4oneanotha said:

All are good links except the second, which appears to be the site of an anti-homosexual lobby group that proposes that "Homosexuals Molest Children At A Far Higher Rate Than Heterosexuals", which has been proven time and time again to be untrue.

VoicesCarry said:

oops thanks
got in my favorites list by accident, i'll edit the post

VoicesCarry said:

what do you do follow me everywhere? lol

Always has a rebuttal!

Luv4oneanotha said:

Pointless edit.
[This message was edited Sat May 8 20:05:40 2004 by VoicesCarry]

VoicesCarry said:

im sorry your "comment"

Luv4oneanotha said:

I see you followed me right over to the rap thread We've got to stop meeting like this.

Anyway, no more posting on this MJ thread for me. Enjoy
[This message was edited Sat May 8 20:09:18 2004 by VoicesCarry]

Oh man, this is gonna be a long ass thread

Perhaps too much in the politics department...