Showing posts with label Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court. Show all posts
11/04/2011
Two-Faced Justice
Yesterday as Conrad Murray left the court some of the 'Justice4MJ' people were heard shouting "Murray is a murderer". Well, actually they were chanting it as he left.
So what the hell are they going to do if the guy is found innocent by 12 jurors?
They going to say that the decision is wrong? They going to complain there is no justice in the justice system? Or are they actually going to think before they start chanting their judgemental bullshit outside the court?
Let us take a little trip down memory lane, back to 2005, when Michael Jackson was acquitted of all charges.
Michael Jackson was indicted for four counts of molesting a minor, four counts of intoxicating a minor in order to molest him, one count of attempted child molestation, and one count of conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive at his 2,700-acre Neverland Ranch, as well as conspiring to commit extortion and child abduction. On June 13, 2005, the jury found Michael Jackson not guilty on all fourteen charges, which included all of the above plus four lesser-included misdemeanor counts.
So the question remains: Are these people that have promoted themselves to Judge, Jury, and executioner for Conrad Murray really going to say that there was a miscarriage of justice? Because the way I see it - If it is good enough justice to prove Michael Jackson innocent; no matter what the outcome it must also be good enough for Conrad Murray.
The 12 jurors are just ordinary people, like you and me, that have no specific medical training in the 'Propofol' area; and are working with the evidence and facts that were presented in the court room. As Judge Pastor said yesterday; this is the only evidence and facts they may use in reaching their decision. And to be honest, the whole 'medical expert' testimonies confused the hell out of me; but I see it from both sides.
Yes Murray was employed, although he never got paid, to care for Michael Jackson. But if the whole theory for the prosecution is that Murray set up a Propofol drip; and there is no tube for that then a question remains: Why did Murray leave everything else and just take one tube.
And that is going to be one of the many questions that the jury will be discussing I'm sure. And if they can't find a reason for Murray to take one item and leave everything else connected with the alleged Propofol IV drip it leaves reasonable doubt. And as such they cannot find him guilty of the charge of involuntary manslaughter without a shadow of a doubt.
So will the 'Justice4MJ' people forget that 12 jurors gave Michael Jackson an innocent verdict and they agreed with that just because the justice system may do the same to Conrad Murray?
I'm not advocating the justice system is perfect. Far from it. But at the same time it has to be said if it is good enough for one it is good enough for another. Yes mistakes are are made but at the same time it is not a time to become two-faced and say it is good enough for one and not the other.
It reminds me of the old saying "What is good for the goose is good for the gander."
3/14/2011
To Plea Or Not To Plea?
So, Lindsay Lohan never accepted the plea deal offered by the Los Angeles District Attorney's office. And then lo and behold Judge Schwartz was kind enough to offer her another two weeks to consider an undisclosed deal. The problem with both deals are that they include jail time and have Lindsay Lohan admitting to a felony.
There are a few reasons why Lindsay is better not to cop a plea.
Firstly, there is a witness that has come forward to say that when he went into the jewelry store, and showed an interest in the necklace that Lindsay Lohan allegedly stole, he was told the price was $800. The man has contacted Lindsay Lohan's defense team; and is willing to testify to the fact. California law states:
California Penal Code 487:
Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases:
(a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), except as provided in subdivision (b).
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), grand theft is committed in any of the following cases:
(1) (A) When domestic fowls, avocados, olives, citrus or deciduous fruits, other fruits, vegetables, nuts, artichokes, or other farm crops are taken of a value exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
So as the item in question is a necklace and not a domestic fowl, avocado, olive, or a deciduous fruit the fact that the necklace is only worth $800 takes the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor; at the very most.
But we also have a few other facts to take into fact. The video surveillance:
It clearly shows the date as January 21, 2061. So, in court, is Deputy District Attorney Danette Meyers going to try and convince a jury that Lindsay Lohan travelled 50 years into the future and stole the necklace? Actually as a felony case it would actually be better for her to suggest this as the $800 necklace may indeed be worth $2500 in 2061. As evidence goes it is pretty worthless due to the incorrect date. As the date is so far out it could have been any time. No it is not the greatest defense in the world; but one of the jobs of a defense lawyer at trial is not only to prove innocence but also prove that the evidence that the prosecution has is worthless.
Then we have the actions of the Jewelry store. Kamofie and Co., of Venice, California have not only sold the surveillance footage to the Associated Press for $35,000 but have also indicated they will auction the necklace after the case concludes. Hardly the actions of a "distressed victim" of a felonious theft. More like the actions of a company wanting to "cash in". And it gets even more surreal when a representative from the jewelry store makes the following statement when Lindsay Lohan threatens to sue for the release of the surveillance footage; citing that she never gave them the right to use her image for profit: "We regret to hear there is trepidation by Miss Lohan in connection with the video. We hope that everyone understands that this is beyond our control, the flood of the requests to see this video were simply too overwhelming. It was truly necessary to put it out."
Beyond their control? Yes, maybe the release of the footage may have been out of their hands. But to sell the footage? No.
So, back to the original question, should Lindsay Lohan take a plea to a felony? Hell no. At the very most it was a misdemeanor. And at the very least it was an honest mistake.
And if you really want to get technical. The Deputy District Attorney and the Judge are pushing that this is also a probation violation. The question is why? Lindsay Lohan has not been found guilty of a crime; merely accused. Is it fair, or even legal, for the Deputy District Attorney and Judge in a case to basically say she is guilty without being found guilty? Now although the US Constitution does not actually say the immortal phrase "innocent until proven guilty" it does give a couple of provisions; such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury trial; and that the jury be impartial. Nowhere does it state that you can be assumed guilty.
So, back to the question - To plea or not to plea? In this case the answer is obviously No.
And let's not forget that a theft usually involves some sort of loss. Kamofie & Co. have made at least $35,000 from the sale of the surveillance footage and will make even more when the auction of the necklace takes place.
Legal Notice: This post is in no way offering legal advice; and should not be read as such. This post is not prepared in conjunction with any news agency or any other agency. Also this post was created without the sponsorship of Ferrari - seems the car has not arrived; nor is it likely to.
There are a few reasons why Lindsay is better not to cop a plea.
Firstly, there is a witness that has come forward to say that when he went into the jewelry store, and showed an interest in the necklace that Lindsay Lohan allegedly stole, he was told the price was $800. The man has contacted Lindsay Lohan's defense team; and is willing to testify to the fact. California law states:
California Penal Code 487:
Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases:
(a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), except as provided in subdivision (b).
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), grand theft is committed in any of the following cases:
(1) (A) When domestic fowls, avocados, olives, citrus or deciduous fruits, other fruits, vegetables, nuts, artichokes, or other farm crops are taken of a value exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
So as the item in question is a necklace and not a domestic fowl, avocado, olive, or a deciduous fruit the fact that the necklace is only worth $800 takes the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor; at the very most.
But we also have a few other facts to take into fact. The video surveillance:
It clearly shows the date as January 21, 2061. So, in court, is Deputy District Attorney Danette Meyers going to try and convince a jury that Lindsay Lohan travelled 50 years into the future and stole the necklace? Actually as a felony case it would actually be better for her to suggest this as the $800 necklace may indeed be worth $2500 in 2061. As evidence goes it is pretty worthless due to the incorrect date. As the date is so far out it could have been any time. No it is not the greatest defense in the world; but one of the jobs of a defense lawyer at trial is not only to prove innocence but also prove that the evidence that the prosecution has is worthless.
Then we have the actions of the Jewelry store. Kamofie and Co., of Venice, California have not only sold the surveillance footage to the Associated Press for $35,000 but have also indicated they will auction the necklace after the case concludes. Hardly the actions of a "distressed victim" of a felonious theft. More like the actions of a company wanting to "cash in". And it gets even more surreal when a representative from the jewelry store makes the following statement when Lindsay Lohan threatens to sue for the release of the surveillance footage; citing that she never gave them the right to use her image for profit: "We regret to hear there is trepidation by Miss Lohan in connection with the video. We hope that everyone understands that this is beyond our control, the flood of the requests to see this video were simply too overwhelming. It was truly necessary to put it out."
Beyond their control? Yes, maybe the release of the footage may have been out of their hands. But to sell the footage? No.
So, back to the original question, should Lindsay Lohan take a plea to a felony? Hell no. At the very most it was a misdemeanor. And at the very least it was an honest mistake.
And if you really want to get technical. The Deputy District Attorney and the Judge are pushing that this is also a probation violation. The question is why? Lindsay Lohan has not been found guilty of a crime; merely accused. Is it fair, or even legal, for the Deputy District Attorney and Judge in a case to basically say she is guilty without being found guilty? Now although the US Constitution does not actually say the immortal phrase "innocent until proven guilty" it does give a couple of provisions; such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury trial; and that the jury be impartial. Nowhere does it state that you can be assumed guilty.
So, back to the question - To plea or not to plea? In this case the answer is obviously No.
And let's not forget that a theft usually involves some sort of loss. Kamofie & Co. have made at least $35,000 from the sale of the surveillance footage and will make even more when the auction of the necklace takes place.
#Justice4Lindsay
Cuss Count: Zero
Legal Notice: This post is in no way offering legal advice; and should not be read as such. This post is not prepared in conjunction with any news agency or any other agency. Also this post was created without the sponsorship of Ferrari - seems the car has not arrived; nor is it likely to.
1/15/2011
The Trial
The following is just a possibility of what may happen on the last couple of days when Conrad Murray goes to trial. As always; all persons mentioned are innocent unless proven otherwise in a court of law.
July 2011
In a packed courthouse which has seen testimony after testimony come forward with conflicting stories; finally the moment some have been so anxiously waiting for:
Judge: Order. Order. This court now resumes in the case of People versus Murray. Mr Chernoff please call your next witness.
Chernoff: Your honor I call the defendant, the man of the hour, Mr bad tie himself, the one, the only, Conrad Murray.
Conrad leaves the defense area and makes his way to the stand. The judge notices yet another awful tie; this one reminding him of a road crash victim that had been slaughtered by a semi truck.
Judge: For the record state your full name, your current address, and why you are wearing that god-awful tie.
Murray: I plead the fifth amendment your honor.
Judge: I only asked your name and address. The tie comment was just a little joke.
Murray: Yes I know your honor. But I would still like to plead the fifth.
Judge: Council approach the bench.
Both Chernoff and Walgren approach the bench. All three speak off mic.
Judge: I don't know kind of shit you are trying to pull here.
Chernoff: I assure you all will become clear in time your honor.
Judge: Prosecution, you know anything about this?
Walgren: No your honor. And I must say it is most unusual.
Judge: Unusual? He's turning my court into a fucking circus.
Chernoff: Your honor if you will bear with me all will become clear.
Judge: Look Chernoff I don't like you and I don't like your client so make this fucking charade real damn quick.
Chernoff: Yes your honor.
Walgren: Objection.
Judge: Overruled. I have golf this weekend and I would like to play with a clear head. So let's get this shit over with.
The prosecutor returns to his desk. The judge takes a quick swig of whiskey. Chernoff prepares to question Conrad Murray.
Chernoff: For the purpose of these proceedings I will refer to you as Conrad Murray even though you refuse to confirm that. Is that OK?
Murray: Yes it is.
Chernoff: Conrad on June 25, 2009 at approximately 9:30AM where were you?
Murray: I was at 100 N. Carolwood Drive; the home of Michael Jackson.
Chernoff: And why was you there?
Murray: I had been assigned to look after Mr Jackson.
Chernoff: And did this 'care' include the well-being of Mr Jackson?
Murray: In a way yes.
Walgren: Objection. The defendant was employed by AEG as a doctor therefore the 'well-being' of Mr Jackson should have been his primary concern.
Chernoff: Your honor we are going to cover that.
Judge: Well make it quick. Objection overruled.
Chernoff: Thank you your honor. So, Conrad was AEG your employer at the time the alleged crime took place?
Murray: No. They had drawn up a contract which I had not signed. Also they had not paid me at that point. So without a legal contract of employment and no monetary compensation I was not employed by AEG.
Walgren: Objection
Judge: Overruled.
Walgren: But I haven't stated why.
Judge: I really don't care why. You are starting to piss me off with objecting every fucking thing.
Walgren: But your honor.
Judge: Look, shut it. One more interruption without good reason and I will find you in contempt of court.
Walgren: That is bullshit.
Judge: What?
Walgren: Nothing.
Judge: That is what I thought. Now, continue Mr Chernoff.
Chernoff resumes questioning Conrad Murray.
Chernoff: So if AEG was not your employer why were you at the residence of Mr Jackson?
Murray: I'd rather not say.
Chernoff: OK. For the record let it state that Mr Conrad Murray was not employed by AEG, legally, as a personal physician for Mr Jackson. And therefore as he was not engaged in his legal duties as a doctor he is covered by the 'Good Samaritan' clause of law as established by the Supreme Court in California.
Walgren: Objection.
Judge: Overruled. As long as Mr Chernoff can prove that Mr Murray, or whoever he is, has documented proof.
Chernoff: Your honor I refer to evidence CM001A-B, the employment contract between AEG and Conrad Murray, which was retrieved by the LAPD on June 29, 2009 at the Jackson residence. You'll notice the lack of signatures on behalf of AEG. As both parties had not signed the contract it is in no way legally binding.
Judge: Ooh that is good. I did not see that one coming I'll admit.
Chernoff: Thank you your honor.
Judge: OK Mr Chernoff I'm going to indulge myself and allow the proposed argument; unless prosecution has anything to contradict it.
Walgren: No your honor. In the words of a well-known prostitute - we could be fucked here.
Judge: It would appear so. OK Mr Chernoff back to questioning.
Chernoff: The defense has no further questions at this time for the defendant.
Judge: Really? You are leaving it at that? OK if you say so. Mr Walgren your witness.
Prosecution starts to question Conrad Murray.
Walgren: Sir if you would state your full name for the record.
Judge: Michael Pastor.
Walgren: Sorry your honor I was addressing the defendant.
Murray: I plead the fifth amendment.
Walgren: So you cannot give the court your full name without incriminating yourself?
Murray: In a roundabout way that is correct.
Judge: Council we did this already. Just move on.
Walgren: But your honor.
Judge: The only but at the moment is you. Just get on with it.
Walgren: Anyway. So you plead the fifth on your name. Care to enlighten the court as to why?
Murray: Not really. Not at this time. It is none of your business.
Walgren: Talking of business. Just exactly what was you doing on the phone while Mr Jackson need you?
Murray: Actually I was taking care of business on behalf of Mr Jackson.
Walgren: Let me get this straight. While Mr Jackson is taking his last breaths you were completing the business affairs of Mr Jackson?
Murray: I never said they were his last breaths. You did. Surely you wouldn't want to be seen as badgering the witness?
Walgren: Mr Murray I'll ask the questions. Thank you.
Murray: You are welcome.
Walgren: So exactly what business were you taking care of?
Murray: Travel arrangements and the like.
Walgren: So your client, and alleged friend, is dying and you want to arrange travel?
Murray: You have some fixation that Michael was dying. Where did you get that idea?
Walgren: Mr Murray the world saw the ambulance picture. The world saw Mr Jackson being stretchered to the helicopter.
Murray: The world saw what it wanted to see. Even my good friend Brian Oxman has declared the ambulance picture as a fake; a hoax if you will.
Walgren: So you are suggesting that Mr Michael Jackson was not in the ambulance?
Murray: I'm not suggesting anything. I'm telling you Michael Jackson was not in that ambulance.
Walgren: So who was Mr Murray?
Murray: That is confidential.
Walgren: Objection your honor. The defendant must answer the question.
Judge: Overruled. Move on. I don't care for this line of questioning. Valuable drinking time is being wasted. Let us just agree to disagree.
Walgren: Your honor I must protest.
Judge: Protest all you want. My court my rules. If you don't like it don't play in my court.
Walgren: This is highly irregular.
Judge: Mr Walgren we are not here to discuss court procedures. Either you question the defendant or sit down and shut the hell up.
Walgren: So Mr Murray when you went to the UCLA emergency room ...
Judge: (Laughing)
Walgren: Your honor?
Judge: Sorry, but every time you I have heard UCLA mentioned I think of Mr Murray dressed as a construction worker doing the YMCA dance. Carry on.
Walgren: So Mr Murray when you were at the UCLA emergency room did you mention to anyone that Mr Jackson was alive, well, and elsewhere?
Murray: Are you fucking crazy? Do you even know what a fake or a hoax is?
Walgren: Yes I do.
Murray: So what is with the dumb questions?
Walgren: I'll ask the questions. Fuck it. The witness is excused. I don't see the point any more. As a public servant I command respect not to be treated like some court jester.
Judge: (Laughing) Court jester. That was a good one. OK if you are done with the defendant. We shall retire for the day and resume whenever I remember to.
Walgren: Yes your honor.
Chernoff: Thank you your honor.
Murray: OK I'm off down to the gym.
Judge: This court is adjourned until the blogger writes the second piece of this shit.
Peace.
Cuss Count: Medium
Legal Notice: This court case has no bearing on the criminal proceedings against Conrad Murray. Nor does this blog offer any legal advice to Conrad or his attorneys. This post is satire; and should not be considered legal advice by anyone with two or more brain cells.
July 2011
In a packed courthouse which has seen testimony after testimony come forward with conflicting stories; finally the moment some have been so anxiously waiting for:
Judge: Order. Order. This court now resumes in the case of People versus Murray. Mr Chernoff please call your next witness.
Chernoff: Your honor I call the defendant, the man of the hour, Mr bad tie himself, the one, the only, Conrad Murray.
Conrad leaves the defense area and makes his way to the stand. The judge notices yet another awful tie; this one reminding him of a road crash victim that had been slaughtered by a semi truck.
Judge: For the record state your full name, your current address, and why you are wearing that god-awful tie.
Murray: I plead the fifth amendment your honor.
Judge: I only asked your name and address. The tie comment was just a little joke.
Murray: Yes I know your honor. But I would still like to plead the fifth.
Judge: Council approach the bench.
Both Chernoff and Walgren approach the bench. All three speak off mic.
Judge: I don't know kind of shit you are trying to pull here.
Chernoff: I assure you all will become clear in time your honor.
Judge: Prosecution, you know anything about this?
Walgren: No your honor. And I must say it is most unusual.
Judge: Unusual? He's turning my court into a fucking circus.
Chernoff: Your honor if you will bear with me all will become clear.
Judge: Look Chernoff I don't like you and I don't like your client so make this fucking charade real damn quick.
Chernoff: Yes your honor.
Walgren: Objection.
Judge: Overruled. I have golf this weekend and I would like to play with a clear head. So let's get this shit over with.
The prosecutor returns to his desk. The judge takes a quick swig of whiskey. Chernoff prepares to question Conrad Murray.
Chernoff: For the purpose of these proceedings I will refer to you as Conrad Murray even though you refuse to confirm that. Is that OK?
Murray: Yes it is.
Chernoff: Conrad on June 25, 2009 at approximately 9:30AM where were you?
Murray: I was at 100 N. Carolwood Drive; the home of Michael Jackson.
Chernoff: And why was you there?
Murray: I had been assigned to look after Mr Jackson.
Chernoff: And did this 'care' include the well-being of Mr Jackson?
Murray: In a way yes.
Walgren: Objection. The defendant was employed by AEG as a doctor therefore the 'well-being' of Mr Jackson should have been his primary concern.
Chernoff: Your honor we are going to cover that.
Judge: Well make it quick. Objection overruled.
Chernoff: Thank you your honor. So, Conrad was AEG your employer at the time the alleged crime took place?
Murray: No. They had drawn up a contract which I had not signed. Also they had not paid me at that point. So without a legal contract of employment and no monetary compensation I was not employed by AEG.
Walgren: Objection
Judge: Overruled.
Walgren: But I haven't stated why.
Judge: I really don't care why. You are starting to piss me off with objecting every fucking thing.
Walgren: But your honor.
Judge: Look, shut it. One more interruption without good reason and I will find you in contempt of court.
Walgren: That is bullshit.
Judge: What?
Walgren: Nothing.
Judge: That is what I thought. Now, continue Mr Chernoff.
Chernoff resumes questioning Conrad Murray.
Chernoff: So if AEG was not your employer why were you at the residence of Mr Jackson?
Murray: I'd rather not say.
Chernoff: OK. For the record let it state that Mr Conrad Murray was not employed by AEG, legally, as a personal physician for Mr Jackson. And therefore as he was not engaged in his legal duties as a doctor he is covered by the 'Good Samaritan' clause of law as established by the Supreme Court in California.
Walgren: Objection.
Judge: Overruled. As long as Mr Chernoff can prove that Mr Murray, or whoever he is, has documented proof.
Chernoff: Your honor I refer to evidence CM001A-B, the employment contract between AEG and Conrad Murray, which was retrieved by the LAPD on June 29, 2009 at the Jackson residence. You'll notice the lack of signatures on behalf of AEG. As both parties had not signed the contract it is in no way legally binding.
Judge: Ooh that is good. I did not see that one coming I'll admit.
Chernoff: Thank you your honor.
Judge: OK Mr Chernoff I'm going to indulge myself and allow the proposed argument; unless prosecution has anything to contradict it.
Walgren: No your honor. In the words of a well-known prostitute - we could be fucked here.
Judge: It would appear so. OK Mr Chernoff back to questioning.
Chernoff: The defense has no further questions at this time for the defendant.
Judge: Really? You are leaving it at that? OK if you say so. Mr Walgren your witness.
Prosecution starts to question Conrad Murray.
Walgren: Sir if you would state your full name for the record.
Judge: Michael Pastor.
Walgren: Sorry your honor I was addressing the defendant.
Murray: I plead the fifth amendment.
Walgren: So you cannot give the court your full name without incriminating yourself?
Murray: In a roundabout way that is correct.
Judge: Council we did this already. Just move on.
Walgren: But your honor.
Judge: The only but at the moment is you. Just get on with it.
Walgren: Anyway. So you plead the fifth on your name. Care to enlighten the court as to why?
Murray: Not really. Not at this time. It is none of your business.
Walgren: Talking of business. Just exactly what was you doing on the phone while Mr Jackson need you?
Murray: Actually I was taking care of business on behalf of Mr Jackson.
Walgren: Let me get this straight. While Mr Jackson is taking his last breaths you were completing the business affairs of Mr Jackson?
Murray: I never said they were his last breaths. You did. Surely you wouldn't want to be seen as badgering the witness?
Walgren: Mr Murray I'll ask the questions. Thank you.
Murray: You are welcome.
Walgren: So exactly what business were you taking care of?
Murray: Travel arrangements and the like.
Walgren: So your client, and alleged friend, is dying and you want to arrange travel?
Murray: You have some fixation that Michael was dying. Where did you get that idea?
Walgren: Mr Murray the world saw the ambulance picture. The world saw Mr Jackson being stretchered to the helicopter.
Murray: The world saw what it wanted to see. Even my good friend Brian Oxman has declared the ambulance picture as a fake; a hoax if you will.
Walgren: So you are suggesting that Mr Michael Jackson was not in the ambulance?
Murray: I'm not suggesting anything. I'm telling you Michael Jackson was not in that ambulance.
Walgren: So who was Mr Murray?
Murray: That is confidential.
Walgren: Objection your honor. The defendant must answer the question.
Judge: Overruled. Move on. I don't care for this line of questioning. Valuable drinking time is being wasted. Let us just agree to disagree.
Walgren: Your honor I must protest.
Judge: Protest all you want. My court my rules. If you don't like it don't play in my court.
Walgren: This is highly irregular.
Judge: Mr Walgren we are not here to discuss court procedures. Either you question the defendant or sit down and shut the hell up.
Walgren: So Mr Murray when you went to the UCLA emergency room ...
Judge: (Laughing)
Walgren: Your honor?
Judge: Sorry, but every time you I have heard UCLA mentioned I think of Mr Murray dressed as a construction worker doing the YMCA dance. Carry on.
Walgren: So Mr Murray when you were at the UCLA emergency room did you mention to anyone that Mr Jackson was alive, well, and elsewhere?
Murray: Are you fucking crazy? Do you even know what a fake or a hoax is?
Walgren: Yes I do.
Murray: So what is with the dumb questions?
Walgren: I'll ask the questions. Fuck it. The witness is excused. I don't see the point any more. As a public servant I command respect not to be treated like some court jester.
Judge: (Laughing) Court jester. That was a good one. OK if you are done with the defendant. We shall retire for the day and resume whenever I remember to.
Walgren: Yes your honor.
Chernoff: Thank you your honor.
Murray: OK I'm off down to the gym.
Judge: This court is adjourned until the blogger writes the second piece of this shit.
Peace.
Cuss Count: Medium
Legal Notice: This court case has no bearing on the criminal proceedings against Conrad Murray. Nor does this blog offer any legal advice to Conrad or his attorneys. This post is satire; and should not be considered legal advice by anyone with two or more brain cells.
5/09/2010
How Dumb Are Some Of You People?
What a way to start the day - pissed off, because some dumb ass sends me an email with regards to Justice4MJ. Obviously some half-wit who had never read the blog, otherwise they would of guessed that I believe Michael Jackson faked his death and is still alive.
But as I read the email I realized that the person who sent it believes that Michael Jackson is still alive. So what fucking gives? How can a person believe that Michael faked his death and still want "Justice 4 MJ"?
Simple answer, according to the intersection graph above, is you cannot. You are just retarded. Which makes sense. You cannot believe that Michael is alive and still want justice in court; with Conrad Murray being charged with murder.
It is just impossible. But it ties with so many other elements regarding the hoax that are impossible too.
The S&M Concentration Camp keep going on and on and on about this all-powerful Illuminati group of elite people that control the world. Yet the forum that supposedly shows all of their crooked schemes remains up along with their sources such as Alex Jones and the Vigilant Citizen.
The ThisIsAlsoIt (aka ThisIsASackOfShit and ThisIsAllShit) redirects point to various things. Go through the list from the very beginning and you will find at least 50% of that shit points to the Illuminati and conspiracy theories.
You cannot be on both sides of the fence. You cannot think Michael is alive, and at the same time believe that the Illuminati had something to do with his murder. It is just not fucking possible. Murder means someone took the life of another person; so if you believe that Michael is alive how the fuck can you be screaming for "Justice 4 MJ"?
It is just so fucking retarded that people who believe Michael Jackson is alive follow these fucking idiot groups on Twitter and Facebook screaming that they want to see Conrad Murray swinging from the gallows. You just cannot have it both ways.
So next time, if you believe Michael is very much alive, and you want to go to the court and protest about "Justice 4 MJ" you can wear the exclusive badge designed specifically for those occasions. And tell people with pride that you are a fucking retard and your time on this Earth is really just a waste of oxygen.
Peace.
Legal Notice: Thinking that MJ is alive and screaming for "Justice 4 MJ" does not entitle anyone for any special mental disability payments which may exist. Although it does suggest that you should seek help immediately.
But as I read the email I realized that the person who sent it believes that Michael Jackson is still alive. So what fucking gives? How can a person believe that Michael faked his death and still want "Justice 4 MJ"?
Simple answer, according to the intersection graph above, is you cannot. You are just retarded. Which makes sense. You cannot believe that Michael is alive and still want justice in court; with Conrad Murray being charged with murder.
It is just impossible. But it ties with so many other elements regarding the hoax that are impossible too.
The S&M Concentration Camp keep going on and on and on about this all-powerful Illuminati group of elite people that control the world. Yet the forum that supposedly shows all of their crooked schemes remains up along with their sources such as Alex Jones and the Vigilant Citizen.
The ThisIsAlsoIt (aka ThisIsASackOfShit and ThisIsAllShit) redirects point to various things. Go through the list from the very beginning and you will find at least 50% of that shit points to the Illuminati and conspiracy theories.
You cannot be on both sides of the fence. You cannot think Michael is alive, and at the same time believe that the Illuminati had something to do with his murder. It is just not fucking possible. Murder means someone took the life of another person; so if you believe that Michael is alive how the fuck can you be screaming for "Justice 4 MJ"?
It is just so fucking retarded that people who believe Michael Jackson is alive follow these fucking idiot groups on Twitter and Facebook screaming that they want to see Conrad Murray swinging from the gallows. You just cannot have it both ways.
So next time, if you believe Michael is very much alive, and you want to go to the court and protest about "Justice 4 MJ" you can wear the exclusive badge designed specifically for those occasions. And tell people with pride that you are a fucking retard and your time on this Earth is really just a waste of oxygen.
Peace.
Legal Notice: Thinking that MJ is alive and screaming for "Justice 4 MJ" does not entitle anyone for any special mental disability payments which may exist. Although it does suggest that you should seek help immediately.
2/08/2010
Murray Charged Today - Big Fucking Deal
Murray was charged with involuntary manslaughter, and bonded out for the tune of $75,000. Big fucking deal. Does this mean the hoax is dead? About as dead as Michael.
The guy got charged. So what. It's not like he is sitting in a 10' x 8' cell with Bubba wondering if the showers really are as unsafe as the rumors say. Did the guy looked bothered? Did he fuck, he was sitting in a cafe an hour before he was meant to be in court. Hardly the actions, and demeanor, of guy who is about to become Bubba's bitch for a couple of years.
California law, Penal Code 192(b) states that Murray could serve between two to four years. Maybe when he gets put in a cell with Bubba's cousin for three years there might be some need for concern. But just being charged is nothing. Fuck the judge even said Murray could continue to practice; just not sedate people. Come on, if it wasn't a hoax what judge would allow a doctor accused of killing someone by illegally used propofol to continue practicing. It is just a big act to make sure it looks like something is being done.
As for the mass exodus that is expected on hoax forums - all I can say on that is "Goodbye and good riddance." It's been 7 months. That is it. Think of the Elvis believers that still to this day know that Elvis never died in 1977, poor bastards have waited years for an answer with nothing but some religious-like blind faith that he is still alive.
Someone wants to leave the hoax forums because Murray was charged let them go. No great loss.
Peace.
The guy got charged. So what. It's not like he is sitting in a 10' x 8' cell with Bubba wondering if the showers really are as unsafe as the rumors say. Did the guy looked bothered? Did he fuck, he was sitting in a cafe an hour before he was meant to be in court. Hardly the actions, and demeanor, of guy who is about to become Bubba's bitch for a couple of years.
California law, Penal Code 192(b) states that Murray could serve between two to four years. Maybe when he gets put in a cell with Bubba's cousin for three years there might be some need for concern. But just being charged is nothing. Fuck the judge even said Murray could continue to practice; just not sedate people. Come on, if it wasn't a hoax what judge would allow a doctor accused of killing someone by illegally used propofol to continue practicing. It is just a big act to make sure it looks like something is being done.
As for the mass exodus that is expected on hoax forums - all I can say on that is "Goodbye and good riddance." It's been 7 months. That is it. Think of the Elvis believers that still to this day know that Elvis never died in 1977, poor bastards have waited years for an answer with nothing but some religious-like blind faith that he is still alive.
Someone wants to leave the hoax forums because Murray was charged let them go. No great loss.
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
