Ray Chandler SUBPOENA. His incredible cynicism

  by Helena on vindicatemj.wordpress.com

August 5, 2010

Now that you know the outcome of Ray Chandler subpoena I suggest having a closer look at the documents unsealed by the Superior Court of California concerning this matter: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/ctdocs.php (type Ray Chandler in the “search” section and you get them).

The short of the previous post about Ray Chandler subpoena:

Ray Chandler was summoned by the Defense as a ‘custodian of documents’ to prove their authenticity in court but the mere idea of it horrified him so much that he used every possible and impossible pretext to avoid the procedure. In fact the terror of it was so big that not only did Ray Chandler refuse to appear in court but he also claimed he was covered by the Protective Order which gave the right to Michael Jackson’s witnesses not to disclose to anyone that they had been supboenaed at all. Yes, the right he did have, but the cynicism of this decision is incredible.

I wondered what this Protective Order was all about. Though its exact reason is still unknown to me we can nevertheless get some idea of it from the very text of the document. It will also be correct to start our minute study of the Superior Court documents with this paper as it is dated July 9, 2004 and chronologically comes first in the succession of documents preceding Ray Chandler subpoena (see pages 27-28 of the 70-page long Ray Chandler’s Motion to Quash the subpoena):

Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara The People of the state of California, (Plaintiff) vs. Michael Jackson, (Defendant)

Case No. 1133603

Protective Order regarding Defendant’s Subpoenas Duces Tecum

Good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the clerk of the court permit Defendant Michael Jackson, by and through his counsel, to subpoena materials without disclosing the nature of the subpoena, the person or items sought by the subpoena, or the response to the subpoena and any materials returned therewith.

It is further ordered, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, that:

1. The clerk of the court shall segregate and keep confidential and not disclose to the People any materials pertaining to the subpoena, including returns, documents, and other materials returned in response to said subpoena.

2. The clerk of the court shall permit Counsel for the defendant to subpoena materials to the court on days and times at which the case itself is not on calendar for other purposes.

3. Persons or entities subpoenaed by the defendant shall not disclose directly or indirectly to the People the fact that they have been subpoenaed or the nature of the subpoena.

4. Any appearance, objection, compliance, or other communication by a party subpoenaed by the defendant shall be filed under seal.

5. Any hearings involving the materials pertaining to the subpoena, including returns, documents and other materials returned in response to the subpoena regarding compliance, privacy or other issues shall be held in camera.

6. This order does not affect the right of any party whose records are subpoenaed to assert any applicable claims of privilege.
7. Subject to the resolution of any issues of privilege that may be asserted, the clerk of the court shall permit counsel for the defendant to inspect and copy the subpoenaed materials.

8. A copy of this order shall be served with each subpoena to which it pertains.

Dated July 09 2004 - Rodnye S.Melville, Judge of the Superior Court

I don’t know what you think of this document, but my impression of it is rather painful. Its last point says it all – it will be served with each subpoena, so that the subpoenaed person will immediately know (right there on the spot) that his privacy will be protected in every way independent of whether he complies with the subpoena, objects to it or just appears before the judge. No one will ever know that he or she has been subpoenaed – all the movements of a witness will be filed under seal. Even any hearings of the materials in connection with the subpoena will be made in camera (in the chambers of the judge with no onlookers or the jury attending). The only thing which is required of a witness is to come, please come, don’t be afraid to come, don’t think of the publicity consequences of your decision – your privacy will be well taken care of, only please come…

The unwillingness of many to take part in this nightmarish process was evidently so huge that even Michael’s true friend, MaCauley Culkin, was not too enthusiastic to go to court, as he said in a interview with Larry King, and would have avoided it if his conscience had ever allowed it (see a post about his testimony in court which he did give and turned into another of his hits:
Macauley Culkin as Michael Jackson´s true friend

I can imagine Ray Chandler laughing at obtaining this protective order together with the subpoena and rejoicing at the opportunities it offered. Well, he did make good use of those opportunities. It was because of this document that Ray Chandler demanded hearing of his “documents” in camera only… And it was this order which allowed him to keep everything so hush-hush that no one really knows about his refusal to testify in court even now and the information about it is practically impossible to find….

If it weren’t for just a bit of luck we would have probably never known about the outcome of Ray Chandler subpoena either. Moreover, if he hadn’t made the mistake of babbling about the subpoena himself at various TV shows we would never have known about it at all.

Thank God we do.

How much cynicism should a person have to spread lies about Jackson for years, and when subpoenaed to speak about these lies in court, first refuse to do so under various pretexts and then demand protection of his privacy under the protective order shielding the witnesses of a person he is so shamelessly slandering – only to resume his lies again immediately after escaping the subpoena?

Infinite, immeasurable, indescribable...

Thank you Helena for your generosity sharing your investigation!