Nov 20 2012

Oh, Palestine on Universal Children’s Day

Category: Children,Humanitarian,Justice,Lyrics,Photos,VideosSeven @ 8:43 pm


I probably should not write when I’m upset. But I’m going to do it anyway. I warn that you won’t find this pleasant on this Universal Children’s Day. But I assure you, the World’s children find it even more unpleasant than you ever will. I’ve done my best on Twitter and Facebook to bring attention to these things for the past two days, but they’ve gone completely, utterly ignored. It’s all fallen on deaf ears and into blind eyes.

I’m stunned.

We all claim to care so much about the World’s children, but when they’re sitting there staring us in the face, charred to death in the latest airstrikes wherever, we really don’t.

We care so much about the celebrity who cared for these children, but we don’t care for them – the children themselves. In the end, what seems to matter to us is our own fantasies of having been somehow important to, or somehow being associated with said celebrity, even if only in spirit since he’s gone. It’s really just all about us, isn’t it? It certainly looks that way, from the lack of attention and response these things have gotten when I shared them.

But the kids MJ lived for and the world they live in? The innocents who ask: “why are we included in these adult fights? Why can’t we have a normal childhood without all this fighting and violence? What did we do to deserve this?

The ones who are charred to death by the airstrikes? The ones who are trafficked and sexually abused? What about them? Not a word. Not one comment. I’ve posted photos. Videos. Michael’s own handwritten words. News clippings. But not one response. Nothing. Not even on Universal Children’s Day. Their innocent voices remain ignored, it seems.

I wonder what MJ would say about all this? Would he be impressed with us? He’d be heartbroken about these kids, for sure. Do his fans pretend to care because he’d want them to care – or because they really care?  It appears to be more the former than the latter for far too many of them. Not all of course, but far too many. This is just something to think about as you gaze down this page at what I’m about to share with you.

First of all, Palestine (and by association what is currently going on in Gaza at the hands of Hamas and Israel). Below are some lyrics to a song that  Michael wrote but was apparently never released or published:

“Palestine” – written by Michael Jackson

Bomb shells are flying, bodies multiplying, see the children crying, what are they fighting for” is part of what Michael had written above.

A child in Gaza, the region that has been blown once again to smithereens in the past few days, asks a similar question in the following video – it’s at the very end and the video is unceremoniously cut off, as if the creator and/or the news media felt what this child had to say was unimportant. But the child’s question deserves an answer.

Can you answer the child’s question in the end of the video?

The child below was charred – possibly to death – by an airstrike in Gaza on Monday November 19th, 2012.

Child charred in Gaza airstrikes, November 2012

Is this “too difficult” for you to look at or respond to? Imagine how it felt for the child. Imagine how it feels for all of them. Whoever you might feel to be at fault in this latest conflict, this child knows nothing of adult conflicts, nor should (s)he have to. The height of immorality is that (s)he and so many others have been made to suffer (or die) for things they know nothing of and are not involved in.

And just a few moments ago, this story appeared on my twitter timeline:

Thousands of children sexually exploited each year, inquiry says

Study describes range of sexual crimes perpetrated mainly against girls by male teenage gang members and older men

Thousands of children are raped and abused each year, with many more cases going unreported by victims and unrecorded by the authorities, according to an official study presented as the most comprehensive inquiry to date of the scale and prevalence of child sexual exploitation in England.

The disturbing and at times horrific study, which describes a range of traumatic and violent sexual crimes perpetrated mainly against girls, by male teenage gang members and groups of older men, was described as a “wake-up call” for safeguarding professionals by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England (OCCE).

It draws an alarming picture of serious sexual crimes against children: girls groomed, then drugged and raped at seedy “parties” in private homes and warehouses organised by groups of men, for profit or pleasure; assaults in public parks, schools and alleyways by gang members influenced by violent pornography, and intent on threatening, punishing or controlling young women by means of forced oral sex, and anal and vaginal rape.”

. . .

“We need to ask why so many males, both young and old, think it is acceptable to treat both girls and boys as objects to be used and abused. We need to know why so many adults in positions of responsibility persist in not believing these children when they try to tell someone what they have endured.”

Oh I know these images and stories are very upsetting and may even be an emotional trigger for some readers. But just imagine what it’s like for these kids to have to live (or die) like this, all around the world.

Should we just ignore all this because it’s “too hard” for us to look at or acknowledge or because we just don’t know what to say? If we do that, then we can be assured that this suffering will only continue. The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging that one exists. And plenty of them exist where the children in this World are concerned. These awful stories and images are only a few of them. I know too that most people feel there’s nothing they can do about these issues. One thing we can all do is:


Care enough to look at these horrific images, and listen to the kids asking “why” and to read the stories of the hideous abuse they suffer. Even if it is hard for you to look at or listen to or read. Forget yourself for just a moment or whose side you’re on. What about THEM? How is any of this ever going to be stopped if nobody CARES enough to even notice?

On this Universal Children’s Day, you can at least do that, can’t you?

Hello? Anybody out there?

while everyone is freaking out over twinkies, can we please take a moment to #pray for all the lives taken in the middle east ?” –Paris Jackson

While you live in your safe, warm home anticipating whatever holidays that may be upcoming in your part of the world, having plenty of food to eat, having clean water, and being able to educate and hug your children and keep them safe from the worst harm or neglect, can you at least take a moment to care about these other kids in the world that we alleged adults force them to live in?

If it matters to you, I’ll tell you that it might make Michael happy. But we should all care regardless what he’d feel about it. Because somebody still needs to.

You don’t have to say anything. You don’t have to do anything right now. But you can at least care enough to look, to see it. Even if it upsets you.

Because I guarantee you it upsets them even more, when it doesn’t kill them.

Thank you.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Aug 21 2011

Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’

Category: Justice,Lyrics,Photos,Quotes About MJSeven @ 7:25 pm


Murray wasn't humiliated (as MJ was) by having his mugshot published, so we'll use this one.

Murray wasn't humiliated (as MJ was) by having his mugshot published when he was charged, so we'll use this one.

I really don’t want this to start.  Like everyone else, I want to see something done about the doctor who presided over Michael’s death, but I’m dreading the start of the trial on September 26th.  Jury selection is gearing up and unless the date has changed, starts on September 8th. Like the aborted attempt at jury selection in March/April 2011, a very detailed 30-page, 117-item questionnaire will be given to each prospective juror. The questionnaire also includes 136 potential witnesses, including Michael’s family, former employees and associates, his children, 9 of his former doctors, and nurse Cherilyn Lee. The trial is expected to last approximately two months.

One article states that “Potential jurors are also asked about their familiarity with a laundry list of 27 different prescription drugs, including propofol, the drug tied to his death.” But there’s a problem with that statement. You see, propofol is not a prescription drug. You cannot get it by getting an Rx written up from your doctor and picking it up at your local drugstore. Watch out for the media’s slippery misinformation here, lumping propofol in with other prescription drugs as if it were in the same category. It is not. And propofol was what killed Michael, not any of those 26 other drugs.

And the defense might want to be careful picking jurors who are too knowledgeable about all these drugs. Because if they are too knowledgeable, they’ll recognize not only that propofol is not a “prescription drug“, but also that it is not a “painkiller“.  And they’ll also know that propofol is not physically addictive. This is another reason claims that “Michael was an addict” having anything to do with why he died won’t quite work. Murray’s claim that he was trying to “wean” Michael off of propofol won’t work either. Since it’s not physically addictive, there would have been no reason for that.

They’ll also know how quickly propofol works. This means that there is no plausible way whatsoever that an individual could inject himself with the amount of propofol that was found in Michael’s body without having been completely “knocked out” before even half of that amount had been injected. The autopsy report clearly states this. And that blows up yet another of Murray’s ridiculous claims. Murray (or his defense) has claimed Michael injected himself with propofol while Murray was out of the room (which he never should have been in the first place, even if such a story was plausible).

Those knowledgeable jurors might also realize that Michael was administered several benzodiazepines before propofol was administered. That’s a problem because the benzos exacerbate (make worse or magnify) the effects of the propofol. Besides the fact that propofol should not be administered outside a clinical setting, besides the fact that it should never be administered without following appropriate standards of care (ie: continuous and precise monitoring and ready means of resuscitation) – this is indeed a big problem.

Given all these “mistakes” Murray allegedly made, one has to wonder how “involuntary” Michael’s death really was, for if Conrad Murray is that poor of a physician, he should not be one at all.

Remember what Dr. Barry Friedberg said:

The only thing more reckless Murray could have done was taking Jackson up in an airplane and pushing him out without a parachute. -Dr. Barry Friedberg, M.D. – Board Certified Anesthesiologist

And then there’s the claim that Michael was addicted to and receiving Demerol from Dr. Arnie Klein. Looking for anyone else to blame for Michael’s death other than Murray, his defense wants to claim that Klein administered Demerol and other narcotics to Michael causing him to become addicted to the drug, and that therefore Michael was an addict, a lost cause physically, and would have died anyway. That lovely bit of hyperbole was dealt with by our own Nikki Allygator aka ‘Gatorgirl‘ in this previously-published article on Nikki wrote:

First off, let’s note that no such drugs were found in Michael’s body or home after he died according to the autopsy report and the investigation. Had he been ‘addicted‘ to Demerol it is inconceivable that he’d not have any Demerol in his body or his home. As an addict, he’d certainly have a stash. But there was none. There was a meeting at Michael’s rented mansion on June 20th, 2009 wherein Michael was allegedly told not to take medications from any doctor other than Conrad Murray. The last time Michael saw Klein was on June 22nd. Demerol would show up in a drug test for about a week. Michael died on June 25th and again, no Demerol was found in his system. Whatever injections Klein may have given Michael on June 22nd could therefore not have been Demerol.

The defense wants to convince jurors that Michael was a freak, weirdo, strung-out drug addict, eccentric and demanding – and thus guilty of his own murder. The prosecution wants people who can see through the negative media portrayal of Michael and who believe he was extorted, negatively defined, wrongly accused — and who can read an autopsy report well enough to see that the cause of death is listed as ‘homicide‘ and ‘acute propofol intoxication‘, ‘administered by another‘ (rather than a self-administered ‘drug overdose’).

Murray’s lawyers want the jury sequestered, citing media hype surrounding the trial and particularly trash-talking fact-diddlers such as Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond. Nancy Grace, in her role as a former prosecutor in Atlanta, had a reputation of “playing fast and loose” with her ethical duties and failing to meet ethical responsibilities, having been cited three times for these issues.

I understand Dimond is slated to cover the case on HLN. Dimond has a similar reputation as an unethical tabloid trash peddler and one of Tom Sneddon’s lackeys in the decades-long framing and lynching of Michael Jackson. You can read much more about Dimond’s own “fast and loose” fact-diddling here:  A hearing regarding jury sequestration is scheduled for August 25th.

In my opinion, the idea that Conrad Murray needs protection from media influence to get a fair trial seems quite narcissistic given the media’s (and his own defense’s) penchant for making this a ‘Michael Jackson‘ trial rather than a trial of Conrad Murray. It will be Michael Jackson who will be put on trial again in the media and in the public eye, not Conrad Murray.

However, a sequestered jury may help reduce the chances of Murray’s lawyers demanding a retrial on the basis of media interference.  Also sequestered juries are, according to empirical evidence, allegedly more likely to convict. Given the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial, I have to wonder if that’s true.

Speaking of Tom Sneddon, the former District Attorney in Santa Barbara notorious for malicious prosecution (especially of minorities), I’ve learned that he has been handsomely rewarded for his viciousness. Sneddon’s taxpayer-funded pension in Santa Barbara County is $224,000/yr. And, while Michael’s name had been shamefully removed from Gardner St. Elementary School after having been falsely accused, Sneddon’s name was placed on an administrative building in Santa Barbara as an ‘honor‘ to his ‘service‘. Crime indeed does pay – if you’re the DA.

From the report on the highest paid pensioners in Santa Barbara:

Of the 2,904 people who receive a pension through SBCERS, 152 get more than $100,000 per year and 25 people — including ten who worked in the Sheriff’s Department — receive more than $150,000. Of the top 25, eight served as the heads of their respective departments at one time or another. Six retired prosecutors from the DA’s office are also in the top 25. The highest name on the list is longtime District Attorney Tom Sneddon, who rakes in a whopping $224,672.64 every year.

I will not be giving a day-by-day or blow-by-blow accounting of the Conrad Murray trial here for several reasons among them being that I do not live in nor can I travel to California to cover it, as well as the fact that I intentionally do not watch television, and am obligated otherwise with too much of my time to cover a trial on a day by day basis.

If you’re like me and would rather catch the trial online when you’ve both the time and the stomach to watch, I’m told that it will be live-streamed on  I will of course post other resources for keeping up with trial as I have them and I’ll post trial news or wrap-ups when I’m able.

Liberian Girl

Liberian Girl

In brighter news, there was quite an involved discussion on my MJJ-777 Facebook page about that chant heard in the song “Wanna be Startin’ Somethin’“. You know the one: “mama se mama sa mama ku sa“. Someone in a rather bitter-sounding article on “thedailybeast“, claims to have met Michael and asked him personally about the meaning of this chant. She claims Michael told her that the chant meant “I need you I love you I want you” in Swahili.

However, after researching a bit, I learned that that chant actually came from a song by Manu Dibango, a Cameroonian saxaphonist, and that Dibango had sued Michael for use of the chant, and settled out of court. Dibango’s song is called “Soul Makossa“.  From the wikipedia article on the song:

The coda at the end of the song comes directly from Cameroonian saxophonist Manu Dibango’s 1972 disco song “Soul Makossa”. The coda is “Mama-say mama-sah ma-ma-coo-sah”.[4] Makossa is a Cameroonian music genre and dance. Dibango sued Jackson and settled out of court.

Others in the conversation learned that “Makossa” has a couple of meanings depending the region. For instance, in Cameroon (where the primary language is English, not Swahili), “Makossa” means “I dance“. Another person said she learned that Makossa is a chant in one part of Africa. She said the chant “mamase mamasa makossa” is sang when the women are prepared to have sex with their husband to be, and that “Makossa” is also a term in Swahili meaning prostitute.

Someone who is actually from Kenya, where the primary language is Swahili (and whose expertise I would therefore trust more than someone with an apparent love-hate relationship with MJ) said that “mama se mama sa mama ku sa” is not Swahili. She said “I need you I love you I want you” in Swahili would sound like this:

I need you = Naku Hitaji
I love you = Naku Penda
I want you = Naku Taka

Also regarding the song “Soul Makossa” and use of that chant by Michael, this article states:

The song is credited with helping to kickstart New York’s nascent disco scene, and both the original and the countless cover versions traveled far and wide. It clearly had an effect on young Michael Jackson as he was writing the songs for Thriller, since the breakdown at the end of “Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin'” incorporates a variation of Dibango’s refrain, deleting a syllable and altering two others:

Dibango: ma ma ko, ma ma sa, ma ko ma ko sa
Jackson: ma ma se, ma ma sa, ma ma ku sa

Jackson apparently claimed his version was Swahili, but he eventually acknowledged his debt to Dibango and worked out a compensation arrangement in an out-of-court settlement.

So thus far, it seems the claim that this “ma ma se, ma ma sa, ma ma ku sa” chant is Swahili (whether Michael made the claim or some apparently embittered fan did), is false.

On the other hand though, Liberian Girl, with its steamy-sweet female voice whispering “Naku Penda pia, Naku Taka pia, Mpenziwe!” (meaning “I love you too, I want you too, my love!”), was sung by a South African singer by the name of Letta Mbulu — and is definitely Swahili.

Notice, if you compare the words in Liberian Girl with the Swahili words our Kenyan friend referred to above (Naku Penda, Naku Taka), they match! Who knew Swahili was such a steamy language!

Tags: , , ,

May 11 2011

LA County Worker with inside information vouches for Michael’s innocence

Category: Justice,LyricsSeven @ 1:59 am




Deborah of Reflections on the Dance has spoken with an LA County worker who says she has inside information regarding the allegations against Michael. Deborah today published this report:

The following is shared by April Smith, who works for the County of Los Angeles:

To make it clear once and for all….since I work for the County of Los Angeles I have privy to certain information….Michael Jackson was and IS INNOCENT OF CHILD MOLESTATION.

There was a case opened and closed (the) same day…

NO evidence to further investigate
NO proof
NO prior history
NO basis for an investigation to even be started for DCFS, child endangerment or inappropriate behavior with any child including his own.

Michael Jackson was/is, in EVERY sense of the word…INNOCENT…PERIOD! ~ April Smith, Los Angeles County worker

The allegations were made by Tom Sneddon, who, according to Smith and many other article sources, would stop at nothing to destroy Michael Jackson and much of it was thought to be racially provoked.

. . .

Sneddon accused of malicious prosecution, conspiracy, abuse of power and civil rights violations


Sundaram also attended a private fundraising dinner in 1994 where Tom Sneddon and other government officials allegedly discussed their plans to get rid of certain individuals in Santa Barbara who owned substantial amounts of land. Michael Jackson’s property was allegedly brought up during this meeting; Sundaram claimed that authorities wanted to acquire Neverland for vineyards.

Who is Tom Sneddon and what does he have against Michael Jackson?

Tom Sneddon was the prosecutor in the 1993 case and he is also the prosecutor involved with the current allegations. After spending millions of dollars on the Michael Jackson investigation in 1993, Sneddon came up empty handed. He brought his evidence (or lack thereof) in front of two grand juries and could not get an indictment. After that, he claims to have never given Michael Jackson another passing thought.
On the contrary, over the past ten years Sneddon has spoken to the New York Times, Showbiz Today, The Chattanooga Times, The New York Beacon, The Advertiser, Daily News, Broadcast News, the Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph and Vanity Fair Magazine about the 1993 case.

In 1995, Michael Jackson wrote a song about Tom Sneddon called “D.S.” In order to prevent a lawsuit, the lyrics say “Dom Sheldon is a cold man” but it is obvious who Michael is referring to. In the song he says, “He’s out to shock in every single way/ He’ll stop at nothing just to get his political fame/ He think he hot cause he BS DA/ I’ll bet he never had a social life anyway/ You think he brotha with the KKK/ I bet his mother never taught him right anyway/ He want your vote just to remain DA/ He don’t do half what he say.”

The feud between Michael Jackson and Tom Sneddon intensified when Mr. Sneddon changed the law as a result of the 1993 investigation. The law was changed so that if a civil lawsuit was filed, Sneddon would be able to put it on hold until after the criminal trial. Sneddon has made numerous statements over the past decade referring to the Jackson case as “open but inactive.” According to him, all they needed was a cooperative victim and the investigation would be re-opened.

Fast forward to February 2003. After “Living with Michael Jackson” aired, Sneddon was bombarded with media inquiries about the Michael Jackson case. In a press statement, Sneddon said, “After conversations with Sheriff Jim Anderson, it was agreed that the BBC broadcast would be taped by the Sheriff’s Department. It is anticipated that it will be reviewed.”

Regarding Jackson’s comments that he shared a room with children, Sneddon replied by saying it was, “unusual at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking the matter seriously” but “Mental leaps of misbehavior are not acceptable as legal substitutes for credible, cooperative victims or percipient witnesses.” Then, in typical Sneddon style, he urged any victims to come forward. A few days later, somebody within the District Attorney’s office leaked Jordan Chandler’s affidavit from 1993 onto the Internet. On February 13, Tom Sneddon gave an interview to trashy tabloid journalist Diane Dimond where he again stressed the fact that if another victim came forward, the case would be re-opened.

Basically, after being made a fool of in 1993, Sneddon changed the law so that if any more victims came forward, they would be more inclined to cooperate in a criminal trial. This behavior alone shows that Sneddon was eager to convict Michael Jackson. Isn’t it a bit suspicious that the new victim just happens to be the one boy from a documentary that Sneddon admitted to watching? And that as soon as that boy appeared on television, the allegations from 10 years ago and the main players involved with them resurfaced?

Regardless of whether or not Sneddon had something to do with this boy coming forward, he was clearly happy about being able to reopen the Michael Jackson case. This was evident at a press conference held by the Santa Barbara Police Department on November 19th, 2003 where Mr. Sneddon laughed and made jokes.

Since arresting Michael Jackson, Sneddon’s actions have been questionable at best. Here is a chronological list of the stupid things Sneddon has said and done:

– During the press conference, Sneddon acknowledged that Michael was investigated in February but said “don’t assume it’s the same family.” He knew it was the same family, why did he make this statement?
– At the press conference, he invited more victims to come forward.
– He acknowledged that he knew about these allegations since June but didn’t take action until November because of Halloween. Yes, we wouldn’t want to upset anyone’s trick-or-treating experience, so let’s let an alleged pedophile run around for five months and finally raid his house on the day that his new CD comes out.
– Sneddon said that the law was changed so that child victims in a molestation case could be forced to testify. This was a lie; the law was changed so that if a civil suit was filed, it would remain inactive until the criminal matter was resolved.
– Sneddon swore that the family was after justice and not money even though it is a widely known fact that they went to a civil lawyer first.
– He gave yet another interview to Diane Dimond where he called Michael “Jacko Wacko.”
– Dimond admitted to knowing about the allegations months in advance. Why was the DA leaking information to a tabloid journalist?
– He delayed filing charges until December so that the SBPD could set up a website for members of the press.
– He hired a PR firm to help him deal with media inquiries (and slander Michael’s name in the press).
– He dismissed the Department of Children and Family Services investigation as an “interview” and accused the DCFS of being incompetent. It turns out that his own department also investigated Michael Jackson in February and came back with the same ruling as the DCFS.
– He said that if Michael Jackson’s claims of police abuse turned out to be false, he would charge him with making a false complaint even though Michael did not actually make a formal complaint. The SBPD, however, said they considered what he said on “60 Minutes” to be a formal complaint. This is not in accordance with the law.
– The alleged victim’s parents are currently in the midst of a custody battle. Sneddon wrote a letter to the judge in the custody proceedings requesting that the boy be kept from seeing his father. Why would the district attorney care if the boy saw his father? What does this have to do with the molestation case? Perhaps Sneddon does not want the boy to change his story once he’s no longer under the influence of his mother.
– Sneddon requested a grand jury instead of a preliminary hearing. Keep in mind that grand juries are usually convened before charges are filed. It seems that Sneddon is worried about what might happen if Mark Geragos gets a chance to speak with the alleged victim during the prelims. Perhaps he also doesn’t want any evidence pointing to Michael’s inncoence to be made public, which explains why he wants a grand jury (where the proceedings would be kept private if there was no indictment).

And this is just the beginning…

Has Tom Sneddon ever maliciously prosecuted anyone before?

Yes. Lawyer Gary Dunlap filed a $10 million lawsuit against Tom Sneddon in November 2003. In June of that year, Dunlap was acquitted of 6 charges brought against him by Sneddon. In a 102 page complaint, Dunlap accuses Sneddon of racketeering, witness tampering, conspiring against him and maliciously prosecuting him. The complaint also alleges that Sneddon violated Dunlap’s civil rights by conducting illegal searches of his property. In an interview with MJJForum Radio, Dunlap talks about Sneddon stacking charges in order to convict him on at least one count. He discusses Sneddon’s frequent abuse of power and claims that there are other lawyers who have seen this.

Here are some interesting quotes from Mr. Dunlap regarding the SBPD:

“It’s a very bad situation here in the north county, and the general public is very unaware of it because Tom Sneddon and his assistant up here have pretty much dominated the justice system in Santa Barbara County for several years.”

“His office is very powerful and public officials are intimidated by them, court personnel are intimidated by them, I mean, they just have had it their own way, and they pretty much do whatever they want. And the problem with it is, they do not take any kind of a leadership role with regard to law enforcement in the sense of protecting the public interests against excessive force. Rather, they promote excessive force by the various law enforcement agencies, by their attitude of protection and prosecution of cases that are clearly inappropriate.”

“The very fact that [Michael Jackson is] being prosecuted by Sneddon’s office does not cause me to have any reason to believe that he’s guilty in that, because of what I know about the district attorney’s office, I know that they do vindictive prosecutions on a routine basis. And I know that Sneddon has been, you know, chafing at the bit because he wasn’t able to prosecute him ten years ago. And so I don’t think that there’s any question that he’s being over targeted.”

Dunlap is not the only person who has taken legal action against Sneddon. In 2001, a man named Efren Cruz filed a federal suit against Santa Barbara prosecutors, accusing them of negligence and conspiracy to keep him in prison. The lawsuit accuses Tom Sneddon of malicious prosecution for withholding evidence favorable to the defense. Mr. Cruz spent four years in prison after being convicted of murder in 1997. According to the lawsuit, prosecutors had evidence favorable to Cruz but failed to hand it over to the defense before the trial. After Cruz was convicted, the real shooter was caught on tape confessing to the crime but unaccountable, Santa Barbara prosecutors stood by their conviction.

In 2002, Santa Barbara County law enforcement groups filed a lawsuit against Sneddon for threatining the police officers’ right to privacy. The lawsuit stems from a policy which allows the District Attorney’s office to give information about police misconduct to defense attorneys at its own discretion. According to Sgt. Mike McGrew, “It’s confusing. He’s an aggressive DA. There are actually no files right now on any officers in Santa Barbara. We really don’t know why he did this.” Future blackmail material perhaps?

Is Tom Sneddon a concerned government official seeking justice or is he merely a bully with a badge trying to get a celebrity conviction? For more insight into the answer to this question, let’s take a look at another molestation case that Mr. Sneddon completely ignored. In 2002, David Bruce Danielson, a forensic investigator for the Santa Barbara Police Department, was accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl.

According to an article written by Santa Maria Times columnist Steve Corbett, “Danielson came home after a night of drinking and crawled into his wife’s bed where the child, who was a guest in the home, was sleeping.” HOLD UP! A child sleeping in an unrelated adult’s bed? The outrage! Why didn’t Sneddon release a press statement condemning this behaviour as “unusual at best?” Why didn’t he vow to take the matter “very seriously?”

Why didn’t he beg victims to come forward? Ahem. Moving on…

Apparently thinking the girl was his wife, Danielson “accidentally” molested her. Basically, this man admitted to touching this girl inappropriately but Sneddon closed the investigation stating that “subsequent investigation into the girl’s claims did not provide the required evidence necessary to file a formal charge and prepare for court.” Right. When there was no corroborating evidence to support Jordan Chandler’s story in 1993, did Sneddon close the investigation? Nope. He spent the next ten years of his life whining about not getting to prosecute that case. Well, Sneddon you had your chance to lock up an alleged sex offender and you let it slip. I guess it’s okay to molest young girls in Santa Barbara. Hell, you can even admit to it as long as you use the “I molested her by accident” defense.

Sneddon has been accused of witness tampering, malicious prosecution, enforcing corrupt policies and negligence. He obviously has a vendetta against Michael Jackson so what makes people think he would not resort to his old dirty tricks to get a conviction? Why anybody trusts this guy to seek the truth is beyond me.


_ _ _

Deborah has also spoken with someone who went to school with Gavin Arvizo. She says that this person shared things which Gavin told him/her before and after ‘Living With Michael Jackson‘ aired. These things also point to Michael’s innocence.  I will share her report in here as soon as it is posted. Or, keep an eye on her blog: and her Facebook page:

_ _ _

June 14th, 2005:
One male juror said prosecutors had failed to convince them.
In a case like this you are waiting for a smoking gun, something you can grab onto,” said a male juror. “In this case, we had trouble finding that.”
A female juror said: “We expected better evidence, it just wasn’t there.


Tags: ,

Nov 28 2010

Army of Love Video Completed

Category: Humanitarian,Justice,Lyrics,VideosSeven @ 1:05 am


Army Of Love

Army Of Love

If you remember, a while back I alerted fans to the Army of Love‘ video project, coordinated by the Major Love Prayer website and spurred on by a song written specifically for the effort by Amy Grace, who is also the website designer for Barbara Kaufmann’s Inner Michael website. The project has been completed, and below is the result: a heartwarming video (full of hearts!), and Amy Grace’s song ‘Army of Love‘, which you can hear her play and sing in the video.

This is to – and from – Michael and Michael’s Army of Love the world over – his fans. Enjoy!

© Amy Grace 2010

One by one, here we come
Marching out in troops
Nation to nation, there’s no limitation
To what we can do

We were sent on a mission
Gonna hold our position
Until the job is done
A simple truth to deliver
Of what it means to surrender
And stand together as one

The world is turning to disaster
When will the fighting stop?
If it is peace that we are after
It starts with us

We’re an army for peace
Armed with L-O-V-E
‘Cause it’s the only thing that will set you free
Together holding hands
We’ve got to make a stand
And bring salvation back
1,2,3,4 loving just a little more
5,6,7,8 daring to make a change

One by one, marching toward the sun
We will show you the way
Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and brothers
We all are the same

And we’re here to remind you
Of the light that’s inside you
If you look within
We’ll trade your hate for compassion
We are kindness in action
Inviting you in

The world is turning to disaster
We have the power to stop
‘Cause if it’s peace that we are after
It starts with us

Just join our army for peace
Armed with L-O-V-E
‘Cause it’s the only thing that will set you free
Together holding hands
We can make a stand
And bring salvation back
1,2,3,4 let love in a little more
5,6,7,8 dare to make a change

All across the nation
We’re extending an invitation
To join us in making change
To let love in today
Yeah let it in, ’cause in the end
We get only get back what we give
So come on in and…

Join our army for peace
Armed with L-O-V-E
‘Cause it’s the only thing that will set you free
Together holding hands
Let’s make a stand
And bring salvation back
1,2,3,4 let love in a little more
5,6,7,8 dare to make a change

Tags: , , ,

Oct 24 2010

Does American Dream Have to Die With Michael Jackson?

Category: Justice,Lyrics,PhotosSeven @ 12:55 pm


AllForLoveBlog featured part of the above-referenced article in an extremely touching write-up on that site from the administrator about why she, even though a victim of child sexual abuse herself, supports Michael Jackson. Having been a victim of child sexual molestation myself as well, that piece resonated very deeply with me. I encourage you to read her entire write-up and to share it with anyone whose mind you think can be enlightened by it.

Of course we support Michael because the truth is, he was not a predator of children or a child molester. Rather he was a deeply misunderstood man, further misunderstood due to the savagery of a predatory, profit-driven media which assassinated his already-misunderstood character in the public eye. These same corporate entities continue to further destroy his character, memory and legacy with misinformation as well as a complete and willful refusal to investigate any nuance, fact, or differentiation at all from commonly-stated memes. Reference the recent interview on October 21st with Oprah and Lisa-Marie Presley and the ensuing media circus surrounding that.

A friend of mine shared a very astute comment about that interview which reflects my own feelings about it:

Oprah was pushy, puffed up with pride, and full of innuendo in her choice of questions and comments. I have only seen her show twice in my life and I was struck by her heavy-handedness when I watched the LMP interview. She exploited a woman who can’t help but see parallels between two men when actually there are some stark differences.

Did Oprah investigate or mention those stark differences? Did she press on them? No. Did she investigate further the reasons that Michael Jackson spent much of the last one or two decades of his life living in fear for his life from ‘business interests‘ who wanted to hijack his assets (namely his music catalog)? No. And, the rest of the media will not either just the same as they typically refuse to. After all, if more profit can be made more easily by ignoring such questions and continuing to portray him as a drug-addled paranoid, child-molesting freak, then why should they bother? They don’t want to interrupt this consistent source of profit with anything so unimportant (to them) as truth. Further, if the media suddenly decided to seek and report the truth, they’d have to then admit that collectively they had been lying (by omission or outright) about Michael Jackson all these years, and that they destroyed an innocent man’s life for money. They’re not about to do that. Criminals do not out themselves, particularly corporate ones. They are not going to report on their own crimes, though they don’t mind incriminating those who are innocent.

The problem is not Presley, who has every right to express what are her own feelings about her own life. She is not the media. That is her personal truth. It isn’t even the many people who wanted to know what her feelings were about her life with Michael, and many were curious. The problem in my opinion is and continues to be a corporate-owned, purely profit-driven media which sees no need to bother with differentiation, nuance and not least of all, fact in their broadcasts and reporting. Those questions that Oprah failed to ask could and should be asked, but they were not and largely will not be.

The public’s perception therefore continues to rest upon incomplete, one-sided information, often taken or left out-of-context and deliberately so. The public are fed only that which the media decides to provide, and that is only what garners them the most ratings and thus the most money.  It’s a level of propaganda that would make Josef Goebbels himself a very proud man if he were to see it. Thus, we have a terribly ill-informed public, which is mostly willing to swallow it whole and remain complacent in their ignorance, and not only about Michael Jackson but a great many other subjects as well. This is a moral and social issue which permeates every level of our society, and at its core is the predatory media which peddles ignorance for money, destroys lives for profit, and manipulates as well as exacerbates the base, uncivilized, “torches & pitchforks” mob mentality of human nature.

Below is the article “Does American Dream Have to Die With Michael Jackson?“, written by Forbes Everett Landis, which I also encourage you to share with anyone whose mind may be enlightened by it. Since it is licensed under a Creative Commons license, I share it with readers in its entirety below, along with its proper attribution.

• • •

–The American Public Must Demand Honest Journalism–

by Forbes Everett Landis

The Innocent Man

The Innocent Man

What does our silence about the attacks on one of the most visible achievers of the American Dream say? Are we not forfeiting our children’s future into the hands of bullies? Is it not time for us to speak up about the damage opportunistic journalism is doing to our culture?

Last year, the news of pop-superstar Michael Jackson’s premature death shocked the world. As I am a classical music fan, not a connoisseur of pop music or any of its stars, Jackson’s death did not immediately evoke any particular emotion in me. I just let it go.

But as the days went by, and as I passively soaked in more and more news reports on Jackson’s death, I began to feel increasingly uncomfortable. A man had passed away: What need was there for the media to so eagerly show humiliating images of how Jackson would have looked on his death-bed? I was prompted to look into the case more thoroughly.

After more than a year, although I am not now nor ever will be a Michael Jackson fan, and despite my sometimes skeptical view of the frenzied remarks often made by Jackson’s hard-core followers, I feel the need to say this:

To keep the American dream alive for our children, we should stop abusing our talented and creative spirits out of jealousy and misunderstanding.

Jackson had to deal with the media condemning him as strange, weird, and even labeling him a freak, both figuratively and literally. My opinion about this is clear: Though at times, to subjective eyes, Jackson might have looked ‘different,’ half of this eccentricity was due to the fact that he was born to be an artist inevitably different from others because of his imaginative and creative nature, and half because he was forced into being so unconventional by a degree of media pressure few, if any, have ever experienced. Being different from others does not equate being harmful to others. As long as one does not violate others’ human rights, one has the right to be him or herself. In a society that prioritizes human rights and freedom, I find no justification for attacks on people who are perceived to be ‘different.’ These kinds of attacks are especially sordid when they involve the spreading of knowingly false rumors for financial gain. After Jackson’s acquittal on alleged child related charges in 2005, several journalists, such as Aphrodite Jones, came forward to confess that most of the media in attendance intentionally put objectivity aside in covering the Michael Jackson case by fragmenting the facts divulged in court, reporting only anti-Jackson information.

The human race has quite often owed its scientific or artistic progress to the “weird” and the “eccentric.” Let us consider, for example, Galileo Galilei, who was charged for openly discussing Copernican theory, a concept seen as sinful and roundly condemned at that time; later, of course, this theory went on to become the accepted standard of scientific understanding of the universe. We might also stop to consider how treasonable the very idea of democracy once was, how dangerous the aristocracy felt it to be; later, democracy became the world’s prevailing political philosophy. We can also remember that the concept of equality between : women and men, different ethnicities, or diverse religions, was derided when it emerged. Also, had she not thought differently from others, might Mother Teresa not have been a stay-at-home mom instead of traveling to India and risking her life for humanity?

Keeping the history of these exceptional ideas and people in mind, I can almost guarantee that if one had killed all the “weirdoes” among our Australopithecine ancestors 3.5 million years ago, our species might not have made it to the 21st Century. We might very well have just remained a much more primitive species, one without the use of fire and the wheel, let alone an orchestra, democracy, or computers. Is it not, after all, diversity that allows for evolution?

In other words, “weirdness” is sometimes the inevitable result of an exceptional imaginative ability that sees no boundaries in search of all the creative possibilities. As long as such individuals do us no harm, we should let them be. It is our duty to be respectful of those who are different not only because every human being is entitled to freedom, but also because diversity is at the root of human survival.

To those who regard Jackson’s soft voice altered skin tone or facial appearance as weird, I would simply say this: You are revealing your own nature, at best : narrow-minded or obtuse ; at worst – unkind and bigoted. Nobody’s holy scripture deems it acceptable to criticize the physical appearance of people who have contributed so generously to the voiceless.

To those who think that the Jackson’s spoken voice was peculiar, I would say that I see no significance in it. The spoken voice cannot be uncoupled from the singing voice that so many lauded. It might also be helpful for you to consider this information in order to broaden your understanding of the global context: there are countries where people respect those who speak softly, in a calm, non-aggressive manner. The American standard, where a loud voice seems necessary to assertiveness, is not the only standard in the world.

To those who criticize the ‘King of Pop’ for purchasing Neverland, I pose this question: Would you have survived without buying a Neverland-sized residential property if you were in reality never able to explore any place alone without being horded by an ensuing media and public frenzy whenever you stepped out of your front door? A huge residence with a vast garden might have been the only possible way for this worldwide megastar to relax and enjoy some fresh air without constant intrusion from the public. After all, Jackson earned his money though incredible hard work and a perfectionist work-ethic. In light of his Guinness record-making support of no less than 39 charities, it may very well be hypocritical to criticize his spending habits.

Having demonstrated that there is nothing inherently wrong with living unconventionally, the question now turns to whether or not Jackson ever harmed anyone with his behaviors. Here I will discuss the child related allegations leveled against him. —

In discussing the two instances of allegations Jackson was faced with, I would like to focus my attention primarily on the 1993 case due to the fact that the more recent (2003-2005) accusations ended with Jackson receiving a full legal acquittal on all counts, the extremely low credibility of the accuser’s mother playing a significant factor in this exoneration. In other words, Jackson was found not-guilty so I believe we must discount this case.

Considering that the laws of most U.S. states set down one’s right to sue anyone without being counter-sued solely in retribution for one’s lawsuit, this means that one can safely sue anyone they wants to sue. Thus, the extortion of popular and wealthy persons is an increasingly attractive ploy for those seeking a quick buck. Fast and easy money may once have come at a personal price, that being distrust from one’s community. But, with cities growing ever larger and more impersonal, an individual’s local reputation is of gradually thinning importance, resulting in more room for thievery. To some mischief minded, the risk of exposure as an extortionist might thus seem lower when compared to the potentially enormous financial benefits of a scam. As a result, a millionaire, especially one whose professional value is greatly magnified by popularity, is more vulnerable than ever. According to the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect, in 1998, 71% of the abuse reports were revealed to be false or unfounded. The false accusation rate even rises to over 90% when a custody battle and money is involved (as was the case between the plaintiff’s parents in the 1993 allegations against Jackson, who was a friend of the child’s mother). In the 1993 case, the charges never went to trial but were settled out of court.

The record illustrates that the financially troubled accuser’s father had previously approached Jackson’s representatives with a monetary request well before he sued for the alleged molestation, demonstrating that he would have refrained from filing suit in exchange for money. Would any parent with real care for the well-being of his or her children make such a deal?

As evidence for my position, I present the recorded phone conversation in which the accuser’s father is heard to say that everything [is] going “according to a certain plan,” that he would win “big time” and that Jackson would be ruined forever. These words sounds far more like the words of a mercenary than those of a father concerned with justice for his son.

It should also be emphasized that Jackson was never indicted on the 1993 allegations, even after an intensive 13-month investigation including interviews with over 400 witnesses in and out of the country, extensive searches of his residential properties, and even a 25 minute full-body examination in which Jackson had every part of his body photographed, videotaped and examined. And in the six years before the statute of limitation had expired, no criminal charges were ever filed. After the District Attorney’s office spent millions of tax payer dollars in hot pursuit of the singer, had they found any evidence of molestation, they would have been certain to indict Jackson. Civil settlement does not prevent criminal indictment. The 13-year-old boy at the center of the allegations refused to testify criminally and his father, the main individual behind the allegations, committed suicide within months of Jackson’s death.

Having discussed the mischaracterization of what people might dismiss as “weird,” and having made plain the falsity of the allegations made against Jackson, accusations that in my view look suspiciously extortionate, I would now like to consider the moral impact that Jackson might have had on our society.

Regarding integrity, Jackson’s deeds and lifestyle, apart from the media’s fabricated stories, remained consistently appropriate. In fact, his decency made him look almost old-fashioned, even when he was young, when compared with many entertainers’ indulgences in sex, alcohol, and drugs. Interviews with Jackson indicated that he felt it highly inappropriate to remark publicly on his sexual life. This, as far as I am concerned, is an example of his dignity and modesty. However, this very reserve may ironically have fueled baseless speculation about Jackson’s sexual orientation. I wish to ask : is publicly questioning a person’s sexual life not way more inappropriate than that person’s choice of silence out of a desire for privacy regarding the same? The fact that Jackson was not involved in a multitude of sex scandals with women, a fact which should normally invite respect, seems unfairly to have been justification for the media to pathologize Jackson. It is beyond ridiculous to construct the lack of lasciviousness and scandal as itself scandalous and suspect.

Many people have also remarked that Jackson did not curse at all, especially when he was younger. Only after suffering numerous hate campaigns founded on falsehoods did he insert a very small amount of profanity into his songs, in response to a world which had betrayed him so deeply. Even then, his use of profanity stayed away from vitriolic attacks , but came across more as an artistic expression of deep anguish.

Jackson also faced many accusations regarding his appearance. But, turning this around, what might this suggest about those themselves who so scrutinized the way he looked? What does it say about their own biases ? And about the people who claimed to know details about every surgical procedure Jackson allegedly had, calling him a freak without even having seen him actually ?
After the 2003 allegations, the media repeatedly and mockingly displayed pictures of Jackson in an emaciated state, not out of concern for his well-being, but seemingly simply in order to label him a freak. It may very well be argued that Jackson was indeed beginning to look fairly thin, but doesn’t taking somebody’s tired physical appearance as direct evidence of inner abnormality only reveal our own superficiality ? Maybe , just maybe anyone else would have looked equally fatigued had they suffered the anguish of having to relentlessly fight vicious and false allegations.

On the topic of morality : Which is more admirable, giving people hope by regularly visiting and donating to hospitals and orphanages, or telling scandalous stories based on speculation or lies? Which is more despicable, pursuing an exceptionally rigorous dedication to artistic perfection, or giving in to jealousy and greed to bring down an artist? The tabloid press, of course, uses this strategy on most celebrities and public figures. One might argue that Michael Jackson had learned to use the press as cynically as it used him, that he , especially in the early days, once believed that “all publicity is good, even bad publicity,” because it keeps their names in people’s minds. One might even go so far as to say that Jackson purposely flaunted his eccentricities to generate press. He did, after all, have a fine artistic sense of the dramatic, with drama selling newspapers. And Jackson always managed to keep his fame burning bright, even when he was not producing any new songs. As elaborated below, my issue, however, is not with Jackson’s handling of the media. Rather it is about what the media’s handling of Jackson says about societal norms and ethics.

Critics have accused Jackson of not opposing false information adamantly enough. Pondering that charge, I suspect that having been abused by the media intrusiveness from his early days in the spotlight, Jackson might have come to feel vulnerable and victimized. Having been taught by his parent always to be nice to the media and to his fans, he might have felt he should not defend himself too vigorously for fear of losing his popularity. Furthermore, had Jackson taken the time to fight every rumor thrown his way, he would not have had time to be Michael Jackson, the artist as he did explain to a close friend. In the end ,we must ask ourselves, who is more faithful and true, a person who calls someone a freak without knowing him personally and without possessing any evidence of wrongdoing, or a person who shows patience and courage in the face of hostility and simply expresses who he really is by letting his work speak for itself?

Some might argue that the attacks Jackson had to suffer from the media and from consumers can be justified as a natural price to pay for the fame and fortune. No, I say. That is too high a price being charged from a human being. Those attacks had exceeded all justifiable limits, And I wish to note that he was not paid to endure pain, but for his relentless efforts and dedication to his craft.

We first explored “weirdness” as necessary and beneficial diversity, specifically addressing the fact that Jackson’s physical appearance and spoken pitch seem irrelevant to his achievements. We then found that allegations of unethical behavior on Jackson’s part were in truth baseless. Then we analyzed Jackson’s non-aggressive stance during TV interviews, not as demonstration of guilt but as a sign of decorum. Lastly, we found that the cost of fame seems an insufficient justification for the extraordinary personal attacks Jackson went through.

We will now consider the implications of the behavior of the media and the public during the course of Michael Jackson’s career. The American media have disgraced themselves by displaying to the world the schoolyard bullying of a talented and creative soul with great philanthropic achievements . Now consider how this public bullying of a legendary figure might present itself to a new generation of youth, how it might play out in their minds and affect their morale … Might this type of public bullying not discourage the youngsters of today from pursuing their own creativity, their own inner diversity, for fear that they themselves might incur such abuse?

The coverage of Michael Jackson’s life poses among others, these questions to America: Does fulfilling the American Dream require that one subject oneself to unending media intrusion, to lies about oneself for the sake of selling newspapers, and where one unproven accusation is enough to be convicted in the court of national opinion ? Do you want your children to live in a world where pursuing the American Dream involves the risks of a nightmare of mistrust and abuse?

I refer again to the journalists who later admitted their purposely distorted biased reporting on the Michael Jackson child molestation cases. If we recall for a moment the enormous number of journalists who surrounded the Santa Barbara County courthouse, one can surmise that the handful of journalists who came clean about their deception make up only the tip of the iceberg.I suspect that there were hundreds more who remained silent and who knowingly bent the truth to sell papers.

I also suppose that there are thousands of people who, having received one-sided information, once believed Jackson to be a freakish criminal, but who, after his death and the revelation of new information, have come to see him just as one of us, a burdened human being and a caring parent, as well as a uniquely talented artist and a devoted philanthropist. Perhaps these now better-informed members of the public have come to doubt the veracity of the media itself, not just when it comes to Michael Jackson, but in general.

I speculate that there is a pervasive notion that it is safer to say nothing when it comes to Michael Jackson for fear of being promptly stigmatized. However, we need to address the implications of such silent behavior. What does our silence about the attacks on one of the most visible achievers of the American Dream say? If we play it safe, we are forfeiting our children’s future into the hands of bullies. It is time for us to speak up about the damage opportunistic journalism is doing to our culture. As Edmund Burke once penned, “all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Under Creative Commons License: Attribution No Derivatives

Tags: , ,

Next Page »