Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jackson ordered to close Neverland (Reuters)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:20 AM
Original message
Jackson ordered to close Neverland (Reuters)
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 12:20 AM by Up2Late
(I hope this isn't too non-political, but this is just so weird, I thought I had to post it. I guess Michael Jackson's not coming back, and it appears he's just going to chuck it all and live secretly in Dubai?)

Jackson ordered to close Neverland


Thu Mar 9, 2006 08:22 PM ET

By Dan Whitcomb

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Michael Jackson was ordered to shut down his Neverland Valley Ranch on Thursday by California authorities who have fined the pop star $169,000 for failing to pay his employees or maintain proper insurance. Jackson's sprawling ranch in the central California foothills was closed, at least temporarily, by an agent of the State Labor Commissioner after the office discovered that his worker's compensation policy had lapsed in January.

"We went out there this morning and issued a stop order to the security guard at the front gate," state Department of Industrial Relations spokesman Dean Fryer told Reuters. "We asked to be escorted in to meet management, but we were refused and turned away, so we gave the order to (the guard)."

Fryer said local animal welfare officials had been asked to care for the inhabitants of Neverland's zoo. He said that Jackson could reopen the ranch if he obtains workers compensation insurance but may face legal action by the state if he fails to pay the back wages.

Jackson, who was cleared last June of criminal charges that he sexually abused a young boy at Neverland, has spent much of his time since the trial in Bahrain and was not at his ranch when authorities arrived. His representatives could not immediately be reached for comment. The order prohibits Jackson from employing anyone at the 2,800-acre (1,130-hectare) ranch until the insurance issues are resolved, Fryer said. "So it looks like this would mean for Neverland Valley Ranch that they would be closed down."

(more at link below)

<http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&st... >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good Night and Good Effing Luck....
Sicko.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PerceptionManagement Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. No joke
But there seemed to be the perception that many good liberals were supporting this pervert. I never did get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. You know, I have an idea why this was so up-close-and-personal
for a while.

It was the only thing more bizaree than what was/is going on in DC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bush_Eats_Beef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. It provided raw material for ghouls like MSNBC's Dan Abrams...


...once Scott Peterson landed on death row, it meant no more trips to the well on that one.

Natalee Holloway? Well, SURE...but not 5 one-hour programs per week.

So Dan took up his Jacko candlelight vigil like the good little tabloid reporter he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seriousstan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
3. Shocked, I tell you SHOCKED!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
4. Poor Michael, no more blond boys to molest n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Methinks Dubai has an open and thriving black market
EVERYTHING is available there. You know what I mean, Vern?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
6. From the very beginning you just knew it would all end like this
The whole ranch thing was so over the top that it couldn't last. It was like Hearst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Interesting thought, I wonder if it will now be turned into another...
...tourist attraction, sort of like Hurst Castle ot Graceland?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
8. He's in Dubai?
What a coincidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
9. And he's to report to Atascadero immediately...forever...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
32. It's close to Neverland.
My step-mom's place is just down the road from Atascadero State.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:54 AM
Response to Original message
11. A lot of us in this county will be really glad when Neverland closes...
What a sick freak.

I didn't understand how the jurors in Santa Maria could have let him go -- although some of them explained later that the instructions they got from the judge were confusing (among other things), on the order of: "even a gnat's eyelash worth of doubt and you have to find him not guilty," so of course by the time the defense was done... And I think a lot of folks are dazzled by his star power.

Neverland costs a fortune to run, what with the zoo and all, not to mention all the county zoning ordinances that Jackson bent. I don't think there's any public benefit to running it as a tourist attraction -- for one thing, it's at the far end of a quiet country road and the nuisance value would be outstanding.

My son attended Midland high school at the property across the road from the entrance to Neverland -- that is, you can see the guards' kiosk but not the ranch itself. He graduated 10 years ago, so he was there during Jackson's first big scandal, when the news media set up mobile stations 24/7 -- bright lights, noisy generators, mucho traffic, choppers, the works.

As for Michael Jackson's relationship to children -- he's now got three of his own, which is pretty chilling.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BikeWriter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Do you believe any one of the three is genetically his?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #17
37. No.
None of them are.

His ex-wife (Debbie Rowe) has come forward to say that they are not his biological kids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. That kid named Blanket alone will inspire a whole branch of psychiatry
It just proves -- there is one rule of law for the wealthy and one for the poor. When you're a rich sociopath, you can do whatever your heart desires and you'll be forever beyond the reach of the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. "even a gnat's eyelash worth of doubt and you have to find him not guilty,
Well, in all fairness (regardless of what you or I think of Jackson, personally I think he's a freak), that IS the basis for our justice system, beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is the slightest bit of reasonable doubt, the law requires a not-guilty verdict.

Once again Jackson and what you or I think is irrelevant, that instruction to the jury is entirely accurate and acceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeRQ4U Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. That's a bullshit jury instruction though.
It's misleading and prejudicial.

You don't tell jurors about jury nullification and THAT'S part of the system too. I can't believe that jury instruction stayed in. The pattern jury instruction in this state is much less descriptive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I disagree. It's simply a way of explaining in laymans terms what
"shadow of a doubt" means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeRQ4U Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. See, to me it's pushing too far.
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 03:06 PM by WeRQ4U
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" which is the burden of proof here, is defined by pattern jury insructions to say that it DOESN'T mean beyond ALL doubt. To me, by stating it the manner they did, it makes it seem as though ANY doubt, no matter how absurd, will render someone not guilty. That is not what the law provides.

North Dakota actually does a really good job with their instructions. This instruction would differ so much from the pattern that if this instruction were posed by Defense council in North Dakota, it would almost certainly be objected to and, quite possibly rejected. And it's rejection would almost certainly be affirmed were it appealed.

Now, if this instruction were coupled with something else which would clearly explain that "reasonableness" is required as well, then it would be a different story. However, I don't think that this instruction does that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. But that's North Dakota.
:).

The fact is that if you are not 100% convinced of guilt, as a juror, it is your duty to return a not-guilty verdict.

That means that if there is any doubt in your mind whatsoever that the accused committed the crimes in question, a guilty verdict can not and should not be returned.

It's the basis of our justice system.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeRQ4U Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. But that doesn't account for any type of reasonableness.
If that were the case, any ridiculous fantasy posed by the defendant's counsel, regardless of its probability, would get someone off. That's NOT the justice system.

And although ND is weird, we still run the same business. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Of course it does. To state otherwise means that you imply that the
juror is unreasonable. The definition of reasonable doubt revolves around what a reasonable person would think, i.e. a jury of your peers. It is assumed via jury selection that the jurors are reasonable, thus the duty of the prosecution is to convince them while leaving no room for doubt in the mind of a reasonable individual presented with all the evidence, that the accused is guilty of the crime alleged.

What the defense presents can not be ridiculous nor fantasy if it does not serve to dissuade those reasonable jurors from believing the evidence presented by the prosecution.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in criminal matters. If they can not present sufficient evidence to convince a juror (who is presumed to be a reasonable individual) beyond a reasonable doubt in that reasonable mind of that reasonable juror, then he has not proven his case, and a guilty verdict can not be returned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. No true -- a reasonable doubt of guilt, not guilt free/Innocent
Two very different things, legally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. You're attempting to parse semantics.
If a juror is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (meaning what a reasonable person would think or believe based on the evidence), then a not-guilty verdict must be returned. Not-guilty does not mean innocent.

I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. No it isn't -- it's "reasonable doubt."
Very different standards, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. First you have to understand the legal definition of reasonable doubt
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 05:14 PM by ET Awful
That being would a reasonable person in posession of all the evidence have any doubts. The jury selection process is designed to select reasonable people who are presented with all the evidence. The decision as to whether there is a doubt lies with them.

If a juror, being a reasonable person and thus fitting the criteria for reasonable doubt, has a doubt, they can not, in good faith and pursuant to the law, return a guilty verdict.


For example:

beyond a reasonable doubt adj. part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure." By comparison it is meant to be a tougher standard than "preponderance of the evidence" used as a test to give judgment to a plaintiff in a civil (non-criminal) case

or

The burden of proof that the prosecution must carry in a criminal trial to obtain a guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is sometimes explained as being convinced "to a moral certainty." The jury must be convinced that the defendant committed each element of the crime before returning a guilty verdict.

or

Usually, reasonable doubt is defined as "any doubt which would make a reasonable man hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."

or

reasonable doubt n. not being sure of a criminal defendant's guilt to a moral certainty. Thus, a juror (or judge sitting without a jury) must be convinced of guilt of a crime (or the degree of crime, as murder instead of manslaughter) "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the jury will be told so by the judge in the jury instructions. However, it is a subjective test since each juror will have to decide if his/her doubt is reasonable. It is more difficult to convict under that test, than "preponderance of the evidence" to decide for the plaintiff (party bringing the suit) in a civil (non-criminal) trial.

Once again, leave Jackson out of the equation, consider it as a dissection of the American justice system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:59 AM
Response to Original message
12. Correction: he's in Bahrain, not Dubai
Two different places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Does Bahrain own any Port Companies?
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 05:06 AM by saigon68
I know they are on good terms with this creature.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:47 AM
Response to Original message
14. doesn't exactly make him look innocent.
he's gone and nailed his coffin shut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
16. This is New News...
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 12:20 PM by Up2Late
But apparently unworthy of even GD :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike Daniels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
18. Biggest case of self-destructing your career that I can think of
I thought Prince may have been in the running but he pulled out of his dive and seems to have rebounded nicely.

I honestly can't see how Michael Jackson can ever recover anything close to the level of fame he once had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
21. It must be terrible for him to lose face in this way
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #21
41. Yes, in more ways than one...
...*wink* ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ucmike Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
22. i wonder if mj will ever return to america
i began to wonder last year. i figured he'd split during the last court proceeding and avoid further prosecution. i imagine there's all sorts of unresolved issues out there. i heard on the radio last week that there is/was a book by family members that was quashed during the first big trial that said that some of his brothers were afraid to leave their kids alone with michael after an inappropriate hugging incident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. I hope not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
34. Why doesn't all his fans ...
you know the one like this ....




go work for MJ for free?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Holy CRAP!!
Scroll down and see some of these great works of "art" from MJ FANatics!


http://www.mj-upbeat.com/FunWithArt.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Seriously? Some of the creepiest stuff I've ever seen
These people are as freaky as he is.

The Peter Pan one? OMG!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Look at this one .....
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 05:33 PM by ronnykmarshall
It's like MJ's copping a feel.





and this gem

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. These are ALL so scary and creepy....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. Like, EW!
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugar Smack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #36
43. "Tami"? OMG!!!
:o
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #36
44. Did you see this part of the site?
"Pearl Jr." writes

"Is Michael Back In California?

Pearl Says Yes!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 23rd 2014, 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC