MJJJusticeProject Inc- #MJ Fan Acct · @MJJJusticePrjct
16th Aug 2012 from Twitlonger
Please RT - Cadeflaw, Mary Brookins & William Wagener CLARIFY the issues.
Rather than taking an extra step and researching CA law more we posted a twitlonger yesterday, about an issue that we had not fully fleshed out and we are big enough to admit when we've made an error.
We, asked questions on that TL regarding the William Wagener Affidavit that he presented August 14th 2012 to the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors.
We asked if he was successful in proving "Fraud on the Court" would it overturn the not guilty verdict of Micheal Jackson. We asked if this is what the Mj fanbase wanted.
We worried because of the information and wording in the 7th court tled us to believe that it would.
7th Circuit states "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."
This is vague and we should have dug further for answers and we do regret not taking that extra step.
How ever wrong our approach, we have asked questions and now we are being supplied with the govt links that are pertinent.
Our concerns were picked up by Mary Brookins of the Cadeflaw group, and she took the iniatitive to speak to TWO lawyers - which is what we should have done and what we will do.
THIS IS WHAT MARY POSTED ON FACEBOOK - LINK https://www.facebook.com/groups/408561919190327/
THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY QUESTION AND ANSWER
Question posed to two different attorneys. One attorney was happy to answer free of charge. Second attorney charged a fee we were happy to pay.
Scenario: officer(s) of the court are found to be guilty of "Fraud Upon the Court" after a case has been tried.
The defendant was found NOT GUILTY
QUESTION: If the officers of the court are found to have committed "Fraud Upon the Court" does this overturn the not guilty verdict for the defendant?
Optional Information: Country relating to Question: United States State (if USA): California
You have received an Answer! From JB Umphrey
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:44 PMEST
The answer to your question is "no." The defendant was found not guilty and that's how things will remain. The defendant cannot be tried twice for the same crime (double jeopardy).
It has been my pleasure to assist you today with your information needs. It is my goal that you are satisfied. No expert can promise you an answer that is favorable to your circumstances. But I will do my very best to explain the legal principles that are related to the facts you’ve described so that you can better understand the “why” of things.
You replied
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:49 PMEST
Can you explain the legal principles that are related to the facts I’ve described so that we can better understand the “why” of things.
You have received an Answer! From JB Umphrey
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:52 PMEST
I am happy to do so. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides: [N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . ."
Since the defendant has already been acquitted, under the Constitution, he cannot be tried again for the same crime. The Constitution does not allow it.
The not guilty verdict stands.
You replied
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:54 PMEST Is there any problem with me posting these answers in a public forum to resolve
a legal dispute?
You have received an Answer! From JB Umphrey
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:01 PMEST
The Fifth Amendment is a part of a public document. You can post this link:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992- 10-6.pdf
Best wishes! ~~ J.B.
RIGHTS OF PERSONS - FIFTH AMENDMENT
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm "Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court" And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal"
These questions that Mary Brookins took to these two lawyers shows a great proactive response on her part and she also had an emergency Blog talk radio show to have William Wagener to speak to our concerns.
We ended our last twitlonger with this sentence:
We are all human and make mistakes- but as long as we learn from them they become lessons.
This still applies. Our mistake was not taking the extra steps that Mary Brookins took to clarify this issue before posting our twitlonger yesterday.
We do apologize for any unnecessary angst it spurred in anyones heart, as we have never been out to stop Justice for Michael. We are pleased, however, that it opened up a much needed dialogue that we need in Michael's community.
We would appreciate that this twitlonger be posted and retweeted as much as the twitlonger we posted yesterday so this information can be seen by the majority of the MJGlobal family.
AND
Please listen do listen to Mary Brookins blogtalk show -William Wagener speaks during the last 20 minutes of the program
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cadeflaw/2012/08/16/william-wageners-affidavit-a-rolling-stone-part-2