Michael Jackson's Trials

Michael Jackson's Trials

Text

The Ongoing Trials of The Late Michael Jackson
Showing posts with label Washington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington. Show all posts

Friday, July 20, 2007

Mr Jackson Goes To Washington

Michael Jackson is in Washington for a few days, and took time out to tour the Smithsonian's National Air and Space and American Indian museums on Wednesday.

He arrived with his children before the buildings were opened to the public.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Animals Not Mistreated

Further to the earlier stories about PETA accusing Michael Jackson of mistreating and neglecting his animals at Neverland.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture sent an inspector to Neverland, in response to the PETA complaint.

Darby Holladay, a spokesman with the USDA in Washington D.C., is quoted as saying:

"I'm unaware of any violations of the Animal Welfare Act at Neverland."

Lisa Wathne, PETA's captive exotic animals specialist, said that they did not try to confirm the tabloid reports before making its complaint.

"Because Neverland is not open to the public, it's very difficult to get information about the place. But when we hear accusations like that - and many accusations - we have to take note.".

Friday, March 04, 2005

Jay Leno Gagged

It seems that the chat show host, Jay Leno, may have to stop making jokes about the Michael Jackson trial.

Leno was subpoenaed for Jackson's trial, and Judge Rodney Melville issued a gag order barring anyone involved in the case from discussing it outside court.

This means that Leno could be barred from making "Tonight Show" jokes about the trial.

However, he may be able to claim constitutional protection under the First amendment.

Jamin Raskin, a law professor at American University in Washington, is quoted as saying:

"The court, in order to avoid a Constitutional showdown, would try to draft a very carefully worded gag order that would allow him to make fair comment on the public aspects of the case,".

It is not clear as to whether Leno has changed his monologue's contents.

In a motion filed on behalf of Leno, attorneys said the court couldn't have intended the order to limit "public personalities" from commenting on the case.

It seems that applying the order to Leno would be "prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment and the California Constitution", the motion argues, and it asks the judge to clarify or lift it.