LAWYERS IN THE CONRAD MURRAY TRIAL

  • 9 Replies
  • 1864 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline use_your_illusion

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 915
  • If you're reading this...you owe me a dollar
    • Show only replies by use_your_illusion

LAWYERS IN THE CONRAD MURRAY TRIAL

  • on: October 13, 2011, 12:57:26 PM
If the Lawyers such as Ed Chernoff and David Walgren are in the hoax, how were they chosen?...were they chosen by the FBI or by MJ?

Also why were these particular lawyers chosen?...is it to do with the Sting, if there is a Sting court? I do know that David Walgren is apart of the major crime unit (since 2005) which deals with public corruption.

Quote
The primary objective of Major Crimes Division is the prevention of significant disruptions of public order in the City of Los Angeles. The Board of Police Commissioners authorizes Major Crimes Division to investigate individuals or groups who plan, threaten, finance, aid, abet, attempt or perform unlawful acts which threaten public safety.

http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/6503

This reminds me of what was talked about in the TIAI sting thread about public corruption.


Do you give up yet?

Offline melody

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 196
    • Show only replies by melody

Re: LAWYERS IN THE CONRAD MURRAY TRIAL

  • on: October 13, 2011, 09:43:30 PM
Maybe "J. Michael Flanagan" is one of the targets. Is there a reason Chernoff is sitting down? I really can't stand listening to Flanagan, especially how he misrepresents the facts with his incomplete hypotheticals and vague phraseology.

Remember, as previously discussed, Flanagan represented Amy M. Brunner (the nurse charged with involuntary manslaughter after injecting her patient—80 year old Pierre Azar—with propofol which resulted in his death). Perhaps they set up a very similar scenario with Murray in order to entice Flanagan into taking on the case.


The Board of Registered Nursing in California has this archived (here: http://rn.ca.gov/public/rn604898.pdf), so we can rule out tabloid-hearsay/fabrication; there really was a case entailing involuntary manslaughter and propofol, and J. Michael Flanagan did act as the defendant's lawyer in that case:

Quote from: Board of Registered Nursing
"2. Respondent Amy M. Brunner (Respondent) is represented in this proceeding by attorney J. Michael Flanagan, whose address is FLANAGAN, UNGER & GROVER, Attorneys at Law, 1156 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California 91202-2582"

http://rn.ca.gov/public/rn604898.pdf

On a related note, there are articles online that reported about the case (at the time the case went to trial); however, I could only find three or so articles all coming from a newspaper called The Burbank Leader.

http://articles.burbankleader.com/2004-10-27/news/export2504_1_jury-trial-two-other-nurses-pre-trial

http://articles.burbankleader.com/2004-11-03/news/export2455_1_manslaughter-charge-jury-trial-amy-brunner

http://articles.burbankleader.com/2004-11-06/news/export2402_1_flanagan-amy-brunner-involuntary-manslaughter

Hopefully this—in addition to the documents archived at the Board of Registered Nursing—means that even though the case was not very popular, the case actually happened and wasn't just made up for the sake of this hoax, lol. Though I find it ironic that his name is "J. Michael".


Anyway, the point is that J. Michael Flanagan got this nurse acquitted, despite the fact that she withdrew sedative from another patient's IV risking infection of both patients (gross negligence), administered diprivan AKA propofol to a patient who was NOT intubated nor ventilated (gross negligence), failed to institute appropriate reversal drugs (gross negligence), and the .PDF file goes further on. That is not justice.

Especially when you take the following into account:

Quote from: Board of Registered Nursing
3. By Joint Stipulation, executed on behalf of Complainant on December 13, 2005, and by Respondent on December 15, 2005, the parties stipulated to the truth of each and every allegation contained in the Accusation and the First Supplemental Accusation. Further, the parties stipulated that the facts as alleged in the Accusation and the First Supplemental Accusation constitute a basis for discipline of Respondent's license

http://rn.ca.gov/public/rn575084.pdf



They agreed that Brunner had done all of those things, it was a stipulation; the attorneys agreed that all the stipulated facts (in this document: http://rn.ca.gov/public/rn575084.pdf) were true which means the jury AS WELL had to agree the allegations were true, yet she did not get reprimanded for it; she was fully acquitted and she's still practicing (according to the article dated November 06, 2004).

Quote from: The Burbank Leader
Brunner continues to work as a nurse and does not face having her

license suspended [...]

http://articles.burbankleader.com/2004-11-06/news/export2402_1_flanagan-amy-brunner-involuntary-manslaughter

---

Flanagan also represented Britney Spears' in her license case which the judge dropped due to a mistrial (jurors not reaching unanimity on the verdict; it was a 10-2 decision in favor of acquittal). I don't know what Flanagan said to make the jurors want to acquit her, but if she was driving without a license she should have been reprimanded in some way, but instead she walked free. Once again, that is not justice.

http://www.intouchweekly.com/2008/10/brits_license_case_dismissed_b.php

---

Then there's Flanagan v. Flanagan.


J. Michael Flanagan sued his stepmother for recording private phone conversations Flanagan had with his father. Though, there was an underlying reason for doing so:

Quote from: Metropolitan News Enterprise
[...]

The lawsuit arose out of a battle between Honorine Flanagan and her stepson over John Flanagan’s multimillion-dollar estate. John Flanagan died in March 1997, leaving everything to his wife. His son contested the will, but lost in Riverside Superior Court and in the Court of Appeal, and his petition for review was denied last year by the high court last year.

[...]

http://www.metnews.com/articles/flan031502.htm

He didn't like the fact that he wasn't going to share in the multimillion-dollar estate, so he sues for something he knows he is going to win because of his expertise in law. Isn't that abuse of power? Can't he be the "bigger"man, not sue, and settle his family disputes out of the courts? It's not like he's poor, he'll survive. This guy is so suspect and dishonorable.  Justice seems to be the furthest thing from his mind :|


With a sting operation against Flanagan in mind, it's conceivable that newbie Chernoff's role is "second chair" in order to showcase Flanagan's corruption.

Quote from: Legal Dictionary
Second chair means a lawyer who helps the lead attorney in court. The services of second chair includes examining some of the witnesses, arguing some of the points of law, handling parts of the voir dire, and presenting the opening statement or closing argument. Hence, second chair offers every level of training, support, and consultation for the trial attorney preparing a case for trial. A second chair can execute any task as long as it is done under the supervision of an attorney on the list. Generally, the courts will not make any payment to the second chair.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/second-chair/


Based on that, I'm assuming Chernoff is second chair and Flanagan is first chair (lead attorney). I honestly can't say for sure though.


If the sting is on Flanagan, then the prosecution just has to do their job and if, as you say, Walgren does target public corruption, maybe he's going after Flanagan too.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 06:31:57 AM by melody »

Offline all4loveandbelieve

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 4455
  • LIVE AND LET LIVE.
    • Show only replies by all4loveandbelieve

Re: LAWYERS IN THE CONRAD MURRAY TRIAL

  • on: October 13, 2011, 10:04:36 PM
Thank you for you post. I never knew about Flanny got that nurse acquitted. My best friend is a lawyer, and she does tell me that the justice system can be very much corrupted, unfortunetaly we live in this society, that a poor innocent man can go to jail, and even death penalty. They say innocent until proven guilty. In reality it is guilty first, and then maybe we will acquit you.. Everything is upside down, and it is very scary.


I'm happy to be alive, I'm happy to be who I am.
Michael Jackson

Offline msgitm

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 186
    • Show only replies by msgitm

Re: LAWYERS IN THE CONRAD MURRAY TRIAL

  • on: October 13, 2011, 10:58:42 PM
Maybe "J. Michael Flanagan" is one of the targets. Is there a reason Chernoff is sitting down? I really can't stand listening to Flanagan, especially how he misrepresents the facts with his incomplete hypotheticals and vague phraseology.

Remember, as previously discussed, Flanagan represented Amy M. Brunner (the nurse charged with involuntary manslaughter after injecting her patient—80 year old Pierre Azar—with propofol which resulted in his death). Perhaps they set up a very similar scenario with Murray in order to entice Flanagan into taking on the case.


The Board of Registered Nursing in California has this archived (here: http://rn.ca.gov/public/rn604898.pdf), so we can rule out tabloid-hearsay/fabrication; there really was a case entailing involuntary manslaughter and propofol, and J. Michael Flanagan did act as the defendant's lawyer in that case:

Quote from: Board of Registered Nusing
"2. Respondent Amy M. Brunner (Respondent) is represented in this proceeding by attorney J. Michael Flanagan, whose address is FLANAGAN, UNGER & GROVER, Attorneys at Law, 1156 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California 91202-2582"

http://rn.ca.gov/public/rn604898.pdf

On a related note, there are articles online that reported about the case (at the time the case went to trial); however, I could only find three or so articles all coming from a newspaper called The Burbank Leader.

http://articles.burbankleader.com/2004-10-27/news/export2504_1_jury-trial-two-other-nurses-pre-trial

http://articles.burbankleader.com/2004-11-03/news/export2455_1_manslaughter-charge-jury-trial-amy-brunner

http://articles.burbankleader.com/2004-11-06/news/export2402_1_flanagan-amy-brunner-involuntary-manslaughter

Hopefully this—in addition to the documents archived at the Board of Registered Nursing—means that even though the case was not very popular, the case actually happened and wasn't just made up for the sake of this hoax, lol. Though I find it ironic that his name is "J. Michael".


Anyway, the point is that J. Michael Flanagan got this nurse acquitted, despite the fact that she withdrew sedative from another patient's IV risking infection of both patients (gross negligence), administered diprivan AKA propofol to a patient who was NOT intubated nor ventilated (gross negligence), failed to institute appropriate reversal drugs (gross negligence), and the .PDF file goes further on. That is not justice.

Especially when you take the following into account:

Quote from: Board of Registered Nursing
3. By Joint Stipulation, executed on behalf of Complainant on December 13, 2005, and by Respondent on December 15, 2005, the parties stipulated to the truth of each and every allegation contained in the Accusation and the First Supplemental Accusation. Further, the parties stipulated that the facts as alleged in the Accusation and the First Supplemental Accusation constitute a basis for discipline of Respondent's license

http://rn.ca.gov/public/rn575084.pdf



They agreed that Brunner had done all of those things, it was a stipulation; the attorneys agreed that all the stipulated facts (in this document: http://rn.ca.gov/public/rn575084.pdf) were true which means the jury AS WELL had to agree the allegations were true, yet she did not get reprimanded for it; she was fully acquitted and she's still practicing (according to the article dated November 06, 2004).

Quote from: The Burbank Leader
Brunner continues to work as a nurse and does not face having her

license suspended [...]

http://articles.burbankleader.com/2004-11-06/news/export2402_1_flanagan-amy-brunner-involuntary-manslaughter
---
Flanagan also represented Britney Spears' in her license case which the judge dropped due to a mistrial (jurors not reaching unanimity on the verdict; it was a 10-2 decision in favor of acquittal). I don't know what Flanagan said to make the jurors want to acquit her, but if she was driving without a license she should have been reprimanded in some way, but instead she walked free. Once again, that is not justice.

http://www.intouchweekly.com/2008/10/brits_license_case_dismissed_b.php
---
Then there's Flanagan v. Flanagan.


J. Michael Flanagan sued his stepmother for recording private phone conversations Flanagan had with his father. Though, there was an underlying reason for doing so:

Quote from: Metropolitan News Enterprise
[...]

The lawsuit arose out of a battle between Honorine Flanagan and her stepson over John Flanagan’s multimillion-dollar estate. John Flanagan died in March 1997, leaving everything to his wife. His son contested the will, but lost in Riverside Superior Court and in the Court of Appeal, and his petition for review was denied last year by the high court last year.

[...]

http://www.metnews.com/articles/flan031502.htm

He didn't like the fact that he wasn't going to share in the multimillion-dollar estate, so he sues for something he knows he is going to win because of his expertise in law. Isn't that abuse of power? Can't he be the "bigger"man, not sue, and settle his family disputes out of the courts? It's not like he's poor, he'll survive. This guy is so suspect and dishonorable.  Justice seems to be the furthest thing from his mind :|


With a sting operation against Flanagan in mind, it's conceivable that newbie Chernoff's role is "second chair" in order to showcase Flanagan's corruption.

Quote from: Legal Dictionary
Second chair means a lawyer who helps the lead attorney in court. The services of second chair includes examining some of the witnesses, arguing some of the points of law, handling parts of the voir dire, and presenting the opening statement or closing argument. Hence, second chair offers every level of training, support, and consultation for the trial attorney preparing a case for trial. A second chair can execute any task as long as it is done under the supervision of an attorney on the list. Generally, the courts will not make any payment to the second chair.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/second-chair/


Based on that, I'm assuming Chernoff is second chair and Flanagan is first chair (lead attorney). I honestly can't say for sure though.


If the sting is on Flanagan, then the prosecution just has to do their job and if, as you say, Walgren does target public corruption, maybe he's going after Flanagan too.

If they can fake everything so far, they can fake documents about this alleged nurse.  Not sure what to think?  But... "J Michael Flanagan" has the same eyebrows as MJ did in Ghost. Not the mayor, the scary MJ. That being said - if I'm drifting off to sleep while he's windbaging away - I'm sure the jury is, too!

Offline Mish1981

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 538
    • Show only replies by Mish1981

Re: LAWYERS IN THE CONRAD MURRAY TRIAL

  • on: October 13, 2011, 11:18:04 PM
If the Lawyers such as Ed Chernoff and David Walgren are in the hoax, how were they chosen?...were they chosen by the FBI or by MJ?

Also why were these particular lawyers chosen?...is it to do with the Sting, if there is a Sting court? I do know that David Walgren is apart of the major crime unit (since 2005) which deals with public corruption.

Quote
The primary objective of Major Crimes Division is the prevention of significant disruptions of public order in the City of Los Angeles. The Board of Police Commissioners authorizes Major Crimes Division to investigate individuals or groups who plan, threaten, finance, aid, abet, attempt or perform unlawful acts which threaten public safety.

http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/6503

This reminds me of what was talked about in the TIAI sting thread about public corruption.




Glad to see you made this thread, hopefully with a little digging around we can get a better view on things.
~Mish~

"Breathe in waves of doubt, bitter in your mouth" - Toad The Wet Sprocket

Offline use_your_illusion

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 915
  • If you're reading this...you owe me a dollar
    • Show only replies by use_your_illusion

Re: LAWYERS IN THE CONRAD MURRAY TRIAL

  • on: October 14, 2011, 03:51:24 AM
If the Lawyers such as Ed Chernoff and David Walgren are in the hoax, how were they chosen?...were they chosen by the FBI or by MJ?

Also why were these particular lawyers chosen?...is it to do with the Sting, if there is a Sting court? I do know that David Walgren is apart of the major crime unit (since 2005) which deals with public corruption.

Quote
The primary objective of Major Crimes Division is the prevention of significant disruptions of public order in the City of Los Angeles. The Board of Police Commissioners authorizes Major Crimes Division to investigate individuals or groups who plan, threaten, finance, aid, abet, attempt or perform unlawful acts which threaten public safety.

http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/6503

This reminds me of what was talked about in the TIAI sting thread about public corruption.




Glad to see you made this thread, hopefully with a little digging around we can get a better view on things.

Thanks @melody for all that info on Flann, very interesting

Yes Mish your right, gonna be looking around for more info on the background of the lawyers so it can hopefully help us in where this sting is going, I'm sure that it is on public corruption which is one of the biggest things in the justice system like all4love said.
Do you give up yet?

Offline use_your_illusion

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 915
  • If you're reading this...you owe me a dollar
    • Show only replies by use_your_illusion

Re: LAWYERS IN THE CONRAD MURRAY TRIAL

  • on: October 16, 2011, 05:55:57 AM

I was looking for info on the def. and pro. and I found that there were a lot of misconduct in California by the DA.

http://www.veritasinitiative.org/state-cases/

Then I looked at all of the cases and found someone name Nicol Walgren so I checked who she was in relation to David Walgren...I found that she is related to Walgren  (http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/preview.aspx?searchtype=people-name&item-id=1-158993948&fn=David&mn=&ln=Walgren&city=Los%20Angeles&state=CA&age=&utm_source=piplv2&utm_campaign=multitext) ------(What I found as a weird coincidence is that David Walgren is related to someone named James CONRAD Walgren and MICHAEL JOSEPH Walgren...what are the chances  :lol:  )


...anyway she is his wife and is also a District Attorney and according to the link about misconduct, she was found to have misconduct in; 

Quote
Jaime Alvarado was convicted of second degree robbery. The prosecution alleged that Alvarado robbed a 16-year-old victim of his bicycle, CD player and earphones. During closing arguments, the prosecutor stated, "I have a duty and I have taken an oath as a deputy District Attorney not to prosecute a case if I have any doubt that that crime occurred. The defendant charged is the person who did it." The court of appeals found prosecutor's statement constituted misconduct, for the prosecutor impermissibly invited the jury to convict Alvarado based on her opinion that he was guilty and on the prestige of her office. Such misconduct was prejudicial against Alvarado, because the victim was the sole eyewitness to the charged crime, and thus the evidence against Alvarado was not overwhelming. The court of appeals thereby reversed Alvarado's conviction.

Note: These cases are those where courts found prosecutorial misconduct occurred and as a result, convictions were reversed, sentences were modified, mistrials were declared or evidence was barred. The court findings cover a broad spectrum of conduct, ranging from egregious misconduct to unintentional misconduct.


Also in another case David Walgren was apart of (Roman Polanski), there was some speculation of wrongdoing by the DA (http://au.eonline.com/news/roman_polanski_victim_surprised/78770)

Quote
"My views as a victim, my feelings as a victim, or my desires as a victim were never considered or even inquired into by the district attorney prior to the filing," Geimer said. "It is clear to me that because the district attorney's office has been accused of wrongdoing, it has recited the lurid details of the case to distract attention from the wrongful conduct of the district attorney's office as well as the judge who was then assigned to the case."
« Last Edit: October 16, 2011, 05:58:50 AM by use_your_illusion »
Do you give up yet?

Offline melody

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 196
    • Show only replies by melody

Re: LAWYERS IN THE CONRAD MURRAY TRIAL

  • on: October 27, 2011, 08:40:13 PM

(What I found as a weird coincidence is that David Walgren is related to someone named James CONRAD Walgren and MICHAEL JOSEPH Walgren...what are the chances  :lol:  )

[justify]The universe with its "coincidences"

If this weren't a sting court or a hoax, I'd be very afraid if I were Murray. Who knows if either the prosecution or defense have already breached professional responsibility and ethics codes. We as the layman would not even recognize the wrongdoing in front of our eyes because we're not familiar with what a lawyer can or cannot do or what is considered an "improper" argument/examination.

If the court is corrupt, they won't be drawing attention to it at all. And if nobody makes an objection, the judge can't strike anything that's been said, the jury doesn't know any better so they just accept everything they hear. Reading the cases listed on "the veritas initiative", I'm noticing that some of these violations are sly remarks said in the court room. No wonder prosecutorial misconduct is hard to discipline. Like what Nicol Walgren said for instance; that was just sneaky and obviously it went past the jury's (and the judge's) detection.

On top of that, unless it's a dissatisfied client/defendant, who would file the complaint in a corrupt justice system where justice isn't even the incentive?

Quote from: The Center for Public Integrity
The process usually begins with the filing of a complaint at the bar disciplinary authority. For private attorneys, the complainant is normally a dissatisfied client. Since prosecutors do not have a "client" in the traditional sense, the complainant may be a defendant, defense lawyer or judge.

As I was searching for some examples of prosecutorial misconduct to get a clearer picture of what it entails, I came across this:

Quote from: The Center of Public Integrity
Examples of such misconduct include:

    * discovery violations;
    * improper contact with witnesses, defendants, judges or jurors;
    * improper behavior during hearings or trials;
    * prosecuting cases not supported by probable cause;
    * harassing or threatening defendants, defendants' lawyers or witnesses;
    * using improper, false or misleading evidence;
    * displaying a lack of diligence or thoroughness in prosecution; and
    * making improper public statements about a pending criminal matter.

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/pm/default.aspx?act=sidebarsb&aid=39

I wonder what is deemed "improper". Haven't we had "improper" public statements made to the paparazzi from defense counsel?  hasn't defense counsel presented misleading exhibits, like today for instance with the charts: Chernoff said he had gone over them with Dr. Waldman and decided not to use them, yet the charts still end up being shown; the charts had no key to explain the dosage levels, so they're misleading us as to what the proper dosage levels were. And how exactly did the defense acquire those medical records despite the fact that the Elissa Fleak couldn't obtain them after she subpoenaed Murray? nor when the forensic pathologist asked for them? (I'm genuinely asking, I didn't see much of what said or done in court today) Nevermind they are Arnold Klein's medical records. Also, what would be considered "lack of diligence" ? Walgren is sharp and attentive in court, he went through such a tedious process with all those exhibits, he seems thorough (unless you count the bit where Michael is alive, in which case both the prosecution and defense lacked the thoroughness to realize there's nothing to prosecute or defend here, lol) . But once again I'm just a layman, I have nothing else to compare this case to; I have no idea what "thoroughness" looks like in the court. This is the first court case I've seen.

Maybe, if there is a sting, the intention is to illuminate all misconduct: attorney, judicial, and prosecutorial. The court case is providing the opportunity and they're just going to sit and watch to see who bites.


P.S.

Quote
Prosecutors may not bring criminal actions as a result of personal vendettas.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-prosecutorial-misconduct.htm

I hope this means Sneddon will get his due.[/justify]
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 09:00:13 PM by melody »

Offline MJonmind

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 7290
    • Show only replies by MJonmind

Re: LAWYERS IN THE CONRAD MURRAY TRIAL

  • on: October 27, 2011, 09:50:51 PM
Interesting side stories on Flanagan by msgitm, and Walgren by melody!

I've been really enjoying the trial, the bits and pieces that I've seen since day 1--enjoying the personalities, the "disagreements", the sarcasm, the looking for clues, chat discussion.  MJ said he wanted to give us escapism, and show us talent like we'd never seen before.

What really disappoints me and seems off, is that Arnold Klein (and other possible doctors) has avoided being a witness, and lawyers are left to guess about his activities with MJ just prior to “death” day.  Melissa Fleak and the LAPD clear messing with the scene of the crime is also huge. And why did Murray bare all with the police further incriminating himself. ALL 3 death pics of MJ have not been realistic and would not fool any of those 5 lawyers or judge. There is no other choice but hoax IMO.

I’m also thinking  of the process whereby MJ picks people to work for him, he watches in the appropriate fields to see who performs the best, asks his experts/friends for their recommendations, and then contacts them, interviews/tests them, and then finally with his lawyers/financiers arranging terms/payment.  I’m sure this is a delicate process, but with MJ growing up surrounded by sharks and thoroughly KNOWING the business, and because we as beLIEvers believe he has been planning this hoax for 20 years, nothing is accidental or coincidental, or NOT going according to plan.  Both TS, and BACK/Front consistently maintain calm confident composure in this.

Offline use_your_illusion

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 915
  • If you're reading this...you owe me a dollar
    • Show only replies by use_your_illusion

Re: LAWYERS IN THE CONRAD MURRAY TRIAL

  • on: October 30, 2011, 10:32:57 PM
I know what you mean Melody it's hard to discipline it, so far to me it doesn't seem like a sting court, even though it probably is...maybe we are looking at the wrong thing, like what Latoya said 'while your looking over here, something is going on over here'...in a TIAI redirect and generally about this trial with the use of a sting court, we have been focused on public corruption, judicial misconduct, but what if it's something completely different or not a sting court at all, if it is misconduct just for these lawyers then this trial for that purpose doesn't, to me, seem warranted.
Do you give up yet?