URGENT! This Important Petition Is Still Short Of Its 3,000 Goal!

Today is the day William Wagener is due in court to present his affidavit requesting a criminal investigation into Tom Sneddon and his conduct during the 2005 trial of Michael Jackson. At present, the petition is still roughly about 200 signatures short. Please take a moment to go to the link and sign!



30 thoughts on “URGENT! This Important Petition Is Still Short Of Its 3,000 Goal!”

  1. I saw somewhere where it said that the statue of limitations for investigating fraud in California had run out. I still, of course, will support any and all efforts to expose Tom Sneddon. Perhaps Wagener’s best bet would be to simply focus on making that documentary-not so much to indict Sneddon as simply to put the information out there for the public. I realize that Wagener has become a somewhat controversial and polarizing figure, but I still believe this is an important project.

  2. I feel the same way you do Raven. What can it hurt to sign it. It shows that there is still a concern for justice and justice for those who might come after Michael J. Jackson.

  3. I signed this petition without a second thought .( I didn’t know about this petition site previously … thanks iutd.) I have heard that Tom Mes thought Michael had a good case for ” malicious prosecution” at the time, but understandably Michael was too exhausted to pursue it. I know there is a very slim chance of a miracle happening with this petition/ Wagener affidavit, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try does it ?

    Anything that increases awareness of what happened to Michael should be applauded in my opinion. Lets hope it opens up a whole can of worms. This shouldn’t have happened to Michael and it must never be allowed to happen to anyone else.

    As an aside, whilst I was on the Care2 site I “browsed” all the petitions. I thought I was pretty “environmentally” aware and had a reasonable idea of the hell-bent determination by some to destroy our planet and fellow creatures, but I did find information that was new to me, and signed dozens of other petitions whilst I was there!!

    Slightly ironical that it was a petition for Michael that led me to it. But then that’s what he was good at wasn’t it?. Pointing us in the right direction.

    (PS the target has increased to 4000 signatures)

  4. I also signed the petition re fraud/Sneddon and agree awareness of the atrocities aginst Michael should be promoted. However, as I later discovered, the law on the issue is clear that if Sneddon were found guilty of perpetrating a “fraud on the court”, the verdict could be overturned. Is that what Michael’s supporters and advocates really want? Michael was adjudicated “not guilty” by a jury of his peers. I agree that a forthright and compelling documentary would serve a far greater purpose. Wagener needs backers with the requisite money to create and market to the masses a reputable documentary outlining this “injustice” system. It is too little, too late, with respect to the snake Tom Sneddon.

    1. “However, as I later discovered, the law on the issue is clear that if Sneddon were found guilty of perpetrating a “fraud on the court”, the verdict could be overturned.”

      Wow! Yes, that’s something to think about, for sure. I had no idea! Just goes to show it’s really worth weighing an issue on all sides, both pros and cons.

      1. No, that’s not true. CADEFLAW checked that out. See their comment on VMJ. And Wagener studied law, he would know about it.

        1. @Susanne @ Raven; so sorry for using the term “overturned”; I intended it to mean negated, as though the trial never occurred if it was proven to have been initiated on fraudulent evidence, which would mean Michael would not have had his day in court and not have had the chance to prove his innocence. He always wanted his day in court. I understand about double jeopardy and know he could not be tried again. All our arguments about Michael being “proven not guilty by a jury of his peers” or “proven not guilty in a court of law” would carry no weight/could not be used, without that “not guilty” verdict. And nothing would happen to Sneddon. Sorry for my poorly chosen word.

  5. If you want to support Michael Jackson the focus should be on the legacy, not nonsensical court cases that will lead nowhere. Sneddon can’t be sued, he no longer practices law and he can’t go to prison, so what’s the point? Do we really want Sneddon, and his band of merry men pleading their case on HLN and Maureen Orth writing afresh? I don’t.

    In my opinion the quickie global vindication that all fans seek, the kind that will have a resounding thud can only come from one person, and it isn’t in chambers.

  6. http://youtu.be/lVak-gVDgvE

    Here is a video of the presentation of the affidavit. It is very moving in terms of the people who spoke (they were only given one minute each).

    I agree that it needed to be done. Santa Barbara powers that be need to be responsible for what they allowed to happen–they need to bring Sneddon et al to the light of day for the crimes committed against an innocent man. Of course the verdict will not be overturned in any real sense, even if it is overturned on some technicality in the unlikely event that the SB powers that be 1) hold an investigation and 2) find for fraud. What I see as the main idea is to ask people who are paid by the taxpayers of the state of California to be held accountable and to know that they WILL be held accountable for their actions. When they are in a powerful positon called District Attorney, then they need to act inside the law and not fabricate bogus evidence.

    Thanks for posting the urgent call to sign the petition, Raven.

  7. Just to add that fans acting together can get things done–look at the way that horrible re-enactment of the autopsy (unbelievably crass) was stopped–of course, the Estate weighed in on that too. IF there was an investigation and IF fraud was found, I think there would be no overturning of the not guilty verdict even IF it was somehow required (and I have seen no proof that this is required) IF the fans got on the case and protested.

    1. Forgive the long post but I thought it was important to include these words of the 5th Amendment followed by the historic info on this Amendment. (Thanks el for the original reference!)

      (PAGE 1273)

      “…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;…”


      (PAGE 1279)


      Development and Scope

      ‘‘The constitutional prohibition against ‘double jeopardy’ was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. . . . The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.’’ 39 The concept of double jeopardy goes far back in history, but its development was uneven and its meaning has varied. The English development, under the influence of Coke and Blackstone, came gradually to mean that a defendant at trial could plead former conviction or former acquittal as a special plea in bar to defeat the prosecution.”

      (PAGE 1281)

      (Federal standard as it applies to states…)

      “…Court concluded ‘‘that the double jeopardy prohibition . . . represents a fundamental ideal in our constitutional heritage. . . . Once it is decided that a particular Bill of Rights guarantee is ‘fundamental to the American scheme of justice,’ . . . the same constitutional standards apply against both the State and Federal Governments.’’ Therefore, the double jeopardy limitation now applies to both federal and state governments and state rules on double jeopardy, with regard to such matters as when jeopardy attaches, must be considered in the light of federal standards.”


      As was answered on the Vindicate MJ site by an attorney, despite “Fraud Upon the Court,” Michael’s acquittal stands! This is so important especially in regard to the extent of bogus charges leveled at Michael during the trial. As it should, the law protected him from this fraudulent attack and as such the jury was able to come to the most correct conclusion in his case DESPITE that fraud. What an immensely important statement that jury made and what an important statement it makes to all of us that the system can and does work! Even if Sneddon were found to be guilty of “fraud” within the statute of limitations, as T.Mez suggested was possible, his conviction would have instantly made Michael’s just acquittal shine that much brighter and underscore his deserved vindication with even more vigor. Although we won’t see Sneddon convicted of his fraud in a court of law his life history will forever be stained by his fraudulant and crass vindictiveness. In time this fact will make Michael’s acquittal shine ever brighter in lue of a Sneddon conviction.

      Original source per el:

      1. To add further:

        I’d like to include this Twitlonger that was posted today by Ivy (MJJCommunity). She adds her thoughts regarding the petition that are worth concidering:


        “That’s why the online lawyers Mary Brookins contacted told you that a “not guilty” verdict will hold because there is no basis for a fraud upon the court claim in this scenario.” -Ivy

        “Furthermore “fraud upon the court” can only be brought by the person who has been damaged by such fraud – which was Michael. That’s why you aren’t seeing a complaint to the court because neither Wagener nor the fans have any legal standing. Wagener only talked to County Supervisors hoping that they would start an independent investigation.” -Ivy

        To clarify, if I may be so bold, Ivy’s comment is not meant to suggest that Sneddon didn’t commit fraud. Clearly he did. Ivy is pointing out the fact that the statute of limitations has run out and the only person that could have brought about the complaint in the first place was Michael. He chose not to at the time and concidering what he’d already been through, who could blame him. Short of that, any investigations requested will not go very far in regard to litigation against Sneddon. The best that can be hoped for is conviction, based on facts, in the court of public opinion.


        1. Thanks for sharing this, Sandy. I am very much a layperson when it comes to legal matters, so I appreciate all of the insights you guys are able to bring to this issue.

          That “conviction in the court of public opinion” is what I would really like to see happen. In some ways, I view this case very similarly to the Oscar Wilde criminal trial even though there are major differences. In that case, Wilde was actually guilty of what he was accused of (sodomy) yet most reasonable thinking people today are all in agreement that this was a “crime” that should never have been considered a crime at all, much less one for which a person was convicted, sent to prison, and had their life ruined. Wilde, as we know, was pursued and persecuted relentlessly by a man with a personal vendetta-the Marquis of Queensbury. It was, in short, a trial that should never have happened.

          In Michael’s case, I believe firmly he was innocent of what he was accused of, but otherwise, we have a very similar scenario, and very similar circumstances. Once again, it is a case driven by personal vendetta. Once again, it is a case of a trial that should never have happened, and a trial rife with corruption from the prosecution. And though Michael was acquitted, it was-once again-a case of a beloved public figure’s life being needlessly ruined.

          My sincere hope is that one day history will judge Tom Sneddon just as history now judges the Marquis of Queensbury-as an evil and corrupt man who destroyed an innocent man’s life.

          THAT will be the sweetest poetic justice of all.

  8. I suspect that “overturning the verdict” option is there for people who have incorrectly been found guilty based on fraudulent evidence.

    As we know, all law is complex and must be proved, and I think this is why we also know deep down that nothing will come of this. We know that petitions don’t very often do much good either.. but people campaign for years to right wrongs, and very occasionally succeed.

    (A few years ago nobody would have ever believed that the traditional “sport” of fox hunting would be banned in England after years and years of trying, and there have been instances where families have campaigned tirelessly to successfully free wrongly imprisoned loved ones, and yes, it has taken them years.)

    I feel this is another step on the journey to properly vindicate Michael. Nobody said it would be easy, and along the way there will continue to be those , both professional and the general public, who will use every opportunity to slander, insult and ridicule.. yes and some will make money out of it all.

    I am not naive or romantic enough to think that good people always get their happy ending, and I’m sure a lot of us feel that the not so good appear to do well in life. However I am not so cynical that I feel a “good cause” isn’t worth fighting for. So never say never !!

    Raven and all fellow “bloggers” please forgive my little rant.(LOL)

  9. As @el has given information through a link, NO, Michael Jackson’s verdict cannot be overturned if the fraud is proved! According to US constitution no person can be tried twice for the same crime. So that is definitely not the problem.

  10. At the very least this petition helps set the record straight. Most people have no idea even now how corrupt Sneddon was and that Michael was railroaded. With your signature you are shining a light on that fact which no one can miss. You’re weighing in so that from now on the name “Sneddon” is officially linked with “corruption of justice.” For instance, this action might leave a permanent stain on his Wikipedia page. If nothing else, it will be a clear footnote in how this man will be remembered.

    1. That has been my thought on it, too. It may or may not ever come to pass that he can be brought to justice, but condemnation for him in the court of public opinion would still be in my eyes an ultimate victory in the long run.

  11. Yes, very much agreed. Although he may never get punished in a court room his legacy will be forever tainted, and rightly so, by his own corruption and that fact will be part of his permanent record for all to see. A type of scarlet letter, so to speak, that will mark him as someone to be looked on with contempt and loathing. This will be the ultimate victory.

    As Max said,

    “Sneddon = corruption of justice”

Leave a Reply