The Judge has granted Michael Jackson another exemption from the gag order and his lengthy and exclusive interview with Geraldo airs tonight at 10 pm ET on Fox News.

In case news:

Court documents filed by the District Attorney in the Michael Jackson case show the prosecution is seeking to preclude evidence at trial regarding the accuser's mother and:

• her lawsuit against WalMart JC Penneys in which she received a settlement of $137k after she alleged store security guards assaulted her and her sons in the store's parking lot;
• Her alleged use of "psychiatric medication."
• Her alleged extra-marital affairs
• Her refusal to waive her attorney-client privilege with respect to what she told one or more lawyers she consulted about Michael Jackson.(pdf.)

Why could this information be relevant?

[If you have no interest in Michael Jackson, scroll on by. No need to tell us as we do have an interest in his trial.]

The New York Times quotes legal case watchers for the proposition that Jackson should dress down for trial. I disagree. He is unique and he should be himself. No one is going to think that Jackson wearing a jumpsuit makes him more likely to molest a child. On the other hand, if he disguises his persona by dressing in ways he's never dressed before, he appears shifty, calculating and loses credibility. Just my view. Michael, be yourself.

The Rocky Mountain News today has a very interesting article on the concept of "collective guilt" in the context of the Ward Churchill controversy. The News traces the concept back to the bible and reports that it is very controversial.

The idea that an entire people can be guilty of common sins goes all the way back to the Bible, but in more recent times it's come to be known as "collective guilt." The concept is controversial, but discussions of collective guilt always tend to go back to the Germany of the 1930s.

...But many people believe the entire notion of collective guilt is wrong. "The whole development of European and American law is that there's personal responsibility," said Professor Robert Schulzinger, who teaches U.S. diplomatic history at the University of Colorado. "That was the whole idea behind Nuremberg, identifying the individuals responsible." Schulzinger believes the idea of collective guilt is inherently racist.

The article then quotes some Holocaust survivors on the issue of whether German citizens who stood by and did nothing knowing what their government was doing to Jews also were responsible for the genocide.

The Rocky Mountain News has extensive coverage of Ward Churchill today, including an article that quotes legal experts, including Churchill's veteran and prominent civil liberties attorney, David Lane, who explain why Churchill's job is not in danger. Unless, of course, Colorado wants to pay some big bucks to Churchill when it loses the lawsuit Churchill would file over such a firing.

I agree, particulary with the point that because the University of Colorado is a publicly funded institution, Churchill's job actually is safer than it would be if he were teaching at a private college like the University of Denver.

Here are excerpts from an interview with Churchill conducted at his home Friday. He is not sorry, and he will fight back.

Here is the text of a memo from C.U. President Elizabeth Hoffman to university faculty yesterday on academic freedom.

Churchill will be speaking at the University of Colorado in Boulder on Tuesday night. Churchill has arranged for personal security.

by TChris

Actor Ossie Davis, who frequently played key roles in projects that depicted racial injustice -- including Roots and Do the Right Thing -- died Friday at the age of 87. A Kennedy Center honoree, Davis was active throughout his life in the struggle to achieve social justice and racial equality. Read more about his achievements here and here and here.

The jury in the terrorism trial of New York defense attorney Lynne Stewart is taking its time --they are in their third week of deliberations. Judging by their grim expressions, they are deeply divided.

Legal experts conclude the jury is deeply split. A hung jury may or may not be a win for Stewart. I think it depends on her lawyer, Michael Tigar. If he does not stay to do a re-trial, the Government might be more confident of a win the second time around, and decide to try her again. On the other hand, if Tigar hangs in, I think the Government will move on.

Following Simon Rosenberg, Donnie Fowler has dropped out of the race for DNC Chair. That leaves Howard Dean. (Roemer may still be in but he's toast.)

Dean will get the job. He'll do a great job, the Democrats should be pleased. Congratulations, Dr. Dean.

Senator Chris Dodd gave a moving speech in the Senate in opposition to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It was personal for Dodd. It's very impressive, I highly recommend reading it.

In related Connecticut news, Senator Joe Lieberman characterized the kiss Bush gave him at the State of the Union address as a "manly embrace." Here's the kiss in close-up. You decide if Lieberman could have mistaken it for a "manly embrace."

[Via Political Wire.]

Via Buzzflash: Reporter Dave Lindorff, writing in FAIR, says that the New York Times killed a story in the days before the election that could have changed the outcome of the election. The issue: Did President Bush cheat during the debate by wearing an electronic cueing device.

Could the last-minute decision by the New York Times not to run the Nelson photos story, or the decision by the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times not even to pursue it, have affected the outcome of the recent presidential race? There is no question that if such a story had run in any one of those major venues, instead of just in two online publications, Bulgegate would have been a major issue in the waning days of the campaign.

Given that exit polls show many who voted for Bush around the country listed "moral values" as a big factor in their decision, it seems reasonable to assume that at least some would have changed their minds had evidence been presented in the nation’s biggest and most influential newspapers that Bush had been dishonest. "Cheating on a debate should affect an election," says Bagdikian. "The decision not to let people know this story could affect the history of the United States."

New York Times public editor Daniel Okrant confirms Lindhorff's allegations about the Times killing the story:

Jesselyn Radack, whistleblower and former legal advisor in the Justice Department's Professional Responsibility Section, who advised a federal prosecutor that "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh should not be questioned without a lawyer, writes this op-ed about Michael Chertoff in Friday's Los Angeles Times. She begins:

On Wednesday, in hearings on his nomination to be head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff had this to say: "If you are dealing with something that makes you nervous, you'd better make sure that you are doing the right thing. And you'd better check it out…. You had better be very careful to make sure that whatever it is you decide to do falls well within what is required by the law."

I could hardly believe my ears.

John Gibson, subbing for Bill O'Reilly tonight on Fox, interviewed two of Professor Ward Churchill's students, both of whom support Churchill's right to express his views. One of the students, Dustin Craun, was arrested at the C.U. Regents meeting yesterday.

Student Chris Maes was repeatedly asked whether he agrees with Churchill's views. He responded that his own views are not the issue. Maes kept the converstation to what he sees as the real issue: Whether Churchill has the right to express his views.

Maes believes that Churchill is a wonderful man who is being slandered. How so? Because people are taking the essence of his book out of perspective.

Gibson asked why Churchill should not be fired, if not for his views, then for his incompetence? Craun responded that Churchill has published 25 books and is not incompetent. Craun asserted that Churchill's view is that the U.S. has had a history of continuous warfare since 1776 and that if you continue to kill people's children, you can expect them to retaliate.

Sgt. Javal Davis has been sentenced by a military jury to six months in jail and a bad conduct discharge for abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib. He admitted the abuse and left it for the jury to determine his punishment. He could have received 6 1/2 years on the pleas, but the prosecution stipulated to no more than 18 months. Here's what he admitted:

The former Abu Ghraib guard confessed earlier this week to stepping on the hands and feet of a group of handcuffed detainees and falling with his full weight on top of them.

He had been charged with battery, dereliction of duty and lying to Army investigators. His lawyer argued:

Bergrin said Davis will forever have a felony conviction on his record, and that he has performed 10 months of menial duties, including painting curbs and picking up trash, while confined to a U.S. base in Iraq after his arrest.

"How much more do we kick him when he's down on the ground?" he asked.

What do you think, is it a fair sentence or too light?