WaxWord

« BREAKING NEWS: ANAND JON CONVICTED - LIFE IN PRISON | Main | STRIIIIIIKE??? HOW CAN THIS BE? »

November 22, 2008

The Anand Jon Verdict: Justice? An Analysis of the Case

In retrospect, Anand Jon’s lawyers have a great deal of explaining as to why they put on such a limited defense of a man accused of raping and otherwise assaulting a parade of underaged or nearly underaged models. One wonders if they drank the Anand Jon Kool-Aid.

     

From the start, Jon has suffered from a case of self-delusion. He has given the impression of being completely convinced of his own innocence. He has never accepted a shred of responsibility for what he quite obviously did: take advantage of naïve and inexperienced young women who sought a quick path to the big time, often (not always) encouraged by greedy parents who should have known better.

Jon’s mother, Shashi Abraham and sister Sanjana Jon have reinforced this delusion. They practically use Christ-like terms to describe him, and analogies like the Dreyfus Affair to describe his prosecution and trial. Jon, too, seemed to believe that he was a martyr to some higher purpose, sent to suffer in solitary confinement in one of the worst ratholes in the American prison system, the L.A. County Jail, on the path to some greater destiny.

That destiny turns out to be prison for life. It didn’t have to be this way.

In the beginning of the case, the Los Angeles district attorney was willing to discuss some kind of plea bargain, recognizing that there were significant holes in the prosecution’s case. Jon wouldn’t hear of it, and he separated from his first lawyer partly for this reason. Although he admitted that he’d had sex with some of the accusers, he would not consider admitting to having had sex with them against their will.

So Jon found new lawyers, Leonard Levine, Anthony Brooklier and Donald Marks. From a practical point of view, the minimalist path taken by this team is a puzzling one. They presumed, it seems, that if they could shred the credibility of one witness, they could taint the others. I too believed this could be an Achilles heel of the prosecution.

But it turned out that the jury, which threw the book at Jon, drew a distinction between those accusers who appeared to be lying, and others who were credible. The jury threw out the claims of Britney O. and her outrageous story of waking up to Jon sitting on her face, and still believed the others. Holly Gavel,  a character witness, who accused Jon of rape but mumbled “I don’t know” countless times under cross-examination when asked to explain holes in her testimony, did not undermine the claims of the others.

In retrospect, the prosecution’s decision to drop 11 plaintiffs on the eve of trial – the gap-ridden testimony of Lori B; Jennifer S; Jennifer C; Katie W; Ashley H; Chloe N; and Avery G. among others, as I noted in my Los Angeles magazine article – was fateful. With the weakest stories weeded out the more credible plaintiffs stood out. This was a worry among the defense team ahead of trial, but this cncern was not visible in the defense strategy.

I was surprised that no one called Marla Maples to talk about Jon’s many kindnesses to her; or to talk about his charity work in India. That kind of thing. Or other models who I’d interviewed who said they never saw a thing.

And the jury undoubtedly needed Jon himself not merely to deny that he’d raped the girls, but to admit that he seduced and bedded them cavalierly, that he was remorseful for having done so, but that that hadn’t amounted to assault or rape.

That, I think, would have been his only chance.

Jon will spend the rest of his days, it appears, in jail. I cannot think this is a fully just punishment. I have seen too many other heinous crimes get off lightly; and the girls and their parents did not exactly demonstrate responsible, or even logical, behavior in many instances. 

But it is a lesson in hubris, and a harsh one. Jon believed in his own myth – the myth of his celebrity, of his talent, of his fame and, ultimately, of his own martyrdom.

Comments

susan

how easily you change- did you attend the trial to see how the girls testified.
43 counts dropped -only 1 count of rape where the rape kit was negative
the rest attempetd kiss-inappropriate touching-its ridiculous
you should look into how this case morphed from serial rape to now lewd behaviour
and a person gets to spend the rest of his life for an attempted kiss?

dhar

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14803407
Very sad!! Remember...Curse of this innocent man will be there on those who brought him into this situation. What did the so-called victims lose? Nothing...what did this young man lose? His life.”-zx

In the anonymity of cyberspace, comments rain thick and fast on Anand Jon. The reactions to the India-born fashion designer's conviction have been extreme and in abundance. There are choicest invectives for a serial sex predator, there are expressions of shock and there are conspiracy cries by those who believe he is innocent.

On November 14, fashion designer Anand Jon Alexander was convicted by a Los Angeles court for sexually assaulting aspiring models, including underage girls, whom he allegedly lured with promises of a career in fashion world. Prosecutors accused the Indian-born Anand Jon of using the promise of modelling jobs to lure young women and girls as young as 14 to an apartment for enacting his sadistic sexual fantasies.

Fashion designer Anand Jon found guilty of rape

The social stereotypes about fashion designers would have absolved Anand Jon. Female models have always been considered safe in the company of male fashion designers- often found effeminate and gay. No brownie point there for a straight Anand Jon.

Prosecutor Frances Young told the jury that Jon would lure wannabe models to his Beverly Hills apartment and then force them to perform oral sex, inappropriately touching them or raping them.

Young, report US papers, said the 34-year-old designer kept a "conquest list" in which he noted some of his encounters with the girls and women, abbreviating the explicit sexual acts.

"He talks about violently having sex with underage girls," Young said. "These things are windows into his soul and what excites him," the prosecutor said.

It all happened between 2001 and 2007. Surprising, women in a country like USA with liberal values kept silent about their sexual humiliations. Women eyeing a career in LA suddenly lag behind their counterparts in Lucknow.

Now let's move back to a day before 2001. It was my maiden trip to USA in August 2000 and New York was growing on me. The melange of intimidating high-rises, the pulsating cosmopolitan faces of Times Square and a sense of freedom among the people were moving, revealing.

One such heady evening in August, I found myself at Metronome. It was a happening place that evening, bustling with the hip crowd of America's Asian American community. The occasion was a glittering fashion show to showcase the best of the Asian American fashion designers.

The lustily cheering crowd was all eyes on the models draped in Jon's blue-gray cosmos embroidered silk dress, burgundy leather tops, knee vent pants, black beaded skirt and halter top.

The girls were showcasing respectively the "signature" ( a piece that first help the designer make a mark in the fashion world), "present" ( a look from the Fall 2000 collection) and "future" ( what's next) of the designer. The Kerala-born Indian fashion designer was the new kid on the block in the fast paced New York fashion scene.

The svelte beauties were sashaying down the ramp in jerky gait while the ebullient, long-haired and dark-eyed Indian designer- brimming with attitude- watch them in admiration. One moment the attractive man in a white sleeveless T-shirt giggles to his friends from the press, the other he kisses or hugs someone- either sex- or whispers something to his doting sister Sanjana.

30 of 59 rape charges dropped against Anand Jon

He was a picture of charm and aggression. I found Anand Jon a man of South Asian origin who has arrived on the New York fashion scene. New York indeed lived up to its fabled melting pot image before my eyes.

I learnt that evening from Jon that a who's who of Hollywood royalty was already blazing his portfolio.

From angst-ridden singer Alianis Morrisette, singer Courtney Love , German pop diva Petra Mclean Arnott to actress Lynn Whitfield - all of them were already sporting Anand Jon creations to pep up their great bodies and celebrity charisma. An Anand Jon creation was being considered a passionate blend of sensuality, spirituality and eastern mysticism. He later dressed Paris Hilton, Janet Jackson and the list goes on...

"Yes, carving out a niche here in the fast changing fashion scene is a process but I have got a good start. A very good start and I think it's right," Anand told me, clutching models on either side and posing for pictures. The man who grew up in Kerala and Tamil Nadu (Chennai) was carrying himself well. He indeed had a good start and it was visible.

Jon said he had developed a passion for metals and fabrics growing up under the tutelage of master artisans and his grandmother, one of the most influential women in his life.

At 17, Jon ventured on a scholarship towards an associate degree at the Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, and graduated as the student speaker. He began to flirt with the transition from fine art to fashion and even experimenting with a dosage of technology; showcasing limited edition adornments and jewellery while majoring in both fashion design and communication design at Parsons School of Design in New York City.

When he graduated from Parsons in 1998, this designer, then 24, teamed up with his sister Sanjana and mother Shashi Abraham. Together they launched Amazone, his explosive Spring 1999 debut, followed by Arcane in Fall 99, swiftly penetrating the high end luxury market.

Deep involvement in the yogic disciples from early childhood has set a metaphysical yet playful flavor in all of Anand Jon's creations. Sacred geometry is often an underlying structural element of the Anand Jon collections.

Jon, say connoisseurs, had captured turn of the century romantic mysticism. "I meditate every night and when I wake up, I check my e-mail," he told me.

While in USA Anand knew he has to be different to secure his position and so began with jewellery. Soon he gravitated towards fashion and went on to become the darling of the Palm Beach rich.

The young designer began his blazing career designing one of a kind adornments and jewellery, co-designed by Sanjana, his sister who now fights an impossible battle to prove her brother's innocence.

Anand Jon indicted on more charges of rape, sexual assault

Anand said while designing he never forgot the women who were not models. "Fashion scene in New York is vastly different from that in India. In India, it is much more of a society life.

Here it is career and society and hence influenced more by functionality. People here work and go out and it definitely reflects in their clothes," said Jon, who was already dressing up celebrities for the Oscar nights and Emmy Awards.

By that time the Anand Jon collections had earned stellar media credits including, Harper's Bazaar, In-Style, MTV, E! Entertainment Television, Women's Wear Daily and the New York Times. He was gaining retail exposure from fine stores across America.

In September, Anand Jon was among selected designers at the NYC 2000 Fashion show at Times Square, where actress Lynn Whitfield dazzled the audience in Anand Jon. The then Consul General of India had introduced Anand Jon in a press conference as an outstanding cultural ambassador, for his contribution in fashion and trade. Soon after, Oprah Winfrey picked Anand Jon's look as among the best of the new Millennium.

Glowing tributes in the media came naturally to Anand. "When you wanna get physical or astro-physical...Anand Jon is your guy," said Time Warner's NY1 News. Even then A -magazine included him among the "A-List" of top 20 Asians of the next century. In 2007 he appeared on America's Next Top Model and in publications from Newsweek to London's Daily Telegraph as the man to watch out for.

Soon after his world came crashing down in March 2007, when the Beverly Hills Police Department, responding to a minor's accusation of sexual assault, raided his apartment at 320 North Palm Drive.

The charges of sexual violence against Anand Jon quite surprised me when he was taken into custody. I was wondering why a man on whom models were just swooning over right in front of my eyes would need to force himself upon girls.

I am no great authority on sexuality, neither do we know what one has as fantasies in the deep recesses of mind, but if for Jon the desire were to only lay as many women as he could, he could well have emerged as a fashion world Casanova and flaunt his sexual peccadilloes.

"I love to meditate, dance, go out and do simple things," the designer told me then.

According to media reports, throughout the trial, the evidence produced by the prosecutors were weak and full of anomalies.

Learden Matthies, a senior criminologist with the Los Angeles County Sheriff''s Department, testified that the DNA testing on swabs provided by Jessica B., an alleged victim, gave no indication one way or the other if sex between her and Jon had not been consensual.

Sex charges shatter Anand Jon's image

Investigators also denied of finding any GHB, the date rape drug, that allegedly had been used on a victim in Jon''s apartment.

Two American models have even come forward to testify on oath that Jon was being "falsely implicated". One of the two models - Britney Harrington- claimed that she was approached over the phone, to make false allegations against the fashion designer, and when she refused, she was threatened into keeping mum.

Reports quote Britney and Jami Huebscher, who had accompanied Anand Jon for 12 weeks right before his arrest in March 2007, saying they have seen those models- who've accused Jon- of hobnobbing with him, using his premises, his computer and trying to be close to him.

Throughout the trial what was remarkable was the family support Anand got. His sister Sanjana was always there while his mother flew down from India. "He was victimised by his rivals in fashion industry," says Sanjana.

"He was framed when his company got funded and when Wall Street evaluated him and was about to invest millions into his name."

"The same group of girls went from Los Angeles to Dallas to Houston to file charges against him. Is it logical? If he did something to them then why did these girls follow him? They were not forced? Then why? Nobody asked this questions."

The family said Jon was maligned and convicted without evidence. "It was a build up and girls were recruited over a period of time to frame him," Sanjana alleges.

Anand Jon case also raised the question of racial discrimination in USA. "He was put behind bars without any material evidence and denied a chance to prove his innocence. Then what is justice?" asks Sanjana.

Jon's mother, who has brought racial charges against the US judiciary, says: "Now it's a case between a brown boy and 20 white girls. So they just want to defend the girls." But as support groups in favour of Anand Jon mobile themselves, it seems it is not yet an end of road for the fashion designer.

Even eight years back the designer said he was not too scared of the vagaries of the Big Apple fashion scene. "There are fast changes all the time and that's why I like it so much. I think I am just ready for something like this," he told me. Jon didn't bargain for something like this- guilty or not guilty.

mychall

Guilty Verdicts Stun Jon's Family, Friends
San Leandro India West - San Leandro,CA,USA
13 to hear what verdicts the jury had reached in the nearly two-month long trial of fashion designer Anand Jon Alexander. In addition to members from the ...
Guilty Verdicts Stun Jon's Family, Friends
By MICHEL W. POTTS
indiawest.comNovember 20, 2008 02:30:00 PM
http://www.indiawest.com/readmore.aspx?id=618&sid=1


LOS ANGELES — The benches in courtroom 103, located on the ninth floor of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center here, were packed to capacity Nov. 13 to hear what verdicts the jury had reached in the nearly two-month long trial of fashion designer Anand Jon Alexander.

In addition to members from the print and television media, who had never bothered to cover the trial since the first day of the opening statements last September, the back benches were filled with supporters from the district attorney's office.

Jon's sister Sanjana sat in the front row bench holding hands with her mother Shashi. On either side of them, and all along the bench behind them, were family friends, many of whom had attended nearly every day of the trial and were convinced of Jon's innocence.

But as the verdicts were being read one at a time by the court clerk and the word "guilty" kept being repeated over and over, Sanjana grew distraught, tearing up and burying her head in a friend's shoulder next to her.

Then, when the court clerk read aloud that Jon was guilty of forcible rape, the most serious charge brought against him by Jessie B. which had led to his arrest in March of last year, Sanjana doubled over, her head pressed against her knees and silently crying.

Her mother Shashi stared straight ahead, her eyes red and brimming. A few feet away from her, dressed in a grey suit offset by a yellow tie, Jon sat stoically, his expression never changing, as he listened to the guilty verdicts piling up against him.

If they were stunned that the jury found him guilty on 16 counts, his lawyers didn't show it. As the verdicts were being announced, Donald Marks was busy writing notes on a yellow legal pad, more than likely preparing the first of many appeals.

Aside from forcible rape, many of the charges sounded more horrendous than they actually were. To commit a lewd act upon a child, for example, meant kissing or fondling an underage girl and, except for one who was 15 years old at the time, the victims were 17 years old when such acts took place.

The charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor simply meant that Jon had served a 17-year-old girl a mixed drink made with alcohol.

And as for possession or control of child pornography, Jon did not have pictures of nude toddlers, as the charge suggested, but had merely stored in his laptop computer the nude and semi-nude photos a few of the victims had e-mailed him before they met.

However, that Jon had been found guilty of sexual battery in the case of Stacy F. was "the biggest surprise" for the defense team, attorney Leonard Levin later admitted India-West.

To find someone guilty of such a charge, "you have to touch the person's genital area, and all she said was that he touched her thigh, which would not qualify at all, and yet the jury found him guilty on that count," he said, adding that the defense team thought they had put on a strong case discrediting the testimony of the other victims as well.

"We felt there was a great deal of evidence pointing to their fabrication, their contact with Jon after the alleged assaults and continued contact, the inconsistencies in their testimony and their denials on the stand, and what was later proven to be true through cell phone records and so forth," Levin said.

As witnesses for the prosecution, nearly every victim broke down in tears as she emotionally recounted what Jon had done to her, but as soon as any one of the defense lawyers approached to question her, the demeanor immediately changed.

A look of barely concealed hostility could be seen in their eyes before the first question by the defense lawyer was even asked, as though they felt it was a personal affront that anyone should question their veracity, even when they were caught in a lie.

Many of the victims appeared duplicitous on the stand. Early on in the trial, one victim called herself "naive" and said she was "shocked" by Jon's behavior. Yet the defense team was frustrated when the judge refused to enter into evidence proof that she had worked as a stripper when she was 19 years old.

Another victim denied she had sent "provocative" photos of herself to Jon shortly before meeting him, even after the defense proved she had sent them from her cell phone account. When she was caught, she immediately changed her account, restricted access to the photos, and continued to deny she had ever sent them to Jon when brought back to the stand.

Moreover, Amanda C. testified that Jon was "aggressive" and "mean" when he asked her to undress while videotaping her. But the videotape shows her giggling the entire time and willfully stripping off her clothing without the slightest hesitation or concern.

Inexplicably, even though the tape contradicts her testimony and given that Amanda C. testified that Jon never actually penetrated her, the jury nevertheless found him guilty on the charge of sexual penetration with a foreign object.

Overall, the trial was hardly dramatic, with no heated exchanges between the prosecution and the defense, no theatrics during cross-examination of witnesses, no flustering the witness into a confession, nothing like what is seen in the popular television courtroom dramas.

In fact, on the day the last closing argument was given by Levin, which other lawyers said was one of the best they had ever heard, Judge Wesley complimented both the prosecution and the defense for their professionalism and comportment toward him and each other throughout the entire trial.

"You were phenomenal," he said.

the truth

http://indiapost.com/article/usnews/4506/

Shock & disbelief at Anand Jon verdict
Tuesday, 11.18.2008, 06:42am (GMT-7)


LOS ANGELES: In a travesty of justice Anand Jon was found guilty of 16 of the 23 charges against him; not guilty on four counts and deadlocked on three. A travesty, because the defense was surprisingly adept at eliminating any doubt that the girls accusing him had lied. Many people present in the court for the verdict were simply stunned. Richard Bernard, defense technical consultant, wondered if he was watching the same trial as the jurors.
That sentiment echoed through the hallway afterwards. All evidence shown during the trial and particularly at closing pointed toward Anand Jon’s innocence, not guilt. Keep in mind that on the eve of trial the prosecution dropped over 50 percent of their case. Most likely because these were the weaker counts. As the trial unfolded and each witness impeached (proven to be lying) it lead the defense to wonder if the girls on the stand lied so much, how badly would those that were dropped? During trial, the prosecution dropped another two counts.
It appears that the objective for the District Attorney’s office is simply to win, not find the truth. If the truth were paramount, they would have dropped the entire case. It appears that this for them is just another case, irrespective of the lives that are going to be affected.
If these girls lied and were caught, why aren’t they prosecuted?
Isn’t perjury a crime?
In the end there was one rape count that Jon was convicted on. That charge coincided with a rape kit that was negative for signs of trauma - how do you convict on that?
The defense claimed it was consensual. Isn’t it then up to the prosecution to prove otherwise?
Where was that proof?
The audience learned from the trial that it simply did not exist. Another lesson that was learned from this trial - it seems that you don’t need evidence to convince a jury. A lot of he-said / she-said will accomplish the same result.
The prosecution had no hard evidence, only people complaining. They complained about Jon being rude, messy, unkempt, unhygienic, over-promising, tardy - all things that the girls could find unredeeming, nonetheless they do not equate to prison time.
When were those complaints made? Some were six years later with people jumping on the bandwagon. All complaints were made after March 2007 and what a coincidence, after Anand Jon’s company, Jeanisis, was funded by Wall Street investors. There’s already one civil suit filed and several others waiting in the wings.
In fact, it appears that one of the girls didn’t even call in to the police herself, her civil attorney was the first to contact Detective George Elwell with a claim of assault. Those charges were later dropped pre-trial. That one rape kit report that came back negative was projected in court showed that Jessie B had smoked marijuana within 96 hours prior to coming down to Los Angeles. It also showed that she had sex with someone else on February 28, five days before seeing Jon. Jessie B flew down to Los Angeles on her own volition, she, as were the others, was not forced to fly to LA with a gun to her head.
A shock to everyone was that Jon was convicted of an attempted kiss. Yes, an attempted kiss. They call this sexual battery. There is also a claim that he touched her thigh. The prosecution also ridiculously claim that the mother and sister were in the apartment when Jon was assaulting some of these girls. Would any woman from any culture tolerate that? According to many of those in attendance, the prosecution clearly did not prove their case. Despite their duty to do so the prosecution showed no facts.
They failed, yet they won. They simply paraded these young women onto the stand with no facts. How they convinced a jury to vote guilty, despite the overwhelming evidence supporting innocence is beyond anyone’s comprehension. Every single one of their witnesses was impeached. Each one. Granted, some were more impeached than others, but still every one was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be telling lies.
DDA Francis Young in her closing statement even told the jury to disregard those that were lying. She mentioned Holly G and Britny O by name. But the impact is still the same: "If you think that they are lying then disregard them." That statement pretty much seemed to seal the deal - all prosecution witnesses were caught lying. They all kept in touch with Anand Jon after their claims that they were assaulted. Some by phone, text message, email or a combination of any or all.
These girls also sent salacious emails, pictures, chats, etc. All of that seemed not to matter to the jurors in this case. There has been much community support for Anand Jon with many Indians showing up to court. Those that attended the verdict were shocked with disbelief. After the verdict(s) defense attorney Leonard Levine stated that there are "multiple grounds for appeals; this is not over by a long shot."

this is not over by a long shot

ms waxman
in comparisson to the Dreyfus affair dont forget that Alfred Dreyfus was found guilty and shipped off for life to Devil's Island.
It was a brave journalist who investigated and brought the truth out and though he was found guilty again but released and has become an icon.
This could be and probably will be a similar with only one serious rape count which looks like the attorneys didnt do a good job and you are right they shouldve and admit that seduction is not rape
The attorney leonard Levine "this is not over by a long shot"

Ronald Richards

I was the first attorney Anand hired and is referenced in this piece when there was one count. It is unfortunate that plea arrangements were not made when the one count skyrocketed to 12. I really tried but it was not an option with this defendant or his family. It would have prevented the feeding frenzy that occurred. He would have served 5-7 years. The trial attorneys will not be the appellate attorneys because there is no resources left to hire them and the state will appoint counsel. However, the commenting on his failure to testify in a case like this is monday morning quarterbacking. He would have most likely alienated the jury with his testimony. On the other hand, these were not party girls that simply regretted the next morning after a night of drinking and drug use like in prior multi count rape cases that I have worked on. His testimony would be quite dangerous. For example, he would have to admit to sleeping with Jessie B. while she was menstrating and it would have came out he was mean to her and instead of the four seasons had her stay at his apartment which was very messy. He would have had to admit he was a hard closer and it is risky business to say that but deny the sexual assault.

The DA was always willing to spare the victims the preliminary hearing testimony. A deal could and should have been struck. Before he hired Marks, Brooklier, Chase, and Levine, there was an intermediate attorney who delayed the case and focused on collateral issues that ultimately prompted the DA to go to a grand jury. Those collateral issues were also reversed on appeal and a lot of time was wasted when it should have been focused on the case. They also caused his bond to be revoked through a complete mishandling of his custody status and a procedural misunderstanding of bail bond law. Anand voluntarily placed himself into custody on a texas warrant thus causing his bond to be exonerated in California. He should have posted bond in Texas or had a bondsman post bail in California. His voluntary surrender caused him to lose his bond on the california case. Even though the intermediate attorney did a good job lowering the bond in texas, it would have been better to spend the extra money and post bond on the texas case without volunatarily placing anand in custody. This dramatically effected his ability to prepare his defense. Anand's family was warned of a grand jury indictment would happen if a deal is not struck or the preliminary hearing does not occur. That intermediate lawyer was fired by the family who ended up hiring Levine. I recommended Levine as I think he is a very good attorney. He was on their short list. I also like Marks and Brooklier and think they had the right temperment for Anand's client needs. Once he was indicated, the defense was deprived of a first bite at the victims who would have all testified at the preliminary hearing, another procedural advantage that was taken away through delay by the defense. The indictment and the loss of pretrial bail made the case almost unwinnable as two important state law safeguards were removed. The case was more like a federal case where the defendant is detained pending trial and there is no preliminary hearing.

Due to California's draconian sex crimes statutes, a plea bargain is something one should always consider. I am sorry it was not considered here.

flock of hungry hyenas ripping a baby lamb

Ronald Richards was the attorney who was recomended by the bail bond company which is considered" capping" a crime in California. When this attorney was replaced by Daniel Davis the bail company revoked the bail and though the judge ordered the bail company to return the money --it was never done
from one attorney to the other the framily has been drained and then the bail company -think the main crime Anand Jon commited here is become successful and when the buzz was out that he was getting funded the -"alleged victims " jumped on board to get money with most oif them consulting civil attorneys so they could file civil law suits to get money from him
its been a travesty of justice that with a rape kit that came negative - a man has been judged guilty
where is the actual evidence anything ever happened
so if a few people get together and conspire its as easy as just saying it happened to have a man convicted for life

the truth teller

Flock of Hungry Hyenas should get the facts straight. The flock is a little off in the truth. First, Anand was represented by Mark Werksman initially while he was in custody with an immigration hold. The arraignment had been continued for a month. Ronald Richards advanced the arraignment, retained immigration counsel, and got Anand out of federal detention after the bond was posted. It was truly the miracle of the case. The trial court ordered the bond premium refunded but was reversed on appeal. There was no "capping" involved as no one was paid for any referrals nor was the referral from a bail bondsman. The published Court of Appeals case is below. The voluntary surrender without notification to his bail bondsman caused the surety company to surrender the bond.

Court of Appeal, Second District,
Division 8.
INDIANA LUMBERMENS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants.
v.
Anand Jon ALEXANDER, Defendant and Respondent.

No. B200551.

Nov. 4, 2008.


Background: Defendant was charged and released on bail. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. SA063332, Elden S. Fox, J., remanded defendant into custody on a Texas warrant and granted defendant's motion for refund of the premium paid for the bail bond. Bonding company appealed.

Holding: The Court of Appeal, Rubin, J., held that bonding company did not surrender defendant, as required for trial court to order refund.


Reversed and remanded with directions.

West Headnotes

[1] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote

49 Bail
49II In Criminal Prosecutions
49k78 Relief from Liability or Forfeiture
49k80 k. Surrender of Principal. Most Cited Cases


Purpose of statute providing for return of bail bond premiums when good cause does not exist for surrender of defendant who has not failed to appear or has not violated any order of the court is to temper the bonding company's virtually unlimited power over the defendant's freedom. West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 1300(b).

[2] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote

49 Bail
49II In Criminal Prosecutions
49k78 Relief from Liability or Forfeiture
49k80 k. Surrender of Principal. Most Cited Cases


Bonding company did not surrender defendant into custody by surrendering the bail bond, as required for California trial court to order refund of the premium paid for the bail bond, since defendant was already in custody on a Texas warrant; trial court remanded defendant into custody on the Texas warrant two months after defendant's release on bail. West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 1300(b).

See Annot., Surrender of principal by sureties on bail bond (1931) 73 A.L.R. 1369; Cal. Jur. 3d, Criminal Law: Pretrial Proceedings, §§ 542, 544; 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Pretrial, § 99.

[3] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote

110 Criminal Law
110XXIV Review
110XXIV(I) Briefs
110k1130 In General
110k1130(5) k. Points and Authorities. Most Cited Cases


The Court of Appeal would not decide whether the trial court could decide the validity of defendant's bail bond on remand upon reversal of the trial court's order refunding defendant's premium, where defendant failed to support his request for the Court of Appeal to remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the matter with a cogent argument supported by citations to the record and legal authority. West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 1300(b).

Nunez & Bernstein and E. Alan Nunez, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Marks & Brooklier, Donald B. Marks and Elizabeth M. Roos, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent.


RUBIN, J.

*1 Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company and Montana Bail Bonds appeal from the trial court's order compelling them to refund the premium they received to post a bail bond for Anand Jon Alexander. We reverse the court's order.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS


Respondent Anand Jon Alexander was arrested in March 2007 and charged with four counts of rape, lewd acts against a child, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. On April 3, 2007, appellants Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company and Montana Bail Bonds (collectively Indiana Lumbermens) posted a bail bond in the amount of $1,365,000 to secure Alexander's release from custody. Alexander's family paid $139,210 for the bond. The bail agreement stated appellants “fully earned” the $139,210 premium upon Alexander's release from jail. Additionally, the family members who paid the premium signed a document attesting they “understand that the premium owing and/or paid on this bond is fully earned upon release of the defendant from custody.”


While Alexander was free on bail, the People filed 40 new counts against him, involving rape, forcible oral copulation, sexual battery, and lewd acts against minors. In addition, the trial court received from Texas a warrant for Alexander's arrest. The court denied the People's motion to raise Alexander's bail based on the 40 new charges. The court did, however, remand Alexander into custody for the Texas warrant. The day after Alexander's return to custody, Indiana Lumbermens instructed its general agent in California to surrender the bail bond it had posted on Alexander's behalf, and within two days the agent did so. The court thereafter exonerated the bond. ( People v. McReynolds (1894) 102 Cal. 308, 311-312, 36 P. 590 [defendant's return to custody exonerates bond]; People v. Lexington National Ins. Co. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1198-1199, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 900.)


Following his remand into custody, Alexander moved for a court order compelling appellants to refund the premium his family had paid for his bail bond. The court set a hearing to show cause why it should not grant Alexander's motion. In setting the hearing, the court told Alexander, “I've done this before, and based on your motion, I would intend to order a full and complete refund of any premium if it has not been reinstated, so I would advise you that's what I would do.”


At the hearing to show cause, appellants argued the court should not order a refund of the premium because they earned it upon Alexander's release from custody. They noted Alexander had been returned to jail at the court's initiative, not theirs, following the court's receipt of the Texas arrest warrant; only after the court had remanded Alexander into custody did they surrender the bail bond which had secured his freedom during the previous two months. The court rejected appellants' argument and ordered them to refund the entire premium. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION


The bail bond here was a contract under which appellants guaranteed to the trial court that Alexander would appear for his court dates. ( People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 13, 22, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 807.) Because appellants were at risk for paying the entire posted bail if Alexander absconded at any time, the law permitted appellants to make the premium nonrefundable. ( Kiperman v. Klenshetyn (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 934, 939, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 178 ( Kiperman ).) Exercising their prerogative, appellants' bail agreement with Alexander stated appellants earned their premium immediately upon his release from custody.


*2 [1] Although a bail bond may secure a defendant's freedom, a bonding company has the statutory right to surrender its bond at any time to return a defendant to the court's custody. (Pen.Code, 1300, subd. (a).) Whenever a bonding company exercises that right without good cause, however, Penal Code section 1300, subdivision (b) (section § 1300(b)) permits the court to order the bonding company to refund the defendant's premium. Section 1300(b) states:


“[I]f the court determines that good cause does not exist for the surrender of a defendant who has not failed to appear or has not violated any order of the court, it may, in its discretion, order the bail or the depositor to return to the defendant or other person who has paid the premium or any part of it, all of the money so paid or any part of it.”


Section 1300(b)'s purpose is to temper the bonding company's virtually unlimited power over the defendant's freedom. ( Kiperman, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 939, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 178.) By constraining the bonding company, the statute prevents the inequity of a bonding company's pocketing a defendant's premium, only to turn around and hand the defendant back to the authorities. (See People v. Smith (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1217, 228 Cal.Rptr. 277.)


[2] Alexander asserts the court found appellants lacked good cause to surrender his bond. Thus, Alexander concludes, the court properly exercised its discretion under section 1300(b) to order a refund of his bond premium. Appellants contend, on the other hand, that the court abused its discretion in relying on section 1300(b) because appellants did not surrender Alexander into custody since he was already in custody on the Texas warrant when they surrendered the bond.


Kiperman, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th 934, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 178 shows appellants are correct. In Kiperman, the trial court remanded into custody a defendant previously free on bail when the court increased the defendant's bail after the People filed new charges against him. ( Id. at p. 936, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 178.) Following the defendant's return to custody, the trial court ordered the bonding company to refund the premium the defendant had paid for his bail bond. ( Id. at pp. 936, 939, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 178.) On review, the appellate court found the trial court lacked authority to order a refund because the trial court, not the bonding company, had returned the defendant to custody. Kiperman explained:


“[The bonding company] did not actually surrender the defendant.... Rather, it was the trial court that caused the defendant to return to custody due to the new stalking charge and the consequent increase in bail ... It was no fault of the [bonding company] that the defendant was back in custody.... The authority in section 1300 for the court to consider return of the premium applies only where the [bonding company] has surrendered the defendant to custody without adequate good cause.” ( Kiperman, at p. 940, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 178.)


Because section 1300(b) did not apply, the Kiperman trial court abused its discretion in ordering a refund of the bond premium. Kiperman stated:


*3 “Where, as here, there was no surrender by the [bonding company] since the defendant was returned to custody by the court's action in raising the bail and remanding the defendant, the court had no statutory authority to exercise any discretion regarding the premium. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion by ... ordering return of the premium paid by the defendant on that bond.” ( Kiperman, at p. 940, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 178.)

[3] The Kiperman defendant eventually resecured his release by posting a second bond. ( Kiperman, 133 Cal.App.4th at pp. 936, 940, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 178.) The bonding company later surrendered the defendant and the second bond when it learned of the defendant's plans to flee California. ( Id. at pp. 937, 940, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 178.) Seizing on that twist in the case, Alexander attempts to distinguish Kiperman because no evidence exists here that Alexander was preparing to flee. Alexander's distinction fails, however, because it ignores the Kiperman court's conclusion that the trial court erred in ordering a refund of the first bond premium after the trial court remanded the Kiperman defendant into custody. Alexander's similarity with the defendant in Kiperman rests on each of them having been returned to custody at the initiative of their respective trial courts; the bonding company's later surrender of the defendant in Kiperman-whether for good cause or not-has no bearing here because appellants did not surrender Alexander.FN1

DISPOSITION


The court is directed to reverse and vacate its order compelling Indiana Lumbermen's Insurance Company and Montana Bail Bonds to refund the premium they received for posting a bail bond on behalf of Anand Jon Alexander. The court is directed to enter a new and different order denying Anand Jon Alexander's motion for a refund. Appellants to recover their costs on appeal.


WE CONCUR: COOPER, P.J., and FLIER, J.

FN1. Alexander's respondent's brief asks that we remand this matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the bail bond's validity if we reverse the trial court's order refunding his premium. He appears to reason that an alternative ground for ordering a refund is the bond's purported voidness. Alexander has not, however, supported his request with a cogent argument supported by citations to the record and legal authority. We therefore pass on his request without further consideration and without deciding whether the trial court may decide the point at this juncture. ( Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 273; Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699-700, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 119.)

Cal.App. 2 Dist.,2008.
Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alexander
--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 167 Cal.App.4th 1544, 2008 WL 4786566 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.), 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 13,850, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,532


Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top)

• 2008 WL 2157989 (Appellate Brief) Appellant's Opening Brief (Apr. 10, 2008) Original Image of this Document (PDF)
• B200551 (Docket) (Jul. 6, 2007)
END OF DOCUMENT

(C) 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works

to the truth teller

the attorney who was part of drawing up the contract for the bail was very aware of the conditions and pretty much trapped the poor family -taking all the money for this ridiculous bail and revoking it so they could retain the money after revoking the bail illegally.
though the judge ordered the money to be paid back within 10 days- they took it to the appelate court and the family lost that money as well
its like vultures--the attorney and the bail company devoured the family

the bond company

Dear Truth Teller,

The bail company does not use an attorney to draft the agreements. They are drafted by the surety company and they are standardized. The attorney did not make any money whatsoever from the bail premium. The family was very luck the bail company posted 1.5 million in bail without any real property securing the bond.

Qmind.

This case has to be the most screwed up case in the history of American Juris Prudence. What I surmise as two salient points were 1) Tainted evidence from the computer hacking 2)Violation of Attorney Client Privilege. I agree with his first Attorney. He should have taken a Plea deal. Would that Plea deal in Californea would have stopped the cases in two other Jurisdictions are he had to make similar deals (subject to it was being offered to him on the other two States?) or the Plea deal would have negated all pending complaints in the other States? I donot have answer to that. But what I can surmise is that the Judge should not have let this case go to trial till the "Hacking" and the "Attorney Client privilege" was addressed and investigated. By allowing to go to the trial the Jury was contaminated and brainwashed with this evidence which otherwise they would not have been privy to. The Prosecution was counting on the Jury to bail'em out and they did big time. May be this was one Felony or couple of misdemeanor but he was convcited of 15 Felonies and may go to jail for sixty seven years! when there are pedopphiles and serial killers given a slap on the wrist.Even Boston Strangler would not have been sentenced this harshly. Where are the Bar Associations? who proclaim their quest of equal justice to file a "Friend of the Court" Brief on the most sanctimonious of all Legal privilege the "Attoney Client Privilege"? This is a travesty of Justice. This case should be appealed in highest court of the Land on these two issues alone.

finally someone intellegent commenting-QMIND

OMG finally someone is actually seeing the actualy travesty of justice in this case. you are so right when actual rapist and pedophiles get away with a tap on the wrist here an innocent man is was found guilty on a rape kit that came negative- guilty for an attempted kiss- guilty of touching a stripper- guilty of having pictures of an almost 18 girl who herself took provocative pictures on her cell phone and sent it- guity of touching a girls thigh( when did the thigh become a sex organ)
this is the most absurd and inhuman verdict ever-something is not right here and everyone can see that.

to the bond company

you stole money from a family in distress. even after the judge ordered you to pay back the money you decided to take it to the appelate court and did not pay them the money that rightfully belonged to them. its bloodsucking vampires like you that give the world faith and conviction that an innocent man will never get a fair trial or justice in this country
you have blood money on your hands bail bonds company and you will pay with intrest

Mary

Sharon:

If the defense had put Marla Maples or Anand Jon or his family on the stand to testify to the defendant's good character, they would have opened the door to rebuttal witnesses to testify to Anand Jon's bad character, of which the evidence was apparently abundant, as well as his prior! That testimony would have been brutal and incriminatory. This is why the defendant or any witnesses on his behalf did not testify.

So I don't think the lawyers were drinking Anand Jon's Kool-Aid then. They were preventing even more damaging evidence about Anand Jon from coming out. It's called "opening the door." I'm surprised that you can't see what a box the defense was in and that you imply some sort of malpractice or stupidity on the part of the defense lawyers. It makes me suspect that maybe you are the one who was drinking Anand Jon's and his family's Kool-Aid! There is no explanation other than your own legal naivete as to why you would think that it would make a difference that Marla Maples could testify to a few kindnesses.

This case is a perfect illustration of why they call underage girls jailbait! Do you remember the case of Bo Derek, who was 16 or 17 when John Derek started fooling around with her? He was on his way to jail too, so John Derek married Bo before they could arrest him and that's a good defense! Or the case of Roman Polanski, who left the U.S. forever rather than face charges for the 13 year old girl? And remember, John Derek and Roman Polanski were respected and talented men of means and accomplishments with a lot of friends, whereas Anand Jon had neither means nor accomplishments.

I am a little perplexed at why this family continues to smear the girls by calling them strippers, hookers and escorts in the foreign press and then posting those planted items in your blog. What do they think this is going to accomplish other than making the public, law enforcement and the prosecutors angrier at Anand Jon and his family? Did they ever stop to think that people might think that they had something to do with turning these girls out because there are many allegations on the Internet that the mother may have run an operation using girls in India? It would explain why Anand Jon and his family presented so-called fashion shows to Indian businessmen that consisted of underage girls parading around in sheer clothes or sometimes no clothes at all but only jewelry. I'm just asking. Anyway, it makes no legal difference to the charges against Anand Jon and confirms that this family continues to treat people very badly which is why they have managed to gain so little sympathy, anywhere.

The hubris of Anand Jon and his family is really remarkable. They had prior warning that Anand Jon was headed for trouble with his earlier charge regarding assault on the minor that was pleaded down to lesser charges in 2003. Instead of stopping his behavior, Anand Jon got more deceptive about it by trying to set up defenses in advance that he thought the girls were 18. This is not the behavior of a martyr but rather the behavior of a hardened deviant deserving of substantial jail time. The hubris in not being willing to take a plea by assuming that the witnesses could be destroyed only resulted in a longer jail sentence-life. The fault is with the defendant and his family, not the lawyers.

This family's only chance of Anand Jon ever seeing a moment of freedom is to win this case on appeal on technical grounds and then for Anand Jon to throw himself on the mercy of the prosecutors and plead out. Running around and smearing these girls as hookers and tramps (and sometimes as fat and ugly!) and misrepresenting the facts about a so-called negative rape kit only hardens public opinion against them. The same goes for the smearing of the prosecutors as malicious and subject to disbarment and for smearing earlier defense lawyers as crooks and thieves. Oh, and they smear the press too. Public relations geniuses these people are not!

As far as losing their bond, this looks like bad karma coming back to bite this family. Let's remember that their entire business model was based on fraud and trying to paint a picture of success by misrepresenting who their clients and customers were, mislabeling other's clothes as their own, and other sharp business practices such as using these girls as slave labor and even collecting money from the girls for the privilege! The bond situation shows that the extent of the resources and good will of Anand Jon and his family in both the U.S. and India were limited to just about $130,000. This is in sharp contrast to the claims of wild success and popularity with the rich and well-connected.

Let this be a lesson to us all of the cost of hubris and treating others like dirt. A little remorse and humility would have been the way to go rather than the sneering and condescending smear campaign against everyone that this family mounted and continues to pursue. It's quite fascinating, really.

mary mary quite contrary

mary mary quite on the contrary
should i ask you how does your lil garden grow?
with lil lies and cockfull of made up tales and these strippers all in a row

before you shoot off and write your not so fabulous tale maybe you shouldve checked the real twist in the tail
the fact is
some of these girls are STRIPPERS
some are ESCORTS
some are NUDE MODELS
and some are plain liars who were told they could make something out of this
again fact check for you---the company was being funded
there was a lot more money involved
maybe you should take a look at the evidence that was presented to actually see who was lying
without knowing just based on your imaginative relapses stop your verbal vomit
you are playing with lives--this might be a good passtime as far as you are concerned but do realize it is someones life and having seen the actual evidence and actually having followed up on this case its very clear the girls lied and the prosecutors jumped at this great oppurtunity to become judges and the cops destroyed evidence and the media frenzy created a hysterical mob that was out on a witch hunt

racism at its best

Whoa- here a man has been given life with no evidence whatoever- other than "they said so" when the actual evidence shows it not so.
having watched part of the trial the manipulative manifestation of the very seasoned girls who cried during direct by the prosecution but hissed and attacked the defense and lied again and again on why and how and if they had kep constantly in touch with their alleged assaulter.
it was really fascinating to know that they could lie and get away with it---its like Leonard Levine said" they found this a safe place to lie" and lie they did again and again
the emails and even videos clearly showed they were more than happy -yet this man did not have a chance -why?
this wasn't about truth or evidence or who was right
it was all about how could a brown boy be with white girls
a request before posting or blogging callously check the acual evidence that was explicitly displayed in court -you had to be blind not to see the truth
the truth is the girls lied-
the truth is he is not guilty
the truth is a innocent man is being punished

Jatinder Singh

Man and Woman are two halves of One Body....and This whole System of Justice is inflicting so much "Fear" in the Hearts of Men and Women against each other ..... In Order to carry out the Imperialistic instints of selected few in Power.....But What No Body realizes is that "We" are more than "Machines" and Man/Woman are inseperable Part of One Orgasmic Consciousness.
But System Have Been Able To Blind People by Making a Declaration "Having Sex is equivalent to Rape and It's Man Who always does Rape" ....
Dumb Humans are buying that.....under the illusion that they are not one of chickens to be slaughtered in future.........

Message To All the Wonderful Strong Women of the World: You are the other half of the Man and If Man is downgraded to such an extent...Women can not survive either....Simply because it's not "Two"..It's One and the Same.



WOW!!!!!!!!!!!! Amazing Journey called Life..

Mary

Whether or not any of the girls are strippers, escorts or nude models has no legal significance when the jury is considering whether Anand Jon is guilty of the crimes for which he is charged and was properly excluded from the jury's consideration. I would add that evidence against Anand Jon, such as his prior and his reputation as a sex addict who lusted after underage girls, was also excluded from the jury's consideration. So the exclusion of evidence went both ways. This is why no one was put on the stand in Anand Jon's defense--the defense properly decided not to open the door for the jury to consider the prior conviction and the evidence of his reputation as a sex addict who lusted after underage girls.

I am not disputing that the witnesses against Anand Jon had some problems but it sounds like he had a good defense that fully permitted the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. Still they found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge did not set aside the verdicts as being against the weight of the evidence.

I am confused as to what you are attempting to accomplish by continuing to smear the witnesses, the lawyers and the press. How do you think this is going to help you in the event that Anand Jon ever gets a new trial? Don't you think that a little remorse and humility would be a better way to soften up public opinion?

The truth of the matter is this. The interesting thing about this case is the hubris of the defendant and his family--both in the way that they constructed a so-called business out of ersatz claims to fame and fortune and in the way that they let a rampant sex addict continue to prey on underage girls. The hubris continues with the smearing campaign both before and after the verdict.

It's a real morality tale in its own way and, as Sharon wrote, a stunning example of what can happen when you believe your own myths that you have created.

Jatinder Singh

What Public and INvolved Parties really needs is "Introspect"
Looking within for "Which one of the deadly sins are active?"
and Search for Truth (Not outside but Within ourselves)

I believe it's through clearing our minds from the dirt of Greed, Hate, Envy that we can collectively cleanse the consciousness that surrounds us all and make it a better place to live.

Justice according to the Laws of Nature/Creation always upholds "beyond a reasonable doubt" and in its "purity".

------------- Close your eyes right now and Think : What part of me is affected by this whole event and Wait for the answer to come
-------------------------------------------

who is accusing makes a huge difference

Yes its crucial to understand who is alleging this happened
the mistress of entrapment who did accomplish that using a fudged rape kit and lies that dont substantiate or validate her version of assault.
sending Anand Jon 30 plus sexually explicit pictures taken on her phone camera and under oath denying ther are hers- and actually stripping and posing nude for him- again on tape- clearly shows her willingness to be stripping
another alleged victim who claims she was touched again a stripper for several years--sending him nude pictures on a swing- hullo this is crazy
yes wake up smell the freaking coffeee--these girls were strippers and what are they alleging--inappropriate touching
and you put a man in prison for life for that?

seduction is not rape

when did seduction become rape
when girls willingly follow Anand Jon from one state to another buying their own tickets after their alleged assaults-the world we live in is dangerous since we can so easily trap someone with baseless lies and no evidence to back it up
on the contrary the evidence clearly shows that the girls are lying
LYING TO PUT AN INNOCENT MAN IN JAIL

Mary

It looks like maybe the Anand Jon family was expecting this author to be their Emile Zola and free Anand Jon from his own Dreyfus Affair. Instead the author has decided that Anand Jon and his family are delusional.
They are probably still in the denial and anger stages of their grief for all that they have lost. One would hope that they are getting some kind of counseling in order to cope.

It's incomprehensible that Anand Jon did not accept a plea when facing so many charges, given that he was conceding to having sex with minors and so he knew that he would probably do some time. One would think that if he were so convinced of his own innocence on principle that he would not have accepted a plea in the earlier case of lewd conduct with a minor and agreed to sex re-education classes.

In addition to hubris, this is also a case of sex addiction gone so out of control that it cost this man his life and the life of his family. It is true, isn't it, that he was arrested for one assault the night before on one girl and also for another assault on another girl the night before that? He should have been in rehab long before he got so out of control. But I guess he and his family would have had to admit that he had a problem and they, sadly, appear unable to do that even to this day.

why did i just comment???

He knew how to be pleasant, hypnotic, and entice people, at the same time he knew who to prey on, who to humiliate, who to impress and so forth. There is a youtube interview of him out there and he says, in five years i will be eating my words. He is trying to speak elonquontly and you can see him wincing as he tries to understand the 'almost God-like appeal of the western culture, with his fascination with 'Jon' Bon Jovi, beautiful women, and he wanted to exemplify it to himself, in the meantime, losing sight of reality, respect, humbleness, humiliaty, and learning things. He let out his inability to understand and grasp these things on these girls that he felt he could disgrace because he must of been in awe of them, jealous almost, wondering how a young, beautiful could get whatever she wanted from life.
That is not how it works however. the sad truth is, they get attacked, sexually, mentally, etc...it affects them and therefore many do fall prey to victimizing themselves over and over by becoming strippers and such...

whoever keeps saying vomit should stop! clearly they are the one who needs help! sometimes when people say things it means they are suffering much to that old adage bullies do that because they dont know any better but to put down others. anyways...something to think about i suppose...

Jatinder Singh

why did i just comment???
seduction is not rape
who is accusing makes a huge difference
racism at its best
mary mary quite contrary
finally someone intellegent commenting-QMIND
flock of hungry hyenas ripping a baby lamb
--------------------------------------------
Looks like someone using all these names to vent his/her pain ......

Who ever it is: My Sincere Advice from Heart is
------------------------------------------------
It's a Culture Clash and It's Race Clash and It's Ego Clash --
----------------------- These People are just going to have a belly smile...seeing you crying out your pain.
Totally Surrender Your Self, Your Ego and Your Pains to GOD.....It's all happening for a reason...

Everyone Pays for their Actions....Trust It

Please Help yourself to Heal......No one really cares for anybody except oneself and ones own ideology.

Seeing You Hurting and Crying for Justice...is only helping others who wanted you to suffer...

Trust God's Justice....It may not happen in my way or in my time.......But IT SURE HAPPENS to ALL of US.

F.

I worked with Jon on a fashion show in the late 90s. He had the God-complex thing even then. I found him talented, irritating, charming and ultimately a perfectionist. He did seem capable of using people for his own ends, and I think this hubris only built for him as his career florished. The bottom line is that he did things that were illegal, unethical and borderline predatory. Life prison? Probably too harsh. Prison? Absolutately justified.

The comments to this entry are closed.

-->