Custom Essay Writing Services

I had no idea that my work on a motion picture would cause a high-profile death penalty case to end up with the California Supreme Court. Jesse James Hollywood had been gone for nearly three years by the time I became involved. He had totally disappeared. Vanished into thin air. And he seemed so completely removed from the writing project I was about to begin.

The FBI and other federal and local law enforcement authorities trails had all but dried up. That’s why the prosecutor assigned to the case, Santa Barbara County Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen, who had also prosecuted Hollywood’s four co-defendants &ndash and a guy named Michael Jackson &ndash agreed to work with us. Mr. Zonen had wanted to create a sort of global wanted poster to see if someone somewhere in the world might be able to ID Hollywood, pick up the phone, and help global law enforcement authorities nab him. Zonen had already worked with the producers from the television show America’s Most Wanted, who featured the fugitive on nine of its shows between 2000 and 2003, and he wanted his man, badly.

Hollywood’s name had become daily fodder for national headlines after word of the murder originally hit in early August of 2000. All the news pundits had named him as the ringleader of a band of middleclass, pot-selling social misfits, and the one responsible for orchestrating the fifteen-year-old’s kidnapping and murder. But no one apparently had a clue as to where he had disappeared to when I took the call from an old buddy who wanted to make a motion picture about the youngest man ever on the FBI’s Most Wanted List.

In April of 2003, writer/director Nick Cassavetes and I trekked up north to meet with Mr. Zonen at the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office. Ronald J. Zonen had been Chief Trial Deputy for the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office since 1991. He was an affable man with a smooth demeanor and when we were finished, he gave us several volumes of trial transcripts from Hollywood’s co-defendants, and we left. At the time, Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey McGuire were set to produce Alpha Dog, and I had no idea that I’d end up writing a highly controversial novel based on the tragic story, or that I’d end up being a crusader in the battle to save Mr. Hollywood’s life. I was also not prescient enough to envision DiCaprio or McGuire falling off the project, nor Justin Timberlake, Bruce Willis, Sharon Stone, Anton Yelchin, Emile Hirsch, or Ben Foster climbing on.

After reading through the transcripts that Mr. Zonen had provided, plus others from Hollywood’s co-defendants’ trials and appeals, I realized we did not have enough information to write a truthful story about what had actually taken place. I talked this over with Cassavetes, and we agreed that I should go back to Santa Barbara to get more information from Mr. Zonen. We needed more detail and deeper insight into character and motivation for story purposes. We needed police reports, photographs, witness interviews and much more. And amazingly, we got them. I got Mr. Zonen’s entire file from prosecuting Hollywood’s four co-defendants, including copies of all the videos and audiotapes, the defendants’ confessions, the prosecutor’s trial notebook, the defendants’ psychological records and probation reports, and more. I also arranged to have Mr. Zonen &ndash along with the lead detective working the case &ndash take us up to Lizard’s Mouth, a trailhead located atop the mountains separating Santa Barbara and the Santa Ynez Valley, to discuss the murder with us at the very spot where the victim’s body had been discovered in a shallow grave some three years earlier.

This combined with all the information accrued from the interviews Cassavetes and I had conducted enabled me to prepare a 239-page story chronology that I used to help Nick write his screenplay. He went on to direct Alpha Dog and I set out to write my book. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, in March of 2005, after one of the greatest international manhunts in history, Jesse James Hollywood was captured in a Brazilian jungle, and I was about to be thrust into the legal hot seat.

James Blatt is one of America’s most astute criminal defense attorneys. He dresses like a zillion bucks and wears the disarming smile of a ruthless professional. After Jesse Hollywood’s capture, his father, Jack, who was a consultant on Alpha Dog, told Mr. Blatt about all the information I had gathered for the film and book projects; how I had become the world’s leading authority on the case. He thought I might be able to aid Mr. Blatt in trying to save his son’s life. When we met, Blatt questioned me about all the information I had gathered. By the time the meeting ended, the defense attorney appeared quite impressed with what he had heard. Later that summer, he asked me to testify in his client’s death penalty case. He wanted to build a record of all informational exchanges between Mr. Zonen and myself. He wanted to recuse the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office for prosecutorial misconduct for having turned over their file to me.

The only problem with this strategy was that my testimony was needed to do it. Since I was the only one to repeatedly meet with Mr. Zonen, I was the only one who could testify as to what he had given me. I found myself caught in a “Sophie’s Choice” type situation. If I testified, I could help save Jesse James Hollywood from death row. But at the same time, my testimony could be used as the cornerstone for criminal prosecution against Mr. Zonen and his office for what Mr. Blatt termed “illegal misconduct.” Since I’m totally against bringing death to any living being, I wanted to help Mr. Blatt save his client’s life. But on the other hand, Mr. Zonen had been very good to me. He had been totally cooperative in providing us with material for the movie and book. As conflicted as I felt, as much as I wanted to help save Jack Hollywood’s son’s life, I could not be responsible for bringing criminal charges against a man I considered a good friend. So I refused to testify. Ultimately, the California Attorney General agreed not to pursue criminal charges against Mr. Zonen or the DA’s office, and I reversed my position and agreed to testify.

In September 2005, Hollywood’s attorney filed a motion to recuse the entire District Attorney’s office. In support of the motion, Mr. Blatt declared that he had attended “the first and only public screening to date” of Alpha Dog, and that the film portrayed his client “in an extremely inflammatory manner, as extremely manipulative, vicious, selfish, and without any redeeming character traits whatsoever.” He further stated that several of the public movie viewers had described his client as being nothing short of a “monster,” and that at the conclusion of the film, special thanks were given to the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department and to Ron Zonen.

The trial court denied Hollywood’s motion, but ended up ordering me to turn over the notes and tapes from all the interviews I conducted. The defense then appealed the case. In its wisdom, the California Court of Appeal agreed with the defense and, after an evidentiary hearing by the trial court, recused Zonen (but not his entire office) from the case. In his concurring opinion, Justice Gilbert succinctly noted: “However appalling the crime for which defendant was charged, he, like anyone charged with a criminal offense, is entitled to a fair trial with all its attendant constitutional and statutory safeguards.” In this case, the prosecution had fallen short of this requirement.

Every high-profile case carries with it the risk of the prosecutor falling into the trap of cozying up too much with the media. Prosecutors, as well as other law enforcement agencies, often find themselves playing up to the media as if there are two trials to win &ndash the one in the courtroom as well as the one with the court of public opinion. When handling high-profile cases, prosecutors must take to heart the conflict of interest they create when buddying up to the media. They can easily become lost in the quest for personal glory or profit. This appeared to be what happened with the case involving the Duke lacrosse team, where the DA’s pretrial contacts with the media raised questions about his ability to handle the matter fairly, resulting in his recusal. There were similar complaints regarding the prosecution of the Jenna 6 case out of Louisiana.

Prosecutors do not represent clients. Rather, all decisions made in their cases are supposed to center around the best interests of the public. And part of these considerations must be to act responsibly when interacting with the media. There are certain guidelines they must follow to make sure their statements (and actions) do not materially prejudice a legal proceeding. According to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, prosecutors must make sure their comments do not have a “substantial likelihood of heightened public condemnation of the accused.” They must also be sure to prevent “investigators, law enforcement personnel” and other employees or persons assisting from making such statements to the media.

Prosecutors do, in the alternative, have certain First Amendment rights. However, again, those rights do not go unlimited when dealing with the media in a high-profile case. The prosecutor must still be responsible for pursuing a just result. He or she must act in a manner that puts the public’s interest above that of the individual prosecutor. Thus, their goal must be to make sure that justice is done in all instances, not that they win the case.

In the Hollywood matter, I was afraid that the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office had lost sight of their responsibilities. They had continuously misrepresented the true facts and the motivations involved in the case to the media, and they seemed totally bent upon demonizing Hollywood and his co-defendants. For all intents and purposes, Hollywood, during his nearly five years of being at large, had been convicted in absentia. I believed there to be no way for him to receive a fair trial. Public sentiment wanted him dead for what they believed he had done. And this was due to the way the prosecutor and associated law enforcement agencies had dealt with the media. They acted as though their only goals were to assure that Jesse James Hollywood was not only captured, but that the public was set up to convict him and sentence him to death. True justice did not seem to be a part of their plan. I felt it my moral responsibility as a fellow human being to do what I could to make sure this did not happen.

I had no idea that my work on a motion picture would cause a high-profile death penalty case to end up with the California Supreme Court. Jesse James Hollywood had been gone for nearly three years by the time I became involved. He had totally disappeared. Vanished into thin air. And he seemed so completely removed from the writing project I was about to begin.

The FBI and other federal and local law enforcement authorities trails had all but dried up. That’s why the prosecutor assigned to the case, Santa Barbara County Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen, who had also prosecuted Hollywood’s four co-defendants &ndash and a guy named Michael Jackson &ndash agreed to work with us. Mr. Zonen had wanted to create a sort of global wanted poster to see if someone somewhere in the world might be able to ID Hollywood, pick up the phone, and help global law enforcement authorities nab him. Zonen had already worked with the producers from the television show America’s Most Wanted, who featured the fugitive on nine of its shows between 2000 and 2003, and he wanted his man, badly.

Hollywood’s name had become daily fodder for national headlines after word of the murder originally hit in early August of 2000. All the news pundits had named him as the ringleader of a band of middleclass, pot-selling social misfits, and the one responsible for orchestrating the fifteen-year-old’s kidnapping and murder. But no one apparently had a clue as to where he had disappeared to when I took the call from an old buddy who wanted to make a motion picture about the youngest man ever on the FBI’s Most Wanted List.

In April of 2003, writer/director Nick Cassavetes and I trekked up north to meet with Mr. Zonen at the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office. Ronald J. Zonen had been Chief Trial Deputy for the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office since 1991. He was an affable man with a smooth demeanor and when we were finished, he gave us several volumes of trial transcripts from Hollywood’s co-defendants, and we left. At the time, Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey McGuire were set to produce Alpha Dog, and I had no idea that I’d end up writing a highly controversial novel based on the tragic story, or that I’d end up being a crusader in the battle to save Mr. Hollywood’s life. I was also not prescient enough to envision DiCaprio or McGuire falling off the project, nor Justin Timberlake, Bruce Willis, Sharon Stone, Anton Yelchin, Emile Hirsch, or Ben Foster climbing on.

After reading through the transcripts that Mr. Zonen had provided, plus others from Hollywood’s co-defendants’ trials and appeals, I realized we did not have enough information to write a truthful story about what had actually taken place. I talked this over with Cassavetes, and we agreed that I should go back to Santa Barbara to get more information from Mr. Zonen. We needed more detail and deeper insight into character and motivation for story purposes. We needed police reports, photographs, witness interviews and much more. And amazingly, we got them. I got Mr. Zonen’s entire file from prosecuting Hollywood’s four co-defendants, including copies of all the videos and audiotapes, the defendants’ confessions, the prosecutor’s trial notebook, the defendants’ psychological records and probation reports, and more. I also arranged to have Mr. Zonen &ndash along with the lead detective working the case &ndash take us up to Lizard’s Mouth, a trailhead located atop the mountains separating Santa Barbara and the Santa Ynez Valley, to discuss the murder with us at the very spot where the victim’s body had been discovered in a shallow grave some three years earlier.

This combined with all the information accrued from the interviews Cassavetes and I had conducted enabled me to prepare a 239-page story chronology that I used to help Nick write his screenplay. He went on to direct Alpha Dog and I set out to write my book. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, in March of 2005, after one of the greatest international manhunts in history, Jesse James Hollywood was captured in a Brazilian jungle, and I was about to be thrust into the legal hot seat.

James Blatt is one of America’s most astute criminal defense attorneys. He dresses like a zillion bucks and wears the disarming smile of a ruthless professional. After Jesse Hollywood’s capture, his father, Jack, who was a consultant on Alpha Dog, told Mr. Blatt about all the information I had gathered for the film and book projects; how I had become the world’s leading authority on the case. He thought I might be able to aid Mr. Blatt in trying to save his son’s life. When we met, Blatt questioned me about all the information I had gathered. By the time the meeting ended, the defense attorney appeared quite impressed with what he had heard. Later that summer, he asked me to testify in his client’s death penalty case. He wanted to build a record of all informational exchanges between Mr. Zonen and myself. He wanted to recuse the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office for prosecutorial misconduct for having turned over their file to me.

The only problem with this strategy was that my testimony was needed to do it. Since I was the only one to repeatedly meet with Mr. Zonen, I was the only one who could testify as to what he had given me. I found myself caught in a “Sophie’s Choice” type situation. If I testified, I could help save Jesse James Hollywood from death row. But at the same time, my testimony could be used as the cornerstone for criminal prosecution against Mr. Zonen and his office for what Mr. Blatt termed “illegal misconduct.” Since I’m totally against bringing death to any living being, I wanted to help Mr. Blatt save his client’s life. But on the other hand, Mr. Zonen had been very good to me. He had been totally cooperative in providing us with material for the movie and book. As conflicted as I felt, as much as I wanted to help save Jack Hollywood’s son’s life, I could not be responsible for bringing criminal charges against a man I considered a good friend. So I refused to testify. Ultimately, the California Attorney General agreed not to pursue criminal charges against Mr. Zonen or the DA’s office, and I reversed my position and agreed to testify.

In September 2005, Hollywood’s attorney filed a motion to recuse the entire District Attorney’s office. In support of the motion, Mr. Blatt declared that he had attended “the first and only public screening to date” of Alpha Dog, and that the film portrayed his client “in an extremely inflammatory manner, as extremely manipulative, vicious, selfish, and without any redeeming character traits whatsoever.” He further stated that several of the public movie viewers had described his client as being nothing short of a “monster,” and that at the conclusion of the film, special thanks were given to the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department and to Ron Zonen.

The trial court denied Hollywood’s motion, but ended up ordering me to turn over the notes and tapes from all the interviews I conducted. The defense then appealed the case. In its wisdom, the California Court of Appeal agreed with the defense and, after an evidentiary hearing by the trial court, recused Zonen (but not his entire office) from the case. In his concurring opinion, Justice Gilbert succinctly noted: “However appalling the crime for which defendant was charged, he, like anyone charged with a criminal offense, is entitled to a fair trial with all its attendant constitutional and statutory safeguards.” In this case, the prosecution had fallen short of this requirement.

Every high-profile case carries with it the risk of the prosecutor falling into the trap of cozying up too much with the media. Prosecutors, as well as other law enforcement agencies, often find themselves playing up to the media as if there are two trials to win &ndash the one in the courtroom as well as the one with the court of public opinion. When handling high-profile cases, prosecutors must take to heart the conflict of interest they create when buddying up to the media. They can easily become lost in the quest for personal glory or profit. This appeared to be what happened with the case involving the Duke lacrosse team, where the DA’s pretrial contacts with the media raised questions about his ability to handle the matter fairly, resulting in his recusal. There were similar complaints regarding the prosecution of the Jenna 6 case out of Louisiana.

Prosecutors do not represent clients. Rather, all decisions made in their cases are supposed to center around the best interests of the public. And part of these considerations must be to act responsibly when interacting with the media. There are certain guidelines they must follow to make sure their statements (and actions) do not materially prejudice a legal proceeding. According to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, prosecutors must make sure their comments do not have a “substantial likelihood of heightened public condemnation of the accused.” They must also be sure to prevent “investigators, law enforcement personnel” and other employees or persons assisting from making such statements to the media.

Prosecutors do, in the alternative, have certain First Amendment rights. However, again, those rights do not go unlimited when dealing with the media in a high-profile case. The prosecutor must still be responsible for pursuing a just result. He or she must act in a manner that puts the public’s interest above that of the individual prosecutor. Thus, their goal must be to make sure that justice is done in all instances, not that they win the case.

In the Hollywood matter, I was afraid that the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office had lost sight of their responsibilities. They had continuously misrepresented the true facts and the motivations involved in the case to the media, and they seemed totally bent upon demonizing Hollywood and his co-defendants. For all intents and purposes, Hollywood, during his nearly five years of being at large, had been convicted in absentia. I believed there to be no way for him to receive a fair trial. Public sentiment wanted him dead for what they believed he had done. And this was due to the way the prosecutor and associated law enforcement agencies had dealt with the media. They acted as though their only goals were to assure that Jesse James Hollywood was not only captured, but that the public was set up to convict him and sentence him to death. True justice did not seem to be a part of their plan. I felt it my moral responsibility as a fellow human being to do what I could to make sure this did not happen.

Everyone talks about the negative impact of online gambling, but they are not talking about the negative impact of banning online gambling.

A reason for banning online casinos was to make sure that underage children were not using thee parents credit cards to gamble online, but besides the fact that most online casinos did everything possible to ensure to verify the age of the account holder before allowing any gambling to occur, but by banning it you are only stopping the law abiding casinos from taking bets and not the less reputable online casinos. They will use third party account like PayPal ore Click2pay which provide a loophole in the new law.

By banning an activity especially such a popular activity as online gambling all that can be expected to happen is for people to find ways around the law, such as the Speakeasies of the 1920’s.

A Speakeasy was a nightclub that served Alcohol during prohibition and was usually hidden in the back rooms of pet stores and innocent looking book stores. Every time a speakeasy was raided the next night another one was opened, and this is what will happen with these online casinos. If the government finds one operating in the USA and gets it shut down or manages to stop the money flowing to it then another will open.

By regulating online gambling the government would know exactly who was running the casino to make sure they were running it honestly and within all the laws, and it would help make sure that the criminal element did not get rich and gain power a second time in the history of the USA because of a bad lawmaking decision.

Another reason given for the ban of online gambling was to help protect against a rise in problem gamblers from have casino gamming in your home 24 hrs a day, but no proof has ever been found that shows that people who would normally not be inclined to go to a casino and gamble would decide to do it just because it was now in their homes.

The facts actually show a steady rate of people with gambling problems and growing at the same rate it has been growing for over 25 years.

Many experts are now saying that there are some positives to the online gambling ban, but those positives would be even better if the industry was properly legalized and not, just by putting a mostly unenforceable law in place.

But this to be a pattern the government seems to always make, it is much like the war on drugs. Last time I checked thee was still a drug problem in this country even though drugs are illegal, yet in countries like Holland where the use of soft drugs like hash and grass are legal the number people with drug problems is much lower per capita then in the USA. This is because the money that is brought in the form of taxes from these sales goes to fund the public schools where they properly educate kids on the negative effects of these drugs, so most of the people who smoke are tourists and not the locals.

Maybe one day the government will learn from its past mistakes and make things right.

Everyone talks about the negative impact of online gambling, but they are not talking about the negative impact of banning online gambling.

A reason for banning online casinos was to make sure that underage children were not using thee parents credit cards to gamble online, but besides the fact that most online casinos did everything possible to ensure to verify the age of the account holder before allowing any gambling to occur, but by banning it you are only stopping the law abiding casinos from taking bets and not the less reputable online casinos. They will use third party account like PayPal ore Click2pay which provide a loophole in the new law.

By banning an activity especially such a popular activity as online gambling all that can be expected to happen is for people to find ways around the law, such as the Speakeasies of the 1920’s.

A Speakeasy was a nightclub that served Alcohol during prohibition and was usually hidden in the back rooms of pet stores and innocent looking book stores. Every time a speakeasy was raided the next night another one was opened, and this is what will happen with these online casinos. If the government finds one operating in the USA and gets it shut down or manages to stop the money flowing to it then another will open.

By regulating online gambling the government would know exactly who was running the casino to make sure they were running it honestly and within all the laws, and it would help make sure that the criminal element did not get rich and gain power a second time in the history of the USA because of a bad lawmaking decision.

Another reason given for the ban of online gambling was to help protect against a rise in problem gamblers from have casino gamming in your home 24 hrs a day, but no proof has ever been found that shows that people who would normally not be inclined to go to a casino and gamble would decide to do it just because it was now in their homes.

The facts actually show a steady rate of people with gambling problems and growing at the same rate it has been growing for over 25 years.

Many experts are now saying that there are some positives to the online gambling ban, but those positives would be even better if the industry was properly legalized and not, just by putting a mostly unenforceable law in place.

But this to be a pattern the government seems to always make, it is much like the war on drugs. Last time I checked thee was still a drug problem in this country even though drugs are illegal, yet in countries like Holland where the use of soft drugs like hash and grass are legal the number people with drug problems is much lower per capita then in the USA. This is because the money that is brought in the form of taxes from these sales goes to fund the public schools where they properly educate kids on the negative effects of these drugs, so most of the people who smoke are tourists and not the locals.

Maybe one day the government will learn from its past mistakes and make things right.

Many Americans feel that Marijuana is helping fund the war on terror, but making a war on drugs and keeping Marijuana illegal has not stopped millions of Americans from smoking pot everyday. So what is the answer?

First, why is Marijuana illegal? In the 1930’s William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry testified to congress on the evils of marijuana, saying things like it make people insane and commit acts of cannibalism? at this time very few even knew what it was and to stop people from going insane Congress decided to make it illegal.

The truth is many paper manufacturers were thinking of changing from using trees to make paper to using hemp because it was cheaper and easier to grow and better for the environment, and Hearst stood to loose millions so he used his influence and testimony to help get marijuana banned in the USA.

So now that we know why it was made illegal, we can realize that not only would making it legal in the United States stop terrorist from smuggling it into the USA, but would give us another option to cutting down of millions of trees every year for paper products that can be made better from hemp.

Hemp has thousands of uses that we are unable to exploit because of its illegal status.

During WWII hemp was used for the rigging on parachutes as well as rope and material for uniforms.

Nowadays Marijuana can be used to relieve pain and some of the effect of cancer treatments and old age.

It has been proven to slow down the spreading of Alzheimer’s, relieve the pressure behind the eyes from glaucoma. It also helps relieve migraine headaches and the side effect of cancer treatment.

But until the United States realizes how much money can be made from legalizing it, it will remain illegal.

This is much like the situation with online casinos in the USA. America was sending billions of dollars out of the country and the government needed to do something to keep the money here, so they banned Online Casino and just like online casinos and online gambling I believe one day the government will learn to take advantage of these things instead of just banning them.

Eventually the USA will realize that the best way to stop the flow of money out of the country is not to ban marijuana or online casinos, but to enter the market and compete.

If the USA did what Amsterdam has done the government would make not only billions in Taxes from the sales of Marijuana, but the economy would boom from all the tourism that it would bring in from all over the world.

The truth of the matter is that legalization is inevitable. The attitude of people has changed so drastically over the last 30 years, that eventually when the younger generations start to take over marijuana will eventually become legal because they understand the truth, and that is banning something only makes the market for it stronger.

Many Americans feel that Marijuana is helping fund the war on terror, but making a war on drugs and keeping Marijuana illegal has not stopped millions of Americans from smoking pot everyday. So what is the answer?

First, why is Marijuana illegal? In the 1930’s William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry testified to congress on the evils of marijuana, saying things like it make people insane and commit acts of cannibalism? at this time very few even knew what it was and to stop people from going insane Congress decided to make it illegal.

The truth is many paper manufacturers were thinking of changing from using trees to make paper to using hemp because it was cheaper and easier to grow and better for the environment, and Hearst stood to loose millions so he used his influence and testimony to help get marijuana banned in the USA.

So now that we know why it was made illegal, we can realize that not only would making it legal in the United States stop terrorist from smuggling it into the USA, but would give us another option to cutting down of millions of trees every year for paper products that can be made better from hemp.

Hemp has thousands of uses that we are unable to exploit because of its illegal status.

During WWII hemp was used for the rigging on parachutes as well as rope and material for uniforms.

Nowadays Marijuana can be used to relieve pain and some of the effect of cancer treatments and old age.

It has been proven to slow down the spreading of Alzheimer’s, relieve the pressure behind the eyes from glaucoma. It also helps relieve migraine headaches and the side effect of cancer treatment.

But until the United States realizes how much money can be made from legalizing it, it will remain illegal.

This is much like the situation with online casinos in the USA. America was sending billions of dollars out of the country and the government needed to do something to keep the money here, so they banned Online Casino and just like online casinos and online gambling I believe one day the government will learn to take advantage of these things instead of just banning them.

Eventually the USA will realize that the best way to stop the flow of money out of the country is not to ban marijuana or online casinos, but to enter the market and compete.

If the USA did what Amsterdam has done the government would make not only billions in Taxes from the sales of Marijuana, but the economy would boom from all the tourism that it would bring in from all over the world.

The truth of the matter is that legalization is inevitable. The attitude of people has changed so drastically over the last 30 years, that eventually when the younger generations start to take over marijuana will eventually become legal because they understand the truth, and that is banning something only makes the market for it stronger.

Stolen Boy is billed as a work of fiction, however it actually explores a real event, and that event is still unfolding in the Southern California court system. Jessie James Hollywood faces the potential of the trip to lethal injection for his actions. So real is Michael Mehas’ book that he actually was subpoenaed twice as a witness in the trial, and forced to hand over his notes and tapes of interviews he had conducted.

With a background of Los Angeles, Stolen boy is about drugs, booze, fast cars, and young people. With that combination you will immediately think gangs. But gangs are not involved, the individuals are mostly from regular middle class, though, highly dysfunctional families.

Mickey Youngblood and Rick LeBlanc are young people that have set out on money making careers in the drug business, both have carved out lucrative existences, but a deal between them that went wrong has soured their relationship. So much so, that a $2000 outstanding debt, creates a verbal war, that in turn becomes a physical war of property damage, and threats towards families.

Mickey is to say the least a hot head, and when the windows of his house are smashed out in a late night raid, all rules of right and wrong exit through the empty frames. Revenge is a strong emotion and Mickey is hell bent on satisfying his hunger for it.

His first idea is to find Rick LeBlanc and have it out with him. $2000 after all is chump change in the drug world. In a sheer coincidence it is not Rick they see walking down the street, but his 15 year old younger brother Bobby. Once again though, Mickey lets his rage rule his brain, and persuades the kids with him to firstly beat the kid up “as a warning,” however second thoughts enter the sick and twisted mind, and instead they kidnap Bobby.

It is not the classic kidnap tale, in fact it is anything but classic. Bobby for the most part is free to leave at any time, but he prefers to ‘party’ with his captors, drugs and booze abound! Even stranger there is no attempt made to conceal the fact that Bobby is a hostage. In what has to have been the worst kept secret in the sieve that is the LA underbelly, the whole scheme starts to unravel as more and more people become involved.

Once again the demon Mickey makes poor choices, faced with the potential of exposure by Bobby he must now make a very hard decision. Does he believe Bobby when he says that there is no harm done, and that he will not talk to anyone about the kidnapping? Or is a different course of action needed?

This is a very powerful book, and one that deserves a spot on the coveted shelf space of your local bookstore. It has also cost author Michael Mehas a great deal to write this book, being so close to the factual case he finds himself in a ‘no win’ situation. The real Mickey faces the possibility of the death penalty. What Michael knows could spare him, or could seal his fate. In many ways, Michael has become Mickey, he holds the key to life or death. This is not a situation I would want to be in.

This is not your typical novel, even though the main characters are mere teenagers, they cover the entire gamut of today’s society, the good, the bad, and the very, very ugly!

Stolen Boy is available through Amazon, and Michael Mehas also has a very informative web site where you can learn more about this story that merges fact with fiction.

Stolen Boy is billed as a work of fiction, however it actually explores a real event, and that event is still unfolding in the Southern California court system. Jessie James Hollywood faces the potential of the trip to lethal injection for his actions. So real is Michael Mehas’ book that he actually was subpoenaed twice as a witness in the trial, and forced to hand over his notes and tapes of interviews he had conducted.

With a background of Los Angeles, Stolen boy is about drugs, booze, fast cars, and young people. With that combination you will immediately think gangs. But gangs are not involved, the individuals are mostly from regular middle class, though, highly dysfunctional families.

Mickey Youngblood and Rick LeBlanc are young people that have set out on money making careers in the drug business, both have carved out lucrative existences, but a deal between them that went wrong has soured their relationship. So much so, that a $2000 outstanding debt, creates a verbal war, that in turn becomes a physical war of property damage, and threats towards families.

Mickey is to say the least a hot head, and when the windows of his house are smashed out in a late night raid, all rules of right and wrong exit through the empty frames. Revenge is a strong emotion and Mickey is hell bent on satisfying his hunger for it.

His first idea is to find Rick LeBlanc and have it out with him. $2000 after all is chump change in the drug world. In a sheer coincidence it is not Rick they see walking down the street, but his 15 year old younger brother Bobby. Once again though, Mickey lets his rage rule his brain, and persuades the kids with him to firstly beat the kid up “as a warning,” however second thoughts enter the sick and twisted mind, and instead they kidnap Bobby.

It is not the classic kidnap tale, in fact it is anything but classic. Bobby for the most part is free to leave at any time, but he prefers to ‘party’ with his captors, drugs and booze abound! Even stranger there is no attempt made to conceal the fact that Bobby is a hostage. In what has to have been the worst kept secret in the sieve that is the LA underbelly, the whole scheme starts to unravel as more and more people become involved.

Once again the demon Mickey makes poor choices, faced with the potential of exposure by Bobby he must now make a very hard decision. Does he believe Bobby when he says that there is no harm done, and that he will not talk to anyone about the kidnapping? Or is a different course of action needed?

This is a very powerful book, and one that deserves a spot on the coveted shelf space of your local bookstore. It has also cost author Michael Mehas a great deal to write this book, being so close to the factual case he finds himself in a ‘no win’ situation. The real Mickey faces the possibility of the death penalty. What Michael knows could spare him, or could seal his fate. In many ways, Michael has become Mickey, he holds the key to life or death. This is not a situation I would want to be in.

This is not your typical novel, even though the main characters are mere teenagers, they cover the entire gamut of today’s society, the good, the bad, and the very, very ugly!

Stolen Boy is available through Amazon, and Michael Mehas also has a very informative web site where you can learn more about this story that merges fact with fiction.