Clubbing an old case to the present allegations created prejudice and violated due process rights of fashion designer Anand Jon, attorney Ronald Richards told the court.

Jon remains in Los Angeles County jail following his arrest on March 6 for rape and related charges. The bail was set for $1.365 million.

Richards asked the Superior Court of the State of California to dismiss count one in the charges, which is about the old case.

The old complaint was made by one Natalie P who told the police that she was raped by Jon on October 19, 2004.

But she made the complaint on May 4, 2005, some six months after the alleged incident, the motion pointed out.

Bonneville County Sheriff's Office in Idaho sent the investigation report to Beverly Hills police as Jon was on probation from November 2003 to November 2006 in front of this court, the motion noted.

On June 30, 2005, Deputy District Attorney Kevin Halligan interviewed Natalie P, but declined to prosecute Jon due to lack of evidence. Halligan told the police that they will try and get a probation violation.

Richards told the court that the court did not get any records about the probation violation. The DA's office did not take any action to violate a defendant's probation, unless of course, they had serious credibility concerns about the complaining witness, the motion noted.

The probation arose from an incident in 2003 when Jon was arrested and charged with committing a lewd act on a child. Jon pled no contest to the lesser charge of misdemeanor disorderly conduct then.

The probation required him to complete 52 weeks of sex therapy. He was also ordered not to associate with any child under the age of 18 years without a responsible adult present.

Now, two and a half years later, Count One is joined with six others causing serious prejudice, Richards said. There are no records showing his relationship with Natalie P.

Because of joining the old charge to the present one, Jon is seriously prejudiced by facing a higher bail, increased sentencing exposure, and a myriad of other legal prejudices.

By delaying a speedy trial in the old case, justice was delayed and due process was also violated, Richards said.

Numerous courts have dismissed charges for far less time than 30 months, the time period in this case between the report by Natalie P and the arrest of the defendant, Richards noted.

It is highly unfair to now ask the defendant to attempt to find all the witnesses that Natalie P references in her report.

She uses no names, some are in New York, and now, the defendant has no recollection of who these people were as these nameless witnesses described by Natalie P have vanished.

It is the epitome of prejudice, to join a 30-month-old charge with recent charges without even notifying the defendant 30 months ago of its existence or even requesting an interview from the defendant in order to get his side of the story. There is never justification for one sided police work, the motion said.

Other than the statement of Natalie P, there is not a scintilla of corroborative evidence that any intercourse even occurred. There were no e-mails, letters, or any indication that he has ever had a romantic relationship with Natalie, the motion noted.