Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Jackson ordered to pay ex-wife's lawyer fees

Michael Jackson Debbie Rowe Custody Case Jackson Children 2006

  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#1 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 13 September 2006 - 10:11 PM

Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14703630/

So, basically, the case is still going to court...only the Judge has said Jackson must help fund the people suing him!? WTF type sh*t is that? Not only does he have to pay for his own defense team, he has to pay for the other team suing him? WTF are some of these Judges smoking?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#2 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 13 September 2006 - 10:21 PM

Maybe he'll just have to sell those Beatles rights now to have some money. :D
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#3 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 13 September 2006 - 10:42 PM

View PostDWF, on Sep 13 2006, 11:21 PM, said:

Maybe he'll just have to sell those Beatles rights now to have some money. :D

He probably will. But it's still not right to make him have to help fund those that are suing him. If you want to sue someone, and you think you have a case, YOU hire a lawyer. To expect the person your suing to help fund your case against them is BS!

And the fact that this Judge did just that makes me think he's about a half step away from full blown Alzheimer, and is taking some serious drugs.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#4 Natolii

Natolii
  • Islander
  • 1,246 posts

Posted 13 September 2006 - 11:56 PM

And why should his ex wife have to shoulder the cost of having to fight to have to see HER kids with the whack job that moved out of the Country...

Under most custody orders it is order that you cannot even leave the STATE you are residing in...

Where is is RIGHT that she cannot even see her kids?

And you think it is wrong that Jackson has to pay court costs when HE'S the one that brought this on by not allowing a mother access to her own children?
"I have on this board written pages and pages pointing out the science, and I will be dammed if I am going to attempt to reach closed minds that donít even know how to use a reference library." -emsparks (Fenton E. Magill, dec. 1/25/07 - Love you Dad)

#5 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 12:59 AM

^

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she agree to give up custody awhile back? If so, that was her decision.

Regardless though, if she wants to take him to court...more power to her, but he should NOT have to fund her case against him.

That's like me saying "I'm going to sue you, but you have to pay the lawyers I hire...not to mention your own lawyers as well." How is that right? or fair? or even ethical?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#6 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 03:44 AM

Generally speaking, the judge charges the party with the weakest (losing) case to pay legal costs for the other party. Called justice, last I looked. If you both go to court and your case isn't worth the paper it's written on, you pay your costs AND your adversary's. One of the basic principles of law.

Good for the judge.

Edited by Rhea, 14 September 2006 - 10:26 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#7 Natolii

Natolii
  • Islander
  • 1,246 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 05:56 AM

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Sep 14 2006, 01:59 AM, said:

^

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she agree to give up custody awhile back? If so, that was her decision.

Regardless though, if she wants to take him to court...more power to her, but he should NOT have to fund her case against him.

That's like me saying "I'm going to sue you, but you have to pay the lawyers I hire...not to mention your own lawyers as well." How is that right? or fair? or even ethical?

She did, but she is also within her rights to get custody back, especially with all the legal issues Michael has been having of late. That and moving out of the country with the kids. Hell yeah, I would be asking a judge to revisit that decision.
"I have on this board written pages and pages pointing out the science, and I will be dammed if I am going to attempt to reach closed minds that donít even know how to use a reference library." -emsparks (Fenton E. Magill, dec. 1/25/07 - Love you Dad)

#8 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 06:02 AM

View PostNatolii, on Sep 14 2006, 10:56 AM, said:

She did, but she is also within her rights to get custody back

Not necessarily. That's what the court case is all about.

Quote

especially with all the legal issues Michael has been having of late.

You mean the court cases where he was acquitted?

Quote

That and moving out of the country with the kids.

I don't have custody of my neighbor's kids. If they move out of the country, should I try to block them since they're taking the kids whose custody their in complete charge of?

#9 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 06:06 AM

View PostRhea, on Sep 14 2006, 08:44 AM, said:

Generally speaking, the judge charges the parti with the weakest (losing) case to pay legal costs for the other party.

Absolutely, positively true.

It's true in most countries of the world except in the US.

Though even in the US, the prevailing plaintiff (and in this case his ex-wife is the plaintiff, but I'm still going to bold this because it's important) can often get attorney fees reimbursed if certain conditions apply.

And under English Rule, as it's called, such a determination isn't made until the case is over.

http://en.wikipedia....rneys'_fees

Edited by Broph, 14 September 2006 - 06:07 AM.


#10 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,143 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 08:34 AM

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Sep 14 2006, 01:59 AM, said:

^

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she agree to give up custody awhile back? If so, that was her decision.

Regardless though, if she wants to take him to court...more power to her, but he should NOT have to fund her case against him.

That's like me saying "I'm going to sue you, but you have to pay the lawyers I hire...not to mention your own lawyers as well." How is that right? or fair? or even ethical?



She was publicly coersed. On the day that she was going to testify aginst him in the last trial over his child molesting he managed to file papers in court to keep her away from the kids completely. The press talked about it the same day, and how he was allowed to get by with it, while his own trial was going on, is beyond me.

The girl has little or nothing to fight with, so the judge leveled the playing field. Stay tuned, She may end up raising those kids yet, if she can get them back into this country.
Can't Touch This!!

#11 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 09:28 AM

^^^

And unless I am mistaken, I seem to remember that she started the process to regain custody of the children before he was acquitted.

Again, something I'm not sure of but when there is a custody dispute, are the children be allowed to leave the country"

When they said that Michael Jackson had taken up residence in Bahrain, I thought that perhaps it had less to do with wanting to get away after his 'ordeal' and more to do with trying to avoid the custody issue.  But that is just my personal opinion.

and this from the article linked in the original post ---

Quote

In February, a state appeals court ruled that her parental rights had not been properly relinquished under the law.

Quote

Marta Almli, an attorney for Rowe, said after court that Jackson stopped making the annual payments in the divorce settlement in 2003. He also sued Rowe in 2004 for allegedly breaching a confidentiality agreement

No doubt because he wanted to make her back off on the custody issue...and to shut her up too.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#12 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 11:10 AM

View PostRhea, on Sep 14 2006, 04:44 AM, said:

Generally speaking, the judge charges the party with the weakest (losing) case to pay legal costs for the other party. Called justice, last I looked. If you both go to court and your case isn't worth the paper it's written on, you pay your costs AND your adversary's. One of the basic principles of law.

Good for the judge.

Only he wasn't the one that started the suit...She was. And if it was the end of the case, and he lost, and the Judge ordered that, it would be one thing. But the case is still going on, and the Judge ordered him to pay for the costs of both sides.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#13 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 11:11 AM

View PostNatolii, on Sep 14 2006, 06:56 AM, said:

She did, but she is also within her rights to get custody back, especially with all the legal issues Michael has been having of late. That and moving out of the country with the kids. Hell yeah, I would be asking a judge to revisit that decision.

And I have no problem with that. My only problem is the Judge ordering him to pay for both sides of the case, that is the problem I'm having. If she wanted to sue for custody and was broke, I could see it. But she has millions from her previous settlement with Jackson, she should be able to pay her own lawyers.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#14 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 11:49 AM

View Posttrikay, on Sep 14 2006, 02:28 PM, said:

^^^

And unless I am mistaken, I seem to remember that she started the process to regain custody of the children before he was acquitted.

And like it or not, he was acquitted. Why should it matter that he was accused and tried once he's acquitted? We didn't throw OJ in jail after he was acquitted.

Quote

Again, something I'm not sure of but when there is a custody dispute, are the children be allowed to leave the country"

But there isn't a dispute. Jackson has custody. She doesn't like that and is trying to change that, but custody in this case seems pretty clear. If that's all it would take to prevent him from leaving the country, she could just repeatedly sue for custody.

Quote

In February, a state appeals court ruled that her parental rights had not been properly relinquished under the law.

I'd be surprised about that. I'd think Jackson's lawyers would be pretty throrough about something like that.

Quote

No doubt because he wanted to make her back off on the custody issue...and to shut her up too.

And she took the money. Tells you how important custody was to her.

#15 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 12:08 PM

View PostBroph, on Sep 14 2006, 10:49 AM, said:

View Posttrikay, on Sep 14 2006, 02:28 PM, said:

^^^

And unless I am mistaken, I seem to remember that she started the process to regain custody of the children before he was acquitted.

Quote

And like it or not, he was acquitted. Why should it matter that he was accused and tried once he's acquitted? We didn't throw OJ in jail after he was acquitted.


I did not say that it had anything to do with his guilt or innocence....only that the custody case was intiated before he was acquitted and left the country with the children.  Just stated that in the interest of establishing some kid of timeline here.

Quote

Quote

Again, something I'm not sure of but when there is a custody dispute, are the children be allowed to leave the country"

But there isn't a dispute. Jackson has custody. She doesn't like that and is trying to change that, but custody in this case seems pretty clear. If that's all it would take to prevent him from leaving the country, she could just repeatedly sue for custody.

She had filed for custody of the children....contesting his sole custody rights.  Thus custody was in question and the matter was already proceeding in the courts.  I'm not an expert on custody cases but in those that I am familiar with the parents were ordered not to leave the country or even the state until the matter was settled.  

Quote

Quote

In February, a state appeals court ruled that her parental rights had not been properly relinquished under the law.

I'd be surprised about that. I'd think Jackson's lawyers would be pretty throrough about something like that.


You would think so but there must be something in the initial reliquishing of parental rights that was not done properly or somethign for the appeals court to rule that way.

I'm a little iffy about the whole order of payment of legal fees at this part of the proceedings tho. Not sure where her money went or how much she had actually received from Jackson as that article also said that--

Quote

Marta Almli, an attorney for Rowe, said after court that Jackson stopped making the annual payments in the divorce settlement in 2003.

She received a settlement of $8 million but he's making payments on it...or was until he stopped two years ago.  The question left unanswered is how much was he paying her in these annual payments?  How much money did she actually receive before he stopped?  $8 million over 5 years?....10?...20?   That does make some difference.

Don't get me wrong..as a mother,  I do not like the way she just let Michael Jackson have the kids and walked away.  

But if she is trying to correct that mistake now.....then I might think better of her.

edited to fix tags

Edited by trikay, 14 September 2006 - 12:19 PM.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#16 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 12:13 PM

View PostBroph, on Sep 14 2006, 09:49 AM, said:

Quote

Again, something I'm not sure of but when there is a custody dispute, are the children be allowed to leave the country"

But there isn't a dispute. Jackson has custody. She doesn't like that and is trying to change that, but custody in this case seems pretty clear. If that's all it would take to prevent him from leaving the country, she could just repeatedly sue for custody.
Trying to change something you don't like when the other party likes it sounds like a dispute.  

Quote

Quote

In February, a state appeals court ruled that her parental rights had not been properly relinquished under the law.

I'd be surprised about that. I'd think Jackson's lawyers would be pretty throrough about something like that.

Quote

No doubt because he wanted to make her back off on the custody issue...and to shut her up too.

And she took the money. Tells you how important custody was to her.
Actually, it tells me how powerless she was, too frightened to risk being kicked out of their lives completely which BTW would have been the case anyway if she was just a surrogate, as was thought at the time.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#17 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 02:12 PM

View Posttrikay, on Sep 14 2006, 05:08 PM, said:

She had filed for custody of the children....contesting his sole custody rights.  Thus custody was in question and the matter was already proceeding in the courts.

No, custody was not in question. Jackson had custody.

Let's say that I have a car and someone wants my car and take me to court. Right now, with papers filed, who has custody of the car? The person who filed the papers may want to take custody of my car, but the custody is not in question and is not in dispute, especially if I have papers showing that I have custody of the car.

Quote

I'm not an expert on custody cases but in those that I am familiar with the parents were ordered not to leave the country or even the state until the matter was settled.

But the matter was settled. The mother gave up her rights. Now she changed her mind.  

Quote

You would think so but there must be something in the initial reliquishing of parental rights that was not done properly or somethign for the appeals court to rule that way.

Were Jackson's lawyers there during that process? Maybe without someone representing him, the court sided with the person who appeared in court. Hard to say. I've seen court cases that have made absolutely no sense.

Quote

Marta Almli, an attorney for Rowe, said after court that Jackson stopped making the annual payments in the divorce settlement in 2003.

Jackson's people disagree.

Quote

But if she is trying to correct that mistake now.....then I might think better of her.

I doubt this story is over any time soon.

#18 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 02:14 PM

View PostBroph, on Sep 14 2006, 12:12 PM, said:

View Posttrikay, on Sep 14 2006, 05:08 PM, said:

She had filed for custody of the children....contesting his sole custody rights.  Thus custody was in question and the matter was already proceeding in the courts.

No, custody was not in question. Jackson had custody.

Let's say that I have a car and someone wants my car and take me to court. Right now, with papers filed, who has custody of the car? The person who filed the papers may want to take custody of my car, but the custody is not in question and is not in dispute, especially if I have papers showing that I have custody of the car.



Children are not cars, and any adult who thinks Michael Jackson is fit  to raise children needs to have their head examined.

Children are not treated like chattel. Both biological parents have rights which have to be addressed by the courts.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#19 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 02:15 PM

View PostNonny, on Sep 14 2006, 05:13 PM, said:

Trying to change something you don't like when the other party likes it sounds like a dispute.

It's really only a dispute if people have equal standing - like parents who are divorcing. Once she gave up parental rights, then it's decided and no longer disputed.

Quote

Actually, it tells me how powerless she was, too frightened to risk being kicked out of their lives completely which BTW would have been the case anyway if she was just a surrogate, as was thought at the time.

I don't recall anything about her being with Jackson or the children all that much. Frankly, I think she was a surrogate; he arranged to marry her to make everything look good and promised that she'd have money in a few years. It was his way of getting kids.

#20 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 10:51 PM

View PostBroph, on Sep 14 2006, 12:15 PM, said:

View PostNonny, on Sep 14 2006, 05:13 PM, said:

Trying to change something you don't like when the other party likes it sounds like a dispute.

It's really only a dispute if people have equal standing - like parents who are divorcing. Once she gave up parental rights, then it's decided and no longer disputed.
I just read seven definitions of 'dispute' and not one so much as hinted at "equal standing."  I even looked up the Indo-European root.  Nada.  

Quote

Quote

Actually, it tells me how powerless she was, too frightened to risk being kicked out of their lives completely which BTW would have been the case anyway if she was just a surrogate, as was thought at the time.

I don't recall anything about her being with Jackson or the children all that much. Frankly, I think she was a surrogate; he arranged to marry her to make everything look good and promised that she'd have money in a few years. It was his way of getting kids.
It was his way of getting a rep as something other than a pedophile.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Michael Jackson, Debbie Rowe, Custody Case, Jackson Children, 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users