Those fans and paparazzi who were hoping to catch a glimpse of Michael Jackson at the High Court this afternoon may well be disappointed.
The Mirror reports that Jackson has pulled out, and will settle the $7BN case brought by Sheik Abdulla Bin Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khal ot of court.
Showing posts with label high court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label high court. Show all posts
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Jackson Comes To London
In a surprising volte face, despite health concerns (alleged earlier in the week by his lawyer), Michael Jackson has agreed to come to London to give evidence at the high court where he is being sued for $7m by Sheik Abdulla bin Hamad Al Khalifa.
Jackson's lawyer, Robert Englehart, told the court that Jackson's doctors have given him the all-clear to travel this weekend.
Jackson will appear on Monday.
Jackson's lawyer, Robert Englehart, told the court that Jackson's doctors have given him the all-clear to travel this weekend.
Jackson will appear on Monday.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Sick Day
Seemingly, according to Michael Jackson's legal team, he is too sick to travel to the UK to appear at the High Court wrt the $7M allegedly owed by Jackson to Sheikh Abdulla bin Hamad Al Khalifa.
Jackson wants to be able to give testimony via video link.
Sheikh Abdulla's lawyer, Bankim Thanki, is a tad cynical about the severity of Jackson's illness. He noted that if the alleged diagnosis is positive, it could be treated with a bandage.
Quote on Billboard:
"It's not the first time a sick note has been presented by Mr Jackson."
The question over whether Jackson appears or not will be answered tomorrow.
The case continues.
Jackson wants to be able to give testimony via video link.
Sheikh Abdulla's lawyer, Bankim Thanki, is a tad cynical about the severity of Jackson's illness. He noted that if the alleged diagnosis is positive, it could be treated with a bandage.
Quote on Billboard:
"It's not the first time a sick note has been presented by Mr Jackson."
The question over whether Jackson appears or not will be answered tomorrow.
The case continues.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Shiekh Claims He Wrote Songs
Bankim Thanki QC, lawyer for Sheikh Abdulla (who is suing Michael Jackson for $7M), spoke int eh High Court yesterday.
"The idea was to create a new recording label to kickstart his musical career.
The idea was to relaunch his career from a base far away from his well-publicised criminal trial."
Mr Thanki claimed that Sheikh Abdulla wrote a song that Jackson recorded the day after his trial ended in California in 2005.
The sheikh wanted to release it as a charity single to help victims of the Boxing Day tsunami the previous year.
Jackson is expected to give evidence via videolink from Los Angeles.
The case continues and is expected to last 12 days.
"The idea was to create a new recording label to kickstart his musical career.
The idea was to relaunch his career from a base far away from his well-publicised criminal trial."
Mr Thanki claimed that Sheikh Abdulla wrote a song that Jackson recorded the day after his trial ended in California in 2005.
The sheikh wanted to release it as a charity single to help victims of the Boxing Day tsunami the previous year.
Jackson is expected to give evidence via videolink from Los Angeles.
The case continues and is expected to last 12 days.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Jackson Faces Court Case
Another day, another court case!
Michael Jackson is being sued for $7M in the High Court in London today by Sheikh Abdulla Bin Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa, son of the King of Bahrain.
The $7M claim relates to allegations that Jackson reneged on a record deal made in 2005, when Jackson stayed in Bahrain.
The sheikh claims that the proceeds of the project were to be used to repay money he had loaned Jackson.
Jackson claims that the payments were "gifts", and that the project was never finalised.
It is unlikely that fans of Jackson will glimpse him in the High Court, the nature of such cases is that a settlement may well be agreed outwith court.
Michael Jackson is being sued for $7M in the High Court in London today by Sheikh Abdulla Bin Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa, son of the King of Bahrain.
The $7M claim relates to allegations that Jackson reneged on a record deal made in 2005, when Jackson stayed in Bahrain.
The sheikh claims that the proceeds of the project were to be used to repay money he had loaned Jackson.
Jackson claims that the payments were "gifts", and that the project was never finalised.
It is unlikely that fans of Jackson will glimpse him in the High Court, the nature of such cases is that a settlement may well be agreed outwith court.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Fallout
Martin Bashir, the journalist who fronted the infamous 2003 documentary about Michael Jackson, now faces the possibility of a lawsuit from Michael Jackson.
Jackson began legal moves against Bashir and Granada, which made the documentary, in 2003 claiming breach of confidence.
It was claimed that Bashir broke a promise to allow Jackson to vet the programme before it was broadcast.
Jackson also said Bashir reneged on an agreement not to film his children without the masks they wear in public. A High Court action was due to start in late 2003, but was halted after Jackson was arrested and charged with child abuse.
Jackson began legal moves against Bashir and Granada, which made the documentary, in 2003 claiming breach of confidence.
It was claimed that Bashir broke a promise to allow Jackson to vet the programme before it was broadcast.
Jackson also said Bashir reneged on an agreement not to film his children without the masks they wear in public. A High Court action was due to start in late 2003, but was halted after Jackson was arrested and charged with child abuse.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Judge Censors Supreme Court
Judge Rodney Melville, the judge in Michael Jackson's child abuse case, has blacked out the words "obscenity" "pornographic" and "sexual conduct" from the text of U.S. Supreme Court decisions released in a legal motion filed by Jackson's lawyers.
Jackosn's lawyers are seeking to expunge references to these words, during the trial, lest they prejudice the jury and play to their emotions.
The judge's actions were, in theory, designed to keep secret the purpose of the motion. However, the cited cases in the motion can be compared with the original text; and the blacked out words identified, viz:
The 1973 case of Miller vs California, the high court stated, "... no majority of the Court has at any given time been able to agree on a standard to determine what constitutes obscene, pornographic material."
Melville blacked out the words "obscene" and "pornographic."
The decision continued: "We now confine the permissible scope of such regulation of works which depict or describe sexual conduct."
Melville expunged the word, "sexual."
Whilst the reasoning behind the secrecy is well meant, it is clearly ineffective. The level of leaks, and this latest farcical attempt to hide the facts, are in fact causing more "chatter" speculation and "idle gossip" than full and open disclosure would ever do.
I cannot see that the cause of justice, from anyone's perspective, is being served here.
Views anyone?
Jackosn's lawyers are seeking to expunge references to these words, during the trial, lest they prejudice the jury and play to their emotions.
The judge's actions were, in theory, designed to keep secret the purpose of the motion. However, the cited cases in the motion can be compared with the original text; and the blacked out words identified, viz:
The 1973 case of Miller vs California, the high court stated, "... no majority of the Court has at any given time been able to agree on a standard to determine what constitutes obscene, pornographic material."
Melville blacked out the words "obscene" and "pornographic."
The decision continued: "We now confine the permissible scope of such regulation of works which depict or describe sexual conduct."
Melville expunged the word, "sexual."
Whilst the reasoning behind the secrecy is well meant, it is clearly ineffective. The level of leaks, and this latest farcical attempt to hide the facts, are in fact causing more "chatter" speculation and "idle gossip" than full and open disclosure would ever do.
I cannot see that the cause of justice, from anyone's perspective, is being served here.
Views anyone?
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
The Prequel To The Sequel To The Finale
Those of you who have not had enough of Michael Jackson, can now see his life story on VH1 on Friday.
The film is called "Man in the Mirror: The Michael Jackson Story"; and will take the viewer on a journey through Michael Jackson's life, starting in Motown up to his January 2004 court appearance.
This therefore leaves plenty of opportunities for at least one follow up film. This film will either end on a high note with Jackson being acquitted, or end with him going to jail; which in turn leaves room for a third film, portraying his time in jail and his life after his release as he tries to rebuild a shattered career.
The film is called "Man in the Mirror: The Michael Jackson Story"; and will take the viewer on a journey through Michael Jackson's life, starting in Motown up to his January 2004 court appearance.
This therefore leaves plenty of opportunities for at least one follow up film. This film will either end on a high note with Jackson being acquitted, or end with him going to jail; which in turn leaves room for a third film, portraying his time in jail and his life after his release as he tries to rebuild a shattered career.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Too Many Cooks
It seems that Michael Jackson's daddy has decided to hire an extra attorney, to act as "watchman" in Jackson's trial.
Joseph Jackson is reported to have taken on a Beverly Hills attorney, Debra Opri. However, this is at his own volition; she won't be a part of Michael's legal team.
Debra Opri is something of a mini media personality in her own right, as she often appears on TV shows as a legal expert. She has also represented singer James Brown. You can view Debra's website here.
I understand that Debra will be turning up to Michael Jackson's court appearance this Friday.
Whilst I don't doubt Debra's skills and integrity, I have to ask; is this a good idea?
If she is not on Jackson's team, and since he already has his own lawyer, what precisely is she meant to do?
Why does Father Joe think she will add value?
There is a high risk here, that the media will use her and Joe to provide commentary on the adequacy of the case presented by Michael's lawyers; this risks undermining their work.
Views anyone?
It seems that Michael Jackson's daddy has decided to hire an extra attorney, to act as "watchman" in Jackson's trial.
Joseph Jackson is reported to have taken on a Beverly Hills attorney, Debra Opri. However, this is at his own volition; she won't be a part of Michael's legal team.
Debra Opri is something of a mini media personality in her own right, as she often appears on TV shows as a legal expert. She has also represented singer James Brown. You can view Debra's website here.
I understand that Debra will be turning up to Michael Jackson's court appearance this Friday.
Whilst I don't doubt Debra's skills and integrity, I have to ask; is this a good idea?
If she is not on Jackson's team, and since he already has his own lawyer, what precisely is she meant to do?
Why does Father Joe think she will add value?
There is a high risk here, that the media will use her and Joe to provide commentary on the adequacy of the case presented by Michael's lawyers; this risks undermining their work.
Views anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)