August 8-10, 2008 (Update for August 10, 2008 on post #178)

mariemarie

Guests
Wish everyone to have a wonderful weekend. As before, check into this thread regularly for news and updates =)


Mentionings

Stage set for ECHO Arena's 'Now That's What We Call Culture' talent show

HERE are Merseyside’s final 12 undiscovered acts who will tonight show thousands of people that Liverpool has got talent. Five singing acts, two dance groups, four bands and one poet have been chosen to perform at the city’s huge variety-style show. 32 young dancers from MD PRODUCTIONS will dance to Michael Jackson’s They Don’t Care About Us.

Entire article http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/08/08/stage-set-for-echo-arena-s-now-that-s-what-we-call-culture-talent-show-100252-21490052/



African music embraces a world of influences

EDMONTON - As technology continues to bring disparate peoples closer together, national borders mean less and less to the popular notions of world music.
Consider Daby Toure, whose ancestral roots lie in Mauritania and neighbouring nations in northwest Africa. Thanks to recordings and radio, he grew up hearing the pop sounds of The Police, The Beatles, Dire Straits, Bob Marley and Michael Jackson like millions of other people in the western world.
"It can be a problem," explains Paris-based Toure, "because when people talk about African music or world music, they usually think about drums and percussion and the older sounds. But there are many new generations coming in Africa who know about all kinds of music from outside. I'm part of that new generation. We are African, of course, but we also borrow from other cultures."
In fact, there's much about 35-year-old Toure that bucks the stereotypes of the worldbeat genre. While he plays acoustic and electric guitar onstage, he is a largely self-taught multi-instrumentalist who played nearly all the parts on his two Real World recordings Diam (2004) and Stereo Spirit (2007).

He also speaks and sings in five languages -- French, English and the native tongues of Wolof, Sonink and Pulaar. Finally, despite popular conceptions that Africa is one of the world's biggest trouble spots, Toure sings relatively sunny songs of hope and celebration.
"People think if you come from Africa the only choice you've got is to be a revolutionary, to be political because of the situation with African people. There is so much they don't know about how African people want to carve their own destiny. That's why I try to write about what we talk about every day in Africa."
Daby Toure belongs to a musical lineage going back several generations. His father was a doctor before joining Toure Kounda, the Afro-pop band that two of Daby's uncles were leading in Paris. Even after the father and son moved to France in 1989, the elder Toure steered Daby away from a musical career.
"He really tried," Daby laughs, "but it didn't work because I really loved music and I knew it was my life."
For the son, relocating to such a cultural centre meant coming into contact with a whole new set of musical influences, including jazz acts like Weather Report and Pat Metheny. Before long, he set aside his studies in business and formed a group with his cousin to explore the crossover point between jazz and African music, named Toure Toure. They recorded one album and even toured North and South America before Daby Toure realized that he wanted to start writing and singing his own songs in a somewhat simpler style.

It didn't happen easily. He kept encountering other people's expectations of what an African performer must sound like -- until he met Peter Gabriel, who offered to put him on the Real World label.
Their friendship spawned two albums that balance relatively gentle rhythmic elements with acoustic guitars and Toure's sublimes vocals, though Toure warns that the live performances he puts in with his current touring trio (guitar, bass, drums) have more funky energy.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/whatson/story.html?id=d03ffdb1-d67c-41f2-b46b-e2a5a5bb26e5



Joshua Wins! And I'm Backstage With All the Dance Scoop...

This is the sort of revelation that leaves me speechless?that some reality contestants on programs like So You Think You Can Dance are such a clear front runner all season long, the executive producers see it coming a mile away
Joshua Wants to be Startin' Somethin': The man of the hour said he wants to pursue his dance career, but also wants to sing and get signed by a record company and wants to be "bigger than Michael Jackson." He also will be starring in what Shankman calls "The first 3-D dance movie, Step It Up 3-D." But I just have one thing to say to that: Hello, what about Captain EO?

http://uk.eonline.com/uberblog/watch_with_kristin/b22822_joshua_wins_im_backstage_with_dance.html



Jolie tops the spammers' list of names used to tempt

Angelina Jolie is the most popular bait used by spammers – four times as popular as Barack Obama whose name falls behind in second place.

The spam bait list, compiled by Secure Computing in its August threat report, shows that during the past month, 12 million spam messages – from 100,000 unique IP addresses on the first day of outbreak – were sent with Jolie's name in the subject line. Around 2.28 per cent of the total global email volume was found to have text such as “Angelina Jolie naked”.

Dr Sven Krasser, director of data mining research, said: “Spam is the delivery medium of choice for social engineering schemes to create a tempting lure for consumers. One small mistake can be costly. For example, when a mobile worker falls prey, they may unknowingly penetrate and infect the corporate network.
“It is therefore imperative for organisations to secure the paths to the network properly. Especially with the proliferation of blended threats, it is of paramount importance that organisations protect both email and web gateways.”

Other new spam waves include messages that include fake invoices, such as those claiming to be from UPS package tracking, whereby recipients risked downloading the Agent.JEN trojan.
Panda Security, which discovered the UPS-related bug, said the suspicious emails have subject text along the lines of “UPS packet N3621583925”. The messages claim that it was not possible to deliver a postal package and advise recipients to print out a copy of an attached invoice.

The top 10 ranked spam bait names are: 1 – Angelina Jolie; 2 – Barack Obama; 3 – Paris Hilton; 4 – Britney Spears; 5 – Hillary Clinton; 6 – George Bush; 7 – Jessica Simpson; 8 – Osama Bin Laden; 9 – Brad Pitt; 10 – Michael Jackson.

http://www.scmagazineuk.com/Jolie-tops-the-spammers-list-of-names-used-to-tempt/article/113579/

















Today in
Michael Jackson History

1981 - Michael Jackson's single "We're Almost THere" hit #46 in the U.K. six years after charting in the U.S.

1987 - Michael Jackson's "I Just Can't Stop Loving You" was released from the forthcoming album "Bad." The duet, with Siedah Garret, became the 7th #1 single of Michael's career.
200px-Ijcsly.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

thanks 4 the articles
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

[FONT=&quot]Friday, August 8, 2008[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Page 3[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Court: No Higher Standard for Service on Michael Jackson

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff Writer[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A Los Angeles Superior Court judgeimproperly focused on the defendant’s celebrity status to impose a higher standard on a woman’s request to serve by publication her complaint accusing pop star Michael Jackson of harassment, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Reversing Judge Jacqueline Connor’s order dismissing the action with prejudice, Div. Two ruled in an unpublished opinion that Helen Harris-Scott’s previous unsuccessful attempts to serve Jackson personally and by mail—and the fact that his current country of residence is unknown—supported the request.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Acting in pro per, Harris-Scott filed suit in April 2006 accusing Jackson of stalking, surveillance and harassment at her California home.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Over the following months, she attempted to serve Jackson personally and by mail at his Neverland ranch in Los Olivos in Santa Barbara County, at another residence Jackson co-owns and at his mother’s residence.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After she hired a process server to locate Jackson in Las Vegas to no avail, and after her attorney discovered that Jackson’s California corporation had been dissolved, she asked Jackson’s attorney to divulge his client’s location or accept service on his behalf, but was rebuffed and informed that Jackson had left the country.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Harris-Scott made a number of other attempts at service, including leaving the summons and complaint at the gates of the Neverland ranch because it was impossible to actually reach the residence, but requested that Connor authorize service by publication after all were unsuccessful.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]However, Connor, remarking that “the case law would work if it was a normal human being like you or I...[but this] is Michael Jackson,” concluded Harris-Scott had not been sufficiently diligent in her efforts. Denying the request, Connor granted a motion by Jackson’s counsel to quash service and dismissed the action with prejudice.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Writing for the Court of Appeal, Presiding Justice Roger W. Boren initially commented that Connor’s dismissal order—which cited Code of Civil Procedure Secs. 572 and 581—was “reversible on its face” because the former section was inapplicable, and the latter only permits dismissals without prejudice.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Turning to Harris-Scott’s request to publish service, he also noted that Sec. 415.5 allows service by publication on defendants whose whereabouts cannot be determined with reasonable diligence and who have no known fixed location where service can otherwise be effected, and concluded that Harris-Scott had been sufficiently diligent.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Standards of diligence do not require appellant to conduct a country-by-country search for an elusive defendant,” Boren wrote.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“It appears that the trial court was cognizant that appellant has made diligent efforts to locate and serve Jackson. But the court held appellant to a different—and higher—standard because the defendant is a celebrity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Contrary to the court’s belief, the law applies equally to celebrities and noncelebrities. It was an abuse of discretion to require appellant to surmount a higher standard of diligence simply because she is suing someone famous.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Boren similarly rejected counsel’s argument that Harris-Scott had failed to demonstrate a “cause of action” as required under Sec. 415.5, opining that her declaration under penalty of perjury attached to the complaint giving details based on personal knowledge of her claim that Jackson allegedly committed wrongful acts of stalking gave rise both to a cause of action and to personal jurisdiction.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Justices Kathryn Doi Todd and Victoria M. Chavez joined Boren in his opinion.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The case is Harris-Scott v. Jackson, B200107.[/FONT]

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/jack080808.htm
 
Last edited:
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

^ oh man, for some reason that made NO sense to me!!!!
LOL, i don't know what my problem is!!! :no:
 
Last edited:
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

i know a lot of u don't like this woman and her current comments aren't all that great but let's keep our tact and not act like little children. [
/quote]
screw that

where's the fun in tact?

i'd rather make the easy scientology jokes and be done with it. WHO'S WITH ME! :D

and re: that last story... and that's why the civil courts are so screwed up now
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

Hold on...Harris-Scott. Was this the same woman who said Jackson was harassing her through his songs and through the television? Or do I have her confused with someone else?
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

^ oh man, for some reason that made NO sense to me!!!!
LOL, i don't know what my problem is!!! :no:

I had to read over it twice myself to get to the crux of it...a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo.
So, I've put the main points in bold letters...
:cheeky:
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

Well this woman still has to prove all this doesn't she? Or does she just have to lay out an elaborate and sinister scenario chock full of outlandish claims so that Michael is forced to pay her and then endure yet another round of media lynching that he doesn't deserve as if that's not bad enough because of course the media is going to gladly rip him apart. It's a crying shame that another court is reinstating this crap. Michael doesn't need all of these problems. Not now. Not ever again. All I know is that since the judges who decided to put this garbage back in court are so concerned about things being "fair in regard to celebrities as well as non-celebrites" as they put it, they should be watching this case real carefully. They would want deciding parties to be fair and balanced to all involved. Wouldn't they?
 
Last edited:
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

[FONT=&quot]Friday, August 8, 2008[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Page 3[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Court: No Higher Standard for Service on Michael Jackson

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff Writer[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]


I'm sorry but can someone explain in easy words what does it mean? :) I don't know English that well.
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

[FONT=&quot]Friday, August 8, 2008[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Page 3[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Court: No Higher Standard for Service on Michael Jackson[/FONT]





[FONT=&quot]By STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff Writer[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A Los Angeles Superior Court judge improperly focused on the defendant’s celebrity status to impose a higher standard on a woman’s request to serve by publication her complaint accusing pop star Michael Jackson of harassment, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Reversing Judge Jacqueline Connor’s order dismissing the action with prejudice, Div. Two ruled in an unpublished opinion that Helen Harris-Scott’s previous unsuccessful attempts to serve Jackson personally and by mail—and the fact that his current country of residence is unknown—supported the request.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Acting in pro per, Harris-Scott filed suit in April 2006 accusing Jackson of stalking, surveillance and harassment at her California home.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Over the following months, she attempted to serve Jackson personally and by mail at his Neverland ranch in Los Olivos in Santa Barbara County, at another residence Jackson co-owns and at his mother’s residence.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After she hired a process server to locate Jackson in Las Vegas to no avail, and after her attorney discovered that Jackson’s California corporation had been dissolved, she asked Jackson’s attorney to divulge his client’s location or accept service on his behalf, but was rebuffed and informed that Jackson had left the country.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Harris-Scott made a number of other attempts at service, including leaving the summons and complaint at the gates of the Neverland ranch because it was impossible to actually reach the residence, but requested that Connor authorize service by publication after all were unsuccessful.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]However, Connor, remarking that “the case law would work if it was a normal human being like you or I...[but this] is Michael Jackson,” concluded Harris-Scott had not been sufficiently diligent in her efforts. Denying the request, Connor granted a motion by Jackson’s counsel to quash service and dismissed the action with prejudice.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Writing for the Court of Appeal, Presiding Justice Roger W. Boren initially commented that Connor’s dismissal order—which cited Code of Civil Procedure Secs. 572 and 581—was “reversible on its face” because the former section was inapplicable, and the latter only permits dismissals without prejudice.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Turning to Harris-Scott’s request to publish service, he also noted that Sec. 415.5 allows service by publication on defendants whose whereabouts cannot be determined with reasonable diligence and who have no known fixed location where service can otherwise be effected, and concluded that Harris-Scott had been sufficiently diligent.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Standards of diligence do not require appellant to conduct a country-by-country search for an elusive defendant,” Boren wrote.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“It appears that the trial court was cognizant that appellant has made diligent efforts to locate and serve Jackson. But the court held appellant to a different—and higher—standard because the defendant is a celebrity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Contrary to the court’s belief, the law applies equally to celebrities and noncelebrities. It was an abuse of discretion to require appellant to surmount a higher standard of diligence simply because she is suing someone famous.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Boren similarly rejected counsel’s argument that Harris-Scott had failed to demonstrate a “cause of action” as required under Sec. 415.5, opining that her declaration under penalty of perjury attached to the complaint giving details based on personal knowledge of her claim that Jackson allegedly committed wrongful acts of stalking gave rise both to a cause of action and to personal jurisdiction.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Justices Kathryn Doi Todd and Victoria M. Chavez joined Boren in his opinion.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The case is Harris-Scott v. Jackson, B200107.[/FONT]

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/jack080808.htm

look who's stalking. she is. it's a wonder that MJ lets anyone near him for fear that something lke this would ensue. would he really have time to pick out someone to stalk when he'd be interrupted by people chasing HIM?
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

look who's stalking. she is. it's a wonder that MJ lets anyone near him for fear that something lke this would ensue. would he really have time to pick out someone to stalk when he'd be interrupted by people chasing HIM?


Exactly. This is total boloney. I think they made a big mistake bringing this back. And Michael will be the one who suffers because of their blunder.
 
Last edited:
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

thanks for the updates
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

Is that Harris one still at it? These crazy ass bitches just never give up. Speaking of which Presley you need to grow up and stop with the little naive girl crap. You have been around the bush long before meeting Michael. The scientologist word you always use 'indifferent' when referring to Michael in the past I guess hasn't worked out. If you are 'indifferent' why the hell you still talking about him. Stop being so concerned on what the media think about you and get over it. That's where Michael stands ten feet taller than you, he don't give a damn about what other people think, his life is not ruled by others. OK we get it, biggest mistake of your life, he's crazy, blah, blah, blah. 12 years on, two more marriages you would think you would have moved on by now, we all have.
 
Last edited:
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

I'm sorry but can someone explain in easy words what does it mean? :) I don't know English that well.

She can't get special treatment to have Michael served with the papers just because her claim is against a celebrity.
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

I find it amusing that Michael Jackson is not meant to have feelings or have a heart. If fans don't like someone or any woman that Michael has been close with for that matter, then according to them Michael didn't truly love them. What crap. You sound like the tabloids. It's really silly and actually embarassing. He is a HUMAN BEING.
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

What is so different about MJ fan board from other fan boards is that you can critisize and trash him anyway you want but you are not allowed to post negative comments on any other person be it celebrities or whoever on a Michael Jackson fan board lol
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

She can't get special treatment to have Michael served with the papers just because her claim is against a celebrity.

So they haven't reinstated her case then?
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

So they haven't reinstated her case then?

I'm no attorney but...

I don't think so...I don't see how they can until he is served. That's why she wants special treatment to locate where he can be served. Then the case can continue. Until then it can't go any further it seems, at least that's my understanding.

Then, IF there is a statute of limitations, the case has to continue before a time limit is reached, otherwise, it's mute. That's may be what his attorney is counting on.
:timer:
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

I'm no attorney but...

I don't think so...I don't see how they can until he is served. That's why she wants special treatment to locate where he can be served. Then the case can continue. Until then it can't go any further it seems, at least that's my understanding.

Then, IF there is a statute of limitations, the case has to continue before a time limit is reached, otherwise, it's mute. That's may be what his attorney is counting on.
:timer:


Thanks MsMo
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

I'm sorry but can someone explain in easy words what does it mean? :) I don't know English that well.

I'm no attorney but...

I don't think so...I don't see how they can until he is served. That's why she wants special treatment to locate where he can be served. Then the case can continue. Until then it can't go any further it seems, at least that's my understanding.

Then, IF there is a statute of limitations, the case has to continue before a time limit is reached, otherwise, it's mute. That's may be what his attorney is counting on.
:timer:

Actually, they have given her a "do over". When an appellate judge (Judge #2) reverses another judge (Judge #1), it means the appellate judge disagrees with the first judge's decision. In this case, Judge 2 believes Judge #1 threw the case out incorrectly.

I'm sorry but can someone explain in easy words what does it mean? :) I don't know English that well.

In short, the 2nd Judge believes becuz Michael Jackson is a celebrity who moves around constantly and can't always be served personally, it doesn't give him automatic immunity/ "special treatment" from being sued....hence why he can't be held to a higher standard.

Since there are other laws that give Harris-Scott the right to go forward with her lawsuit even IF she CAN'T personally find Michael, the 2nd Judge believes the 1st Judge shouldn't have thrown out the suit...or at the very least, it should have been thrown out "without prejudice"... since the case was not being thrown out based on "merit" per se, but due to a technicality. The 2nd Judge also believes Harris-Scott did enough to TRY and find Michael. The fact that she didn't travel from one end of the earth to another chasing after him doesn't mean she didn't try hard enuf. Apparently she tried all the "known" places and the 2nd Judge believes that was good enough. Meh.

I'm not an attorney either, but I sorta/kinda work for the little buggers (not ALL of them are bad :wink:) and picked up a few tips. Hope that helps anyone who was confused. :flowers:

Personally, I have a feeling the first judge knew this case was a load of crap and basically tried to end it...which is why she dismissed it "with prejudice". LOL! Smart woman. Unfortunately, Harris-Scott is a persistent lil *censored* and it seems there is other case law (translate: a loophole) for Harris-Scott to use as an alternative to serving Michael personally. The appellate judge/panel of judges found this alternative case law and by reversing Judge #1's decision, they HAVE given Harris-Scott the chance to continue her case.

Anyway, I expect this one to spontaneously combust like all the other nutjob cases; no cause for concern. The downside is that Michael has to pay a lawyer to deal with her annoying paperwork in the meantime.
 
Last edited:
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

Actually, they have given her a "do over". When an appellate judge (Judge #2) reverses another judge (Judge #1), it means the appellate judge disagrees with the first judge's decision. In this case, Judge 2 believes Judge #1 threw the case out incorrectly.



In short, the 2nd Judge believes becuz Michael Jackson is a celebrity who moves around constantly and can't always be served personally, it doesn't give him automatic immunity/ "special treatment" from being sued....hence why he can't be held to a higher standard.

Since there are other laws that give Harris-Scott the right to go forward with her lawsuit even IF she CAN'T personally find Michael, the 2nd Judge believes the 1st Judge shouldn't have thrown out the suit...or at the very least, it should have been thrown out "without prejudice"... since the case was not being thrown out based on "merit" per se, but due to a technicality. The 2nd Judge also believes Harris-Scott did enough to TRY and find Michael. The fact that she didn't travel from one end of the earth to another chasing after him doesn't mean she didn't try hard enuf. Apparently she tried all the "known" places and the 2nd Judge believes that was good enough. Meh.

I'm not an attorney either, but I sorta/kinda work for the little buggers (not ALL of them are bad :wink:) and picked up a few tips. Hope that helps anyone who was confused. :flowers:

Personally, I have a feeling the first judge knew this case was a load of crap and basically tried to end it...which is why she dismissed it "with prejudice". LOL! Smart woman. Unfortunately, Harris-Scott is a persistent lil *censored* and it seems there is other case law (translate: a loophole) for Harris-Scott to use as an alternative to serving Michael personally. The appellate judge/panel of judges found this alternative case law and by reversing Judge #1's decision, they HAVE given Harris-Scott the chance to continue her case.

Anyway, I expect this one to spontaneously combust like all the other nutjob cases; no cause for concern. The downside is that Michael has to pay a lawyer to deal with her annoying paperwork in the meantime.

Okay, so I got that part backwards then...darn. Yeah, I hope you're right and I bet you've read the 1st judge right too.

Thanx for clearin' it all up for us :flowers:
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

I sure hope that when this gets to court, it will be nipped in the bud quick. This woman might have the right at a second chance to sue (per the judge). But it doesn't give her the right to continue unchecked with this garbage once things get started either. And I'm wondering as I mentioned before, if she actually has to PROVE what she says. Or does she just have to talk a big game for a fat payout? Because if that's all she has to do, then she can tell the court anything she wants. And they won't care whether or not she's really telling the truth. I hope she has to prove all this. And also I wish there was a way to make sure she's not "fixing evidence" to make her claims sound legit when they're not. That's what scares me. Somebody desperate enough could try to cheat the system. And in this case, Michael will pay for it, literally and figuratively, if somebody/ some people with their head on straight don't keep a very watchful eye on this mess.
 
Last edited:
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

[FONT=&quot]Friday, August 8, 2008[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Page 3[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Court: No Higher Standard for Service on Michael Jackson

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff Writer[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A Los Angeles Superior Court judgeimproperly focused on the defendant’s celebrity status to impose a higher standard on a woman’s request to serve by publication her complaint accusing pop star Michael Jackson of harassment, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Reversing Judge Jacqueline Connor’s order dismissing the action with prejudice, Div. Two ruled in an unpublished opinion that Helen Harris-Scott’s previous unsuccessful attempts to serve Jackson personally and by mail—and the fact that his current country of residence is unknown—supported the request.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Acting in pro per, Harris-Scott filed suit in April 2006 accusing Jackson of stalking, surveillance and harassment at her California home.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Over the following months, she attempted to serve Jackson personally and by mail at his Neverland ranch in Los Olivos in Santa Barbara County, at another residence Jackson co-owns and at his mother’s residence.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After she hired a process server to locate Jackson in Las Vegas to no avail, and after her attorney discovered that Jackson’s California corporation had been dissolved, she asked Jackson’s attorney to divulge his client’s location or accept service on his behalf, but was rebuffed and informed that Jackson had left the country.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Harris-Scott made a number of other attempts at service, including leaving the summons and complaint at the gates of the Neverland ranch because it was impossible to actually reach the residence, but requested that Connor authorize service by publication after all were unsuccessful.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]However, Connor, remarking that “the case law would work if it was a normal human being like you or I...[but this] is Michael Jackson,” concluded Harris-Scott had not been sufficiently diligent in her efforts. Denying the request, Connor granted a motion by Jackson’s counsel to quash service and dismissed the action with prejudice.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Writing for the Court of Appeal, Presiding Justice Roger W. Boren initially commented that Connor’s dismissal order—which cited Code of Civil Procedure Secs. 572 and 581—was “reversible on its face” because the former section was inapplicable, and the latter only permits dismissals without prejudice.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Turning to Harris-Scott’s request to publish service, he also noted that Sec. 415.5 allows service by publication on defendants whose whereabouts cannot be determined with reasonable diligence and who have no known fixed location where service can otherwise be effected, and concluded that Harris-Scott had been sufficiently diligent.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Standards of diligence do not require appellant to conduct a country-by-country search for an elusive defendant,” Boren wrote.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“It appears that the trial court was cognizant that appellant has made diligent efforts to locate and serve Jackson. But the court held appellant to a different—and higher—standard because the defendant is a celebrity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Contrary to the court’s belief, the law applies equally to celebrities and noncelebrities. It was an abuse of discretion to require appellant to surmount a higher standard of diligence simply because she is suing someone famous.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Boren similarly rejected counsel’s argument that Harris-Scott had failed to demonstrate a “cause of action” as required under Sec. 415.5, opining that her declaration under penalty of perjury attached to the complaint giving details based on personal knowledge of her claim that Jackson allegedly committed wrongful acts of stalking gave rise both to a cause of action and to personal jurisdiction.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Justices Kathryn Doi Todd and Victoria M. Chavez joined Boren in his opinion.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The case is Harris-Scott v. Jackson, B200107.[/FONT]

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/jack080808.htm
Okay, so in a nutshell, Helen Harris-Scott is trying to say that she is being harrassed by someone she can't find. And that he is harrassing her so much that she wants to find him so she can serve him herself.

This is SO STUPID!! :lol: :lol:
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

However, Connor, remarking that “the case law would work if it was a normal human being like you or I...[but this] is Michael Jackson,”

^ I don't get this?
 
Re: August 08 - 10 News and Mentionings

1246206269-rapper-akon-michael-jackson.jpg


Rapper Akon on Michael Jackson


Here´s a video - Akon has spoken of his first meeting with King of Pop Michael Jackson:


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080809/video/ven-rapper-akon-on-michael-jackson-cf04a8a.html


He said: "He was the most coolest, humblest dude I've ever seen. It was a trip."

Rapper Akon said there is professional chemistry between himself and Michael Jackson: "When we met each other it was almost like we had known each other for years. Because musically we're on the same exact page. Like he would say it before I'd say it, or he may have an idea and I'd come out and say if before he said it. It was like chemistry, energy like."


Akon has also revealed the details of a spontaneous trip to the movies:

"He's in his pyjamas and I'm waiting to see if he is going to change. He puts on his shoes, grabs a scarf, puts it around his head. Grabs the kids, grabs a scarf, puts it around their head. So I grab a scarf and put it around my head."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top