Latest on MJJC

February 24 News and Mentionings

mariemarie

Guests
Hello everyone. How are you feeling? Make sure you have voted for your favorite fan made video in our HOT TOPIC thread! And stay tuned for more fun and interesting games here at MJJC.​

Have a wonderful day wherever you are.​



Carlisle judge tells Tito Jackson to repay £12,000 debt​

A Carlisle judge has ordered the older brother of pop legend Michael Jackson to repay a £12,000 debt.​

District judge John Park issued the order against Tito Jackson on Friday after a claim was lodged at the city’s county court by the celebrity bodyguard Matt Fiddes.​

Tito was a member of The Jackson 5, the 1970s band that launched the career of his brother Michael.
The legal case was presented by lawyer Nicholas Richards, of the Carlisle firm Cartmell Shepherd.​

Mr Fiddes accused Tito, 54, of failing to repay £12,000 of a £20,000 loan.
The claim said that Tito needed to borrow money to pay for flights to the UK because nobody else within his family would stump up the cash. The pop star was travelling to the UK to make a Channel 4 documentary about his life and his family.​

Tito now faces the prospect of court-appointed debt collectors in the US being sent to his home in California to recover the debt or goods worth a similar amount.​

Commenting after the judgement in his favour, Mr Fiddes said: “I hold no bad feelings towards Tito Jackson.​

“I have great respect for the Jackson family.​

“I am glad the matter is now closed and refuse to comment any further.”​

Mr Richards, a litigation partner with Cartmell Shepherd, said: “Tito has not contested Matt’s claim. He has had representation but not from a firm of solicitors.​

“But his representative has acknowledged that there was an agreement.​

“Now, we have to think about how we will enforce the judgement.”
Mr Richards said he had been taken aback by the scale of international media interest when the case first became public last year.​




Eviction free night for contestants​

The Mentor fans felt the thrill by the splendid performances by the contestants last Sunday 22nd February 2009 at TV3 Studio B.​

The atmosphere changed when Sam from the Ashanti region followed to perform 'Human nature' originally done by Michael Jackson. It was an outstanding performance according to the Judges. His stagecraft and appearance was fantastic. "You did a lot of work" said one of the Judges. In all, Sam received 13 stars.​




Have you ever had to take a massive risk musically?
Well I once played Michael Jackson “Black or White" for a laugh at this afterhours gay club a long time ago, it was a risk but the crowd loved it.
- DJ Ministry of Sound resident Smokin’ Jo,​




Small Reminder:​

Musicals Extend: Thriller, Dancing & Hairspray​

Three West End musicals – recent Michael Jackson tribute show Thriller Live and longer-runners Hairspray and Dirty Dancing - have all announced extensions to their booking periods. ​

At the Lyric Theatre, Shaftesbury Avenue, Thriller Live has added four months to its season. It opened on 21 January (previews from 2 January) and had initially been booking until 12 April only (See Review Round-up, 28 Jan 2009). It will now continue until 27 September 2009. From 14 April, Tuesday to Saturday evening performances will start half-an-hour earlier, at 7.30pm.

Billed as a concert show, Thriller Live includes Michael Jackson and Jackson 5 chart-toppers such as “I Want You Back”, “I’ll Be There”, “Earth Song”, “Blame It on the Boogie”, “Billie Jean”, “Beat It” and, of course, the title song, “Thriller” from best-selling albums including Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous and HIStory. ​

Thriller Live is directed by Gary Lloyd and written by Adrian Grant, with design by Jonathan Park. The cast is led by three 13-year olds who rotate in the role of Young Michael. ​







Today in
Michael Jackson History​

1987 - Pepsi aired a Michael Jackson commercial, "The Spring...The Magic Returns," during the 29th Annual Grammy Awards. ​

1993 - Michael Jackson received the Living Legend Award at the 35th Annual Grammy Awards. The award was presented by Janet Jackson. ​

2003 - Michael Jackson requested a court injunction to block a television company from releasing unused footage filmed during the making of a documentary. ​

2005 - The jury selection process in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial wrapped up. Opening statements were scheduled to begin on the following Monday. ​

jjackson9.jpg
​
 
Last edited:
Thanks for post it ...
always love TODAY IN MJ History :)
 
Yea, it's cool ain't it. A small look at his history. Dude have done and been through A LOT of stuff!!

:)
 
Didn't see this posted... sigh.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11774636

Court tells Michael Jackson to pay up

By Denise Nix, Staff Writer
Posted: 02/24/2009 11:04:11 AM PST

A Torrance law firm has once again emerged the victor in a protracted court battle with pop star Michael Jackson over unpaid legal fees.

The 2 nd District Court of Appeal issued an opinion Monday favoring Ayscough & Marar, which represented Jackson on various civil matters around the time he was on trial for child molestation in 2005.

However, Jackson beat it before paying the $217,000 bill.

Ayscough & Marar sued Jackson and two of his companies in Torrance Superior Court. Just as the case was to go to trial before a downtown Los Angeles judge in June 2007, Jackson agreed to pay what he owed, plus interest.

Then, Jackson appealed, claiming Judge James Chalfant wrongly denied his quest to postpone the trial.

"It made no sense," Brent Ayscough said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "How do you appeal something you agreed to pay?"

A message left for Jackson's attorney, Thomas Mundell, was not immediately returned.

In addition to the legal fees, Jackson also agreed to pay $175,000 to cover Ayscough & Marar's expenses for suing Jackson, Ayscough said.

At the time of Jackson's appeal, he had paid the firm approximately $440,000. Ayscough said they will likely file a motion to recoup the costs of fighting the appeal, too.

Ayscough said that his firm was hired through Jackson's brother and then business manager, Randy Jackson - who remains a longtime client of the firm.

"We were turned over his civil cases," Ayscough said.

"There were quite a few."

At the time, Jackson was defending himself against accusations that he sexually molested a young boy at his Neverland Ranch in Santa Maria. Jackson was acquitted of the charges.

The judge in Santa Maria had issued a gag order in that case, and various news organizations were fighting it.

Ayscough & Marar fought mostly successfully to keep the information related to the criminal case out of the media, and also dealt with other civil cases.

Once case was brought by Jackson's former business associate, porn producer F. Marc Schaffel, over more than $1.4 million in unpaid royalties and loans from various collaborations.

At first, the legally embattled King of Pop paid his bills. Then, he stopped.

"I said, 'If you don't pay us, we're gonna quit,'" Ayscough said.

The firm sued in February 2006 and Jackson countersued, claiming his former lawyers wrongly threatened to reveal information related to the criminal trial if he didn't pay. Chalfant dismissed the cross complaint.

Ayscough & Marar won a court ruling that ordered Jackson to participate in a deposition. He went, but then, inexplicably, left before it was over.

Chalfant had found that Jackson failed to submit other information in the case and refused to delay the trial so Jackson's attorney could remedy the situation or continue negotiating a settlement.

Ayscough & Marar isn't the only law firm who has chased after Jackson for unpaid bills.

According to E! Online, the firm Wachtel & Massey quit a New York breach of contract case when Jackson stopped paying the bills, although Jackson claims he fired them.

In addition, Los Angeles entertainment firm Lavely & Singer sued Jackson in 2006 for more than $113,000 in unpaid legal fees, E! Online reported.
 
Ayscough loves talking to the media. I'm glad he doesn't work for Michael anymore. Looks like Thomas Mundell is not like that.
 
TSCM said:
Didn't see this posted... sigh.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11774636

Court tells Michael Jackson to pay up

By Denise Nix, Staff Writer
Posted: 02/24/2009 11:04:11 AM PST

A Torrance law firm has once again emerged the victor in a protracted court battle with pop star Michael Jackson over unpaid legal fees.

The 2 nd District Court of Appeal issued an opinion Monday favoring Ayscough & Marar, which represented Jackson on various civil matters around the time he was on trial for child molestation in 2005.

However, Jackson beat it before paying the $217,000 bill.

Ayscough & Marar sued Jackson and two of his companies in Torrance Superior Court. Just as the case was to go to trial before a downtown Los Angeles judge in June 2007, Jackson agreed to pay what he owed, plus interest.

Then, Jackson appealed, claiming Judge James Chalfant wrongly denied his quest to postpone the trial.

"It made no sense," Brent Ayscough said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "How do you appeal something you agreed to pay?"

A message left for Jackson's attorney, Thomas Mundell, was not immediately returned.

In addition to the legal fees, Jackson also agreed to pay $175,000 to cover Ayscough & Marar's expenses for suing Jackson, Ayscough said.

At the time of Jackson's appeal, he had paid the firm approximately $440,000. Ayscough said they will likely file a motion to recoup the costs of fighting the appeal, too.

Ayscough said that his firm was hired through Jackson's brother and then business manager, Randy Jackson - who remains a longtime client of the firm.

"We were turned over his civil cases," Ayscough said.

"There were quite a few."

At the time, Jackson was defending himself against accusations that he sexually molested a young boy at his Neverland Ranch in Santa Maria. Jackson was acquitted of the charges.

The judge in Santa Maria had issued a gag order in that case, and various news organizations were fighting it.

Ayscough & Marar fought mostly successfully to keep the information related to the criminal case out of the media, and also dealt with other civil cases.

Once case was brought by Jackson's former business associate, porn producer F. Marc Schaffel, over more than $1.4 million in unpaid royalties and loans from various collaborations.

At first, the legally embattled King of Pop paid his bills. Then, he stopped.

"I said, 'If you don't pay us, we're gonna quit,'" Ayscough said.

The firm sued in February 2006 and Jackson countersued, claiming his former lawyers wrongly threatened to reveal information related to the criminal trial if he didn't pay. Chalfant dismissed the cross complaint.

Ayscough & Marar won a court ruling that ordered Jackson to participate in a deposition. He went, but then, inexplicably, left before it was over.

Chalfant had found that Jackson failed to submit other information in the case and refused to delay the trial so Jackson's attorney could remedy the situation or continue negotiating a settlement.

Ayscough & Marar isn't the only law firm who has chased after Jackson for unpaid bills.

According to E! Online, the firm Wachtel & Massey quit a New York breach of contract case when Jackson stopped paying the bills, although Jackson claims he fired them.

In addition, Los Angeles entertainment firm Lavely & Singer sued Jackson in 2006 for more than $113,000 in unpaid legal fees, E! Online reported.
Click to expand...

this is E online. MJ haters there. it's pathetic, and MJ will prevail. these a*****e media and lawyers just keep seeming to enjoy putting MJ through hell.
 
"At the time of Jackson's appeal, he had paid the firm approximately $440,000. Ayscough said they will likely file a motion to recoup the costs of fighting the appeal, too."
So it is already paid then or am I beeing stupid. I don´t really get this...
 
Linda74 said:
"At the time of Jackson's appeal, he had paid the firm approximately $440,000. Ayscough said they will likely file a motion to recoup the costs of fighting the appeal, too."
So it is already paid then or am I beeing stupid. I don´t really get this...
Click to expand...

ur not stupid. ur right.
 
Yeah, it's pretty much done and over with, payment-wise. Here's another article, again it is stated that the $440,000 was paid in January 2008. This was mainly the appeals issue at hand, which was denied.

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/jack022409.htm

Court Upholds Discovery Sanctions Against Michael Jackson

By SHERRI M. OKAMOTO, Staff Writer

This district’s Court of Appeal yesterday upheld the dismissal of pop superstar Michael Jackson’s affirmative defenses to his former attorney’s claim for unpaid legal fees as a discovery sanction.

Div. Four in an unpublished opinion affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant’s ruling that the singer’s failure to appear at a noticed deposition or to respond to written discovery demands had impaired Torrance-based Ayscough & Marar’s ability to address Jackson’s claims

Jackson retained the firm to represent him after he was sued by former business partner Marc Schaffel for $3.8 million in 2004.

Schaffel alleged that Jackson had failed to repay him for loans, cash advances and producing fees for his role in making television documentaries to improve Jackson’s image after the singer was acquitted of charges of child molestation.

A jury subsequently awarded Schaffel $900,000, but directed him to pay Jackson $200,000 to satisfy a countersuit alleging Schaffel misappropriated funds.

Ayscough & Marar also assisted Jackson in preventing the release of some information to the public and to lawyers in civil cases during his 2005 criminal trial, but terminated the relationship when Jackson stopped paying their bills.

In 2006, the firm filed suit against Jackson, MJJ Productions Inc., and Fire Mountain Services LLC seeking approximately $256,000 in unpaid legal fees, plus costs and interest, for a total of about $440,000.

After Jackson filed an amended answer to the complaint, asserting several defenses, including unclean hands, violations of the Business and Professions Code and California Rules of Professional Conduct, Ayscough & Marar propounded written discovery regarding the defenses and sought to depose Jackson.

Jackson failed to appear for the noticed deposition and then sought a protective order shielding him from the deposition and written discovery.

Chalfant denied Jackson’s request for a protective order, granted the firm’s motions to compel discovery, and awarded monetary sanctions against Jackson and his attorneys.

Ayscough & Marar later filed an ex parte application for an order striking Jackson’s first amended answer, entering a default judgment, or imposing evidentiary or issue sanctions for the singer’s continued failure to appear for deposition or respond to discovery demands.

Jackson’s counsel appeared before Chalfant to oppose the application, which the judge said he would treat as a motion in limine.

Chalfant heard oral argument the next day, then ordered Jackson’s defense asserted in the first amended answer stricken. The parties stipulated to having judgment entered in favor of the firm.

On appeal, Jackson argued that Chalfant had erred in imposing discovery sanctions on the basis of an ex parte application, but Justice Nora M. Manella explained that claim had been forfeited in her opinion for the appellate court.

Although discovery sanctions generally may not be ordered ex parte, Manella explained that Jackson, by appearing at the hearing on the ex parte application and opposing it on the merits, had forfeited his contention regarding defective notice, and impliedly consented to the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction beyond its authority.

By consenting to the trial court’s excess exercise of jurisdiction, Manella reasoned that Jackson was estopped from challenging that act on appeal.

Manella noted that Jackson did not violate any court order by failing to produce supplemental answers to Ayscough & Marar’s requests for written discovery and that noncompliance with a discovery order is generally a prerequisite for the imposition of terminating sanctions.

But the justice concluded Chalfant was entitled to consider the totality of the circumstances regarding Jackson’s failure to comply with the trial court’s discovery orders, and that the judge’s consideration of related discovery abuses was not an abuse of discretion.

Presiding Justice Norman L. Epstein and Justice Steven C. Suzakawa joined Manella in her opinion.

Brent Ayscough of Ayscough & Marar said that Jackson paid the entire judgment against him in January 2008.

The firm was represented on appeal by Michael McCarthy, Mark Schaeffer, and Janette S. Bodenstein of Nemecek & Cole.

McCarthy said that yesterday’s decision was “as expected,” and stood for the simple proposition that parties should “show up for depositions,” and “respond to discovery.”

Jackson was represented by Thomas C. Mundell of Mundell, Odlum & Haws, who could not be reached for comment.
 
MY god,,why cant people leave michael alone! :angry:
 
My letter is on it's way to Gardner Street School. The right time to take action would be now.

Thanks for signing the UNCOVER HIS NAME petition.
Do not forget to send a postcard/letter to the Gardner Street School.
Let us work together!
 
i got an idea, how about a bunch of fans get together, pour over the transcripts and pre trial hearings, get a feel for the law and show how there was prosecutorial misconduct, perjury, and oh i dunno, cooperation on the behalf of chandler's friend (cuz he couldn't cuz he wasn't asked) and prove mj was innocent.

then gardner wouldn't have any reason or excuse tokeep it covered....oh yeah, and the little thing about vindication would occur.

who's w/ me?


AND AND AND is mj being sued for the interest and for their legal fees? cuz he paid what he owed, that's what they said but was it the initial cost and not the added fees?
 
The Asycough case is a little confusing.......maybe the news media are trying to turn something positive (the fact that Michael settled in full) into something negative (all the appeals and others whoare suing for breach of contract -- when the case in hand has nothing to do with any of it) ?
 
seems to me from the ainscough case mj paid the original fee but mj also appealed it. (u would have thought you wouldnt have paid up until the appeal was over) what ainscough wants now is payment for the legal fees that were invovled when mj appealed. mj lost the appeal so ainscough wants mj to pay for his attorney fees that hes used fighting mjs appeal

Ayscough said that his firm was hired through Jackson's brother and then business manager, Randy Jackson - who remains a longtime client of the firm.
Click to expand...
shock horror. is randy waiting to get paid aswell just like with the precident case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top