Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson drops lawsuit against accountants

mkgenie

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,944
Points
63
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080501/people_nm/jackson_dc_1

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Pop star Michael Jackson has dropped a lawsuit against an accounting firm he had accused of making deals and hiring people without his permission, according to court papers obtained on Thursday.


The papers, filed on April 14, did not say whether Jackson had reached a settlement with the firm or dropped the litigation for another reason.

Jackson, through his production company, MJJ Productions Inc., sued the accounting firm of Bernstein, Fox, Whitman, Goldman and Sloan in December 2006, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The lawsuit alleged the firm did not pay workers' compensation payments on his behalf in 2004 and 2005 and was late paying taxes he owed, in addition to hiring people and entering into contracts without his authorization.

The accounting firm countersued Jackson the day after he filed his court papers, claiming the singer owed nearly $1 million in unpaid bills. That action was dismissed.

Jackson has maintained a low profile since his June 2005 acquittal on child sex abuse charges in California. His lawyers could not immediately be reached for comment.

(Reporting by Jill Serjeant; Editing by Bob Tourtellotte)
 
Last edited:
^ interesting...


and damn, if they can't leave out "...since his june 2005..blah blah.."

I really wish they would leave that out..it has been three years now...
 
that is bound to be an unfortunate and permanent part of his legacy :(
 
can't they not mention 'since his child blah..' at the end of every article?????????????
 
It will forever be there.

Wonder why MJ dropped the suit? Maybe he doesnt want continuing court battles especially before having a new album come out.
 
That whole reference to the trial will forever be attached to MJ's name like it or not and if we can't stand when they do it, imagine how MJ must feel?

As for this case, we maynot know the details but I'm sure happy that he's wrapping up all this lawsuits 'cause best believe it, MJ will not be releasing anything new unless all these issues are resolved, especially the whole Neverland situation.
 
This article shows me two things....

  1. The countersuit by the Accountants asking for $1 mil from Michael, had no merit. That is why it was probably dismissed.
  2. The Accountants have probably agreed to settle with Michael. A condition might have been for Michael to drop his suit...and he did.
 
that constant reference to June 13 won't be a continuing part of MJ's legacy..instead it will be a continuing part of the media's legacy of trying to destroy people, that will forever make them an enemy of the common people... because there was a town meeting in new york about how the media is portrayed. and in that meeting, the media was examining itself, and it included how print media bashes radio and internet media..and how the media is depicted as being politically leaning among other things.. so, if anything..the media is damaging itself by being obviously redundant, with intent to damage without warrant. that's why that meeting took place about high profile court cases and media access..where the media isn't trusted by even the most sinister of people..like Sneddon, for example..

as long as MJ fans decide that it is not part of MJ's legacy to be associated with that horrible time in his life, then..it isn't.
 
Last edited:
whats wrong with the June 2005 thing? It's a fact, why not mention it? At least they didn't say something like 'so called acquittal'. LOL I guess i see it as a good thing, cuz the fact that he was acquitted will be replayed over again, instead of how it was before, "1993 he settled blah blah blah". its the media, they gotta repeat SOMETHING over and over again, cuz they're lazy :p
 
Last edited:
I agree J5Master! I would rather hear acquitted than "case remains open, he settled" etc and all that crap Sneddon was spewing from 1993
 
Wonder why MJ dropped the suit? Maybe he doesnt want continuing court battles especially before having a new album come out.
Click to expand...

they probably offered to drop their suit if mj dropped his. thats why the counter sued in the first place.its how the system works.they are abit slow with the article though this info was posted a good couple of weeks ago
 
ExoticPrincess said:
That whole reference to the trial will forever be attached to MJ's name like it or not and if we can't stand when they do it, imagine how MJ must feel?

As for this case, we maynot know the details but I'm sure happy that he's wrapping up all this lawsuits 'cause best believe it, MJ will not be releasing anything new unless all these issues are resolved, especially the whole Neverland situation.
Click to expand...

That is what I was thinking. I pray for the day when he doesn't have to deal with any more law suits and court issues on his finances. That will truly be a good day to see. I think we're almost there, too!
 
elusive moonwalker said:
they probably offered to drop their suit if mj dropped his. thats why the counter sued in the first place.its how the system works.they are abit slow with the article though this info was posted a good couple of weeks ago
Click to expand...

According to the article, the lawsuit filed by the accountants against MJ was DISMISSED.

Now why it was dismissed is another question. The accountants lawsuit against MJ must have lacked merit and was thereby dismissed by the Judge. The fact that it was dismissed must have been good news for Michael and also "helped" the accounting firm in their decision to "resolve" the lawsuit Michael filed against them.

Well that's the way I see it anyway. LOL!
 
the wording dismissed doesnt mean it was just thrown out. dismissed is still used tmk even if the person who filed the lawsuit asks for it to be pulled. they file dismissal papers.
 
Last edited:
I actually see humor in this.. I know lawsuits are always negitve and sad..


After MJ filed a lawsuite.. There all.. "oh ya your gonna sue me.. Well I'll sue you back." And it was dismissed..

I see that as funny..

It's like: nice try..
 
GenieBottle said:
^ interesting...


and damn, if they can't leave out "...since his june 2005..blah blah.."

I really wish they would leave that out..it has been three years now...
Click to expand...
I was just thinking the same thing. We do not need to be reminded of this everytime. I will never understand why the media does it. That has nothing to do with what is being talked about.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
the wording dismissed doesnt mean it was just thrown out. dismissed is still used tmk even if the person who filed the lawsuit asks for it to be pulled. they file dismissal papers.
Click to expand...

You could very well be right, but to my knowledge IF the accounting firm decided not to go forward with their lawsuit against MJ, the correct word would be "WITHDREW" not dismissed, i.e. the accounting firm WITHDREW their lawsuit against MJ. Ya feel me.
 
Big Apple2 said:
According to the article, the lawsuit filed by the accountants against MJ was DISMISSED.

Now why it was dismissed is another question. The accountants lawsuit against MJ must have lacked merit and was thereby dismissed by the Judge. The fact that it was dismissed must have been good news for Michael and also "helped" the accounting firm in their decision to "resolve" the lawsuit Michael filed against them.

Well that's the way I see it anyway. LOL!
Click to expand...
That is how I see it as well. I think the lawyers settled with MJ which is what lawsuits are primarily about.
 
this is the original info from lesliemj.hu



Another Settled Case!

Michael Jackson settled another court case, one of his last ones!

On April 14, 2008 Berstein, Fox, Whitman, Goldman and Sloan asked for a dismissal on the case they brought againts Jackson back in 2006.

Jackson's lawyer did so in the counter suit case.

With this surprising move Jackson has left with a very handful of court cases!
 
that constant reference to June 13 won't be a continuing part of MJ's legacy..instead it will be a continuing part of the media's legacy of trying to destroy people, that will forever make them an enemy of the common people... because there was a town meeting in new york about how the media is portrayed. and in that meeting, the media was examining itself, and it included how print media bashes radio and internet media..and how the media is depicted as being politically leaning and racist among other things.. so, if anything..the media is damaging itself by being obviously redundant, with intent to damage without warrant. that's why that meeting took place about high profile court cases and media access..where the media isn't trusted by even the most sinister of people..like Sneddon, for example..
Click to expand...

I totally agree. MJ's legacy is already in stone. I do not see how MJ being vindicated is a bad thing. However, the media makes it that way.

Anyway, this is an interesting article. Maybe a settlement was reached after the lawsuit the accountants filed against MJ was dismissed.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
this is the original info from lesliemj.hu

On April 14, 2008 Berstein, Fox, Whitman, Goldman and Sloan asked for a dismissal on the case they brought againts Jackson back in 2006.

Jackson's lawyer did so in the counter suit case.

With this surprising move Jackson has left with a very handful of court cases![/B]
Click to expand...

I saw that the other day.

All I can say is that I work in a New York City law firm and we never ask a Judge to DISMISS a case, we do however ask that a case be WITHDRAWN on behalf our client.

But hey, maybe they word things differently in that part of the country. LOL!
 
vncwilliam said:
that constant reference to June 13 won't be a continuing part of MJ's legacy..instead it will be a continuing part of the media's legacy of trying to destroy people, that will forever make them an enemy of the common people...

(...)

as long as MJ fans decide that it is not part of MJ's legacy to be associated with that horrible time in his life, then..it isn't.
Click to expand...

I agree.

MJStorm
 
Big Apple2 said:
I saw that the other day.

All I can say is that I work in a New York City law firm and we never ask a Judge to DISMISS a case, we do however ask that a case be WITHDRAWN on behalf our client.

But hey, maybe they word things differently in that part of the country. LOL!
Click to expand...
I agree. I also studied contract law. If the case was dismissed, it was thrown out by the judge. Insufficient evidence. MJ's one was not dismissed, it was settled, that means that the lawyers came to an arrangement with MJ. Sound like they paid up to me.
 
Last edited:
Datsymay said:
I agree. I also studied contract law. If the case was dismissed, it was thrown out by the judge. Unsufficient evidence. MJ's one was not dismissed, it was settled, that means that the lawyers came to an arrangement with MJ. Sound like they paid up to me.
Click to expand...

EXCELLENT POINT Dats!
 
elusive moonwalker said:
this is the original info from lesliemj.hu



Another Settled Case!

Michael Jackson settled another court case, one of his last ones!

On April 14, 2008 Berstein, Fox, Whitman, Goldman and Sloan asked for a dismissal on the case they brought againts Jackson back in 2006.

Jackson's lawyer did so in the counter suit case.

With this surprising move Jackson has left with a very handful of court cases!
Click to expand...

I remember reading this b4...

so the spin is the media only picks up the story when Michael does the writhdrawal...

anyways.. happy for him.. things are working out
 
thank you for news
 
Last edited:
Big Apple2 said:
I saw that the other day.

All I can say is that I work in a New York City law firm and we never ask a Judge to DISMISS a case, we do however ask that a case be WITHDRAWN on behalf our client.

But hey, maybe they word things differently in that part of the country. LOL!
Click to expand...

Each state/court has their own Local Rules/Jurisdiction; the way they do/say things.

Big Apple if I may inquire, what do you do in the Law Firm where you work?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top