Re: Prince vs MJ Trial Thread
It's a civil trial. Courts don't normally require people to appear in person for civil trials. This request is definitely suspect.
The thing that is different with this case is it is a "he said/he said" trial. The Prince can testify about his understanding of their agreement; however, until Michael appears, the only thing that they can do is go on the depositions that he gave a year ago.
But since it is a civil trial, the burdon of evidence is on the plaintiff to prove that there was a contract for a specified amount. His gifts shouldn't be included in that amount. If, however, there was a cash advance of a certain amount in exchange for 2 albums, a Broadway musical, and an autobiography (as reported), then it should have been tied to a written contract.
If there is a written contract, then the contract stands alone and the merits of the contract are all that have to be argued. Neither the Prince, nor Michael, need to be present to argue the merits of a contract. Michael's deposition should suffice to argue his side of the contract.
This entire lawsuit is suspect. The reason that it was filed in the UK is that the U.S. does not recognize Bahrain. It does not have diplomatic ties to Bahrain, so they don't recognize each other in International Court.
Michael's lawyers should never have accepted a lawsuit in the UK, a country that recognizes both the U.S. and Bahrain. It would have been a little more simple to argue that Bahrain has no legal jurisdiction over a U.S. citizen.
I will be interested to see what legal arguements both sides use over the next 2 weeks.
th: Talk about wanting attention...
