Latest on MJJC

Nov 17 News & Mentionings

^^^He did get the money... didn't he? The defense is not that he didn't get the money, the defense is, that he thought it was a gift!
 
Big Apple2 said:
Hold up a minute!

Now is it me, or should this case "mainly HINGE on a signed contract," and not on the nature of Jackson's friendship with the sheikh.

I have never heard of anything like that in my life!
Click to expand...

Unless British law is very, very different from the law in the U.S., then yes, it should hinge on a contract. Either Michael signed a contract, or he didn't. The "nature of a friendship" should have nothing to do with it. Either signed documentation is produced, or it is not. We just have to wait and see what unfolds.

Vic
 
PatrickS77 said:
Wow, what a great defense! :smilerolleyes: I can see this going no where for Michael!

Geez... it is not disputed that Michael received all that money and the prince paid all the expenses... so why not just pay back all the money Michael has received and show good will to make that shit go away?? If he looses, it will become more expensive and he has the public humiliation of everybody knowing what has happened!
Click to expand...

In most US and European courts a gift is considered a gift. Michael shouldn't have to pay back a gift to anyone.

Undue Influence is a very powerful defense when applied properly.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/undue+influence

A judicially created defense to transactions that have been imposed upon weak and vulnerable persons that allows the transactions to be set aside.

Virtually any act of persuasion that over-comes the free will and judgment of another, including exhortations, importunings, insinuations, flattery, trickery, and deception, may amount to undue influence. Undue influence differs from duress, which consists of the intentional use of force, or threat of force, to coerce another into a grossly unfair transaction. Blackmail, Extortion, bad faith threats of criminal prosecution, and oppressive Abuse of Process are classic examples of duress.


Four elements must be shown to establish undue influence. First, it must be demonstrated that the victim was susceptible to overreaching. Such conditions as mental, psychological, or physical disability or dependency may be used to show susceptibility.



Second, there must be an opportunity for exercising undue influence. Typically, this opportunity arises through a confidential relationship. Courts have found opportunity for undue influence in confidential relationships between Husband and Wife, fiancé and fiancée, Parent and Child, trustee and beneficiary, administrator and legatee, Guardian and Ward, attorney and client, doctor and patient, and pastor and parishioner.



Third, there must be evidence that the defendant was inclined to exercise undue influence over the victim. Defendants who aggressively initiate a transaction, insulate a relationship from outside supervision, or discourage a weaker party from seeking independent advice may be attempting to exercise undue influence.


Fourth, the record must reveal an unnatural or suspicious transaction. Courts are wary, for example, of testators who make abrupt changes in their last will and testament after being diagnosed with a terminal illness or being declared incompetent, especially if the changes are made at the behest of a beneficiary who stands to benefit from the new or revised testamentary disposition.


Nevertheless, courts will examine the facts closely before finding that a transaction has been tainted by undue influence. Mere suspicion, surmise, or conjecture of overreaching is insufficient. The law permits loved ones and confidants to advise and comfort those in need of their support without fear of litigation. Courts are also aware that the doctrine of undue influence can be used as a sword by the vindictive and avaricious who seek to invalidate a perfectly legal transaction for personal gain. When undue influence is found to have altered a transaction, however, courts will make every effort to return the parties to the same position they would have occupied had the overreaching not occurred.
Click to expand...

&

undue influence n. the amount of pressure which one uses to force someone to execute a will leaving assets in a particular way, to make a direct gift while alive, or to sign a contract. The key element is that the influence was so great that the testator (will writer), donor (gift giver), or party to the contract had lost the ability to exercise his/her judgment and could not refuse to give in to the pressure. Evidence of such dominance of another's mind may result in invalidation of the will, gift, or contract by a court if the will, gift, or contract is challenged. Participation in preparation of the will, excluding other relatives, being present when the testator and the attorney meet are all evidence of undue pressure, and an imbalance or change in language which greatly favors the person exercising the influence are factors in finding undue influence. Example: Pete Pounder constantly visits his aunt Agnes while she is ill and always urges her to leave her mansion to him instead of to her son. Pounder threatens to stop visiting the old lady, who is very lonely, tells her she is ungrateful for his attention, finally brings over an attorney who does not know Agnes, and is present while she tells the attorney to write a new will in favor of Pounder.
Click to expand...

Michael Jackson could not have been mentally and physically up to entering any kind of agreement after his trial. It took a severe toll on him. If the Bahrain Royal Family gave Michael Jackson lodging and healthcare/peace-of-mind while he was recuperating with the agenda of getting Michael to sign contracts to do an album, then that is undue influence.

MJ is right to fight this one.
 
MJJC MOD 1 said:
In most US and European courts a gift is considered a gift. Michael shouldn't have to pay back a gift to anyone.
Click to expand...
According to the Prince it was no gift! If Michael pays back that money there is no harm to him... since he actually received that money! Unless he spent that money on junk he otherwise wouldn't have gotten and only has gotten, because he thought the prince would pay for it!
 
MJJC MOD 1 said:
In most US and European courts a gift is considered a gift. Michael shouldn't have to pay back a gift to anyone.

Undue Influence is a very powerful defense when applied properly.



&



Michael Jackson could not have been mentally and physically up to entering any kind of agreement after his trial. It took a severe toll on him. If the Bahrain Royal Family gave Michael Jackson lodging and healthcare/peace-of-mind while he was recuperating with the agenda of getting Michael to sign contracts to do an album, then that is undue influence.

MJ is right to fight this one.
Click to expand...

oohhh yeah...that is undue influence. i don't know who could not see that.

that has happened to many...and...i speak from personal experience...yeah...MJ was unduly influenced.
 
Foxy.. said:
Maybe the sale of Neverland was in preperation for the cost of this trial. Everything seems very organised and arranged. I am sure Michael knew about this case way before the press picked up on it.
Click to expand...
Of course he knew... he got sued over a year ago already! The one who shall not be talked about here reported in detail about it last year already!
 
Hoofmark said:
Luring Michael with an escape to a quiet place where he can rest after the ordeal of the trial was... a trick to get him to sign a contract. Michael did accept all the gifts and money. But we have to keep in mind that although the amount of money involved could be big... it comes from a 'big' place.

Money is growing on trees there, so you need to put it into perspective. To us it might sound ridiculous to be able to live like a King as a gift. But it's change for the one who gave it.

Change... so he could persue his own agenda in a very, very vulnarable time for Michael.
Click to expand...

Even if Michael would be not in the country where money grow on the trees, then he still could expect a generous hospitality from a person, who claims is friendly to him.

The point is when Michael invited many people to his ranch, he gave everything he owned to his guests (from his amusement parks to body wax financial cover), with no small sums of money including, and was never heard to require something from them as any sort of payback.

And there were no money-trees at Neverland, however magical the place was. Michael earned those money by himself, by his own work.
So why would Jackson have to feel obligated for receiving hospitality?
 
Last edited:
PatrickS77 said:
Of course he knew... he got sued over a year ago already! The one who shall not be talked about here reported in detail about it last year already!
Click to expand...

Yeah he knew he was sued already, but wasn't it brushed under the carpet until today? Unexpected for everyone here who wasn't aware a trial may take place (although this will probably be settled out of court), whereas Michael almost certainly knew today was coming much much much before it was picked up on by you know who.
 
PatrickS77 said:
According to the Prince it was no gift! If Michael pays back that money there is no harm to him... since he actually received that money! Unless he spent that money on junk he otherwise wouldn't have gotten and only has gotten, because he thought the prince would pay for it!
Click to expand...


But Michael is fighting it for a reason. Maybe give Michael the benefit of the doubt, here? The suit makes no sense once you think about it and as the Prince says, the lawsuit hinges on friendship. So, the lawsuit is based off of friendship? Like "I gave him gifts, the least he could do is record an album and record my songs" friendship? Isn't that undue influence?

I go back to my original post in this thread in saying that Raymone Bain and Londell McMillian stepped in for a reason when Michael was in Bahrain.

Remember Michael's condition at the end of the trial? He could barely walk and talk. He was very thin, ill and more than likely depressed. How on earth could ANYONE in that state of mind negotiate any contractual agreement?
 
I wonder if the Prince will be in the courtroom the day HIS song is played for the world to hear.

You know, so he can get the maximum exposure and some immediate feedback, because as far as I'm concerned that's what this case is really all about.
 
MJJC MOD 1 said:
Remember Michael's condition at the end of the trial? He could barely walk and talk. He was very thin, ill and more than likely depressed. How on earth could ANYONE in that state of mind negotiate any contractual agreement?
Click to expand...

I'm not defending either party here, however, if a contract is displayed during the hearing with Michael's signature it is still a contractual agreement. Although his condition was extremely dubious during this time, if something is signed then there isn't too much that anyone can do about it. That is why high profile celebrities like Michael have advisors, who obviously were not present when/if he signed a contract.
 
Foxy.. said:
I'm not defending either party here, however, if a contract is displayed during the hearing with Michael's signature it is still a contractual agreement. Although his condition was extremely dubious during this time, if something is signed then there isn't too much that anyone can do about it. That is why high profile celebrities like Michael have advisors, who obviously were not present when/if he signed a contract.
Click to expand...

I think that's what's going on here. Plus they probably had trouble communicating. If anything, I'm kinda surprised Michael took the deal when he did considering he wasn't really 100% committed to do anything at that point sensing he just survived a four-month trial. The deal with 2Seas was sudden.
 
troubleman84 said:
The deal with 2Seas was sudden.
Click to expand...

Not only was that deal sudden, but it "might" have been too sudden for Guy Holmes in the end also. I mean, what the heck happened to him. First he was all up in the mix, then he just disappeared, never to be heard from again.

I wonder what was up with that portion of the deal!
 
troubleman84 said:
I don't know... I mean, the dude seems WANTING Michael to pay all the money to him. That just may happen.
Click to expand...

LOL! Let's see what happens AFTER they play the Prince's song in court. The dude seems like he is looking for fame, NOT fortune (which he already has.)
 
This quote from the BBC article in TSCM's post does give me pause for concern:

"The singer has admitted that he signed a document which he understood gave him a substantial shareholding in the 2 Seas recording company.

But he challenges the sheikh's description of him as "an experienced businessman" and says he never read the terms of the document and was never advised to take independent legal advice.

He also claims that the sheikh, a powerful and influential public figure, exercised "undue influence" over him when he was emotionally exhausted after his highly-publicised criminal trial."
Click to expand...
---------------------------------------------------------------------


It would seem there is a potential for the lawsuit to be tossed because of the possibility of "duress". Or maybe something will be settled behind the scenes- since it seems pretty obvious the Prince doesn't need the money per se.

Maybe the Prince is angling for Michael to somehow come through with the song(s) he wanted Michael to record and the one already recorded. And if the "under duress" argument fails on Michael's side, then an out of court settlement sounds possible.

If this involved someone who lost all their money on what did not materialize, maybe I could partially understand the motive for the lawsuit. But in this case, I just can't believe that money is the driving force for the Prince.

Michael had to have NOT been in a mental/psychological state of mind to sign papers of this nature, and either had no advisors at the time or somehow trusted the Prince enough to not
ask for advice (going on the quote Michael allegedly made). So how the British court handles this will be interesting; but like several others, my gut feeling is something will be settled behind the scenes. JMO.
 
Last edited:
"Sheikh Abdulla began to support Mr Jackson financially after 2005 when it became clear that Mr Jackson was in very serious financial difficulties, much to Sheikh Abdulla's surprise," said Mr Thanki.
Click to expand...

Friendship?We talking about bu$ine$$.
Sheikh Abdula isn't friend of Michael.He just helped Michael for bu$ine$$.Period.
Abdula dont helped MJ cuz he likes him as friend.He just wanted earn!
I hope everything will be fine to Michael!
Ohhh,my Lord!!!:(
 
Big Apple2 said:
Not only was that deal sudden, but it "might" have been too sudden for Guy Holmes in the end also. I mean, what the heck happened to him. First he was all up in the mix, then he just disappeared, never to be heard from again.

I wonder what was up with that portion of the deal!
Click to expand...

Yeah I wonder about that. I mean we all should've known the deal was not smart on any of their behalf, not even Michael, because despite the fact that he so-called "accepted the money offer as a gift", he DID agree to a record deal with them and then after things fell apart, he escaped for Ireland, then returned to America near the end of 2006 and never returned to Bahrain after he left for Japan.

Something tells me that everybody's at fault here, even "poor, little Michael Jackson".
 
Last edited:
MJJC MOD 1 said:
But Michael is fighting it for a reason. Maybe give Michael the benefit of the doubt, here?
Click to expand...
I'm giving Michael the benefit of a doubt since years! But still... at this point I can't, really! Since it's all about whether it was a gift or wasn't and not whether he did or didn't get something!

Remember Michael's condition at the end of the trial? He could barely walk and talk. He was very thin, ill and more than likely depressed. How on earth could ANYONE in that state of mind negotiate any contractual agreement?
Click to expand...
Well, I know his condition and obviously he did sign something, regardless... and even almost one year later in '06 he still did that press conference with Guy Holmes regarding 2 Seas!

You'd think he had realized by then that he made a mistake! He could just give back the money and show good will and probably the isssue would be solved! But I see you don't want to understand that and see Michael again as the poor victim... which he probably is (signing things in the wrong state of mind, letting someone take advantage of him), but after the trial you'd think he'd be more carefull!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top