Latest on MJJC

The Estate vs HBO

The Estate response (HBO Arbitration) has been filed:

https://www.scribd.com/document/413...gWMLS6BlxpgWZAxzEITVE4Ht96OElsXGdiqpqQhhMlf-Q

'HBO's efforts to escape the results of this simple analysis fail'. (I hope so!!)

The Estate arguments in this doc. look very persuasive. They cite plenty of legal precedents and make it sound as if HBO are trying to escape arbitration by claiming legal precedents that don't actually exist/ are not relevant / relate to free speech. It looks like a strong case to go to the next step.


Hearing date is 15th July (To decide on if it can be arbitrated and who will arbitrate).
 
Last edited:
myosotis;4260190 said:
The Estate response (HBO Arbitration) has been filed:

https://www.scribd.com/document/413...gWMLS6BlxpgWZAxzEITVE4Ht96OElsXGdiqpqQhhMlf-Q

'HBO's efforts to escape the results of this simple analysis fail'. (I hope so!!)

The Estate arguments in this doc. look very persuasive. They cite plenty of legal precedents and make it sound as if HBO are trying to escape arbitration by claiming legal precedents that don't actually exist/ are not relevant / relate to free speech. It looks like a strong case to go to the next step.


Hearing date is 15th July (To decide on if it can be arbitrated and who will arbitrate).
Click to expand...

have to say I am impressed by this. If estate didn’t care wouldn’t have even filed in first place. Doing good job atm imo
 
So what this means? i don't know nothing about this court stuff. does this means we close to the end of this? July 15th is the last case? cause if so, i think we finally getting somewhere.
 
dam2040;4260204 said:
have to say I am impressed by this. If estate didn’t care wouldn’t have even filed in first place. Doing good job atm imo
Click to expand...

Exactly. people talk bad about estate but it seem here that they really do care and being strong as possible. i have hope they will win this.
 
NatureCriminal7896 said:
So what this means? i don't know nothing about this court stuff. does this means we close to the end of this? July 15th is the last case? cause if so, i think we finally getting somewhere.
Click to expand...

No. Far from the end. Hearing date 15th July is just to decide on if it can be arbitrated and who will arbitrate.

The arbitration itself is a whole other thing that would happen after July, IF the judge agrees it can go ahead. Probably 2 further steps, IF the judge agrees to send it forward.

Legal cases are almost never quick. Or straightforward.
 
myosotis said:
No. Far from the end. Hearing date 15th July is just to decide on if it can be arbitrated and who will arbitrate.

The arbitration itself is a whole other thing that would happen after July, IF the judge agrees it can go ahead. Probably 2 further steps, IF the judge agrees to send it forward.

Legal cases are almost never quick. Or straightforward.
Click to expand...

I have a feel HBO is going to just settle with the Estate.
 
myosotis said:
Hearing date 15th July is just to decide on if it can be arbitrated and who will arbitrate.
Click to expand...

If the judge decides it should go to the arbitrator, do HBO and the Estate get to decide and mutually agree which arbitrator they want to use? If so it could also take time to sort out if they want different ones.
 
So when will this end? we been doing this for 5/6 months now.

Michael-michael-jackson-2002-2009-25742846-400-509.jpg
 
Last edited:
WannaScream said:
If the judge decides it should go to the arbitrator, do HBO and the Estate get to decide and mutually agree which arbitrator they want to use? If so it could also take time to sort out if they want different ones.
Click to expand...

The original HBO contract (the one with arbitration clause) had various statements about this, which the original parties had agreed to. Basically, if the 2 sides don't agree, then a judge would decide on the arbitrator. The arbitrator would then decide if the case is suitable to arbitrate (if the judge hasn't already done that on 17th July.)
 
Can someone who is legally minded answer this question for me? If lets say HBO loses does the contract signed years ago still remain or do they re-negotiate or is is the contract null and void?
 
MJPoetryFan said:
Can someone who is legally minded answer this question for me? If lets say HBO loses does the contract signed years ago still remain or do they re-negotiate or is is the contract null and void?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it would depend on why HBO 'lost'. There are a number of elements to the contract......
 
Listen up guys. i feel when the 25th comes, let's all just put to rest once the day is over. even Michael nephew said it also. i said i was gonna defend him on the day too but i change my mind. i'm just gonna celebrate his life on that day. that day should be a day to mourn and celebrate his life.
 
8701girl said:
i heard we are winnng is that true?
Click to expand...

There is some truth to that, in the sense HBOs primary argument is being rejected by the judge. At the same the same time, the Estate is pushing for arbitration which is just delaying things. And probably frustrating the judge.

I'll post updates as they come in: Check out Rasheed (@rasheedKOPV): https://twitter.com/rasheedKOPV?s=09
 
I don't understand this court stuff so what does arbitration means? is going to arbitration means good or bad?
 
NatureCriminal7896 said:
I don't understand this court stuff so what does arbitration means? is going to arbitration means good or bad?
Click to expand...

Basically the MJE wants to take the argument to another individual (an indipendant person that can rule the case simular to a judge) and not an official judge. In high profile cases it's often preferred to keep details of the case more private..

I could understand why they would want one but at this point I think it's a bit pointless and just delays the process.

The judge seems to favor continueing to be the judge, which is why those dumb headlines said "HBO" won the first round.. um no because the judge has been making it clear HBO was not in the right with the actual airing of Reeds film.

I hope that helps!
 
KOPV;4260889 said:
Basically the MJE wants to take the argument to another individual (an indipendant person that can rule the case simular to a judge) and not an official judge. In high profile cases it's often preferred to keep details of the case more private..

I could understand why they would want one but at this point I think it's a bit pointless and just delays the process.

The judge seems to favor continueing to be the judge, which is why those dumb headlines said "HBO" won the first round.. um no because the judge has been making it clear HBO was not in the right with the actual airing of Reeds film.

I hope that helps!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure all the above is correct? I understood that the original Estate & HBO contract stipulated that a judge can arbitrate (the original contract says that if the two sides can't agree on an arbitrator - then a retired judge will be selected to arbitrate). I guess the arbitrator ideally needs to be a qualified and experienced judge in order to be able to understand and pronounce on the law involved in the case.

Also, the second main point of the Estate arbitration request is to ask that arbitration takes place in open court. The Estate WANTS the media to be there, so that all the lies in LN can be exposed. The Estate don't want the hearing to be private. (HBO probably do, so they can 'spin' whatever happens to the press). It was the 'nme' that said the Estate wanted a private hearing. (not true).

Just so I can keep track, the current issues to be decided on 15 July were reported as:

The parties’ instant disagreement is not about who should serve as the arbitrator, but rather whether arbitration should be compelled in the first instance. Therefore, the Court would deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
Click to expand...

Because the Court has not yet decided whether it or the arbitrator will decide arbitrability, it will hold off from addressing the arguments in regards to the arbitrability issue.
Click to expand...

There's a general reference on US arbitration here- not helpful at the moment, but might be helpful as a resource later in the process.

https://www.arnoldporter.com/-/medi...ive-legal-guide-united-states-arbitration.pdf
 
Last edited:
The contract stipulates disputes between the parties shall be referred to arbitration. Arbitration is a much faster way to resolve disputes. It is mostly confidential unless the parties agreed or agree otherwise. If the estate asked for the case to be heard in court, HBO would have objected on the ground the contract provided for disputes to be heard by arbitration . They are only objecting to the arbitration clause to buy time and cause delay which is what parties who agree to arbitration want to avoid in the first place.

As a matter of fact, the estate did anticipated HBO would spin the request for arbitration in the media as a tactic by the estate to go to confidential proceedings away from a public court to hide things from the public scrutiny that's why the estate put HBO into a corner by requesting a public arbitration. That did not prevent the media from lying though. We have seen reports claiming HBO is fighting for public proceedings while the estate wants Arbitration to keep everything confidential.

Litigation takes years see the case with the two liars it';s been 7 years already and it will drag for another year. Arbitration is fast. The case will be resolved within months once the court decides the dispute should be heard by an arbitrator.
 
Last edited:
If the judge decides the dispute be heard by an arbitrator as the contract between the parties stipulate then mark my word HBO will argue it should be confidential and will fiercely fight any request by the estate to make the proceedings public.
 
Last edited:
Blimey

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Karmousa has relayed some information. There was no ruling today and there won't be another court hearing until September.</p>&mdash; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1150818065958879234?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I can&#39;t answer everyone&#39;s questions individually. <a href="https://twitter.com/karmousaG?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@karmousaG</a> said that the judge is allowing HBO to file an anti-SLAPP suit against the Estate. At this point, the only thing we can do is wait for the court docs to be filed and analyze them. That should happen in about 8 hours.</p>&mdash; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1150818950491463680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Just got off the phone with <a href="https://twitter.com/karmousaG?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@karmousaG</a>. She will be posting her notes soon for what transpired between Estate of MJ and HBO. She seemed to believe that the judge was siding with the Estate.</p>&mdash; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1150835365990678528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Sounds like HBO are claiming that the MJ Estate lawsuit aims to restrict their 'free speech, on a public issue' (ie the film = free speech.)

My understanding of previous cases with anti-defamation clauses is that if such a clause is signed, the person signing acknowledges they have given up their right to free speech regarding the contractual matters. So I'm surprised. Also, I'm not sure what 'public interest' is served, when Michael is no longer with us...unless they argue that the film was an attempt to bring more complainants forward. But my understanding is that the law firm has already made such attempts ie by harassing other Neverland visitors from that time.

You can use California's anti-SLAPP statute to counter a SLAPP suit filed against you. The statute allows you to file a special motion to strike a complaint filed against you based on an "act in furtherance of [your] right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue." Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16

In California, the term applies to lawsuits brought primarily to discourage speech about issues of public significance or public participation in government proceedings. To challenge a lawsuit as a SLAPP, you need to show that the plaintiff is suing you for an "act in furtherance of [your] right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue." Although people often use terms like "free speech" and "petition the government" loosely in popular speech, the anti-SLAPP law gives this phrase a particular legal meaning, which includes four categories of activities:

any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law;

any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law;

any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; or

any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.
Click to expand...

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-california
 
WannaScream;4263104 said:
Blimey

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Karmousa has relayed some information. There was no ruling today and there won't be another court hearing until September.</p>&#8212; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1150818065958879234?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I can't answer everyone's questions individually. <a href="https://twitter.com/karmousaG?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@karmousaG</a> said that the judge is allowing HBO to file an anti-SLAPP suit against the Estate. At this point, the only thing we can do is wait for the court docs to be filed and analyze them. That should happen in about 8 hours.</p>&#8212; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1150818950491463680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Just got off the phone with <a href="https://twitter.com/karmousaG?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@karmousaG</a>. She will be posting her notes soon for what transpired between Estate of MJ and HBO. She seemed to believe that the judge was siding with the Estate.</p>&#8212; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1150835365990678528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

:ranting:What!? Are you freaking kidding me!? HBO filing Anti-SLAPP against the Esate!? BULLS:censored:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top