// Klagen - Sammelthread //

    stelle mir oftmals die Frage, hat Michael überhaupt Freunde,welche nicht abkassieren wollen ? Egal um was es geht! Freute mich damals als er gut behütet aufgenommen wurde aber was ist daraus geworden.Ihn wurden bestimmt Geschäfte vorgeschlagen und hat mit Hilfe nichts zu tun. Geld regiert die Welt aber nicht der Verstand :kotz

    Naajaaa...jetzt wolle ma nicht ungerecht dem Prinzen gegenüber sein. So wie ich das sehe, hat er Michael da sehr lange ohne irgendwas Exzil gewährt...das war schon ne Freundschaftsgeste und für Michael denke ich ein Seegen.

    Zitat von Screamlouder

    Naajaaa...jetzt wolle ma nicht ungerecht dem Prinzen gegenüber sein. So wie ich das sehe, hat er Michael da sehr lange ohne irgendwas Exzil gewährt...das war schon ne Freundschaftsgeste und für Michael denke ich ein Seegen.


    das stimmt schon, aber kann man nicht helfen wenn es nötig ist.Der Prinz ist doch nicht arm und wenn man so eine Ikone zu Gast hat (mehr Aufwand und Kosten ) hat er bestimmt trotzdem daran verdient. Naja,kanns nicht ändern.
    Es werden wieder bessere Zeiten kommen :blumen

    es ging dich sich sicher nicht nur um den reinen aufenthalt sondern den schönen vertrag/deal den michael hat platzen lassen und sowas macht man einfach nicht nö nu mal ncih alles nur schönreden nur weils der michael war!

    Zitat von Dirty Diana 298

    es ging dich sich sicher nicht nur um den reinen aufenthalt sondern den schönen vertrag/deal den michael hat platzen lassen und sowas macht man einfach nicht nö nu mal ncih alles nur schönreden nur weils der michael war!


    Es geht eben um den Deal! Warum hat er sich eingelassen.Will hier nichts schön reden. Kann mir aber auch nicht vorstellen, dass sein guter Freund( der Prince ) nicht ahnen konnte,wie es abläuft.
    Kein Grund zum Streiten, sie müssen das beheben :rolleyes

    Zitat von Screamlouder

    Mhm willst du damit sagen, er hätte wissen müssen das man auf Michaels Wort nicht bauen kann? Das wäre ja traurig...


    Das wollte ich damit nicht sagen, ganz im Gegenteil und verstehe es dennoch nicht so richtig. Egal, hoffentlich gute Einigung und endlich mal Zeit zum Start. :blumen

    $300,000 more sought in Michael Jackson videotaping case


    Daily News Wire Services
    Article Last Updated: 08/07/2008 10:51:05 AM PDT


    Having been awarded more than $20 million in a lawsuit against a defunct charter jet company that secretly videotaped pop singer Michael Jackson and his lawyer, the attorney and an associate are now seeking more than $300,000 in attorney fees.


    Mark Geragos and fellow lawyer Pat Harris are seeking $312,670 from XtraJet former owner Jeffrey Borer and travel agent Cynthia Montgomery, according to court papers filed by their attorney, Brian Kabateck.


    "The amount of fees is reasonable given the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, the skill displayed in presenting the issues, the results obtained, and the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys employed," Kabateck states in his filing.


    He wants $690 per hour for the 240 hours he claims he spent on the case, or $165,600 for his work alone.


    A hearing on the issue is scheduled for Sept. 11.


    In May, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Soussan G. Brugera denied a motion by a lawyer for XtraJet and Borer for a new trial on grounds she made errors in reaching her March 3 decision in favor of Geragos and Harris.


    Borer has appealed.


    In her 21-page ruling in March, Brugera awarded both compensatory and punitive damages.


    Along with Borer and XtraJet, Montgomery, who set up the flight, was found liable for some of the compensatory damages. Brugera called the secret videotaping "highly offensive to a reasonable person."


    Borer's lawyer, Lloyd Kirschbaum, said the judge ignored crucial evidence in favor of his client and made the wrong conclusion that the tape included sound. Without any audio, Geragos and Harris could not claim a breach of the attorney-client privilege, Kirschbaum argued.
    The taping occurred on Nov. 20, 2003, as an aircraft owned by XtraJet took Jackson, Geragos and Harris from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara so the singer could surrender in a child molestation case.


    Geragos was representing Jackson at the time, but the entertainer later replaced him with Tom Mesereau, who helped get the entertainer acquitted of the criminal charges in 2005.


    Geragos, Harris and Jackson filed an invasion of privacy suit against Borer and XtraJet in November 2003. Jackson, who turns 50 on Aug. 29, dropped out as a plaintiff in April 2005.


    Borer and Arvel Jett Reeves, an aircraft mechanic who admitted installing the cameras at Borer's direction, pleaded guilty in March 2006 in U.S. District Court to a federal conspiracy charge. Reeves, the owner of Chino- based Executive Aviation, which serviced the XtraJet fleet, was sentenced that July to eight months in prison and six months in a halfway house.


    Borer was sentenced in October 2006 to home detention and fined $10,000.


    $300,000 more sought in Michael Jackson videotaping case - LA Daily News

    Source: Court: No Higher Standard for Service on Michael Jackson



    Court: No Higher Standard for Service on Michael Jackson



    A Los Angeles Superior Court judge improperly focused on the defendant’s celebrity status to impose a higher standard on a woman’s request to serve by publication her complaint accusing pop star Michael Jackson of harassment, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.


    Reversing Judge Jacqueline Connor’s order dismissing the action with prejudice, Div. Two ruled in an unpublished opinion that Helen Harris-Scott’s previous unsuccessful attempts to serve Jackson personally and by mail—and the fact that his current country of residence is unknown—supported the request.


    Acting in pro per, Harris-Scott filed suit in April 2006 accusing Jackson of stalking, surveillance and harassment at her California home.


    Over the following months, she attempted to serve Jackson personally and by mail at his Neverland ranch in Los Olivos in Santa Barbara County, at another residence Jackson co-owns and at his mother’s residence.


    After she hired a process server to locate Jackson in Las Vegas to no avail, and after her attorney discovered that Jackson’s California corporation had been dissolved, she asked Jackson’s attorney to divulge his client’s location or accept service on his behalf, but was rebuffed and informed that Jackson had left the country.


    Harris-Scott made a number of other attempts at service, including leaving the summons and complaint at the gates of the Neverland ranch because it was impossible to actually reach the residence, but requested that Connor authorize service by publication after all were unsuccessful.


    However, Connor, remarking that “the case law would work if it was a normal human being like you or I...[but this] is Michael Jackson,” concluded Harris-Scott had not been sufficiently diligent in her efforts. Denying the request, Connor granted a motion by Jackson’s counsel to quash service and dismissed the action with prejudice.


    Writing for the Court of Appeal, Presiding Justice Roger W. Boren initially commented that Connor’s dismissal order—which cited Code of Civil Procedure Secs. 572 and 581—was “reversible on its face” because the former section was inapplicable, and the latter only permits dismissals without prejudice.


    Turning to Harris-Scott’s request to publish service, he also noted that Sec. 415.5 allows service by publication on defendants whose whereabouts cannot be determined with reasonable diligence and who have no known fixed location where service can otherwise be effected, and concluded that Harris-Scott had been sufficiently diligent.


    “Standards of diligence do not require appellant to conduct a country-by-country search for an elusive defendant,” Boren wrote.


    “It appears that the trial court was cognizant that appellant has made diligent efforts to locate and serve Jackson. But the court held appellant to a different—and higher—standard because the defendant is a celebrity.


    “Contrary to the court’s belief, the law applies equally to celebrities and noncelebrities. It was an abuse of discretion to require appellant to surmount a higher standard of diligence simply because she is suing someone famous.”


    Boren similarly rejected counsel’s argument that Harris-Scott had failed to demonstrate a “cause of action” as required under Sec. 415.5, opining that her declaration under penalty of perjury attached to the complaint giving details based on personal knowledge of her claim that Jackson allegedly committed wrongful acts of stalking gave rise both to a cause of action and to personal jurisdiction.


    Justices Kathryn Doi Todd and Victoria M. Chavez joined Boren in his opinion.




    ( LeslieMJHu/ KoP Board)

    Lawyers Seek $312,670 More In XtraJet Case


    Back in March of this year, the owner of the now defunct XtraJet, Jeffrey Borer, and to a lesser extent travel agent Cynthia Montgomery, were ordered to pay $20.25 million to Mark Geragos and Pat Harris for the illegal videotaping the jet flight from Las Vegas to California back in November, 2003.


    An appeal by Borer was denied several months later. Now, Geragos and Harris are seeking an additional $312,670 to cover attorney fees. The money is again being sought by Jeffrey Borer and Cynthia Montgomery.


    Cynthia Montgomery had briefly testified during the 2005 criminal trial against Michael Jackson, but only after she was granted immunity from the prosecution due to the FBI investigation into XtraJet's wrongful actions, and her involvement in it.


    Michael Jackson was also part of the civil suit against XtraJet, but decided to drop his part of the case in 2005 in order to concentrate on the significantly more important criminal trial bestowed upon him.


    Source: MJJR.net / Wire Services

    Attorneys Seek Fees In Videotaping Case


    (11-8-2008) Mark Geragos and fellow lawyer Pat Harris are seeking $312,670 in attorney fees from XtraJet former owner Jeffrey Borer and travel agent Cynthia Montgomery. Both have already been awarded more than $20 million in a lawsuit against the charter jet company that secretly videotaped Michael Jackson and his lawyers at that time.


    The taping occurred on Novembe. 20, 2003, as an aircraft owned by XtraJet flew Michael Jackson, Geragos and Harris from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara so the singer could surrender in a child molestation case. Geragos, Harris, and Jackson filed an invasion of privacy suit against Borer and XtraJet in November 2003. Michael Jackson dropped out as a plaintiff in April 2005.


    Jeffrey Borer and Arvel Jett Reeves, an aircraft mechanic who admitted installing the cameras at Borer's direction, pleaded guilty in March 2006 to a federal conspiracy charge. Borer was sentenced to home detention and fined $10,000. Reeves was sentenced to eight months in prison and six months in a halfway house.


    Geragos' and Harris' lawyer Brian Kabateck said in a statement:


    "The amount of fees is reasonable given the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, the skill displayed in presenting the issues, the results obtained, and the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys employed."


    He wants $690 per hour for the 240 hours he claims he spent on the case, or $165,600 for his work alone. A hearing on the issue is scheduled for September 11, 2008.


    Source: Daily News Los Angeles

    Zitat von geolou

    ein stundensatz von 690 dollar???
    ich geh nach amerika um anwalt zu werden... davon kann man hier träumen...


    wieso denn? partner in dtsch. großkanzleien haben teilweise sogar einen höheren Stundensatz als 690 Dollar (schau mal in die juve). und michael jackson vertitt nun nicht irgendein wichtel-anwalt :)

    Zitat von Speed_Demon

    wieso denn? partner in dtsch. großkanzleien haben teilweise sogar einen höheren Stundensatz als 690 Dollar (schau mal in die juve). und michael jackson vertitt nun nicht irgendein wichtel-anwalt :)


    da hast du wohl recht ;)
    aber partner in einer deutschen großkanzlei?
    ich gehe jetzt mal nicht davon aus, dass ich im staatsexamen 13 punkte habe :kicher:kicher

Jetzt mitmachen!

Du hast noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registriere dich kostenlos und nimm an unserer Community teil!

Benutzerkonto erstellen Anmelden