mike in usa?/ Was geht da bei gericht ?/neue klage (zusammengeführt)


    man sollte meinen, dass doch beide das beste wollen.
    aber ich denke nicht, dass es eine dauerhafte friedliche lösung OHNE richterlichen beschluss gibt. leider.
    die kinder werden das irgendwann aber hinterfragen. dann möchte ich net in der haut von mike und debbie stecken. :Q

    Zitat

    Originally posted by badwoman@Donnerstag, 16.2.06 - 21:02Â Uhr


    man sollte da net immer auf debbie zeigen.

    [snapback]69677[/snapback]




    * auf Debbie Zeig *





    Und jetzt ? :bätsch




    Wird ja wohl möglich sein sich zum Wohle der Kids zu einigen .




    Ich habe Fertig * Kotz *

    http://tmz.aol.com/


    Exclusive: Jackson Paid Rowe Millions


    February 16, 2006




    TMZ has obtained court documents that show just how much money Debbie Rowe raked in by divorcing Michael Jackson.


    TMZ reviewed court transcripts from a hearing last June. Jackson's lawyer, Thomas Hall, told Judge Stephen Lachs, "Mr. Jackson was under an agreement with Petitioner (Rowe) here, which he was to pay her -- did pay her about four or five million dollars up front, gave her a mansion in Beverly Hills, and then was to pay $900,000 a year for a number of years if she abided by agreement terms."


    Jackson stopped paying Rowe her annual stipend after claiming she violated their confidentiality agreement by publicly speaking about him. The dispute is ongoing.


    Also in the court file -- a declaration dated January 26, 2004, in which Rowe declares, "I have just been advised by Michael's 'inner circle' that he is abusing drugs and I was even given the name of the physician that is prescribing all of Michael's medications, which I fear is dangerous not only to Michael but also to the children."


    Rowe and Jackson are locked in a bitter custody battle. Yesterday, TMZ broke the story that the California Court of Appeal ruled Rowe's parental rights were not terminated by an earlier court order and that she can pursue custody of the former couple's two children.



    Related links


    Deborah Rowe Jackson vs. Michael Jackson court documents (PDF)

    Zitat

    Originally posted by 666@Freitag, 17.2.06 - 9:41Â Uhr
    Yesterday, TMZ broke the story that the California Court of Appeal ruled Rowe's parental rights were not terminated by an earlier court order and that she can pursue custody of the former couple's two children.
    Related links


    Deborah Rowe Jackson vs. Michael Jackson court documents (PDF)

    [snapback]69814[/snapback]



    Debbie wird die Kinder nie ganz kriegen, vor allem weil die Kinder sicher nicht von Michael weg wollen. Man brauch sich doch nur die Dokumente anschauen, wo Michael mit den Kids zu sehen ist und man merkt sofort, dass die kleinen ihren Daddy NIEMALS hergeben.

    Zitat

    Originally posted by Blanket@Freitag, 17.2.06 - 10:32Â Uhr
    Debbie wird die Kinder nie ganz kriegen, vor allem weil die Kinder sicher nicht von Michael weg wollen. Man brauch sich doch nur die Dokumente anschauen, wo Michael mit den Kids zu sehen ist und man merkt sofort, dass die kleinen ihren Daddy NIEMALS hergeben.

    [snapback]69823[/snapback]






    Wenn sie das wollte müsste sie sich genauso wie jeder andere auch auf ihre Elternfähigkeiten hin prüfen lassen müssen und des auch bestehen ;)



    Jo ich denk die Kids sind jetzt alt genug um auch ein Wörtchen mitreden zu dürfen wenn man sie lässt

    Zitat

    Originally posted by 666@Freitag, 17.2.06 - 10:35Â Uhr

    Joe ich denk die Kids sind jetzt alt genug um auch ein Wörtchen mitreden zu dürfen wenn man sie lässt

    [snapback]69824[/snapback]



    Das wollte ich auch noch sagen! :top

    Zitat

    Originally posted by 666@Freitag, 17.2.06 - 11:35Â Uhr
    Wenn sie das wollte müsste sie sich genauso wie jeder andere auch auf ihre Elternfähigkeiten hin prüfen lassen müssen und des auch bestehen ;)
    Joe ich denk die Kids sind jetzt alt genug um auch ein Wörtchen mitreden zu dürfen wenn man sie lässt

    [snapback]69824[/snapback]





    Vor allen Dingen hat sich das Rowe selbst verscherzt, mit den Kindern im Kontakt zu bleiben. Sie war damals erwachsen genug, um zu wissen auf was sie sich einläßt mit diesem dubiosen Deal. Na klar hat das MJ für sich ausgenützt.
    Er wollte Kinder unter allen Umständen. :)


    Und die Umstände waren damals einfach so das Er die Chance genützt hat. Man kann aber nicht unbedingt sagen, dass er Rowe "benützt" hat.
    "Dazu gehören immer zwei." (Bady) :top


    Und ich sage, die Frau ist geldgeil, zumindest gewesen und jetzt erinnert sie sich an ihre Muttergefühle und will etwas erzwingen. Wie kann man Liebe erzwingen. :spinnen


    Leutz ich habe kein Mitleid

    Zitat

    Originally posted by number one@Freitag, 17.2.06 - 17:14Â Uhr
    Immer dasselbe... :rolleyes

    [snapback]70060[/snapback]





    Find ich nicht :P

    @ TLC
    Schau mal ich glaub da wird deine Frage Beatwortet ob Mike in die USA muss ;)
    Ws net ob du es schon gelesen hast . Könnte stimmen



    Well, I just watched the rerun of the Scarborough thingy and the common belief is that Debbie is only doing this because the money was cut off. Tucker Carlson came on and said that he has no problem understanding what Debbie's motive is......greed, plain and simple.


    And I don't know if yall caught what Velez-Mitchell said....


    This move by the courts will allow Deb to move forward with her request for custody. Savannah said that Deb does not want FULL CUSTODY like the media keeps saying. And while she may get only joint custody, IN ORDER FOR HER AND MICHAEL TO SHARE CUSTODY, MICHAEL WILL HAVE TO LIVE IN THE US! And that is completely true. Two parents can not have joint custody if one lives abroad because the courts will not allow Michael to take those kids out of the country when it is his turn to have the kids.


    So this thing may be two fold.....Deb may want joint custody or visitation in order to get herself some more money. Think about it....there would be no reason for Michael to give Deb money if she doesn't even have the kids. She would simply be an x-wife. But her lawyers may be working behind the scenes with other crooked folks to beef up this case in and effort to get Michael back in the US. I think both are happening. And I don't trust Iris Finsilver at all.




    Thanks to AllTheLovelyFlowers :ehre:top


    http://www.mjjforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=71308

    Case Law Development: California Appeals Court Rejects Michael Jackson’s Bid to Uphold Termination Order


    California's 2nd District Court of Appeals refused to uphold a parental termination order between Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe in which she had agreed not to contact their children following their divorce in 2000. She later gave up her parental rights. However, in 2004 Ms Rowe persuaded a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to overturn the order terminating her parental rights.



    Jackson argued that because he did not stipulate to terminate Ms. Rowe’s parental rights, did not sign any document agreeing to the termination, did not attend the hearing on her motion to terminate, and did not have any advance notice she intended to move to terminate her parental rights, that the public policy calling for rejection of stipulated agreements in termination cases was not applicable. The court, however, said that it found “substantial evidence†in the record supporting the trial court’s finding that the termination hearing was a stipulated proceeding.



    The court said that the termination order exceeded the trial court’s jurisdiction and contravenes “the public policy favoring that a child has two parents rather than one.†It also said that a court cannot enter a judgment terminating parental rights “based solely upon the parties’ stipulation that the child’s mother or father relinquishes those rights. . . . Where the welfare of children is involved as in divorce cases, parents cannot by contract so bind themselves as to foreclose the court from an inquiry as to what that welfare requires.â€



    The court also said that even if Mr. Jackson was correct, and he did not effectively stipulate to terminate Ms. Rowe’s parental rights, the result would be no different if based solely on her uncontested motion to terminate her parental rights. The reason for this is that the trial court had granted the requested termination without first ordering an investigation of the children’s circumstances by the Department of Children and Family Services or other appropriate agency as required by Family Code. It held that Ms. Rowe’s collateral attack on that order was not precluded by California law.



    ( BBC News)

Jetzt mitmachen!

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

Benutzerkonto erstellen Anmelden