Sorgerechtsstreit Runde 1000 ..........oder so

  • http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195449,00.html


    Jackson : Custody Question Of Kids


    Michael Jackson’s problems are far from over, despite the very breezy version of his life that appeared in The New York Times business section yesterday. Jackson’s legal difficulties are actually headed for a dramatic climax in just seven days.


    Right now lawyers for Jackson’s ex-wife are negotiating with the fallen pop star’s reps over depositions in Debbie Rowe’s ongoing visitation/custody case. As things stand today, Jackson is supposed to be in New York in one week to answer a wide range of questions about his parenthood.


    You may recall that his two eldest children, Prince and Paris, were born to Rowe during their brief marriage. The children have been told by Jackson that they don’t have a mother, yet Rowe—as I revealed here last year—is their only biological parent.


    Upon their divorce, Jackson paid Rowe what is estimated to be about $9 million over several years. But he stopped short of the remaining $2 million owed because he said Rowe had violated their confidentiality agreement. In fact, she gave “Entertainment Tonight†an interview about her horses and ranch, and said nothing about Jackson or the kids. But at the time Jackson was cash-crunched and looking for a way out of his agreement with the feisty blonde.


    But Jackson owes Rowe more than she could ever give him. Not only did she “give†him two children, she came to his defense twice during his child molestation scandal. The first time was in February 2003, right after Martin Bashir’s special with Jackson painted him in a bad light. Rowe immediately appeared on TV at Jackson’s request and described him as a wonderful, loving parent who wouldn’t hurt a fly.


    The second time was in May 2005, when Rowe took the stand at Jackson’s trial and offered similar praise as a defense witness. Her testimony was so persuasive that the jury managed to forget about countless questions raised in their minds by witnesses for both sides.


    Rowe’s reward for helping Jackson was one visit with the children in late summer 2005, during which she was not allowed to tell them she was their mother. Since then, she hasn’t seen or heard from them.


    But recently Rowe regained her parental rights in Los Angeles family court after thinking she’d signed them away. Jackson’s response was to force the private judge, a retiree whom both sides had hired, to recuse himself from the case, thus creating new delays in determining if Rowe would ever see the rest of her settlement or ever have a relationship with her kids.


    A few months ago, Rowe changed lawyers after an arduous and successful run with Iris Finsilver of Palm Springs. She is now represented by “fresh blood,†Eric George of Beverly Hills, whose determined to get Rowe her rightful due. Some people in the court of public opinion may argue that Rowe “sold†her kids or signed away her rights to them, but legally, neither is true. It will be interesting to see if Jackson shows up in New York next week, and if he brings the children.


    Either way, hearings are scheduled in Los Angeles on May 18 and 24 in Rowe v. Jackson separate from the depositions.


    Also on the table for next week may be depositions in the ongoing case brought by Prescient Capital, aka Darien Dash (cousin of Damon Dash) for $48 million in fees --a significant chapter omitted in yesterday’s Times. Then there are further depositions that have been allowed by the California judge in Marc Schaffel’s $4 million case. That trial is supposed to begin on June 2nd.


    Meanwhile, there’s no sign of Jackson’s charity record, the one he was doing for New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina struck on August 31, 2005. Since then, countless recording artists have donated time, money, supplies, energy, etc to help the shamefully forgotten people of the gulf coast. Faith Hill and Tim McGraw even rented 18 wheelers full of food and brought them to Biloxi. Now Paul Simon—who brought doctors and medicine to the region—sings about it all beautifully on his new album. But not a peep from Jackson.


    Indeed, the website for Jackson’s putative record label, Two Seas, seems to have vanished from the web. Its url now directs to a German fan club. I do not know what happened to the kid who sent out a statement to a bunch of journalists on April 23rd claiming that Jackson was working with 50 Cent and planning a new album as well. You’ll notice this column was the only one that didn’t report that “news†because when we asked Two Seas intern “Teddy Blass†for a number, it turned out to be a fax number at Sony’s Los Angeles offices.

  • <div class='quotetop'>ZITAT (666 @ 15. Mai 2006 - 13:05 Uhr) [snapback]104353[/snapback]</div>

    Zitat


    Jackson’s response was to force the private judge, a retiree whom both sides had hired, to recuse himself from the case, thus creating new delays[/b]


    :rofl Ja klar! :lol :lol :rofl Weil MJ ja auch einen Richter (oh, er ist ja ein Rentner, oh boo-fu**ing-hoo) dazu zwingen kann, sich aus einem Fall zurückzuziehen... :lol
    <div class='quotetop'>ZITAT </div>

    Zitat


    A few months ago, Rowe changed lawyers after an arduous and successful run with Iris Finsilver of Palm Springs.
    [/b]


    Ah ja. Sie wechselte die Anwälte? Wenn MJ das gemacht hätte, wäre das ja nur eine Verzögerungstaktik :lol
    Und wenn der andere so toll war, hätte sie ihn wohl nicht ausgewechselt. ;)
    <div class='quotetop'>ZITAT </div>

    Zitat


    Some people in the court of public opinion may argue that Rowe “sold†her kids or signed away her rights to them, but legally, neither is true.
    [/b]


    Na und? Sie wußte ja beim Unterschreiben der Dokumente nicht, dass sie nicht legal bindend zu sein scheinen... Von daher hat sie moralisch gesehen genau das gemacht. Gesetzlich, ja, das ist eine andere Sache - aber um das zu klären, sind ja die Anwälte da. In dieser Sache sprechen aber die Fakten für sich.
    Und wie in den meisten solchen Situationen ist es nicht EINER der beiden, der die ganze Scheisse verursacht hat, davon kann man ausgehen.
    <div class='quotetop'>ZITAT </div>

    Zitat


    and if he brings the children.
    [/b]


    Ganz sicher nicht. Die Kinder wird er dem ganzen Rummel und dem ganzen Scheiss mit Sicherheit fernhalten - selbst wenn er kommt.
    Ah es ist echt zu mühselig diesen Mist weiterzulesen. Ich gehe Dirtbike spielen. :bla

  • Judge Orders Public Filing of Jackson Divorce Documents

    May 24, 2006
    A judge on Wednesday ordered lawyers representing pop star Michael Jackson and his ex-wife to publicly file all documents from the couple's divorce.
    Jackson and Deborah Rowe had paid a judge to preside over their 1999 divorce, allowing them to avoid a public spectacle like his 2005 trial in which he was acquitted of child molestation charges.


    But the proceeding also kept from the public eye Rowe's allegation that Jackson abducted their two children by taking them to Bahrain without her consent.


    Rowe's allegation was among documents not included in the public file of the case when it was moved from a private judge to the family court. Lawyers had been ordered to re-create the file with all documents that had been submitted to the private judge.


    Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider repeated the order Wednesday, granting the attorneys 60 days to comply with the filing requirement.


    Under California law, if both parties agree, a sitting judge can transfer a case out of the courthouse. The parties may then hire a jurist to resolve civil disputes, but the cases technically remain in the public court system, governed by the same rules as other lawsuits.


    (Los Angeles Times)

  • Michael Jackson und Ex-Frau müssen Gerichtspapiere offen legen


    Los Angeles - Popstar Michael Jackson und Ex-Ehefrau Debbie Rowe dürfen Gerichtspapiere von ihrem Sorgerechtsstreit nicht länger unter Verschluss halten. Ein Richter in Los Angeles hat angeordnet, dass die Dokumente innerhalb von 60 Tagen offen gelegt werden. Das berichtet die „Los Angeles Timesâ€. Jackson und Rowe hatten bei ihrer Scheidung 1999 einen von ihnen bezahlten „Schiedsrichter†eingeschaltet, um so ein öffentliches Spektakel zu vermeiden. Rowe kämpft nun aber um das Sorgerecht für die gemeinsamen Kinder.


    Donnerstag, 25. Mai 2006
    (RZ)

  • <div class='quotetop'>ZITAT (PYT78 @ 25. Mai 2006 - 9:48 Uhr) [snapback]107699[/snapback]</div>

    Zitat


    Ich frage mich bei solchen Sachen immer wieder, was die die Öffentlichkeit angehen :?:rolleyes Verstehe einer die Amerikaner (wie ist denn das bei uns eigentlich? )
    [/b]


    scheidungen interessieren bei uns doch keine sau. :P;D

  • <div class='quotetop'>ZITAT (badwoman @ 25. Mai 2006 - 9:52 Uhr) [snapback]107703[/snapback]</div>

    Zitat


    scheidungen interessieren bei uns doch keine sau. :P;D
    [/b]


    Das sowieso nicht :P ... ich meinte eher so allgemein...diese ganzen "der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich machen" Dinger


    edit: das mangelnde Interesse bei uns kann aber auch an unserer Masse von Super-Promis liegen...Foffi, Dieter, Olli, alles suuuuuuuuuper interessante Scheidungsfälle :bätsch

  • Donnerstag, 25. Mai 2006
    Verliert er seine Kinder?
    Niederlage für "Jacko"



    Michael Jackson hat im Sorgerechtsstreit mit seiner Ex-Frau Debbie Rowe eine Niederlage erlitten. Das oberste kalifornische Gericht wies einen Berufungsantrag des 47 Jahre alten Popstars zurück, berichtete der Internetdienst "E!Online". Damit darf Rowe, Mutter der beiden Kinder Prince Michael und Paris, sich weiter vor Gericht um das Sorgerecht für die Kinder bemühen. "Wir sind darüber sehr erfreut", wurde Rowes Anwalt Eric. M. George zitiert.

    Im Herbst 2001 hatte Rowe nach der Scheidung von Jackson ihre Rechte an den beiden Kindern abgetreten. Bereits im Februar befand ein Gericht, dass dies nicht rechtsgültig war. Es sei versäumt worden zu prüfen, ob diese Sorgerechtsregelung auch im besten Sinne der Kinder sei, hieß es.

    Nach einem weiteren Urteil dürfen Jackson und Rowe Gerichtspapiere von ihrem Sorgerechtsstreit nicht länger unter Verschluss halten. Ein Richter in Los Angeles ordnete am Mittwoch an, dass die Dokumente innerhalb von 60 Tagen offen gelegt werden müssen, berichtete die "Los Angeles Times". Jackson und Rowe hatte bei ihrer Scheidung 1999 einen von ihnen bezahlten "Schiedsrichter" eingeschaltet, um auf diese Weise ein öffentliches Spektakel zu vermeiden.

    Die ehemalige Arzthelferin soll dem inzwischen in Bahrain lebenden Sänger sogar Kindesentführung vorgeworfen haben. Der dreifache Vater war nach dem Freispruch vom Vorwurf des Kindesmissbrauchs vor einem Jahr von Kalifornien in den Golfstaat umgezogen.

    Rowe lernte den "King of Pop" in den 90er Jahren in einer Arztpraxis für Schönheitsoperationen kennen. Nach dreijähriger Ehe ließen sich Jackson und Rowe wegen "unüberbrückbarer Differenzen" scheiden. Jackson hat einen weiteren Sohn, Prince Michael II, der etwa vier Jahre alt ist. Der Popstar hat die Identität der Mutter bis jetzt geheim gehalten.


    Quelle: www.n-tv.de

  • http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/66552.htm


    NY Post


    Jackson JOLT


    EX CAN FIGHT FOR KID CUSTODY


    By DAVID K. LI Post Correspondent


    May 25, 2006 -- LOS ANGELES - The California Supreme Court yesterday shot down Michael Jackson's claim to undisputed custody of his kids, and gave his ex-wife Debbie Rowe her best chance yet to win back little Prince Michael and Paris.


    Without issuing any comment, the high court justices declined to hear Jackson's appeal of a stunning Feb. 15 court ruling which reinstated parental rights that Rowe had signed away in October 2001.


    "This is an excellent, although not surprising, development for Deborah," her lawyer Eric George said. "This means she can proceed with her claims before the family court without any further delay."


    George declined to outline how he'll seek legal enforcement against Jackson, who has been living with his three children in Bahrain ever since a Santa Barbara County jury cleared him of kiddie-sex charges last year.


    Rowe is the mom of Prince Michael, 9, and Paris, 8.


    Jackson has a third child, 4-year-old Prince Michael II.


    A majority of the seven-member court refused to hear Jackson's appeal.


    Chief Justice Ronald George recused himself because he's the father of Rowe's lawyer.


    Jackson's lawyer could not be immediately reached for comment.


    Although living a world away from California, Jackson can't seem to shake his Golden State legal woes.


    He endured eight grueling hours of depositions in London earlier this week at the hands of former business partner Marc Schaffel.


    The one-time confidante is suing The King of Pop for more than $3 million in unpaid loans and fees.


    That trial is set to begin on June 19 in Santa Monica, Calif.


    While Jackson was compelled to give a deposition, the L.A. County judge in Schaffel's lawsuit has no authority to order The Gloved One back to California for trial as long as he's an overseas resident.


    Jackson's lawyer Thomas Mundell tore up a subpoena for Jackson in plain view of a videographer and court reporter documenting the deposition, witnesses said.


    david.li@nypost.com



    so according to nypost he was in london.

  • Da nehmt es ich will es net mehr :blossnet:fear




    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196916,00.html


    Judge Opens Michael Jackson Divorce and Custody Documents to the Public
    Thursday, May 25, 2006
    By Roger Friedman


    Michael Jackson is not having a good week in the legal system.


    Thanks to a California Superior Court judge, the story will finally come out about ex-wife Debbie Rowe complaining about her children being taken to live in Bahrain.


    The judge ruled Wednesday that all the papers from the Rowe-Jackson custody and divorce case be filed for the public to view. Ironically, this may be in small part due to the ruling last week in the unsealing of papers filed in billionaire Ron Burkle's contentious divorce from his wife, Janet. Burkle was Jackson’s financial adviser and friend during part of 2005 until he became fed up with the pop star’s nuttiness. Now their personal lives have unexpectedly collided.


    I told you almost a year ago what Rowe’s chief complaint was in the removal of her children Prince and Paris to Bahrain: Jackson had faked passports for them because he couldn’t get her permission to take the kids abroad and no longer had the original documents. The original passports had been filed with the court. Rowe tried to get the FBI and other government organizations involved to stop Jackson, but to no avail.


    Rowe has had one visit with her kids since 2001 — late last summer, when Jackson’s nanny, Grace Rwarmba, brought them to Los Angeles. Rowe was not allowed to tell the kids she was their mother, however. Jackson has told them they have no mother.


    The unsealed papers — which may be available shortly — may also reveal the true parentage of Prince and Paris. I also told you a year ago that even though Rowe is their biological mother, Jackson is not their biological father. Toward the end of the child molestation case last year, Jackson attorney Robert Sanger suggested as much to Judge Rodney Melville when he argued that a Jackson TV interview not be offered to the court because of its truthfulness on certain matters.


    "The circumstances that relate to the birth of the children wouldn't be admitted for the truth of the matter,†Sanger said to a mostly drowsy, sparsely attended court on May 30, 2005. “Only his love of the children."


    Meantime, Jackson has plenty of other legal problems. According to sources, he “giggled†and responded to few answers during a daylong deposition in London on Monday for the $4 million lawsuit filed by former partner Marc Schaffel. Like another deposition taken in the case last fall, this one was videotaped and it will be played for the jury when the case commences next month in Los Angeles.


    This should be interesting, too: Jackson will not return to Los Angeles for this trial, and his own lawyers didn’t bother questioning him for the video testimony. I’m told he contradicts much of what he said the first time when he’s not laughing or acting strangely. That’s what this new jury will be shown. This latest deposition was held in London at the former King of Pop’s expense, as well, which suggests that in letting this absurd case proceed to a trial he probably can’t win, Jackson does not have the cash to settle it.

Jetzt mitmachen!

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