|
Post by amaya on Oct 15, 2019 1:55:32 GMT
So its just another five plus years of waiting going through the same process.i dont see how you should be able to refile a case thats already going through the courts. Statue didnt stop them filing against the companies so why should they be able to refile again. This should only be for ppl who couldnt file before because of the previous laws. I hope that this law somehow can't apply to them or they don't try to refile. This whole shit has done a number on my mental health over the years and I just want them to go the hell away already.
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Oct 15, 2019 2:09:33 GMT
So its just another five plus years of waiting going through the same process.i dont see how you should be able to refile a case thats already going through the courts. Statue didnt stop them filing against the companies so why should they be able to refile again. This should only be for ppl who couldnt file before because of the previous laws. I hope that this law somehow can't apply to them or they don't try to refile. This whole shit has done a number on my mental health over the years and I just want them to go the hell away already. I feel you. It's like.... when do we get to just enjoy being Michael Jackson fans again without the constant bullshit getting thrown our way? Feels like the last time we could really do that was the HIStory era. That's over 20 years ago! If it's not scammers, it's the the media. If it's not the media it's the Estate.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 15, 2019 5:50:14 GMT
Dylan Howard planned to publish a trashy tabloid book about MJ on October 15 (now postponed until June 2020). Instead it seems he's the one who is going to be exposed in a book on that date.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 16, 2019 2:52:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by amaya on Oct 16, 2019 3:21:30 GMT
This shit really was calculated, wasn't it? Fuck him!
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 16, 2019 3:29:51 GMT
"But they are not interested in money, their lawsuit is already over, so why would they do this for that?", right?
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Oct 16, 2019 7:48:15 GMT
Thanks respect
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 8:57:48 GMT
They would still need to go through the whole process, proving the companies were also at fault. Given the various changes in the story (to suit the easiest way to the money) Robson and co. have a serious uphill battle here. LN may prove to be fatal for his case.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Oct 16, 2019 9:38:41 GMT
And the main hurdle being mj was the owner of the companies so they couldnt control him. same result just another five year wait
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 16, 2019 17:05:55 GMT
And the main hurdle being mj was the owner of the companies so they couldnt control him. same result just another five year wait No, the control thing would not be an issue any more. A different part of the law would apply now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 17:08:31 GMT
And the main hurdle being mj was the owner of the companies so they couldnt control him. same result just another five year wait No, the control thing would not be an issue any more. A different part of the law would apply now. Do you know what that is? At the end of the day, the appeal thats currently ongoing is essentially what they would have to argue if the file was reclaimed, no?
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Oct 16, 2019 17:49:02 GMT
Thanks respect. So what will the "new" lawsuit actually be about. All very confusing and tiring.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 16, 2019 17:59:02 GMT
This is the law that applies in its current form. From next year the "26" in the bolded will change to 40. That means from now on it is not the (b)(2) section of the law that will apply (like so far) but (2) and (3). (1) doesn't apply because MJ is dead.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Oct 16, 2019 18:09:33 GMT
Thanks. To me no3 is redundant as its kinda claiming what they did before about blaming evvy etc for knowing and doing nothing. No2 is more open to interpretation imo (duty of care). But still comes down to the person or business knowing or thinking theres a possibility of something and doing nothing.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 16, 2019 18:28:02 GMT
BTW, once again I ask: why don't they sue their mothers? Unlike the companies, they surely owed them a duty of care.
|
|