Nov 17 News & Mentionings

[PatrickS77]

^^^He did get the money... didn't he? The defense is not that he didn't get the money, the defense is, that he thought it was a gift!

[troubleman84]

No matter who you believe was wronged in the case, that's f***ed up.

[Autumn II]

Hold up a minute!

Now is it me, or should this case "mainly HINGE on a signed contract," and not on the nature of Jackson's friendship with the sheikh.

I have never heard of anything like that in my life!

Unless British law is very, very different from the law in the U.S., then yes, it should hinge on a contract. Either Michael signed a contract, or he didn't. The "nature of a friendship" should have nothing to do with it. Either signed documentation is produced, or it is not. We just have to wait and see what unfolds.

Vic

[MJJC Moderator]

Wow, what a great defense! I can see this going no where for Michael!

Geez... it is not disputed that Michael received all that money and the prince paid all the expenses... so why not just pay back all the money Michael has received and show good will to make that shit go away?? If he looses, it will become more expensive and he has the public humiliation of everybody knowing what has happened!

In most US and European courts a gift is considered a gift. Michael shouldn't have to pay back a gift to anyone.

Undue Influence is a very powerful defense when applied properly.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ndue+influence

A judicially created defense to transactions that have been imposed upon weak and vulnerable persons that allows the transactions to be set aside.

Virtually any act of persuasion that over-comes the free will and judgment of another, including exhortations, importunings, insinuations, flattery, trickery, and deception, may amount to undue influence. Undue influence differs from duress, which consists of the intentional use of force, or threat of force, to coerce another into a grossly unfair transaction. Blackmail, Extortion, bad faith threats of criminal prosecution, and oppressive Abuse of Process are classic examples of duress.


Four elements must be shown to establish undue influence. First, it must be demonstrated that the victim was susceptible to overreaching. Such conditions as mental, psychological, or physical disability or dependency may be used to show susceptibility.



Second, there must be an opportunity for exercising undue influence. Typically, this opportunity arises through a confidential relationship. Courts have found opportunity for undue influence in confidential relationships between Husband and Wife, fiancé and fiancée, Parent and Child, trustee and beneficiary, administrator and legatee, Guardian and Ward, attorney and client, doctor and patient, and pastor and parishioner.



Third, there must be evidence that the defendant was inclined to exercise undue influence over the victim. Defendants who aggressively initiate a transaction, insulate a relationship from outside supervision, or discourage a weaker party from seeking independent advice may be attempting to exercise undue influence.


Fourth, the record must reveal an unnatural or suspicious transaction. Courts are wary, for example, of testators who make abrupt changes in their last will and testament after being diagnosed with a terminal illness or being declared incompetent, especially if the changes are made at the behest of a beneficiary who stands to benefit from the new or revised testamentary disposition.


Nevertheless, courts will examine the facts closely before finding that a transaction has been tainted by undue influence. Mere suspicion, surmise, or conjecture of overreaching is insufficient. The law permits loved ones and confidants to advise and comfort those in need of their support without fear of litigation. Courts are also aware that the doctrine of undue influence can be used as a sword by the vindictive and avaricious who seek to invalidate a perfectly legal transaction for personal gain. When undue influence is found to have altered a transaction, however, courts will make every effort to return the parties to the same position they would have occupied had the overreaching not occurred.

&

undue influence n. the amount of pressure which one uses to force someone to execute a will leaving assets in a particular way, to make a direct gift while alive, or to sign a contract. The key element is that the influence was so great that the testator (will writer), donor (gift giver), or party to the contract had lost the ability to exercise his/her judgment and could not refuse to give in to the pressure. Evidence of such dominance of another's mind may result in invalidation of the will, gift, or contract by a court if the will, gift, or contract is challenged. Participation in preparation of the will, excluding other relatives, being present when the testator and the attorney meet are all evidence of undue pressure, and an imbalance or change in language which greatly favors the person exercising the influence are factors in finding undue influence. Example: Pete Pounder constantly visits his aunt Agnes while she is ill and always urges her to leave her mansion to him instead of to her son. Pounder threatens to stop visiting the old lady, who is very lonely, tells her she is ungrateful for his attention, finally brings over an attorney who does not know Agnes, and is present while she tells the attorney to write a new will in favor of Pounder.

Michael Jackson could not have been mentally and physically up to entering any kind of agreement after his trial. It took a severe toll on him. If the Bahrain Royal Family gave Michael Jackson lodging and healthcare/peace-of-mind while he was recuperating with the agenda of getting Michael to sign contracts to do an album, then that is undue influence.

MJ is right to fight this one.

[Foxy..]

Maybe the sale of Neverland was in preperation for the cost of this trial. Everything seems very organised and arranged. I am sure Michael knew about this case way before the press picked up on it.

[PatrickS77]

In most US and European courts a gift is considered a gift. Michael shouldn't have to pay back a gift to anyone.

According to the Prince it was no gift! If Michael pays back that money there is no harm to him... since he actually received that money! Unless he spent that money on junk he otherwise wouldn't have gotten and only has gotten, because he thought the prince would pay for it!

[144,000]

In most US and European courts a gift is considered a gift. Michael shouldn't have to pay back a gift to anyone.

Undue Influence is a very powerful defense when applied properly.



&



Michael Jackson could not have been mentally and physically up to entering any kind of agreement after his trial. It took a severe toll on him. If the Bahrain Royal Family gave Michael Jackson lodging and healthcare/peace-of-mind while he was recuperating with the agenda of getting Michael to sign contracts to do an album, then that is undue influence.

MJ is right to fight this one.

oohhh yeah...that is undue influence. i don't know who could not see that.

that has happened to many...and...i speak from personal experience...yeah...MJ was unduly influenced.

[PatrickS77]

Maybe the sale of Neverland was in preperation for the cost of this trial. Everything seems very organised and arranged. I am sure Michael knew about this case way before the press picked up on it.

Of course he knew... he got sued over a year ago already! The one who shall not be talked about here reported in detail about it last year already!

[andythemisfit]

I just want this to be over and done with.

[troubleman84]

Maybe the sale of Neverland was in preperation for the cost of this trial. Everything seems very organised and arranged. I am sure Michael knew about this case way before the press picked up on it.

I believe it.

[Foxy..]

I believe it.

Out of court settlement on the cards then.

[DenisRS]

Luring Michael with an escape to a quiet place where he can rest after the ordeal of the trial was... a trick to get him to sign a contract. Michael did accept all the gifts and money. But we have to keep in mind that although the amount of money involved could be big... it comes from a 'big' place.

Money is growing on trees there, so you need to put it into perspective. To us it might sound ridiculous to be able to live like a King as a gift. But it's change for the one who gave it.

Change... so he could persue his own agenda in a very, very vulnarable time for Michael.

Even if Michael would be not in the country where money grow on the trees, then he still could expect a generous hospitality from a person, who claims is friendly to him.

The point is when Michael invited many people to his ranch, he gave everything he owned to his guests (from his amusement parks to body wax financial cover), with no small sums of money including, and was never heard to require something from them as any sort of payback.

And there were no money-trees at Neverland, however magical the place was. Michael earned those money by himself, by his own work.
So why would Jackson have to feel obligated for receiving hospitality?

[Foxy..]

Of course he knew... he got sued over a year ago already! The one who shall not be talked about here reported in detail about it last year already!

Yeah he knew he was sued already, but wasn't it brushed under the carpet until today? Unexpected for everyone here who wasn't aware a trial may take place (although this will probably be settled out of court), whereas Michael almost certainly knew today was coming much much much before it was picked up on by you know who.

[ForeverBeInPeaceMichael]

that he thought it was a gift!

how u know it was a gift for sure? or he was thinking, not know for sure?


the greedy man, wants the money he's make with Neveland. its sooo blatantly obvious
they have scent cash arounf Michael and want it.

[MJJC Moderator]

According to the Prince it was no gift! If Michael pays back that money there is no harm to him... since he actually received that money! Unless he spent that money on junk he otherwise wouldn't have gotten and only has gotten, because he thought the prince would pay for it!

But Michael is fighting it for a reason. Maybe give Michael the benefit of the doubt, here? The suit makes no sense once you think about it and as the Prince says, the lawsuit hinges on friendship. So, the lawsuit is based off of friendship? Like "I gave him gifts, the least he could do is record an album and record my songs" friendship? Isn't that undue influence?

I go back to my original post in this thread in saying that Raymone Bain and Londell McMillian stepped in for a reason when Michael was in Bahrain.

Remember Michael's condition at the end of the trial? He could barely walk and talk. He was very thin, ill and more than likely depressed. How on earth could ANYONE in that state of mind negotiate any contractual agreement?