Latest on MJJC

Katherine Jackson To Debbie Rowe In Court Battle

Moonwalker.Fan

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
3,584
Points
0
Location
Slovakia
post41976PCNMichael02.jpg


09/03/2010

Katherine Jackson has formally filed court documents objecting to the amount of money Debbie Rowe is seeking from Michael Jackson's estate.

Rowe is seeking close to $200,000 in attorney's fees she says were incurred as a result of the custody case involving Michael Jackson's children after the King Of Pop died last year.

Katherine Jackson's family law attorney, Diane Goodman states in court docs, "petitioner (Katherine Jackson), contends that the amount of fees requested by Debbie Rowe is not reasonable.”

The filing adds, “Wherefore, Petitioner requests that the petition for Approval for Attorney's Fees be denied if determined by the court to be unreasonable. Other relief be granted that the court deems just and proper."

Rowe is represented by Eric George, who also was Oksana Grigorieva's attorney in the early stages of the custody battle with Mel Gibson over their infant daughter, Lucia.

A hearing is set for September 8, 2010, to determine how much money George will get for his work with Rowe.



READ THE DOCUMENT: http://www.radaronline.com/sites/radaronline.com/files/jacksonsdoc.pdf
 
money,money,money... She never wanted any of it when he was alive so whats it to her now?
 
I think its better for me not to say anything for my own sanity.
 
200.000 dollars ? - How could it ever cost that much.

And she lost didn't she ? - Why should the Estate pay her costs?

She seems a little greedy... - Hopefully the children has got most of MJ's gens.
 
Hess said:
200.000 dollars ? - How could it ever cost that much.

And she lost didn't she ? - Why should the Estate pay her costs?

She seems a little greedy... - Hopefully the children has got most of MJ's gens.
Click to expand...


Not saying that DR is not greedy, but in this case the lawyer, Eric George is the greedy one IMO. And no she did'nt lose, there were reports she got a settlement & I think she gets her annual support probably for life.

link:
http://news.lalate.com/2009/07/14/debbie-rowe-settlement/

Note: There were other links, couldn't find them presently, that said similar things.
 
Whoops - I must have read the article wrong. Sorry about that. :)
 
1. The money isn't for Debbie. It's for her lawyer that worked at the custody hearing.

2. Katherine isn't opposed to paying money to Debbie's lawyer. Her filing just says that "$200,000" is a bit much and the court should determine a "reasonable" amount.

I wouldn't call this a "battle". In the end of the day a judge will determine how much money the lawyer would get. It could be $200,000 or less.
 
What's this about? How come Debbie doesn't pay her own lawyer fees? I would think she has plenty money from MJ. Is this normal?

look at the pics they use of them.. lol :rolleyes:

btw, this is tabloid.
 
the media sucks and radar website is just like tmz mrs. jackson didn't release a statement i not believing this now as for deb lawyer dude is a cornball for that ish and deb has to have enough money from MJ estate he damn near gave her half life saving when he was alive she sells dogs and horses on the side for a living i'm sure she's aight

sorry for :toofunny: but that DR pic is priceless
 
Rockin. said:
What's this about? How come Debbie doesn't pay her own lawyer fees?
look at the pics they use of them.. lol :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Thats something id like to know too!


and yeh typical of tmz to use those pics to make it worse than what it really is. :rolleyes:
 
ivy said:
1. The money isn't for Debbie. It's for her lawyer that worked at the custody hearing.

2. Katherine isn't opposed to paying money to Debbie's lawyer. Her filing just says that "$200,000" is a bit much and the court should determine a "reasonable" amount.

I wouldn't call this a "battle". In the end of the day a judge will determine how much money the lawyer would get. It could be $200,000 or less.
Click to expand...

excatly ! 100% agree with u !
 
DENIED!!

Debbie Rowe's request for nearly $200,000 from Michael Jackson's estate was denied by Judge Mitchell Beckloff Wednesday in a Los Angeles courtroom.
Attorney Eric George represented Rowe on the custody matters relating to Michael's two oldest children, Prince Michael and daughter Paris. Rowe and George walked away with nothing as the judge ruled there was no law permitting George to obtain fees from Jackson's estate in this situation.

:clapping:
It's about time they shut down the MJ ATM Rowe bellied up to whenever her bank account dwindled. Remember this: Rowe initiated the custody case right after MJ's death, it's her MO, whenever MJ was dragged through a courtroom, there was Rowe trying to get her hands in the cookie jar, shamelessly using the children's well-being as her weapon. Looks like she's going to have to manage the money she's already withdrawn, the cookie jar contains Snack-Wells instead of the Oreos and she's officially been put on a diet and not a minute too soon, by all appearances.
 
Legally speaking that custody hearing between Debbie Rowe and Katherine had to happen. Determining a guardian in the will is a request but not legally binding. Technically Debbie Rowe had more standing than Katherine as she's the biological mother. So that hearing/agreement had to happen between the parties.

Plus let's remind everyone once again that she wasn't asking money for herself, her lawyer was asking his fees from the estate.
 
There’s no debate that the permanent custody hearing had to take place, but let’s also not forget that Ms. Rowe signed off on her parental rights, then changed her mind in ’03, again in ’06, and then another 3 years later in ’09 when that ever elusive “motherly concern” bubbled up again. Seems like every 3 years she gets maternal. And don’t forget the even more complicated fact that she didn’t seem to be too concerned that if she was awarded custody of the 2 - then the children would have been split apart. How is THAT in the best interest of the children???
Prior to the permanent custody hearing Ms. K. Jackson and Rowe reached an agreement that the judge approved. Rowe received visitation rights & an undisclosed allowance. Still more money. So much for that oft-mentioned faux concern for the welfare of the children, if she was truly that concerned - then her paying for her OWN attorney with her OWN money wouldn’t have been an issue, now would it? Asking the court for the estate to pay her bills IS asking money for herself. Why should the estate pay for her fighting for her presumed biological right that she so carelessly tosses aside until the biological mother defense is advantageous to her bank account. Her actions speak volumes on her motives, we are what we do, not what we say.

And if you’re talking the will - in it, Michael Jackson took the time to name his mother, Katherine, as the children's guardian. He clearly did NOT choose Rowe, making it clear that what was given to Rowe in their divorce settlement was it. If she tried to contest the will, MJ wanted to make it crystal clear that he didn't intend for her to get anything else if he predeceased her. He didn't have to mention her at all in the will, but he wanted to hammer home the fact that he not only divorced Rowe but intended to completely remove her from his life and the lives of their children. Rowe's lack of involvement with the children over the years & Rowe's behavior in the days following MJ’s death was more than enough to seal the deal, the judge wisely followed what Michael had clearly expressed in his Will.
 
HDiva said:
And don’t forget the even more complicated fact that she didn’t seem to be too concerned that if she was awarded custody of the 2 - then the children would have been split apart. How is THAT in the best interest of the children???
Click to expand...

If she had got the custody of Prince and Paris she would most probably get the custody of Blanket as Prince and Paris is Blanket's next of kin. court wouldn't have separated siblings.


HDiva said:
Prior to the permanent custody hearing Ms. K. Jackson and Rowe reached an agreement that the judge approved. Rowe received visitation rights & an undisclosed allowance. Still more money.
Click to expand...

Reports said that no additional money were involved and that she just wanted to make sure that her previous agreement with Michael will be honored.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/MichaelJackson/story?id=8076642&page=1

and Katherine doesn't have money to give to her. the estate didn't give her any money either - if they did it must have been approved by the court as the estate was/ is under probate.

note: that tabloid POST story about getting money to give up her parental rights and couldn't challenge current and future guardians is almost completely impossible. you cannot give your parental rights in a private agreement, it has to be done in a court of law and can be changed as well. (as you said remember in the past when she in front of a judge declared to give off her rights and then several years later got it back - it's not as easy as that tabloid story claims).

HDiva said:
if she was truly that concerned - then her paying for her OWN attorney with her OWN money wouldn’t have been an issue, now would it? Asking the court for the estate to pay her bills IS asking money for herself.
Click to expand...

the thing is her lawyer asked the court to pay for his bills, she didn't. I know that the press keeps reporting that Debbie asked for it, Debbie filed the lawsuit etc but she didn't her lawyer did.

and the logic is that as they worked for a deal that favors Katherine and not Debbie the estate should pay. It's no different than in a lawsuit asking the opposite side to pay for legal fees and expenses incurred due to the lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
“Reports said that no additional money were involved and that she just wanted to make sure that her previous agreement with Michael will be honored.”

Ah I see - Ms. Rowe had no intention of contesting the will, which flat out states she gets nothing more than what was agreed upon, and she was only protecting her future “interests” and the children, well, they just happened to come with the deal. As long as she got those last spousal support payments, she’d sign off on any and all custodial rights. How magnanimous of her. And those pesky attorney fees she incurred protecting her interests, you know the same fees MJ was always ordered to pay in the endless custody battles she, oh wait, her lawyer initiated, it was certainly in her best interest to have someone else foot the bill. Exactly my point all along.
The only word that comes to mind in defining D. Rowe and her motives - GREED.
 
^^

I'll respectfully disagree. How could this be greed if monetary wise speaking what she's getting now is exactly the same of what she was going to get if Michael was alive?

The only thing she gained was visitation rights which she had none when Michael was alive. That would be an advantage.
 
We can agree to disagree, and we can go back & forth for days arguing the points which I have neither the time nor inclination to do. As much as I would enjoy the dialog with you, discussing the sycophants that plagued Michael’s life is ad nauseam. The history of her court filings & appearances speak for themselves and I stand by what I’ve posted and if Michael were alive today, you can bet she would go after him again except for that small but potent detail that Michael had his estate in order with this pour-over Will & Revocable Living Trust. He may have been a little off with his choices in women but from a business standpoint, he had it going on -

Quite honestly, I don’t know how anyone can defend the character of this woman who claimed to only want the best for Michael, stating on camera that the children were her gift to him and then spent the last 10 years making him pay for those gifts. Apparently the woman doesn’t own a dictionary or playing hooky the day they were passing out virtues. The same woman who testified in a court of law that Marc Schaffel was “Full of shit, he was out to hurt Michael and he would hurt my children”. So, was she lying in court or had a change of heart concerning that sad excuse for a human being? Guess that threat to her children was non-existent ‘cause they’re pretty cozy now - still leeching off MJ’s name and still sue happy. So the old adage is true - “like seeks like” -

“You can’t talk your way out of what you’ve behaved yourself into.”
 
Back off DEBBIE.!!! She is one of the few people in MJ'S life that proved she truly loved him. She gave him what he most wanted, two precious kids, and was there 100% for him in his hour of need (2005 trial).

Debbie paid a tremendous price giving up her kids. Do not think she realised it would hurt this much. No denying DEBBIE loves her kids and loved MJ. What ever financial agreement DEBBIE had with MJ was not enough for all the pain that still present in her life.
 
max000 said:
Back off DEBBIE.!!! She is one of the few people in MJ'S life that proved she truly loved him. She gave him what he most wanted, two precious kids, and was there 100% for him in his hour of need (2005 trial).
Click to expand...

Exactly. She was there for him when he needed her. And she's one of the few people who always supported him and said only good things about him.
 
Something wrong with your cap locks? And no, I will not back off, children are not a commodity or chattel you give to anyone nor are they a form of sacrifice to prove that love. I wasn't debating her love for MJ, I'm sure she did. As a witness for the prosecution, her testimony did help MJ's defense to the chagrin of the DA, but when you say "being there for him 100%", DEBBIE wouldn't have filed yet another custody & spousal support lawsuit later that same year, which she did. So instead of being allowed to recover from the tremendous strain and heartbreak of the trial, DEBBIE showed her undying & selfless love for MJ by dragging him into court AGAIN to fight for those kids she thought were in danger in his care. I'm sure MJ was feeling the love with that -

And don't you mean Debbie was paid a tremendous price for giving up her kids? We all need to own what we do in our lives, the good & the bad and if she is suffering all that pain today, as you say she is, then it goes to show you that all the money in the world won't buy you peace, forgiveness or love.

But I'm done with this conversation - so go ahead and defend her however you want - making excuses for someone's actions doesn't change the reality of the outcome.
 
HDiva said:
Something wrong with your cap locks? And no, I will not back off, children are not a commodity or chattel you give to anyone nor are they a form of sacrifice to prove that love. I wasn't debating her love for MJ, I'm sure she did. As a witness for the prosecution, her testimony did help MJ's defense to the chagrin of the DA, but when you say "being there for him 100%", DEBBIE wouldn't have filed yet another custody & spousal support lawsuit later that same year, which she did. So instead of being allowed to recover from the tremendous strain and heartbreak of the trial, DEBBIE showed her undying & selfless love for MJ by dragging him into court AGAIN to fight for those kids she thought were in danger in his care. I'm sure MJ was feeling the love with that -

And don't you mean Debbie was paid a tremendous price for giving up her kids? We all need to own what we do in our lives, the good & the bad and if she is suffering all that pain today, as you say she is, then it goes to show you that all the money in the world won't buy you peace, forgiveness or love.

But I'm done with this conversation - so go ahead and defend her however you want - making excuses for someone's actions doesn't change the reality of the outcome.
Click to expand...



DEBBIE did not have those kids for financial reasons. DEBBIE lovingly gave her long time friend, the man she loved two kids. He broke her heart for a real family life with him and their kids.
Her life was turned upside down the moment the media knew she was carrying the child of the world's biggest music icon. She could no longer earn a living. She needed protection from the press. That cost MONEY.
DEBBIE greedy.? How many millions could DEBBIE have earned selling out MJ.????

I totally get it why DEBBIE was pissed off at MJ after the 2005 trial. I am sure she hoped MJ would embrace her and at least let her see the kids. With any lawsuit i ignore the lawyer speak. And in DEBBIE'S case i see the desperate need of a MOM longing to see her kids. What so selfish or wrong about that.!!???
 
Last edited:
HDiva said:
Ms. Rowe signed off on her parental rights, then changed her mind in ’03, again in ’06, and then another 3 years later in ’09 when that ever elusive “motherly concern” bubbled up again. Seems like every 3 years she gets maternal. [/I][/B].
.
Click to expand...

what a big fat lie you just made up H Diva !!!
non of the above had happened !!!


in 2003 , her lawsuit was the only solution to save the kids when the police where visiting Neverland checking if the kids are fine or not and many media people and those work in the children care insist that the kids to be taken away from Michael and sent to live in another place...Michael was about to lose the kids in 2003 but this custody battle was Debbie's way to distract their attention and make them shut up. because since they have a strong mother no one can come close to them....


MJ and some of his fans do not understand the noble women , they are being tricked by make up and short dresses and forget the heart and the true value of a real mother... so sad !
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top