Latest on MJJC

Supposedly Murray already sold the rights to ''his story'', taping a long interview etc.

Memefan said:
I am at a lost for words...and God knows, that doesn't happen often.

I am too disgusted to comment.


I agree..the Jacksons should have done what Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman's families did. Sue Murray...even if doesn't have any money. All future income from interviews and what not, would have gone against any judgement.

Wow....The scumbag is trying to profit from MJ's death. Unreal.

If I am not mistaken, Joe Jackson did file a wrongful death suit against Murray. And his case was merged with Katherine's lawsuit against AEG. So there is hope...
Click to expand...

ivy said:
To correct a misinformation : Joe is suing Murray for wrongful death.
Click to expand...
?
So we can say that there's hope.
 
Joe suit will prob go no where as hes not a dependent. or was that issue sorted
 
xthunderx2 said:
totally confused about this thread,,,a person legally cannot profit off of their victim if found guilty of the crime....so can some one please explain to me why we are even entertaining this idea? thanks.
Click to expand...

IMO, this idea is being entertained because it's a gray area? It's true that if convicted, Murray can't profit from his crime, i.e. book or movie deal. But it might be ambiguous if he sold something and received payment BEFORE there was a conviction? Which might be the reason why it's a docu/interview, and not a book manuscript that might take longer to produce and get on the shelves?

Oh, and about the "wrongful death suit?" True, Joe has launched this civil suit. Sure wouldn't want anyone to get hopes up, though. The attorney is. . . . Brian Oxman. :puke:
 
you know there was a 1% chance that murray was maybe regretting what he did. that he feels bad or whatsoever.
but profiting from killing a human being, regardless of his fame, is just so wrong. what kind of person is he?!
how can he do this? for me this is like a guilty verdict. i mean what is the content supposed to be?

UGH Im really angry and thinking about tomorrow makes me sick :( :( :( :(

:cry:
 
Autumn II said:
IMO, this idea is being entertained because it's a gray area? It's true that if convicted, Murray can't profit from his crime, i.e. book or movie deal. But it might be ambiguous if he sold something and received payment BEFORE there was a conviction? Which might be the reason why it's a docu/interview, and not a book manuscript that might take longer to produce and get on the shelves?

Oh, and about the "wrongful death suit?" True, Joe has launched this civil suit. Sure wouldn't want anyone to get hopes up, though. The attorney is. . . . Brian Oxman. :puke:
Click to expand...

ok I see what you are saying now...there HAS to be a law about this....I just dont understand the injustice that has been committed even AFTER Michael's death people are continuing to make money off of him....NOW his murderer has profited??? When will it end. I have no more words for anything or anyone that has wronged Michael....I just cant do this anymore....it has now gotten wayyy to difficult for me .
 
The media report suggested that NBC might be interested, but I'm not sure why they would pay $1m for a work of fiction from this self-serving and very unsympathetic character. I don't think many people are going to feel much 'identification' with him and his situation, and he doesn't seem to me to be a very interesting or engaging character; even allowing that I've mostly seen him looking sullen in court. I guess the only thing that he might be paid highly for is some other damaging information about MJ....but since the man is known to be 'economical with the actualite' (past UK politician-speak for ' sparing with the truth'), I'm not sure what he is offering will be of much interest or worth.
 
The media will pay him to talk s***about mj. when did the truth ever matter.
 
over on the J4MJ page they were talking about the "Son of Sam" law. This law states you cant make any money off the victim regardless of before verdict or after.
 
From what i remember murray argued that joe cant sue cause hes not a dependent or benificary of mj and only those ppl can file a wrongful death suit
 
Perhaps I'm being too faithful in humanity again, but I think there will be HUGE backlash if Murray ever tries to profit from this. I don't think even the media would go there. I may be wrong, but I think a lot of people would find that absolutely chilling. I know I do.
 
Elusive: And what did the judge decide? The only thing I remember is that at the time (April 2011), Oxman was facing disciplinary problems...

Edited: I add a post by Ivy on 1st July:
ivy said:
he's adding them to the existing lawsuit. he had does 1-10 before (does are people that who might be responsible but you don't know at the time you file the document. as you discover more you go back and add these does) . Now he says doe 1 is AEG. However it's yet not certain that the lawsuit will survive - remember very recently Murray's lawyers asked for a dismissal that Joe was late in filing the wrongful death lawsuit and that Joe is not a beneficiary.

this could be a move on their part that they might expect the case be dismissed and by adding AEG try to again combine it with KJ's lawsuit.



(Oxman) he has been investigated and recommended for suspension by the state bar. The state bar gives a certain time period to contest this decision, an appeal hearing and a supreme court approval of the decision before finalizing it. In other words he'll get suspended (almost a certainty) and it's just a matter of time before it gets finalized.
Click to expand...

PS: Sorry for the off-topic, but someone mentioned the wrongful lawsuit... (we don't have further news, do we?)
 
Last edited:
Severus Snape said:
Perhaps I'm being too faithful in humanity again, but I think there will be HUGE backlash if Murray ever tries to profit from this. I don't think even the media would go there. I may be wrong, but I think a lot of people would find that absolutely chilling. I know I do.
Click to expand...

Im wishing so hard this will happen but i doubt it will. The media will never be by mjs side and anyone that is a mj hater, the media will pay good $$$ for their story
 
?
MJsSusie said:
over on the J4MJ page they were talking about the "Son of Sam" law. This law states you cant make any money off the victim regardless of before verdict or after.
Click to expand...

I think the law is only for those convicted?(because a person is regarded as innocent until proven otherwise?) Murray hasn't been convicted yet, and I think what he's trying to do is get in under the wire with this, collect payment, and have the interview in the can. Don't know if he can avoid the "Son of Sam" law this way, but it sure looks to me like he's trying to. "Son of Sam" only applies to those who've been convicted? And he hasn't been. . . YET.
 
yes YET is the key word.... And as for the Wrongful Death lawsuit... I thought it was ANY FAMILY MEMBER could file that suit... Just because Joe isnt the beneficiary shouldnt mean hes excluded from filing that suit. Regardless of what we wish he is Michael's father.

"In all states, immediate family members (such as spouses and children) of the deceased can file a wrongful death lawsuit. However, state laws on who may file wrongful death charges vary, and contacting a wrongful death lawyer is the best way to make sure you have all your information. State laws vary regarding:

Children who are minors: Some states require appointment of a legal guardian (a guardian ad litem) to look out for minors’ interests in the lawsuit.

Distant relatives and legal dependants: Some states allow distant family members (such as grandparents) or legal dependants to file a wrongful death lawsuit.

Parental rights: In the event of a child’s death, some states do not permit parents to press wrongful death lawsuits if the child died in-utero.

The defendant: If the person who caused the death is a member of the deceased’s family, while subject to criminal penalties, he or she cannot be sued by another family member. State law determines whether a non-blood relatives may be sued.

The statute of limitations: Survivors have a limited amount of time (a statute of limitations) after a wrongful death to file charges. Survivors cannot bring charges once the time limit has passed."

Source: http://www.lawyershop.com/practice-areas/personal-injury/wrongful-death/who-file-lawsuit
 
Last edited:
This is why Murray needed to be convicted so this nonsense can be stopped. I can't image he running all the TV program justisfying his actions. If he had guts to do so, do it in court and take the stand! What a chicken.
 
California's Son of Sam law was struck down in 2002 so legally there's nothing stopping Murray from doing this even if he gets convicted.
 
We should not be surprised by Muarry. This is the same person who drugged Michael and took a recording of him. Now you know what he wanted to do with the recording!!!! Obviously his story will be full of lies to cover himself, otherwise he would have been happy to tell this true story to the police and on the stand. The mere fact that he will not tell his story on the stand to save his freedom, but talks to reporters, shows that his story is also full of lies.

As others said, if this story is true, I hope we have a major campaign in force. We can bring up the issue of profiting from a crime. Because as we well know, if such an interview is made, they would not have a team discussing the inconsistencies of his story--not when it is about Michael. muarry will go on about Michael being an addict and injecting himself.
 
why would Cali do that? I would hate for someone to be making money off my brothers death (god forbid).
 
Apparently the original Son of Sam law (in New York) has been struck down or amended, through a number of legal cases. States may have variations on that type of law, some requiring victim's families to launch a civil suit to recoup financial gain from the criminal from selling a story. In other states, the funds are returned to the state.

More info here:

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32469

And yeah, it looks like that law has been overturned in California, unless there are more recent developments? (so, sadly, it looks like Murray can sell his docu/interview)

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15773
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top