Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"
Yea, okay. You just said no party knows who the judges are and that they're assigned randomly, if that were true then the Estate wouldn't of asked for the initial judge in the case to be removed as they'd have no knowledge of who that judge is. The fact that they requested this judges removal, according to the legal updates you posted, which implies they had knowledge of who the judge was, and that the judge didn't remove himself from the case, as you say here. If the judges are assigned so randomly in this case, then the Estate would have no reason to request the removal of the judge in the first place, would they? What is it about this judge that the Estate has an issue with? And clearly the judge wasn't favored by the Estate for whatever reason, so they requested the removal. That also negates the claim that they have no knowledge of the judges chosen for this case.
There's a
huge misunderstanding here.
I wrote "It's not like
anyone knows who the judges were/are and which one is better. " and continued with "furthermore if I didn't tell it here most probably
none of you will ever know about it.". If it's not clear I was responding to a conversation going on among
the members on this thread about the judge and trying to say
none of the people here / anyone here - meaning MJJC members knows who the judges are and
none of us are in a position / have information to tell which judge is better or more lenient etc. I'm sorry if I caused any misunderstanding.
However I stand with that position. None of us here - including me- have any information to tell which judge is better/worse or will be more lenient/harsh towards any party. Any claims about such matters will be pure speculation and/or conspiracy theory.
Of course parties to the lawsuit (and people who reads documents carefully and knows to use the court system - aka people like me) knows which judge the case is assigned. The minute you file a lawsuit, court clerk randomly assigns the case to a judge and writes that info on the complaint. actually go to the first page and check the complaint you will see the first judge's name handwritten on the complaint.
(if you know how to use the court system, you can also see the name of the second judge). and of course parties challenge the judge knowing who the judge is but like I pointed out to you, the new judge is also assigned randomly by the clerk. Parties have no control over it. they cannot pick which judge they want and there's no guarantee that the second judge would be more lenient or such. they could end up with a more harsh judge.
so your first comment was asking for a new judge to get a more lenient one and my reply is still the same - as the new judge is also assigned randomly there's no guarantee that anyone will get a more lenient judge.
What is it about this judge that the Estate has an issue with?
no reason given and they don't have to. Each party has one right to ask for a new judge no reason given.
the judge didn't remove himself from the case, as you say here.
he did. Estate filed the application and the judge himself signed and granted it which means he accepted the request and removed himself. he could have rejected it and require an explanation. he didn't.
edited to add:
if you need confirmation about random judge assignment
b) Regulation of Case Assignment. The clerk must take all reasonably appropriate steps,including a system of random use of case numbers, to ensure that neither any party nor any counsel will be able to anticipate a case assignment. The name of the judge to whom the case is assigned will be designated by the clerk on the summons and the complaint.
as you can see the assignment is random and they take necessary steps parties can not guess who the case will be assigned.
