Michael Jackson

strandinthewind · #1 07-21-2005, 12:24 PM

No Big Easy for Jackson
by Joal Ryan
Jul 20, 2005, 5:45 PM PT
back to story

It wasn't clear where Michael Jackson was Wednesday. It was only clear where he wasn't: in a New Orleans courtroom.

Jackson's absence at a hearing for a sexual-assault lawsuit might not have been a big deal had his lawyers been present, but they weren't. The judge in the case scheduled an Aug. 17 hearing to give the pop star's camp one more chance to show up or face a judgment without the benefit of a trial.

The once ubiquitous entertainer has been out of the public eye since being acquitted June 13 of all charges in his nearly six-month-long child-molestation trial. A few weeks ago, he was said to be enjoying a royal vacation at a palace in Bahrain. His father, Joseph Jackson, told reporters he hoped his famed son would join him in Berlin for a three-day-long birthday celebration this weekend. The birthday being celebrated is the senior Jackson's, who is turning 76; the younger Jackson turns 47 next month.

Back in Louisiana, meanwhile, Joseph Thomas Bartucci Jr. is alleging that the then 25-year-old Michael Jackson did very bad things.

In a lawsuit filed last November amid the run-up to Jackson's California criminal trial, Bartucci claimed that when he was 18 in 1984 the singer sexually abused him and cut him with a razor blade and a steel wire. Now middle-aged, the New Orleans man says he repressed the assault until a 2003 Court TV special on Jackson's molestation case brought it all back.

Last fall, Jackson's criminal defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. promised the lawsuit would be fully litigated in court. On Wednesday, Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman told the Associated Press he wasn't sure why the singer wasn't represented at the hearing. According to the AP, Jackson is being sued for $50,000 by local New Orleans lawyers who were hired to represent him in the case but apparently were not paid in full.

Bartucci is seeking unspecified damages for a host of ailments he claims were caused by the alleged assault.

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,16985,00.html

___________________________________________________________

Did anyone see Nancy Grace on this last night

darklinensuit · #2 07-21-2005, 12:42 PM

Jason, is it common to be given an extra chance when you skip a court date without giving any notice? Even the lawyers?

- Jake

strandinthewind · #3 07-21-2005, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darklinensuit

Jason, is it common to be given an extra chance when you skip a court date without giving any notice? Even the lawyers?

- Jake

Well, it depends. I think most realize this suit is BS. Also, celebrities are served with witness subpoenas all of the time in cases they have nothing to do with and the judges usually do nothing to enforce those. I think in this case, idiot Jackson should have sent an attorney (Lord knows he has like 20 of them) into court to appear on his behalf or to address the merits of this claim. He is a an a$$ IMO.

darklinensuit · #4 07-21-2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, it depends. I think most realize this suit is BS. Also, celebrities are served with witness subpoenas all of the time in cases they have nothing to do with and the judges usually do nothing to enforce those. I think in this case, idiot Jackson should have sent an attorney (Lord knows he has like 20 of them) into court to appear on his behalf or to address the merits of this claim. He is a an a$$ IMO.

No doubt.
But I'm still surprised there isn't any penalty for the disrespect of wasting the court's time, regardless of whether the judge sympathizes with the woes of celebrity.

- Jake

gldstwmn · #5 07-21-2005, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No Big Easy for Jackson
by Joal Ryan
Jul 20, 2005, 5:45 PM PT

Did anyone see Nancy Grace on this last night

No, I'm sorry I missed that. Apparently he'll just pay the 50k?

irishgrl · #6 07-21-2005, 05:19 PM

ok, I'll bite: Jason, why do you think the suit is BS?

darklinensuit · #7 07-21-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

ok, I'll bite: Jason, why do you think the suit is BS?

I'm guessing it has to do with the alleged repression of memories, but I can't speak for Jason.
Jason, speak.

- Jake

sara1998 · #8 07-21-2005, 08:24 PM

Isn't there a statute of limitations on things like this? Something should have been said back in the '80's.

AliceLover · #9 07-21-2005, 08:39 PM

This guy really needs some help.

Mad4stevie · #10 07-21-2005, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sara1998

Isn't there a statute of limitations on things like this? Something should have been said back in the '80's.

My guess is that the statute may not start to run until the memory surfaces. Although it is more difficult to prove the memory issue if the guy was 18 when the abuse allegedly occurred.

darklinensuit · #11 07-21-2005, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

My guess is that the statute may not start to run until the memory surfaces. Although it is more difficult to prove the memory issue if the guy was 18 when the abuse allegedly occurred.

And when the alleged perpetrator is relatively rich and famous, and given to theatrics around court.

- Jake

strandinthewind · #12 07-22-2005, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

ok, I'll bite: Jason, why do you think the suit is BS?

Well, he was a little old to have alapse in memory and every lawyer I know in NOLA laughs at the absurdity of this case.

strandinthewind · #13 07-22-2005, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

My guess is that the statute may not start to run until the memory surfaces. Although it is more difficult to prove the memory issue if the guy was 18 when the abuse allegedly occurred.

Actually, I lost that point as a law clerk about 15 years ago and set this precedent. It was the Gautier Catholic Church abuse case. Oh Well.