Originally Posted By Sara Tonin I doubt that anyone else in the family agrees with him. Except maybe Latoya.
Originally Posted By Mr X Not surprising...Jackson's death is the second BIGGEST online news story of the century (after Obama's election...but before 9/11, Katrina, and the Iraq war!).
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Wow all this stuff going on in the world and this has the most posts in WE.<< At least we know we have our priorities straight...
Originally Posted By hopemax Well, many other WE topics are "closed by moderator" before they get this big. This just was a topic where everyone had something to say, but it didn't go too crazy in the process.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ It got pretty close though. lol. I guess rather than fight it out, we all felt the need to just beat it. haha. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Wow all this stuff going on in the world and this has the most posts in WE." Maybe people need a break from all of that. I know I do.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Joe Jackson is going to beat some talent into those kids just like he did to Michael.
Originally Posted By Mr X I sure as hell hope not. *sigh* (there are JUDGES involved in these custody issues, no? Judges that read newspapers and know things? good lord, I hope so!)
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Judges that read newspapers and know things? << Actually aren't judges and juries for that matter, only allowed to use stuff brought up in court as evidence, or prior judgements to make a ruling, they can't use stuff they read in a newspaper to base their decision on. Maybe SPP can explain it a bit further...
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Joe Jackson is going to beat some talent into those kids just like he did to Michael." Joe Jackson is 80 years old. Those kids can run circles around that man.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin <a href="http://omg.yahoo.com/news/la-mayor-city-will-pay-costs-from-jackson-event/25168?nc" target="_blank">http://omg.yahoo.com/news/la-m...25168?nc</a> At least the city of LA has dropped the stupid website begging for donations...
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Actually aren't judges and juries for that matter, only allowed to use stuff brought up in court as evidence, or prior judgements to make a ruling, they can't use stuff they read in a newspaper to base their decision on.*** I would think that with custody and child safety issues a judge would have wide leeway to research the situation thoroughly. After all, in this case for example we have a televised interview WITH the father of the children, admitting fearfully that his own father had abused him (badly). You don't think a judge can take such evidence into consideration in deciding what to do with the grandkids?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder No, that's not evidence, it's hearsay. Evidence is the testimony of witnesses, introduction of records, documents, exhibits, or any probative matter offered up to prove a party's contention. If one side tried to enter a tape of Michael Jackson talking about Joe the other side would properly object to it as hearsay, an out of court statement offered to prove the matter asserted. Michael isn't around anymore to be cross-examined about it.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt You guys keep forgetting that Joe and Katherine Jackson don't live together or even in the same state.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***No, that's not evidence, it's hearsay.*** Sure..but does that prevent the judge from having seen it? If I were a judge (you wouldn't like me, if I were a judge), I'd do stuff like that all the time and just not tell anyone.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder He or she would see it, sure. But a good judge doesn't let that sway him or her. And if it got out that it did, him or her would no longer be a judge.
Originally Posted By Mr X Of course. That's why in my case, it wouldn't get out. (heck, if I was on the bench in this matter and saw that BET awards inverview, I'd sign a restraining order on the bastard post haste!)
