This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - curls
Filter to certain boards:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 193
16
« on: February 17, 2015, 04:00:40 PM »
When do I think we will see him again? If by this you mean hoax revealed and back in public view, I think maybe never. ('We' may see him though at any time, and some would say they already do.)
Slightly off topic (but not really as it relates to why I think he may never return), regarding Robson and Safechuck's allegations: assuming MJ remains dead until after these cases are resolved one way or another, would he be in trouble legally if he ever returned, having known there were these cases against his estate, all the while he chose to stay 'dead'? Is this a reason to never come back? Should he have come back by now to face these allegations? I don't know - just mulling over some thoughts.
17
« on: February 17, 2015, 02:31:55 AM »
Quite simply, what else would you expect them to say? And on Facebook?
Dead artists sell ... you don't need a pretend hoax to boost sales, so that idea doesn't wash with me.
What made you believe in the first place? Do those things still hold true? Was your belief based simply on a desire for MJ to be alive or on actual facts that led you to the conclusion that he is? These are the questions I would ask myself in your position.
18
« on: February 15, 2015, 05:12:57 PM »
Seriously guys, I don't want to sound harsh but there's 'reading between the lines' and there's just plain making stuff up out of nothing. I don't see why anyone still wants or needs stuff like 9:58 to mean 1958, or 'live' (instead of 'life') to mean 'alive' ... after all this time, really - are you still looking for 'clues'?
19
« on: January 30, 2015, 10:26:55 AM »
Thanks Thriller! Hmm ....
20
« on: January 30, 2015, 02:19:46 AM »
michaelslady, is there any way you can make that bigger please, or post a link maybe ... it's just too tiny for my poor old eyes to read anything! Thanks.
21
« on: January 26, 2015, 02:49:30 AM »
Jackson vs AEG Live - appellate arguments A summary of arguments to a California appeals court by lawyers for Michael Jackson's mother. Katherine Jackson is seeking a new trial in her negligent hiring lawsuit against AEG Live, the promoters of her son's ill-fated "This Is It" concert. I was the only reporter to cover the entire session. You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login 3 days ago 205 Views You are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginLink to the rest of the post with all his tweets from the session: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login...and his Twitter: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
22
« on: January 22, 2015, 01:38:05 AM »
Thanks for finding that, iamhere. I'll email her too.
I actually had a reply from Brian Pomerantz (the attorney named on the Supreme Court docket) yesterday, just asking me what is my interest in the case, so I've replied back. We'll see ....
23
« on: January 21, 2015, 02:01:27 AM »
LOL I used to love Dallas in those good old days!
A few days ago I emailed the attorney (not Valerie Wass) named on the US Supreme Court link I gave above, but not surprisingly I haven't heard anything back. Wass was not shy about talking to the media in the past, so maybe she would be a better bet to get some information from. Quick look, I can't find any contact info for her.
24
« on: January 20, 2015, 07:07:45 AM »
I'll be so disappointed if Murray's story has just fizzled out and doesn't have a proper ending. Like when you watch a drama series on tv and you get to the final episode and annoying loose ends are left untied.:icon_e_sad:
25
« on: January 18, 2015, 01:14:19 PM »
I've been keeping an eye on Murray's appeals. Having been refused by California Supreme Court he took it to the US Supreme Court. I'm wondering if these docket entries mean he's reached the end of the road. It would seem the US SC has also refused to hear his case. Is there anyone here with more understanding of legal jargon than me, able to confirm or deny this? 07/29/2014 Received copy of: Extension of time in US Supreme Court - Application # 14A74 09/29/2014 Received copy of: Supreme Court of United States Office of the Clerk The petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on September 2, 2014 and placed on the docket September 23, 3014 as No. 14-6371. 11/17/2014 Received copy of: Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk re The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case: The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. [dated November 10, 2014] You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login| ~~~Date~~~ | ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | | Jul 14 2014 | Application (14A74) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 22, 2014 to September 20,
2014, submitted to Justice Kennedy. | | Jul 22 2014 | Application (14A74) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until September 20, 2014. | | Sep 2 2014 | Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 23, 2014) | | Oct 15 2014 | Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed. | | Oct 23 2014 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 7, 2014. | | Nov 10 2014 | Petition DENIED. |
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
26
« on: January 14, 2015, 01:45:41 AM »
Disclaimer link towards the bottom of the page:
Disclaimer
National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Advice given is NOT to be construed as professional. If you are in need of professional help, please consult a professional. National Report is not intended for children under the age of 18.
LINK REMOVED - SPAM SITE
27
« on: January 12, 2015, 04:40:43 AM »
curls, that is the number on the autopsy report.
.....
I tried googling how autopsy case numbers are assigned but I couldn't find anything.
Ah yes, thanks. I don't know, but would hazard a guess that numbers are simply issued in order, as bodies are brought in. If that 24th death (residence) wasn't discovered and/or brought in until 25th, that would explain why it has a number among the 25th deaths.
28
« on: January 11, 2015, 05:03:28 PM »
iamhere, where did you get that case number (2009-04415) for MJ?
29
« on: January 10, 2015, 06:11:26 PM »
Well, there you go ... more confirmation, or at least a strong indication, of what we already know, MJ didn't die; although of course, we have talked in the past of the necessity for tampering/faking of documents/records (I'm thinking especially of the autopsy report) for MJ to be alive. These coroner's records might be accurate or they could be incomplete for a reason other than than MJ didn't die - e.g. privacy/secrecy with a high profile case - on their own they don't actually have to mean he didn't die.
But nice work there Michaelslady!
30
« on: January 10, 2015, 02:51:47 AM »
'Michael Jackson' is a pretty common name, particularly for dob's pre the '70s or '80s, which all but the baby above are. The MJ isn't dead so not surprising he isn't on that list!
But, in the spirit of investigation, Michaelslady, have you tried checking out some other famous people, who you know are dead, to see if they are shown on these records, just for comparison?
|
Show Posts