TIAI August 18
<!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=72&t=13223#p221467<!-- l -->
We have seen two so far, perhaps may have more, I think if TMZ is decided to talk about this will have its effect, you know, sometimes the other means what they do is repeat what TMZ public.
I thought too that maybe TMZ could talk about it now that we have sent all these emails around the world, they have an alibi they surely received emails too and their fellow members of profession will not find it weird because they too received those same emails. TMZ is always first when Michael is involved after all and the others will just copy and paste as usual.
I think that TMZ and the majority of the media outlets are now sitting on the story, awaiting some development with the Eliza Presley case. If this starts moving, the media will react; they may need another little push but I really believe they will go for it.
With L.O.V.E
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Comments
This is the date provided on the Probate Lawyer Blog, but since LMP is contesting maybe there will be a delay?
i see this redirect as TS's reassurance that we can at least count on good ol' TMZ in breaking the news on Eliza <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
I read it in the TIAI 17/8 thread, here's the link to Mo's post about it:
<!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=72&t=13398&start=25#p223684<!-- l -->
Here's a screenshot:
Click for large version: <!-- m -->http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/ ... EPcase.jpg<!-- m -->
Interesting that this was filed on 8/16, the 33rd anniversary of Elvis's "death".
Does anyone know what the entries on this docket report actually mean? .......any lawyers out there?!! <!-- s:geek: -->:geek:<!-- s:geek: -->
<!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment<!-- m -->
Although I'm quoting here, please read the whole page.
The last part confuses me, as I'm not sure who "the party bringing the motion" is - Eliza or Lisa Marie.
"A motion for summary judgment must be filed with supporting evidence". That makes me wonder what kind of evidence Lisa Marie provided to the court...
This latest thing from LMP is timed strangely, whatever it means, because I noticed that Eliza's 6th August Application for Defaut Judgement was supported by the fact that LMP hadn't contested the previous notice, within 30 days (which was 14th August 2009, almost a whole year previous!). Item 2 in the link below:
<!-- m -->http://probatelitigation.typepad.com/fi ... efault.pdf<!-- m -->
Seems like there are legal loopholes for every situation and all this talk of courts making judgements without the need for a trial just make me think of Murray, and what could well happen in his case.
<!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
We however need to understand what the LMP contest means to the Eliza case before going any further...
Legal knowledge is critical here!
With L.O.V.E
United States
In American legal practice summary judgment can be awarded by the court prior to trial, effectively holding that no trial will be necessary. Issuance of summary judgment can be based only upon the court's finding that:
1. there are no issues of "material" fact requiring a trial for their resolution, and
2. in applying the law to the undisputed facts, one party is clearly entitled to judgment.
A party making a motion for summary judgment is called a "moving party." A "material fact" is one which, depending upon what the factfinder believes "really happened," could lead to judgment in favor of one party, rather than the other. A simple example of summary judgment is provided below.
A plaintiff may move for summary judgment in its favor on any cause of action, and similarly, a defendant may move for summary judgment in its favor on any affirmative defense, but in either case, must produce evidence in support of each and every essential element of the claim or defense (as it would have to do at trial). To be successful, such motions must be drafted as written previews of a party's entire case-in-chief (that it would put before the finder of fact at trial) because all parts of an entire claim or defense are at issue.
A different and very common tactic is where a defendant moves for summary judgment in its favor on a plaintiff's cause of action. The key difference is that in this latter situation, the defendant need only attack one essential element of the plaintiff's claim. A finding that the plaintiff cannot prove one essential element of its claim necessarily renders all other elements immaterial and results in an immediate grant of summary judgment to the defendant. Therefore, these motions tend to be precisely targeted to the weakest points of the plaintiff's case. It is also possible for a plaintiff to move for summary judgment in its favor on a defendant's affirmative defense, but those motions are very rare.
A party moving for summary judgment may refer to any evidence that would be admissible if there were to be a trial, such as, depositions, party admissions, documents received during discovery (such as contracts, emails, letters, and certified government documents). Each party may present to the court its view of applicable law by submitting a legal memorandum in support of, or in opposition to, the motion. The court may allow for oral argument of the lawyers, generally where the judge wishes to question the lawyers on issues in the case.
Summary judgment is awarded if the undisputed facts and the law make it clear that it would be impossible for one party to prevail if the matter were to proceed to trial. The court must consider all materials in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.
If a trial could result in the jury (or judge in a bench trial) deciding in favor of the party opposing the motion, then summary judgment is inappropriate. A decision granting summary judgment can be appealed without delay. A decision denying summary judgment ordinarily cannot be immediately appealed; instead, the case continues on its normal course. In United States federal courts, a denial of summary judgment cannot be appealed until final resolution of the whole case, because of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (the final judgment rule).
In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party only has to show substantial evidence that a dispute of material facts exists, regardless of the strength of that evidence. For example, if one side on a summary judgment motion can produce the evidence of "a dozen bishops", and the other side only has the testimony of a known liar, then summary judgment is not appropriate. Deciding on the relative credibility of witnesses is a question for trial.
Where appropriate, a court may award summary judgment upon less than all claims, known as "partial summary judgment."
It is not uncommon for summary judgments of lower U.S. courts in complex cases to be overturned on appeal. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed "de novo" (meaning, without deference to the views of the trial judge) both as to the determination that there is no remaining genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment#United_States
"A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to eliminate its risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through discovery, by demonstrating to the judge, by sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material issues of fact remaining to be tried. "
This paragraph is bugging me...does it mean that a kind of "agreement" is possible ?
I think that there is something else behind this action. The timing is not random.
@ Sarahli
Law can be difficult to interpret and I have posted a question on Andrew Mayoras probatelawyerblogs website to seek a legal perspective on the possible impact of LMP filing on Eliza's default judgement request. And yes I agree that the timing of LMP filing is indeed interesting!
With L.O.V.E
No agreement.
LMP is trying to have the judge decide that there isn't enough evidence or the evidence that Eliza has supplied isn't enough to support Eliza's claims and therefore the case doesn't warrant a trial.
Eliza can appeal the application for a summary judgment before the judge even looks at the case but she can also do nothing at this point.
In essence LMP is claiming insufficient evidence (or some other aspect of faulty evidence, countering evidence etc) to require a trial and asking the judge to dismiss the case before it ever gets to trial.
1.The judge can decide in favour of LMP's motion and dismiss the case.
2. LMP risks losing the case right here; the judge could decide that there is enough evidence in favour of Eliza's case and no trial is required.
3. The judge can also decide that the case should go to trial.
If the judge decides on a summary judgment in favour of LMP, Eliza can appeal that and again have her case heard at trial.
If the judge decides against LMP in a summary judgment and goes to trial, then this gives LMP grounds for an appeal AFTER the trial has occurred and a judgment has been given in the trial.
Or the judge could decide to deny the motion for a summary judgment and then go to trial.
Before there is a trial though, there are more steps that would have to be done (discovery, preliminary hearings maybe), asking for a summary judgment is a way of speeding things up and keeping costs down. It is asking the judge to decide the case without all the in-between steps to get to trial. It is now up to the judge where this is headed.
This whole thing could be going on for a while yet.
Eliza's case is a Petition for Paternity. The whole case is based on DNA evidence.
Now let's go back to the motion for summary judgment, filed by Lisa Marie Presley.
Mind, this case is based on DNA evidence, Eliza is showing the court by attached DNA results that she is the biological daughter of Vernon Elvis Presley and the half-sister of Elvis A Presley.
In my opinion, and please correct me if you think I'm wrong, the only way Lisa Marie could successfully file a motion for summary judgment is when the supporting evidence is a DNA test that shows that her DNA does not match Eliza's.
But...if Lisa Marie's DNA would not match Eliza's, or would not match as close as to be expected, that issue would raise some very difficult questions since the DNA reports submitted by Eliza show that Eliza and the person now referred to by many as "Jesse" are half-siblings, and Jesse in turn is biologically related to the known cousins on both sides of the family tree to Elvis Presley.
For some reason I don't believe that Lisa Marie now, after all this time, has provided her DNA, and in that case it wouldn't surprise me if her motion for summary judgment is going to be denied because of insufficient supporting evidence.
Thanks for this explanation in "layman's" English....it's much clearer now!!
Hopefully there will be a more detailed answer in the coming days.
With L.O.V.E
Thank you it's even clearer now; DNA is really an undeniable evidence. <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->