Printable View
The New York Post is reporting today that Debbie Rowe is once again selling her children - this time to Katherine Jackson. And for the paltry sum of $4 million. :(
I won't be surprised if this turns out to be correct, but I figured she's want more money than that figure.
It's despicable but MJ was on the other end of the first business deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
That's a pretty good deal.
The six packs are way more expensive and harder to raise. Ask Jon and Kate?
------------------------------
And our esteemed mayor came out and told everyone that the city will pay for all the costs incurred by MJ's death.
I mean, if my mayor says it's O.K. than it must be O.K.?:D
I thought Debbie Rowe was going to fight for custody to make sure that Joe Jackson was out of their lives. I guess that $4 million will make her forget what Joe did to his own kids - especially MJ. If this story is true, then IMO, she's no better than he is.
Even if Katherine gets custody, you know JJ will do his utmost be exploit those kids - and who know what else.
News Flash -
Quote:
Debbie Rowe's lawyer: No deal in Jackson case
By Alan Duke
CNN
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- No deal has been reached between Michael Jackson's mother and his ex-wife over the custody of the late singer's children, according to a lawyer in the case.
Eric George, who represents Debbie Rowe, the biological mother of Jackson's two oldest children, demanded Tuesday that the New York Post retract its report that Rowe had agreed to take $4 million not to challenge Katherine Jackson for custody.
In a letter sent Tuesday afternoon to the newspaper's editor, George said the report "can only have been concocted with reckless disregard for the truth."
"There has been no agreement reached between Ms. Rowe and the Jacksons," George said.
While George said Rowe still has not decided if she will ask the court for custody or visitation, he said she will not try to get money from the Jackson family.
"Ms. Rowe has not accepted -- and will not accept -- any additional financial consideration beyond the spousal support she and Michael Jackson personally agreed to several years ago," George said.
The couple divorced in 1999 with Rowe giving Jackson full custody while she got a $8.5 million settlement, according to court documents. Jackson later agreed to additional support.
Jackson's lawyer has not responded to requests for comment Tuesday.
The Jackson family lawyer said last week that they were working to "privately and amicably resolve" the matter.
A child custody court hearing, which had been set for this week, was delayed until next Monday at the request of lawyers for Jackson and Rowe, a court official said.
Spousal support. Interesting way of saying "child sale".
I guess I should have expected to see this....
I was shopping in Sam's today and was looking thru the books. Lo and behold - guess what was there??? - a whole table of MJ commemorative books - at least 8 different ones. And these weren't old publications - all new and dealing with the current MJ state of affairs. And they weren't magazines - most were hard cover books.
The presses must have been rolling before he was even cold. :rolleyes: Anything for a buck, I guess. :(
Our newspapers are still full of things about MJ, and all the magazines, some are saying he was gay now, and even this guy saying he had been with MJ,so much controversy still going on as to whether the children are really his at all, and they think that the mother of the youngest will come forward and claim her child now, it will go on and on, it is the children i really feel for here.
Sorry to dig up this thread, but, I have to ask my family here if anybody has thought about this:
Tonight on E News, I'm hearing about the drug cocktail that Michael was given, by injection, before his death. I'm not sure how they could have proved this was given in injection. How would they know that?
The drugs listed were Valium @ 1:00 a.m. Ativan 2 mg. @ 3:00, a little later another injection of Valium, later, another injection of Ativan . 2 injections of Versed thrown in there somewhere. Then the IV of Propofol(I hope I'm spelling all these drugs correctly).
All of these drugs were given one right after another. If anyone here has experienced any of these drugs like I have, this many drugs would kill a horse. Unless, the person's system was so used to these types of drugs in these amounts. How could skinny little MJ have tolerated so many drugs over any period of time and still need something to make him sleep? Is it possible that he had used the drugs for so long, his body was immune?
One of the baffling things is that he was still awake, supposedly, after all these first 6 doses, and, the Propofol had to be given to knock him out. He must have been abusing for a very very long time.
My biggest beef with them charging the doctor is, how does anyone know for sure what Michael took by mouth before the other drugs were given? I mean drugs that were in pill bottles in his medicine cabinet and there for the taking. Suppose the doctor thought he was giving him a couple of small doses and Michael was swallowing pills left and right on his own.
Being the devil's advocate here, I can't help but wonder if the doctor may be charged with Michael's death without everything taken into consideration. That would be a shame.
I know there are toxicology reports done and results are available. I still can't figure out how the authorities know how and when all the drugs were ingested by Michael. Were there needles there on the premises that were tested? I just shudder to think that the media has once again ruined the lives of some people here that might be innocent.
If I go to the hospital to have surgery. The doctor tells me to take only my blood pressure pills and nothing else. Instead, I am in pain and I take three pain pills and 2 tranquilizers to calm my jitters. At the hospital the doctor gives me Propofol to knock me out and I die on the table.
Whose fault is my death?
Feedback welcomed and appreciated because this thing is driving me crazy.:confused:
MJ gets 15 pages?
Les Paul gets just six posts on this board.
Les Paul was 94.
NOT that I know anything about "legal" drugs????Quote:
Originally Posted by Daisy and Delilah
This is a great question.
If MJ was abusing legal drugs it's up to the doc to say, "DUDE, no way!"
The allure of money and being the "doc of the stars" is very appealing.
Any 'professional" will chart what is given and when, because this MD was working for MJ you would think he was noting what was given, when and how much. It still don't pass the smell test, but maybe he was charting for his own protection?
When drugs are scanned for in a live or dead body, they use a baseline to figure what is in the body.
They test the liver-that breaks down drugs and alcohol in the body and when they 'see' what the find in a biopsy, they can be sure of what was taken by the amount, weight of the person and their history!
The liver metabolizes chemicals and alcohol at a certain rate, if you have seen a BAC chart.
http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm
When an autopsy is done on a body?
The officials can do a 'backwards' check on the amount or percentage of the drug found on the body.
--------
When you have surgery you do a face to face with your surgeon or a anesthesiologist.
They will ask you if you smoke, drink or if you are 'medicated'.
You can lie and say you do not smoke or say that you don't drink a 30 pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon a day, but that is up to you and your family-in case you croak on the table!:eek::confused:
Les Paul did more for the music industry and our music culture then MJ did hands down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catty1
D&D:
Attached is a copy of the search warrant affadavit. On p 9 you will find Dr Murray's description of how he administered drugs for the two nights leading up to Michael's death, removing Propofol from the mix. On the third night, the removal did not work (and he had given a lesser amount of the other drugs, if I recall correctly).
blue, I agree with you.
Les Paul was an innovator, a genius, a creator. His performances were entertaining.
Jackson was an entertainer per se, and grew up in the generation that had a very different star-making machine.
It's a bit of an apple and orange comparison, IMO - Jackson, however fairly or otherwise - commanded worldwide attention and fandom.
Les Paul didn't need a dad to beat him into perfection - he was that already, innately. And I get the feeling he wouldn't have wanted the adulation and being a "star".
The Jackson kids - out-front entertainers, performers, with colour and glitz...like Elvis (who wrote half of one of his own songs). Different path.
A hybrid of the two paths might be found in the Beatles, where showmanship and creative talent both blended well and successfully.