TIAI January 26

  • 22 Replies
  • 2426 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GodhaschosenMJ

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 177
    • Show only replies by GodhaschosenMJ

TIAI January 26

  • on: January 25, 2011, 10:33:33 PM
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline ignisaeternus

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 553
    • Show only replies by ignisaeternus

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 25, 2011, 10:38:51 PM
LOL- you beat me to it! Wow..I just saw this.

Ok, so it has not been dismissed because it was not founded, but because of a legal technicality.  Interesting.

Thank you, TS for shedding light on this matter.  After Eliza's blog entry the other day, I had a feeling that this was where things were headed.  

Also, interesting ending statement: "She never got her day in court."

Hm...Makes me think.  Michael did not get his day in court in 1994 when he settled on Jan 25th.  He was forever "found guilty"- just like maybe Eliza will be forever discredited if she does not push forward.
Of course, he did get his day in court in 2005- and, thanks to the press and media coverage, was still not "fully vinidcated." Of course, I know, he was legally, however, public opinion stayed murkey.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Hope is both the earliest and the most indispensable virtue inherent in the state of being alive. If life is to be sustained hope must remain, even where confidence is wounded, trust impaired."
Erik H. Erikson

Offline SoldierofLOVE

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 993
    • Show only replies by SoldierofLOVE

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 25, 2011, 10:53:02 PM
Quote
...The Court did not make a ruling on those grounds, or on the question of whether the defense had been properly submitted (based on whether the attorney who filed it really represented Lisa Marie Presley-Lockwood or not).   The Court also did not address the merits or validity of Eliza's DNA or other evidence.  So Eliza Presley did not "lose" her case; rather the Court declined to hear it.

As such, Eliza does have the option of refiling the paternity claim in another court (Juvenile Court, specifically), or attempt to appeal the ruling through the appellate court system.  Unfortunately, the long legal struggle and numerous legal hurdles Eliza and her lawyer have had to face have taken their toil on Eliza.
[/b]

But something about Eliza's post on her blog, 'Call Me Naive' and the fact that this court declined to hear her case because of some sort of change in what they will hear,  doesn't seem to fit with how devastated she is.  It also seems unfair that she was caught in the cross hairs because of a change of focus of the court in the middle of her case.  Seems like she would have been grandfathered in...  Gotta be more to it...  Maybe the power of Scientology does have a stronghold... Strange.  I'd like to know precedent for this sort of thing when a court is legally changed in the middle of someone's case.  
Quote
According to her attorney, Kathleen Caldwell, the lawsuit was dismissed because, after it was filed in August of 2009, the jurisdiction of the Chancery Court in Memphis was legally changed (as of August 2010).  The change means that paternity actions involving unmarried parents could no longer be heard in that court.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline GodhaschosenMJ

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 177
    • Show only replies by GodhaschosenMJ

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 25, 2011, 10:58:44 PM
This is soooo sad! I had hoped we could help raise money for her case. I was only able to donate $25, but every little bit helps I know!

So someone found a way out by having the court change their paternity case ruling back in Aug 2010? Sounds suspicious!!

We should of made a better effort in getting the media's attention so this could not be so easily swept under the rug!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline MJonmind

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 7290
    • Show only replies by MJonmind

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 25, 2011, 11:07:44 PM
I wonder how this will affect TS's "Elvis & MJ" and if TS will do a post about it. Yes I too suspect that Scientology power and money stopped this because it interfered with their agenda.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Serenitys_Dream

  • *
  • Guest
    • Show only replies by Serenitys_Dream

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 26, 2011, 12:08:39 AM
On her website, Linda suggests that Jesse is happy about this outcome.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2011
The opposing attorney, in the court case which is scheduled for Friday 14th, has filed an affidavit this afternoon...a stumbling block to the case hopefully

SUNDAY, JANUARY 23, 2011
I have learned this afternoon that the plaintiff in the court case involving Elvis's/Jesse's DNA has announced (in the form of a poem) that she did lose the case.  This is a wonderful result for Elvis's/Jesse's wishes and for his sake and for my own wishes too.

She should have listened on October 28, 2009, when Elvis/Jesse asked me to phone her and tell her to "STOP"...which I did immediately.  Jesse has not been supporting her and she has not been told by him that he was going to come out.

I do know 100% that the DNA is from Elvis Presley himself.  I am just so thankful that he has not been exposed through this court case.

Also, I would like to clear up one false statement that has been out there since the summer of 2008:  Elvis/Jesse did not "give" the DNA to the plaintiff.  She lifted it off of an envelope which he had licked in which he sent her a note.  He has lick sealed all of my envelopes for the past (almost) 19 years and I would never have done such a thing.

Here is a link to the plaintiff's blog in order that everyone may visit and read her announcement:

elizapresley.blogspot.com/

MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2011 --- UPDATE ON THE ABOVE COURT CASE
As anyone who has followed my web site will recall, I denounced the plaintiff's efforts to continue this case months ago and stated at that time that Elvis did not support her in this case.  So, it should not come as a shock to anyone that the case was defeated.  This is how it should have culminated.  What goes around comes around.

I can tell the details of what took place on the day of the hearing in the court room.  My dear friend Betty, who lives in Memphis, kept me posted on the events of the day.  The following is exactly how things unfolded in the open court room:

This was scheduled to be an open court hearing with no cameras nor recorders allowed.

The plaintiff herself was not present. The only parties in attendance were the two opposing attorneys.  Oddly enough the two attorneys appeared to be good friends, sitting together, visiting, laughing and talking.  When the case was finally called, the attorneys asked the judge for the case to be heard in the judges private chambers.  With that the judge, the two attorneys and the court recorder retired to the judges chambers.  This alone should indicate that something which was not to be known to the public was to be discussed and decided.

Also, something else of interest is that the Court Docket has not yet been updated to show the outcome of the case.  Normally, in the past, all events have been posted to the court docket very soon after taking place.  It has now been 7 business days and still there is nothing added on the docket indicating what took place on the 14th.

I have heard rumors about why the case was dismissed but I will report nothing until it is confirmed officially.  I will say, though, that if the reason I have heard is true then there would have been absolutely no reason for the case being heard in the judges chambers, there would be no reason for the delay in posting it to the court docket, and there would be no reason for the plaintiff to have worded her announcement of defeat in such a final way as she would have had other recourses of continued action.

I state the above in order that you may all understand how enormous the challenge of going against Elvis's own wishes was.  Thus, the bitterness expressed by the plaintiff toward him in her announcement of her loss of the case.
http://http://lindahoodsigmontruth.com/page57
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Yambo3003

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 291
    • Show only replies by Yambo3003

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 26, 2011, 12:51:10 AM
Totally sad and unfair. But the truth ALWAYS finds a way out....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

“Your life is like a ship. You're the captain of it. The way you steer it is the way that it is going to go.” ~ Michael Jackson

Offline Grace

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 2864
    • Show only replies by Grace

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 26, 2011, 01:29:17 AM
This case explains how jurisdiction as to its structure is working
(in addition to ongoing cases and potential concerns there):

If you don't want to handle the case, change the rules.

Again the system is not serving the people.

I am so sorry for Eliza.
Let's not lose hope here.
If it is important for Elvis and some other influencial persons to show that he's alive and for which reasons he did go undercover, there will be a pouring rain of money to support Eliza.
If it is not important however, case is closed.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Create your day. Create the most astounding year of your life. Be the change you want to see in the world! L.O.V.E.
***********************************************************************************************
"I am tired, I am really tired of manipulation." Michael Jackson, Harlem, New York, NY, July 6, 2002
***********************************************************************************************
******* Let's tear the walls in the brains of this world down.*******

Time to BE.

Offline Sarahli

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 4265
  • Love is the answer.
    • Show only replies by Sarahli

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 26, 2011, 03:36:38 AM
Wow they went that far... they literally changed the law to prevent Eliza to win .. boy. It just proves how solid the evidence is. But I remember TS said that Jesse's safety was in game ... so this can't just stop like that especially if this is a part of God's plan.

TS wrote:
Quote
I just happen to know something about Elvis/Jesse and his safety, that even Linda does not know. And what I have done and am doing is for his best interest and greatest safety—both in the present and future. If any are able to figure out The Source of what I’ve been presenting for more than a year now, they will know for certain that what I’m saying here is 100% true.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
We are here for you Michael and will always love you whatever happens.
'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
"You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them."

Online ~Souza~

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Hoaxer
  • *****
  • Mrs. SEHF
  • Posts: 10008
    • Show only replies by ~Souza~
    • Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 26, 2011, 04:59:28 AM
Baffled that such a thing even can be done when a case is already filed a year before....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline curls

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 3111
    • Show only replies by curls

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 26, 2011, 07:25:29 AM
Do I remember something about Sneddon having some law changed to suit his own agenda at the time of MJ's accusations?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline curls

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 3111
    • Show only replies by curls

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 26, 2011, 08:03:26 AM
Am I being extemely naive to think that maybe all this is because Jesse/Elvis wants it to stop, i.e. he doesn't want to be exposed? I'm fully prepared to take TPTB/Scientology etc into account but I don't think we can automatically run with the worst scenario. Just saying!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Online Andrea

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 3787
    • Show only replies by Andrea

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 26, 2011, 09:31:25 AM
For some reason I'm thinking that maybe this was supposed to happen - that her case would be dismissed...Whether Eliza was fully aware of this I'm not sure.  It just seems that if Elvis is in fact still alive AND her half-brother, that it will be revealed in a more obvious manner, then a quiet court case that nobody really knows about.  Sort of like how the BAM will happen in a big way.  And everything with the hoax seems to be timed so perfectly and IF Elvis decides to reveal himself as well, I imagine that would be at a specific time too.  Plus, Oprah revealed her half-sister on her show, in the way she wanted to.  I'm sure that if Oprah didn't want that public knowledge, it would've been quietly taken care of, probably with a huge cash settlement for her sister.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline PureLove

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 5891
  • To die would be an awfully big adventure.
    • Show only replies by PureLove

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 26, 2011, 09:37:48 AM
Quote from: "curls"
Am I being extemely naive to think that maybe all this is because Jesse/Elvis wants it to stop, i.e. he doesn't want to be exposed? I'm fully prepared to take TPTB/Scientology etc into account but I don't think we can automatically run with the worst scenario. Just saying!

I thought the same. Probably Elvis wanted it to stop, I don't know. But if it is not about Elvis, then this is so sad. I feel so sorry for Eliza. This is so unfair.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline paula-c

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 7597
    • Show only replies by paula-c
    • https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000669499472/986af9e4566ce7ab11ef8703e3b19b04_normal.jpeg

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 26, 2011, 10:04:13 AM
There would be read to refer legal Tecnis or if someone is influenced to case be dismissed. So reads the blog of Linda, Elvis was not interested in this case, he is not interested in appearing in the light of the world. I do not think Elvis will have BAM as TS said, I'm not saying that DNA is false. Maybe if this had been handled in a more discreet way the result would be another. Sorry for Eliza.

Offline Im_convincedmjalive

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Down Ass G!!! More thaN U know haha! ~Smile~
  • Posts: 1409
  • I'm Watchin From -2012- Twilight Zone!:)
    • Show only replies by Im_convincedmjalive

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 26, 2011, 01:27:12 PM
http://lindahoodsigmontruth.com/page57
Quote
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2011

Attorney Andy Mayoras has posted an update regarding Eliza Presley's case on his blog today...perhaps in response to my articles of the past two days.  Because he has always been accurate in his prior reports, I do not hesitate to post his statement. Therefore, I do present his link and his blog article below.

But, before doing so, I wish to clarify a few facts myself:

Because I do know some private background information, I stand by my statement that there is more to this turn of events than will ever be made public.  There are powers behind the ultimate public outcome of events.
 
I do want to make something clear, though.  It has occurred to me that I often fail to see things which I present from the perspective of those who have not lived my life for the past two decades and do not know all of the facts contributing to things about which the public sees only the surface results.  So, I fear that sometimes my statements may be misunderstood.
 
With that in mind, I want to make sure that everyone knows that Elvis/Jesse has not been unkind or unfeeling toward Eliza.  I never want anyone to think that he has mistreated her in any way.  He was kind to her.  He was not angry with her when he asked me to tell her to stop.  He knew that she had told me that the only way she would stop would be if he asked her to do so.  So, when he did ask her to stop, he did not do it in an unkind nor harsh manner.
 
In fact, he sent a Christmas gift to her by way of me in December after he asked her to stop in October, 2009.  Even knowing the things which she had done toward him which were very disloyal and unethical, he still treated her kindly...as did I myself.  I felt very compassionate for her dire personal circumstances and bent over backward to help her.  I now know that I was used and betrayed by her as were others who also responded to her pleas for help in order to just have shelter and other necessities to survive...or so we were all told.
 
I have attempted to take the high road in this situation and tell the truth as fairly as possible.  My first loyalty is always to Elvis/Jesse...it always has been and will always be.  I have always said that I would fight lions, tigers and bears for him and that will never change.  I will not have anyone think badly of him because he did not wish to have himself placed in danger in order that this woman could accomplish her purpose of proving that he is alive.  It would have robbed him of his physical safety, his peace of mind, his privacy, and the life style for which he gave up everything to acquire.
 
Her agenda was not just to prove that she is Vernon Presley's daughter, nor that she is Elvis Presley's half-sister...her goal was to prove that Elvis is alive.  That would have been her key to fame and fortune.  The ONLY DNA which she has with which to prove that she is a Presley is the DNA of Jesse who is Elvis Presley.  There was no way for the case to have been proven without proving that Elvis is alive.
 
There was no outcome of gain to be had from her proving that she is the daughter of Vernon Presley as there is no estate to be petitioned for any sort of compensation.  If her only goal was to be satisfied in knowing that she is his daughter, for her own peace of mind, she has already accomplished that with the lab results which she has in her possession.  Again, I have seen these lab results, just as has Attorney Mayoras, and I know that they are the truth.
 
Had she stopped when she was politely asked to do so, it would not have been necessary for any actions to have been taken to derail her case.
 
http://www.probatelawyerblog.com/2011/0 ... issed.html
 
(Please note that the red letters and yellow highlighting below within Attorney Mayoras's article were added by me for emphasis.)
 
January 25, 2011

Eliza Presley's lawsuit is dismissed
Eliza Presley's paternity lawsuit, seeking a judicial determination that Vernon Elvis Presley is her biological father, has been dismissed from Chancery Court.  The lawsuit, which The Probate Lawyer Blog has covered at length, was based in part on DNA evidence that Elvis Presley is still alive and is Eliza's half-brother.  
I interviewed Eliza Presley and she is very upset about this turn of events.  According to her attorney, Kathleen Caldwell, the lawsuit was dismissed because, after it was filed in August of 2009, the jurisdiction of the Chancery Court in Memphis was legally changed (as of August 2010).  The change means that paternity actions involving unmarried parents could no longer be heard in that court.

This is not the first jurisdictional hurdle her case has faced.  Eliza first filed suit in probate court, but she had to withdraw that case in January, 2009 due to similar jurisdictional grounds.

This recent dismissal was not based on the legal grounds raised in the motion to dismiss that had been filed against her.  [You can read the Amendment to the Motion to Dismiss filed against her here, and read the Response filed by Eliza's attorney].

The Court did not make a ruling on those grounds, or on the question of whether the defense had been properly submitted (based on whether the attorney who filed it really represented Lisa Marie Presley-Lockwood or not).   The Court also did not address the merits or validity of Eliza's DNA or other evidence.  So Eliza Presley did not "lose" her case; rather the Court declined to hear it.

As such, Eliza does have the option of refiling the paternity claim in another court (Juvenile Court, specifically), or attempt to appeal the ruling through the appellate court system.  Unfortunately, the long legal struggle and numerous legal hurdles Eliza and her lawyer have had to face have taken their toil on Eliza.  While she has always been a very determined person, she informed me that she is unable to continue with either legal option, for financial reasons.  This ordeal cost her a great deal of money and she has no resources to continue.

I have not spoken with Eliza since shortly after the court hearing on January 14th when this happened, and it appears I am not going to.  She posted a message on her blog that indicates, consistent with my last conversation with her, this really is the end of the road.

I wish Eliza Presley the best.  While what she was trying to do was certainly controversial, I for one did believe her.  It's too bad she never got her day in court.

Posted by:  Author and probate attorney Andrew W. Mayoras, co-author of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!  and co-founder and shareholder of The Center for Probate Litigation and The Center for Elder Law in metro-Detroit, Michigan, which concentrate in probate litigation, estate planning, and elder law.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below are the events of the court case docket for the same time period which I have noted in red and highlighted in yellow above in Attorney Mayoras's article:

06-AUG-2010
04:22 PM Notice (T) CALDWELL, KATHLEEN L  
Entry: OF APPLICATION MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
 
10-AUG-2010
09:57 AM Consent (T)    
Entry: CONSENT ORDER SUBSTITUTING COUNSEL
 
16-AUG-2010
04:12 PM Answer (T) BRADLEY JR, WILLIAM R  
Entry: TO COMPLAINT (BY THE NAMED DEFENDANT)

Also, by coincidence, the following question and answer was published by the Attorney General of TN...note the date on which this was published.  The question was asked by a state senator.  This certainly was a busy time regarding this line of thought, wasn't it?
HERE IS THE LINK AT WHICH YOU MAY READ THE FOLLOWING: http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2010/ag_10_91.pdf

S T A T E  O F  T E N N E S S E E

OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL

PO BOX 20207

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37202

August 9, 2010

Opinion No. 10-91

Jurisdiction Over Parentage Actions in Shelby County

QUESTIONS

1. Do Shelby County Circuit and Chancery Courts have jurisdiction over parentage actions brought under Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 36, Chapter 2?

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-307(a)(1), do Shelby County Circuit and Chancery Courts have jurisdiction under Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-104(f) over proceedings to establish the paternity of children born out of lawful wedlock and to determine any custody, visitation, support, education or other issues regarding the care and control of children born out of wedlock?

OPINIONS

1. No. As provided in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-307(a)(1), in a county that has a population between 825,000 and 830,000 according to the 1990 or subsequent federal census, only the juvenile court shall have jurisdiction of an action brought under Chapter 2, Title 36. As Shelby County fell within this population bracket according to the 1990 federal census, the Shelby County Circuit and Chancery Courts do not have jurisdiction over such actions.

2. No. Proceedings to establish the paternity of children born out of lawful wedlock and to determine any custody, visitation, support, education or other issues regarding the care and control of children born out of wedlock are parentage actions brought under Title 36, Chapter 2. Shelby County Circuit and Chancery Courts are not granted jurisdiction over such actions under Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-104(f).

ANALYSIS

1. In general, subject matter jurisdiction concerns the authority of a particular court to hear a particular controversy.

filed under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-2-301,

Circuit and chancery courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-10-101 and 16-11-102;

Meighan v. United States Sprint Comm. Co., 924 S.W.2d 632, 639 (Tenn. 1996). A court’s subject matter jurisdiction "relates to the nature of the cause of action and the relief sought and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court." Landers v. Jones, 872 S.W.2d 674, 675 (Tenn. 1994) (citations omitted). For parentage actions Page 2 et seq., subject matter jurisdiction is conferred on the appropriate juvenile, circuit, or chancery court, except in counties with populations between 825,000 and 830,000 according to the 1990 or subsequent federal census: The juvenile court or any trial court with general jurisdiction shall have jurisdiction of an action brought under this chapter; provided, that, in any county having a population not less than eight hundred twenty-five thousand (825,000) nor more than eight hundred thirty thousand (830,000), according to the 1990 federal census or any subsequent federal census, only the juvenile court shall have jurisdiction of an action brought under this chapter. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-307(a)(1). Stambaugh v. Price, 532 S.W.2d 929, 932 (Tenn. 1976). Shelby County, however, had a population between 825,000 and 830,000 according to the 1990 federal census. Thus, under the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-307(a)(1), the Shelby County Circuit and Chancery Courts do not have jurisdiction over parentage actions filed under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-2-301, et seq.1 2. Your second question asks whether Shelby County Circuit and Chancery Courts are conferred jurisdiction over parentage actions under Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-104(f), notwithstanding the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-307(a)(1). This later statute also grants jurisdiction to juvenile courts over parentage proceedings concurrent with circuit and chancery courts: Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the juvenile court has concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit and chancery court of any proceedings to establish paternity of children born out of lawful wedlock and to determine any custody, visitation, support, education or other issues regarding the care and control of children born out of wedlock. The court further has the power to enforce its orders. Nothing in this subsection (f) shall be construed as vesting the circuit and chancery courts with jurisdiction over matters that are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court under § 37-1-103. Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-104(f).
1

As this legislation creates an exception, through population brackets, to jurisdiction over parentage actions, it triggers scrutiny under Article XI, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution. The courts have consistently held that a legislatively-created classification within a statute will be upheld as long as there is any possible reason to justify the classification. Stalcup v. City of Gatlinburg, 577 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tenn. 1978). It is our opinion that a legitimate justification can be envisioned for the different treatment of parentage actions in counties with large populations.
In construing a statute, the primary goal of the courts is to give effect to the purpose of the legislature without exceeding its intended scope.

(Tenn. 2009). When a statute is unambiguous, a court will construe its meaning from the natural and ordinary meaning of the words chosen.

As a general rule, statutes on the same subject should be construed together harmoniously, so they do not conflict.

In construing Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 37-1-104(f) and 36-2-307(a)(1) together, it is possible to have a fair and reasonable construction that permits both of these statutes to stand together. Both of these statutes provide juvenile courts with concurrent jurisdiction with circuit and chancery courts over proceedings to establish paternity of children born out of wedlock. In looking at the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used in § 37-1-104(f), there is no indication of legislative intent to either confer or remove jurisdiction over parentage actions from circuit and chancery courts. Rather, this section addresses only the jurisdiction of juvenile courts. Thus, it is our opinion that the specific exception in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-307(a), depriving circuit and chancery courts in Shelby County of jurisdiction over parentage actions brought under Chapter 2, Title 36, is not irreconcilable with the later enactment of Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-104(f) and was not repealed by implication.

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR.

Attorney General and Reporter

BARRY TURNER

Deputy Attorney General Page 4

DIANNE STAMEY DYCUS

Deputy Attorney General

Requested by:

Honorable Jim Kyle

State Senator

309 War Memorial Building

Nashville, TN 37243-0028

Hayes v. Gibson County, 288 S.W.3d 334, 337 Page 3 State v. Flemming, 19 S.W.3d 195, 197 (Tenn. 2000). On the other hand, when a statute is ambiguous in that it is subject to varied interpretations producing contrary results, a court will construe its meaning by examining "the broader statutory scheme, the history of the legislation, or other sources." State v. Sherman, 266 S.W.3d 395, 401 (Tenn. 2008). In re Akins, 87 S.W.3d 488, 493 (Tenn. 2002) (citation omitted). When construing facially conflicting statutes, a court will give effect to the legislative intent "without unduly restricting or expanding a statute’s intended coverage." State v. Turner, 193 S.W.3d 522, 526 (Tenn. 2006) (citation omitted). There is a presumption that the legislature is aware of other statutes relating to the same subject matter. Shorts v. Bartholomew, 278 S.W.3d 268, 277 (Tenn. 2009). Accordingly, unless the newer statute expressly repeals or amends the old one, "the new provision is presumed to be in accord with the same policy embodied in the prior statutes." Id. Repeals by implication are disfavored in Tennessee and will be recognized "only when no fair and reasonable construction will permit the statutes to stand together." Cronin v. Howe, 906 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tenn. 1995). A court will hold a later statute to have repealed an earlier statute by implication only when the conflict between the statutes is irreconcilable. Id. See also Hayes v. Gibson County, 288 S.W.3d at 338.
The laws were changed during Eliza's case. There is alot more to this story and alot is not being said. I can imagine this is NOT easy on any of the parties involved. I do believe that the powers that be (having friends in higher powers) and Scientology have alot to do with the pressure to change laws for legal loopholes.

I do realize that LMP does not have much interest or stock left in the Estate. I did read somewhere that she had sold alot of her shares off. I do know about Scientology and their auditing ways and yes I believe that would be enough to blackmail LMP and her mom into not going against them.

Peace
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Im_convincedmjalive

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Down Ass G!!! More thaN U know haha! ~Smile~
  • Posts: 1409
  • I'm Watchin From -2012- Twilight Zone!:)
    • Show only replies by Im_convincedmjalive

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 26, 2011, 03:26:06 PM
Quote from: "curls"
Do I remember something about Sneddon having some law changed to suit his own agenda at the time of MJ's accusations?
Yes Snake Sneddon had a law changed.

http://www.latimes.com/sns-ap-michael-j ... 7226.story
Quote
Sneddon had baffled legal experts Wednesday when he seemed to imply at a nationally televised news conference that the new law lets prosecutors force minors to testify.

"The law in California at that time provided that a child victim could not be forced to testify in a child molest proceeding without their permission and consent and cooperation," Sneddon had said. "As a result of the (first) Michael Jackson case, the Legislature changed that law, and that is no longer the law in California."
Quote
curls wrote:
Am I being extemely naive to think that maybe all this is because Jesse/Elvis wants it to stop, i.e. he doesn't want to be exposed? I'm fully prepared to take TPTB/Scientology etc into account but I don't think we can automatically run with the worst scenario. Just saying!
viewtopic.php?f=78&t=17554
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline curls

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 3111
    • Show only replies by curls

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 26, 2011, 04:17:05 PM
Thanks Im_convinced, I'm keeping an open mind on this Eliza/Elvis situation. Some things are being kept secret but that doesn't automatically make the reasons for that sinister.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Im_convincedmjalive

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Down Ass G!!! More thaN U know haha! ~Smile~
  • Posts: 1409
  • I'm Watchin From -2012- Twilight Zone!:)
    • Show only replies by Im_convincedmjalive

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 27, 2011, 07:56:29 PM
Quote
I do realize that LMP does not have much interest or stock left in the Estate. I did read somewhere that she had sold alot of her shares off.
http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/news/li ... ghts.shtml
Quote
Lisa Marie sells Elvis rights for $100m
By: Elvis Australia
Source: For Elvis Fans Only
December 17, 2004 - 9:51:00 AM
Elvis News, Lisa Marie Presley

Lisa Marie Presley has sold 85% of all trademark rights to Elvis' name, likeness and image, intellectual property, including EPE's collection of photographs, archival documents and footage, successful music publishing catalogue and other investments.
The title to Graceland and its surrounding property, including most of Elvis' personal effects, will remain with Lisa Marie Presley.

Lisa Marie said: "I feel confident that Bob Sillerman and his team are the right people to do this with. "My greatest responsibility to my father is to preserve and protect his legacy, and this is an exciting new structure that opens up an incredible array of opportunities with a major infusion of new investment capital to do just that."

Lisa will collect $53 million ($A69 million) in cash and the rest will be split almost in half between preferred stock and debt repayments.

Below is a press release from EPE.

December 16, 2004 -- Robert F.X. Sillerman and his new media and entertainment company, which will be named CKX, Inc., have entered into a definitive agreement to acquire a majority interest in the assets comprising the estate of Elvis Presley.

The new partnership will conduct all business activities concerning EPE, Graceland and tour operations, however the transaction was structured so that the title to Graceland and its 13.6-acre grounds in Memphis, TN, and most of Elvis's personal effects remain with Lisa Marie Presley.

The new partnership includes all trademark rights to the name, likeness and image of Elvis Presley and all EPE-owned intellectual property, including its collection of photographs, archival documents and footage, and EPE's successful music publishing catalog, as well as the Graceland visitor center complex and Heartbreak Hotel across the street from the mansion and all other EPE real estate investments.

In a related transaction, Mr. Sillerman announced that he expects, through an affiliated entity, to acquire approximately 94 percent of the common equity of Sports Entertainment Enterprises, Inc. [OTC BB:SPEA.OB], an inactive publicly traded company, through which the business of CKX will be conducted. Please see Mr. Sillerman's and SPEA's releases for further information on this transaction.
"For the past few years I've been looking for someone to join forces with to expand the many facets of EPE, to take it to new levels internationally, and to make it an even greater force in the entertainment industry," said Lisa Marie Presley, singer/songwriter and sole heir to the Elvis Presley Estate. "I feel confidant that Bob Sillerman and his team are the right people to do this with. My greatest responsibility to my father is to preserve and protect his legacy, and this is an exciting new structure that opens up an incredible array of opportunities with a major infusion of new investment capital to do just that," continued Presley. "It's the ideal partnership in that I retain Graceland and my father's personal effects, yet joining forces with Bob Sillerman will give us the opportunity to grow even further the intellectual and entertainment properties."

Commenting on the transaction, Mr. Sillerman said, "I am extremely excited about our new venture, which we believe will bring unique concepts to different aspects of the utilization of entertainment content and will challenge the current models of distribution and consumption of content. I am fully committed to the success of CKX and there is no better way to launch our new company than by assuming the opportunity and responsibility, together with the Presley family and the current management of Elvis Presley Enterprises, of continuing and expanding the heritage of Elvis Presley. I believe Elvis to be the single most significant icon in American pop culture."

No staffing or personnel changes are anticipated within the EPE organization. Priscilla Presley remains as an executive consultant, Jack Soden remains as CEO and Gary Hovey remains Executive Vice President and head of the Los Angeles office. All of EPE's management team and staff will remain in place and Graceland tour operations will continue with business as usual.

EPE was created in 1980 by Priscilla Presley on behalf of the Elvis Presley estate. Its business extends far beyond the Graceland operation. It includes worldwide licensing of Elvis-related products and ventures, the development of Elvis-related music, film, video, television and stage productions, the ongoing development of EPE's Internet presence, the management of significant music publishing assets, the Heartbreak Hotel in Memphis and more.

Mr. Sillerman was the founder, a major shareholder and served as Executive Chairman of SFX Entertainment from its inception in 1997 until its sale to Clear Channel Communications in August 2000. SFX Entertainment was the largest presenter, promoter and producer of live events in the world. Prior to that, Mr. Sillerman was a founder, major shareholder and served as Executive Chairman of SFX Broadcasting, a major owner and operator of radio stations, from its inception in 1992 through its sale in 1998 to an affiliate of buyout firm Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst.

Note from EPE - Questions/Comments?

Knowing of what great interest this news is to Elvis fans worldwide, they anticipate many e-mail messages with inquiries and comments. EPE will not be able to answer all those messages individually. However, they will be posting more information here in the newssection on their site as it becomes available to share with you and they will be constructing a special Frequently Asked Questions section to respond to the collected inquiries and comments. Please send any messages to our general company e-mail address http://lindahoodsigmontruth.com/page57

Quote
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2011

FOLLOWUP REGARDING THE COURT CASE

I want to make sure that everyone does understand the seriousness of the attempt to expose Elvis/Jesse in court.  This could have placed him in harm’s way in an extremely dangerous manner.
In December, 2002, Elvis/Jesse wrote a letter to the Attorney General of Missouri in Hinton's defense against claims filed against Hinton.
In that letter, he explained that he would be "eliminated very easily" if he provided any more evidence that he is still alive.  That is the reason that I was panic stricken in 2008 when I heard that Eliza was telling people that he "gave her DNA".  I spoke with Jesse about this just as soon as I could and he assured me that I should not be upset about them having DNA as long as they did not know his location.
To refresh everyone's mind to the danger he would be in if he is publicly exposed, I am going to display (once more) the excerpt from his letter to the Attorney General of Missouri.
Please understand that this is not a "game" to be played for anyone else's benefit.  He has allowed me to continue my web site because he knows that I may convince some people that he is alive and is now Jesse...but that I will NEVER expose him in any way which could endanger him.
You may view the entire letter and the statement from the document examiner stating that it was written by Elvis Presley on my earlier pages at:
lindahoodsigmontruth.com/page2
lindahoodsigmontruth.com/page3
 
So, please do understand that the derailment of the court case is the very best thing that could have taken place for his well being.  Elvis/Jesse is a former Federal Agent and certainly deserves to be protected.

I do understand the need for Elvis/Jesse to live his life in peace with his safety being first. I wish the best outcome to all parties involved. On another note did anyone read the pdf files that were on the probate attorney Andrew W. Mayoras blog?

I did. Especially this one:
http://probatelitigation.typepad.com/fi ... sponse.pdf

In that response it goes into the issue of who the attorney William A. Bradley might truly have been representing. It wasn't LMP like it was assumed.

Peace
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline orion2010

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 3
    • Show only replies by orion2010

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 28, 2011, 09:23:03 AM
1. Legally, and beyond a reasonable doubt, Elvis Presley was declared dead on August 16, 1977. Therefore, any case pertaining to him still being alive would immediately be thrown out. Or to be more specific, the evidence submitted regarding claims that he is still alive, would be immediately DISMISSED (such as what occured on January 14th).. In a court of law, any claims he is still alive made on the stand under oath , would be considered perjury which is a serious felony. It is doubtful a credible lawyer would be able to submit any evidence that Elvis Presley is still alive, or that he is Jesse. If Eliza Tiffin, Linda Hood Sigmond or Dr. Donald Hinton go on the stand and say that "Elvis is Jesse" and that he is still alive ... it would be considered perjury.

2. No Jesse showed up in court. Where is the Jesse that Eliza talks about? All of Eliza's case was based on the "DNA Sample Evidence" from the supposed licked envelope of Jesse ... however NO JESSE showed up in court (by the way Eliza did not match the Elvis DNA ... this should be a tip to everyone that Eliza is not a Presley). I'm certain that the judge saw that since NO JESSE showed up in court there was no case (as this whole paternity court case is based on Jesse's DNA). This completely destroyed the credibility of the DNA evidence in court. Looks like Eliza was fooled by a fake Jesse.

3. Then there's all of the criminal records that Eliza has .... she has convictions for Identity Theft, Forgery, Extortion as well as numerous driving offences. I'm sorry but when original court documents have been provided that PROVES Eliza was found guilty of crimes, it does cast some negative light into her character. No judge in his right mind would believe her story due to her many criminal convictions.

Due to the above reasons ... no wonder her case was dismissed.

Perhaps now Eliza should go back to her original name Eliza Tiffin (as it was not proven in court that she is the daughter of Vernon Presley or the half-sister of Elvis).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline GodhaschosenMJ

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 177
    • Show only replies by GodhaschosenMJ

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 28, 2011, 12:20:04 PM
Quote from: "orion2010"
1. Legally, and beyond a reasonable doubt, Elvis Presley was declared dead on August 16, 1977. Therefore, any case pertaining to him still being alive would immediately be thrown out. Or to be more specific, the evidence submitted regarding claims that he is still alive, would be immediately DISMISSED (such as what occured on January 14th).. In a court of law, any claims he is still alive made on the stand under oath , would be considered perjury which is a serious felony. It is doubtful a credible lawyer would be able to submit any evidence that Elvis Presley is still alive, or that he is Jesse. If Eliza Tiffin, Linda Hood Sigmond or Dr. Donald Hinton go on the stand and say that "Elvis is Jesse" and that he is still alive ... it would be considered perjury.

2. No Jesse showed up in court. Where is the Jesse that Eliza talks about? All of Eliza's case was based on the "DNA Sample Evidence" from the supposed licked envelope of Jesse ... however NO JESSE showed up in court (by the way Eliza did not match the Elvis DNA ... this should be a tip to everyone that Eliza is not a Presley). I'm certain that the judge saw that since NO JESSE showed up in court there was no case (as this whole paternity court case is based on Jesse's DNA). This completely destroyed the credibility of the DNA evidence in court. Looks like Eliza was fooled by a fake Jesse.

3. Then there's all of the criminal records that Eliza has .... she has convictions for Identity Theft, Forgery, Extortion as well as numerous driving offences. I'm sorry but when original court documents have been provided that PROVES Eliza was found guilty of crimes, it does cast some negative light into her character. No judge in his right mind would believe her story due to her many criminal convictions.

Due to the above reasons ... no wonder her case was dismissed.

Perhaps now Eliza should go back to her original name Eliza Tiffin (as it was not proven in court that she is the daughter of Vernon Presley or the half-sister of Elvis).

Well hello Troll!! 2 post since Nov 2010! I don't think you will infuence any one here with your garbage!

1. The case was not IMMEDIATELY dismissed, it went on for a long while!

2. I don't think anyone was expecting Jesse to show up at the trial!!

3.Can you provide a link to see the original court documents that PROVE Eliza's charges??!!

 I'm confident she will be vindicated in some other way!! She will always be Eliza Presley!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Online ~Souza~

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Hoaxer
  • *****
  • Mrs. SEHF
  • Posts: 10008
    • Show only replies by ~Souza~
    • Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 28, 2011, 02:13:52 PM
Quote from: "GodhaschosenMJ"
Quote from: "orion2010"
1. Legally, and beyond a reasonable doubt, Elvis Presley was declared dead on August 16, 1977. Therefore, any case pertaining to him still being alive would immediately be thrown out. Or to be more specific, the evidence submitted regarding claims that he is still alive, would be immediately DISMISSED (such as what occured on January 14th).. In a court of law, any claims he is still alive made on the stand under oath , would be considered perjury which is a serious felony. It is doubtful a credible lawyer would be able to submit any evidence that Elvis Presley is still alive, or that he is Jesse. If Eliza Tiffin, Linda Hood Sigmond or Dr. Donald Hinton go on the stand and say that "Elvis is Jesse" and that he is still alive ... it would be considered perjury.

2. No Jesse showed up in court. Where is the Jesse that Eliza talks about? All of Eliza's case was based on the "DNA Sample Evidence" from the supposed licked envelope of Jesse ... however NO JESSE showed up in court (by the way Eliza did not match the Elvis DNA ... this should be a tip to everyone that Eliza is not a Presley). I'm certain that the judge saw that since NO JESSE showed up in court there was no case (as this whole paternity court case is based on Jesse's DNA). This completely destroyed the credibility of the DNA evidence in court. Looks like Eliza was fooled by a fake Jesse.

3. Then there's all of the criminal records that Eliza has .... she has convictions for Identity Theft, Forgery, Extortion as well as numerous driving offences. I'm sorry but when original court documents have been provided that PROVES Eliza was found guilty of crimes, it does cast some negative light into her character. No judge in his right mind would believe her story due to her many criminal convictions.

Due to the above reasons ... no wonder her case was dismissed.

Perhaps now Eliza should go back to her original name Eliza Tiffin (as it was not proven in court that she is the daughter of Vernon Presley or the half-sister of Elvis).

Well hello Troll!! 2 post since Nov 2010! I don't think you will infuence any one here with your garbage!

1. The case was not IMMEDIATELY dismissed, it went on for a long while!

2. I don't think anyone was expecting Jesse to show up at the trial!!

3.Can you provide a link to see the original court documents that PROVE Eliza's charges??!!

 I'm confident she will be vindicated in some other way!! She will always be Eliza Presley!!

Not to mention that Jesse and Eliza matched, so if he fooled her, her own brother fooled her. Now that's pretty something for 2 people who do not even know each other. Jesse didn't match Elvis' DNA, Elvis DNA (liver biopsy) didn't match Elvis DNA (autopsy), 'nuff said.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline orion2010

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 3
    • Show only replies by orion2010

Re: TIAI January 26

  • on: January 29, 2011, 03:30:33 PM
Ifound the following 'testimonial' on a message board by someone who identified him/herself as the 'insider'. I thought it was interesting enough to share here:

The Elvis Alive stories started in September 1977 with the coffin photo of Elvis in the National Enquirer. I have the tapes of a fan club president and a member of Elvis's MM talking about turning Graceland into a tourist industry, and they were trying to run down who took the coffin photo.

The Elvis Alive book stories started in 1978, with the Orion book. Mae Axton, and Colonel Tom Parker were behind the Orion book that Gail had published.

How do I know Parker and Axton were involved? Letters, and court documents which I have had published in books, and on the internet. Axton and Parker are mentioned in the lawsuit that Gail Brewer Giorgio filed against Arthur for having his name put on the book. The contact stipulated only Gail's name was to be on the book.

Gene Arthur was the front money man for the book. Gene Arthur, Neil Boortz, Charles Searle, and Gail Brewer Giorgio were on the copyright.

Enter: Jimmy Ellis Orion who was to help promote the book. He was named after Gail's fictional character: Orion Eckly Darnell. I have all the interview tapes with Gail, Jimmy, Gene Arthur, and Shelby Singleton who owns the trademark on the Orion Mask. Jimmy was known as the masked singer Orion. Shelby was to do the promotion on the Orion book with the masked singer Orion.

When Gail sued Arthur, the William Morris Agency dropped Gail. It had been representing her, but pulled out after the suit was filed. The Orion book didn't get off the ground.

In 1981, Steven Chanzes came out with his book, "Elvis Where Are You?" He sold the tape with his book, the same tape Gail later sold with her book in 1988. It was the "Sivle Nora" scam. J.D. Sumner was involved with it. Kathy Westmoreland states in her book that J.D.Sumner was involved in the Silve Nora scam, and that he asked her to be part of it. She refused. J.D. mentions on a radio show from around that period that it was a "wax dummy" in the casket.

That tape is Elivs Presley. He was talking to Ellen Marie Foster. Ellen Marie looked like Glady Presley, and Elvis gave Ellen his mother's ring. The film "Heartbrak Hotel" is about Ellen Foster. Ellen's voice was brushed out of the tape.

Elvis called Elllen many times, and the calls are on the tape. How did Steve Chanzes get ahold of the tape with Ellen and Elvis? Ellen gave the tape to Tom Sanocki, who ran a fan club out of Chicago, and the tape was given to Chanzes.

In Chanzes book, he mentions a "terminally ill double" was to take Elvis's place in the casket. Ellen said she got the information about the double from Billy Smith, and Marty Lacker. In the newsletter For The Record, dated 1981, Billy and Marty called Ellen a "liar," said they never told Ellen anything about a double replacing Elvis. These two said she was "mentally ill" and in serious need of medical attention! Well, guess what? In Revelations From The Memphis Mafia, published in the the 1990's, Billy and Marty talked about the "terminally ill double" who was to replace Elvis in the casket!!! Billy said the double called him in the wee hours of the morning and told him that he was terminally ill and was to replace Elvis in the casket! Who are the liars here? Not Ellen.

Charlie Hodge sued Steve Chanzes for mentioning his name in connection with pulling the plug on the double. I have the court records, and Charlie won a small settlement. He sued for a million and it was settled for twenty-five hundred, which was to be paid to Charlie in monthly increments till it was paid off.

Steve authorized the "Do You Know Who I Am" Album. I have the album. In the grove it says "Elvis, Inc."

Colonel Parker was behind the Chanzes scam. When Charlie filed the lawsuit, Steve Chanzes was dropped and the Elvis Alive stories didn't get of the ground.

Steve later came out with the book under a different name, and it was entered into evidence.

In 1988, Gail came out with the Is Elvis Alive book, and the Elvis alive rumors got off the ground and turned Graceland into a multimillion dollar industry.

Graceland and Colonel Parker were behind the Gail Brewer Giorgio book. In fact, all the scams out there Graceland is behind.

The name of the game is deny and imply. Graceland denies, and Gail Giorgio implies.

Does that mean Elvis is dead? NO! I knew Elvis Presley. Will I prove it to anyone: No. Not out of loyality. I owe Elvis nothing. He owes me nothing. I knew him, and nobody has to believe it.

Will I show my documents on all of this. No. They have been published in books, newletters, and any information I give can be obtained by writing Courthouses where the suits were filed. If you want the information I will tell you where it can be obtained.


You want evidence and documentation of who was behind the Elvis alive rumors? Transcripts can be obtained from the Superior Court in Marietta, GA, from Broward County in Floridia. Graceland, and Col Parker were behind all the lies out there.

My facts have spoke for themselves thru court documents, letters, newsletters, and interview tapes with Mae Axton, Shelby Singleton, Jimmy Ellis Orion, Gene Arthur, and all the people involved in these scams! My documents are in several books, and in newsletters.

If you want answers, do research, and run down documents in courthouses.

I am not going to expend energy posting documentation on this board. For one it is in storage, and for another it can be obtained by research. I am here on this board because I was asked to give information on some of the scams, the same information I have given in books along with the documentation.

Elvis did go into a como. He suffered from septic shock. He was in a wheel chair for a time. He was severely handicapped.

As to him being handicapped, Larry King mentioned it on his show with Priscilla Presley as a guest. I don't recall what year on LKL, but it was approximately 3 years ago. You can look up the transcripts for his show.

I don't know who was in the coffin. What I do know is Gene Smith, Elvis's cousin, told me it was a "wax dummy."

The name of the "terminally ill" is Scott Enos. He lived in the north.



 
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »