0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2011Attorney 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. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login (Please note that the red letters and yellow highlighting below within Attorney Mayoras's article were added by me for emphasis.) January 25, 2011Eliza Presley's lawsuit is dismissedEliza 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-201004:22 PM Notice (T) CALDWELL, KATHLEEN L Entry: OF APPLICATION MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 10-AUG-201009:57 AM Consent (T) Entry: CONSENT ORDER SUBSTITUTING COUNSEL 16-AUG-201004:12 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: You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginS T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E OFFICE OF THEATTORNEY GENERALPO BOX 20207NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37202August 9, 2010Opinion No. 10-91Jurisdiction Over Parentage Actions in Shelby CountyQUESTIONS1. 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?OPINIONS1. 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).ANALYSIS1. 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). 1As 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 ReporterBARRY TURNERDeputy Attorney General Page 4DIANNE STAMEY DYCUSDeputy Attorney GeneralRequested by:Honorable Jim KyleState Senator309 War Memorial BuildingNashville, TN 37243-0028Hayes 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.
Do I remember something about Sneddon having some law changed to suit his own agenda at the time of MJ's accusations?
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."
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!
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.
Lisa Marie sells Elvis rights for $100mBy: Elvis AustraliaSource: For Elvis Fans OnlyDecember 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 You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginQuoteWEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2011FOLLOWUP REGARDING THE COURT CASEI 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/page2lindahoodsigmontruth.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: You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginIn 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
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2011FOLLOWUP REGARDING THE COURT CASEI 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/page2lindahoodsigmontruth.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.
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).
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!!