Liveblogging Jackson’s Attorneys On Larry King

Lawyer

9:22  Three attorneys who all represent Joe and Katherine Jackson.  Basically, they’re about to feel how Michael felt when Joe punched and probably molested him.  That’s what his will is for.  Which just popped up.  Like Michael’s manhood at a Barney show.

9:25  Attorneys filed paperwork before knowing a will existed.  That’s because when the will is fully disclosed, Michael will be giving it to Joe and having the last laugh.  The will will control.  Not Joe.  Joe gets shit.

9:27  Joe Jackson was a “loving father.”  By “loving” he means sodomizing a child with a broomstick.

9:28  I’m shocked.  The Jackson attorneys do not see a conflict of interest.  One fine barrister represented Michael, Joe, Katherine, The Family… I can’t see any possible disputes there.  Except maybe the lawsuits or allegations of Joe punching 10 year old Michael in the face.

9:29  King calls these attorneys “legal eagles.”  These are those sorts of eagles who fly into a pile of horse dung and search for worms and rhinestones.

9:31  Nurse on live violating HIPPA.  She is disclosing private conversations, but, they are boring allegations of drugs.  I want information on how MJ paved the way for Barack Obama as Rev. Sharpton argued earlier.  Basically, shooting opiates and fucking boys leads to the presidency.

9:32  The drug is called “deprovan (sp?)” Micahel allegedly used.  That’s an an intravenous drug and used typically in hospitals.  It’s good if you want to take down an elephant.  Family law expert attorney does not think drug use will be appropriate conversation.  This is probably because her legal analysis is on par with a comatosed coyote.

9:35  The real attorneys provide a letter.  By “real” I mean the ones hired by MJ.  Will signed July 7, 2002.  Lawyers for “Jackson Family” on King stutter.  Now these faux lawyers know what Corey Feldman felt like.

have to say, King not calling these schmucks on this, is either him being retarded, a pussy, or a combination thereof.  I mean, his quetions are softer than Webster’s balls.

9:37  How do you spell “Debbie Roe?”  She has the kids. Michael willed the children to Debbie from AP reports. Too bad these douche attorneys are getting creamed and don’t know it.  They dodge basic questions like, “What about the will?”  What about the deceased’ views on a Neverland burial?  What does MJ think of Kobe Bryant?

Why didn’t Larry King ask the basic question whether these attorneys are entitled to speak for Michael by way of his permission?   Maybe that’s because Larry King is  washed up…  Much like the little boys Michael liked to wash up. But, that’s not important right now, is it Larry?  Spend the next hour talking to Brando’s kid.  He’s a gem.

9:40  Larry goes back to stroking the King Of Strokers.

Tags: , ,

3 Responses to “Liveblogging Jackson’s Attorneys On Larry King”

  1. Cube Says:

    This thing will make Anna Nicole rise from the Dead and free OJ’s spirit.

  2. Louis IX KingofFrawnce Says:

    so you noticed that a lawyer from the ana nicole trial showed up with blanket’s grandma.

  3. Dallas Criminal Defense Attorney Says:

    While we are taking on the topic of Liveblogging Jackson’s Attorneys On Larry King Cube, Some of the strongest criticisms of natural law have come from the positivist camp. Positivism holds at its centre the belief that law is not affected by morality, but in essence is the source of moral considerations. Because morality is a subjective concept, positivism suggests that the law is the source of morality, and that no extra-legal considerations should be taken in to account. Positivism has been criticised for allowing extremism and unjust actions through law. It has also been suggested that positivism in its strictest sense is flawed because it ignores the depth and breadth of language in legal enactment, which means the positive law can be read in different lights based on differing meanings of the same word. Despite this, positivism has been seen as one of the fundamental legal theories in the development of modern legal philosophy over the last few decades, and is winning widespread favour through a contemporary academic revival.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: