TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Katherine Jackson

Won't Press Charges

Against Her Children

8/6/2012 5:00 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF
EXCLUSIVE

0805_katherine_jackson_tmzKatherine Jackson has no plans to press charges against her own children over her recent "trip" to Arizona ... a lawyer for the Jackson family matriarch tells TMZ. 

As TMZ first reported, Jackson's declaration following the Arizona spa ordeal -- which came as part of her bid to obtain co-guardianship over Prince, Paris, and Blanket -- seemed to suggest she was tricked into going and had no idea MJ's kids were worried about her. As part of the declaration, Jackson said, "At the time, I trusted the people I was with to be honest with me."

But Katherine's attorney, Perry Sanders, tells TMZ she has "absolutely" no plans to press charges over the incident, telling us, "This chapter of chaos is closed and we are supportive of family unity in spite of recent events and arguably poor decisions."

For now.

131 COMMENTS

No Avatar
46.

CloBird    

Katherine doesn't want to get her children into trouble, but the judge should press charges!

756 days ago
47.

DebbieGP    

does anyone else think having Katherine Jackson as co-executor after this debacle is a conflict of interest?

756 days ago
48.

HumanNature    

OhWell


Fermez la baise!!!!!

756 days ago
49.

lisa    

Why are her kids always referred to as her children? They're grown adults.

756 days ago
50.

Poule    

Thank god she does not press charges or they would bury her alive in the desert.

756 days ago
51.

HumanNature    

Poule

MY STATEMENT WAS MEANT FOR THE "TROLL"!!!!!


THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!!!


OK

756 days ago
52.

Poule    

Michael Jackson's fans are too emotional.

756 days ago
53.

Grace    

Katherine is too old for this job. TJ should be here guardian as well.

756 days ago
54.

HumanNature    

MAYBE, SOME PRANKSTER CAN'T COMPREHEND A SIMPLE STATEMENT THAT WAS NOT MEANT FOR THEM!!!!!

756 days ago
55.

HumanNature    

I APPLAUD MS ROSS FOR STEPPING UP AND INFORMING EVERYONE IN THE JACKSON FAMILY THAT SHE IS VERY MUCH "INVOLVE" WITH MJ3!!!!!


THE BOSS HAVE "SPOKEN"!!!!

756 days ago
56.

myopinion    

I know you didn't expect her to file charges against her children...LMAO

756 days ago
57.

duilama    

QE2

00
Of course not. She'd have to pay the bail and attorney fees. She may be old, but she's not stupid.

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

Jules, HN, Mimipoop and all rabid fans!


Wish you can say that about yourselves!


iPad 829

The day to burn all MJ craps!

756 days ago
58.

MiMi    


In all honesty, how many Mothers would press charges against one or more of their offspring? Unless it was for something much more drastic. Never expected that Katherine would, so in reality this should be no suprise.

Just waiting for Randy's next coup attempt....

Oh, and for those who may not be aware, OhWell is completely obsessed and enamored with me, hence the reason of him constantly hijacking my nic and my avatar.

Anyway, it is the only reason I can come up with for him constanlty trying to impersonate me.

756 days ago
59.

MiMi    

OhWell

You are one sick F++k........

756 days ago
60.

MiMi    

Cyber stalking laws in California

--


Last updated: July 23, 2012

Cal. Civil Code § 1708-1725

SECTION 1. It is the intent of this act to clarify that electronic communications are included in the actions that can constitute the crimes of harassment and stalking. It is not the intent of the Legislature, by adoption of this act, to restrict in any way the types of conduct or actions that can constitute harassment or stalking.

SEC. 2. Section 1708.7 of the Civil Code is amended to read:
1708.7.

A person is liable for the tort of stalking when the plaintiff proves all of the following elements of the tort:
The defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which was to follow, alarm, or harass the plaintiff. In order to establish this element, the plaintiff shall be required to support his or her allegations with independent corroborating evidence.
As a result of that pattern of conduct, the plaintiff reasonably feared for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member. For purposes of this paragraph, "immediate family" means a spouse, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any person who regularly resides, or, within the six months preceding any portion of the pattern of conduct, regularly resided, in the plaintiff's household.

"Pattern of conduct" means conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "pattern of conduct."
"Credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that communicated by means of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate family.
"Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
"Harass" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.

SEC. 5. Section 653m of the Penal Code is amended to read:
653m.

Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.
Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with intent to annoy another person at his or her residence, is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.
Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment

756 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web