Posted by admin on 2004/6/18 12:17:56 (604 reads)
[url="http://]
[/url]
Dimond Trying to Cover for her ‘confidential source’? — MJEOL Bullet #157
Blaming Prime Time Live interview and resulting lawsuit for her having the ability to leak sealed court documents?
Sinking to a new low, tabloid reporter Diane Dimond appeared to be blaming an old interview and a resulting lawsuit for the existence of the 93 settlement agreement which was illegally leaked to her recently.No, I’m not kidding.Dimond appeared on Court TV’s Crier Live (June 17 2004) and insinuates that blame lies with the targets of a lawsuit–Michael Jackson, Lisa Marie Presley (LMP), and others–for her being able to get her leaking little hands on the document.
Diane Dimond on Court TV's Crier Live June 17 2004
Dimond stated on the show that she had been asked numerous times how she came about the document. She claimed she couldn’t reveal her “confidential source”, but apparently she’s not averse to revealing confidential, court sealed documents that have nothing to do with her. She didn’t want to talk about her “confidential source” and the possibly illegal actions taken to obtain the court sealed 93 settlement agreement. Some observers say that these comments suggest that Dimond is trying to deflect the attention off of her, and her “confidential source”, by trying to throw the blame onto someone else.
At one point in a report she filed with Court TV, Dimond specifically says:It was Michael Jackson’s own wife who caused this [1993 settlement agreement document] to become part of the record. (hear audio// see [url="http://]video[/url])
And she said it with a straight face.
Also in the report Dimond filed with Court TV, she talks about what she claims were the circumstances around the 93 settlement agreement document, in its redacted form, coming into existence:Ironically, this redacted settlement agreement obtained by the Court TV investigative unit stemmed from the ABC lawsuit. The boy’s family also named Jackson’s wife Lisa Marie, as co-defendant. But by the time the suit was filed, the Jacksons had split up. And Lisa Marie’s attorney successfully argued that he couldn’t defend her for breaking the settlement if she’d never seen the settlement. The judge in the case ordered this edited copy to be given to Mrs. Lisa Marie Jackson, minus some of the specific payout information. [/B]
Had it not been for the Chandler lawsuit as a result of the Diane Sawyer Prime Time Live interview, the document may not have existed, and she may not have gotten her hands on it! That’s her take on it. That’s her response when asked why she was able to get it. It’s LMP’s fault the sealed document, Dimond got her hands on, even came in existence? Therefore, I guess Dimond thinks she should be absolved of her blame in leaking the confidential, court sealed document to the public?? If I hadn’t heard it with my own ears, I wouldn’t have believed the back-peddling and attempts to insinuate blame with Jackson, LMP, her lawyers, and anyone else.
On that Crier Live show (June 17 2004), Dimond even claims that Presley was “flabbergasted” that there was a settlement:CRIER: Ok Now…what about Lisa Marie Presley? It just all went away?
DIMOND: It all went away.
CRIER: She was left alone?
DIMOND: Everything went away because come on, she wasn’t even married to the man when he signed this agreement. And apparently from everything I can gather from people in the courtroom at the time, she was flabbergasted that there was such an agreement. She didn’t know. She was sitting there talking to Diane Sawyer agreeing with her husband.
Huh? “She didn’t know”? There’s no way in hell Presley didn’t know about the agreement. At one point in the actual Prime Time Live ABC interview, Presley even mentions that Jackson can’t discuss specifics of the agreement because of the confidentiality agreement. So how could she not have known, as Dimond claims? Did Dimond just make a mistake, is she lying on purpose, or is she a compulsive liar when it comes to Jackson news?
In an exchange with Catherine Crier, Dimond practically blames Jackson and Chandler’s second lawsuit for her being able to gain access to the details of the 1993 settlement:CRIER: Now, what about the Diane Sawyer interview? If Michael had simply looked at Diane when she said this, and said ‘I can’t comment about this’, ‘I can’t talk about it’ …
DIMOND: Then I wouldn’t have this in my hand today probably…
CRIER: …because they wouldn’t have been sued, Lisa Marie Presley wouldn’t have needed her copy…
DIMOND:…She wouldn’t have gotten this redacted copy. And..right. You have to know, you know, you’ve talked a lot to clients before. You have to tell them, ‘You’ve gotta be quiet forever’. He had to know when he opened his mouth and answered one question, even one question about the case, he was in violation of this agreement.
So it’s Jackson’s fault that she’s essentially breaking a sealed confidentiality agreement. Using that logic, what’s to stop someone from leaking the court sealed grand jury transcripts in this current “case” to Dimond, then? And where does it end?
She claims it’s because Jackson violated the terms of the agreement that the document came into existence. Not so. Jackson was not in violation of the 1993 settlement agreement. In fact, the entire lawsuit was thrown out of court, and Jackson won the portion of the suit that went to arbitration.
But Dimond claimed not to know what happened on Crier’s show:CRIER: And what happened as a result of that?
DIMOND: Well that’s a good question. It was bifurcated, split in two by the judge. The part about Michael Jackson went to arbitration because in the settlement, that’s what was supposed to happen. So that’s secret. We don’t know if the family got anything additional.
Oh yes, we do know the result of that arbitration. And no, the Chandler’s didn’t get one more dime from Jackson.
As noted in an August 20 1999 article called “Jackson Scores Court Win,” published by E!Online’s Marcus Errico, the arbitrator in charge of deciding whether or not Jackson violated the 93 settlement agreement ruled in Jackson’s favor. This is from that article:Michael Jackson's latest victory tour came in a California court last month, as he won a lawsuit filed by the father of the teen boy the singer allegedly molested years ago, it was reported this week.
[Jackson] was officially deemed the winner July 26, when an arbitrator ruled in the pop star's favor, according to the Santa Barbara News-Press…
The father said the comment violated the terms of the original suit and damaged his family's reputation. The arbitrator disagreed and found for the entertainer. (see [url="http://]article online[/url] or see it [url="http://]here[/url])
I guess non-negative Jackson information seems to slip through the cracks where Dimond is concerned. Jackson has maintained his innocence since a joint statement issued by Jackson’s attorneys and Larry Feldman in 1994.
In that second lawsuit filed against Jackson, ABC, LMP and others, Evan Chandler (the father of the 93 accuser) also claimed that Jackson targeted him in his HIStory album; even wanted Jackson to pay for, produce and promote a CD called “EVANstory”. I kid you not.
An article entitled “Settlement Not Enough” from USA Today dated June 24 1996 states:Chandler, who between root canals co-wrote the screenplay for the movie Robin Hood: Men in Tights, wants at least $60 million to settle his latest complaint against the pop music king. He also wants an album. Not a copy of HIStory, the Jackson album he cites in his suit. Chandler wants a court order "to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for sale" his own musical composition - something he calls "EVANstory." And, yes, he wants to be taken seriously. (see [url="http://]article[/url])
Come to think of it, Dimond was back-peddling on Crier’s show so much, I thought we were going back in time. Gone was the reference to that [url="http://]statement #44[/url] from Feldman’s original lawsuit, which she incorrectly used to explain the form of “negligence” settled by the insurance company(ies) in the 93 settlement.
That asinine statement #44 claimed that Jackson negligently sexually molested the 93 accuser. First, you can’t negligently molest anyone. It’s illogical. Second, insurance companies don’t pay settlements for negligent sexual molestation of a minor. What we do know, from reading the actual 93 settlement document is that the “negligence” cited in the 93 settlement agreement had nothing to do with sexual molestation. It’s right in the agreement itself:g. The parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth…are in settlement of claims by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler and June Chandler for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation. (page 7)
It doesn’t get any clearer than that, yet Dimond–in chicken-little fashion–initially claimed that Jackson admitted to negligent sexual molestation in the 93 agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth. I guess someone finally pointed it out to her. Or maybe she’s still stupidly holding on to the illogical ‘negligent molestation’ statement from Feldman’s original lawsuit. Either way, her previous ramblings were mysteriously absent from yesterday’s (June 17 2004) report. But don’t worry. She procured another “hack” journalist to spout lies about Jackson to fill time: Maureen Orth (‘Wacko Ortho’).
Orth talking to Dimond in her report aired on Court TV's Crier Live June 17 2004
During the report, Orth defamed Jackson by claiming a number of unfound, unsubstantiated and unproven things, without providing one shred of documentation or other proof to back up the claims. And seeing as how Dimond could be about to get into a serious load of legal trouble for the leak, she essentially let Orth, too, dig a hole for herself. It was like watching someone board the sinking Titanic.
In yet another attempt to poison a jury pool with false information, Orth claimed, in the Dimond report, that the nude photographs of Jackson taken by prosecutors in 1993 matched the accuser’s description he gave. Orth says:Orth: Under much duress, he finally was photographed and the two matched. And therefore that is what makes this agreement possible because the boy graphically described Michael Jackson’s private parts. The photographs that the prosecutors took matched them. And that allowed for the amount of money to exchange hands.
Not so, says our sources, and USA Today and Reuters sources at the time the 93 case was on-going.
From the USA Today archive comes the article entitled “Photos May Contradict Michael’s Accuser” dated Jan 28 1994. The article states:An unidentified source told Reuters news service Thursday that photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.
If so, this could weaken any possible criminal actions against the singer. Already, speculation that the 14 year old boy may not be willing to cooperate with official is swirling. (see article[url="http://]online[/url] or view entire article [url="http://]here[/url])
There was no matching description. Additionally, sources say the 93 accuser gave varying descriptions of Jackson’s body; allegedly saying at one point that Jackson looks like a black man from the waist down, to changing the description to say Jackson is all white from the waist down, to changing it again to say something different.
As for the Orth-alleged “graphic” matching description, sources have seen the alleged photograph drawn by the accuser. They say it is anything but graphic. “It’s not even a diagram, there’s nothing pointing to various parts to illustrate specifically what it looks like,” says one viewer of the photograph. Another source that saw it says, “That drawing is utterly ridiculous. It could have been anything. A five year old child could have drawn that.”
The USA Today article also states what we have confirmed by reading the 93 Settlement Agreement: The 93 settlement DID NOT stop the accuser from testifying at a possible criminal trial in 1993 if he wanted to:The boy’s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy’s lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will.
The statement from the 93 accuser’s own attorney smashes the notion that the 93 settlement agreement was the reason why there was no criminal trial. It was not the reason why he stopped cooperating with prosecutors nor was it the reason they stopped cooperating with law enforcement.
Jackson didn’t buy himself out of anything. In fact, as reported earlier, sources say Jackson’s lawyers–who lost a motion in 93 to halt the civil suit until the criminal trial had been resolved–wanted to get the civil suit out of the way and prepare for any upcoming criminal proceedings.
The judge who denied the defense motion has since come out, when news of this new charge broke, and publicly expressed that he thought Jackson was guilty in 93 even though no evidence was presented to him in court because there were never any criminal charges brought. I guess that’s the way they do it in Salem….uh, I mean Santa Barbara County. I guess prosecutors want to bind Jackson’s wrists and throw him in a river. If he floats, he’s a child molester. If he sinks and drowns, he’s not. Dont’cha just love that logic? Good grief.
Getting back to Dimond’s report: So what else did the dynamic duo of defamatory dumbness say? Apparently, Orth thinks that everyone who’s ever worked for Jackson are accomplices to child molestation as well. Orth states in Dimond’s report:Michael Jackson has absolutely enjoyed an almost impenetrable shield of protection of people who would rather get paid by him than worry about the protection of young children.
Unbelievable.
Dimond is still claiming, without showing one iota of data to back up the claims, that Jackson “may” have “paid out as much as $10M” on top of the approximately $15M stated in the 1993 agreement. The only dollar figure quoted in the actual settlement agreement is $15,331,250. Sources have said for years that all other expenses were paid out of that final amount, $15M according to the documents at Court TV, which included everybody else who may have gotten a cut of this insurance negligence settlement.
What can be done about Dimond’s behavior and the behavior of the person or persons who leaked the court sealed 1993 settlement agreement to her? Who knows. Jackson released a statement in which he says that, as of yet, no one has opened an investigation into finding out who leaked the information:“No action or investigation has been taken to determine who is leaking this information or why they are permitted to violate the law in such a manner. I respectfully request that people see these efforts for what they are.
“These kinds of attacks and leaks seek to try the case in the press, rather than to a jury who will hear all of the evidence that will show that I did not, and would not, ever, harm a child. I have always maintained my innocence and vehemently denied that these events ever took place. I reluctantly chose to settle the false claims only to end the terrible publicity and to continue with my life and career. (see [url="http://]MJJSOURCE.com[/url])
Apparently Larry Feldman isn’t filing a claim for damages because his 1993 client’s privacy was just violated by the leaking of this document, in the same way he’s filed a claim for damages against LA Child services for the explosive [url="http://]memo leak[/url]. I wonder if it’s because this leak to Dimond is seen as negative information towards Jackson–although I don’t know why because if you actually read contents of the document, it actually partially confirms what Jackson has been saying for years.
As for Dimond, she has shown absolutely no remorse at all in leaking this court sealed document. Of course, who in their right mind ever thought she would? Whether this is the straw that broke the camel’s back in finally opening up the rest of the media’s eyes to how some of their colleagues enjoy suspicious perks with prosecutors/law enforcement/etc, I don’t know. But I have a strange suspicion that we all better stay tuned.
-MJEOL
[url="http://]
Dimond Trying to Cover for her ‘confidential source’? — MJEOL Bullet #157
Blaming Prime Time Live interview and resulting lawsuit for her having the ability to leak sealed court documents?
Sinking to a new low, tabloid reporter Diane Dimond appeared to be blaming an old interview and a resulting lawsuit for the existence of the 93 settlement agreement which was illegally leaked to her recently.No, I’m not kidding.Dimond appeared on Court TV’s Crier Live (June 17 2004) and insinuates that blame lies with the targets of a lawsuit–Michael Jackson, Lisa Marie Presley (LMP), and others–for her being able to get her leaking little hands on the document.
Diane Dimond on Court TV's Crier Live June 17 2004
Dimond stated on the show that she had been asked numerous times how she came about the document. She claimed she couldn’t reveal her “confidential source”, but apparently she’s not averse to revealing confidential, court sealed documents that have nothing to do with her. She didn’t want to talk about her “confidential source” and the possibly illegal actions taken to obtain the court sealed 93 settlement agreement. Some observers say that these comments suggest that Dimond is trying to deflect the attention off of her, and her “confidential source”, by trying to throw the blame onto someone else.
At one point in a report she filed with Court TV, Dimond specifically says:It was Michael Jackson’s own wife who caused this [1993 settlement agreement document] to become part of the record. (hear audio// see [url="http://]video[/url])
And she said it with a straight face.
Also in the report Dimond filed with Court TV, she talks about what she claims were the circumstances around the 93 settlement agreement document, in its redacted form, coming into existence:Ironically, this redacted settlement agreement obtained by the Court TV investigative unit stemmed from the ABC lawsuit. The boy’s family also named Jackson’s wife Lisa Marie, as co-defendant. But by the time the suit was filed, the Jacksons had split up. And Lisa Marie’s attorney successfully argued that he couldn’t defend her for breaking the settlement if she’d never seen the settlement. The judge in the case ordered this edited copy to be given to Mrs. Lisa Marie Jackson, minus some of the specific payout information. [/B]
Had it not been for the Chandler lawsuit as a result of the Diane Sawyer Prime Time Live interview, the document may not have existed, and she may not have gotten her hands on it! That’s her take on it. That’s her response when asked why she was able to get it. It’s LMP’s fault the sealed document, Dimond got her hands on, even came in existence? Therefore, I guess Dimond thinks she should be absolved of her blame in leaking the confidential, court sealed document to the public?? If I hadn’t heard it with my own ears, I wouldn’t have believed the back-peddling and attempts to insinuate blame with Jackson, LMP, her lawyers, and anyone else.
On that Crier Live show (June 17 2004), Dimond even claims that Presley was “flabbergasted” that there was a settlement:CRIER: Ok Now…what about Lisa Marie Presley? It just all went away?
DIMOND: It all went away.
CRIER: She was left alone?
DIMOND: Everything went away because come on, she wasn’t even married to the man when he signed this agreement. And apparently from everything I can gather from people in the courtroom at the time, she was flabbergasted that there was such an agreement. She didn’t know. She was sitting there talking to Diane Sawyer agreeing with her husband.
Huh? “She didn’t know”? There’s no way in hell Presley didn’t know about the agreement. At one point in the actual Prime Time Live ABC interview, Presley even mentions that Jackson can’t discuss specifics of the agreement because of the confidentiality agreement. So how could she not have known, as Dimond claims? Did Dimond just make a mistake, is she lying on purpose, or is she a compulsive liar when it comes to Jackson news?
In an exchange with Catherine Crier, Dimond practically blames Jackson and Chandler’s second lawsuit for her being able to gain access to the details of the 1993 settlement:CRIER: Now, what about the Diane Sawyer interview? If Michael had simply looked at Diane when she said this, and said ‘I can’t comment about this’, ‘I can’t talk about it’ …
DIMOND: Then I wouldn’t have this in my hand today probably…
CRIER: …because they wouldn’t have been sued, Lisa Marie Presley wouldn’t have needed her copy…
DIMOND:…She wouldn’t have gotten this redacted copy. And..right. You have to know, you know, you’ve talked a lot to clients before. You have to tell them, ‘You’ve gotta be quiet forever’. He had to know when he opened his mouth and answered one question, even one question about the case, he was in violation of this agreement.
So it’s Jackson’s fault that she’s essentially breaking a sealed confidentiality agreement. Using that logic, what’s to stop someone from leaking the court sealed grand jury transcripts in this current “case” to Dimond, then? And where does it end?
She claims it’s because Jackson violated the terms of the agreement that the document came into existence. Not so. Jackson was not in violation of the 1993 settlement agreement. In fact, the entire lawsuit was thrown out of court, and Jackson won the portion of the suit that went to arbitration.
But Dimond claimed not to know what happened on Crier’s show:CRIER: And what happened as a result of that?
DIMOND: Well that’s a good question. It was bifurcated, split in two by the judge. The part about Michael Jackson went to arbitration because in the settlement, that’s what was supposed to happen. So that’s secret. We don’t know if the family got anything additional.
Oh yes, we do know the result of that arbitration. And no, the Chandler’s didn’t get one more dime from Jackson.
As noted in an August 20 1999 article called “Jackson Scores Court Win,” published by E!Online’s Marcus Errico, the arbitrator in charge of deciding whether or not Jackson violated the 93 settlement agreement ruled in Jackson’s favor. This is from that article:Michael Jackson's latest victory tour came in a California court last month, as he won a lawsuit filed by the father of the teen boy the singer allegedly molested years ago, it was reported this week.
[Jackson] was officially deemed the winner July 26, when an arbitrator ruled in the pop star's favor, according to the Santa Barbara News-Press…
The father said the comment violated the terms of the original suit and damaged his family's reputation. The arbitrator disagreed and found for the entertainer. (see [url="http://]article online[/url] or see it [url="http://]here[/url])
I guess non-negative Jackson information seems to slip through the cracks where Dimond is concerned. Jackson has maintained his innocence since a joint statement issued by Jackson’s attorneys and Larry Feldman in 1994.
In that second lawsuit filed against Jackson, ABC, LMP and others, Evan Chandler (the father of the 93 accuser) also claimed that Jackson targeted him in his HIStory album; even wanted Jackson to pay for, produce and promote a CD called “EVANstory”. I kid you not.
An article entitled “Settlement Not Enough” from USA Today dated June 24 1996 states:Chandler, who between root canals co-wrote the screenplay for the movie Robin Hood: Men in Tights, wants at least $60 million to settle his latest complaint against the pop music king. He also wants an album. Not a copy of HIStory, the Jackson album he cites in his suit. Chandler wants a court order "to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for sale" his own musical composition - something he calls "EVANstory." And, yes, he wants to be taken seriously. (see [url="http://]article[/url])
Come to think of it, Dimond was back-peddling on Crier’s show so much, I thought we were going back in time. Gone was the reference to that [url="http://]statement #44[/url] from Feldman’s original lawsuit, which she incorrectly used to explain the form of “negligence” settled by the insurance company(ies) in the 93 settlement.
That asinine statement #44 claimed that Jackson negligently sexually molested the 93 accuser. First, you can’t negligently molest anyone. It’s illogical. Second, insurance companies don’t pay settlements for negligent sexual molestation of a minor. What we do know, from reading the actual 93 settlement document is that the “negligence” cited in the 93 settlement agreement had nothing to do with sexual molestation. It’s right in the agreement itself:g. The parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth…are in settlement of claims by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler and June Chandler for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation. (page 7)
It doesn’t get any clearer than that, yet Dimond–in chicken-little fashion–initially claimed that Jackson admitted to negligent sexual molestation in the 93 agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth. I guess someone finally pointed it out to her. Or maybe she’s still stupidly holding on to the illogical ‘negligent molestation’ statement from Feldman’s original lawsuit. Either way, her previous ramblings were mysteriously absent from yesterday’s (June 17 2004) report. But don’t worry. She procured another “hack” journalist to spout lies about Jackson to fill time: Maureen Orth (‘Wacko Ortho’).
Orth talking to Dimond in her report aired on Court TV's Crier Live June 17 2004
During the report, Orth defamed Jackson by claiming a number of unfound, unsubstantiated and unproven things, without providing one shred of documentation or other proof to back up the claims. And seeing as how Dimond could be about to get into a serious load of legal trouble for the leak, she essentially let Orth, too, dig a hole for herself. It was like watching someone board the sinking Titanic.
In yet another attempt to poison a jury pool with false information, Orth claimed, in the Dimond report, that the nude photographs of Jackson taken by prosecutors in 1993 matched the accuser’s description he gave. Orth says:Orth: Under much duress, he finally was photographed and the two matched. And therefore that is what makes this agreement possible because the boy graphically described Michael Jackson’s private parts. The photographs that the prosecutors took matched them. And that allowed for the amount of money to exchange hands.
Not so, says our sources, and USA Today and Reuters sources at the time the 93 case was on-going.
From the USA Today archive comes the article entitled “Photos May Contradict Michael’s Accuser” dated Jan 28 1994. The article states:An unidentified source told Reuters news service Thursday that photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.
If so, this could weaken any possible criminal actions against the singer. Already, speculation that the 14 year old boy may not be willing to cooperate with official is swirling. (see article[url="http://]online[/url] or view entire article [url="http://]here[/url])
There was no matching description. Additionally, sources say the 93 accuser gave varying descriptions of Jackson’s body; allegedly saying at one point that Jackson looks like a black man from the waist down, to changing the description to say Jackson is all white from the waist down, to changing it again to say something different.
As for the Orth-alleged “graphic” matching description, sources have seen the alleged photograph drawn by the accuser. They say it is anything but graphic. “It’s not even a diagram, there’s nothing pointing to various parts to illustrate specifically what it looks like,” says one viewer of the photograph. Another source that saw it says, “That drawing is utterly ridiculous. It could have been anything. A five year old child could have drawn that.”
The USA Today article also states what we have confirmed by reading the 93 Settlement Agreement: The 93 settlement DID NOT stop the accuser from testifying at a possible criminal trial in 1993 if he wanted to:The boy’s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy’s lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will.
The statement from the 93 accuser’s own attorney smashes the notion that the 93 settlement agreement was the reason why there was no criminal trial. It was not the reason why he stopped cooperating with prosecutors nor was it the reason they stopped cooperating with law enforcement.
Jackson didn’t buy himself out of anything. In fact, as reported earlier, sources say Jackson’s lawyers–who lost a motion in 93 to halt the civil suit until the criminal trial had been resolved–wanted to get the civil suit out of the way and prepare for any upcoming criminal proceedings.
The judge who denied the defense motion has since come out, when news of this new charge broke, and publicly expressed that he thought Jackson was guilty in 93 even though no evidence was presented to him in court because there were never any criminal charges brought. I guess that’s the way they do it in Salem….uh, I mean Santa Barbara County. I guess prosecutors want to bind Jackson’s wrists and throw him in a river. If he floats, he’s a child molester. If he sinks and drowns, he’s not. Dont’cha just love that logic? Good grief.
Getting back to Dimond’s report: So what else did the dynamic duo of defamatory dumbness say? Apparently, Orth thinks that everyone who’s ever worked for Jackson are accomplices to child molestation as well. Orth states in Dimond’s report:Michael Jackson has absolutely enjoyed an almost impenetrable shield of protection of people who would rather get paid by him than worry about the protection of young children.
Unbelievable.
Dimond is still claiming, without showing one iota of data to back up the claims, that Jackson “may” have “paid out as much as $10M” on top of the approximately $15M stated in the 1993 agreement. The only dollar figure quoted in the actual settlement agreement is $15,331,250. Sources have said for years that all other expenses were paid out of that final amount, $15M according to the documents at Court TV, which included everybody else who may have gotten a cut of this insurance negligence settlement.
What can be done about Dimond’s behavior and the behavior of the person or persons who leaked the court sealed 1993 settlement agreement to her? Who knows. Jackson released a statement in which he says that, as of yet, no one has opened an investigation into finding out who leaked the information:“No action or investigation has been taken to determine who is leaking this information or why they are permitted to violate the law in such a manner. I respectfully request that people see these efforts for what they are.
“These kinds of attacks and leaks seek to try the case in the press, rather than to a jury who will hear all of the evidence that will show that I did not, and would not, ever, harm a child. I have always maintained my innocence and vehemently denied that these events ever took place. I reluctantly chose to settle the false claims only to end the terrible publicity and to continue with my life and career. (see [url="http://]MJJSOURCE.com[/url])
Apparently Larry Feldman isn’t filing a claim for damages because his 1993 client’s privacy was just violated by the leaking of this document, in the same way he’s filed a claim for damages against LA Child services for the explosive [url="http://]memo leak[/url]. I wonder if it’s because this leak to Dimond is seen as negative information towards Jackson–although I don’t know why because if you actually read contents of the document, it actually partially confirms what Jackson has been saying for years.
As for Dimond, she has shown absolutely no remorse at all in leaking this court sealed document. Of course, who in their right mind ever thought she would? Whether this is the straw that broke the camel’s back in finally opening up the rest of the media’s eyes to how some of their colleagues enjoy suspicious perks with prosecutors/law enforcement/etc, I don’t know. But I have a strange suspicion that we all better stay tuned.
-MJEOL