I was talking to someone about MJ past

G

got2makeitright

New member
I was talking to someone about what they think about the case and they told me if he was innocence why did he pay of boys in the past and i did not say nothing just wanted to know what they think. Is what the jury is thinking too?
 
F

frozen rose

New member
If you watched the "Living with Michael Jackson Interveiw" Michael specifically said to Martin Bashir, when he asked "Why did you pay off Jordy?" (something like that), Michael replied "I did it, because it was ridiculous, I had enough...go"

In the 1993 Accusations, Thomas Sneddon parcifically asked Michael Jackson to strip down butt naked and show his genitialla. It was said by Michael in the 1993 message video-taped all around the globe, by the news, recorded at Neverland Valley Ranch. During that time, Michael was himilulated and embarrased, he had to show off his private parts in front of Sneddon! How would you feel if you were Michael? Showing them off like that?

The jury would of realized by now, that Michael Jackson wouldn't do something like that, like give out money, without a reason. I mean, I don't understand why people are still talking back that? It was 12 years ago! It has been over and done with, no-one can change the past. All we know is that Michael has obviously has learned his lesson from all of this, Michael said so himself in the 2005 statement. The jury has been on Mj's side since day one, and it helps when you have a Crazy woman like Janet Arviso. So don't worry about it, the truth will come out sooner or later.
 
F

frozen rose

New member
Me too. The only advice I can give you, is take each each day as it comes (Mj from MTV Awards 1995). Thats what I do. I just sit, relax and take every single article on board, good or bad...unless it has anything that mentions the name "Sneddon"!
 
A

abbymjgirl

New member
ha! Sneddon!! LOL

well, Michael "paid" Jordy off because he was tired of the bs!!! All that stupid stuff. He was on tour while they told him about the allegations. He missed out on millions and millions of $ cause of that! He had 2 cancel some performances. Man, whoever thinks that he's guilty is duuuu-uuumb!!
 
F

floetic_justice

New member
Blah.

#1 Boy. Not boys. Tell the heiffer to get the information straight.
#2 If he was innocent why he pay off the family? Retaliation: Ask him "If he was guilty, why did the family ask for money in the first place,"

That'll get the idiot thinking for at least 5 minutes.
 
W

whisperAdmin

Administrator
Staff member
Posted at the main MJEOL site:
http://site2.mjeol.com/modules/wfdownloads...p?cid=18&lid=81



Memo in Support of Objection to Subpoena for Settlement Documents

Holy $@#!. In recently released court documents, it turns out that Michael Jackson's insurance company negotiated and settled the 1993 civil suit against his wishes.

The following are excerpts from that recently released court document:

Pg3
The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.

…Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added).

…An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.

Pg2
Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury.

Pg3
The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.



Download court doc:
http://site2.mjeol.com/modules/wfdownloads...p?cid=18&lid=81
 
K

koprulestheworld

New member
Originally posted by whisper
Posted at the main MJEOL site:
http://site2.mjeol.com/modules/wfdownloads...p?cid=18&lid=81



Memo in Support of Objection to Subpoena for Settlement Documents

Holy $@#!. In recently released court documents, it turns out that Michael Jackson's insurance company negotiated and settled the 1993 civil suit against his wishes.

The following are excerpts from that recently released court document:

Pg3
The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.

…Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added).

…An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.

Pg2
Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury.

Pg3
The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.



Download court doc:
http://site2.mjeol.com/modules/wfdownloads...p?cid=18&lid=81
Click to expand...


:idontknow
 
A

abbymjgirl

New member
Originally posted by whisper
Posted at the main MJEOL site:
http://site2.mjeol.com/modules/wfdownloads...p?cid=18&lid=81



Memo in Support of Objection to Subpoena for Settlement Documents

Holy $@#!. In recently released court documents, it turns out that Michael Jackson's insurance company negotiated and settled the 1993 civil suit against his wishes.

The following are excerpts from that recently released court document:

Pg3
The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.

…Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added).

…An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.

Pg2
Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury.

Pg3
The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.



Download court doc:
http://site2.mjeol.com/modules/wfdownloads...p?cid=18&lid=81
Click to expand...


WOW! See!!! :thumbsup
 
M

MjsBabyMomma

New member
MJ didn't want all this bad publicity. I can see why, he had a successful career to take care of and this fake as* shi* shouldn't get in the way. THE QUESTION IS, IF UR SON REALLY WAS MOLESTED, WHY WOULD MONEY MAKE IT ALL UP?
 
M

maintenant

New member
Originally posted by floetic_justice
Blah.

#1 Boy. Not boys. Tell the heiffer to get the information straight.
#2 If he was innocent why he pay off the family? Retaliation: Ask him "If he was guilty, why did the family ask for money in the first place,"

That'll get the idiot thinking for at least 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

Good response! :thumbsup I hadn't thought of that one, but that's a good one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top