InspirationMoonwalks
New member
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/06/ng.01.html
NANCY GRACE
Michael Jackson Facing Civil Lawsuit
Aired July 6, 2006 - 20:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, GUEST HOST: Tonight: As pop icon Michael Jackson tries to find a new home in Europe, he`s facing a civil lawsuit in California. A former porn producer and business associate of Jackson`s claims he is owed millions from prior business deals.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell in for Nancy Grace. Pop star Michael Jackson fighting allegations by a former business associate who says the singer owes him millions. A civil lawsuit under way in Santa Monica, California featuring Michael Jackson on voice mail. That`s like a new instrument. Fascinating clips that we have obtained and will play for you for the very latest on all of this we are delighted to have in studio my dear friend and colleague Diane Dimond, not only an investigative reporter but author of the fabulous Jackson book, "Be Careful Who You Love," which is sitting right on my dining room table. Diane, what is the very latest?
DIANE DIMOND, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: You don`t even need to read that book because you were there with me for most of it. The very latest is this, Fred Schaffel is suing Michael Jackson for $3.8 million. Part of his claim is that he took $300,000 from Michael Jackson, paid off somebody in Brazil for something. We don`t know what. The judge will not let us know what that was. That of course demonstrable because it lets everybody know, see, Michael trusted me with all this money, and I put out a lot of money and he owes me 3.8. Well, today in court we realize now he doesn`t have receipts for all of this. And his 3.8 request has now gone down to 1.6 million. He cannot come up with receipts for that 300,000 and others. He had a receipt, showed it to the judge. She rejected it.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, what a shock. I mean, this is a guy who asked for money in paper bags and says money is French fries and super size it if he wants a lot of money. No wonder there`s no receipts.
DIMOND: Well that`s what Michael Jackson did in calling it French fries and whatnot. But this fascinates me because during the criminal trial Frederick Marc Schaffel of course was one of the unindicted co- conspirators. And I was told by many sources close to Mr. Schaffel and close to the investigation that Mr. Schaffel was almost anal in keeping receipts. He would keep a receipt for $1.29 from the 7-Eleven for some aspirin and then he would put in for it. So now that he suddenly doesn`t have any receipts I`ve got to think, hmm.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Very curious. And luckily, we have Marc Schaffel`s attorney with us tonight, Howard King. We are delighted to have you back, sir. Well, you`ve been hearing Diane Dimond. We`re all wondering how did $3.8 million become just over $1 million? Why the switch? And was it mid- stream or did we just forget to ask?
HOWARD KING, MARC SCHAFFEL`S ATTORNEY: No one asked. I mean, this was based on a ruling made before the case even went to trial.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yeah but I mean how can you be sitting there in court day after day discussing how this man`s owed $3.8 million and nobody figured out that it`s really just over $1 million or $1 1/2 million? That to me is the absolute metaphor of the craziness of Michael Jackson`s life. That even in the trial nobody can figure out -- and this happened in the criminal trial. We couldn`t figure out a lot of times what was going on.
KING: Listen, I made an opening statement over a week ago where I asked for a million six. I didn`t add it up, and nobody else did. I mean, the fact of the matter is he`s owed a lot more money. Diane`s right. There are no receipts for all these cash transactions, and in fact I asked Marc Schaffel on the witness stand today what do you think about not getting receipts? And he goes, well, I`m not going to give Michael Jackson money anymore without getting a receipt.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well that`s a good thing. Be forewarned, anybody, if you do business with Michael Jackson get a receipt. Now, we have these fascinating tapes we want to play for you. They really are incredible. It`s incredible that Michael Jackson would leave these kind of voice mails. Purportedly it is him. Let`s listen to a conversation involving Marlon Brando, the late great actor.
(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)
MICHAEL JACKSON: Marc, we must... Marlon Brando has been pushing. And he is a wonderful man. He`s a God. We have to get this done. We want it done before Christmas. Put together a business plan. The whole thing is fine for TV. He just wants to make a big deal. He wants a lot of money and we would own it together... We`ll form our own company. Start putting that together so when we see him, when I see him.. I can give him a presentation that we have been busy working. He really wants it. I mean, I think that`s he`s not going to be living too much longer, that`s what it is I think. Please Marc, get this done. Let`s get the jive thing done. I need that money for the house. Ah, let`s move mountains. The album is going to be turned in soon. He`s going crazy. So things are looking good. I hope to talk to you soon. I`ll see you today at the studio at 3:30. I love you very much. Thank you, bye.
(END OF AUDIOTAPE)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you know, Diane Dimond, you raise a point. We were listening to this. That he sounds very alert, very cogent. There`s been so much talk about possible drug problems in his past, which he of course has denied aside from the treatment he went through in the `90s.
DIMOND: Right, the pain pills.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: But he sounds good there. He did a deposition in London which was played in court today. You have actually seen it apparently. He apparently looks sharp there too.
DIMOND: I have seen portions of it. And first of all, I was taken with his voice is kind of deep down here like this. Instead of the wispy little voice. There are always two and three sides to Michael Jackson, the man who`s in charge, I`ll see you at the studio at 3:30, the man who talks like this, and the man who talks like this. And I think it depends on his situation. If he`s in trouble he suddenly becomes the wispy wafey kid who just doesn`t really understand what`s going on around him.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: But this is sort of vindication for everybody who said he`s totally out of it, he was carried into court. Because he didn`t speak a lot as you know, we were standing there outside court, it was hard to tell. He would just shuffle by. And everybody was reading whatever they wanted into it, and now it seems that perhaps he`s a lot more together than we thought.
DIMOND: Well, remember, these tapes were taken, Mr. King could probably tell you better, in 2003 and 2002 maybe. These two had a relationship for about three years, these two men, and they put together charity singles that sort of didn`t go anywhere. And they had all these projects together. So I don`t really know when those tapes were.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right. And Brian Oxman, the deposition was apparently last September in London. So that is more recent. Do you think that this trial in some odd way is painting Michael Jackson in a better light than he was painted in the criminal trial, even though he was acquitted in the criminal trial?
BRIAN OXMAN, JACKSON FAMILY ATTORNEY: I think we see a real Michael Jackson when we watch the deposition. We see what kind of a man he is. And it`s the kind of a man that I know him to be. I like him. I`ve always liked him. And I`ve always thought that he was aware of his business dealings. Michael`s only problem is it`s such a commotion that goes on around him that there really isn`t anybody who can handle this kind of a commotion. And he has people who he hires to do this and oftentimes they`re simply not capable and as a result you find these kinds of lawsuits.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Alright. Howard King, Marc Schaffel`s attorney, I understand your client was on the stand. A lot happening in court. He was on the stand, and you had said -- everybody was talking last night after you said on this show, the NANCY GRACE show, that if they get ugly, meaning the Jackson camp, and start talking about Marc Schaffel`s past as a gay porn producer, that you`re going to get ugly and start saying explosive things, revealing details about Michael Jackson`s past. Everybody wanted to know what details? Can you give us a hint? Is it of a sexual nature? Is it about the Brazil issue?
KING: They did not ask Marc Schaffel one question about his background today.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: So basically, you didn`t go there either.
KING: I did not.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: But I bet you, Diane Dimond is going to go there. Diane, what do you think Marc Schaffel knows about Michael Jackson?
DIMOND: Well, I`ll tell you, there are no saints in this story. I did a three-part series on Marc Schaffel for another network I work for, and he`s left a long string of people who complain about him. Many called him a con man. Then you have Michael Jackson on the other side who has never met a lawsuit he didn`t like or didn`t get involved in. It just seems to me these two were such intimates that they both probably know sexual intimacies about each other. Not that there was any relationship between them. But what their desires were, what their hopes were, what they did when they kicked back at night and had a glass of Jesus juice. You know, I think both of these guys could take each other down. But this was really supposed to be an accounting case. You owe me X numbers of dollars.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Of course we`re all wondering is there still, Brian Oxman, Jackson family attorney, another secret to be revealed? This is kind of like the search for the holy grail. We all keep wondering, because he is such an enigma, what is the real Michael Jackson? And we wonder, does Marc Schaffel have the answer to that?
OXMAN: There is a secret in this case, and that secret is no ticky, no money. Marc Schaffel does not have the documentation to establish this kind of case, and that`s becoming apparent in the courtroom.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell filling in for Nancy Grace. Of course we`re talking Michael Jackson, who is back in the spotlight over, what else, a lawsuit filed by a former business associate who says the kooky king of pop owes him almost 4 million, now it`s down to about 1 1/2 million in change and he is set to collect, but, says team Jackson, not so fast, they`ve countersued claiming businessman Marc Schaffel owes Jackson money. And throughout it all some fascinating clips of Jackson purportedly calling Schaffel desperate for money, which he calls French fries, and when he wants a lot of it he says super size me.
Now, over the commercial break Diane and I have been cooking up some really tough questions for you, Marc Schaffel`s attorney, Howard King. And this is the crux of the matter. You had said purportedly, correct me if I`m wrong, that Schaffel put out $300,000 for a mystery man, Mr. X, originally in Brazil, now we hear it may be Argentina, but then testifying today Schaffel supposedly said on the stand Michael Jackson gave me $2 million for record expenses as well as the $300,000 that I can`t talk about what it`s for.
KING: That`s incorrect. He -- Marc Schaffel pulled that $300,000 out of an account he had in Europe, and --
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Isn`t there a record of that, Mr. King?
KING: Absolutely. It was exhibit 401 at trial today.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And that wasn`t good enough for the judge?
KING: Sure, it was. I don`t know what Diane was talking about. That was admitted into evidence right after lunch.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re going right off the wire copy that says, quote, this is quoting Schaffel, "He gave me the $2 million for the record and expenses and the situation I can`t talk about," he said, referring to the $300,000. So that implies that he was talking about Jackson giving him money.
KING: Two different transactions. In 2001 Michael Jackson invested $2 million with Marc Schaffel to make "What More Can I Give." And Marc Schaffel made it. In 2003 Marc Schaffel took care of a personal matter for Mr. Jackson in South America using his own cash.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, you talk about this personal matter in South America and that of course sets alarm bells off for Diane and myself because we were in the Jackson trial hearing about the alleged conspiracy, of which Michael Jackson was acquitted --
DIMOND: And Brazil was involved in that.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Brazil was involved in that. So should we put two and two together or can you tell us no, don`t put two and two together, this has nothing to do with that alleged conspiracy to take that boy that accused Michael Jackson and his family out of the country?
KING: Well, I hate to dash your hopes, but it was Argentina.
DIMOND: Oh darn.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now you tell us.
Mr. King, I`m reading the wire copy. This is by Linda Deutsche of the AP, the senior member of the press corps out there. Everyone greatly respects her. And it says that Schaffel was asked about the $300,000 today, do you have a receipt? He said he did. He handed the paper to a lawyer, but after a private conference with the judge it was not shown to the jurors. So is there a receipt for this or not?
KING: Yeah, that was before lunch. Things changed.
DIMOND: Gotcha.
KING: After lunch it came in.
DIMOND: Welcome to the world of Michael Jackson.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: One thing doesn`t change, though, and that is "What More Can I Give" has not yet been officially released. Let`s hear another fascinating clip about Michael Jackson talking about the saga of the charity album, the charity project, "What More Can I Give."
(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)
MICHAEL JACKSON: Marc, call Al first thing in the morning about my orders. You tell him the single has to come out now, what more can I give? They are planning other anthems, we have to be first. And I want Sony, they gotta go to Sony (INAUDIBLE) and it has to enter at number one and stay there for like, um. No, no, no, no to make a record, we want to have it like two months. Cause people want to do something because sympathy USA for Iraq, it`s a beautiful thing to do. Okay? We gotta do this Marc. It`s important. You went through all that work, I went through all that work of writing the songs. (INAUDIBLE) putting the film together. I`m putting the film together. You know, I want, you gotta send me Marc, all the outtakes or else I`m not approving it. I`m not going to let it come out unless I see all the outtakes. Don`t be holding anything back at your house. I want to see everything. Okay? Get on this first thing in the morning, it`s important. Thank you.
(END OF AUDIOTAPE)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Alright. Well, we have to go straight out to Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman. It would seem that Michael Jackson sort of lurches from tragedy to tragedy, crisis to crisis, that we are all experiencing as a nation saying, hey, I`m going to come out with a charity project but doesn`t seem to get it to fruition. We`re talking about the 9/11 tragedy. Then we have the Iraq war. Then we have Katrina, and he has hasn`t delivered on these. Why not?
OXMAN: Who you utilize to make these projects happen is all-important and it is the determining factor. In this particular case it was apparently Mr. Schaffel who was being the one utilized, and nothing ever happened as a result. So your choice of promoter and your choice of your distributor as to who`s going to make this happen determines whether it does happen, and in fact what you`re saying is true. The selections have not been very good.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Howard King, how do you feel about your client being blamed for these charity projects not being released?
KING: Well, listen, the record was done. I`ve heard it. It`s beautiful. Sony would not consent to its release. Probably having something to do with the fact Michael Jackson called Tommy Mottola, the head of the label, a racist.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Alright. Well, we have a caller from -- Mark, he is from Nevada. He`s been waiting patiently. Your question, Mark.
MARK: Yeah, why is it that Michael Jackson made all of his money and popularity singing pop music and he doesn`t do -- he does everything but pop music now?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I mean, this is a broader question that maybe I could ask our favorite psychoanalyst Bethany Marshall, why is it that these stars, when they get into their late 40s can`t simply retire gracefully and exit the stage? Why do they have to keep promising -- and he`s not the only one. We`re inundated with all this -- we`re killing a lot of trees so that people`s egos can stay elevated.
MARSHALL: Well, I mean, I think that what happens over time is the person`s identity, self-esteem, maybe even their narcissism, if you want to use the clinical term, kind of gets tied to the camera. And so their self esteem kind of rises and falls on the smiles or frowns of others and they sort of get addicted to the spotlight. But I think we also can take a look at, I mean Michael Jackson took a huge blow even though he was acquitted. And it might be that he`s not really generative or productive in terms of new albums and works at this point because he really is trying to psychologically recover, even though he didn`t really experience the consequence of a conviction, he is experiencing psychological consequences at this point.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And there are a whole bunch of plans that we`ve been hearing about. Diane Dimond, we hear that he`s going to be moving to Europe, he`s been spotted in Paris, he`s been in Ireland. What do you make of this? I know you have said publicly you don`t think he`s ever coming back to the United States.
DIMOND: I don`t think so. Too many child protective services people, too many subpoena servers. I don`t think he`s coming back here. Where will he land? I don`t know. But I think if he really wants to feel protected it should be a country with no extradition treaty to the U.S.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Which is Bahrain, right?
DIMOND: Yes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You can`t have a conversation about Michael Jackson without talking about Neverland. Everybody`s wondering what`s up with Neverland? Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, we got word and we were very happy to report last night that the -- at least some of the animals, some of the big cats have been taken to Tippie Hedren`s sanctuary. She of course Melanie Griffith`s mom. So they`re in good hands. They`re looking for good homes for the other animals. But what`s going to happen with Neverland? Is he going to sell it? Is it shuttered now? Is there anybody working there?
OXMAN: Well, all I can say is that those cats must be in pretty good heaven because with Melanie Griffith around I`d like to be with them too. No question about it.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Very good way of sidestepping the question. Brian what`s happening with Neverland?
OXMAN: Neverland is doing just fine. It is not in the full-scale production that it was prior to the trial. Michael is undecided as to exactly what`s going to happen with it. And we`re all waiting for him to make a decision. And when he does he will tell the world. But we don`t know any particular plans that he has other than just to maintain it in its present condition.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Howard King, Marc Schaffel`s attorney, is this a vortex you`ve gotten into? I mean, after all there is a countersuit. Do you really think even in the best case scenario you`ll ever see any money or could you end up, I wish I`d never gone there?
KING: I`ll invite you out to Neverland once we own it.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ooh. Diane Dimond, I`m going to give you the last word on that one.
DIMOND: You know, I have some sources that know Mr. Schaffel very well, and they have always said that he would love to own Neverland, he would love to subdivide it, make a winery, have a bed and breakfast, you know, take all those beautiful cars out there, the Bentleys and whatnot, and sell them for more than they`re worth. So his answer does not surprise me at all.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. I love ending with a cliff-hanger because that`s exactly what it is. We`re going to have to see what happens to Neverland, who`s going to own it, who`s going to throw the next party there. Alright. We are out of time. Always fascinating to have Diane Dimond and Michael Jackson in the same conversation.
DIMOND: My pleasure.
My Notes:
*Most of the discussion regarding the whole Schaffel thing really has nothing to do with the actual suit. The only reason why this is even getting the little bit of media attention it has so far is because of those tapes, which, IMHO at least, don't even make Michael look bad at all! :lol If anything, the information that IS coming out about the suit is primarily making Schaffel look bad! LOL
*What the hell was Schaffel doing, taping all of Michael's voicemails to and conversations with him in the first place? I'm sorry, but although I can understand saving an occassional voice mail here and there, I've gotta question the motives of someone who would save so many messages like these, for so many years. It really seems like he might've been up to something all along...
*Diane Dimond's responses to the whole South America and Michael going abroad issues just further prove that she, like Friedman and so many others, just changes her stories as she goes along, modifying them each time she is proven wrong just to save herself from looking stupid. She was put in her place about the Brazil thing and, now that Michael's out of Bahrain, she doesn't know quite what to say about that. Wasn't she the very same one who said that he'd hide away there for good and never be seen publically again? Haha, yeah right... :lol She WANTS him to do that, she wants him to fail..and she's pissed that she's not getting her way..(also note that they conviently forget to mention everything else that Raymone brought up in her statement, anything to keep the conversation negative..)
*What is up with King, being such a fixture on the talk show circuit like this? It's like, he can't prove his case in court, so he has to try to gloss it up on Nancy Grace...pathetic.
*And @ his response about Neverland. Can someone please explain to me how he can even entertain this notion about getting it away from Michael, when his client is suing for an amount maannnnny times smaller than what the property is worth? Not to mention the fact that it's been reported that Schaffel has asked the courts not once, but twice, for a lein against it and was denied BOTH times. Yeah, he'll really own Neverland alright....in his dreams! :lol
*Michael needs to slap these people with a libel lawsuit or something..like now. That's the only way they'd ever shut up, it looks like..
I hate to even give this kind of crap an audience, but I thought it deserved it's own special place right here in this part of the forum..for us to pick apart.. :lol
NANCY GRACE
Michael Jackson Facing Civil Lawsuit
Aired July 6, 2006 - 20:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, GUEST HOST: Tonight: As pop icon Michael Jackson tries to find a new home in Europe, he`s facing a civil lawsuit in California. A former porn producer and business associate of Jackson`s claims he is owed millions from prior business deals.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell in for Nancy Grace. Pop star Michael Jackson fighting allegations by a former business associate who says the singer owes him millions. A civil lawsuit under way in Santa Monica, California featuring Michael Jackson on voice mail. That`s like a new instrument. Fascinating clips that we have obtained and will play for you for the very latest on all of this we are delighted to have in studio my dear friend and colleague Diane Dimond, not only an investigative reporter but author of the fabulous Jackson book, "Be Careful Who You Love," which is sitting right on my dining room table. Diane, what is the very latest?
DIANE DIMOND, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: You don`t even need to read that book because you were there with me for most of it. The very latest is this, Fred Schaffel is suing Michael Jackson for $3.8 million. Part of his claim is that he took $300,000 from Michael Jackson, paid off somebody in Brazil for something. We don`t know what. The judge will not let us know what that was. That of course demonstrable because it lets everybody know, see, Michael trusted me with all this money, and I put out a lot of money and he owes me 3.8. Well, today in court we realize now he doesn`t have receipts for all of this. And his 3.8 request has now gone down to 1.6 million. He cannot come up with receipts for that 300,000 and others. He had a receipt, showed it to the judge. She rejected it.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, what a shock. I mean, this is a guy who asked for money in paper bags and says money is French fries and super size it if he wants a lot of money. No wonder there`s no receipts.
DIMOND: Well that`s what Michael Jackson did in calling it French fries and whatnot. But this fascinates me because during the criminal trial Frederick Marc Schaffel of course was one of the unindicted co- conspirators. And I was told by many sources close to Mr. Schaffel and close to the investigation that Mr. Schaffel was almost anal in keeping receipts. He would keep a receipt for $1.29 from the 7-Eleven for some aspirin and then he would put in for it. So now that he suddenly doesn`t have any receipts I`ve got to think, hmm.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Very curious. And luckily, we have Marc Schaffel`s attorney with us tonight, Howard King. We are delighted to have you back, sir. Well, you`ve been hearing Diane Dimond. We`re all wondering how did $3.8 million become just over $1 million? Why the switch? And was it mid- stream or did we just forget to ask?
HOWARD KING, MARC SCHAFFEL`S ATTORNEY: No one asked. I mean, this was based on a ruling made before the case even went to trial.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yeah but I mean how can you be sitting there in court day after day discussing how this man`s owed $3.8 million and nobody figured out that it`s really just over $1 million or $1 1/2 million? That to me is the absolute metaphor of the craziness of Michael Jackson`s life. That even in the trial nobody can figure out -- and this happened in the criminal trial. We couldn`t figure out a lot of times what was going on.
KING: Listen, I made an opening statement over a week ago where I asked for a million six. I didn`t add it up, and nobody else did. I mean, the fact of the matter is he`s owed a lot more money. Diane`s right. There are no receipts for all these cash transactions, and in fact I asked Marc Schaffel on the witness stand today what do you think about not getting receipts? And he goes, well, I`m not going to give Michael Jackson money anymore without getting a receipt.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well that`s a good thing. Be forewarned, anybody, if you do business with Michael Jackson get a receipt. Now, we have these fascinating tapes we want to play for you. They really are incredible. It`s incredible that Michael Jackson would leave these kind of voice mails. Purportedly it is him. Let`s listen to a conversation involving Marlon Brando, the late great actor.
(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)
MICHAEL JACKSON: Marc, we must... Marlon Brando has been pushing. And he is a wonderful man. He`s a God. We have to get this done. We want it done before Christmas. Put together a business plan. The whole thing is fine for TV. He just wants to make a big deal. He wants a lot of money and we would own it together... We`ll form our own company. Start putting that together so when we see him, when I see him.. I can give him a presentation that we have been busy working. He really wants it. I mean, I think that`s he`s not going to be living too much longer, that`s what it is I think. Please Marc, get this done. Let`s get the jive thing done. I need that money for the house. Ah, let`s move mountains. The album is going to be turned in soon. He`s going crazy. So things are looking good. I hope to talk to you soon. I`ll see you today at the studio at 3:30. I love you very much. Thank you, bye.
(END OF AUDIOTAPE)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you know, Diane Dimond, you raise a point. We were listening to this. That he sounds very alert, very cogent. There`s been so much talk about possible drug problems in his past, which he of course has denied aside from the treatment he went through in the `90s.
DIMOND: Right, the pain pills.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: But he sounds good there. He did a deposition in London which was played in court today. You have actually seen it apparently. He apparently looks sharp there too.
DIMOND: I have seen portions of it. And first of all, I was taken with his voice is kind of deep down here like this. Instead of the wispy little voice. There are always two and three sides to Michael Jackson, the man who`s in charge, I`ll see you at the studio at 3:30, the man who talks like this, and the man who talks like this. And I think it depends on his situation. If he`s in trouble he suddenly becomes the wispy wafey kid who just doesn`t really understand what`s going on around him.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: But this is sort of vindication for everybody who said he`s totally out of it, he was carried into court. Because he didn`t speak a lot as you know, we were standing there outside court, it was hard to tell. He would just shuffle by. And everybody was reading whatever they wanted into it, and now it seems that perhaps he`s a lot more together than we thought.
DIMOND: Well, remember, these tapes were taken, Mr. King could probably tell you better, in 2003 and 2002 maybe. These two had a relationship for about three years, these two men, and they put together charity singles that sort of didn`t go anywhere. And they had all these projects together. So I don`t really know when those tapes were.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right. And Brian Oxman, the deposition was apparently last September in London. So that is more recent. Do you think that this trial in some odd way is painting Michael Jackson in a better light than he was painted in the criminal trial, even though he was acquitted in the criminal trial?
BRIAN OXMAN, JACKSON FAMILY ATTORNEY: I think we see a real Michael Jackson when we watch the deposition. We see what kind of a man he is. And it`s the kind of a man that I know him to be. I like him. I`ve always liked him. And I`ve always thought that he was aware of his business dealings. Michael`s only problem is it`s such a commotion that goes on around him that there really isn`t anybody who can handle this kind of a commotion. And he has people who he hires to do this and oftentimes they`re simply not capable and as a result you find these kinds of lawsuits.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Alright. Howard King, Marc Schaffel`s attorney, I understand your client was on the stand. A lot happening in court. He was on the stand, and you had said -- everybody was talking last night after you said on this show, the NANCY GRACE show, that if they get ugly, meaning the Jackson camp, and start talking about Marc Schaffel`s past as a gay porn producer, that you`re going to get ugly and start saying explosive things, revealing details about Michael Jackson`s past. Everybody wanted to know what details? Can you give us a hint? Is it of a sexual nature? Is it about the Brazil issue?
KING: They did not ask Marc Schaffel one question about his background today.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: So basically, you didn`t go there either.
KING: I did not.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: But I bet you, Diane Dimond is going to go there. Diane, what do you think Marc Schaffel knows about Michael Jackson?
DIMOND: Well, I`ll tell you, there are no saints in this story. I did a three-part series on Marc Schaffel for another network I work for, and he`s left a long string of people who complain about him. Many called him a con man. Then you have Michael Jackson on the other side who has never met a lawsuit he didn`t like or didn`t get involved in. It just seems to me these two were such intimates that they both probably know sexual intimacies about each other. Not that there was any relationship between them. But what their desires were, what their hopes were, what they did when they kicked back at night and had a glass of Jesus juice. You know, I think both of these guys could take each other down. But this was really supposed to be an accounting case. You owe me X numbers of dollars.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Of course we`re all wondering is there still, Brian Oxman, Jackson family attorney, another secret to be revealed? This is kind of like the search for the holy grail. We all keep wondering, because he is such an enigma, what is the real Michael Jackson? And we wonder, does Marc Schaffel have the answer to that?
OXMAN: There is a secret in this case, and that secret is no ticky, no money. Marc Schaffel does not have the documentation to establish this kind of case, and that`s becoming apparent in the courtroom.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell filling in for Nancy Grace. Of course we`re talking Michael Jackson, who is back in the spotlight over, what else, a lawsuit filed by a former business associate who says the kooky king of pop owes him almost 4 million, now it`s down to about 1 1/2 million in change and he is set to collect, but, says team Jackson, not so fast, they`ve countersued claiming businessman Marc Schaffel owes Jackson money. And throughout it all some fascinating clips of Jackson purportedly calling Schaffel desperate for money, which he calls French fries, and when he wants a lot of it he says super size me.
Now, over the commercial break Diane and I have been cooking up some really tough questions for you, Marc Schaffel`s attorney, Howard King. And this is the crux of the matter. You had said purportedly, correct me if I`m wrong, that Schaffel put out $300,000 for a mystery man, Mr. X, originally in Brazil, now we hear it may be Argentina, but then testifying today Schaffel supposedly said on the stand Michael Jackson gave me $2 million for record expenses as well as the $300,000 that I can`t talk about what it`s for.
KING: That`s incorrect. He -- Marc Schaffel pulled that $300,000 out of an account he had in Europe, and --
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Isn`t there a record of that, Mr. King?
KING: Absolutely. It was exhibit 401 at trial today.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And that wasn`t good enough for the judge?
KING: Sure, it was. I don`t know what Diane was talking about. That was admitted into evidence right after lunch.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re going right off the wire copy that says, quote, this is quoting Schaffel, "He gave me the $2 million for the record and expenses and the situation I can`t talk about," he said, referring to the $300,000. So that implies that he was talking about Jackson giving him money.
KING: Two different transactions. In 2001 Michael Jackson invested $2 million with Marc Schaffel to make "What More Can I Give." And Marc Schaffel made it. In 2003 Marc Schaffel took care of a personal matter for Mr. Jackson in South America using his own cash.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, you talk about this personal matter in South America and that of course sets alarm bells off for Diane and myself because we were in the Jackson trial hearing about the alleged conspiracy, of which Michael Jackson was acquitted --
DIMOND: And Brazil was involved in that.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Brazil was involved in that. So should we put two and two together or can you tell us no, don`t put two and two together, this has nothing to do with that alleged conspiracy to take that boy that accused Michael Jackson and his family out of the country?
KING: Well, I hate to dash your hopes, but it was Argentina.
DIMOND: Oh darn.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now you tell us.
Mr. King, I`m reading the wire copy. This is by Linda Deutsche of the AP, the senior member of the press corps out there. Everyone greatly respects her. And it says that Schaffel was asked about the $300,000 today, do you have a receipt? He said he did. He handed the paper to a lawyer, but after a private conference with the judge it was not shown to the jurors. So is there a receipt for this or not?
KING: Yeah, that was before lunch. Things changed.
DIMOND: Gotcha.
KING: After lunch it came in.
DIMOND: Welcome to the world of Michael Jackson.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: One thing doesn`t change, though, and that is "What More Can I Give" has not yet been officially released. Let`s hear another fascinating clip about Michael Jackson talking about the saga of the charity album, the charity project, "What More Can I Give."
(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)
MICHAEL JACKSON: Marc, call Al first thing in the morning about my orders. You tell him the single has to come out now, what more can I give? They are planning other anthems, we have to be first. And I want Sony, they gotta go to Sony (INAUDIBLE) and it has to enter at number one and stay there for like, um. No, no, no, no to make a record, we want to have it like two months. Cause people want to do something because sympathy USA for Iraq, it`s a beautiful thing to do. Okay? We gotta do this Marc. It`s important. You went through all that work, I went through all that work of writing the songs. (INAUDIBLE) putting the film together. I`m putting the film together. You know, I want, you gotta send me Marc, all the outtakes or else I`m not approving it. I`m not going to let it come out unless I see all the outtakes. Don`t be holding anything back at your house. I want to see everything. Okay? Get on this first thing in the morning, it`s important. Thank you.
(END OF AUDIOTAPE)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Alright. Well, we have to go straight out to Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman. It would seem that Michael Jackson sort of lurches from tragedy to tragedy, crisis to crisis, that we are all experiencing as a nation saying, hey, I`m going to come out with a charity project but doesn`t seem to get it to fruition. We`re talking about the 9/11 tragedy. Then we have the Iraq war. Then we have Katrina, and he has hasn`t delivered on these. Why not?
OXMAN: Who you utilize to make these projects happen is all-important and it is the determining factor. In this particular case it was apparently Mr. Schaffel who was being the one utilized, and nothing ever happened as a result. So your choice of promoter and your choice of your distributor as to who`s going to make this happen determines whether it does happen, and in fact what you`re saying is true. The selections have not been very good.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Howard King, how do you feel about your client being blamed for these charity projects not being released?
KING: Well, listen, the record was done. I`ve heard it. It`s beautiful. Sony would not consent to its release. Probably having something to do with the fact Michael Jackson called Tommy Mottola, the head of the label, a racist.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Alright. Well, we have a caller from -- Mark, he is from Nevada. He`s been waiting patiently. Your question, Mark.
MARK: Yeah, why is it that Michael Jackson made all of his money and popularity singing pop music and he doesn`t do -- he does everything but pop music now?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I mean, this is a broader question that maybe I could ask our favorite psychoanalyst Bethany Marshall, why is it that these stars, when they get into their late 40s can`t simply retire gracefully and exit the stage? Why do they have to keep promising -- and he`s not the only one. We`re inundated with all this -- we`re killing a lot of trees so that people`s egos can stay elevated.
MARSHALL: Well, I mean, I think that what happens over time is the person`s identity, self-esteem, maybe even their narcissism, if you want to use the clinical term, kind of gets tied to the camera. And so their self esteem kind of rises and falls on the smiles or frowns of others and they sort of get addicted to the spotlight. But I think we also can take a look at, I mean Michael Jackson took a huge blow even though he was acquitted. And it might be that he`s not really generative or productive in terms of new albums and works at this point because he really is trying to psychologically recover, even though he didn`t really experience the consequence of a conviction, he is experiencing psychological consequences at this point.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And there are a whole bunch of plans that we`ve been hearing about. Diane Dimond, we hear that he`s going to be moving to Europe, he`s been spotted in Paris, he`s been in Ireland. What do you make of this? I know you have said publicly you don`t think he`s ever coming back to the United States.
DIMOND: I don`t think so. Too many child protective services people, too many subpoena servers. I don`t think he`s coming back here. Where will he land? I don`t know. But I think if he really wants to feel protected it should be a country with no extradition treaty to the U.S.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Which is Bahrain, right?
DIMOND: Yes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You can`t have a conversation about Michael Jackson without talking about Neverland. Everybody`s wondering what`s up with Neverland? Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, we got word and we were very happy to report last night that the -- at least some of the animals, some of the big cats have been taken to Tippie Hedren`s sanctuary. She of course Melanie Griffith`s mom. So they`re in good hands. They`re looking for good homes for the other animals. But what`s going to happen with Neverland? Is he going to sell it? Is it shuttered now? Is there anybody working there?
OXMAN: Well, all I can say is that those cats must be in pretty good heaven because with Melanie Griffith around I`d like to be with them too. No question about it.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Very good way of sidestepping the question. Brian what`s happening with Neverland?
OXMAN: Neverland is doing just fine. It is not in the full-scale production that it was prior to the trial. Michael is undecided as to exactly what`s going to happen with it. And we`re all waiting for him to make a decision. And when he does he will tell the world. But we don`t know any particular plans that he has other than just to maintain it in its present condition.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Howard King, Marc Schaffel`s attorney, is this a vortex you`ve gotten into? I mean, after all there is a countersuit. Do you really think even in the best case scenario you`ll ever see any money or could you end up, I wish I`d never gone there?
KING: I`ll invite you out to Neverland once we own it.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ooh. Diane Dimond, I`m going to give you the last word on that one.
DIMOND: You know, I have some sources that know Mr. Schaffel very well, and they have always said that he would love to own Neverland, he would love to subdivide it, make a winery, have a bed and breakfast, you know, take all those beautiful cars out there, the Bentleys and whatnot, and sell them for more than they`re worth. So his answer does not surprise me at all.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. I love ending with a cliff-hanger because that`s exactly what it is. We`re going to have to see what happens to Neverland, who`s going to own it, who`s going to throw the next party there. Alright. We are out of time. Always fascinating to have Diane Dimond and Michael Jackson in the same conversation.
DIMOND: My pleasure.
My Notes:
*Most of the discussion regarding the whole Schaffel thing really has nothing to do with the actual suit. The only reason why this is even getting the little bit of media attention it has so far is because of those tapes, which, IMHO at least, don't even make Michael look bad at all! :lol If anything, the information that IS coming out about the suit is primarily making Schaffel look bad! LOL
*What the hell was Schaffel doing, taping all of Michael's voicemails to and conversations with him in the first place? I'm sorry, but although I can understand saving an occassional voice mail here and there, I've gotta question the motives of someone who would save so many messages like these, for so many years. It really seems like he might've been up to something all along...
*Diane Dimond's responses to the whole South America and Michael going abroad issues just further prove that she, like Friedman and so many others, just changes her stories as she goes along, modifying them each time she is proven wrong just to save herself from looking stupid. She was put in her place about the Brazil thing and, now that Michael's out of Bahrain, she doesn't know quite what to say about that. Wasn't she the very same one who said that he'd hide away there for good and never be seen publically again? Haha, yeah right... :lol She WANTS him to do that, she wants him to fail..and she's pissed that she's not getting her way..(also note that they conviently forget to mention everything else that Raymone brought up in her statement, anything to keep the conversation negative..)
*What is up with King, being such a fixture on the talk show circuit like this? It's like, he can't prove his case in court, so he has to try to gloss it up on Nancy Grace...pathetic.
*And
@ his response about Neverland. Can someone please explain to me how he can even entertain this notion about getting it away from Michael, when his client is suing for an amount maannnnny times smaller than what the property is worth? Not to mention the fact that it's been reported that Schaffel has asked the courts not once, but twice, for a lein against it and was denied BOTH times. Yeah, he'll really own Neverland alright....in his dreams! :lol*Michael needs to slap these people with a libel lawsuit or something..like now. That's the only way they'd ever shut up, it looks like..
I hate to even give this kind of crap an audience, but I thought it deserved it's own special place right here in this part of the forum..for us to pick apart..
:lol