Mesereau Clarifies 1993 Settlement Agreement (July 9 2004) - mjjsource

Important Statements from the Jackson camp and pertinent transcripts from various TV shows about Michael.

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 9130
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Mesereau Clarifies 1993 Settlement Agreement (July 9 2004) - mjjsource

Post by whisper » Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:14 pm

Date: Sunday, July 18, 2004

Excerpts From the Transcript of the July 9, 2004 Hearing

Page 43


5 "... (the settlement) agreement was a settlement of a negligence claim in

6 which he admitted doing nothing wrong.

7 As the Court knows better than I do, civil

8 settlements of this nature are often done where the

9 negligence claim is settled so that insurance

10 companies can fund the settlement. There was never

11 any admission by Mr. Jackson that he ever did

12 anything negligent or anything wrong at all.

13 There was public comment in the media,

14 again, about this 11-year-old case to the effect

15 that somehow he admitted negligence, which was

16 completely false. It was a technical legal way of

17 settling a case so insurance companies could fund a

18 settlement and he could get on with his personal

19 life and his business life.

20 I don't believe that the Court's gag order

21 precludes Mr. Jackson from commenting on an

22 11-year-old civil settlement. He has been involved

23 in other civil cases as well, and I do not believe

24 your gag order -- and please correct me if I'm

25 wrong. As I read it, it does not preclude him from

26 talking about other cases he's been in in his

27 lifetime.

28 Now, I would remind the Court that we have

Page 44

1 asked repeatedly for the prosecution to inform us if

2 they intend to introduce any evidence of alleged

3 similar facts under 1101, and they have stated on

4 the record they have not so notified us.

5 The question is, if somebody leaks this

6 document from an 11-year-old case in an obvious

7 attempt to prejudice this case, given the gag order,

8 is Mr. Jackson precluded from saying anything about

9 that 11-year-old case?

10 And Mr. Auchincloss has attempted to suggest

11 that these statements all relate to this case, and

12 that is untrue. I can go through them one by one

13 and show the Court how they relate to that '93 case

14 where he also denied any wrongdoing with respect to

15 any alleged act of child sexual assault or

16 molestation.

17 THE COURT: I don't think you need to do

18 that.

19 Let me cut you short here, because you're --

20 you're really missing the whole point.

21 The -- you were not the lead attorney at

22 the time that a lot of work was done on the gag

23 order with counsel contributing suggestions. And

24 the one that was finally adopted was, I think,

25 pretty agreeable to everybody, considering that

26 there was going to be a gag order, you know, given

27 that fact, and we got to an order that was accepted.

28 And the order prohibits a witness, and Mr.

Page 45

1 Jackson certainly comes within that potential, from

2 discussing evidentiary matters, and he in fact was

3 discussing a matter which you have just acknowledged

4 may or may not be evidence in this case, which is

5 exactly the problem, because the Court has yet to

6 rule on whether or not, if that evidence is

7 proffered, it will be admissible. So he's

8 discussing potential evidence.

9 Not only that, he addressed the jury venire

10 directly. He addressed the community. And so he

11 violated, in a sense, the gag order.

12 There is a thin line here, you know. The

13 Court certainly does not want to prohibit any

14 individual from stating their innocence, being

15 allowed to say, "I'm innocent," you know."

Source: ... 04-hearing

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests