Micky Jackson in trouble again

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Because it isn't in any of the trial documents.

Maybe because the company doesn’t exist? Pretty hard to subpoena a made up company like Peter Pan insurance.com

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

I did x

The man stated that he was told, so he didn't see. He did not see any insurance information because it wasn't allowed in the court.

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

There’s no mention of insurance settling for over a decade. Not as much as a whisper until the 2005 memorandum submitted by the very man who now states it’s a load of pony and he knows nothing about any insurance settlement. Hahah you couldn’t make it up really.

Have you never heard of a non disclosure agreement?

This is standard practice in these cases

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

Haha is that the best you can do? Fine he didn’t sign it he submitted it. He was still part of the motion to block it. And how he’s saying it’s all BS. Hahaaa

retro:electro wrote:

Not according to the lawyer who submitted the motion to object

Can you please show his signature on the submission?

Listen to the radio interview. He states I've been told". That statement means that he never saw it himself.

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

Haha is that the best you can do? Fine he didn’t sign it he submitted it. He was still part of the motion to block it. And how he’s saying it’s all BS. Hahaaa

retro:electro wrote:

Not according to the lawyer who submitted the motion to object

Can you please show his signature on the submission?

Listen to the radio interview. He states I've been told". That statement means that he never saw it himself.

retro:electro

TOM MESEREAU: My understanding was that the settlement agreement was written to, um, permit the possibility that an insurance company would step in and pay, but I was also told that an insurance company did not pay.

OM MESEREAU: And that’s why there were some people running around saying an insurance company paid it, and that’s why it was settled, and uh, my understanding is that’s not correct.


What makes you think you know more than the lawyer who submitted the motion? Quite sad really. But yes, psychoanalyse his language and try to use linguistical gymnastics to try and infer meaning on what is quite clearly, plain English. The message is loud and clear. No insurance company paid out.

retro:electro

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Can you please show his signature on the submission?

Listen to the radio interview. He states I've been told". That statement means that he never saw it himself.

Haha can you clutch any tighter there? :pac:

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

Haha can you clutch any tighter there?

English can't be your first language. My understanding & I've been told, aren't statement of facts

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Maybe because the company doesn’t exist? Pretty hard to subpoena a made up company like Peter Pan insurance.com

There is no maybe, it did exist.

Weren't you actually arguing earlier that there was no way they would pay out because there is no such thing as 'rape a child' insurance.

Until it was pointed out to you it was paid over "negligence".

Also didn't someone say earlier they did make an offer, but Jackson told them no.

Either way if the defense put on record a "Fact" lodged with the superior court of California, surely a prosecution would have requested the insurance company or their records.

Their case had practically fallen apart by then anyway.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

There is no maybe, it did exist.

Weren't you actually arguing earlier that there was no way they would pay out because there is no such thing as 'rape a child' insurance.

Until it was pointed out to you it was paid over "negligence".

Also didn't someone say earlier they did make an offer, but Jackson told them no.

Either way if the defense put on record a "Fact" lodged with the superior court of California, surely a prosecution would have requested the insurance company or their records.

Their case had practically fallen apart by then anyway.

More deflection and waffle out of you.
Still no answer to the question I’ve asked you seven times then?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Until it was pointed out to you it was paid over "negligence"..

Again, this is only what they are claiming. There is no proof of this. Do you have the proof? Because there’s plenty of proof to the contrary. Including spoken word from the very lawyer who submitted the memorandum, stating insurance didn’t pay out. And spoken word from Michael himself on his reasons for paying. And humble brags about making over a billion dollars so $23m is pittance.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

More deflection and waffle out of you.
Still no answer to the question I’ve asked you seven times then?

What question have you asked me 7 times?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

What question?

The same question it was the last time you asked that question boggles.
The mind boggles indeed.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Including spoken word from the very lawyer who submitted the memorandum stating insurance didn’t pay out.

You are confusing yourself.

The memorandum stated that the insurance company did pay out.

The question is why didn't the prosecution challenge it, their case was falling to bits at that stage, surely if the defense lied on the record they would challenged it.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

You are confusing yourself.

The memorandum stated that the insurance company did pay out.

The question is why didn't the prosecution challenge it, their case was falling to bits at that stage, surely if the defense lied on the record they would challenged it.

So are you going to answer that question or keep showing your panic through deflection?

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

The same question it was the last time you asked that question boggles.
The mind boggles indeed.

Sorry these conspiracy threads fly by so fast.

Once you debunk one myth it's straight onto the next.

I don't remember you asking me directly the same question 7 times though.

Is that another myth that I have to go and debunk?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Sorry these conspiracy threads fly by so fast.

Once you debunk one myth it's straight onto the next.

I don't remember you asking me directly the same question 7 times though.

Is that another myth that I have to go and debunk?

Debunk “myths” with what exactly? Your incorrect opinion that is at odds with the very lawyer who submitted the motion?? Okurrrrr :pac:


But in case you missed it here it is again:

Anybody??

So, if the insurance did indeed pay out and Michael was an innocent party with no control, why not hand over the documents which prove this? Surely this can only help your case? Why file a motion requesting to block their access?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

You are confusing yourself.

The memorandum stated that the insurance company did pay out.

The question is why didn't the prosecution challenge it, their case was falling to bits at that stage, surely if the defense lied on the record they would challenged it.

Should have read “spoken word form the very lawyer who submitted the memorandum, stating the fact insurance didn’t pay out”

Pesky commas :pac:
Sure you know me and my command of English

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

But in case you missed it here it is again:

Anybody??

Yeah, as I thought you didn't directly ask me that 7 times. TutTut.

But, that one is pretty obvious.

They didn't want any past allegations submitted so they tried declined them all.

Context is key, at that stage the prosecution started clutching at straws, it had become apparent to everyone that Sneddon had put a bunch of confidence tricksters and criminals on the stand.

The case was blown apart. They were done.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, as I thought you didn't directly ask me that 7 times. TutTut.

But, that one is pretty obvious.

They didn't want any past allegations submitted so they tried declined them all.

Context is key, at that stage the prosecution started clutching at straws, it had become apparent to everyone that Sneddon had put a bunch of confidence tricksters and criminals on the stand.

But it would have supported their fight? Past allegations that was settled out of his hands? It would have helped him. Makes absolutely no sense. But thanks for attempting to answer, however nonsensical and unsatisfactory it was. It was almost worth asking you a gazillion times.
Anyway guys it’s been swell. Great start to the morning. :pac: I think it’s clear to most at this stage that Jackson was surrounded and supported by spoofers. Even the person who SUBMITTED the memorandum doesn’t agree with you at this point so it might be worth asking yourself what exactly are you at? When you get to the stage where even the crooks disagree with you it might be worth taking a look at the man in the mirror

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

But it would have supported their fight?

They didn't have to fight.

The case had fallen apart.

By that stage it was evident the prosecution had no case. That's why they tried to re litigate a settlement 11-12 years previously, he wasn't on trial for abusing Chandler.

Sleeper12

CALLER: Hi, is your name Tom?
TOM MESEREAU: Ah, my understanding was that it was

CALLER: Are you married?
TOM MESEREAU: My understanding was that the settlement agreement was a marriage

CALLER: Are you gay?
TOM MESEREAU: my understanding is that’s not correct.

:pac::pac::pac:

Mr. CooL ICE

retro:electro wrote: »

Keep up.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

English can't be your first language. My understanding & I've been told, aren't statement of facts

Mod: Lads, cool the jets and leave the petty digs out of it.

Either you're wrong or you're right, but, if you're thinking about my baby it don't matter if you're black or white.

Mark Rippetoe

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

Mod: Lads, cool the jets and leave the petty digs out of it.

Either you're wrong or you're right, but, if you're thinking about my baby it don't matter if you're black or white.

Now that’s the way, awe huh, awe huh, I like moderation, awe huh awe huh-

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Even the person who signed the memorandum doesn’t agree with you

He didn't sign though, did he?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

He didn't sign though, did he?

Edited to appease your pedantic desires xox

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Edited to appease your pedantic desires xox

Facts are pedantic?

Fair enough so.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Facts are pedantic?

Fair enough so.

Yeah the facts are he submitted a document that was full of pony. Pity someone didn’t inform himself and MJ to keep the charade going long enough before they blew it. Even the smooth criminals don’t agree with you. Now that’s grim!



Be well!

Boggles

Gifs?

Sure sign the conspiracy websites have been exhausted.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote: »

Gifs?

Sure sign the conspiracy websites have been exhausted.

I think they are concocting more fake stories while there is a lull in posts