Micky Jackson in trouble again

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 08:09PM

retro:electro wrote:

The person who is directly responsible for any abuse after that is the person who committed the abuse; ergo, Michael. But good to see where your heads at.

I totally disagree with you there but forgetting all that the family only wanted money. They were motivated solely by money. They never won a case nor did Jackson lose a case. The insurance forced the payout

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 08:10PM

retro:electro wrote:

Jackson was free to take it to trial if he wanted to. Buying someone off isnâ€™t exactly conducive to a position of innocence.

Jacksons insurance forced the payout

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 08:12PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Jacksons insurance forced the payout

Ah ya that old chestnut. That has been debunked over and over and only a few days ago I posted on this very thread, written and spoken word from Jackson himself on his reasoning behind why he decided to settle .
Jaysus even Jackson himself doesn’t agree with you at this point.

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 08:17PM

retro:electro wrote:

Ah ya that old chestnut. That has been debunked over and over and only a few days ago I posted on this very thread, written and spoken word from Jackson himself on his reasoning behind why he decided to settle . Jaysus even Jackson himself doesnâ€™t agree with you at this point.

When he says "he", doesn't he mean he & his team?

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 08:21PM

Oh dear lord in heavens. Maybe tell us the story about your neighbours penis again. Even that was more interesting than the waffle you’re coming out with.

Boggles · 31-01-2019 08:28PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Jackson was free to take it to trial if he wanted to. Buying someone off isn’t exactly conducive to a position of innocence.

But, around in circles we go.

You certainly do.

There was nothing precluding the Chandlers from participating in a criminal trial against Jackson, they chose not to.

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 08:35PM

Boggles wrote: »

You certainly do.

There was nothing precluding the Chandlers from participating in a criminal trial against Jackson, they chose not to.

Look, I’ve no doubt that Jordan’s parents are money grabbing scumbags. I’m sure they saw dollar signs and thought all their Christmas’ had come at once when he disclosed to them that he had been abused by Jackson. They certainly didn’t give a **** about his welfare and prioritied money over getting justice for their son. They’re not the first and won’t be the last. It’s just sad that an innocent boy got caught up in the middle of it all.

Boggles · 31-01-2019 09:08PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Look, I’ve no doubt that Jordan’s parents are money grabbing scumbags. I’m sure they saw dollar signs and thought all their Christmas’ had come at once when he disclosed to them that he had been abused by Jackson. They certainly didn’t give a **** about his welfare and prioritied money over getting justice for their son. They’re not the first and won’t be the last. It’s just sad that an innocent boy got caught up in the middle of it all.

Yeah, they fabricated the whole thing, and used their son to it.

He finally had to legally emancipate himself to get away from the lunatics.

His father also tried to kill him in New York and eventually ended up shooting himself.

It's worth nothing that Jackon's criminal lawyer stated that if Jordy had shown up for the trial in 2005, he had multiple witnesses who would testify that Jordy told them the whole thing was bogus.

BBFAN · 31-01-2019 09:09PM

Rory28 wrote: »

I have not read the whole tread so apologies if this was already mentioned. Was he not chemically castrated as a kid/teen by his Father to keep his voice the way it was? He was obviously a sick puppy but if that rumor is true was he even capable of abusing kids?

You don't need to be able to get an erection to abuse anyone though?

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 09:14PM

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, they fabricated the whole thing, and used their son to it.

He finally had to legally emancipate himself to get away from the lunatics.

His father also tried to kill him in New York and eventually ended up shooting himself.

It's worth nothing that Jackon's criminal lawyer stated that if Jordy had shown up for the trial in 2005, he had multiple witnesses who would testify that Jordy told them the whole thing was bogus.

It’s entirely possible that the parents were indeed money grabbers and that Jordan was indeed molested. You seem to be failing at grasping at that.
It’s also entirely irrelevant how his father died. Because if you wanted to go down that road, some could say Michael was self medicating and abusing drugs out of guilt too..

Pity Jackson’s lawyer didn’t put his money (literally) where his mouth is. :rolleyes: shoulda woulda coulda.

ceadaoin. · 31-01-2019 09:22PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Jacksons insurance forced the payout

Jacksons team tried to get the insurance company to cover the payout and they refused. This shows that they were looking into settling before even involving the insurance company. They didn't force him into anything, they even said they have nothing to do with such matters and wouldn't be liable in any case. Jackson and his team wanted to avoid going to court so they paid him out themselves.

Boggles · 31-01-2019 09:31PM

retro:electro wrote: »

It’s entirely possible that the parents were indeed money grabbers and that Jordan was indeed molested

Indeed. But given all we know it is far more probably that they made he whole thing up.

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 09:32PM

Boggles wrote: »

Indeed. But given all we know it is far more probably that they made he whole thing up.

In your opinion

Boggles · 31-01-2019 09:37PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Jacksons team tried to get the insurance company to cover the payout and they refused. This shows that they were looking into settling before even involving the insurance company. They didn't force him into anything, they even said they have nothing to do with such matters and wouldn't be liable in any case. Jackson and his team wanted to avoid going to court so they paid him out themselves.

https://mjjtruthnow.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

Lets put the myth to bed once for all.

The insurance company paid.

retro:electro wrote: »

In your opinion

Indeed.

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 09:44PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Jacksons team tried to get the insurance company to cover the payout and they refused. This shows that they were looking into settling before even involving the insurance company. They didn't force him into anything, they even said they have nothing to do with such matters and wouldn't be liable in any case. Jackson and his team wanted to avoid going to court so they paid him out themselves.

And yet they paid. Why pay out millions if he's not covered. :pac::pac::pac::pac:

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 09:50PM

Pity nobody informed Michael about the balloney his lawyers were writing.

On why HE settled:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzn-lALWwcc

No mention of mysterious bad boy insurers settling against his will and forging his signature. Crayture.

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 09:53PM

Boggles wrote:

The insurance company paid.

Reading that document. It does state that the insurance company paid out & it was their decision not Jacksons to settle? Am I reading it correctly? It does state that Jackson didn't pay & didn't settle?

ceadaoin. · 31-01-2019 09:57PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

And yet they paid. Why pay out millions if he's not covered. :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Because they didn't pay anything. According to the California insurance statute

(a) No policy of insurance shall provide, or be construed to provide, any coverage or indemnity for the payment of any fine, penalty, or restitution in any criminal action or proceeding

(b) No policy of insurance shall provide, or be construed to provide, any duty to defend, as defined in subdivision (c), any claim in any criminal action or proceeding or in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of, or Chapter 1

(c) For the purpose of this section, “duty to defend” means the insurer’s right or obligation to investigate, contest, defend, control the defense of, compromise, settle, negotiate the compromise or settlement of, or indemnify for the cost of any aspect of defending any claim in any criminal action or proceeding or in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of, or Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of, Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code in which the insured expects or contends that (1) the insurer is liable or is potentially liable to make any payment on behalf of the insured or (2) the insurer will provide a defense for a claim even though the insurer is precluded by law from indemnifying that claim

(d) Any provision in a policy of insurance which is in violation of subdivision (a) or (b) is contrary to public policy and void.

It definitely suited Jackson and his team to make it appear they were forced to settle though

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 09:58PM

retro:electro wrote:

No mention of mysterious bad boy insurers settling against his will and forging his signature. Crayture.

You do understand that insurance companies have the last say in claims? They can settle a claim even if you aren't at fault to protect themselves. The insurance company has a legal right to settle. If Jackson didn't sign they have the right to pull cover. In other words if he doesn't sign they walk away leaving him uninsured

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 10:01PM

Again, you think you’d get their stories straight. But what else can be expected from a manipulative child molestor and the POS who defended OJ, but distortion of the truth.

But yeah, it’s the insurance wot dunnit.

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 10:04PM

What you posted is nonsense & you know it.

(a) says criminal proceedings.

(b) says criminal proceedings

(c) says criminal proceedings

They weren't criminal proceedings. There was no evidence or proof for criminal proceedings.

Do you understand the difference between a civil action and criminal action?

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 10:08PM

retro:electro wrote:

But yeah, itâ€™s the insurance wot dunnit.

Yes his insurance company paid out & he regrets them paying out.

It doesn't say that the insurance didn't pay out on behalf of Jackson.

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 10:15PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Yes his insurance company paid out & he regrets them paying out.

It doesn't say that the insurance didn't pay out on behalf of Jackson.

But I thought it was done against his will and he had no power or control? Those documents say differently. HE paid. HE wanted to buy peace (this is particularly informative because it shows how his payment had intent and that it was a conscious payment with wishes attached, so he wasn’t forced to do anything, and that he did have control over where his money was going,what a load of ****) What fcuking liars they are.

Boggles wrote: »

Lets put the myth to bed once for all

Done x

Beechwoodspark · 31-01-2019 10:25PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Pity nobody informed Michael about the balloney his lawyers were writing.

On why HE settled:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzn-lALWwcc

No mention of mysterious bad boy insurers settling against his will and forging his signature. Crayture.

Clearly see from the clip how devious and disingenuous he was

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 10:32PM

retro:electro wrote:

But I thought it was done against his will and he had no power or control? Those documents say differently. HE paid. HE wanted to buy peace (this is particularly informative because it shows how his payment had intent and that it was a conscious payment with wishes attached, so he wasnâ€™t forced to do anything, and that he did have control over where his money was going,what a load of ****) What fcuking liars they are.

You understand that if he doesn't agree the insurance company can walk away & refuse cover?

Just so you are aware legally you don't say Mr Jacksons insurance paid out. They paid on behalf of the insured. So the correct way to say it is Mr Jackson paid out the money.

You will notice that nowhere in the document does it suggest that Jackson paid out of his own pocket. Why would he when he is fully insured.

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 10:35PM

Yeah yeah :pac: The jig is up.

ceadaoin. · 31-01-2019 11:13PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You understand that if he doesn't agree the insurance company can walk away & refuse cover?

Just so you are aware legally you don't say Mr Jacksons insurance paid out. They paid on behalf of the insured. So the correct way to say it is Mr Jackson paid out the money.

You will notice that nowhere in the document does it suggest that Jackson paid out of his own pocket. Why would he when he is fully insured.

Except it is on record that the insurance company said he wasn't covered and that they were "astounded" that he would even ask them to contribute to the payout.

Here is another quote from a claims officer from the insurance company

That same day, claims analyst Russ Wardrip fired off a letter to Howard Weitzman, informing him that Michael’s policy covered him only in the event that he was injured in an accident. “Acts of sexual activity,” Wardrip stated, “do not constitute an accident.” The letter went on to point out that “Transamerica declines coverage for any damages flowing from the allegations of sexual conduct in the complaint. Further, acts of sexual activity, especially those committed against a minor, are inherently intentional, wrongful, and harmful. Coverage for such acts is precluded from California Insurance Code Section 533. On that basis, as well, coverage is denied under the Transamerica policy for the allegations in the [Chandler] lawsuit.”

Despite this they still presented a one time only offer of a contribution towards the payout which Jackson's team rejected.

Transamerica attorney Lane Ashley attended the meeting, as did three Jackson attorneys — Cochran, Weitzman, and Allan Goldman. As [Chandler]’s lawyer, Feldman was committed to seeing that there was hard cash behind any settlement offer. The Transamerica lawyer reported back in a memo: “At the outset (and as is typical) counsel for Jackson ‘beat up’ on Transamerica for its denial of coverage.” Incredibly…Transamerica, without acknowledging any legal obligation to do so, agreed to pay a certain amount. Even more incredibly, the Jackson team turned it down. “An offer was made on behalf of Transamerica on a one-time only basis to resolve the claim,” the memo stated. “This offer was rejected by the insured.”

Also, Jackson himself said he and his advisors decided to settle. No mention of insurance

So what I said…I have got to do something to get out from under this nightmare. All these lies and all these people coming forth to get paid and all these tabloid shows, just lies, lies, lies. So what I did – we got together again with my advisers and they advised me, it was hands down, a unanimous decision – resolve the case. This could be something that could go on for seven years.

There is more evidence pointing towards the insurance company having nothing to do with it, than there is that he was forced by them to pay

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 11:26PM

The statement even describes how much $23m was pittance to him and how he’ll earn it back in no time

Mr Jackson had hoped to buy peace in the process. He was advised that while these sums of money appeared large, they were actually very small to the money he could make in music. Mr Jackson has earned well over one billion dollars in his career. Placed in this perspective, they were very small sums, indeed.

What a bizarrely arrogant paragraph.

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 11:37PM

Willing to be corrected on this- but to me it looks like there wasn’t as much of a mention about insurance companies paying out until the 2005 memorandum referenced earlier where Jackson was objecting to the subpoena by Larry Feldman for the settlement documents.
Is the name of the insurance company even mentioned?

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 11:47PM

ceadaoin. wrote:

Except it is on record that the insurance company said he wasn't covered and that they were "astounded" that he would even ask them to contribute to the payout.

No its not. You are talking things off conspiracy sites that are fake. You posted earlier tonight supposedly showing how its illegal for insurance companies to pay out. Problem is it states criminal trials not civil cases. I also noticed a lot of copy & paste posting without links so we can see the site itself & the context of the portion of the whole article that is posted.

It's been posted showing where they did pay out only a few hours ago. Not a section or a quote but the full document

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments