Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Micky Jackson in trouble again

1…1819212324…117

Comments

  • #602
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,298 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    retro:electro wrote: »
    I posted you a clip of a radio phone in show straight from the horses mouth. It doesn’t get more legit than that. You’re just making a total fool of youself at this point.


    And answered below


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    why is anybody paying any credence to that phonecall at all?




    Straight from the horses mouth? Listen to what he's saying. He doesn't know. My understanding = I don't have ANY firsthand knowledge



    It's MY understanding that Jackson is innocent of all charges. That statement is the truth. It is my understanding BUT I don't have any first hand knowledge on this. There is a reason that I haven't stated as fact that Jackson is innocent. The reason is, like the gent in the radio interview, I have no firsthand knowledge on it





    Still waiting an some facts


  • #603
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Still waiting an some facts

    I’ve given you evidence from the horses mouth and it’s still not enough for you. You’re not willing to engage with the facts. Have you even posted a single proof of anything on here? Come back to me when you’re able to confirm anything you’re saying and I don’t mean links to irrelevant penis conditions.


  • #604
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,925 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    retro:electro wrote: »
    I’ve given you evidence from the horses mouth and it’s still not enough for you. You’re not willing to engage with the facts. Have you even posted a single proof of anything on here? Come back to me when you’re able to confirm anything you’re saying and I don’t mean links to irrelevant penis conditions.


    that phonecall is not "from the horses mouth"


  • #605
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Boggles wrote: »
    If what went in his favor?

    The prosecution were asking for the settlement documents. The defence were replying objecting to this, as it was nothing to here... the insurance did it.. nervous laugh.. ooooh look over there!! A flying pig!!

    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?


  • #606
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    that phonecall is not "from the horses mouth"

    It’s the same lawyer who signed the memorandum hun. Keep up.


  • Advertisement
  • #607
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,925 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    retro:electro wrote: »
    It’s the same lawyer who signed the memorandum hun. Keep up.


    I must have imagined this part of the transcript


    I was not involved in it. I didn’t even know Michael at the time, I wasn’t, I didn’t meet him until eleven years later, um, but…


  • #608
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Straight from the horses mouth? Listen to what he's saying. He doesn't know. My understanding = I don't have ANY firsthand knowledge

    No first hand knowledge??His bloody name is on the motion to block the request!! These people are nothing but crooks.


  • #609
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,298 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    retro:electro wrote:
    I’ve given you evidence from the horses mouth and it’s still not enough for you. You’re not willing to engage with the facts. Have you even posted a single proof of anything on here? Come back to me when you’re able to confirm anything you’re saying and I don’t mean links to irrelevant penis conditions.


    Forget about horses. Any chance you can post facts from someone who was actually there?

    A hores on the radio stating that they have no first hand knowledge doesn't come close to discrediting legal documents filed in court and ruled on by the judge in a criminal trial.

    Ya gota love the social media generation. Ha! Who is needs facts!


  • #610
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I must have imagined this part of the transcript

    He wasn’t involved in the settlement in 1993 but his name is on the memorandum from 2005 which seeks to block the prosecution’s request to the settlement documents because it’s the insurance won’t dunnit.
    Again, keep up.


  • #611
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,925 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    retro:electro wrote: »
    He wasn’t involved in the settlement in 1993 but his name is on the memorandum from 2005 which seeks to block the prosecution’s request to the settlement documents because it’s the insurance won’t dunnit.
    Again, keep up.


    so he has no firsthand knowledge of the settlement.


  • Advertisement
  • #612
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Forget about horses. Any chance you can post facts from someone who was actually there?
    !

    I did x

    k1B5Wgl.jpg


  • #613
    Trigger Happy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭Trigger Happy


    Could not find a more appropriate gif but this is me reading this argument.

    giphy.gif


  • #614
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so he has no firsthand knowledge of the settlement.

    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.

    They pulled a stunt to make Jackson look less guilty. Why block a subpoena requesting something that supports your cause.


  • #615
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,487 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    retro:electro wrote: »
    I did x

    k1B5Wgl.jpg

    So he didn't sign it as you claimed?
    retro:electro wrote: »
    It’s the same lawyer who signed the memorandum hun. Keep up.

    What's the phrase I'm looking for.
    retro:electro wrote: »
    keep up.

    Perfect.


  • #616
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    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


  • #617
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,487 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Fine he didn’t sign it he submitted it.

    No he didn't

    KEEP UP


  • #618
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Boggles wrote: »
    No he didn't

    KEEP UP

    Respectfully submitted,

    Thomas A. Mesereau, jr.

    Keep up!


  • #619
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,487 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Respectfully submitted,

    Thomas A. Mesereau, jr.

    Keep up!

    That's just print. No signatures as you claimed.

    Who actually physically submitted it and signed that they did?

    It came from Oxmans law firm. There were several seperate law firms involved in the case, they would all be working on different parts of the case.

    But as Mesereau said from your post.
    I was not involved in it. I didn’t even know Michael at the time, I wasn’t, I didn’t meet him until eleven years later


    Keep Up.


  • #620
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    He wasn’t involved in the settlement Boggles. He was clearly involved in the 2005 trial and the cock and bull story about the settlement. Good grief! Heres a rundown for you since you’re struggling:

    - settles for $23m in 1993 against allegations of molestation
    - Publicly gives reasons for doing so and states he regrets it
    - 2004 rocks around and oh what do you know another abuse allegation
    - Goes to trial this time
    - MJ is issued a subpoena for 1993 settlement docs
    - Cock and bull story about insurance controlling the former settlement is introduced for the first time ever
    - Even though it would help MJs claims to issue the docs, they decide to file a motion to prevent them being used in court
    - Lawyer who submitted motion goes on live radio and admits he knows nothing nothing about any insurance settlement and that it’s all pony
    - The world laughs

    Either way, the man is a liar! And the fact you’re taking a proven liars word as sacred says a lot about the scuther you believe.


  • #621
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,298 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    retro:electro wrote:
    No first hand knowledge??His bloody name is on the motion to block the request!! These people are nothing but crooks.


    He doesn't know. He hasn't seen any documents. He states that he was told. Being told is not first hand knowledge. It's hearsay.

    I respectfully suggest that you might need to improve your command of the English language. "it's my belief, I believe or I've been told" is 2nd hand information not first hand

    Legally the insurance company paid out. This has been accepted by a court of law when they wouldn't allow it to be used in court. Its recorded in court and accepted by a judge as fact. It is fact.


  • Advertisement
  • #622
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Legally the insurance company paid out. This has been accepted by a court of law when they wouldn't allow it to be used in court. Its recorded in court and accepted by a judge as fact. It is fact.

    Not according to the lawyer who submitted the motion to object :pac: :pac: :pac:

    And you can take pot shots at my “command of the English language” all you like. You’re only showing yourself up and the fact you have to resort to low blows is a clear sign you’ve fun out of fuel. You won’t get a rise out of me. I have facts on my side, you have liars on yours. The jig is up. There was no insurance settlement. Even the man who submitted the motion agrees. Time for us all to move on now.


  • #623
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,487 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    retro:electro wrote: »
    He wasn’t involved in the settlement Boggles.

    Excellent, I think we have progress with you.


  • #624
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Boggles wrote: »
    Excellent, I think we have progress with you.

    Ehhh I never stated otherwise! But he was a part of the made up hodgepodge insurance bs. Which is what we are talking about!


  • #625
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    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?

    *tumbleweed...


  • #626
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,487 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Ehhh I never stated otherwise! But he was a part of the made up hodgepodge insurance bs. Which is what we are talking about!

    But like it has all ready been point out to you. He may have not been involved in that memorandum.

    Why did the prosecution not file a motion to subpoena the insurance company or at least their records?


  • #627
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Boggles wrote: »
    But like it has all ready been point out to you. He may have not been involved in that memorandum.

    Yeah maybe Peter Pan flew in and typed that part stating his involvement


  • #628
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,487 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Yeah maybe Peter Pan flew in and typed that part stating his involvement

    It came from a separate law firm.

    The only signatures on it are from the 2 senior partners of that law firm.

    This is quite simple follow.

    But again why didn't the prosecution try subpoena the insurance company or the records?


  • #629
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Boggles wrote: »
    But again why didn't the prosecution try subpoena the insurance company or the records?

    I have no idea if they did or didn’t. How have you the authority to make such a claim?

    And please. You’re reaching. He submitted it and how is stating it’s all codswallop. You’re right in that it’s pretty easy to follow. Easy to follow that his team was made up of spoofers and fabricators.


  • #630
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,487 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    retro:electro wrote: »
    I have no idea if they did or didn’t. How have you the authority to make such a claim?

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


  • Advertisement
  • #631
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Boggles wrote: »
    Because it isn't in any of the trial documents.

    Now maybe you can answer this for me:
    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?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement