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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Micky Jackson in trouble again

1…910121415…70

Comments

  • #552
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,358 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    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.


  • #553
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,580 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    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.


  • #554
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


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

    In your opinion :)


  • #555
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,580 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    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.


  • #556
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    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:


  • #557
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    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.


  • #558
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    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?


  • #559
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,358 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    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


  • #560
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    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


  • #561
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    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.

    GwUuHoU.jpg

    vZDVXTF.jpg


    But yeah, it’s the insurance wot dunnit.


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    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?


  • #563
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    retro:electro wrote:
    But yeah, it’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.


  • #564
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    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


  • #565
    Beechwoodspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,851 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


    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


  • #566
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    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 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.


    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.


  • #567
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Yeah yeah :pac: The jig is up.


  • #568
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,358 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    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


  • #569
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    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.


  • #570
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    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


  • #572
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    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

    It didn’t “show” anything. It was just written word and PR waffle signed by his lawyers. It proves nothing. I thought you were all about the proof?
    Also why was he objecting to the subpoena if it was all “nothing to see here”.. insurance made me do it jargon


  • #573
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


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


    They didn't pay out for acts of sexual misconduct. There was no recorded or admitted sexual misconduct. Both sides settled on no fault & no guilt. This is what was paid out for. The insurance company can't claim that it was sexual misconduct when non was recorded in the court


  • #574
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,358 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    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

    Did you ignore where it says


    "any claim in any criminal action or proceeding or in any action or proceedingbrought pursuant to Chapter 5 "

    Not just criminal trials. It also says


    "An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the willful act of the insured"

    And another document contradicting that he was forced to settle, also coming from Jackson's team has been posted. Accept it, they made that **** up once the second case came to light to make him look less guilty.


  • #575
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    retro:electro wrote:
    It didn’t “show†anything. It was just written word and PR waffle signed by his lawyers. It proves nothing. I thought you were all about the proof? Also why was he objecting to the subpoena if it was all “nothing to see hereâ€.. insurance made me do it jargon


    Wasn't it you that said last night lawyers can't actually lie In court?

    The PR waffle as you call it is a memo in support of an objection to subpoena for settlement documents. This was filed in court by Jacksons legal team in the criminal case against him. I wouldn't call legal documents filed in a criminal court "PR waffle".

    Actual legal documents have been posted here tonight stating that not only did the insurance company pay out but that it was against Jacksons wishes.

    Have you even looked at these?


  • #576
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Interesting!
    On the 3rd of January 2014, ex Jackson counsel Tom Mesereau appeared on a phone in Q&A session on an Internet radio show. One of the callers asked about whether there was an insurance company involved in the Chandler settlement. This is a verbatim transcript of the conversation (the “motion by Brian Oxman”)

    CALLER: Hi. Hello? Hi. My name is Lynnette, and I’m calling from Minnesota. I spoke with Tom in May about Wade, and, um, I’m a psychiatric nurse. I have a couple of questions about the ’93 settlement. Um, was there ever any evidence that it was settled by an insurance company, or paid by them?
    TOM MESEREAU: Ah, my understanding was that an insurance company did not pay. Now, the settlement agreement was written, in my opinion, (and again, I was not involved in that settlement, ah, you should ask Cap Weitzman about the settlement, or John Branca about it), 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…
    CALLER: Right.
    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.
    CALLER: OH!
    TOM 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.
    CALLER: Well I think they base that on, um, one of the motions that were filed by Brian Oxman
    TOM MESEREAU: I’m well aware of that.
    CALLER: Mmmm. And so they’re under the impression that it was paid by an insurance company, and if that’s the wrong impression, that’s the wrong impression.
    TOM MESEREAU: I understand.

    ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #577
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Wasn't it you that said last night lawyers can't actually lie In court?

    And I’m pretty sure I was scoffed at :D
    Actual legal documents have been posted here tonight stating that not only did the insurance company pay out but that it was against Jacksons wishes.
    Have you even looked at these?

    Yep and I asked this.. can you answer it?
    retro:electro wrote: »
    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?


  • #578
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I wouldn't call legal documents filed in a criminal court "PR waffle".

    Oh yeah what was it you called it again.. last night:
    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Neither one might be correct but it's what lawyers do. It's part of their job
    Or..
    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    looking for an expert to bend the truth for them.

    :pac: :pac: :pac:


  • #579
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Why would he want it out of court if it supported his cause?


  • #580
    EPAndlee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,172 ✭✭✭EPAndlee


    I don't know about the rest of ye but I still really like his music


  • #581
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    There's a few things about the above post. There is a thing called client confidentiality. I don't believe that the lawyer gave out information on a clients case over the radio.

    Even if he did & he said no the insurance didn't pay out, he stated in legal documents filed in a criminal trail the comple opposite. If he's lying in one of these times you can be certain that it's on the radio and not a court of law.

    Do you have a link to the live recording? Or is this more made up nonsense from a conspiracy site?

    If I had to choose between court documents and that text of a supposed radio recording I'd have to pick legal court documents every time. Its funny how you choose the fake news every time.


  • Advertisement
  • #582
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    retro:electro wrote:
    Yep and I asked this.. can you answer it?

    I've no idea if there is any mention of the insurance before 2004. Maybe there is maybe there's not. I'm guessing that the 1993 settlement had a non disclosure agreement. This may have stopped any mention of the insurance company. I don't know.

    He was insured. I don't understand why you would think he'd pay the settlement himself out of his pocket when he was insured. If you crashed into me & I'm getting 50k out of the accident would you let the insurance company pay me or would you pay out of your own pocket?
    retro:electro wrote:
    Oh yeah what was it you called it again.. last night:

    I said lawyer would not lie in court. Nor would they lie in filing legal documents in a criminal trial. He could be debarred & criminal charges brought against him.

    For your fairytale to work you need Jackson to pay millions out of his own pocket while he is actually insured. You need a top lawyer to deliberately file false documents in a criminal trial. Why do we need these things to happen? Oh so you can say that Jackson willingly settled. We have to have several unbelievable things to happen to support your groundless claim the Jackson settled.

    If I tried to spin that yarn to a child they'd laugh at me


  • #583
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Do you have a link to the live recording?.

    Yep: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/kingjordanradio/2014/01/03/tom-mesereau-returns-to-king-jordan-radio
    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    There's a few things about the above post. There is a thing called client confidentiality. I don't believe that the lawyer gave out information on a clients case over the radio..

    It’s public information
    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    If I had to choose between court documents and that text of a supposed radio recording I'd have to pick legal court documents every time. Its funny how you choose the fake news every time.

    Im taking the word of the same lawyer whose word you believe when he says MJ had no control over the insurance settlement.


  • #584
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I've no idea if there is any mention of the insurance before 2004.

    Because there isn’t.
    If you crashed into me & I'm getting 50k out of the accident would you let the insurance company pay me or would you pay out of your own pocket?

    Well that’s an obvious one. The purpose of insurance (and the particular cover he had) is to cover accidents and injury. Not to settle on allegations of underage sex with minors.

    For your fairytale to work you need Jackson to pay millions out of his own pocket while he is actually insured. You need a top lawyer to deliberately file false documents in a criminal trial.

    Lie? Or.. “bend the truth” as you said they do as a normal everyday functional quality of their job. If you’re to believe what Mesereau says in the phone call then there was certainly a looooot if bending.
    Why do we need these things to happen

    Why did he object to the subpoena if it went in his favour?


  • #585
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    retro:electro wrote:
    Well that’s an obvious one. The purpose of insurance (and the particular cover he had) is to cover accidents and injury. Not to settle on allegations of underage sex with minors.

    This is where your argument falls flat. His insurance like most celebrities also covers civil law suits. Rich famous people are forever being threatened with civil suits. So you know that he had insurance for civil suits. The case was settled with no blame either side. No wrong doing. The insurance will have no reasonable excuse not to pay out. Remember he didn't lose the case. There was no admission of guilt and the case was dropped. Legally he had & still does have the presumption of innocence. An insurance company can't refuse to pay out on behalf of an innocent may. They can't refuse to pay out on allegations because thats all they are until proven true. They were never proven true.

    Saying that the insurance refused to pay out is BS. I know that you know that it's BS. Your claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

    You need to try harder.


  • #586
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    retro:electro wrote:
    Lie? Or.. “bend the truth†as you said they do as a normal everyday functional quality of their job. If you’re to believe what Mesereau says in the phone call then there was certainly a looooot if bending.


    Bending the truth or getting a witness to bend the truth is a million light years away from filling false documents in a criminal court.

    If the judge rejected their request to keep the settlement out of the court the judge would be seen false legal submissions. The lawyer would end up in jail & debarred. Not a chance did the lawyer lie in those court documents


  • #587
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,358 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    This is where your argument falls flat. His insurance like most celebrities also covers civil law suits. Rich famous people are forever being threatened with civil suits. So you know that he had insurance for civil suits. The case was settled with no blame either side. No wrong doing. The insurance will have no reasonable excuse not to pay out. Remember he didn't lose the case. There was no admission of guilt and the case was dropped. Legally he had & still does have the presumption of innocence. An insurance company can't refuse to pay out on behalf of an innocent may. They can't refuse to pay out on allegations because thats all they are until proven true. They were never proven true.

    Saying that the insurance refused to pay out is BS. I know that you know that it's BS. Your claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

    You need to try harder.

    If the lawsuit was paid out by the insurance company, then their lawyers would have taken over the negotiations and signed off on the settlement. It was Jackson and his lawyers who negotiated and Jackson himself who signed the settlement terms . Therefore it is Jackson who decided to settle and pay out and the man himself said as much. The story only changed before the 2005 trial.

    Again
    Michael Jackson wrote:
    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.

    And also, the officer from the insurance company
    “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.”


  • #588
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Bending the truth or getting a witness to bend the truth is a million light years away from filling false documents in a criminal court.

    If the judge rejected their request to keep the settlement out of the court the judge would be seen false legal submissions. The lawyer would end up in jail & debarred. Not a chance did the lawyer lie in those court documents

    So did you listen to the recording? You’re not scoffing and have dialled back the unjustly confident and sanctimonious tone so I’m guessing you did :D


  • #589
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    This is where your argument falls flat. His insurance like most celebrities also covers civil law suits.

    His insurance only covered accident and injury. Do you even read the posts directed at you. As far as I’m aware there’s no “in case you’re accused of raping a minor” policy, because those crimes “committed against a minor, are inherently intentional, wrongful, and harmful. Coverage for such acts is precluded from California Insurance Code Section 533.”

    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.”

    You need to try harder.

    Hahahaa okay

    tenor.gif?itemid=4412301


  • #590
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    retro:electro wrote:
    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.â€


    I don't know where to start.

    Above is nonsense. It's fake copied and pasted from a conspiracy site. You don't post links so it can be verified. Have you a link to the letter & policy mentioned?

    allegations of sexual conduct are just that. Allegations. They are not facts. An insurance company cannot refuse to pay out based on allegations. You have the presumption of innocence unless convicted in a court of law. What you have posted isn't real.

    That above is reference to criminal allegations in a criminal trial. It can't include a civil suit.

    Try harder


  • #591
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Getting flustered are we :pac:

    Soooo did you listen to the call or not? You know, the one you also dismissed as being from a “conspiracy site” until I handed you your ass and provided you with a link.

    Also, 4th time asking.. why would he file to block the prosecutions request for the settlement documents if it went in his favour?


  • Advertisement
  • #592
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    retro:electro wrote:
    Getting flustered are we


    You are posting fake things from conspiracy website. No links so they can be verified. You are disputing legally filed documents in a criminal court case with nonsense.. Half of the comments you are quoting I think you are making up yourself. You post something "proving" that it's illegal for the insurance to pay out in a criminal case yet it was a civil case

    Nothing you have posted is honest or legitimate. I'm waiting my time & being I'm the bigger idiot to continue to entertain the completely fake news that you have posted

    You can't seem to grip that there was no evidence in 1993 so he wasn’t charged. They thought there was evidence in 2004 yet he was found not guilty. You claim that the jury had reasonable doubt and couldn't convict yet the jury are on the record for saying that the man was innocent and they would aquit him again today. The jury after hearing all the evidence stated that they believed that the parents were motivated by greed. Money.

    There has been no new evidence since. Any new evidence you have provided has been fake. You honestly believe that you can prove a case that two police forces couldn't?


  • #593
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,580 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    retro:electro wrote: »
    His insurance only covered accident and injury.

    And Negligence. Which is what they paid out under.
    “Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against, the Minor [Jordan Chandler], [Evan Chandler] or [June Chandler] or any other persons. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson is a public figure and that his name, image and likeness have commercial value and are an important element of his earning capacity. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in the Action in view of the impact the Action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and potential income.

    The Parties recognize that the Settlement Payment are in settlement of claims by [Jordan Chandler], [Evan Chandler] and [June Chandler] for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation”.

    Like I said before, if you are going to do an information dump from lunatic conspiracy sites, just maybe for the sake of the thread and yourself cast a courtesy common sense eye over.

    Again from the March 2005 motion filed in the Superior Court of California.
    The 1993 Civil Settlement was Made by Mr. Jackson’s Insurance Company and was not within Mr.Jackson’s control. The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr.Jackson and his personal legal counsel.


  • #594
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    If the lawsuit was paid out by the insurance company, then their lawyers would have taken over the negotiations and signed off on the settlement. It was Jackson and his lawyers who negotiated and Jackson himself who signed the settlement terms . Therefore it is Jackson who decided to settle and pay out and the man himself said as much. The story only changed before the 2005 trial.

    Again



    And also, the officer from the insurance company




    You are missing the big picture here. The law suit is against Jackson. He is the only one that signs off on it. This doesn't mean he paid. It means he singed the document stating he accepts the agreement. He can't sign "I'm doing this under duress, I don't want to sign but they are making me".


    As stated in court filed legal documents the insurance company insisted on settling & paid out. If Jackson refused this he would have given the insurance company the right to walk away without paying anything because he was breaking a clause in the policy. The insurance company paid. This is fact as presented in court.


    “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.”


    You & retro:electro are copy & pasting this without actually understanding what it says or doesn't say. It's also one paragraph of a much larger document. When you have the full document & can read it in context you will see that it doesn't mean the insurance couldn't pay out Because:

    " The Parties recognize that the Settlement Payment are in settlement of claims by [Jordan Chandler], [Evan Chandler] and [June Chandler] for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation”.


  • #595
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Interesting!
    On the 3rd of January 2014, ex Jackson counsel Tom Mesereau appeared on a phone in Q&A session on an Internet radio show. One of the callers asked about whether there was an insurance company involved in the Chandler settlement. This is a verbatim transcript of the conversation (the “motion by Brian Oxman”)

    CALLER: Hi. Hello? Hi. My name is Lynnette, and I’m calling from Minnesota. I spoke with Tom in May about Wade, and, um, I’m a psychiatric nurse. I have a couple of questions about the ’93 settlement. Um, was there ever any evidence that it was settled by an insurance company, or paid by them?
    TOM MESEREAU: Ah, my understanding was that an insurance company did not pay. Now, the settlement agreement was written, in my opinion, (and again, I was not involved in that settlement, ah, you should ask Cap Weitzman about the settlement, or John Branca about it), 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…
    CALLER: Right.
    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.
    CALLER: OH!
    TOM 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.
    CALLER: Well I think they base that on, um, one of the motions that were filed by Brian Oxman
    TOM MESEREAU: I’m well aware of that.
    CALLER: Mmmm. And so they’re under the impression that it was paid by an insurance company, and if that’s the wrong impression, that’s the wrong impression.
    TOM MESEREAU: I understand.

    ;)




    Please not that not once did he give a straight answer. Not once did he state that the insurance did not pay out.

    I understand & my understanding = I have no first hand knowledge of this.



    This my friend is called hearsay & a judge wouldn't entertain this statement. In fact the judge would stop him from talking altogether. He's ask for his comments to be stricken from the record & the jury might be told to disregard the statement.



    "But I was also told" is third hand information. The man obviously does not know that the insurance wasn't paid.


    Again, have you not got anything real?


  • #596
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Please not that not once did he give a straight answer. Not once did he state that the insurance did not pay out.

    I understand & my understanding = I have no first hand knowledge of this.



    This my friend is called hearsay & a judge wouldn't entertain this statement. In fact the judge would stop him from talking altogether. He's ask for his comments to be stricken from the record & the jury might be told to disregard the statement.



    "But I was also told" is third hand information. The man obviously does not know that the insurance wasn't paid.


    Again, have you not got anything real?

    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…


    why is anybody paying any credence to that phonecall at all?


  • #597
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Nothing you have posted is honest or legitimate. I'm waiting my time & being I'm the bigger idiot to continue to entertain the completely fake news that you have posted

    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.


  • #598
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.




    A horse that wasnt involved and didnt even know Michael at the time of the settlement.


    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…


  • #599
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Boggles wrote: »
    And Negligence. Which is what they paid out under..

    They didn’t pay out. It’s time you got over that fact. The “company” isn’t even named in the memorandum hahahaaa. Unless you have proof they paid out and settled you’re just believing the lies of total spoofers. I’ve posted audio clips of Michael staying why HE paid and his lawyer stating the insurance rumour is BS. It doesn’t get more authentic than that.

    Answer me this. Why is there NO mention of any insurance settlement for over a decade until the filing to object the subpoena? Why object to a subpoena which would help their cause?...
    So yeah, I’ll wait for your proof that the insurance paid out. And not that hodgepodge court filing from a pack of spoofers. Until you can provide actual proof I’m done engaging with you.


  • #600
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    5th time time asking.. why would he file to block the prosecutions request for the settlement documents if it went in his favour?


  • Advertisement
  • #601
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,580 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    retro:electro wrote: »
    They didn’t pay out. It’s time you got over that fact. The “company” isn’t even named in the memorandum.

    Why would the company have to be named?
    retro:electro wrote: »
    5th time time asking.. why would he file to block the prosecutions request for the settlement documents if it went in his favour?

    If what went in his favor?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement