Micky Jackson in trouble again

Sleeper12 · 01-02-2019 11:16am

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

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 11:24am

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.

ohnonotgmail · 01-02-2019 11:25am

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"

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 11:27am

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?

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 11:27am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that phonecall is not "from the horses mouth"

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

ohnonotgmail · 01-02-2019 11:29am

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…

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 11:29am

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.

Sleeper12 · 01-02-2019 11:30am

retro:electro wrote:

Iâ€™ve given you evidence from the horses mouth and itâ€™s still not enough for you. Youâ€™re not willing to engage with the facts. Have you even posted a single proof of anything on here? Come back to me when youâ€™re able to confirm anything youâ€™re saying and I donâ€™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!

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 11:30am

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.

ohnonotgmail · 01-02-2019 11:34am

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.

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 11:37am

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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

I did x

Trigger Happy · 01-02-2019 11:37am

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

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 11:39am

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.

Boggles · 01-02-2019 11:40am

retro:electro wrote: »

I did x

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.

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 11:41am

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

Boggles · 01-02-2019 11:44am

retro:electro wrote: »

Fine he didn’t sign it he submitted it.

No he didn't

KEEP UP

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 11:47am

Boggles wrote: »

No he didn't

KEEP UP

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas A. Mesereau, jr.

Keep up!

Boggles · 01-02-2019 11:53am

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.

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 11:56am

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.

Sleeper12 · 01-02-2019 11:56am

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.

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 12:00pm

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.

Boggles · 01-02-2019 12:01pm

retro:electro wrote: »

He wasn’t involved in the settlement Boggles.

Excellent, I think we have progress with you.

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 12:02pm

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!

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 12:03pm

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...

Boggles · 01-02-2019 12:06pm

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?

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 12:10pm

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

Boggles · 01-02-2019 12:13pm

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?

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 12:17pm

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.

Boggles · 01-02-2019 12:19pm

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.

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 12:20pm

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?

retro:electro · 01-02-2019 12:22pm

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 · 01-02-2019 12:26pm

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 · 01-02-2019 12:27pm

retro:electro wrote:

Thereâ€™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 itâ€™s a load of pony and he knows nothing about any insurance settlement. Hahah you couldnâ€™t make it up really.

Have you never heard of a non disclosure agreement?

This is standard practice in these cases

Sleeper12 · 01-02-2019 12:31pm

retro:electro wrote:

Haha is that the best you can do? Fine he didnâ€™t sign it he submitted it. He was still part of the motion to block it. And how heâ€™s saying itâ€™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 · 01-02-2019 12:31pm

retro:electro wrote:

Haha is that the best you can do? Fine he didnâ€™t sign it he submitted it. He was still part of the motion to block it. And how heâ€™s saying itâ€™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 · 01-02-2019 12:33pm

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 · 01-02-2019 12:34pm

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 · 01-02-2019 12:39pm

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 · 01-02-2019 12:42pm

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 · 01-02-2019 12:43pm

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 · 01-02-2019 12:48pm

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 · 01-02-2019 12:53pm

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 · 01-02-2019 12:53pm

Boggles wrote: »

What question?

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

Boggles · 01-02-2019 12:55pm

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 · 01-02-2019 12:58pm

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 · 01-02-2019 12:58pm

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 · 01-02-2019 1:00pm

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 · 01-02-2019 1:03pm

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 · 01-02-2019 1:07pm

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 · 01-02-2019 1:10pm

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

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments