Why did Pellicano & Bert Fields resign in 1993?

Yazman

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
572
Points
18
Location
Australia
Does anybody know why? I've been wondering about this lately. It seems weird that after all the work they did they resigned in the middle of things.
 
I think Bert Fields resigns because he lost the ruling against having the civil trial to start first before the criminal as the judge rules against Michael’s favour and of Howard Weitzman’s remark that his statement was “imminent” for the ruling. I’m not positive on it, but that’s what I believe is the reason.
 
Yazman;4288402 said:
Really? So they were against it?

Michael never wanted to settle, he wasn’t in mental and emotional shape due to stress and going to rehab, so they wanted him to settle and as Michael said in an interview that he ask “Can you promise me that justice will prevail?” and they didn’t promised that, because they knew the legal process would take a long time, but they knew those f:censored:king Chandlers wanted $$$, so they unanimously decided to settle against Michael’s wishes.
 
I’m not 100% on this, but I believe it was Cochran’s idea for settlement, maybe not just Cochran, but others might’ve suggested it unanimously.
 
Wasn't there chat about Pellicano dishing dirt on MJ after he got out of prison...did that happen?
 
PoP;4288734 said:
I’m not 100% on this, but I believe it was Cochran’s idea for settlement, maybe not just Cochran, but others might’ve suggested it unanimously.
It was Johnnie C idea to settle. He spoke about it on CNN/MSNCB during the pre-trial case of 2005 before he died.
 
Didnt know that. All I know is MJ did not want to settle. He should of never done it imo.
 
elusive moonwalker;4289815 said:
The risk was to high due to the illegal motion rulings

I can’t find a source for it, but somewhere in the back of my mind I think I heard Tom Mesereau say that they should have fought it through without a settlement. So did he see options that they didn’t at the time? Or am I remembering it wrong?
 
ScreenOrigami;4289818 said:
I can’t find a source for it, but somewhere in the back of my mind I think I heard Tom Mesereau say that they should have fought it through without a settlement. So did he see options that they didn’t at the time? Or am I remembering it wrong?

That's what T-Mez said indeed, but I don't think he elaborated how it could have been done, at least I remember it being a bit vague and left me with a sense of lack. Sure it was unfortunate that MJ had to settle but we still didn't really get to know how could he avoid it. I wish the reporters did ask further for details as it would be good to know what other options he really had (if any).
 
ozemouze;4289824 said:
That's what T-Mez said indeed, but I don't think he elaborated how it could have been done, at least I remember it being a bit vague and left me with a sense of lack. Sure it was unfortunate that MJ had to settle but we still didn't really get to know how could he avoid it. I wish the reporters did ask further for details as it would be good to know what other options he really had (if any).

I’m somehow glad they didn’t try. I’m convinced T-Mez could have pulled it off, but I’m not so sure about MJ’s legal team at the time.

It’s sad, though, that the difference between civil and criminal case wasn’t communicated more clearly.
 
ScreenOrigami;4289826 said:
I’m somehow glad they didn’t try. I’m convinced T-Mez could have pulled it off, but I’m not so sure about MJ’s legal team at the time.

Yep, that's another angle indeed. It's nice that in theory MJ's first lawyer team didn't want to settle but apart from this conviction they didn't really deliver. In all fairness though all those denied motions perhaps weren't their fault after all.

BTW that's another detail about what I would like to hear an objective explanation, as ensuring a civil trial before the criminal seems unfair not only towards MJ but against the interests of society as well (how come a criminal proceeding is not above the civil one?).

ScreenOrigami;4289826 said:
It’s sad, though, that the difference between civil and criminal case wasn’t communicated more clearly.

Even more sadly, I think the mixing/blurring was deliberate. :/
 
ozemouze;4289832 said:
Yep, that's another angle indeed. It's nice that in theory MJ's first lawyer team didn't want to settle but apart from this conviction they didn't really deliver. In all fairness though all those denied motions perhaps weren't their fault after all.

BTW that's another detail about what I would like to hear an objective explanation, as ensuring a civil trial before the criminal seems unfair not only towards MJ but against the interests of society as well (how come a criminal proceeding is not above the civil one?).

T-Mez did a couple of lectures (was it for Harvard?) that are on YouTube. I haven’t gotten around to watching them, but maybe he addresses it in more detail there?

ozemouze;4289832 said:
Even more sadly, I think the mixing/blurring was deliberate. :/

Definitely! I meant to say that MJ’s team should have communicated it better. But then again, we only know the bits that made it to the news. I just remember the press conference (“No one’s silence was bought” etc), but that was really just a few sentences without much explanation. Then again, of course, one should assume the public already knows how the legal system is supposed to work in regards to the difference between civil and criminal cases. It’s actually quite shocking that many people don’t seem to know the difference, and many who do try to abuse it to their financial advantage.
 
ScreenOrigami;4289834 said:
T-Mez did a couple of lectures (was it for Harvard?) that are on YouTube. I haven’t gotten around to watching them, but maybe he addresses it in more detail there?

I don't think he elaborated the topic there either, but I didn't study those lectures thoroughly like some fans did, so please feel free to let us know if T-Mez (or anyone else for the matter) ever explained the possibilities.

ScreenOrigami;4289834 said:
I meant to say that MJ’s team should have communicated it better. But then again, we only know the bits that made it to the news. I just remember the press conference (“No one’s silence was bought” etc), but that was really just a few sentences without much explanation. Then again, of course, one should assume the public already knows how the legal system is supposed to work in regards to the difference between civil and criminal cases. It’s actually quite shocking that many people don’t seem to know the difference, and many who do try to abuse it to their financial advantage.

Oh I see. I'm perhaps a bit negative in this regard but I don't see how this could be achieved. You're right that “No one’s silence was bought” isn't enough or convincing, but the situation can't be explained in brief and a press conference isn't suitable for explaining legal terms from the basics. Or remember the Estate's letter to HBO? It was a great letter but hardly referenced in MSM and too long for the general public to read it through (not to mention they didn't even know about it).

I think the problem lies in two fields:

1) Communication-wise MJ's side is at a disadvantage from the start:
- They are constantly forced to be on the defensive as he is the one being attacked (be it by gossips or allegations). That's already a bad starting point as many see it as just explaining themselves.
- They should communicate a complex topic with dry facts and legal expressions successfully against bombastic, simplistic headlines to an unconcerned public.

2) Platform: MJ's side simply isn't given one and that's not something they can control.

BTW all this shouldn't be the task of the PR representatives of MJ but of the press and then the platform would be given as well...

Bonus reason: some part of the public simply doesn't want to think :/, and I don't talk about researching the facts (that, again, would be the job of the press) just using some basic logic. Like asking "what's the difference between civil and criminal proceedings?" It's fine if someone who doesn't know the legal background asks "why would an accused settle if there wasn't any crime" as long as it's continued with "and why would a parent settle if there was?!". Etc. Any of these are (would be) good starting points.
 
ScreenOrigami;4289818 said:
I can’t find a source for it, but somewhere in the back of my mind I think I heard Tom Mesereau say that they should have fought it through without a settlement. So did he see options that they didn’t at the time? Or am I remembering it wrong?

Every time I heard Mr. Mesereau talk about the 1993 allegations, he said that the settlement was the worst advise Michael could ever get. If I'm not wrong he mentioned on some occasions Cochran and Weitzman as the biggest supporters of the settlement idea. I'm not aware of any other lawyers, but I'm pretty sure that there was others on the team.
 
Every time I heard Mr. Mesereau talk about the 1993 allegations, he said that the settlement was the worst advise Michael could ever get. If I'm not wrong he mentioned on some occasions Cochran and Weitzman as the biggest supporters of the settlement idea. I'm not aware of any other lawyers, but I'm pretty sure that there was others on the team.

So true... it destroyed SO MUCH.... I NEVER thought he would settle.... allegations like that SHALL be fought!!!!!!!!!
 
So true... it destroyed SO MUCH.... I NEVER thought he would settle.... allegations like that SHALL be fought!!!!!!!!!

MJ was ready to fight the criminal trial, but there were simply not enough evidence to bring charges against him, that's why there wasn't one in the end.

The settlement had nothing to do with that, it was connected to the civil suit by the Chandlers, which is a completely separate proceeding, only it happened in the same time period when the investigation was still ongoing.

MJ wanted to fight the civil case too, but the situation wasn't as simple as that unfortunately. The court allowed the civil trial to precede the criminal one (remember investigation was still in progress and could have resulted in bringing charges against MJ). A quite unusual decision which threatened MJ's right to a fair trial (e.g. defense strategy would have become known to the prosecution in a future criminal trial).

MJ changed lawyers in the meanwhile and they indeed advised him the settlement, but I think the main reason was that he was basically forced to settle through "legal extortion". "He should have never settled" is of course true, but it's also a case of easier said than done.

The problems of the situation and the chronology (which basically proves that MJ indeed wanted to fight the case in court until the very last minute, hoping for a more reasonable ruling granting his rights) is very well explained in Square One.
 
Last edited:
mysterygirl7;4291166 said:
So true... it destroyed SO MUCH.... I NEVER thought he would settle.... allegations like that SHALL be fought!!!!!!!!!

Indeed. And he fought them, but unfortunately it took other allegations to do it, and it eventually destroyed him… :(
 
MJ was ready to fight the criminal trial, but there were simply not enough evidence to bring charges against him, that's why there wasn't one in the end.

The settlement had nothing to do with that, it was connected to the civil suit by the Chandlers, which is a completely separate proceeding, only it happened in the same time period when the investigation was still ongoing.

MJ wanted to fight the civil case too, but the situation wasn't as simple as that unfortunately. The court allowed the civil trial to precede the criminal one (remember investigation was still in progress and could have resulted in bringing charges against MJ). A quite unusual decision which threatened MJ's right to a fair trial (e.g. defense strategy would have become known to the prosecution in a future criminal trial).

MJ changed lawyers in the meanwhile and they indeed advised him the settlement, but I think the main reason was that he was basically forced to settle through "legal extortion". "He should have never settled" is of course true, but it's also a case of easier said than done.

The problems of the situation and the chronology (which basically proves that MJ indeed wanted to fight the case in court until the very last minute, hoping for a more reasonable ruling granting his rights) is very well explained in Square One.

Yes that documentary is very well-done. I think we're starting to understand certain dynamics now that the subject can be addressed openly (because when Michael was alive there were restrictions). I believe that Taj Jackson is going to talk about it in the documentary he's going to make, although I'm not sure how extensively. But the main point is that the Chandlers stopped cooperating with the police once they got the money, that's why it's so clear that THAT was the goal and nothing else.
 
ozemouze;4291192 said:
MJ was ready to fight the criminal trial, but there were simply not enough evidence to bring charges against him, that's why there wasn't one in the end.

The settlement had nothing to do with that, it was connected to the civil suit by the Chandlers, which is a completely separate proceeding, only it happened in the same time period when the investigation was still ongoing.

MJ wanted to fight the civil case too, but the situation wasn't as simple as that unfortunately. The court allowed the civil trial to precede the criminal one (remember investigation was still in progress and could have resulted in bringing charges against MJ). A quite unusual decision which threatened MJ's right to a fair trial (e.g. defense strategy would have become known to the prosecution in a future criminal trial).

MJ changed lawyers in the meanwhile and they indeed advised him the settlement, but I think the main reason was that he was basically forced to settle through "legal extortion". "He should have never settled" is of course true, but it's also a case of easier said than done.

The problems of the situation and the chronology (which basically proves that MJ indeed wanted to fight the case in court until the very last minute, hoping for a more reasonable ruling granting his rights) is very well explained in Square One.

EXCELLENT and FACTUAL job in explaining why Michael was basically FORCED into “settling” this extortion case. Thank you.
 
Back
Top