[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Why would the media mention it?

If in fact Wade is "pleading the fifth," it makes him dumber then claiming that "he remembers EVERYTHING." The media only wants to repeat stuff that they can spin and twist in order to make MJ look bad, can't do much spinning and twisting when the accuser pleads the fifth during a televised interview.

If anything they wouldn't repeat that, because they don't want folks to know how stupid Wade and his claims really are.

Maybe the interview happened. I'll just wait for proof of it before I further reference it.

 

[mjjesamor1]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

New article on the Daily Mail ... Headline saying Wade was 'definetely abused by Michael... Blah blah all based on that bitch maids lies. There are no comments and no comments allowed! What the hell is up with that? Reqlly annoyed now i can't even leave a comment to try and counter these ****ing lies!

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

from what I remeber of 93 in France
- less tabloid press than in other countries, especially anglo saxon countries, and that kind of press was often not taken seriously
- no internet back then
- less tabloid shows on TV (err I wouldn' have watched anyway) - Generally, from what i remember, the "serious" media would present the news with a lof doubts, reminding that the damages at stakes could be very high, and that could be the reason of wrongful accusations. They didn't say Michael was not guilty, but they said that the story had to be taken with a grain of salt. At least that's what I remember.

It was very very different in 05 since Michael was arrested and there was a trial. What I remeber from 05 is most media implied he was guilty, at least until the Arvizos testified. After their testimonies, some journalists started to predict he would be acquitted.

Yes, I think people take tabloids less seriously here in Europe - at least continental Europe - and are more sceptical of people who have a financial motive to sue someone. In the US people keep making excuses for the accusers and why they want money rather than justice.

I think there's also this "moral panic culture" in the US that's not the case in Europe. And generally there were less slanderous TV programs on Michael in Europe than in the US.

I also think in many other parts of the world outside of the US sharing a bed with children isn't considered as much of a red flag as in the US, because people do not automatically associate that with sex. In many cultures it's normal and people understand that it doesn't have to mean sex.

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Agree about tmz should not be taken as tablets of stone, but in this case tmz's info that robson was considered but not used for cirque because his son was sick, is directly attributed to 'a spokesperson for the michael jackson estate' - tmz are not some blog, i assume they are v careful when they are not just quoting 'sources'. Also in the 2 very similar statements that the estate has put out, there is just no mention of any cirque connection. It would be a great argument to use - mj's accuser was desperate to work with us on his tribute show but was rejected, this is his payback just as we're launching the new cirque show. They haven't so there's a reason for that, prob because it's not true - i just think that they're the ones who are in a position to know this type of info, not us.

I hear you, but that still doesn't explain why Wade was speaking, in an interview, as if he were ALREADY the director of the MJ Cirque shows.

TMZ, does whatever TMZ wants to do. Just the other day Shawn Sparks had to correct the interview TMZ conducted with him. I guess what he said about Michael and Wade wasn't good enough or should I say: bad enough, so they "changed" it up a bit. They also said that Janet Slapped Paris, which we know is also not true.

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Maybe the interview happened. I'll just wait for proof of it before I further reference it.

That's cool. I'll wait with you.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I wonder if the claim will be for "repressed memory" or "I remember everything."

Because when those claims were filed, it was noted that Wade would be claiming repressed memory. That's what TMZ reported and if it was incorrect, Wade's attorney should have corrected them. It's not like they were not in contact with each other. Then out of the blue comes the "I remember everything" claim. I guess time will tell.

Yes, as you said in your other post it was just some 'source' claiming repressed memory, not a attributable quote from his lawyer. I don't believe wade's position has changed, mainly as the complaint is lying in a courtroom somewhere unopened so that can't be changed. I just think wade's claim of 'remembering the abuse by mj but unwilling or unable to understand emotionally or psychologically that it was abuse even though mj was hounded by child abuse allegations for the past 20yrs' was just too damn complicated and confused for the tmz reporter to write up accurately in a tmz blog post. I doubt wade's lawyer has the foggiest what it's all about either.

I hear you, but that still doesn't explain why Wade was speaking, in an interview, as if he were ALREADY the director of the MJ Cirque shows.

I hear you too. and i def don't want to get into a discussion as to the exact moment when someone is hired or has signed a contract etc etc lol. We have enough of that with murray!

 

[Paris78]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Prince Jackson ?@princemjjjaxon 3h
They don't care about us

Agree with you on that...we love you, Prince!

 

[la_cienega]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Why then did the estate not mention this in their statement about wade? It would have provided a useful motive. All they've said is a reply to tmz that wade was due to work on immortal but his son was sick and he couldn't be used. The son is sick excuse sounds like something wade told them instead of saying he was having a breakdown. If the estate let him go because of drugs which is a rumour i've read here a few times now, then to be sure the estate would be coming out and saying something to that effect - wade has now declared war against mj and his estate so the estate will be using everything they have on wade to fight him and his credibility. They know what went down between themselves and wade more than we do.

Wade could have stepped away from the Cirque gig because of his drug usage, the same way he was rumored to step away from the Britney gig for the same reasons. So the estate wouldn't know about the drugs, but it could be a reason behind why he came up with the excuse about his son.

I wonder if there is anything wrong with his son though...

I wonder if the claim will be for "repressed memory" or "I remember everything."

Because when those claims were filed, it was noted that Wade would be claiming repressed memory. That's what TMZ reported and if it was incorrect, Wade's attorney should have corrected them. It's not like they were not in contact with each other. Then out of the blue comes the "I remember everything" claim. I guess time will tell.

I want to know why they didn't correct TMZ either.

 

[marebear]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Prince Jackson ?@princemjjjaxon 3h
They don't care about us

Agree with you on that...we love you, Prince!

He said that today? Was he talking to somebody?

 

[LindavG]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

But I find that less people believe MJ to be guilty outside of the US than in the US. When the US public should actually be more familiar with cases being settled even if the sued party didn't do anything wrong.

I think this has more to do with the way the media report on the accusations. Most countries don't have the kind of "tabloid" media culture that the UK and US have. The mainstream media are more serious and rarely report on celebrities. There are no (or few) 24/7 news channels that have airtime to fill. There are some tabloids but they are not confused with MSM, people understand that they should be taken with a grain of salt. In the US especially, this line between tabloid media and mainstream media has become blurred. Reputable media sources like CNN will copy stories from TMZ without hesitation. In the UK, tabloid media are particularly vicious but it doesn't really 'leak' to the mainstream media (like BBC) to the same extent as it does in the US.

So, in the US people were bombarded with the allegations against MJ, both in the mainstream and tabloid media, and most of what was reported was misinformation. In other countries, discussion of the allegations were mostly limited to the tabloid media, which people take with a grain of salt anyway. Apart from MJ fans, the general public barely knows anything about these cases other than the fact that MJ was acquitted the last time. The impact just wasn't the same. Besides, the US has a reputation for frivolous lawsuits and claims for money (which is treated with scorn here) so the settlement was looked at with suspicion towards the Chandler's from the start.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

But I find that less people believe MJ to be guilty outside of the US than in the US. When the US public should actually be more familiar with cases being settled even if the sued party didn't do anything wrong. ...

I honestly think a lot of MJ's fate hate also to do with the general political climate in the US - both in 93 and 2005. Hysteria over Clinton. Please imagine France going nuts over Mitterand's mistresses. The same mindset (and people!!) that had no more pressing issues than Clinton were also fanning the hysteria in 2003/2005. Only that after 9/11 every nutjob felt justified and encouraged to snitch on their neighbor in the name of standing strong. Anyone and anything that wasn't "Leave it to Beaver" was suspicious, anything labeled other. This took a while to build up, too - but after 9/11 public hysteria over anything and anybody was 'justified' and fanned - for a long time.

Within that mindset intellectual 'elitism' isn't exactly welcomed - which is why people like Dimond etc - covering anything vulgar - were so popular. Heck, I get asked what "did you guys do with Hitler, we would have given him the death penalty)
It's not an accident that folks like Dimond and Sneddon don't even try to cover their general mindsets. Dumb it down, lie. Like Sneddon and his "we can't chose our victims.' There's also that authority thing coming into play - because every self respecting journalist would have said "huh, wut? You actually bring everything to trial?"

Calling Michael gay (he's not, yes) - well, it's 2013 and sometimes it feels like 1950, you know. Feed into the general homophobia and then link that to pedofilia. In the discourse about same sex marriage this whole triangle is being 'served' by the same people. Link being gay to pedofilia and bestiality. Still happens although there is a great pushback against these self declared nuts.

That kind of mindset builds up for a while - finds its victims - and usually something really awful has to happen for it to cool down, again. (say, armed militias etc - escalated with Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, ebbed off and is now again on the rise - a black man became president and a certain mindset would like to get back to lynchmobs)

I honestly think it's logical to think of Michael in that context. It's not just about black men in the music industry - there's a whole nasty mindset at play. It's rather difficult to call Michael's art, his background etc "denerated" (you know, Nazi favorite back in the day) - but so they made the whole man out to be 'degenerated'. It's so old and lame - but it works.

..Sadly, I think MJ's lawyers made a lot of mistakes in 1993 and I can only hope they won't now. ...

Yeah, I'm regularly impressed by the sheer lack of professionalism. On the other hand living in California and being in that industry comes at a price - as cliched as that sounds.
I'm not saying Michael is at fault, not at all.
Or just think of 2005 and "coming down on you like bricks."
I had to go through 2 lawyers and 3 lawfirms - and 8 years of legal issues to sort out a legal issues. And the one who managed the best happened to be an older gentleman in the 'middle of nowhere'. Not the tech savy guy from Boston.

You know, Michael would have needed someone in his camp that doesn't just understand show biz - but friggin' labor laws. You mean, your employer descends upon your house to see if you are actuall ill? You mean, Michael has a sleep disorder, an actual disability - are you discriminating as laid out in the Americans with Disabilities Act?

It seems like everybody who knew only introduced someone - paying off favors etc. So everybody knows everybody and it becomes extremely hard to get a fresh unjaded person in there - which is what I understand his frequent firings to be. It's extremely difficult when you have to rely on any kind of entourage.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes, I think people take tabloids less seriously here in Europe - at least continental Europe - and are more sceptical of people who have a financial motive to sue someone. In the US people keep making excuses for the accusers and why they want money rather than justice.

I think there's also this "moral panic culture" in the US that's not the case in Europe. And generally there were less slanderous TV programs on Michael in Europe than in the US.

I also think in many other parts of the world outside of the US sharing a bed with children isn't considered as much of a red flag as in the US, because people do not automatically associate that with sex. In many cultures it's normal and people understand that it doesn't have to mean sex.

Oh, and one more thing: the racial factor.

Certainly there is racism in every country, but in Europe mainly it's not directed against black people. More against Arabs, Turks, Gypsies (depending on which country you are in). The US however has a history with the slavery of black people and racism against black people and I think many people there did not like the fact that a black man rose as high as Michael did, outshining white icons, so they are happy to give credit to these allegations and feel themselves justified in hating him.

I also think European people were less bothered by his "eccentricities" than the rather conservative US.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think this has more to do with the way the media report on the accusations. Most countries don't have the kind of "tabloid" media culture that the UK and US have. The mainstream media are more serious and rarely report on celebrities. There are no (or few) 24/7 news channels that have airtime to fill. There are some tabloids but they are not confused with MSM, people understand that they should be taken with a grain of salt. In the US especially, this line between tabloid media and mainstream media has become blurred. Reputable media sources like CNN will copy stories from TMZ without hesitation. In the UK, tabloid media are particularly vicious but it doesn't really 'leak' to the mainstream media (like BBC) to the same extent as it does in the US.

So, in the US people were bombarded with the allegations against MJ, both in the mainstream and tabloid media, and most of what was reported was misinformation. In other countries, discussion of the allegations were mostly limited to the tabloid media, which people take with a grain of salt anyway. Apart from MJ fans, the general public barely knows anything about these cases other than the fact that MJ was acquitted the last time. The impact just wasn't the same. Besides, the US has a reputation for frivolous lawsuits and claims for money (which is treated with scorn here) so the settlement was looked at with suspicion towards the Chandler's from the start.

I agree with most of wht you said, except that I think the UK mainstream media is just as vicious against MJ, if not more, than the US mainstream media. And when it comes to MJ the line between tabloids and MSM is blurred in the UK as well. I have seen broadsheets like The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent quote tabloids like The Sun about MJ as if it's fact! And some of the most vicious, cruel articles and comments I have ever read about MJ were made by the British mainstream media!

Still, MJ always remained popular in the UK, so maybe despite of the tabloid culture in Britain they do not believe their papers as much as Americans. I don't know.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Oh, and one more thing: the racial factor.

Certainly there is racism in every country, but in Europe mainly it's not directed against black people. More against Arabs, Turks, Gypsies (depending on which country you are in). The US however has a history with the slavery of black people and racism against black people and I think many people there did not like the fact that a black man rose as high as Michael did, outshining white icons, so they are happy to give credit to these allegations and feel themselves justified in hating him.

I also think European people were less bothered by his "eccentricities" than the rather conservative US.

And Dimond and her mindset are all of that 'roped into one'. I thought once those that sought to bring Michael down had just, I don't know, issues.
If you look at her stuff in general - "gypsies buried in Forest Lawn" (as in "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves"? - I mean surely a journalist would know a better way to use her words?), "Radical Muslims want us dead".

It's so predictable that comedians like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert become extremely successful taking people like her, Bill O'Reilly and the like to task. (they'll take everyone to task - but those 'Paaaaaaaaanic! Sodom around the corner!" in particular.

Europe typically had to deal with their own messed up ways of dealing with minorities - so accusing a black man with vitiligo off hating his blackness happened on occasion, but wasn't up high in the do list. - the majority never bothered wondering about biracial marriages. Kind of past that after WWII.

Europe isn't better in that sense, just different. Tell an US - American Doctor who wears hijab that Europe will indeed discriminate in these ways. The US and Europe just discriminate in different ways.

 

[Pimboli]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't understand why MJ never said this when he was asked about the settlement. Instead of defending why he settled back in 1993, he could've just explained that he didn't want to but he had no choice, and emphasised that it was the insurance company who paid, not him.

Michael does bear some responsibility for the public perception of him. He could have made things a lot easier for himself if he was open about his Vitiligo from the start, if he was honest about his plastic surgery and if he chose his words regarding his love for children more carefully. If you're going on national television and say "What's wrong with sharing your bed with children? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone" you can expect people to misinterpret this. It just doesn't sound right and it's one thing people who believe he was a pedophile keep coming back to.

maybe im wrong, but i always thought he was prohibited from discussing the settlement? Like the settlement came with a gag order, and if he broke it, the Chandlers could sue him again?

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And Dimond and her mindset are all of that 'roped into one'. I thought once those that sought to bring Michael down had just, I don't know, issues.
If you look at her stuff in general - "gypsies buried in Forest Lawn" (as in "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves"? - I mean surely a journalist would know a better way to use her words?), "Radical Muslims want us dead".

It's so predictable that comedians like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert become extremely successful taking people like her, Bill O'Reilly and the like to task. (they'll take everyone to task - but those 'Paaaaaaaaanic! Sodom around the corner!" in particular.

On the other hand, some of the cruelest things against MJ in the US were said by so called liberals and the liberal media. NBC is particularly anti-MJ and it's a liberal channel. I thought Dimond was a liberal journalist too, but by her fear mongering against Muslims she could pass as a right-winger as well.

 

[Dri]

From Twitlonger @sanemjfan

@joevogel1 Here is a comment from IMDB that someone posted on my blog. This will show that Wade's story has more holes than Swiss cheese!

“I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but certain things about his story just isn’t adding up. According to Wade’s timeline, he was molested by MJ from ages 7-14, which would mean that molestation occurred from 1989-1996, but upon researching, I found out that Wade didn’t have any real contact alone until after September 1991 when he moved to America with his sister, father and mother at the age of 9. Michael Jackson worked on the Dangerous Album for 16 months which started in 25th June 1990 and that did not get finished until 29th October 1991 and then released November 1991. Then he did the 3 music videos in early 1992, then rehearsed for his June europe tour which did not finish until 31st December 1992 which then Wade was 10. Michael Jackson went back on Tour 27th August, 3 days before that date he was accused of child abuse with another child. So Michael apparently as busy as he was, had time to groom 2+ children and manage to be involved in both their families lives in a short amount of time, while also being heavily into Demorol and going into rehab at the request of Liz Taylor. He did his tour until 11th November. I also learned that after Marrying Lisa Marie in 1994, he would spend a week at her house, and stay at neverland on the weekends. This is why Sneddon called for an extension to the statue of limitations because MJ was not in Santa Barbara many times. And according to Wade’s timeline, this abuse was occurring while MJ was married to Debbie Rowe and expecting his first child, while also traveling around the world with Lisa Marie. Also upon reading Wade’s testimony, as well as his mother’s, I learned that they visited neverland about 4 times a year since 1991 but MJ was not there most of the time, and this was also confirmed by an employee at Neverland. Anyone see where this is not making sense?”

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rkchke


Someone send this to TMez and Estate,please.

 

[LindavG]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I agree with most of wht you said, except that I think the UK mainstream media is just as vicious against MJ, if not more, than the US mainstream media. And when it comes to MJ the line between tabloids and MSM is blurred in the UK as well. I have seen broadsheets like The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent quote tabloids like The Sun about MJ as if it's fact! And some of the most vicious, cruel articles and comments I have ever read about MJ were made by the British mainstream media!

Still, MJ always remained popular in the UK, so maybe despite of the tabloid culture in Britain they do not believe their papers as much as Americans. I don't know.

Hmm, you make a fair point. I don't really pay attention to British media apart from the BBC so perhaps my impression was wrong. Still, like you said, MJ remains very popular in the UK despite their vicious tabloid media. He probably has a bigger fanbase there (per capita) than anywhere else in the world, which no doubt played a part in choosing London for the TII concerts. I wonder why that is. Maybe British people don't take their tabloids as seriously, like you said. They're still incredibly popular, though. I've also heard that the UK has extremely strict libel/slander laws so it's strange that tabloids continue to thrive there.

 

[shelly_webster]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think this has more to do with the way the media report on the accusations. Most countries don't have the kind of "tabloid" media culture that the UK and US have. The mainstream media are more serious and rarely report on celebrities. There are no (or few) 24/7 news channels that have airtime to fill. There are some tabloids but they are not confused with MSM, people understand that they should be taken with a grain of salt. In the US especially, this line between tabloid media and mainstream media has become blurred. Reputable media sources like CNN will copy stories from TMZ without hesitation. In the UK, tabloid media are particularly vicious but it doesn't really 'leak' to the mainstream media (like BBC) to the same extent as it does in the US.

So, in the US people were bombarded with the allegations against MJ, both in the mainstream and tabloid media, and most of what was reported was misinformation. In other countries, discussion of the allegations were mostly limited to the tabloid media, which people take with a grain of salt anyway. Apart from MJ fans, the general public barely knows anything about these cases other than the fact that MJ was acquitted the last time. The impact just wasn't the same. Besides, the US has a reputation for frivolous lawsuits and claims for money (which is treated with scorn here) so the settlement was looked at with suspicion towards the Chandler's from the start.

I think it has a lot to do with the defamation and privacy law which are very hard against the tabloids in France.

 

[LindavG]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

maybe im wrong, but i always thought he was prohibited from discussing the settlement? Like the settlement came with a gag order, and if he broke it, the Chandlers could sue him again?

From what I understand, he is allowed to discuss the settlement in general terms (e.g. why he decided to settle, how he felt about it, etc.). He just can't talk about the specific content of the settlement, such as how much he paid, what the conditions were, etc.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

On the other hand, some of the cruelest things against MJ in the US were said by so called liberals and the liberal media. NBC is particularly anti-MJ and it's a liberal channel. I thought Dimond was a liberal journalist too, but by her fear mongering against Muslims she could pass as a right-winger as well.

You know, it always makes me laugh when the US media scene is being described by the right in the US as "the liberal media". You know, the way Obama is a lefti communist. KWIM? If you're not straight hardcore right here - you're a 'liberal'.

No, Dimond is as right wing as they come. Every once in a while she'll pretend not to be - but having lived here for a while and reading some of her stuff, she's as typical as they come. Dimond has greater issues with the Boston Bombings than she has with 'real' US citizens mowing down children in schools. It's a trademark, sadly. I think she called Boston even 'more insidious'? (kind of hard to quantify and qualify that). The hallmark of right winger (and "constitutionalist" is just euphemism for not wanting to be called right winger - in 99%) is that odd and eerie silence when it comes to guns.
Dimond desperately wanted children to have been abused by MJ - a couple school shootings, ah well, let's talk about Boston.

The Jewish and African American communities have huge issues with one another. Giant. Both diaspora but they don't get along for the most part. Parted ways after the civil rights movement.

There also a verifiable obsession among the Christian right wingers with the Jewish right wingers - Christian Zionists und people like Schmuley are like white on rice. Pretty weird, actually. The only time the Christian Right will play nice is when it comes to pandering to the Jewish Right. Think Ron Zonen who will find nothing wrong with wanting to appeal to right wingers and point out Arvizo being a nice, churchgoing jung lad.

But yeah, in the end Michael got stepped on by just about anyone. But I still don't think that he would have been prosecuted and persecuted had he lived in 2012. Zonen, Sneddon (Repubican, shocker), Dimond et al are all the same.

 

[Moonwalker.Fan]

I know, but you'd be surprised how many people are unaware that the settlement was not for child molestation.



It's not that hard to understand where this idea comes from if you consider the motion that was filed in court in 2005 on behalf of MJ, that said this:

“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.
It is unfair for an insurance company’s settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson’s prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could NOT CONTROL NOR INTERFERE with his insurance carrier’s demand to settle the dispute”.

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/the-questions-asked-about-the1993-settlement/

This motion filed by T-Mez during the trial last year should clear that info:

Hightlights: Memo in Support of Objection to Subpoena for Settlement Documents
The following are excerpts from the court document:

Pg3 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.

It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.

…Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added).

…An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.

Pg2 Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury.

Pg3 The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.

Pg 4 It is unfair for an insurance company's settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson's prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could not control nor interfere with his insurance carrier's demand to settle the dispute.

Pg9-10 Permitting evidence of settlement agreements or amounts would be speculative because there is no evidence Michael Jackson made the settlement. Settlements in civil suits many times are dictated by insurance companies who settle claims regardless of an individual's wishes.

Although Jordan Chandler was interviewed "thereafter" by detectives seeking evidence to offer in a child molestation prosecution of Michael Jackson, "no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview."

This interview took place prior to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Stogner v California, 539 U.S. 607, 613 (2003), holding California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations to be unconstitutional.

In other words, Jordan Chandler's statements were not sufficient even at that earlier time, to support child molestation charges against Michael Jackson, and to now permit the suggestion of a settlement agreement for some improper act is not only irrelevant, but also a speculative violation of the statute of limitations

After this motion, the judge ruled that the prosecution were not allowed to allude to or include any information or suggested allegation that MJ paid the Chandlers because he didn't the insurance paid over MJ's and his lawyers objections...

Another thing to note... when Evan was filing suit he included "negligence course of distress" knowing full well the insurance would pay for that which would pave way for the Chandlers to avoid the criminal trial. MJ and his team were pushing for the criminal trial, they filed a motion to stop the civil trial, put in on hold to wait for the criminal trial but they were denied that chance.....

I have only 7 pages of the 2005 memo

^^The settlement was less than 20. Closer to 16; I can't remember the exact amount but I think it was 15 and change. Someone here will know the exact amount. Also, the settlement was not for molestation but for negligence, which is something no one mentions.

The document states that $15,331,250 was put into a trust fund for Jordan Chandler. Both of his parents, as well as their attorney Larry Feldman, got a cut of the settlement. (Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz, two principle players in the case who were left out of the settlement, later filed their own individual lawsuits against Jackson). Eight pages detailing the payment were allegedly missing from Dimond's copy of the settlement but according to Jackson's current attorney, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit prompted Jackson's insurance company to step in and settle the case for him. This means that Jackson might not have paid the Chandlers anything. It also means that the insurance company most likely conducted their own investigation into the allegations and concluded that Jackson did not molest the boy; insurance companies generally do not settle if they believe the Defendant is liable. They will, however, settle for negligent behaviour.

MORE HRE - http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/129390-INFO-about-THE-1993-CIVIL-LAWSUIT

<object style="padding: 0px ! important; margin: 0px ! important; float: none ! important; border: 0px solid rgb(255, 0, 0) ! important; background: none repeat scroll center center transparent ! important; width: 0px ! important; height: 0px ! important; display: block ! important; overflow: visible ! important; position: absolute ! important; text-indent: 0px ! important; z-index: auto ! important; max-width: none ! important; min-width: 0px ! important; max-height: none ! important; min-height: 0px ! important; left: 0px ! important; top: 0px ! important; bottom: auto ! important; right: auto ! important; line-height: 16px ! important; white-space: nowrap ! important; visibility: hidden ! important;"></object>

 

[bouee]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

From what I understand, he is allowed to discuss the settlement in general terms (e.g. why he decided to settle, how he felt about it, etc.). He's just can't talk about the specific content of the settlement, such as how much he paid, what the conditions were, etc.

From the Bashit "doc", it's quite obvious how he felt about it. But I get what you mean, you think he should have said he din't want to do that very clearly : well, he signed it. All he could say, is the truth : he followed his lawyers' advice.
After that interview with LMP when he talked about the fact that he was not charged in spite of Jordan's descriptions , he was sued by Chandler (as well as LMP and the whole planet) .

 

[LindavG]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

From the Bashit "doc", it's quite obvious how he felt about it. But I get what you mean, you think he should have said he din't want to do that very clearly : well, he signed it. All he could say, is the truth : he followed his lawyers' advice.
After that interview with LMP when he talked about the fact that he was not charged in spite of Jordan's descriptions , he was sued by Chandler (as well as LMP and the whole planet) .

Then fans should stop saying MJ didn't want to settle because it doesn't add up. Still, I don't understand how the legal motion says the case was settled "over the protests of Mr. Jackson" when he signed it.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Then fans should stop saying MJ didn't want to settle because it doesn't add up.

Well, it does and it doesn't. It's just difficult to explain. Sometimes MJ fans jump on sound bites, too.

For example, I got hit by a car so hard that I had enough movement to total 3 other cars. The driver didn't admit any guilt - police officer comes along and determines driver at fault. That piece of paper then is what the insurance holds up.
I was offered a settlement (miiiinor) by the driver's insurance and it clearly stated that by cashing this check I will not be able to bring any claims toward the INSURANCE. To determine the amount etc is up to the adjuster (*shudder*, they love calling you out of the blue and want to tape the phone call and then watch out...), usually that is medical bills etc. (in this part of the US you can't even go to your regular Doctor for any car accident injuries because of liabilities and financies), not the insured.

I'm sure that MJ isn't exactly Joe Smith from Idaho, though. So in a sense it makes sense and it doesn't. I just don't think it's necessarily the best sound bite to hang onto since it's hard to explain - and since none of us were in the office of that insurance - hard to say.

I think MJ fans stand more chances at reasoning that a settlement is not an admission of guilt - and that an insurance settlement HAD NO BEARING on criminal charges that could have been filed against Michael. I think that distinction is more important because many people still think that Michael 'bought' his way out of a criminal trial - he didn't.

There also seems to be the difficulty of understanding that a criminal trial isn't the same as a civil trial. So perhaps working that angle is more promising than harping on Michael's views on that.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

although if an insurance firm wants to settle then they will u have no choice. car insurance is a good example. have an accident and the other side claims fake wiplash and they will settle in a second no matter if the injury is b.s. you have no choice whether u agree with your carrier settling or not

Agree about tmz should not be taken as tablets of stone, but in this case tmz's info that robson was considered but not used for cirque because his son was sick, is directly attributed to 'a spokesperson for the michael jackson estate' - tmz are not some blog, i assume they are v careful when they are not just quoting 'sources'. Also in the 2 very similar statements that the estate has put out, there is just no mention of any cirque connection. It would be a great argument to use - mj's accuser was desperate to work with us on his tribute show but was rejected, this is his payback just as we're launching the new cirque show. They haven't so there's a reason for that, prob because it's not true - i just think that they're the ones who are in a position to know this type of info, not us.




As i said it looks like legal jargon and it is directly refuted by mj himself in a tv primetime interview with diane sawyer. Nowhere did mj ever say he was forced to settle and blame his lawyers for their advice. I know tmez thought it was the wrong thing to do but I think it was an incredibly hard decision for mj to make, and each option, settle or go to civil trial held great dangers. Instead of 94-5 being taken up with a debilitating trial with allsorts of horrible allegations coming out, mj got married, released the history album.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

the insurance company settled it.mj had no choice. the signing was prob to do with the confidentiality agreement

Then fans should stop saying MJ didn't want to settle because it doesn't add up. Still, I don't understand how the legal motion says the case was settled "over the protests of Mr. Jackson" when he signed it.

 

[bouee]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Then fans should stop saying MJ didn't want to settle because it doesn't add up. Still, I don't understand how the legal motion says the case was settled "over the protests of Mr. Jackson" when he signed it.

He didn't WANT to, he felt he HAD to. But i can totally see him protest against it ! But he could not re write the law, as it was expleined to him by his lawyers at the time.

At least the money did not come from him.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Well, it does and it doesn't. It's just difficult to explain. Sometimes MJ fans jump on sound bites, too.

For example, I got hit by a car so hard that I had enough movement to total 3 other cars. The driver didn't admit any guilt - police officer comes along and determines driver at fault. That piece of paper then is what the insurance holds up.
I was offered a settlement (miiiinor) by the driver's insurance and it clearly stated that by cashing this check I will not be able to bring any claims toward the INSURANCE. To determine the amount etc is up to the adjuster (*shudder*, they love calling you out of the blue and want to tape the phone call and then watch out...), usually that is medical bills etc. (in this part of the US you can't even go to your regular Doctor for any car accident injuries because of liabilities and financies), not the insured.

I'm sure that MJ isn't exactly Joe Smith from Idaho, though. So in a sense it makes sense and it doesn't. I just don't think it's necessarily the best sound bite to hang onto since it's hard to explain - and since none of us were in the office of that insurance - hard to say.

I think MJ fans stand more chances at reasoning that a settlement is not an admission of guilt - and that an insurance settlement HAD NO BEARING on criminal charges that could have been filed against Michael. I think that distinction is more important because many people still think that Michael 'bought' his way out of a criminal trial - he didn't.

There also seems to be the difficulty of understanding that a criminal trial isn't the same as a civil trial. So perhaps working that angle is more promising than harping on Michael's views on that.

I agree. There are way better ways to argue about the settlement than to say "MJ didn't want it (we don't know if he did or didn't) and some other people settled behind his back and without his consent" (if he signed it, and he did, it's hard to argue it was without his consent). I'm also not sure the insurance thing should be emphasized so much. Sure it can be mentioned, but I don't think that should be the main argument. (I actually remember an article which is about a letter by Johnny Cochran to the insurance company to pay for the settlement, while the insurance company is reluctant... If that article is true, then this whole argument about the insurence company forcing him falls flat. The insurance company did pay eventually, but we don't know whose idea it was.) The main thing about this settlement is the civil case vs. the criminal case and how having a civil trial before the criminal would have jeopardized his right to a fair criminal trial. IMO that was the main reason for the settlement and that's the best way to argue for it.

I put an article about it today into this thread: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...inst-Michael?p=3826420&viewfull=1#post3826420

 

[sugarcookies]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^Respect77 well put i agree what saying.