rsw22
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 760
- Points
- 0
When you are famous, you are a target. You'll hear many famous people say this. You'll hear a lot of musicians sing about this. When you meet people, you don't know their intentions. All they show you are wide smiles.
The majority of people you meet as a famous person are motivated by fame or money. They want a piece of you. It's when they depart that you see their true colors. The more famous you are, the more vulnerable you become to this kind of stuff. The human heart is inherently evil. We all strive to do good. But ultimately the love of money is the root of all evil. When you have a celeb like MJ who at one point someone commented as being a money-making machine, then that is recipe for trouble. Some of these people will tell you that many people who get to MJ are not true friends, they have ulterior motives for personal gain and they see MJ as a gateway to an easy life. When they get cut off, bitterness overwhelms some of them and there is that desire to inflict hurt in revenge for being cut off. Now, unless you have been in that position or can appreciate that position where you cannot tell where someone is a true friend or they "love" you just because of fame or money, then you cannot know what MJ has to deal with.
I am not saying some of the lawsuits are not legitimate or may not have a part of legitimacy. Take a look at Schaffer’s case, he did a documentary, was owed Royalties and Jackson's team offered to pay him up around $425,000 when his fee was calculated. He refused and added on other bogus claims, asking for $16.7million. But take a look how it all started. The whole Schaffel coming back was because of Bashir trying to mess up and ruin Michael. During a very bad crisis and chaos, Schaffel sneaks back into the circle and awards himself high Royalties for little work, if you recall how Hamid Moslehi complained that Schaffel in any case did very little on that documentary and he did most of the work. Now later, Schaffel is fired again. He decides to sue Michael in 2004 during a very bad time. On top of that, he adds in slanderous claims that Tacopina rebukes him for, as it would lend credence to Arvizo's false claims. Why was Schaffel doing this? to pressure MJ to settle with him. He even asked for a writ on Neverland and the judge declined.
This is a guy who came in via a crisis, awarded himself high royalties, was offered to be paid and refused the pay. Filed for $16.7 million and ended up with $900,000 million after trying to inflame the jury with child abuse innuendo and telling lies on the stand. Michael got $200,000 and that is before stage 2.
You could go through each of this cases and what it all comes down to is, either bogus cases, or low fee cases being inflated, escorted with slandering Michael in public and all following on from successive people trying to harm Michael.
If it hadn't been Bashir, would Schaffel be suing Michael after he was fired? Would Ayscough have worked for Michael, would Prescient have happened? and a lot more?
Yes, lawyers were hired to do work, but what preceded that? What was the cause? That's something you tend to overlook in your criticism of Michael. And if it hadn't been for Chandlers, would Bashir come to do to Michael what he did?
It's a chain of events, and a chain that some of those employed or meeting Michael have tried to take advantage of.
The lawyers are entitled to be paid - but as long as they have done what they were paid to do and as long as they did not engage in threats towards their clients.
Associates are entitled to be paid - but as long as they do not make monetary claims that they are not entitled to
Employees are entitled to be paid - but as long as reputable accountants do not engage in diverting money meant for employees and lawyers and putting it in their accounts
If any of the above have not been paid, they are entitled to sue in court and to be heard by a judge and jury. - but not to use the lawsuits as a chance to try and hurt Michael by leaking private details, slandering him in public and feeding into tabloid innuendo to force him to settle exorbitant claims or as revenge for being dismissed.
At times you forget that despite his fame, Michael Jackson is one person. The media is a thousand to tens of thousands and those taking advantage of him as several and connected especially with tabloid media.
Try arguing with a group of ten people and see how far you will go. They will outdo you in abuse, insults and shouting. Now you are asking MJ to take on 1000 and more greedy, hateful, spiteful people. Of course in this situation he's obviously "little Michael". And when someone takes advantage and brings a frivolous lawsuit or part merit, this mob is going to welcome them with open arms as it's another chance to bash Michael with little consideration for Michael's side of the story.
There are two sides to a story and I will say this for 'PatrickS77' I want you to spell out what Michael's side of each story is. Or are you as Geragos put it "there are two sides of a story, it takes someone to tell it and another to hear it, but there are some people who do not want to hear the truth"
Why do you think MJ is appealing if it's not in search for someone along the chain of justice who will give him a fair opportunity to hear him "tell it", his side of the story.
All I hear often is one side of the story and then judgmental statement "pay up".
As for the judge having a good reason to throw it out, why did he not apply that "good reason" and throw out Ayscough's part too rather than have the jury hear that? The jury wasn't going to have a chance to hear MJ "tell it", his side of the story, which was a major component for Michael having dismissed Ayscough because not only had he failed to do what he's supposed to do, but had turned into threatening the client with defamation. Michael was going to be muzzled from telling why he took action to terminate the lawyer and not pay him after being threatened, which could give rise to the lawyer being disbarred or disciplined by the bar after such a civil case. Why on earth would a judge stop that, other than to give unfair advantage to the other side. So Michael was suppossed to explain why he owed and did not pay Ayscough without being able to explain why he terminated and refused to pay.
I've never heard of anyone who hires a lawyer, is dissatisfied with the lawyer and terminates him, receives threats of defamtion and inflated costs and then just pays up.
