New topic
Printablewow,it looks like the mother of the accuser is an expert at filing abuse lawsuits...lol...she could almost write a book on how to do it.She sued JC Penneys and won $137,500...she sued the child welfare agency...and now she and her son are suing Michael.At least she's consistent,huh?
 [Edited 2/2/05 6:37am] | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: wow,it looks like the mother of the accuser is an expert at filing abuse lawsuits...lol...she could almost write a book on how to do it.She sued JC Penneys and won $137,500...she sued the child welfare agency...and now she and her son are suing Michael.At least she's consistent,huh?
[Edited 2/2/05 6:37am] 
don't mention her anymore. she might google up your name and sue you next. or anyone else for that matter, it all depends on what "the voices" tell her next.  and true love lives on lollipops and crisps | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IstenSzek said: DavidEye said: wow,it looks like the mother of the accuser is an expert at filing abuse lawsuits...lol...she could almost write a book on how to do it.She sued JC Penneys and won $137,500...she sued the child welfare agency...and now she and her son are suing Michael.At least she's consistent,huh?
don't mention her anymore. she might google up your name and sue you next. or anyone else for that matter, it all depends on what "the voices" tell her next. The more I learn about her the more I think that she's the one in need of the most help. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
THE ACCUSING FAMILY
The relationship between Michael Jackson and his second accuser began innocently enough. Two years ago, the recovering cancer patient made a request through the Make a Wish Foundation to meet the pop superstar. Jackson obliged and eventually formed a friendship with the boy and his family. The boy's mother characterized her children's relationship with the singer as a “loving father, sons and daughters one,” even crediting Jackson with helping her son overcome his bout with cancer. Court documents reveal that this was not the first time the family had used the boy's cancer as a way to get close to celebrities. According to a report filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services: "Mom said that they met the celebrities due to her son’s illness and that the celebrities are very supportive of her son and their family.” The mother told a caseworker that through her connection to celebrities, she had “found ways to get things for her kids." Rush Hour director Brett Ratner was one of the many celebrities who had met and befriended the boy. "[He] would sit in my director's chair. When I told him to get up, he'd tell me to go to hell... He's more street smart than I was at that age," Ratner recalled. “I always had a weird feeling that the mother would set Michael up. I always liked the father. But the mother was an opportunist.” Adding credence to Ratner's suspicion was the fact that the family had a history of making unsubstantiated abuse claims. In 1998, they accused security guards from JCPenney and Tower Records of physically assaulting them after pulling them over for shoplifting. Two years after filing a $3 million lawsuit against the companies, the mother also accused the guards of sexually assaulting her during the altercation. She alleged that one of them had fondled her breasts and pelvic area for approximately seven minutes, a detail that had never come up in her initial depositions. The companies settled out of court for $152,500 without admitting guilt. Tom Griffin, the attorney who represented JCPenney in the case, told NBC's Mike Taibbi that the family had no evidence to substantiate their claims. "[The mother] just came up with this fairy tale, not a fairy tale, it’s a horror story, and just ran with it," Griffin said. A psychiatrist hired by JCPenney during the investigation said that the children's testimonies sounded scripted and rehearsed, a suspicion that was confirmed by the boy's father. In an affidavit, he admitted that the kids were coached by their mother to lie. According to Russell Halpern, an attorney for the father, "[The mother] wrote all of their testimony. I actually saw the script." Halpern was hired when a bitter custody dispute arose between the parents following their divorce in 2001. The battle took an unexpected turn when the mother accused her ex-husband of spousal abuse, an allegation that was initially denied by the couple's three children. In October 2001, social workers were called to investigate the family following an altercation that took place in their home. When questioned on their own, the children did not allude to any abuse on the father's part. The social workers left but were called back when the mother returned. In the presence of their mother, the children all changed their story, alleging that their father was indeed abusive. The father pleaded no-contest to the charges and was barred from seeing his children as a result. During an interview on Larry King Live, Halpern, who is currently trying to obtain visitation rights for his client, discussed documents from the JCPenney case that suggest the abuse allegations against the father were false. "[The mother] was specifically asked, ‘did he ever hit you?’ and she said ‘no’ and then she elaborated by saying he was a wonderful husband, he had never touched her, he didn't have it in him to touch a woman and he had never touched the children, never as far as even spanking the kids." In court papers that were later filed during the custody proceedings, the mother painted a startlingly different picture of her ex-husband, claiming that her children were terrified of him. "Every single night, one of my sons barricades the front door by putting two chairs in front of the door," she alleged. "He also puts a boogie board and an archery arrow against the front door... Both boys sleep with baseball bats." With their biological father out of the picture, the children were reportedly encouraged by their mother to refer to various other men in their lives as “daddy,” a title that was eventually given to Michael Jackson. The mother told a British newspaper last year that it was Jackson who encouraged the children to refer to him as their father. Sources close to the family, however, suggest that it was the other way around. Whatever the case may be, Jackson formed a relationship with the family; the eldest son was even featured on the now infamous Living with Michael Jackson documentary. The 12-year-old raised eyebrows when he told journalist Martin Bashir that he had once spent the night in Jackson's bedroom. The boy’s comments led to two separate investigations into possible sexual abuse on Jackson’s part, investigations that would later help Jackson’s defense. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
scorp84 said: THE ACCUSING FAMILY
1. Where did this come from? 2. This is why MJ never shoulda done that documentary. 3. If this child was in fact abused, then his story is the most tragic of them all. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: scorp84 said: THE ACCUSING FAMILY
1. Where did this come from? 2. This is why MJ never shoulda done that documentary. 3. If this child was in fact abused, then his story is the most tragic of them all. http://www.mj-case.net/main.html All the sources r listed there also. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
About time people saw this woman and family in their true light. in case you missed this, i thought i'd repost
Did Jackson Accuser's Mom Falsely Solicit Aid for Son's Treaments? Even as embattled pop star Michael Jackson continues to offer words of appreciation for the support of his fans, "Celebrity Justice" has exclusively learned that the mother of the boy accusing Jackson of child molestation also went looking for support -- but in a very different way. In 2000, when Jackson first met his accuser, an article appeared about the boy and his family in Mid Valley News, a community newspaper in the town of El Monte, just outside of Los Angeles. The story was an emotional appeal, detailing the boy's illness, the toll his treatment was taking on the family, and asking for readers' financial charity. "Our car has been repossessed" the mother was quoted as saying. "One chemotherapy injection costs more than $12,000." Now, Connie Keenan, the editor of Mid Valley News, speaking exclusively to "CJ," has characterized the accuser's mother in a most uncharitable manner. "My gut level: she's a shark. She was after money," Keenan told us. "My readers were used. My staff was used. It's sickening." In 2000, Keenan told us, the boy's mother approached the Mid Valley news and pitched her story: "She pleaded her case that her son needed all sorts of medical care and they had no financial means to provide it." Keenan agreed to run the heartfelt story inviting readers to help, but recalled that, almost from the get go, there were red flags, including the fact that, according to Keenan, the mother, "Wanted the money sent to her in her name, at her home address." And that was just the beginning. Keenan assigned the story to reporter Christie Causer, who was so moved by what she heard that, on Thanksgiving Day, she brought food to the family -- but, according to Keenan, "The mother, instead of being grateful that this woman brought her a complete Thanksgiving dinner, said 'I'd rather have the money. This is nice, but I'd rather have the money.'" Keenan insisted that her paper would solicit funds only if the mother opened a trust account to receive them. Sources tell "CJ" that, nine days before the article ran, the boy's mother did open an account in her name for the benefit of the boy at a Washington Mutual bank on the Sunset Strip and deposited one cent -- but it was not a trust account. The article gave readers a roadmap to make donations: the name of the bank, the account number, even the routing number. We've learned that, within the first three weeks after the article ran, $965 was deposited -- and $750 was promptly withdrawn. But Keenan told us that that absolutely wasn't enough for the mother: "She really wanted another story done on her son because they just didn't make enough money on the first article. And I told her -- and I can be a crusty old broad -- 'we're not doing another story on your son.'" The mother's response? "'Well, I'll take it someplace else,'" Keenan recalled. "I said, 'Fine.'" And as if all that wasn't enough, it turns out that the boy was being treated at Kaiser Permanente in Los Angeles, at absolutely no cost to the family. That's right, there were, in fact, no medical bills. All treatments were covered by insurance. The boy's father was a teamster member who worked at a supermarket facility in the LA area. "CJ" spoke with Paul Kenny, heads of a teamster's union in LA, who confirmed that the teamsters negotiated a sweet deal when it came to health care coverage. "They're covered 100% under HMOs," Kenny stated. "Including Kaiser, which is an HMO." "There was no cost to [the boy's father] out of pocket, at all," Kenny added. "Everything should be covered 100% under his contract. Everything. There is no exceptions." When we asked Keenan if it was her impression that the family had to shell out for treatment, she told us, "Of course it was." Two years after the article ran, when Santa Barbara County DA Tom Sneddon filed child molestation charges against Jackson, Keenan realized that the boy she wrote about was the accuser and made contact with Jackson's lawyer. "I just had this gut feeling that something was wrong here. So I sent a copy of the [Mid Valley News] to Mr. Geragos, who was representing Michael Jackson at the time," Keenan told us. "Because maybe there's a grain of truth to what Michael Jackson is saying -- 'I didn't do it' -- or maybe it's just to stop a shark." Both Keenan and the article's writer reported they have recently been contacted by Jackson's defense team. A source close to the mother spoke with "CJ" and insisted that none of the money collected was misspent but wouldn't say how the money was spent. 
Not only that, i've read she discussed settlement with more than one lawyer months before she and her family even met Michael. Eventually she ended up at the office of Larry Feldman after her son visited the very same psychiatrist Jordan Chandler did, Larry Feldman also just happened to be the very same lawyer who Jordan Chandler spoke to aswell. I can't wait for this trial to start, if this is all true of course. time will tell. This is a stitch-up. And why has Sneddon seen fit to take this family on a shopping spree in Beverly Hills? Is that normal practise for a D.A? or is he just desperate to keep this family in the trial?  [Edited 2/2/05 12:37pm] |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I understand the mother has a checkered past. But do you guys at least think there's a possibility that your beloved artist (and mine, actually) might have done this to this boy? And are you prepared to accept that the evidence introduced at trial could point to guilt?
Or will we visit the sins of the mother upon the son? If MJ's weirdness should not infer his guilt per se, the mother's conniving ways should not infer MJ's innocence per se. Again, maybe Sneddon is using the documentary as a launching pad to land MJ in jail. That's why I hated that MJ did it in the first durn place. But maybe there's something there. 12 people voted to indict. Let's see what they saw and then make a decision. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said: About time people saw this woman and family in their true light. in case you missed this, i thought i'd repost
Did Jackson Accuser's Mom Falsely Solicit Aid for Son's Treaments? Even as embattled pop star Michael Jackson continues to offer words of appreciation for the support of his fans, "Celebrity Justice" has exclusively learned that the mother of the boy accusing Jackson of child molestation also went looking for support -- but in a very different way. In 2000, when Jackson first met his accuser, an article appeared about the boy and his family in Mid Valley News, a community newspaper in the town of El Monte, just outside of Los Angeles. The story was an emotional appeal, detailing the boy's illness, the toll his treatment was taking on the family, and asking for readers' financial charity. "Our car has been repossessed" the mother was quoted as saying. "One chemotherapy injection costs more than $12,000." Now, Connie Keenan, the editor of Mid Valley News, speaking exclusively to "CJ," has characterized the accuser's mother in a most uncharitable manner. "My gut level: she's a shark. She was after money," Keenan told us. "My readers were used. My staff was used. It's sickening." In 2000, Keenan told us, the boy's mother approached the Mid Valley news and pitched her story: "She pleaded her case that her son needed all sorts of medical care and they had no financial means to provide it." Keenan agreed to run the heartfelt story inviting readers to help, but recalled that, almost from the get go, there were red flags, including the fact that, according to Keenan, the mother, "Wanted the money sent to her in her name, at her home address." And that was just the beginning. Keenan assigned the story to reporter Christie Causer, who was so moved by what she heard that, on Thanksgiving Day, she brought food to the family -- but, according to Keenan, "The mother, instead of being grateful that this woman brought her a complete Thanksgiving dinner, said 'I'd rather have the money. This is nice, but I'd rather have the money.'" Keenan insisted that her paper would solicit funds only if the mother opened a trust account to receive them. Sources tell "CJ" that, nine days before the article ran, the boy's mother did open an account in her name for the benefit of the boy at a Washington Mutual bank on the Sunset Strip and deposited one cent -- but it was not a trust account. The article gave readers a roadmap to make donations: the name of the bank, the account number, even the routing number. We've learned that, within the first three weeks after the article ran, $965 was deposited -- and $750 was promptly withdrawn. But Keenan told us that that absolutely wasn't enough for the mother: "She really wanted another story done on her son because they just didn't make enough money on the first article. And I told her -- and I can be a crusty old broad -- 'we're not doing another story on your son.'" The mother's response? "'Well, I'll take it someplace else,'" Keenan recalled. "I said, 'Fine.'" And as if all that wasn't enough, it turns out that the boy was being treated at Kaiser Permanente in Los Angeles, at absolutely no cost to the family. That's right, there were, in fact, no medical bills. All treatments were covered by insurance. The boy's father was a teamster member who worked at a supermarket facility in the LA area. "CJ" spoke with Paul Kenny, heads of a teamster's union in LA, who confirmed that the teamsters negotiated a sweet deal when it came to health care coverage. "They're covered 100% under HMOs," Kenny stated. "Including Kaiser, which is an HMO." "There was no cost to [the boy's father] out of pocket, at all," Kenny added. "Everything should be covered 100% under his contract. Everything. There is no exceptions." When we asked Keenan if it was her impression that the family had to shell out for treatment, she told us, "Of course it was." Two years after the article ran, when Santa Barbara County DA Tom Sneddon filed child molestation charges against Jackson, Keenan realized that the boy she wrote about was the accuser and made contact with Jackson's lawyer. "I just had this gut feeling that something was wrong here. So I sent a copy of the [Mid Valley News] to Mr. Geragos, who was representing Michael Jackson at the time," Keenan told us. "Because maybe there's a grain of truth to what Michael Jackson is saying -- 'I didn't do it' -- or maybe it's just to stop a shark." Both Keenan and the article's writer reported they have recently been contacted by Jackson's defense team. A source close to the mother spoke with "CJ" and insisted that none of the money collected was misspent but wouldn't say how the money was spent.
Not only that, i've read she discussed settlement with more than one lawyer months before she and her family even met Michael. Eventually she ended up at the office of Larry Feldman after her son visited the very same psychiatrist Jordan Chandler did, Larry Feldman also just happened to be the very same lawyer who Jordan Chandler spoke to aswell. I can't wait for this trial to start, if this is all true of course. time will tell. This is a stitch-up. And why has Sneddon seen fit to take this family on a shopping spree in Beverly Hills? Is that normal practise for a D.A? or is he just desperate to keep this family in the trial?
[Edited 2/2/05 12:37pm] So the mother is dishonest - does that mean the boys are too? MJ's father is a child abuser - does that mean MJ is one too? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: I understand the mother has a checkered past. But do you guys at least think there's a possibility that your beloved artist (and mine, actually) might have done this to this boy? And are you prepared to accept that the evidence introduced at trial could point to guilt?
Or will we visit the sins of the mother upon the son? If MJ's weirdness should not infer his guilt per se, the mother's conniving ways should not infer MJ's innocence per se. Again, maybe Sneddon is using the documentary as a launching pad to land MJ in jail. That's why I hated that MJ did it in the first durn place. But maybe there's something there. 12 people voted to indict. Let's see what they saw and then make a decision. Considering what happened in the jordy Chandler Case... I have to say that Mj is Completely Innocent very low chance... that he's guilty, if you know the whole story... Considering whats happening with this investigation, is almost basically the same thing for the exception of one key Lawyer Barry Rothman,, Evan Chandlers lead attorney, (he is now Incarcerated....mmmm wonder why) but this does not mean that he will be given an innocent verdict of course... Hell i wanted Jotdy To testify!, And his Father! , hell and his uncle for causing trouble... Larry Feldman is in charge of the Civil Suit against MJ, Whilst an extremely Aggressive Tom Sneddon, Is the lead prosecutor on the Criminal Case... It was all realized through a third party motion (Shrink) its too god damn fishy... both cases are so similar.. its eerie... Unless Sneddon Can produce some hardcore evidence... his strength is based purely on a testimony, A testimony he doesn't to be given in public... MJ defense lawyers won the motion, so it is a public testimony IN front OF MICHAEL JACKSON this is what sneddon was afraid of... having the accusers testify in front of jackson is a huge risk... Thousands of Cases have all gone to crapper at the time of testimony Primarily Child Molestation Cases, Sneddon Does not care whether Jackson Is innocent or not (he's a prosecuter it doesn't phase him), his main focus is to win the case any effort he can either by tampering with the Jury Pool, or violating Civil Rights... He's done this in the pass.. but the supreme court have not kicked him off.. because he started the case.. and because Jackson opposed him being thrown off... Sneddon is being watched like hawk by the courts, and by the california Attorney General Bill Lockyer... Who's extremely concerned with the taking's of the case... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Luv4oneanotha said: Larry Feldman is in charge of the Civil Suit against MJ, Larry Feldman is no longer representing the family. He quit about a month ago. namepeace said: If MJ's weirdness should not infer his guilt per se, the mother's conniving ways should not infer MJ's innocence per se. Conniving is more akin to false law suits than weirdness is to molesting Here's the Jurur Questionnaire that was handed at Santa Maria. http://s27.yousendit.com/...I458DT61HB [Edited 2/2/05 16:55pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
I hope to hell that MJ is found 100% innocent. However, answer me this-
Why did Michael Jackson pay off/settle with the 1st boy/family that accused him in the early 90's???? Sure, he didn't want to go through a lengthy trial etc. However, MJ's reputation was/is worth far more than whatever amount he payed that family. Shouldn't he have fought just to erase any doubt and have a good rep? That credibility/rep directly affects his career. From that point on, the question of his innocence was always there and has ultimately brought him back to where he is now. Which is to say-vulnerable to attack. I agree that just because he is weird and doesn't stick to society's definition of "normal" that he's not automatically a criminal. That being said, Michael is on the verge of flushing all his past accomplishments down the drain by tainting them with the bitter taste of this scandal. People can look past his surgery, his baby dangling, his chimp, his oxygen tank, and his surgical mask, but they woon't be able to look past this- unless he is found 100% not guilty. MJ very much my generation's Elvis Presley. Now he is in his fat, drugged up phase. His career trajectory is, sadly, much like Elvis', however, being an overweight, drugged up, burnt out King seems so much better than being accussed of being a child molester. [Edited 2/2/05 17:31pm] "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Luv4oneanotha said: namepeace said: I understand the mother has a checkered past. But do you guys at least think there's a possibility that your beloved artist (and mine, actually) might have done this to this boy? And are you prepared to accept that the evidence introduced at trial could point to guilt?
Or will we visit the sins of the mother upon the son? If MJ's weirdness should not infer his guilt per se, the mother's conniving ways should not infer MJ's innocence per se. Again, maybe Sneddon is using the documentary as a launching pad to land MJ in jail. That's why I hated that MJ did it in the first durn place. But maybe there's something there. 12 people voted to indict. Let's see what they saw and then make a decision. Considering what happened in the jordy Chandler Case... I have to say that Mj is Completely Innocent very low chance... that he's guilty, if you know the whole story... Considering whats happening with this investigation, is almost basically the same thing for the exception of one key Lawyer Barry Rothman,, Evan Chandlers lead attorney, (he is now Incarcerated....mmmm wonder why) but this does not mean that he will be given an innocent verdict of course... Hell i wanted Jotdy To testify!, And his Father! , hell and his uncle for causing trouble... Larry Feldman is in charge of the Civil Suit against MJ, Whilst an extremely Aggressive Tom Sneddon, Is the lead prosecutor on the Criminal Case... It was all realized through a third party motion (Shrink) its too god damn fishy... both cases are so similar.. its eerie... Unless Sneddon Can produce some hardcore evidence... his strength is based purely on a testimony, A testimony he doesn't to be given in public... MJ defense lawyers won the motion, so it is a public testimony IN front OF MICHAEL JACKSON this is what sneddon was afraid of... having the accusers testify in front of jackson is a huge risk... Thousands of Cases have all gone to crapper at the time of testimony Primarily Child Molestation Cases, Sneddon Does not care whether Jackson Is innocent or not (he's a prosecuter it doesn't phase him), his main focus is to win the case any effort he can either by tampering with the Jury Pool, or violating Civil Rights... He's done this in the pass.. but the supreme court have not kicked him off.. because he started the case.. and because Jackson opposed him being thrown off... Sneddon is being watched like hawk by the courts, and by the california Attorney General Bill Lockyer... Who's extremely concerned with the taking's of the case... To accused sneddon of getting away with stuff before is no better than people accusing MJ of the same thing. . |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
skywalker said: I hope to hell that MJ is found 100% innocent. However, answer me this-
Why did Michael Jackson pay off/settle with the 1st boy/family that accused him in the early 90's???? Sure, he didn't want to go through a lengthy trial etc. However, MJ's reputation was/is worth far more than whatever amount he payed that family. Shouldn't he have fought just to erase any doubt and have a good rep? That credibility/rep directly affects his career. From that point on, the question of his innocence was always there and has ultimately brought him back to where he is now. Which is to say-vulnerable to attack. I agree that just because he is weird and doesn't stick to society's definition of "normal" that he's not automatically a criminal. That being said, Michael is on the verge of flushing all his past accomplishments down the drain by tainting them with the bitter taste of this scandal. People can look past his surgery, his baby dangling, his chimp, his oxygen tank, and his surgical mask, but they woon't be able to look past this- unless he is found 100% not guilty. MJ very much my generation's Elvis Presley. Now he is in his fat, drugged up phase. His career trajectory is, sadly, much like Elvis', however, being an overweight, drugged up, burnt out King seems so much better than being accussed of being a child molester. [Edited 2/2/05 17:31pm] For the average person, I think we're past that point. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
So let me get this straight. Geraldo Rivera secured an interview with MJ? 
Geraldo of FoxNews?
Geraldo, the guy that has publicly ridiculed MJ at every moment possible?
Why on earth would he agree to do an interview with Geraldo? Why not Tavis Smiley or Ed Gordon? Maybe he could sit down with Ed Bradley again or maybe even Oprah Winfrey? I just dont understand it! What the hell is wrong with him! Katherine, Joe, Tito... SOMEBODY GET MICHAEL SOME HELP! Damnit!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SquirrelMeat said: Luv4oneanotha said: Considering what happened in the jordy Chandler Case... I have to say that Mj is Completely Innocent very low chance... that he's guilty, if you know the whole story... Considering whats happening with this investigation, is almost basically the same thing for the exception of one key Lawyer Barry Rothman,, Evan Chandlers lead attorney, (he is now Incarcerated....mmmm wonder why) but this does not mean that he will be given an innocent verdict of course... Hell i wanted Jotdy To testify!, And his Father! , hell and his uncle for causing trouble... Larry Feldman is in charge of the Civil Suit against MJ, Whilst an extremely Aggressive Tom Sneddon, Is the lead prosecutor on the Criminal Case... It was all realized through a third party motion (Shrink) its too god damn fishy... both cases are so similar.. its eerie... Unless Sneddon Can produce some hardcore evidence... his strength is based purely on a testimony, A testimony he doesn't to be given in public... MJ defense lawyers won the motion, so it is a public testimony IN front OF MICHAEL JACKSON this is what sneddon was afraid of... having the accusers testify in front of jackson is a huge risk... Thousands of Cases have all gone to crapper at the time of testimony Primarily Child Molestation Cases, Sneddon Does not care whether Jackson Is innocent or not (he's a prosecuter it doesn't phase him), his main focus is to win the case any effort he can either by tampering with the Jury Pool, or violating Civil Rights... He's done this in the pass.. but the supreme court have not kicked him off.. because he started the case.. and because Jackson opposed him being thrown off... Sneddon is being watched like hawk by the courts, and by the california Attorney General Bill Lockyer... Who's extremely concerned with the taking's of the case... To accused sneddon of getting away with stuff before is no better than people accusing MJ of the same thing. im not accussing him of anything that isn't on his record... Sneddon has faced Jury Tampering Charges Civil Rights violation, its in his History... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lilgish said: Luv4oneanotha said: Larry Feldman is in charge of the Civil Suit against MJ, Larry Feldman is no longer representing the family. He quit about a month ago. Really, now thats eerie... Why would Feldman Quit... he know something i don't know? Why did Michael Jackson pay off/settle with the 1st boy/family that accused him in the early 90's???? Sure, he didn't want to go through a lengthy trial etc. However, MJ's reputation was/is worth far more than whatever amount he payed that family. Shouldn't he have fought just to erase any doubt and have a good rep? That credibility/rep directly affects his career. From that point on, the question of his innocence was always there and has ultimately brought him back to where he is now. Which is to say-vulnerable to attack.
Why? Lawyer Protocol! Simply put During the trial proceedings, the courts shot down 4 main request his lawyers needed, after that the investigation into extortion charges, by the LAPD turned up nothing, (mainly because the officers didn't investigate it thoroughly) and it was because he would have to go to trial within a 3 month period Johnnie Cochran Convinced michael to go ahead with the settlement... saying that they don't have enough time to do a thorough investigation... with that said they couldn't guarantee a fair trial. Bert Fields, Jacksons other lawyers opposed the settlement due to the excessive evidence of extortion collected by now Incarcerated Investigator. "Pelicano" Pelicano had many many tapes of evidence. this was also before the Investigation by Mary Fisher, who's vindicated Jackson many times and before The jackson Team came in contact with Geraldine Hughes , A secretary in the Accusers lawyers office, her claims was she knows the whole thing was fabricated... Perhaps if The Jackson Camp was able to contact more people and had a larger grace period to gather evidence... a trialw ould have happened in 93 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
skywalker said: I hope to hell that MJ is found 100% innocent. However, answer me this-
Why did Michael Jackson pay off/settle with the 1st boy/family that accused him in the early 90's???? Sure, he didn't want to go through a lengthy trial etc. However, MJ's reputation was/is worth far more than whatever amount he payed that family. Shouldn't he have fought just to erase any doubt and have a good rep? That credibility/rep directly affects his career. From that point on, the question of his innocence was always there and has ultimately brought him back to where he is now. Which is to say-vulnerable to attack. If you take a look at the circus that is beginning with this trial, giving up some money to get rid of the mess begins to look quite appealing, 20 million sounds like a shitload to us but you can be sure it looks much different from his perspective! It looks like this trial process will take up at least 2 years of his life and 2 years is probably worth 20 million several times over to Michael Jackson. Yeah it was probably a rash decision that made him seem guilty to people who didn't try to understand why he would do that, but who's to stop him doing it if he wants to, he was probably pretty hurt and pissed off about the whole thing..... Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IstenSzek said: DavidEye said: wow,it looks like the mother of the accuser is an expert at filing abuse lawsuits...lol...she could almost write a book on how to do it.She sued JC Penneys and won $137,500...she sued the child welfare agency...and now she and her son are suing Michael.At least she's consistent,huh?
don't mention her anymore. she might google up your name and sue you next. or anyone else for that matter, it all depends on what "the voices" tell her next.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Fox 19 (Cincinnati) apparently reported that the defense requested the boy's computer files and they found that someone had signed on and had printed out the jordy deposition in may of 2003.
www.fox19.com Until now its just a rumor. BlueNote | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anyone see the special on VH1 last night?
What special? I missed it. Was it on american VH1 or european one? "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
skywalker said: I hope to hell that MJ is found 100% innocent. However, answer me this-
Why did Michael Jackson pay off/settle with the 1st boy/family that accused him in the early 90's???? Sure, he didn't want to go through a lengthy trial etc. However, MJ's reputation was/is worth far more than whatever amount he payed that family. Shouldn't he have fought just to erase any doubt and have a good rep? That credibility/rep directly affects his career. From that point on, the question of his innocence was always there and has ultimately brought him back to where he is now. Which is to say-vulnerable to attack. I agree that just because he is weird and doesn't stick to society's definition of "normal" that he's not automatically a criminal. That being said, Michael is on the verge of flushing all his past accomplishments down the drain by tainting them with the bitter taste of this scandal. People can look past his surgery, his baby dangling, his chimp, his oxygen tank, and his surgical mask, but they woon't be able to look past this- unless he is found 100% not guilty. MJ very much my generation's Elvis Presley. Now he is in his fat, drugged up phase. His career trajectory is, sadly, much like Elvis', however, being an overweight, drugged up, burnt out King seems so much better than being accussed of being a child molester. I agree.Another shocking development is the fact that Michael actually paid off another boy in 1990.This was before the 1993 case.So this means that,on at least two separate occasions,Mike has paid off boys just so they would keep quiet and not file any charges against him.This doesn't mean that he molested any boy,but you gotta admit,it raises alot of doubt.It's disturbing to think that,perhaps,he was trying to buy his way out of trouble. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Why did Michael Jackson pay off/settle with the 1st boy/family that accused him in the early 90's????
In order 4 him 2 b able 2 "pay off" with the accuser & his family, they would have 2 accept the money. In my opinion, their willingness not 2 testify and accept money points at his innocence.Apparently some families believed that compensation was step one in the "healing process". The only thing that hurt MJ's credibility with some people was the gag order (which was part of the agreement) that prevented Michael and anyone else involved from describing the details of the case that would've proved that this case was a scam from the start (taped conversations between the accuser's father & his lawyer,unethical drugging of the accuser with "truth serum" in the dentist's office, and one-on-one meetings between the accuser & his attorney). | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Luv4oneanotha said: im not accussing him of anything that isn't on his record...
Sneddon has faced Jury Tampering Charges its in his History... Was he found guilty of this? If he wasn't then he is innocent of jury tampering. Michael Jackson has faced child molestation charges. Its in his history. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Look people, everything that the public know about this case has been discussed over and over and over on this site and on mjjforum for instance! If the people on this site are really interested to find out the FACTS from 93 and from the present case, its not that difficult to go and seek the information out. But if u check out the deposition of Jordy and the alleged deposition of the boy and mother in this case and then mount that against evidence from MJ's side it wouldnt take long to work out that this case is ridiculous. MJ has an army of employees and video footage from CCTV, he has celebrity witnesses i.e. Chris Tucker, he has lawyers who were approached by the family who state that they are out for money and admitted this. If things were to get desperate, im sure he would receive support from all the other children who have stayed at Neverland and had incredibly positive experiences. What it comes down to here is credibility, are the testimonies of MJ/Chris Tucker and everyone else on the defence more credible than those of a ex psychiatric patient with a drugged up father who has made 3 molestation allegations against different people in the space of a year? MJ put himself in a vulnerable position once again, but he did learn something from 93, remember MJ hired a private investigator to watch this family, i have no doubt in his innocence! You also have to take into consideration Michael Jackson's Star Power in the Courtroom and when he takes the witness stand you can bet he will leave no doubt in the minds of the jurors about his innocence. These people will not send MJ to jail on a whim, remember the verdict of Guilt has to be BEYOND ALL DOUBT, most of us here arent even in the courtroom and we have doubts!!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Also Geraldine Hughes, who was a key witness and was involved in the 93 case has continually supported MJ and stated that it was an extortion attempt, there is also audio evidence from Jordy's father stating that this was his intention and this can be found on the internet! Ms Hughes, it must be noted, was never on MJ's defence team or involved with him, she was a third party witness with no agenda's!
She has also stated that Jordy was contacted by the prosecution and would take nothing to do with this case! She has stated that Jordy, if called to testify, would support MJ, however, didnt want to drag that part of his life up again, and his credibility wouldnt be worth it as he would be contradicting himself! He has not been in contact with Ray or his Father Chandler since 93, and absolutely hates them for ruining his life! All this info again points towards an innocent man. Go Michael and may God b with U! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
"If you take a look at the circus that is beginning with this trial, giving up some money to get rid of the mess begins to look quite appealing, 20 million sounds like a shitload to us but you can be sure it looks much different from his perspective!
It looks like this trial process will take up at least 2 years of his life and 2 years is probably worth 20 million several times over to Michael Jackson. Yeah it was probably a rash decision that made him seem guilty to people who didn't try to understand why he would do that, but who's to stop him doing it if he wants to, he was probably pretty hurt and pissed off about the whole thing" $20 million might be worth two years to Michael Jackson, however, by paying off the 1st kid he has made it possible for what is happening now. Is $20 million worth his reputation??? No. If he'd would have gone to trial in 1993/94 and been found not guilty, would this trial even be happening now? Probably not. Would people still wonder if he molests kids? Maybe, but not to the extent that they do now. $20 million wasn't worth it. He shoulda fought it the 1st time. Now his damaged rep and all those questions are causing him to be vulnerable now, both in the court of public opinionb and the court of law. [Edited 2/3/05 9:43am] "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
skywalker said: "$20 million might be worth two years to Michael Jackson, however, by paying off the 1st kid he has made it possible for what is happening now. Is $20 million worth his reputation??? No. If he'd would have gone to trial in 1993/94 and been found not guilty, would this trial even be happening now? Probably not. Would people still wonder if he molests kids? Maybe, but not to the extent that they do now. $20 million wasn't worth it. He shoulda fought it the 1st time. Now his damaged rep and all those questions are causing him to be vulnerable now, both in the court of public opinionb and the court of law.
[Edited 2/3/05 9:43am] He was ready 2 fight it, but there was squabbling going on between his attorneys, people making ill-advised public statements, and they all wanted 2 go in different directions (settle, fight, settle, fight). No one representing him could convince him that justice would prevail. Some lawyers quit the case because of the bickering, and he had 2 make a critical decision. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
scorp84 said: skywalker said: "$20 million might be worth two years to Michael Jackson, however, by paying off the 1st kid he has made it possible for what is happening now. Is $20 million worth his reputation??? No. If he'd would have gone to trial in 1993/94 and been found not guilty, would this trial even be happening now? Probably not. Would people still wonder if he molests kids? Maybe, but not to the extent that they do now. $20 million wasn't worth it. He shoulda fought it the 1st time. Now his damaged rep and all those questions are causing him to be vulnerable now, both in the court of public opinionb and the court of law.
[Edited 2/3/05 9:43am] He was ready 2 fight it, but there was squabbling going on between his attorneys, people making ill-advised public statements, and they all wanted 2 go in different directions (settle, fight, settle, fight). No one representing him could convince him that justice would prevail. Some lawyers quit the case because of the bickering, and he had 2 make a critical decision. And that critical decision has come back to bite him in the ass. Never was the question answered "did Michael molest the boy?" In fact, by paying the family, it made him more suspicious. So you tell me, was the $20million worth it? Was it worth MJ's good name and reputation???? "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thedoorkeeper said: Luv4oneanotha said: im not accussing him of anything that isn't on his record...
Sneddon has faced Jury Tampering Charges its in his History... Was he found guilty of this? If he wasn't then he is innocent of jury tampering. Michael Jackson has faced child molestation charges. Its in his history. He lost the civil suit, no criminal charges where pressed he was made to pay a fine, thats about it... so i guess yeah he was guilty of it... it wasn't a serious offence because it was justa civil suit... but its also why the Attorney General Wanted him thrown off case... but he can't throw him off unless if he's convicted of Criminal Charges... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |