lilgish said:

Your half right...
their was a reason Sony reps didn't fire Matolla,
Because it would be in breach of contract,
if the atv catalogue is sold he still gets a percentage of it, for being the manager, even if he quits,
thats part of the compensation clause in all execs
as for sony, they are still interested in aquiring the other half of the catalogue
especially if Jackson is convicted...

The list is fake, of the conspirators is obviously fake
i wouldn't doubt if it was the Sony execs themselves who planted it!
matolla wasn't the only evil one in the plot, he just got caught by MJ

Luv4oneanotha said:

My guess is you must make a lot of money in life, you're one smart motherfather.

Luv4oneanotha said:

I really, REALLY hope Queen La didn't say that.

But if she did, this would be my only response.

Thank you Queen Latifah. I knew I liked her for some reason.

dag said:

Helsinki is categorically speaking in Northern Europe.

Day 23: Psychologist & Attorney for Accuser Take the Stand, Defense Questions Connections, Motives


Created: Saturday, 02 April 2005

Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Day 23 featured a psychologist who was the first to interview Michael Jackson's young accuser as well as an attorney who testified that he would receive a kick-back for referring the family to another attorney if he was successful in receiving settlement funds for the case.

Dr. Stan Katz testified on Wednesday attempting to counter claims by lawyers for the defense that the molestation allegations were invented by the then-13-year-old accuser's mother. Defense lawyers have also pointed to the extreme lack of evidence.


Stan Katz said that in his career as a therapist specializing in child abuse he had found few false allegations made by adolescent boys against men. However, on cross-examination, Katz, was confronted by Mr. Jackson's lead attorney Tom Mesereau over a book he wrote in which he suggested that 40 percent of sex abuse claims were false.


The psychologist, who once penned an article titled "Stop the Witch Hunt for Child Molesters," insisted that he was referring in his book to children involved in custody disputes who were much younger than the boy at the center of the Mr. Jackson case.


Mr. Katz told jurors on Wednesday that a well-known civil attorney, Larry Feldman, who had sued Michael Jackson over child molestation allegations in 1993, has considered filing suit against him again on behalf of the accuser in the current case. Jurors learned that Mr. Katz was also involved in this 1993 civil suit with Mr. Feldman. Mr. Katz said he reviewed tapes of an interview between the 1993 accuser and a doctor and reported back to Mr. Feldman.


He testified that Mr. Feldman referred the current accuser to him for an interview in June 2003. After Mr. Katz interviewed the boy's mother, the boy and his siblings, the psychologist reported to Los Angeles officials on June 12, 2003, that Mr. Jackson had allegedly molested the boy four months earlier at Neverland Valley Ranch.


On cross-examination, lead defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau asked whether the psychologist remembered his conversation with a Santa Barbara County sheriff's detective the day after the report was made.


"It was your belief when you talked to him that Mr. Feldman was filing a lawsuit against Mr. Jackson, right?" Mr. Mesereau asked.


"It was my belief that he was thinking about filing a lawsuit," Mr. Katz responded.


The admission bolstered the defense position that the boy and his family are after Mr. Jackson's money. Mr. Jackson's lawyers have maintained that the allegations of sexual molestation surfaced only after the boy's mother's failed to get a payoff from the entertainer.


Prosecutors have insisted since Mr. Jackson's arrest in November 2003 that the family in this case is not after money.


Mr. Katz was the prosecution's 39th witness since testimony began five weeks ago.


Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen questioned Mr. Katz for about eight minutes, establishing that the psychologist had interviewed the family and then reported suspected child molestation to authorities.


Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville ruled this week that the prosecution could bring in testimony concerning Mr. Jackson's relationships with five other boys, ages 10 to 13, from more than a decade ago.


However, the boy at the center of the 1993 child molestation has declined to testify. That case fell apart when his family accepted a settlement from Mr. Jackson in Mr. Feldman's civil suit. The boy then declined to cooperate with authorities in the criminal case.


However, that boy's mother plans to testify at this trial. A former Neverland maid and her son who alleged Mr. Jackson inappropriately touched him on three occasions are also expected to take the stand. But three other boys, now in their early 20s, have indicated they'll cooperate with defense lawyers, not the prosecution, when they make their case.


Though Katz had interviewed Mr. Jackson's accuser and his siblings at length, he was not asked to recount their stories to the jury.


Katz was followed on the witness stand by William Dickerman, a civil attorney hired by the boy's family, prior to going to the authorities and after the broadcast of the 2003 documentary "Living with Michael Jackson."

Mr. Dickerman is a lawyer who said he referred the accuser's family to Mr. Feldman because he knew about his success with the 1993 civil case.

Mr. Dickerman testified that he has an agreement with Mr. Feldman to share fees if the family filed a successful civil lawsuit against Mr. Jackson in this case.

Prosecutors allege Mr. Jackson and his associates held the family captive until they agreed to participate in a video to rebut the British documentary in which Mr. Jackson is seen holding hands with the boy, stating that he shares his bed with children.

Jamie Masada, who owns the Laugh Factory comedy club and who organized fundraisers for the boy when he was ill with cancer, testified Tuesday that the mother called him from Neverland claiming she was being held against her will. Mr. Masada admitted he did not call police. Instead he took the boy's mother to see Mr. Dickerman.

The mother, her children and Mr. Masada met four times with Mr. Dickerman -- either at the attorney's office or at the comedy club -- during a period when the family said they were being held hostage at Mr. Jackson's ranch.

The mother retained Mr. Dickerman as her lawyer on March 24, 2003. He testified the mother told him that Mr. Jackson and his associates had taken some of the family's property and refused to return it. Two days later, Mr. Dickerman sent the first in a series of letters to Mr. Jackson's former lawyer, Mark Geragos, telling him he wanted the harassment of the family to stop and their belongings returned.

Mr. Mesereau reviewed each letter with Mr. Dickerman and asked if there was any mention of child molestation, alcohol, false imprisonment or extortion.

Mr. Dickerman answered "No" each time.

Two days after he was retained, Mr. Dickerman began sending letters to television companies involved in the production of the British documentary or airing it in the U.S., demanding that they not show it unless they had obtained consent from the family.

When Mr. Mesereau asked whether these letters were to lay the groundwork for royalty negotiations, Mr. Dickerman insisted it was to "stop the exploitation of the family."

The court will not be in session tomorrow, Thursday, because of the César Chávez holiday. Mr. Feldman is expected to testify on Friday.

Mr. Sneddon announced at the end of Wednesday's session that he intended to call witnesses from the 1993 case beginning on Monday.

Source: MJJsource / Dawn Hobbs - Santa Barbara News Press / Reuters

Day 25: Defense Grills Former Accuser Over Statement Inconsistencies and Financial Motivation


Created: Tuesday, 05 April 2005

Monday, April 4, 2005
Day 25 was marked by the testimony of the son of Michael Jackson's former housekeeper. The now 24-year-old man alleged that he was molested once in 1990. He won an out of court settlement worth a reported two million dollars from Mr. Jackson in 1994 but said he only learned of the deal in 1997. The defense says that the boy's mother had created the charges in order to get money from Mr. Jackson.

The judge told jurors the evidence of past uncharged crimes was being offered to show a "propensity" by the defendant to commit similar acts to the one with which he is charged. He said they need not decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether those acts were committed but must decide their weight "by a preponderance of the evidence."

"Complicated, yes," the judge said, and promised to give them the instructions again later.

Three of the five alleged victims -- including former "Home Alone" child star Macaulay Culkin -- vehemently deny they were molested.

In cross-examination, Mr. Jackson's attorney suggested that detectives, who came to see the witness after another boy sued Mr. Jackson, prodded the then-13-year-old boy to say he was molested when he at first denied that anything happened.

The witness said when sheriff's deputies arrived in 1993, "I knew that it was about Michael Jackson because it was on TV all the time."

"At first I was denying everything," the young man said, claiming he was scared and feared embarrassment at school.

"You weren't even saying you were touched at all?" said Thomas Mesereau Jr.

"No," said the witness. "But I knew."

"And do you remember telling the police, 'You're pushy?'" asked the lawyer.

"Yes," said the witness.

"And after telling the police, 'You guys are pushy, you said, 'Yes, he touched me.'"

"Yeah, I think that's how it went," said the witness.

The appearance of the man was allowed under a ruling last week by Melville that prosecutors may present witnesses to alleged molestation or inappropriate behavior before the time period of the current allegations.

Jurors also heard during Mr. Mesereau's questioning that the witness' mother went on the TV show "Hard Copy" and received $20,000 for telling her story.

The housekeeper's son, was asked at the outset of his testimony if he could identify Mr. Jackson in court.

"He's the light-complected gentleman," the witness said, smiling at Mr. Jackson.

The witness said he never talked about the incidents with anyone until 1993, when investigators came to him after another boy made allegations against Mr. Jackson in a civil case. No criminal charges were filed in either case and Mr. Jackson has never admitted any guilt.

The witness, who remained on the stand at day's end, repeatedly talked about being "molested" and Mr. Mesereau suggested he had been prompted to often use the word. He denied it.

Mr. Mesereau pointed out many inconsistencies between what this witness told authorities in 1993 and his testimony on Monday. Cross-examination of this witness will continue tomorrow.

Michael Jackson was never arrested or charged in connection with any past accusations of molestation or abuse.

Mr. Jackson fans who showed up over the weekend to rally on his behalf also stayed for Monday's court session, chanting and shouting when he arrived and later as he went home for the day.

On Sunday evening, Mr. Jackson spoke by telephone to some 200 fans who gathered in Santa Maria, about 150 miles north of Los Angeles on California's central coast.

"I really believe I have the most amazing fans in the whole world," Mr. Jackson told his cheering fans by speakerphone. "Thanks for believing in me. We will be victorious. God and the truth are on our side."

Source: MJJsource / AP / AFP / REUTERS

NOT SO FAST

Are you seriously telling me that sacking Tommy Mottola would have been in breach of contract? Please explain this further before you start losing credibility.

Luv4oneanotha said:

from Yesterday

15 Mins cross examination. from MJJForum

Savannah reports:

---
Well, cross-examination is still going on right now. But court's over for the day. I'll tell you some of the highlights that have come out.

Tom Mesereau started predictably with the interview that this boy's mother gave back in 1993 to "Hard Copy" for which she was paid $20,000. He said he later found out his mother received money for it. He's really hitting hard on this prior interview he gave in 1993 at the age of about 13 to police. And Mesereau has asked about 10 million different ways how the boy initially denied that Michael Jackson ever touched him. And the theme of this defense cross is, is that "these police were leaning hard on you." And in fact, at one point on the tape, the accuseer acknowledged that he said [to police], "you guys are pushy." But the accuser on the stand said, "that's right. That's right. I denied it at first. I was fighting it with everything I had." And later he said, "yeah, I said no, this didn't happen to me. I didn't want them to think I was gay." He went on and on saying, you know, "yes, that's true, I didn't tell the truth at first because I was so afraid, I didn't want to talk about it, I didn't want to think about it."

Mesereau also talked about the settlement that the boy received. Talking about how his mother reached out to lawyers. The lawyers reached out to her. And he said, isn't it true that your mother demanded money, or she was going to sue Michael Jackson. And [witness] said, "you know, I didn't really know too much about that. I was 13." Mesereau said, "but you're 24 now. Certainly you know you got a settlement?" And he said, yes, at 17 I learned we had received some money because of this. Michael Jackson is mostly staring straight ahead. But today for the first time in court, it really seems to be that he was looking over at the jurors. I could really see the full side of his face. He was looking in that direction. He has to look over through the prosecutors to look at the jurors so I don't know for a fact, but he seemed to be looking in that direction more than usual.

One other thing, there was a point at which Tom Mesereau kind of made a sarcastic remark and said, "so what, the cops just showed up? You didn't say anything about this to anybody and one day the cops showed up at your house?" And the fans in the public gallery let out this big roar of laughter. And the judge said, "wait a minute, wait a minute. I'm not having that. You're not laughing. Stop it." Admonishing the gallery.
[Edited 4/5/05 6:06am]

The past allegations -strategy would have far much more credibility if Tom Sneddon wouldn't insist on including people like Macalay Culkin on the list. Jackson I believe is his child's godfather and someone he calls "his best friend" (I have no idea if Culkin is Jackson's best friend in turn, but that's another issue).

Mind you, this new witness seems a lot more credible than the earlier ones. Of course, might be partly because of his age, but he really doesn't have anything else to lose than his reputation when entering the stand. You gotta give him that.

thanks for that Marrk. After reading the first reports on this victim i thought he was the first one looking a bit credible. I´hope T-Mez will grill him even more. There was also this discussion on KOP board whether it was possible for MJ to molest him in 1990 since Mike was supposed to be on Bad tour and hardly in the US.

Michael Jackson wasn't on Bad-tour on 1990. What the hell? I'm sure you knew the tour was years before that.

I probably mixed something up. Anyways, heree´s a link to that discussion.
http://www.mjj2005.com/ko...topic=5061

vainandy said:

psst . . . andy . . .



kidding.

dag said:

Two of the three supposed molestations happened in Michaels' Apartment in LA in 87/88. A property he didn't own until 1989. So they're bullshit for starters.

All these years Francia mother was his maid and supposedly witnessed abuse in 1990 yet carried on working for him! - not only that she waited a year after the Chandlers got money before reporting it at all.

Bullshit.

I expect Frank Dileo to get called for the defence. Last year he stated in all the time he managed Michael, they were only apart for a total of 60 days.


[Edited 4/5/05 9:06am]

Marrk said:

correctdamundo

Marrk said:

Exactly. I think Mike paid a two million fee to her around the time of the History album. Apparantly if he didn't cough up she was gonna go to the media. Not the police. The media. Says it all, really.

dag said:

What's that? T-Mez? He's a lawyer, no pop star.

well, Mesereau didn't get anywhere today crossing Jason. He even stated he'd not told his wife about any of this until 2 days ago. Still at least he was able to form a real relationship after all that inappropriate tickling at age 7. Typical in this case, they remember everything in great clarity when Sneddon is talking to them but When Mez crosses, it's a case of selective memory.Then they conveniently forget things.


.
[Edited 4/5/05 12:24pm]

Witness to alleged Jackson molestation pleads poor memory
04/05/2005 01:40:04 PM

http://www.siouxcityjourn...668b3a.txt

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) -- A man who testified he was molested by Michael Jackson more than a decade ago repeatedly pleaded a poor memory Tuesday as the pop star's lawyer cross-examined him about his story.

The 24-year-old man clashed with Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., who tried to highlight inconsistencies between the story that the witness told on the stand and his earlier accounts.

"I don't mean to sound like I'm wasting your time," he told the lawyer at one point. "It's hard being up here."


"Just answer my question," said Mesereau.

The witness, the son of a former Jackson housekeeper, was called by the prosecution on Monday in an effort to show Jackson has a pattern of inappropriate behavior with boys. Jackson is on trial on charges of molesting a 13-year-old cancer victim in 2003 at his Neverland ranch.

The housekeeper's son received $2.4 million from Jackson in 1994 and no criminal charges were filed. The jury was told of the settlement but not the sum. The boy's attorney acknowledged the terms involved no admission of wrongdoing by Jackson.

On Monday, the young man said Jackson twice touched his crotch over his clothes and once reached under his clothes and touched his genitals during tickling games when he was 7 to 10 years old. He also said that in the first two incidents Jackson stuck $100 into his clothes.

He said he told no one until 1993, when detectives investigating another boy's allegations came to him. That interview was followed by others in 1994 and in October, November and December 2004.

Under cross-examination Tuesday, he acknowledged that in his 1993 interview he initially said Jackson did not molest him. Mesereau asked whether investigators became aggressive and began calling Jackson a "molester" and cursing.

The witness said he did not remember details of the interview.

"It was only after you were pushed real hard by the sheriffs that you began to say anything like that," Mesereau said.

The witness said he could not remember who was present or what was said in most of the interviews.

He also contradicted himself on a couple of points. Under questioning by Mesereau, he said Jackson would give him money whenever he read a book or got an A. Under questioning by one of the prosecutors, he said that did not happen.

Mesereau confronted the witness with a statement he made during one of his interviews in which he said: "They made me come up with a lot more stuff. They kept pushing. I wanted to hit them in the head."

The witness said he did not remember the statement.

Mesereau showed him a transcript and asked if that refreshed his recollection.

The witness said no.

"Do you remember anything you said in that interview?" asked the attorney.

"No," said the witness.

The witness also pleaded a poor memory when asked about whether his claims resulted in a criminal case. "I don't know much. I don't watch the news," he said.

Associated Press Writer Tim Molloy contributed to this report.

This is the same Police dept that threatened boys with non-existant nude photos of MJ and themselves back in '94 to get them to talk.

Pretty shocking stuff.

There is a vendetta IMO.

In dag's absence, i'll keep going.


Previous accuser fuzzy on details
Tuesday, April 5, 2005 Posted: 3:09 PM EDT (1909 GMT)

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- A man claiming Michael Jackson fondled him when he was a boy could not remember many of the details about the alleged incidents in testimony Tuesday at the pop star's child-molestation trial.

An attorney who represented the man and his mother then took the stand Tuesday to discuss an out-of-court settlement reached with Jackson in 1996, which averted a lawsuit over the molestation allegations.

On Monday, the young man, whose mother worked as Jackson's personal maid, told jurors that Jackson fondled him on three occasions, after tickling sessions escalated. The first incident took place when the boy was just 7; the second about a year later and the last when he was 10, the witness said. (More on Monday's testimony)

But during cross-examination Tuesday, Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. pressed the 24-year-old man on details about those events, then tried to contrast his answers with what he told police investigators in interviews conducted in 1993 and 1994 and again last year.

The witness repeatedly said he did not remember details he had revealed in the interviews, such as the type of cartoons he and Jackson were watching during the alleged incidents, whether he had been aware that another boy had settled a lawsuit against Jackson for similar allegations or whether Jackson had pinched him in the stomach during the tickling.

Mesereau's questioning, which alternated between the various police interviews and the three allegations, prompted a rebuke from Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville, who called it "unfair to the witness."

The young man revealed on the stand that his mother had accepted $20,000 to appear on a television show to talk about the case, though he said he did not learn about that until Sunday.

Attorney Chris Kallman, who represented the boy and his mother in negotiations with Jackson's attorneys, then took the stand to describe the settlement the two sides reached in 1996. He did not disclose how much money changed hands; Melville has ruled that jurors could hear that settlements had been reached, but not the amount. (More on that ruling)

Kallman said that in late 1994 or early 1995, he had prepared a complaint to begin a civil suit against Jackson and contacted his legal team, then led by Johnny Cochran, who died just last week.

"They didn't want us to do that," Kallman said, a remark that was stricken after a defense objection.

The discussions began after the boy had disclosed the alleged molestation incidents to police in late 1993 -- and after a criminal probe of Jackson at the time was derailed by a multimillion-dollar civil settlement with another 13-year-old boy, who then stopped cooperating with authorities.

After that case, California lawmakers gave prosecutors the power to compel sexual abuse victims to testify if they refused to do so voluntarily.

Kallman said the settlement reached between Jackson and his former maid and her son contained a confidentiality agreement. While it did not preclude the boy from talking to law enforcement officials, the settlement required Kallman to notify Jackson's attorneys five days before the boy talked to authorities, he said.

That notice was given before the former maid's son was reinterviewed in 2004, as part of the latest probe of Jackson that led to his indictment.

Kallman also said Jackson denied any wrongdoing in the settlement document, which also contained language noting that the pop star had a financial interest in protecting his name and image.

The 46-year-old singer is accused of molesting a boy -- now 15 years old -- at Neverland Ranch, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive in 2003.

Jackson has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

CNN's Dree De Clamecy contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/L...son.trial/
[Edited 4/5/05 12:47pm]

Marrk said:

You don't say!

Cloudbuster said:

I get carried away sometimes.

papaa said:

Ok
here is the problem with firing someone, especially in Big corporations like record companies

THEIR IS NO LIABILITY
when a corporation is developed the contracts devised of stock options, benefits etc, ha no liability, this is how all corps are built, no one is to blame when money is owed,
Matolla was an executive,
IF Sony would fire or IMPEACH him, like in most corporations,
Matolla could recieve compensation from sony for years, especially if Sony doesn't specify why they fired him, (or if he decided to sue for wrongful dismisal,because it execs virtually can't get fired, if they did get fired all the other shareholders would have to pay money in order to compensate that position, thats why their are compensation clauses, and stock clauses in an executive contract, to stop that)
and they won't, because they're guilty as well

Lets imagine Sony fired Matolla, depending on how much he paid in dues and stock maintence, and how high his position is,
a tidy sum would enter into their variable expenses of the corporation!
possibly income taxes, depending on what he actually did with Sony Music,
could be virtually millions of dollars they could lose,
since they fired him its the board of directors responsibility
if a person quits, no liability, it could be written off
cause when ever you leave in your own volition, so does your excess collective bargaining(what labor unions do to negotiate with employers,thats why union members can't get fired, they can only quit)
lets say that Matolla decided to sue for wrongful dismissal as well
so that expense goes in with the variable expense of the year sony is having
and this was before the merger of BMG so it probably would of bankrupted them
millions of dollars,
A person quits, it hurts the corporations, a tax write off, no expenses to pay
its easier to strike up a deal with an employee to quit,
than to fire him...
Plus im extremely sure Matolla has tabs on all them in the corp as well,

Record companies are extremely currupt

I know this might be off topic. But I was walking out of my class today, I saw a guy wearing a shirt with a picture of Michael Jackson on it and it said not guilty.

that´s a nickname Mj fans use for him Messarau is too long and hard to spell.

OK, guys, one thing I don´t get is how can this "victim" not remember anything about the police interview. I think that talking about it to police must be a "pretty experience itself" to remember. Aren´t I right?

dag said:

Michael Jackson aint your typical paedophile. He uses his moonwalker powers to put a curse on the kids so they forget everything after they're molested.

There's only one counter curse to refresh their memory: