luvsexy4all said:

is the MJ estate in financial difficulty?? maybe thats why this is going on

Since his death, Jackson's estate have earned A LOT of cash

A successful film that garnered over $200 million in the box office

A video game that was released on every available platform

2 albums that have charted in the top 5

2 Cirque du Soleil shows

and licensing deals with Louis Vuitton, Giuseppe, Playmates Toys, Hot Toys, Pepsi, Supreme and other companies

They sold his shares in Sony/ATV and EMI, getting $1.3 billion. They're definitely not in financial difficulty

bboy87 said:

k

Thank you for posting this. Michael’s estate has been VERY successful in keeping Michael’s legacy alive and making money for his estate and children.

PeteSilas said:

Thank you for posting Mooney’s interview.

1. The first thing I noticed was Paul said Michael called him to tell him to stop talking about his nose and skin color.
2. Money said he didn’t think Michael was a pedophile.
3. This was an example of Michael NOT being submissive. He called Mooney and told\asked him to stop talking about him. Most people would have asked their lawyer to call Mooney.

PeteSilas said:

RJOrion said:

to be clear, i have always been a fan of Michael Jackson music, and before him, The Jackson 5's music...but i am also aware that successful/wealthy child-to-entertainment"icons", are usually very emotionally flawed and damaged people, due to the lack of normalcy in their social, physical and emotional (even spiritual) development...also, there are so many CONFIRMED stories of pedophilia and overall hedonism and deviant behavior within the industry and in and around LA/Hollywood..as a parent, i would NEVER approve of ANY ADULT MAN OR WOMAN SHARING A BED WITH A CHILD...especially if the adult has been as much as accused of pedophilia before...i dont care how good he can sing or moonwalk...i dont know for sure that MJ is/was gulity, but it damn sure looks suspect...so much so that family members would warn him about it...where theres smoke theres usually fire...would YOU leave YOUR kids at MJs overnight, if he were here?...that strange looking man who carved up his face and had test tube babies and talked to llamas and chimps and snakes?...and had an amusement park built on his property?...just because he was one of the greatest entertainers on Earth? ..how come MJ NEVER sued anyone about these socalled slanderous accusations???...nah, MJ played victim (limping all disheveled,in and out of court) and paid off his accusers...what innocent man acts like that?...most of MJs actions, reactions, and even some of his family members reactions point to his possible guilt...i love the music, but im a parent FIRST...MJ acted like a guilty man... im not gonna ignore that just because "Cant Let Her Get Away" or "Remember The Time" is among my favorite joints of alltime... these socalled entertainment icons are strange people...their deviant behaviors and secret lifestyles are being exposed more and more everyday...after all, who would have EVER thought that Prince would die at 57 of an alleged drug overdose?...these people are NOT always who you think they are, or who youd like them to be...at all [Edited 2/2/19 15:10pm]

someone here said he sued victor guitierez successfully, i didn't hear about that if it was true. All the jacksons except for joe were submissive people, you see it in the interviews. barbaric walters be asking insane shit and reebie just be grinnin when she should be saying "what bitch"" Michael wasn't no fighter, none of them are, i watched an interview with jermaine last night, that greasy fuck was crying and begging to be left alone, not exactly a fighting man. Sweet people, fucked up a little but sweet. now, joe on the other hand, joe was a motherfucker, and even he sounded like a sweet old man in his interviews. you're right about heroes though, i really don't have them as such so not much really shocks me.

one other thing, don't know how true it is but paul mooney has told the story many times of how mj called him and asked him to stop joking about him, paul refused and mike asked him how much he would liike to be paid to stop? sounds like michael just had one way of dealing with problems, throw money at them.

Jet magazine- January 30, 1995

then April 27, 1998

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/victor-gutierrez-and-his-role-in-the-allegations-against-michael-jackson/

https://variety.com/1997/scene/vpage/jackson-s-hard-copy-suit-dismissed-1117341899/

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-13/local/me-19724_1_michael-jackson

[Edited 2/2/19 21:50pm]

alphastreet said:

I also think Michael knew that he has never done anything wrong with these families, and he didn’t stop them from coming into his bedroom/game room suite.
I don’t blame Michael for the lies, amanipulations and false accusations. I can’t speak for other people, but, how could I be pissed off or disappointed with a man who I and my entire family know is 100% innocent. I can’t be angry at someone who publicly and honestly admitted he allows families to share his bedroom. Now, I would have been angry and disappointed if he had hidden this and SUDDENLY it came out that families had been allowed in his bedroom suite.

The only fault I see is that he trusted low life people who used his kindness and generosity against him. I will never be disappointed in a person who did as much as Michael did to help people. I am disappointed in those who can’t seem or want to see the innocence and goodness in this man. I have yet to see ANYTHING that will cause me to change that opinion. I am not defending Michael, the artist. His music and legacy speak for themselves. I am defending a man falsely accused by scum, and there is not a shred of evidence to prove their claims.
I am also extremely disappointed in those who make excuses for why these people are falsely excusing Michael. The bottomline is simple- Money$$$.

The disappointment/upset comes from a place of love, know that. And it hurts to some extent.

Free2BMe said:

oh calm down..."Preoccupation with boys" ...WTF?...im a man with 2 sons, and were talking about MJ being accused of abusing boys
...i DIDNT even KNOW there were girls present, not that it makes a damn difference when he was accused of tickling/fondling boys and not girls..like i said, i dont know FOR SURE if hes guilty or not, but it LOOKS/LOOKED suspect...and as a father of 2 BOYS, i would NEVER allow them to sleep over michael jacksons house, and Michael KNOWING the heat was on him, shouldve stopped his allnighters with children, if only just to protect what was left of his image...likewise, i find your preoccupation with defending allegations that he settled out of court, for TWENTY THREE MILLION DOLLARS IN January 1994...an innocent man paying 23,000,000 to avoid a civil suit AFTER the criminal case was closed...makes No sense...but we can agree to disagree...goodnight Bubbles..

alphastreet said:

exactly...Mike fucked up...as we all do sometimes...only in different ways...

I think this is a good time to clear up some things about the 1993 settlement

On January 25 an out of court settlement was reached in the civil case between Jackson and the Chandlers in which Jackson paid the Chandlers $15.3 million. The document, signed by both Jackson and the Chandlers, emphasized that it was in no way an admission of guilt on Jackson’s part.

A frequently asked question regarding the child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson is “If he was innocent why did he settle the case out of court?” The part of the media that used the settlement as a sign of Jackson’s guilt, failed to explain the legal circumstances of this case that led to the settlement, so let’s explain them here.

First of all, let us clear up what exactly was settled. There were two proceedings going on in Jackson’s case parallel: a criminal investigation conducted by the State of California and a civil lawsuit filed by the Chandlers. Only the criminal proceedings and a criminal trial can result in jail time for the alleged perpetrator. At the end of a civil trial, the only restitution available is monetary.

The settlement settled the civil lawsuit, not the criminal. The criminal proceedings proceeded after this settlement and nothing in the settlement prevented the Chandlers from testifying against Jackson in a criminal court. Los Angeles district attorney, Gil Garcetti even stated right after the settlement that the Chandlers’ attorney, Larry Feldman promised him “that the alleged victim will be allowed to testify and that there has been no agreement in the civil matter that will affect cooperation in the criminal investigation.” There was no such agreement in the settlement indeed and there was nothing in it that prevented the Chandlers from testifying against Jackson in a criminal court. In fact, under American law one is not allowed to settle a criminal case. The Chandlers could have taken the settlement money AND testified against Michael Jackson in a criminal case. They chose not to, but it was not because they were forbidden to do so by the settlement, but rather because they were never interested in the criminal proceedings in the first place. Their only focus was money from the very beginning. As we learned from Ray Chandler’s book they filed their civil lawsuit on September 8 already with a “highly profitable settlement” in mind. It is important to emphasize that it was the Chandler family who demanded a settlement from the very beginning and it was not Michael Jackson who sought or offered it.

Normally, civil complaints are only filed after criminal proceedings are completed and justice has been served. One would naturally expect the parents of a molested child to pursue justice and not money when they have the chance to do so. That was not the case with the Chandlers.

To achieve the settlement goal, Larry Feldman played the California legal system masterfully. He pushed for getting the civil trial ahead of a possible criminal trial. That put a pressure on Jackson’s legal team, because if the civil trial is held before the criminal trial in the same matter, it can give the prosecution in the criminal trial a major advantage, because they have the opportunity to monitor the civil trial, study the defense’s strategy and adjust their claims and strategy in kind. In addition, the burden of proof is more relaxed in a civil trial than in a criminal trial. Jackson’s attorneys were certainly aware that a civil trial was riskier for a defendant, even if the defendant is innocent, and if they had lost it, it could have prejudiced the jury in an upcoming criminal trial as well, compromising Jackson’s right to a fair criminal trial.

There are many precedents where civil proceedings have been frozen to allow the criminal trial ahead, preserving a defendant’s right to a fair criminal trial and preventing that right from being violated. In Jackson’s case, however, all such attempts by Jackson’s lawyers to stay the civil proceeding were dismissed by Judge David M. Rothman. Apparently, the Chandlers’ trump card was Jordan’s age. They argued that because Jordan was under the age of 14 and “a child’s memory is developing”, they were entitled to a speedy civil trial, and the Judge accepted that argument.

Under extremely unfavorable conditions, Jackson and his attorneys might have found themselves in a position where they would have had to fight and defend Jackson on two fronts at the same time – in both a civil and criminal trial. On top of that they would have to prepare for a civil trial within 120 days, while the police for the criminal proceedings had seized all of Jackson’s personal records and refused to provide copies or even a list of what they took.

After all motions to push the civil proceedings behind the criminal had been denied, the Jackson team was left between a rock and a hard place. The start of the civil trial was set for March, 1994.

The Chandlers’ motion papers accused Jackson and his attorneys of applying “delay tactics” regarding the civil trial, but they knew well that those “delay tactics” were all about getting the criminal proceedings ahead of the civil proceedings to secure Jackson’s chances to a fair criminal trial. Ray Chandler, in his book quotes a conversation that took place between Evan Chandler and Larry Feldman and it proves that THEY were the ones utilizing delay tactics with regards to the criminal proceedings:

“[Feldman:] [T]hey fucked this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I’m going forward. We’re going to push on. So far there ain’t a button I’ve missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don’t want them going first.”

Larry had said it before, but it hadn’t registered in Evan’s brain till now.

[Evan:] “You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?”
[Feldman:] “Yeah.”
[Evan:] “Jesus Christ!”
[Feldman:] “Right! So we don’t want that.”

“So we don’t want that” – said the Chandler side regarding the possibility of a criminal indictment. It is very telling that for the Chandlers “us” was not the criminal process, but the civil process, and that they did everything in their power to keep the criminal proceedings behind the civil process. Let that sink in, while keeping in mind that only a criminal trial can send an alleged perpetrator to jail; a civil trial can only result in a monetary award.

The California law that allowed the Chandlers to push the civil trial ahead of the criminal trial was changed eventually – according to Santa Barbara District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon directly because of what happened in the Chandler case. Because of that change, today an accuser in a sexual assault case cannot pursue a civil lawsuit right away. The new law restricts a civil trial from preceding a criminal trial in the same matter.

However, that did not apply to Jackson back in 1993. So to preserve his chances for a fair criminal trial, he was pressured to settle the civil case. The hostile and unfair media campaign against him, and his health and dependency issues might have also contributed to a decision to settle.

Additionally, Jackson’s lawyers too might have been more than keen to settle the case – and not necessarily without selfish reasons. The Chandlers boast in their book that their lawyer, Larry Feldman and Jackson’s lawyers, had many years of friendship with each other, which would make it easier for them (the Chandlers) to push the case in the direction of a settlement. They name Howard Weitzman from Jackson’s lawyer team as close to Feldman, but we know from other sources that Johnnie Cochran too had a 20 years long friendship with Feldman (Feldman even represented Cochran in a case). Ray Chandler wrote: “Feldman, Shapiro, Hirsch, Weitzman & Weis, (Oy vey!), all were part of a neat little “old boy” network, just the ticket for getting this nightmare over and done with — quietly.”

not that i think cosby is innocent but the original prosecutor of the early 2000's case thought candace had some credibility issues, one being that she went to a civil attorney before going to the police and he also said she changed her story. People with money should be smarter about their choices, especially if they are black. The cosby case is not the same but it's similar in that they twisted laws this way and that way to get their man.

bboy87 said:

I think this is a good time to clear up some things about the 1993 settlement

On January 25 an out of court settlement was reached in the civil case between Jackson and the Chandlers in which Jackson paid the Chandlers $15.3 million. The document, signed by both Jackson and the Chandlers, emphasized that it was in no way an admission of guilt on Jackson’s part.

A frequently asked question regarding the child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson is “If he was innocent why did he settle the case out of court?” The part of the media that used the settlement as a sign of Jackson’s guilt, failed to explain the legal circumstances of this case that led to the settlement, so let’s explain them here.

First of all, let us clear up what exactly was settled. There were two proceedings going on in Jackson’s case parallel: a criminal investigation conducted by the State of California and a civil lawsuit filed by the Chandlers. Only the criminal proceedings and a criminal trial can result in jail time for the alleged perpetrator. At the end of a civil trial, the only restitution available is monetary.

The settlement settled the civil lawsuit, not the criminal. The criminal proceedings proceeded after this settlement and nothing in the settlement prevented the Chandlers from testifying against Jackson in a criminal court. Los Angeles district attorney, Gil Garcetti even stated right after the settlement that the Chandlers’ attorney, Larry Feldman promised him “that the alleged victim will be allowed to testify and that there has been no agreement in the civil matter that will affect cooperation in the criminal investigation.” There was no such agreement in the settlement indeed and there was nothing in it that prevented the Chandlers from testifying against Jackson in a criminal court. In fact, under American law one is not allowed to settle a criminal case. The Chandlers could have taken the settlement money AND testified against Michael Jackson in a criminal case. They chose not to, but it was not because they were forbidden to do so by the settlement, but rather because they were never interested in the criminal proceedings in the first place. Their only focus was money from the very beginning. As we learned from Ray Chandler’s book they filed their civil lawsuit on September 8 already with a “highly profitable settlement” in mind. It is important to emphasize that it was the Chandler family who demanded a settlement from the very beginning and it was not Michael Jackson who sought or offered it.

Normally, civil complaints are only filed after criminal proceedings are completed and justice has been served. One would naturally expect the parents of a molested child to pursue justice and not money when they have the chance to do so. That was not the case with the Chandlers.

To achieve the settlement goal, Larry Feldman played the California legal system masterfully. He pushed for getting the civil trial ahead of a possible criminal trial. That put a pressure on Jackson’s legal team, because if the civil trial is held before the criminal trial in the same matter, it can give the prosecution in the criminal trial a major advantage, because they have the opportunity to monitor the civil trial, study the defense’s strategy and adjust their claims and strategy in kind. In addition, the burden of proof is more relaxed in a civil trial than in a criminal trial. Jackson’s attorneys were certainly aware that a civil trial was riskier for a defendant, even if the defendant is innocent, and if they had lost it, it could have prejudiced the jury in an upcoming criminal trial as well, compromising Jackson’s right to a fair criminal trial.

There are many precedents where civil proceedings have been frozen to allow the criminal trial ahead, preserving a defendant’s right to a fair criminal trial and preventing that right from being violated. In Jackson’s case, however, all such attempts by Jackson’s lawyers to stay the civil proceeding were dismissed by Judge David M. Rothman. Apparently, the Chandlers’ trump card was Jordan’s age. They argued that because Jordan was under the age of 14 and “a child’s memory is developing”, they were entitled to a speedy civil trial, and the Judge accepted that argument.

Under extremely unfavorable conditions, Jackson and his attorneys might have found themselves in a position where they would have had to fight and defend Jackson on two fronts at the same time – in both a civil and criminal trial. On top of that they would have to prepare for a civil trial within 120 days, while the police for the criminal proceedings had seized all of Jackson’s personal records and refused to provide copies or even a list of what they took.

After all motions to push the civil proceedings behind the criminal had been denied, the Jackson team was left between a rock and a hard place. The start of the civil trial was set for March, 1994.

The Chandlers’ motion papers accused Jackson and his attorneys of applying “delay tactics” regarding the civil trial, but they knew well that those “delay tactics” were all about getting the criminal proceedings ahead of the civil proceedings to secure Jackson’s chances to a fair criminal trial. Ray Chandler, in his book quotes a conversation that took place between Evan Chandler and Larry Feldman and it proves that THEY were the ones utilizing delay tactics with regards to the criminal proceedings:

“[Feldman] [T]hey fucked this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I’m going forward. We’re going to push on. So far there ain’t a button I’ve missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don’t want them going first.”

Larry had said it before, but it hadn’t registered in Evan’s brain till now.

[Evan] “You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?”
[Feldman] “Yeah.”
[Evan] “Jesus Christ!”
[Feldman] “Right! So we don’t want that.”

“So we don’t want that” – said the Chandler side regarding the possibility of a criminal indictment. It is very telling that for the Chandlers “us” was not the criminal process, but the civil process, and that they did everything in their power to keep the criminal proceedings behind the civil process. Let that sink in, while keeping in mind that only a criminal trial can send an alleged perpetrator to jail; a civil trial can only result in a monetary award.

The California law that allowed the Chandlers to push the civil trial ahead of the criminal trial was changed eventually – according to Santa Barbara District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon directly because of what happened in the Chandler case. Because of that change, today an accuser in a sexual assault case cannot pursue a civil lawsuit right away. The new law restricts a civil trial from preceding a criminal trial in the same matter.

However, that did not apply to Jackson back in 1993. So to preserve his chances for a fair criminal trial, he was pressured to settle the civil case. The hostile and unfair media campaign against him, and his health and dependency issues might have also contributed to a decision to settle.

Additionally, Jackson’s lawyers too might have been more than keen to settle the case – and not necessarily without selfish reasons. The Chandlers boast in their book that their lawyer, Larry Feldman and Jackson’s lawyers, had many years of friendship with each other, which would make it easier for them (the Chandlers) to push the case in the direction of a settlement. They name Howard Weitzman from Jackson’s lawyer team as close to Feldman, but we know from other sources that Johnnie Cochran too had a 20 years long friendship with Feldman (Feldman even represented Cochran in a case). Ray Chandler wrote: “Feldman, Shapiro, Hirsch, Weitzman & Weis, (Oy vey!), all were part of a neat little “old boy” network, just the ticket for getting this nightmare over and done with — quietly.”

bboy87 said:

PeteSilas said:

someone here said he sued victor guitierez successfully, i didn't hear about that if it was true. All the jacksons except for joe were submissive people, you see it in the interviews. barbaric walters be asking insane shit and reebie just be grinnin when she should be saying "what bitch"" Michael wasn't no fighter, none of them are, i watched an interview with jermaine last night, that greasy fuck was crying and begging to be left alone, not exactly a fighting man. Sweet people, fucked up a little but sweet. now, joe on the other hand, joe was a motherfucker, and even he sounded like a sweet old man in his interviews. you're right about heroes though, i really don't have them as such so not much really shocks me.

one other thing, don't know how true it is but paul mooney has told the story many times of how mj called him and asked him to stop joking about him, paul refused and mike asked him how much he would liike to be paid to stop? sounds like michael just had one way of dealing with problems, throw money at them.

Jet magazine- January 30, 1995

then April 27, 1998

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/victor-gutierrez-and-his-role-in-the-allegations-against-michael-jackson/

https://variety.com/1997/scene/vpage/jackson-s-hard-copy-suit-dismissed-1117341899/

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-13/local/me-19724_1_michael-jackson

[Edited 2/2/19 21:50pm]

I remember Diane Diamond VERY well. She was SO obsessed with MJ in trying to bring him down in anyway she could. At one point it was her sole mission. I remember at one of Mj's trials his fans saw her and started attacking her, throwing things at her, and calling her all kind of obscene names to the point she had to run & bring security with her. I was cracking up.They wanted her OUT OF THERE!

What made the accusations really insidious, is that the accusators were
1. White
2. Boys
.
If they were :
1. Black
2. Girls
.
We wouldn't have even heard about this in 1993 and 2003, and nobody would have cared.

.
Tom Sneddon knew for sure what he was doing.

and btw, MJ sued the media for innaccurate reporting, but HE DID NOT SUE THE PARENTS WHO SUPPOSEDLY FALSELY ACCUSED HIM OF ABUSE...

RJOrion said:

Free2BMe said:

I noticed you CONVENIENTLY left out that GIRLS and boys came into Michael’s bedroom suite. You did exactly as the media did. Why the manipulation? Lillian Chandler was there with Jordan and mother. Chantel Robson admiited that she was in Michael’s bedroom suite with her brother. Nicole Richie has admitted she was ther a lot. Again, why did you act as if only boys were there? I find your preoccupation with “boys” strangely unsettling.

oh calm down..."Preoccupation with boys" ...WTF?...im a man with 2 sons, and were talking about MJ being accused of abusing boys ...i DIDNT even KNOW there were girls present, not that it makes a damn difference when he was accused of tickling/fondling boys and not girls..like i said, i dont know FOR SURE if hes guilty or not, but it LOOKS/LOOKED suspect...and as a father of 2 BOYS, i would NEVER allow them to sleep over michael jacksons house, and Michael KNOWING the heat was on him, shouldve stopped his allnighters with children, if only just to protect what was left of his image...likewise, i find your preoccupation with defending allegations that he settled out of court, for TWENTY THREE MILLION DOLLARS IN January 1994...an innocent man paying 23,000,000 to avoid a civil suit AFTER the criminal case was closed...makes No sense...but we can agree to disagree...goodnight Bubbles..

Just for the sake of clarity, it was actually his insurance company that pushed the '94 settlement. From what I understand, he wanted to go all the way with it to prove his innocence. That doesn't excuse the poor judgement in having kids sleeping in the bed with him but there's a lot of space between "bad judgement" and "guilty of sex crimes against children" and after two very thorough investigations and a criminal trial, there was simply nothing substantial to fill that "space".

Tuls101 said:

RJOrion said:

Free2BMe said:

oh calm down..."Preoccupation with boys" ...WTF?...im a man with 2 sons, and were talking about MJ being accused of abusing boys ...i DIDNT even KNOW there were girls present, not that it makes a damn difference when he was accused of tickling/fondling boys and not girls..like i said, i dont know FOR SURE if hes guilty or not, but it LOOKS/LOOKED suspect...and as a father of 2 BOYS, i would NEVER allow them to sleep over michael jacksons house, and Michael KNOWING the heat was on him, shouldve stopped his allnighters with children, if only just to protect what was left of his image...likewise, i find your preoccupation with defending allegations that he settled out of court, for TWENTY THREE MILLION DOLLARS IN January 1994...an innocent man paying 23,000,000 to avoid a civil suit AFTER the criminal case was closed...makes No sense...but we can agree to disagree...goodnight Bubbles..

Just for the sake of clarity, it was actually his insurance company that pushed the '94 settlement. From what I understand, he wanted to go all the way with it to prove his innocence. That doesn't excuse the poor judgement in having kids sleeping in the bed with him but there's a lot of space between "bad judgement" and "guilty of sex crimes against children" and after two very thorough investigations and a criminal trial, there was simply nothing substantial to fill that "space".

Nuff said.

RJOrion said:

and btw, MJ sued the media for innaccurate reporting, but HE DID NOT SUE THE PARENTS WHO SUPPOSEDLY FALSELY ACCUSED HIM OF ABUSE...

Duh. Yes. Because they reached a settlement.

RJOrion said:

likewise, i find your preoccupation with defending allegations that he settled out of court, for TWENTY THREE MILLION DOLLARS IN January 1994...an innocent man paying 23,000,000 to avoid a civil suit AFTER the criminal case was closed...makes No sense...but we can agree to disagree...goodnight Bubbles..

The only thing that doesn't make sense is you making a judgement based on misinformation, like bboy87 pointed out in a lengthy post. Also, the money paid wasn't his. Something people always generously overlook. Just like the fact that the parents of the "victim" took the money and ran, leaving dear old, nutty Tom Sneddon high and dry.

PatrickS77 said:

thats my point dufus...i earlier commented that innocent people with nothing to hide, sue for slander from false accusations of this nature, but no, Mike's different settlements over the years totalled anywhere from 23 to 48 MILLION dollars... BUT he never sued the people who accused him...someone responded that he did...therefore i posted a rebuttal reiterating he did not EVER sue the ACCUSERS...smarten up... innocent people dont pay 15, 23, or 48 million dollars to hide or protect their innocence...it just doesnt make sense academically, morally, finacially and it damn sure makes no common sense...ALL these unrelated people making these almost identical false claims about poor MJ...the more i research and receive info about these cases, the guiltier Michael Jackson looks... and i grew up almost worshipping the guy, but its obvious to ME, that at the very least, he made incredibly strange and weird decisions in his life regarding women and children...and i believe (not, KNOW) that he participated in some deviant behaviors with these boys (now men who insist they were molested repeatedly)...if ignorant people wanna catch feelings, and spin it to say stupid shit like "your preoccupied with boys", go ahead and knock yourself out...youll never see Tom Sneddon knocking on MY door with subpoenas for child molestation..or me paying 15-48 million dollars to "settle"...but i understand the unconditional love for MJ, because as a Prince fan, i REFUSE to believe he was a drug addict and i refuse to believe he wasnt murdered, so i can dig why people would defend MJs honor regardless of evidence (proven, circumstantial or heresay)..

^Again. Read the above explantion for why the settlemnet bboy posted. And again, it was NOT his money. Really, go back to the facts, before you call someone doofus.

Patrick, what about the other settlements? Eg the maids family. Just asking cause I don’t recall the details of that one much, but it read to me like a personal settlement, or am I wrong?

alphastreet said:

Patrick, what about the other settlements? Eg the maids family. Just asking cause I don’t recall the details of that one much, but it read to me like a personal settlement, or am I wrong?

The one that was laughed at in the courtroom? When Jason Francia testified the courtroom erupted in laughter multiple times at his story. That should tell you everything you need to know. But, yes, it was a personal settlement as far as I know.

ItsLetoyaBaby said:

Yes that’s the one, but didn’t settlement info come out years later, or was it also during the trial?
[Edited 2/3/19 13:55pm]

alphastreet said:

The maid seized her moment, "only" got 2 mio, though. Don't recall if that was imsurance money too, but that happened around the same time as the Chandler one. Squash the big fire and stomp out the small one too. Years after any alleged molestation took place.

alphastreet said:

Also during the trial. And those where the only settlements.

The MJCast‏ @TheMJCast

PatrickS77 said:

Thanks!

RJOrion said:

Ignoramus, could you stand to be butt raped everyday as a 7 year old as Wade Robson claimed and not tell your mother who was right there in the house? Would you be able to withstand something that brutal and not be have to be hospitalized?
I know that you have an AGENDA for wanting Michael to be guilty, but would you get on a witness stand and not send that perpetrator to jail so he wouldn’t hurt other kids? Would you defend that man for over 20 years? Would you invite that man and his family to your house for a picnic? Would you praise and honor him in every spoken and printed word? Why would you do this if you had been violently raped as Robson claim? Why would you date two of this supposed abuser’s nieces?
Why would you ask your supposed abuser to use his home Neverland as the location of a film project that you and your wife are doing? Answer these questions o ignorant one. Finally, why would you want to be the head choreographer of the Cirque Soleil project to honor that man; when you claimed that he violently raped you EVERYDAY for seven years as a child? Why would you SUDDENLY come up with these fake allegations after you were not chosen for the job you have been bragging about? I know that you are a hater and a Prince fan who doesn’t give a damn about FACTs; therefore, I know what your psychotic answers will be. You have zero credibility and I am finished responding to a very sick and damaged person.

PatrickS77 said:

I just remembered it was in 1990/91 if that helps, not around chandler time. Could that have been the time the maid got fired and he paid her to leave you think ?

Free2BMe said:

RJOrion said:

thats my point dufus...i earlier commented that innocent people with nothing to hide, sue for slander from false accusations of this nature, but no, Mike's different settlements over the years totalled anywhere from 23 to 48 MILLION dollars... BUT he never sued the people who accused him...someone responded that he did...therefore i posted a rebuttal reiterating he did not EVER sue the ACCUSERS...smarten up... innocent people dont pay 15, 23, or 48 million dollars to hide or protect their innocence...it just doesnt make sense academically, morally, finacially and it damn sure makes no common sense...ALL these unrelated people making these almost identical false claims about poor MJ...the more i research and receive info about these cases, the guiltier Michael Jackson looks... and i grew up almost worshipping the guy, but its obvious to ME, that at the very least, he made incredibly strange and weird decisions in his life regarding women and children...and i believe (not, KNOW) that he participated in some deviant behaviors with these boys (now men who insist they were molested repeatedly)...if ignorant people wanna catch feelings, and spin it to say stupid shit like "your preoccupied with boys", go ahead and knock yourself out...youll never see Tom Sneddon knocking on MY door with subpoenas for child molestation..or me paying 15-48 million dollars to "settle"...but i understand the unconditional love for MJ, because as a Prince fan, i REFUSE to believe he was a drug addict and i refuse to believe he wasnt murdered, so i can dig why people would defend MJs honor regardless of evidence (proven, circumstantial or heresay)..

Ignoramus, could you stand to be butt raped everyday as a 7 year old as Wade Robson claimed and not tell your mother who was right there in the house? Would you be able to withstand something that brutal and not be have to be hospitalized? I know that you have an AGENDA for wanting Michael to be guilty, but would you get on a witness stand and not send that perpetrator to jail so he wouldn’t hurt other kids? Would you defend that man for over 20 years? Would you invite that man and his family to your house for a picnic? Would you praise and honor him in every spoken and printed word? Why would you do this if you had been violently raped as Robson claim? Why would you date two of this supposed abuser’s nieces? Why would you ask your supposed abuser to use his home Neverland as the location of a film project that you and your wife are doing? Answer these questions o ignorant one. Finally, why would you want to be the head choreographer of the Cirque Soleil project to honor that man; when you claimed that he violently raped you EVERYDAY for seven years as a child? Why would you SUDDENLY come up with these fake allegations after you were not chosen for the job you have been bragging about? I know that you are a hater and a Prince fan who doesn’t give a damn about FACTs; therefore, I know what your psychotic answers will be. You have zero credibility and I am finished responding to a very sick and damaged person.

No 7 year old would stand being sodomized without telling his mother. Anal sex is very painful particularly for a child who would certainly get bruises and severe damage. And he would be subjected to it every time they were together and not have a reaction? And since pain and obvious tears would be associated with the molestation he would defend his accuser and praise him to the heavens for decades? Doesn't make sense. Robson claims as a child he didn't understand the abuse and would even look forward to it. I highly doubt it for it involves an extremely painful sexual act that would lead any child to tears.