the reason why Jackson settled:

Michael Jackson lost four crucial motions in court.

These court motions were:

Motion For Trial Preference (Civil Trial) by Chandler - GRANTED.

Motion To Compel Deposition by Michael Jackson - DISMISSED W/O PREJUDICE

Motion To Compel Mr Jackson's Deposition by Chandler - GRANTED.

Request To Stay Ruling by Michael Jackson - DENIED.

Key to understanding these four motions and their significance is in knowing what the Chandler's civil lawsuit was about.

1) sexual battery
2) battery
3) seduction
4) willful misconduct
5) intentional infliction of emotional distress
6) fraud
7) negligence

The civil lawsuit was filed whilst the criminal investigation was still ongoing.

Civil lawsuits allow hearsay and circumstantial evidence.

Criminal investigations do not allow these.

As a result, filing a civil lawsuit at the same time as a criminal investigation can lead to a defendant being prejudiced against or suffer sekf-incrimination.

So, on 14th September 1993, the Chandler's lawyer, Larry Feldman, filed their $30million lawsuit.

Michael Jackson's lawyer, Bertram Fields, filed Michael Jackson's answer to this lawsuit on 29th October 1993.

Discovery process can then start. This means:

1) Depositions are taken
2) Request for Production of Documents
3) Request for Admissions aka admit to certain facts
4) Form Interrogatories

A protective order can also be done which is blocking or limiting requests or limiting information requested.

At the same time as all of that going on, Bert Fields filed a Motion for Stay of Discovery and Trial on behalf of Michael Jackson.

Michael Jackson wanted Discovery AND a Trial in the civil case to be imposed until the six year statute of limitations ran out.

That would have meant ZERO discovery and ZERO criminal trial until 1999.

By then, the outcome of the criminal investigation would have been known well before 1999.

If this motion was granted to Michael Jackson, the LA and SB DAs would NOT have been able to use the civil trial in order to build a criminal case against Michael Jackson.

People either forget or don't know the Chandler's refused to cooperate with the police.

This forced the police to want to take information from the civil trial in order to attempt to prosecute Michael Jackson.

So, we go on to the Motion To Compel Michael Jackson's Deposition.

The Chandler's lawyer, Mr L. Feldman, wanted to depose MJ and 11 other people including Anthony Pellicano, LaToya Jackson, Bianca Francia, Gayle Goforth, etc.

The discovery material they wanted from Michael Jackson was:

- Form interrogatories
- First Set of Special Interrogatories
- First Set of Request for Production of Documents
- Second Set of Request for Production of Documents
- Second Set of Special Interrogatories

Michael's legal team responded to all of this by asserting his Fifth Amendment Rights.

The Motion To Compel Michael Jackson's Deposition infringed Michael Jackson's constitutional rights due to his treatment for drug addiction. He needed to resolve his medical issues first.

The other reason given for the objection to Michael's deposition was that Michael Jackson should not be
deposed until the criminal investigation was concluded and any potential criminal prosecution disposed of.

When the Chandler's lawyer objected by pointing to Michael's Mexico deposition, Michael's attorney, Eve H. Wagner stated that MJ was glassy eyed, could hardly stay awake, had difficulty holding physical objects, slurred speech and could not focus on issues.

Therefore, Beechy Colcough issued a statement on 20th November confirming Michael had a drug problem requiring treatment.

"That Michael Jackson be given the same right to have his testimony heard for the first time at trial without fear that the prosecution will try to impeach his credibility.....the law enforcement agency has sought and gained access to all discovery in this action." - Johnnie Cochrane

Cochrane also opposed the Motion to Compel because some information sought by the Chandler's was irrelevant to the case, some was protected by Attorney-Client privilege and that it was too early to request Michael Jackson's financial information.

13th December 1993, Johnnie Cochrane takes the lead in Michael's case and issues a Motion For Protective Order.

He argued that Michael had a right to be protected from invasion of privacy, embarrassment and undue annoyance.

Same applies to the witnesses.

And that Michael Jackson had a right to receive a fair, impartial trial.

He argued that if this Motion For Protective Order was not granted, then Michael Jackson was entitled to a Stay of the Civil action because law enforcement were delaying their investigation in order to use any Civil Discovery against Michael Jackson.

All these motions were designed to protect Michael Jackson from violation of constitutional rights and self-incrimination.

The case Pacers v Superior Court was used to support this argument that it's unconstitutional not to stay the Civil action whilst a criminal investigation is pending.

Chandler's lawyer, unfortunately, argued that Jordan was entitled to a speedy trial because a child's memory is still developing.

Problem is that law they used to argue this was intended for young kids such as four year olds.

Anyway, Michael lost all four motions.

He couldn't take the depositions of Jordan, Evan and June Chandler or Dave Schwartz.

Since the motion for Trial Preference was granted to Chandler, the trial was to be held in March 1994.

Michael was handicapped in defending himself since he could not take their depositions.

Clear violation of the constitutional right to a fair trial, to defend himself and to question his accusers.

Unsurprisingly, all of this set the stage for the settlement itself.

In lieu of winning the motions Michael Jackson needed, reaching a settlement in the Chandler civil action was the SECOND BEST way for Michael Jackson to protect himself and his constitutional rights.

It meant, as a consequence, Michael Jackson could then focus on the criminal case and any potential criminal trial.

The accuser's legal team wanted the civil case to go before the criminal case. Jackson's team wanted the opposite

[Edited 3/17/19 23:44pm]

https://themichaeljackson...ettlement/

WHile he falls into this category becasue of the accusations against him... there is already an MJ thread - can we just stick to the topic in a broader sense?

It ain't music but it's art.

Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, that's a good one for these questions.

I can definitely separate Latoya's art from her personal life. We all know she has demons brought by the devalish Jack Gordon and her keloids but I still jam to You're Gonna Get Rocked, Free The World and Bet'cha Gonna Need My Lovin. And, of course, the now legendary Hot Potato. I mean, who doesn't...right? RIGHT?

onlyforaminute said:

Can't separate.
If tomorrow it comes out that P was a pervert with little boys as an undenayible fact, I'd stop listening to his music, as it would really not give me the same shivers anymore. Those would be very different!

EmmaMcG said:

onlyforaminute said:

It ain't music but it's art.

Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, that's a good one for these questions.

I love Mel Gibson. Great filmmaker, good actor, brilliant in the Lethal Weapon movies and capable of being sexy as hell.

This.

Mel did hardly something wrong, surely not in the vain of abusing some minor. We all occassionally lull shit when drunk.

bboy87 said:

Cloudbuster said:

TheFman said:

I can separate an artist from their art. it's often crucial to do so.

I can't necessarily separate an artist's misdeeds from their art when their art is ABOUT their misdeeds, and R. Kelly clearly wrote music ABOUT his misdeeds (even "You Are Not Alone", which he gave to another artist, was apparently written for one of his child concubines who had a miscarriage).

I cannot separate my SUPPORT of an artist's work from the artist, because the artist is ultimately the one who benefits. There are Gary Glitter songs that I enjoy, and I will download them illegally before I ever purchase them.

kingcheetah said:

I can separate an artist from their art. it's often crucial to do so.

I can't necessarily separate an artist's misdeeds from their art when their art is ABOUT their misdeeds, and R. Kelly clearly wrote music ABOUT his misdeeds (even "You Are Not Alone", which he gave to another artist, was apparently written for one of his child concubines who had a miscarriage).

I cannot separate my SUPPORT of an artist's work from the artist, because the artist is ultimately the one who benefits. There are Gary Glitter songs that I enjoy, and I will download them illegally before I ever purchase them.

SNIP - Of4$

Free2BMe said:

TheFman said:

Can't separate.
If tomorrow it comes out that P was a pervert with little boys as an undenayible fact, I'd stop listening to his music, as it would really not give me the same shivers anymore. Those would be very different!

I agree. IF I even thought Michael did these things , I couldn’t listen to his music. That is exactly why I know that he is 1000% Innocent!! Every REAL fan feels the same way. I am passionate in my defense of Michael. I KNOW without a doubt that he is innocent. Unlike the mob/herd of haters, I base my decision on EVIDENCE and FACTs, not hearsay, rumors, gossip, inuendo and sexual FANTASIES of two broke, desperate extortionists, who only chsnged their stories for $$$$$.
Very strange and convenient that haters IGNORE this documented FACT. These pieces of TP trash could have easily sad this 10-20 years ago. Their greed and ENTITLEMENT causes these liars to come forward now with this HOAX. Sadly, they have a willing and gullible group of sheep,who don’t give a fuck that these scam artists are lying.

Aint too much to have to seperate from these days...

on the real...today's professional music/entertainment industry is finished and running on E.....

I feel nothing when I listen to today's music...nothing...

TheFman said:

Can't separate.
If tomorrow it comes out that P was a pervert with little boys as an undenayible fact, I'd stop listening to his music, as it would really not give me the same shivers anymore. Those would be very different!

but not little girls?

OldFriends4Sale said:

TheFman said:

Can't separate.
If tomorrow it comes out that P was a pervert with little boys as an undenayible fact, I'd stop listening to his music, as it would really not give me the same shivers anymore. Those would be very different!

but not little girls?

under 1.40m would be problematic, yes

Under 14 as well.

ItsLetoyaBaby said:

kingcheetah said:

I can separate an artist from their art. it's often crucial to do so.

I can't necessarily separate an artist's misdeeds from their art when their art is ABOUT their misdeeds, and R. Kelly clearly wrote music ABOUT his misdeeds (even "You Are Not Alone", which he gave to another artist, was apparently written for one of his child concubines who had a miscarriage).

I cannot separate my SUPPORT of an artist's work from the artist, because the artist is ultimately the one who benefits. There are Gary Glitter songs that I enjoy, and I will download them illegally before I ever purchase them.

I think You Are Not Alone was written for Michael Jackson with Michael Jackson in mind. It was R Kelly's message of support for fellow child lover MJ. Just reminding his friend that a pedophile was there for another, even a white one (MJ I mean). Knowing Kelly wrote the song and listening to MJ singing it, and knowing all we know now, doesn't it all sound so weird? And ironic taking into account the lyrics?

.

People collect art from serial killers and write to inmates as hobbies, thats accepted so why not?

[Edited 3/28/19 13:03pm]

Michael Jackson cannot be separated from his art because HE IS HIS ART. And these allegations against him are 100% bullshit. Stories with more holes than Swiss cheese and less credibility than a one armed sword figher.

Can't believe I came back to this cesspool for this...

darlingnikkkki said:

darlingnikkkki said:

EmmaMcG said:

darlingnikkkki said:

darlingnikkkki said: