Latest on MJJC

Anyone Have Any Info On This?

The Ghost of Jealousy

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
123
Points
0
"Court documents which came to light in 2005 state clearly that Jackson's insurance carrier "negotiated and paid the settlement over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel."

Jackson didn't even agree with the settlement, let alone pay it."

I was always under the impression that,although reluctant,MJ paid out under the advice of his legal team.
 
the below was shown during the trial by mez during one of the motion arguments about including the settlement as evidence of mjs guilt by sneddon


http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf


http://www.mjj2005.com/kopboard/index.php?...ost&id=3874
This motion filed by T-Mez during the trial last year should clear that info:

Hightlights: Memo in Support of Objection to Subpoena for Settlement Documents
The following are excerpts from the court document:

Pg3 The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.

…Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added).

…An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.

Pg2 Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury.

Pg3 The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.

Pg 4 It is unfair for an insurance company's settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson's prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could not control nor interfere with his insurance carrier's demand to settle the dispute.

Pg9-10 Permitting evidence of settlement agreements or amounts would be speculative because there is no evidence Michael Jackson made the settlement. Settlements in civil suits many times are dictated by insurance companies who settle claims regardless of an individual's wishes.

Although Jordan Chandler was interviewed "thereafter" by detectives seeking evidence to offer in a child molestation prosecution of Michael Jackson, "no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview."

This interview took place prior to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Stogner v California, 539 U.S. 607, 613 (2003), holding California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations to be unconstitutional.

In other words, Jordan Chandler's statements were not sufficient even at that earlier time, to support child molestation charges against Michael Jackson, and to now permit the suggestion of a settlement agreement for some improper act is not only irrelevant, but also a speculative violation of the statute of limitations

After this motion, the judge ruled that the prosecution were not allowed to allude to or include any information or suggested allegation that MJ paid the Chandlers because he didn't the insurance paid over MJ's and his lawyers objections...

Another thing to note... when Evan was filing suit he included "negligence course of distress" knowing full well the insurance would pay for that which would pave way for the Chandlers to avoid the criminal trial. MJ and his team were pushing for the criminal trial, they filed a motion to stop the civil trial, put in on hold to wait for the criminal trial but they were denied that chance.....
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for that.Breaks my heart that this was never reported and the public perception is still that MJ settled.
 
Wow.

I've never heard about that before.

So sad the media did never write about it.
 
I know Michael couldn't talk about the case but if this is true why didn't he ever say i didn't give the Chandlers any money. I read it the Mary Fisher GQ article that Michael himself had to sign the agreement.
 
Gottobethere said:
I know Michael couldn't talk about the case but if this is true why didn't he ever say i didn't give the Chandlers any money. I read it the Mary Fisher GQ article that Michael himself had to sign the agreement.
Click to expand...

It's right there in the document provided in the link.Any journalist worth his salt could have found this information,yet it's never been reported in the mainstream media.Funny that....


" It is unfair for the insurance company's settlement to now be held against Mr Jackson or for the settlements agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr Jackson prior conduct or guilt.Mr Jackson could not control or interfere with his insurance carriers demand to settle the dispute.No admission of,nor acknowledgement of criminality can be inferred against Mr Jackson from the act of the insurance carrier settling the litigation."

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

Page 4,line 10
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top