Latest on MJJC

The 1993 case. [Threads merged, All discussion in this one thread]

Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

sloride said:
No one is talking about it anymore but when they did they made me so angry. They couldn't even get their facts about the god damn allegations right.

In all fairness though most of the comments in The Sun now on their website are pro MJ.
Click to expand...

That's awesome about the Sun, sloride. :cheers: Look at just how big this is: (from Wikipedia)
The Sun is a daily tabloid newspaper published in the United Kingdom and Ireland (where it is known as The Irish Sun) with the second highest circulation of any daily English-language newspaper in the world and the biggest circulation within the UK, standing at an average of 2,986,000 copies a day between January and June 2008 and with a daily readership of approximately 7,900,000, of which 56 percent are male and 44 percent female.[3] By circulation it is the tenth biggest newspaper in any language in the world,[4] four places behind its Sunday stablemate the News of the World, although their circulations are close and these places were briefly reversed during May 2008.[5] It reaches 2.9 million readers in the ABC1 demographic and 5.0 million in the C2DE demographic, compared to the 1.5 and 0.1 million respectively of its broadsheet stablemate The Times.[3] It is published by News Group Newspapers of News International, itself a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.[6][7]
Click to expand...

The tabloids are TOTALLY driven by readership. If they get the idea the tide is turning from comments, I guarantee the spin will change. We may get through to Rupert Murdoch and his worldwide tabloids yet!

As for the mainstream media, here's my view, but I'd like to hear others' general impressions too. I saw at least some attempt at fairness, and Evan Chandler's attempted murder of his son was almost always mentioned, which I think is a huge piece of news that will shift public opinion.

The main fact that was consistently wrong was the source of the payment, saying it was MJ instead of the insurance company. Usually but not always, I thought they were trying to be better about not falsely claiming the payment prevented Chandler from filing criminal charges.

But again, great news about The Sun's readers!
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

Bo G said:
The tabloids are TOTALLY driven by readership. If they get the idea the tide is turning from comments, I guarantee the spin will change. We may get through to Rupert Murdoch and his worldwide tabloids yet!

As for the mainstream media, here's my view, but I'd like to hear others' general impressions too. I saw at least some attempt at fairness, and Evan Chandler's attempted murder of his son was almost always mentioned, which I think is a huge piece of news that will shift public opinion.

The main fact that was consistently wrong was the source of the payment, saying it was MJ instead of the insurance company. Usually but not always, I thought they were trying to be better about not falsely claiming the payment prevented Chandler from filing criminal charges.

But again, great news about The Sun's readers!
Click to expand...

I thought it was common knowledge that MJ wanted the case out of his face and thats why he agreed to settle. He did say so on video and I thought that was clear. Yes, the insurance company paid it but he ok'd this. This is what I clearly understood from what Michael himself said. He did it because he just wanted this to go away and not deal with it.

I can understand that totally and it did not mean more than that. He just didn't want it hanging out there in the open and no one could guarantee the outcome so he just said "get rid of it".

I see the news doing just as they always do as you say. Reporting so their story catches the eye and makes people buy the magazine or paper. I think most intelligent people have caught on to this though.
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

Yes, the insurance company paid it but he ok'd this.
Click to expand...
the court motion written by mez during the trial contridicts this

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.....
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

Beachlover said:
I thought it was common knowledge that MJ wanted the case out of his face and thats why he agreed to settle. He did say so on video
Click to expand...

This has confused me too. Yet I think it really was against his will and out of his hands from other evidence, including what elusivemoonwalker just posted and what I'm pretty sure recalling friends or family saying about it. You may be right, Beachlover, that he approved the settlement, but the evidence in my mind points against it. MJ said several things that aren't true in the Bashir interview, understandably just trying to keep things simple, to speak in sound bites. Unfortunately he had a tendency to exaggerate a bit, which worked against him. I think he felt it was hopeless to try to get people to believe a settlement could be made against his will. In most people's understanding of insurance, that does not compute. I suspect MJ thought that it was impossible to try to explain, in a sound bite, the lesser allegation of negligence that was the basis of the settlement, rather than the original molestation allegation. He did not go on the rampage publicly against the insurance company, so there was a kind of quiet resignation. To me, that's really what he was referring to in the video. I don't think he really meant he approved the settlement, but had kind of given up trying to get the public to understand that. But again, I'm not the expert on this as some people here are...

One thing that's clear to me is that MJ was not skilled or comfortable in talking with media, and made many mistakes like this. He spoke in a stilted, speechifying manner that skirted the issues, instead of being down-to-earth and tackling the facts head on. This was his way, I think, of coping with a problematic shyness. There was an interesting article somewhere by a colleague who urged MJ to speak more comfortably and intimately with fans as well, such as from the stage. MJ tried follow this advice, the man said, tried to just engage the audience in normal banter a bit, but got too shy and gave up. I think his shyness really harmed him in many ways in his life, and it's a terrible shame that such a perfectly harmless personality trait could cause so much trouble. It's the irony of the world's biggest superstar being shy...
 
Last edited:
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

Bo G said:
This has confused me too. Yet I think it really was against his will and out of his hands from other evidence, including what elusivemoonwalker just posted and what I'm pretty sure recalling friends or family saying about it. You may be right, Beachlover, that he approved the settlement, but the evidence in my mind points against it. MJ said several things that aren't true in the Bashir interview, understandably just trying to keep things simple, to speak in sound bites. Unfortunately he had a tendency to exaggerate a bit, which worked against him. I think he felt it was hopeless to try to get people to believe a settlement could be made against his will. In most people's understanding of insurance, that does not compute. He did not go on the rampage publicly against the insurance company, so there was a kind of quiet resignation. To me, that's really what he was referring to in the video. I don't think he really meant he approved the settlement, but had kind of given up trying to get the public to understand that. But again, I'm not the expert on this as some people here are...
Click to expand...

I did not get that impression from the Bashir interview. I got it from maybe his interview with Diane Sawyer? It sounded reasonable to me and from his own mouth, so he convinced ME that he did so out of frustration and not because he was guilty. He just realized that it was hanging over his head and just wanted it 'done'.

I see nothing wrong with that. Heck, if I had money and could pay some jerk off if they were harassing me I would do that too. As far as the amount, he did not say anything about that and I would have no idea if he knew it was going to be that much or not.

Somehow in my mind, if he knew it was that much money he would have thrown a hissy fit.
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

Beachlover said:
I did not get that impression from the Bashir interview. I got it from maybe his interview with Diane Sawyer? It sounded reasonable to me and from his own mouth, so he convinced ME that he did so out of frustration and not because he was guilty. He just realized that it was hanging over his head and just wanted it 'done'.

I see nothing wrong with that. Heck, if I had money and could pay some jerk off if they were harassing me I would do that too. As far as the amount, he did not say anything about that and I would have no idea if he knew it was going to be that much or not.

Somehow in my mind, if he knew it was that much money he would have thrown a hissy fit.
Click to expand...

If possible, I'd like to see what you're referring to. I do really want to know the truth on this, if that's at all possible.

What you say would be supported by the probability that this is what triggered him to begin using painkillers and sedatives for anxiety, to deal understandably with the horrible, horrible shock of these allegations. Perhaps if this were decision of his, as you say, it was not under the clearest thinking.

But yes, if it turns out this is absolutely what he wanted, that's completely understandable as well and should not reflect negatively on him.


UPDATE

Someone has kindly posted a thread entitled 1993 settlement documents. We can move our discussion about the 1993 settlement there, and use that thread as a resource in this thread, to give us the "sound bites" we need to correct media inaccuracies. We do want to get this straight if at all possible. We're trying to do this in a quiet, factual way as it's very upsetting for many fans (including me)...

But jeez, moderators, aren't we kind of reinventing the wheel here? Hasn't this already been done by somebody...
 
Last edited:
Re: 1993 settlement documents

dancemasterman said:
well many here have been talking about it rescently, and there appears to be a lot of confusion on the part of a lot of members here as to what the agreement was and who agreed to it.

a lot of members here do like to vidicate MJ and this way when they see rumours flying at other sites or nasty comments on you tube videos, now they have the link to offer proof.
Click to expand...

Yes, we're trying actively to counteract any false facts about this now appearing widely in the media, so we NEED to have the facts boiled down accurately to a few correct sentences. Those of us trying to do this would be very grateful to a little time spent trying to do this. We don't want to spur anything upsetting, just a quiet summarizing of the facts. It's difficult, I know...

UPDATE

Here's the thread where we're needing this information, and would like to post some kind of "sound bite" on whatever we conclude here:
Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

You can see it's a very active thread with a lot of interest in addressing this problem. I understand not all are emotionally up to this; they can just bypass these threads, but should not try to stop them, IMO. We have a window of opportunity right now to actively affect public opinion.
 
Last edited:
Re: 1993 settlement documents

Adore said:
The only thing you're proving here is your lack of understanding regarding how insurance settlement agreements work.
Click to expand...

This isn't helpful. Tell us how they do work then. And provide a link, if possible. The original poster is making a good faith effort to get this cleared up, and seems IMO to have earned respectful coopoeration.
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

Here's the main excerpts from the other thread today on this. I'm trying to migrate that discussion here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo G View Post
The tabloids are TOTALLY driven by readership. If they get the idea the tide is turning from comments, I guarantee the spin will change. We may get through to Rupert Murdoch and his worldwide tabloids yet!

As for the mainstream media, here's my view, but I'd like to hear others' general impressions too. I saw at least some attempt at fairness, and Evan Chandler's attempted murder of his son was almost always mentioned, which I think is a huge piece of news that will shift public opinion.

The main fact that was consistently wrong was the source of the payment, saying it was MJ instead of the insurance company. Usually but not always, I thought they were trying to be better about not falsely claiming the payment prevented Chandler from filing criminal charges.

But again, great news about The Sun's readers!
I thought it was common knowledge that MJ wanted the case out of his face and thats why he agreed to settle. He did say so on video and I thought that was clear. Yes, the insurance company paid it but he ok'd this. This is what I clearly understood from what Michael himself said. He did it because he just wanted this to go away and not deal with it.

I can understand that totally and it did not mean more than that. He just didn't want it hanging out there in the open and no one could guarantee the outcome so he just said "get rid of it".

I see the news doing just as they always do as you say. Reporting so their story catches the eye and makes people buy the magazine or paper. I think most intelligent people have caught on to this though.
Beachlover is online now Add to Beachlover's Reputation Report Post Reply With Quote
Click to expand...

Today, 10:54 AM #205
elusive moonwalker
Yes, the insurance company paid it but he ok'd this.
Click to expand...
the court motion written by mez during the trial contridicts this

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...

Today, 11:07 AM #206
Bo G
Originally Posted by Beachlover View Post
I thought it was common knowledge that MJ wanted the case out of his face and thats why he agreed to settle. He did say so on video
Click to expand...
This has confused me too. Yet I think it really was against his will and out of his hands from other evidence, including what elusivemoonwalker just posted and what I'm pretty sure recalling friends or family saying about it. You may be right, Beachlover, that he approved the settlement, but the evidence in my mind points against it. MJ said several things that aren't true in the Bashir interview, understandably just trying to keep things simple, to speak in sound bites. Unfortunately he had a tendency to exaggerate a bit, which worked against him. I think he felt it was hopeless to try to get people to believe a settlement could be made against his will. In most people's understanding of insurance, that does not compute. I suspect MJ thought that it was impossible to try to explain, in a sound bite, the lesser allegation of negligence that was the basis of the settlement, rather than the original molestation allegation. He did not go on the rampage publicly against the insurance company, so there was a kind of quiet resignation. To me, that's really what he was referring to in the video. I don't think he really meant he approved the settlement, but had kind of given up trying to get the public to understand that. But again, I'm not the expert on this as some people here are...

One thing that's clear to me is that MJ was not skilled or comfortable in talking with media, and made many mistakes like this. He spoke in a stilted, speechifying manner that skirted the issues, instead of being down-to-earth and tackling the facts head on. This was his way, I think, of coping with a problematic shyness. There was an interesting article somewhere by a colleague who urged MJ to speak more comfortably and intimately with fans as well, such as from the stage. MJ tried follow this advice, the man said, tried to just engage the audience in normal banter a bit, but got too shy and gave up. I think his shyness really harmed him in many ways in his life, and it's a terrible shame that such a perfectly harmless personality trait could cause so much trouble. It's the irony of the world's biggest superstar being shy...
Click to expand...
Old Today, 11:17 AM #207
Beachlover

I did not get that impression from the Bashir interview. I got it from maybe his interview with Diane Sawyer? It sounded reasonable to me and from his own mouth, so he convinced ME that he did so out of frustration and not because he was guilty. He just realized that it was hanging over his head and just wanted it 'done'.

I see nothing wrong with that. Heck, if I had money and could pay some jerk off if they were harassing me I would do that too. As far as the amount, he did not say anything about that and I would have no idea if he knew it was going to be that much or not.

Somehow in my mind, if he knew it was that much money he would have thrown a hissy fit.
Click to expand...

Today, 11:33 AM #208
Bo G

If possible, I'd like to see what you're referring to. I do really want to know the truth on this, if that's at all possible.

What you say would be supported by the probability that this is what triggered him to begin using painkillers and sedatives for anxiety, to deal understandably with the horrible, horrible shock of these allegations. Perhaps if this were decision of his, as you say, it was not under the clearest thinking.

But yes, if it turns out this is absolutely what he wanted, that's completely understandable as well and should not reflect negatively on him.


UPDATE

Someone has kindly posted a thread entitled 1993 settlement documents. We can move our discussion about the 1993 settlement there, and use that thread as a resource in this thread, to give us the "sound bites" we need to correct media inaccuracies. We do want to get this straight if at all possible. We're trying to do this in a quiet, factual way as it's very upsetting for many fans (including me)...

But jeez, moderators, aren't we kind of reinventing the wheel here? Hasn't this already been done by somebody...
Click to expand...
Today, 12:12 PM #209
ginvid

Is the smoking gun tabloid? They have the agreement from 1994 and it says MJ had to pay, not the insurance co. Is there some other way to interpret this agreement?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...6041jacko6.gif
Last edited by ginvid; Today at 12:24 PM.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

ginvid said:
Is the smoking gun tabloid? They have the agreement from 1994 and it says MJ had to pay, not the insurance co. Is there some other way to interpret this agreement?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0616041jacko6.gif
Click to expand...

It's not "mainstream media" to be analyzed in this thread, but it can be a good source of information. But we're moving this discussion to the other thread. I've copied this comment of yours there, ginvid, so we can carry on over there. See the link in my post above. Thanks very much for the links!
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

Smoking Gun can be an acceptable source of info, where they clearly state where THEIR info came from.
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

Bo G said:
Smoking Gun can be an acceptable source of info, where they clearly state where THEIR info came from.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know how to take this since they got the redacted agreement from Diane Diamond. However, I am willing to take it at face value, even considering the source because I doubt she would make all of this up. I dunno.
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

Bo G said:
It's not "mainstream media" to be analyzed in this thread, but it can be a good source of information. But we're moving this discussion to the other thread. I've copied this comment of yours there, ginvid, so we can carry on over there. See the link in my post above. Thanks very much for the links!
Click to expand...

Thank you very much. Headed over now.
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

dancemasterman said:
on page 3 it does it does refer to Michael Jackson as a "party to this agreement."

Page 5

"The parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in action in view of the impact the action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and his potential income."

There you go.
Click to expand...

I think it is important to discuss. People often speak of MJ fans as being irrational and deluded. The only way to have a chance to combat this is by having facts and being able to speak intelligently on a subject. I for one am interested in knowing what actually is the case in order to be able to speak on the subject at a later time if need be. So, Thanks.
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo G View Post
If possible, I'd like to see what you're referring to. I do really want to know the truth on this, if that's at all possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02-11KZjA_w
__________________
Stranger at the Seaside
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

Am I missing the party? No one is posting on the other thread or did I not find the correct thread?
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

Beachlover said:
Am I missing the party? No one is posting on the other thread or did I not find the correct thread?
Click to expand...

I think those of us talking about on this thread ARE the party... so get your a** over there :) and post that last link of yours there. Hopefully DanceMaster and Butterflies will return. It will pick up steam, I suspect. It's a lot of material to sort through, and some may be taking their time. I know that the case for me. I haven't looked at most of it yet, including your stuff elusivemoonwalker. But some of us really need to, even though it's no fun and pretty upsetting at this point.

Back to the media here:

Did anyone find any reports in the BBC, the Guardian, or other major papers elsewhere in this big world?
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

dancemasterman said:
There have been rumours about these documents swirling for years. Among the rumours

1. MJ paid the family not to testify in criminal court
2. MJ bribed the family into not pressing charges
3. Mj didn't actually settle. It was the insurance companies who settled.

as for the rumour that Mj never chose to settle, here is a quote from page 5

"The parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in action in view of the impact the action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and his potential income."
Click to expand...

So the insurance companies definetly didn't pay anything? Because I was confused as well when I people saying that it was the company that paid and not him.
 
Last edited:
Re: 1993 settlement documents

The plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence of the civil settlement of the 1993 lawsuit through the testimony of Larry Feldman, attorney for the current complaining family and attorney for the plaintiff in the 1993 matter. The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of 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. Shapero v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Cal. App.3d 433, 438 (1971); Ivy v. Pacific Automobile Ins. Co., 156 Cal. App.2d 652, 660 (1958)(the insured is precluded from interfering with settlement procedures). 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). Merritt v. Reserve Ins. Co., 34 Cal. App.3d 858, 870 (1973). 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. 44 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, sec. 1392, at 326-27 (rev. ed 2002)

In Brown v. Guarantee Ins. Co., 155 Cal. App. 2d 679, 685 (1957), the court stated:

"It is generally understood that these are rights and privileges which it is necessary for the insurer to have in order to justify or enable it to assume obligations which it does in the contract of insurance. So long as recovery does not exceed the limits of the insurance, the question of whether the claim be compromised or settled, or the matter in which it shall be defended, is a matter of no concern to the insured."

The insurer's right to control the defense of any action against the insured includes the right to negotiate settlement, and to otherwise conduct defense of the action. The consent of the insured is usually superfluous. "Liability policies usually specifically prohibit the insured from settling or negotiating for a settlement or interfering in any manner with the defense except upon request of the insurer unless the insurer is in breach of contract. By accepting a liability insurance policy, the insured is bound by these terms." (Croskey, et. al, Cal. Practice Guide: Insurance Litigation 3, supra, section 12:207, p. 12B-2.) "For this reason, it is common practice for insurance counsel and an adjuster to handle the negotiation of insurance funded settlements with out the superfluous involvement of a fully protected insured." Fiege v. Cooke, __ Cal. App. 4th __ (2004).

It is unfair for an insurance company's settlement to be now held against Michael or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Michael Jackson's prior conduct or guilt. Michael Jackson could not control nor interfere with his insurance carrier's demand to settle the dispute. No admission against interest nor acknowledgment of criminality can be inferred regarding Jackson from the act of the insurance carrier in the settling the litigation.

It is worth mentioning that full details about the settlement negotiation and payment method(s) have not yet been disclosed to the public. Over the years, various other reasons and explanations have been given by Michael Jackson and his attorneys as to why the settlement was made, in addition to the insurance claim above. Sources close to the Chandler family, including Ray Chandler, told the press back in 1998 that the settlement was actually being paid out over a period of 40 years, and that payments first began in August-September of 1998 (there is no confirmation of this theory).
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

I know there are rules about posting tabloid stuff on here, but if you can't vent about the injustice of these articles with other fans then where are you supposed to do it?

This stuff is out there and people are reading it. What are we supposed to do? Just pretend it doesn't exist??

The frustrating thing is, all the same old shit from the same tired sleazy sources (Raymond Chandler, Diane Diamond etc) is coming up to the forefront just because Evan Chandler decided to shoot himself. Why is it all of a sudden more relevant and newsworthy than it was this time last week? I can't believe the tabloids are trying to paint Evan to be a victim in all of this. It's just sickening.
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

MattyJam said:
I know there are rules about posting tabloid stuff on here, but if you can't vent on here about the injustice of these articles then where are you supposed to do it?

This stuff is out there and people are reading it. What are we supposed to do? Just pretend it doesn't exist??
Click to expand...

I posted the article on the Enough is Enough section. After reading it I need to vent too!
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

Oh my God :no:

That daily mail one..

Looks like they printed peoples comments from here too..
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

I haven't clicked on it; can't bring myself to. I don't know what to say. Mods: any advice here? Someone, perhaps it was Trish, asked: Who is speaking for MJ? Is there no one from the estate who is speaking for MJ? Does anyone with MJJC know anyone connected to the estate that we can urge take a more proactive role? MJ's policy was to not respond to bad press usually, but perhaps the estate should take a different tack?

Another site has a forum for tabloid links... would that make sense here? There is a constructive purpose, as pointed out above. But a lot of us really need to be protected from tabloids, so it does seem best to separate them out.
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

I've posted it in the Legacy forum.. there are no mods online by the looks of it. This is terrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top