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

Re: 1993 settlement documents

But, that's the thing here, people already provided links to the 93 settlement Docs so we can read the and the one from T-mez too! Legal docs that Two different Judges looked through and approved them....what more do yall want?

In the 93 docs it both says MJ insurance carrier paid the settlement as well as it says MJ elected to settle as well has it says the Chandlers excepted that and it was for distress and not molestation and can still proceed to a criminal case if they choose too!

So take it for what it says and that's it! There is nothing else to discuss when it's right there in writing! We are not lawyers to explain every detail that's in the documents because it sounds contradicting to some!

All I know and will repeat is that they are LEGAL Documents!
Not being smart about this, but can you show me where on the smoking gun docs it mentions the insurance carrier? I couldn't see it anywhere unless I missed it. There are a lot of pages. This would clear things up big time but I didn't see it on there... just Michael and Michael alone agreeing to pay.
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

"Cops swooped on Neverland seizing videos, photos, diaries, and rolls of film. They also found an album of nude boys."

What now? That I have never heard?



We are talking about the book that has been used as 'evidence' in the 2005
trial? The book that was given to Michael by a fan? It was actually signed by a fan.....so basically the media is ONCE again trying to make it look like something really disgusting was found in his house?

Why am i not surprised........oh lord.
 
Im tired of this thread, is like keeping on with that disgusting lie! Evan Chandler was a wannabe screenwriter (he did wrote some in fact) and he wrote the false case against MJ as well, he was smart, he was no stupid, he got his money, then he got the kid to control that money, then life made him pay with the suffer of that desease he had, he wrote an script, he masterminded the whole accusations, he was no stupid, all kind of crazy stuff and he CREATED A CASE, he had his son learning all these, he convinced that Jordan kid so hat he could get money, is that so difficult to understand, i mean i dont think so.


to the media saying he wanted justice, noone ever stopped him from going to testify in the 2005 trial, he didnt wanted to go (and no cameras were allowed in the room, so if he wanted to hide, he could have done it as the arvizo mother did, so stop the nonsense for once, you just need to think, the Jackson kids are suffering these stuff, STOP IT!, stop with this whole "he wanted justice" thing, reading that, i mean has that a meaning at all???, so he commited suicide cause he wanted justice??? come on!, really COME ON! and if he had surgery is cause he wanted to look better(i have seen that pic of him all smiling, partying, yes , i bet he was very sad there too wasnt he??? and it was a recent picture, end this fiction for once, end this, just think that you may pay some day, you may, this hurts not only Michaels family , and probably this hurted the Chandler kid as well, this hurts to the fans too, we are people who think, we investigate the facts, is not like we go blind and say, he never did it without saying facts that confirm what we say, stop painting us as that, there are some crazy fans yes, but thas not me, im a fan cause i know he was innocent, and i investigate the story very deeply, i know. Both accusations that were made with a distance of TEN years, what kind of pervert waits for so long!!! ten years???? that just the beginning of the stupid lack of common sense on these lies, just the beginning, STOP IT, you are confusing people, i know thats your purpose, but how long may the time pass until YOU pay?? how did Evan Chandler ended
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

Not being smart about this, but can you show me where on the smoking gun docs it mentions the insurance carrier? I couldn't see it anywhere unless I missed it. There are a lot of pages. This would clear things up big time but I didn't see it on there... just Michael and Michael alone agreeing to pay.

The Smoking Gun like I said in another post has the docs Heavily redacted and they were provided by Diane Dimond among all people and they even credit her on their page and wrongfully state that the settlement was for molestation which it wasn't it was for Negligence! If u noticed the part were it says settlement payment on the 93 docs it's redacted Blocked off with black marker on the Smoking Gun website! But, the T-mez Docs shows that it was the Insurance that paid the settlement and like I said the judged approved, he knew about them 93 settlement and knew what it said that's why T-mez was right!

I know that the 93 docs must be somewhere online underacted I know I read them without the INTERESTING Block offs somewhere!
 
that was it, the book they found in a locked drawer in MJ's bedroom and the one who had the key for that drawer was Blanca Francia who was fired three years before that search was conducted , yet the detectives knew she had the key to that particular drawer , and asked her to come and open it . WOW . what a scenario .
 
that was it, the book they found in a locked drawer in MJ's bedroom and the one who had the key for that drawer was Blanca Francia who was fired three years before that search was conducted , yet the detectives knew she had the key to that particular drawer , and asked her to come and open it . WOW . what a scenario .


I know tell me bout it!
 
I also read them , even Dan Abrams during the trial said something to the effect " the insurance paying does not make him innocent "

it was everywhere back then , the media tried to downplay the insurance part, it was huge in the fans community because it was the first time we learned the insurance paid not mj , that was before Oxman wrote that motion . the insurance was mentioned in the settlement documents , i've read it myslef .
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

The Smoking Gun like I said in another post has the docs Heavily redacted and they were provided by Diane Dimond among all people and they even credit her on their page and wrongfully state that the settlement was for molestation which it wasn't it was for Negligence! If u noticed the part were it says settlement payment on the 93 docs it's redacted Blocked off with black marker on the Smoking Gun website! But, the T-mez Docs shows that it was the Insurance that paid the settlement and like I said the judged approved, he knew about them 93 settlement and knew what it said that's why T-mez was right!

I know that the 93 docs must be somewhere online underacted I know I read them without the INTERESTING Block offs somewhere!

Thanks.

so this part where it's blacked out SHOULD have details about the insurance carrier I presume.
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko5.html)

But the next page says; 'Upon approval of this Confidential Settlement. Jackson (not 'Whatever Jackson's insurance carrier is') will execute and deliver to the Minor's attorneys of record 'confessions of judgment, in forms to be approved by the attorneys of record for the minor prior to execution of this Confidential Settlement, in the total amount of $15,331,250, to be held in trust by the minor's attorney of record with no copies to be made or provided to any other person. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko6.html)

I'm not a lawyer but I presume that means the money is coming from mj to the chandlers. *shrug.* Or does the insurance pay mj first and then mj pays them or something? :mello:

Please don't get annoyed, I believe what you're saying, cause the smoking gun states the doc is 'heavily redacted', but I really would like to see this document without its edits if anyone should know of a copy available? :)
 
Last edited:
I can't wait for this whole thing just to die down.

I don't believe for one second that Jordy or Gavin will ever come forward and speak the truth. This whole nightmare has temporarily been resurrected because of Evan's suicide but will soon disappear again.

As a firm believer in Michael's innocence I have long felt powerless about articles like this. Writing to complain does nothing - it never gets printed. For the sake of my sanity I will be choosing to ignore such articles in the future. Let the ignorant write what they want to. They've been pushing their same sleazy agenda for 16 years now and they haven't swayed me. It isn't blind faith, it's just not accepting everything you read as gospel. It's called researching BOTH sides of the arguement with an open mind before making a judgement - something which that awful Daily Mail article didn't even pretend to do.
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

Thanks.

so this part where it's blacked out SHOULD have details about the insurance carrier I presume.
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko5.html)

But the next page says; 'Upon approval of this Confidential Settlement. Jackson (not 'Whatever Jackson's insurance carrier is') will execute and deliver to the Minor's attorneys of record 'confessions of judgment, in forms to be approved by the attorneys of record for the minor prior to execution of this Confidential Settlement, in the total amount of $15,331,250, to be held in trust by the minor's attorney of record with no copies to be made or provided to any other person. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko6.html)

I'm not a lawyer but I presume that means the money is coming from mj to the chandlers. *shrug.* Or does the insurance pay mj first and then mj pays them or something? :mello:

Please don't get annoyed, I believe what you're saying, cause the smoking gun states the doc is 'heavily redacted', but I really would like to see this document without its edits if anyone should know of a copy available? :)

I'm not annoyed :) I understand and agree that I would like to find the doc without the block offs too! It just looks suspect that it's the only one out there that can be found so far and that Diane Dimond was the one to leak it!
 
I can't wait for this whole thing just to die down.

I don't believe for one second that Jordy or Gavin will ever come forward and speak the truth. This whole nightmare has temporarily been resurrected because of Evan's suicide but will soon disappear again.

As a firm believer in Michael's innocence I have long felt powerless about articles like this. Writing to complain does nothing - it never gets printed. For the sake of my sanity I will be choosing to ignore such articles in the future. Let the ignorant write what they want to. They've been pushing their same sleazy agenda for 16 years now and they haven't swayed me. It isn't blind faith, it's just not accepting everything you read as gospel. It's called researching BOTH sides of the arguement with an open mind before making a judgement - something which that awful Daily Mail article didn't even pretend to do.

I agree, its so frustrating. The Daily Mail haven't printed a single one of our comments. I wrote a comment and a ton of other MJJC members wrote comments-not a single one has been published. I never read the Mail anyway-its extremely right wing and their views on homosexuality and immigration are just disgusting. If they want to call us 'hero worshipers', and 'blinded' then go ahead. We know the truth and we'll defend Michael's legacy forever. Some hack from a tabloid isn't going to change how I feel about Michael.
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

I'm not annoyed :) I understand and agree that I would like to find the doc without the block offs too! It just looks suspect that it's the only one out there that can be found so far and that Diane Dimond was the one to leak it!
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

Thanks.

so this part where it's blacked out SHOULD have details about the insurance carrier I presume.
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko5.html)

But the next page says; 'Upon approval of this Confidential Settlement. Jackson (not 'Whatever Jackson's insurance carrier is') will execute and deliver to the Minor's attorneys of record 'confessions of judgment, in forms to be approved by the attorneys of record for the minor prior to execution of this Confidential Settlement, in the total amount of $15,331,250, to be held in trust by the minor's attorney of record with no copies to be made or provided to any other person. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko6.html)

I'm not a lawyer but I presume that means the money is coming from mj to the chandlers. *shrug.* Or does the insurance pay mj first and then mj pays them or something? :mello:

Please don't get annoyed, I believe what you're saying, cause the smoking gun states the doc is 'heavily redacted', but I really would like to see this document without its edits if anyone should know of a copy available? :)

Hi Butterflies & Bo G,

thanks for your posts, and I agree, we should have one thread for just the facts (I mean legal facts and time line) about the 1993 case. I will check the "Ask Us section".

We all know and agree on the fact that Michael was sort of trapped in this case. It is mostly due to a wrong media coverage, that spread a misunderstanding over the settlement, instead of simply reporting the facts, and explaining their meaning in a legal way. Then it should be up to anyone to make up their own minds.

To me , just the legal facts and the timeline are enough to show that Michael was not guilty.

I mean, he was aquitted in 2005, and not even charged in 1993. In 1993, he was not even questionned. The case remained open until 1999 i think, and nothing happened.

There is no need to go into rumors, or talk about how evil Evan Chandler was. If some of us want to talk about it, that's fine with me, but it doesn't help because they are only rumors or opinions. Not facts. It should be on a different thread.

I am not a lawyer, and not really used to the American legal system. so it would be really interesting to have a lawyer's point of view here.
I am not surprised the insurance company is not mentionned in the settlement : the civil lawsuit was against Michael Jackson. So he signed the settlement.
Then whatever happened between his insurance company and him is a seperate fact. To me, that's why there is no reason why the insurance company should co sign the agreement. But this should be confirmed by a lawyer.
 
Last edited:
Re: 1993 settlement documents

I'm not annoyed :) I understand and agree that I would like to find the doc without the block offs too! It just looks suspect that it's the only one out there that can be found so far and that Diane Dimond was the one to leak it!
 
Last edited:
Again, I'm sorry you feel that way but there were over 4 threads on the exact same topic. Now if you would like to ask MJJC to work on a project developing a complete timeline of the 1993 case and the 2003-2005 case, please leave a request in Ask Us, and Gary will get back to you. Otherwise the forum was getting very cluttered with the 1993 case.

Goodnight to you too.

Sorry, this is off topic, but I can not PM you. Please feel free to move this post, if you think it's necessary. How do we leave a request in Ask Us ???? I can't find it ...

Thks for your help
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

The Smoking Gun like I said in another post has the docs Heavily redacted and they were provided by Diane Dimond among all people and they even credit her on their page and wrongfully state that the settlement was for molestation which it wasn't it was for Negligence! If u noticed the part were it says settlement payment on the 93 docs it's redacted Blocked off with black marker on the Smoking Gun website! But, the T-mez Docs shows that it was the Insurance that paid the settlement and like I said the judged approved, he knew about them 93 settlement and knew what it said that's why T-mez was right!

I know that the 93 docs must be somewhere online underacted I know I read them without the INTERESTING Block offs somewhere!


they weren't heavily redacted. they just have a couple words blotched out. do you have links proving that diane diamond gave them to smoking gun? How did she get ahold of them?

I've known about these on smoking gun since they first appeared there because I was following the news so closely about the trial, and I never heard any mention of her having anything to do with them getting ahold of the contract.

If anything they were probably leaked by the lawyer Feldman.
 
I remember when the contract first leaked Mj put out a statement saying he was upset because it was supposed to be confidential and that he personally questioned the timing of this leak.

When he talkled about the settlement in both the Bashir documentary and the interview with Diane Sawyer he said that he didn't want a drawn out trial like OJ's and he wanted to just end it and move on with his life. He made no mention of his insurance companies doing it for him or against his will.
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

they weren't heavily redacted. they just have a couple words blotched out. do you have links proving that diane diamond gave them to smoking gun? How did she get ahold of them?

I've known about these on smoking gun since they first appeared there because I was following the news so closely about the trial, and I never heard any mention of her having anything to do with them getting ahold of the contract.

If anything they were probably leaked by the lawyer Feldman.

It says it on the smoking gun website that they got them from Diane Diamond. It also says eight pages besides the ones that had words blocked out were missing. It is the link I posted earlier in the thread from the smoking gun. Actually you posted the link as well earlier (Iwas on a different thread when I posted mine that was merged in to this one) in the first paragraph about DianE Dimond. Also, I think it is the 2nd paragraph, it says all 8 pages of the payment terms were no included, that is why they called it heavily redacted.

While saying this, I do want to note that although the terms of the repayment was redacted, it clearly leaves no doubt as to who was paying in the parts that were not, MJ.
 
Last edited:
I know we're all getting confused about the fact that Mj said he wanted to settle but docs claim it was under protest giving people the impression he DIDN'T want to settle. The 2 things are really conflicting. Like I've been saying all along the legal definition of under protest probably means something different to what we understand under protest to be.

Legal definitions of 'under protest'

1. under protest definition - legal
n
Complying with an obligation while asserting an objection to the obligation. For instance, when paying a disputed debt, the payor may note that it is being paid “under protest,” thereby preserving any claim he may have for subsequent repayment.Â

2. Law Dictionary: Under Protest

Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > Law Dictionary
The making of a payment or the doing of an act under an obligation while reserving the right to object to the obligation at a later date. Typically, a party will make the payment or perform the act, but will at the same time inform the other party in writing that the performance is under protest. The statement "under protest," "without prejudice," "with reservation of right," or the like will prevent an accord and satisfaction. and will prevent prejudice to the rights reserved. U.C.C. §1-207.

So it might mean Mj wanted to settle like he said but still did it 'under protest'? Still not exactly sure about the exact meaning of the legal babble. Again, we need a lawyer to explain this all in lay terms.

Anyone able to decipher what 'under protest' trully means in a legal sense and explain it in dumbass terms for me? :hysterical:
 
I'm assuming it generally means like mj himself said, he wanted the ordeal over with and was willing to sign just to get it off his back, but at the same time resented that he was in the predicament and wanted that stated formally on the agreement.

It probably is that simple. 'Under protest' makes sense that way. It's when I look at it from a non legal perspective that it confuses me because under protest to me means to be completely against something to the point of refusal which doesn't really make sense when mj is saying he went ahead and signed because he wanted to make the prob disappear.
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

Another opinion (well that's mine !):

Do we know why Judge Melville rejected Tom Sneddon's request to include the settlement as a piece of evidence against Michael ?

how would the 1993 settlement help in any way in 2005 ? It didn't help back in 1993 either.

The settlement is about negligence. Micheal specifically and clearly DENIES any form of abuse in it, and the Chandlers signed it.

So whoever paid for it, how could this have helped prove anything ?

It could be the reason why it was rejected as evidence, couldn't it ?

You just answered your own question! :)

Plus, it's in the T-Mez motion docs that someone posted that shows what the Judge looked at including the part of the Insurance paying too! He had to look at what Sneedon wanted to do, which was to introduce the 93 settlement to the jurors, to paint Mj as guilty! But, The judge seen what the 93 Settlement was about, which was Negligence and not molestation and also who payed, and he denied Tom Sneedon and sided with the Defense. Because it would have been unfair to Michael to introduce in a molestation case a settlement that wasn't even for molestation but, for negligence!

And to dancemasterman, if u go to the Smoking Gun website you will see Diane Dimond named as the source of how the Settlement was leaked and how much it was redacted and how many pages too!
 
I know we're all getting confused about the fact that Mj said he wanted to settle but docs claim it was under protest giving people the impression he DIDN'T want to settle. The 2 things are really conflicting. Like I've been saying all along the legal definition of under protest probably means something different to what we understand under protest to be.

Legal definitions of 'under protest'

1. under protest definition - legal
n
Complying with an obligation while asserting an objection to the obligation. For instance, when paying a disputed debt, the payor may note that it is being paid “under protest,” thereby preserving any claim he may have for subsequent repayment.Â

2. Law Dictionary: Under Protest

Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > Law Dictionary
The making of a payment or the doing of an act under an obligation while reserving the right to object to the obligation at a later date. Typically, a party will make the payment or perform the act, but will at the same time inform the other party in writing that the performance is under protest. The statement "under protest," "without prejudice," "with reservation of right," or the like will prevent an accord and satisfaction. and will prevent prejudice to the rights reserved. U.C.C. §1-207.

So it might mean Mj wanted to settle like he said but still did it 'under protest'? Still not exactly sure about the exact meaning of the legal babble. Again, we need a lawyer to explain this all in lay terms.

Anyone able to decipher what 'under protest' trully means in a legal sense and explain it in dumbass terms for me? :hysterical:

I see your still wrecking your brain here lol I also think u answered your own question here too! Good find! :)
 
Re: Some FACT/TEXT about the 93 case

thanks for posting this, its a good read, but still I feel so sad.
I just cannot understand why people are so greedy? How far can somebody go to destroy another humans life?
I never could understand:no:
 
Re: Some FACT/TEXT about the 93 case

Allegations don't make an evidence. Jackson had 150 persons working daily on Neverland, something like 80 cameras in his house in all areas of it, and not a single evidence in 20 years?

Plus, Jackson had a total of 8 trials against him. He was proved innocent in all of them,including the trial of Chandler (yes, the trial happenned, just shows how people are misinformed). When he was supposed to have done the thing with Arvizo, he wasn't even in Neverland - He was in Miami. The trial was a joke, everyone who really followed real informations known he was going to be proved innocent easily, only medias I pretend he was going to go into jail to sell their newspapers.

Facts is, all those who launched those trials were people living thanks to money of Jackson, and accused him once he got bored of being robbed by them.

Sony forced him to the arrangment back in 1993, trials are public in the US and it would have been horrible for Sony who spend 2 years earlier a gigantic amount of dollars to get him to see their superstar judged on tv, even worst knowing police took pictures of him nude and such.
He was still judged, the difference being accusation wasn't Chandler family, it wasn't a civil trial and couldn't be aired on tv. Jackson was proved innocent in 1994 after 8 months of investigations and trial.

Oh & btw, on 1994 criminal trial authorities contacted several hundreds of other childrens who have been in Neverland, not a single of them had something to say against Jackson behaviour with them. Jordan Chandler himself refused to testify and after his previous accusations appeared to be more than doubful during investigations, the case fall appart and Jackson was recognized not guilty.

Next came the accusers -- Jackson's former employees. First, Stella and Philippe Lemarque, Jackson' ex-housekeepers, tried to sell their story to the tabloids with the help of broker Paul Barresi, a former porn star. They asked for as much as half a million dollars but wound up selling an interview to The Globe of Britain for $15,000. The Quindoys, a Filipino couple who had worked at Neverland, followed. When their asking price was $100,000, they said " 'the hand was outside the kid's pants,' " Barresi told a producer of Frontline, a PBS program. "As soon as their price went up to $500,000, the hand went inside the pants. So come on." The L.A. district attorney's office eventually concluded that both couples were useless as witnesses.

Next came the bodyguards. Purporting to take the journalistic high road, Hard Copy's Diane Dimond told Frontline in early November of last year that her program was "pristinely clean on this. We paid no money for this story at all." But two weeks later, as a Hard Copy contract reveals, the show was negotiating a $100,000 payment to five former Jackson security guards who were planning to file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs.

On December 1, with the deal in place, two of the guards appeared on the program; they had been fired, Dimond told viewers, because "they knew too much about Michael Jackson's strange relationship with young boys." In reality, as their depositions under oath three months later reveal, it was clear they had never actually seen Jackson do anything improper with Chandler's son or any other child:

"So you don't know anything about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?" one of Jackson's attorneys asked former security guard Morris Williams under oath.

"All I know is from the sworn documents that other people have sworn to."

"But other than what someone else may have said, you have no firsthand knowledge about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?"

"That's correct."

"Have you spoken to a child who has ever told you that Mr. Jackson did anything improper with the child?"

"No."

When asked by Jackson's attorney where he had gotten his impressions, Williams replied: "Just what I've been hearing in the media and what I've experienced with my own eyes."

"Okay. That's the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?"

"That's right, nothing."

(The guards' lawsuit, filed in March 1994, was still pending as this article went to press.)

Note: The case was thrown out of court in July 1995.

Next came the maid. On December 15, Hard Copy presented "The Bedroom Maid's Painful Secret." Blanca Francia told Dimond and other reporters that she had seen a naked Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys. She also told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson -- an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible.

A copy of Francia's sworn testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000, and had Dimond checked out the woman's claims, she would have found them to be false. Under deposition by a Jackson attorney, Francia admitted she had never actually see Jackson shower with anyone nor had she seen him naked with boys in his Jacuzzi. They always had their swimming trunks on, she acknowledged.

To resume, in France there is an expression that says "there is no smoke without fire", people often use it to say that if Jackson was accused, then he was guilty. The expression is correct, but people never wondered what fire was - It wasn't a supposedly Jackson incorrect behaviour, but yes the fire here was Jackson's fortune.




wow! thank you for taking the time to share all this! :D where did you find all this information if you don't mind me asking?
 
Last edited:
Re: Some FACT/TEXT about the 93 case

That's such a great comprehensive chunk of writing about it all. If only they'd print this in newspapers instead of the ish they come up with.
 
Back
Top