Posted by Accusers Mother Hired Numerous Lawyers before Meeting Jackson? MJEOL Bullet #204 Went Attorney shopping according to previous reports In a September 17 2004 report from the AFP entitled Michael Jacksons lawyers confront his accusers mother, it was reported that defense attorneys brought out in court the fact that the accusers mother hired numerous attorneys. They also report she had once accused the accusers father of molesting and falsely imprisoning him in Los Angeles as well.
What we also learned from courtroom observers who listened to her testimony was the fact that she had hired/retained no less than 6 (six) attorneys before she had even met Jackson in an attempt to seek a financial settlement from him. No, thats not a typo.
These are not speculative theories being thrown around by unnamed sources. The six attorneys were brought up in court by Jacksons attorney Tom Mesereau. This is definitely not the first piece of incredibly damaging information to come out about this family.
We learned in court that the defense had taped evidence of the private investigator Brad Miller telling the mother, twice, that he was the attorney hired by Michael Jacksons then-lawyer, Mark Geragos. She, of course, claimed not to have paid attention to this blaring fact. And prosecutors and police testified that they didnt know Miller worked for Geragos either. Yeah, right. According to the AFP report, she also reportedly made comments that her kids can sue Jackson when they turn 18:
“She made statements that her children can sue Michael Jackson after they turn 18,” Mesereau declared. “She said she is not after money then she says she is after money. “She has hired numerous lawyers and used resumes for work that show she is sophisticated in investigation and prosecution and can supervise surveillance.” The court was not told what the woman’s job was. But Mesereau said the woman knew how to file lawsuits and had once accused her ex-husband of molesting one of her sons and falsely imprisoning him in Los Angeles. (see Michael Jackson’s lawyers confront his accuser’s mother (Sept 17 04) – AFP)
Looks like very early reports about this case being a shakedown were more accurate than one could have imagined at the time. The accusers mother testified in court that she met Jackson in August 2000. Courtroom observers report that Jackson attorney Tom Mesereau handed the accusers mother a list of attorneys which she retained on or before January 2000 in an effort to investigate Jackson. One of those attorneys on that list was Larry Feldman. Yep, the Larry Feldman. The same Feldman who has filed a claim against the Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services for leaking the devastating memo in which the accusers family clears Jackson of molestation. The investigation found these very molestation allegations to be unfounded. The same Feldman that secured a multimillion dollar settlement, financed by Jacksons insurance company, as a result of the 1993 investigation. Also brought out by the defense was the fact that at least one private investigator was also hired in conjunction with an attorney hired by the mother. This all but obliterated the innocent, poor, and uneducated act the mother tried to portray both on the stand and through prosecution mouthpieces. Remember, she had not even met Jackson yet, but she hires attorney after attorney in an effort to pursue Jackson for molestation claims, according to courtroom sources. Courtroom observers report that the conversation between Jacksons attorney and the accusers mother was heated. They even scribbled down an unofficial transcript of the conversation between the two:
TOM MESEREAU: When did you meet Michael? ACCUSERS MOTHER: August 2000. MESEREAU: According to this official statement/sworn declaration that you gave to the Santa Barbara Sheriffs department and district attorney, you retained an attorney and investigator in January 2000 for the sole purpose of finding out information about Michael Jackson and settling with him. You discussed a settlement concerning Michael Jackson before you even knew him? ACCUSERS MOTHER: I I well PROSECUTORS: Objection! Irrelevant. JUDGE MELVILLE: Sustained.
The majority of the mainstream media has purposely ignored these facts. This information came out because the mother signed an attorney-client privilege waiver. The mother claimed it was 6 different lawyers, 6 specific times for 6 specific reasons. Yeah right. But the questions then become how could she afford to retain 6 lawyers? Why was Larry Feldman one of those attorneys she went to? This was a poor little family remember? They were at the mercy of the big bad Jackson machine, remember?? Each piece of the puzzle the public gets makes the case look more ridiculous. For months, the public has been subjected to prosecution-apologists trying to claim the family was not after money, had no intention of filing a civil suit, and that all they wanted was justice. Did she expect to get justice from those 6 civil lawyers she went to before ever meeting Michael Jackson? From the PI that was hired, reportedly, to investigate molestation allegations before she had ever met Jackson? From the two tabloid reporters from which the stepfather solicited money for an interview with the family? From the reporter her children went on a shopping trip with in January 2004, according to the NY Daily News (see Youth involved in Jackson criminal case appears vital)? What stopped a civil suit from being filed against Jackson? Reportedly, it was Tom Sneddon who stopped it. As reported in MJEOL Bullet #109, and according to a Santa Barbara News-Press article dated January 29 2004, Sneddon struck a deal of sorts with the accusing familys attorney; almost pleading with him not to file a civil suit until after the criminal case had been dealt with so as not to make the accusing familys motives look suspicious. However, in the Jan 29 article, staff writer Dawn Hobbs writes:
As he launched his investigation against Michael Jackson, District Attorney Tom Sneddon reportedly sought assurance that the family of the boy accusing the entertainer of child molestation would not make a multimillion-dollar deal like another young accuser’s family did a decade ago. A source close to the boy’s family in the current case told the News-Press on Wednesday that Mr. Sneddon asked the attorney representing the family to “solemnly swear” not to file a lawsuit against Mr. Jackson during the criminal investigation and prosecution of the singer. (see Sneddon reportedly asked boy’s family not to file civil suit (Jan 29 04) – News-Press)
And this was a source close to the accusers family who divulged this information. So the next time tabloid reporters and mouthpieces attempt to make the point that no civil suit was filed, one can simply remind them of the back-alley deal that the prosecutor has reportedly struck with the accusing familys attorney. She has the wherewithal to hire attorneys and private investigators; to file lawsuits, scam settlements for making false claims, and to coach her children to lie under oath. At least two sources, Cindy Adams and Roger Friedmanhardly Jackson fansalluded to these numerous attorneys months ago. Adams wrote in her January 9 2004 NYPost gossip column:
January 9, 2004 — LOS ANGELES legal types are saying Michael Jackson cannot be found guilty. That two lawyers earlier refused this case believing it “not strong enough.” That it was shopped around for three months. That some in the Santa Barbara police community believed there wasn’t sufficient evidence to go on. That even attorneys who had opposed Michael in the first case determined they didn’t want in on this one. That forces behind the plaintiff were not motivated by familial or legal issues. That this indictment “could fall apart unless additional evidence is found.” Legal brains closer at hand are calling this “flimsy,” saying “they have nothing that’s triable.” I’m not siding. I’m just reporting. Source: http://www.nypost.com/gossip/cindy.htm
Something similar was also reported by Foxs Roger Friedman. Friedmans reporting can be ridiculously wrong and viciously absurd when hes trying to break news about Jacksons personal life. However, he has been much more on target than most when hes reporting about the actual case. The following is from his December 10 2003 article entitled MJ Accuser Used Same Shrink from Decade Ago:
They also went attorney shopping, apparently. Feldman was brought into the caseas this column was first to report back on Nov 19by one lawyer, William Dickerman, who may have been called in by a third person. (see MJ Accuser Used Same Shrink From Decade Ago (Dec 10 2003) – Fox)
These facts may have been why it was so incredibly difficult just to get a straight answer out of her on the witness stand. The issues werent allowed to be fully discussed at that particular hearing because of its limited scope. But it and a number of other issues are sure to be brought up in court during a possible trial. One of those other issues will definitely include the demand for over $15,000 by the family to do a longer interview with the accusing family. In an August 26 2004 article from The Evening Standard, the reporter who spoke to the accusing family says that the interview with the family was cancelled because of the familys demand for more than $15,000. From the report:
A reporter who spoke to [the accusers mother] says a longer interview was cancelled after her then boyfriend, Major Jay Jackson, who is now the father of a baby with her, demanded more than $15,000 for a more lengthy chat. The reporter involved says when she spoke to [the accusers mother] shortly after Martin Bashir’s documentary was shown in Britain, [the accusers mother] gushed about Jackson, saying her son called him “daddy” and was hoping to travel the world with him. (see Accuser’s Mother Demanded $15,000 for interview after Bashir Doc Aired)
All of the actions by these people go to show the motive and possibly the set plan to trying to extract money from Jackson. It does appear that when the money ran out, and when Jackson started to distance himself from the family, a molestation allegation magically appeared. Was that magician Larry Feldman? Did he pull these people out of his hat, or was it the other way around? Time will certainly tell. Stay tuned. -MJEOL