Post by MJSUNIFC on Jun 16, 2004 12:37:01 GMT -5
so far in the news on "reputable' news programs, i have heard, 15 million and something, 23 million, and 25 million.
here is where i have problems with this document:
1. the document opens by saying michael agreed to pay 15.3 million (yet the reports have it as high as 25 million?)
2. it has the "minor" childs name blacked out (and then later shows the name in this same document?)
3. it blacks out the name of the "guardian and litiem" (respecting their privacy?)
4. it shows that there is no admission of wrong doing towards the minor and they all signed it which means the were in agreement(yet the media wants the public to view this as insignificant?)
5. it also states that michael agreed to settle in view of the impact this could have on his future and finiancial earnings (again no admission of wrong doing, yet they continue to ignore?)
6. the have the first part a. of the settlement payment blacked out ( doesn't that seem more than a little suspicious?)
7. its states that all of its subparts are material and essential terms of this confidential settlement and any breach of the terms is subject to arbitration (can somebody say breach?)
8. and finally why is the media ignoring the fact that the father is recorded on tape basically admitting to setting up michael? i guess that's not news :rolleyes:
these news shows are always having polls... i would like for them to have a polll asking one important question...
would you accept money instead of criminal prosecution if someone sexually molested your child? yes or no
i would never take money if someone hurt my children in exchange for them to go free without prosecution, and then release them to the public to harm others.
here is the link to the smoking gun document
www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html
here is where i have problems with this document:
1. the document opens by saying michael agreed to pay 15.3 million (yet the reports have it as high as 25 million?)
2. it has the "minor" childs name blacked out (and then later shows the name in this same document?)
3. it blacks out the name of the "guardian and litiem" (respecting their privacy?)
4. it shows that there is no admission of wrong doing towards the minor and they all signed it which means the were in agreement(yet the media wants the public to view this as insignificant?)
5. it also states that michael agreed to settle in view of the impact this could have on his future and finiancial earnings (again no admission of wrong doing, yet they continue to ignore?)
6. the have the first part a. of the settlement payment blacked out ( doesn't that seem more than a little suspicious?)
7. its states that all of its subparts are material and essential terms of this confidential settlement and any breach of the terms is subject to arbitration (can somebody say breach?)
8. and finally why is the media ignoring the fact that the father is recorded on tape basically admitting to setting up michael? i guess that's not news :rolleyes:
these news shows are always having polls... i would like for them to have a polll asking one important question...
would you accept money instead of criminal prosecution if someone sexually molested your child? yes or no
i would never take money if someone hurt my children in exchange for them to go free without prosecution, and then release them to the public to harm others.
here is the link to the smoking gun document
www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html