DianeDimond: Hey Diane Where´s Paragraph 3? or “The Case of the Missing Paragraph 3”

  by By Lynette a.k.a lynande51 on vindicatemj.wordpress.com

August 17, 2010

In our search for the truth about Michael Jackson, how do we find it if the MAIN media spokes person, the self proclaimed Michael Jackson expert, Diane Dimond doesn’t give us all the information? How are we or were we expected to make a reasonable fact based decision if she withheld pertinent information?

Although it cannot be proven that the deceit was hers and hers alone, she was still guilty by omission of not providing us with all of the information that was needed to make a true determination of how Michael Jackson settled the 1993 sexual abuse civil case by not making available the entire settlement document. Though we cannot prove that her intent was malicious (and I would bet it was, but that is my opinion) it does bear questioning her tactics and her motive in the timely (for the prosecution) leaking of this document to the Court TV website.

That’s right, we are missing, and we always were, and always will be, and with it, it created what I have dubbed “The case of the missing Paragraph 3”. There are many unanswered questions that are more than likely answered in paragraph 3. One would be the myth of the totality of the settlement amount. An educated guess (I have been sued so I have one of these I can use as a reference) leads me to believe that it would include the name of the Insurance carrier, and the terms of the settlement or why they were agreeing to settle on claims of negligence. It would have definitely spelled out exactly who got how much there would be no more guessing or adding on to have it total up to $30,$40,million dollars and I have even seen an estimate as reckless as $80 million dollars. But Diane knows, oh yes Diane knows, what is in paragraph 3, otherwise it would have been there.

Diane would like us to believe that Michael’s lawyers; Johnny Cochran and Howard Weitzman and Jordan Chandler’s lawyer Larry Feldman and Evan Chandler’s criminal defense lawyer Richard Hirsch (yes remember that pesky little extortion charge that was filed) did not have everything spelled out exactly or in other words they had not done their jobs to the best of their ability when she leaves a large part of this document out of the public domain. Without Paragraph 3 we have a venue to open public and media speculation on the settlement terms. Without paragraph 3 she could spin Michael Jackson in whatever direction she wanted to take him. For Diane that was down, down, down to that burning ring of fire. Yes she was largely instrumental in putting Michael Jackson through hell on earth. She may not have overtly lied but she only gave us part of the truth and then continued to add her editorial to what she believed the document meant.

What we are allowed to see is that Michael and the Chandlers agreed not to make movies or write books and it covers almost any other medium out there in the world in reference to the agreement in the leaked redacted version of the Settlement Agreement. It would probably help us to understand the term of negligence and what charges were dropped from the original lawsuit if only we had the now and forever missing paragraph 3 available for us to read but I think Diane doesn’t want us to see it. We do know for sure that it was CONFIDENTIAL and that is about all.

Diane does however want her friends and fellow journalists to follow in her suit and generously shares her version of the Settlement Agreement minus paragraph 3. They go over and over this Settlement and probably add money to the amount (this is evident in the many reports of multiple amounts) and the oh so erroneous speculation that Jordan Chandler was paid off. What is the matter with me, these poor, and poor, misunderstood journalists! After all what was I expecting they didn’t have paragraph 3 either did they only Diane had paragraph 3? Here is one of many examples:

Jacko Paid $23M To End Molest Suit

Court TV: 1994 Settlement Included $15M Trust Fund For Alleged Victim

By Bootie Cosgrove-Mather

Like this Story? Share it:

Play CBS Video- Jacko’s $23M Settlement

Documents acquired by Celebrity Justice’s Harvey Levin show that Michael Jackson paid an accuser millions to settle molestation allegations 10 years ago. Levin gave The Early Show the details.

Michael Jackson (AP) (Any photo of Michael is a good photo)

CBS/AP) Court TV is putting a dollar figure on the settlement Michael Jackson gave to his first accuser.

Court TV’s Diane Dimond says she’s acquired a copy of the final settlement Jackson made to the boy who accused him of molestation in 1993. The document, dated January 1994, says Jackson set up a trust fund worth more than $15 million. (Fact: $15,331,250.00 yes it was slightly more than $15 million)

Court TV quotes unnamed sources (Uncle Ray? Evan Chandler? ) as saying the boy got a seven-figure payment up front. It says each of his parents got $1.5 million, and the family’s lawyer was given $5 million expenses. (Are they sure this is addition and not division? Can I see paragraph 3 please?)

The settlement has Jackson’s signature on it but it does not mean Jackson admitted guilt. Dimond quotes the document as reading, “This agreement shall not be construed as an admission by Jackson that he has acted wrongfully with respect to the minor.”(Wait until you see what she says in some of the other articles!)

CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen notes the legal language is standard for any settlement agreement.

“Jackson’s lawyers never would have allowed him to pay all that money without language that says it’s not an admission of any wrongdoing. But that admission isn’t objective proof that nothing happened; in fact, prosecutors likely will argue that the settlement is financial proof that something did,” says Cohen. (Well! I sure hope the prosecutors get the whole thing! I mean what kind of evidence is this without paragraph 3? Watch out Michael here we go! Down, Down, Down to that burning ring of fire.)

“This is a devastating leak for Jackson because it’s likely that those in his jury pool will hear about this reported settlement long before they know that they may be called to duty in his case,” Cohen says. “And that knowledge clearly will have a negative impact on Jackson’s image with those potential jurors.” (They could only hope! Down! Down! Down! to that…)

Jackson is currently facing unrelated criminal charges that he sexually molested another young boy. (Then why are we even talking about this if we are talking about an unrelated case?)

On Monday, a judge refused to lower Jackson’s $3 million bail, saying the singer’s wealth justified setting his bail at an amount higher than normal.

Santa Barbara County Judge Rodney S. Melville said that although Jackson’s bail was more than the normal amount for defendants facing similar charges, it should remain high to ensure that Jackson appears at future court dates.

“While there has to date been no significant issue with regard to the defendant’s appearance at scheduled court events, it continues to appear to the court that a cognizable financial incentive to do so should be in place,” Melville wrote.

Jackson’s bail was set when he was arrested in November, but his attorneys did not fight the amount.

Jackson’s new attorney, Thomas Mesereau Jr., requested that Jackson’s bail be reduced to no more than $435,000 after he took over the case in April.

Mesereau said at a May 28 hearing that the judge should lower Jackson’s bail because of his charitable contributions, lack of criminal record, and ties to Santa Barbara County, where the case was filed. He said there were no legal grounds for setting Jackson’s bail above the normal amount just because of the singer’s wealth.

But prosecutors said Jackson was likely to flee the country if his bail was reduced.

Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen said $3 million was “roughly comparable to what he (Jackson) would spend in a weekend in Las Vegas,” and noted that the pop star is a self-declared billionaire.

That is just one example. I will give you more, but you get the idea. Now let’s examine the Court TV version of the 1994 Confidential Settlement Agreement entered into by Michael Jackson and the Chandlers. This is 22 pages and I will not be opening the file but will add it for you to open. This is exactly how it appeared on the Court TV website on 6/14/2004.


You will notice on the bottom of page 4 of the Confidential Settlement is the number 3. Followed by an Editor’s note that reads: [Editor’s note: The terms of the settlement payment was (were?) not disclosed. Please note this section and the next eight redacted pages pertaining to the Settlement payment were subsequently omitted for the reader’s convenience.]

You will also find it impossible to find that pesky old paragraph 3 when it is referenced throughout the rest of the document. It sure does make it hard to read so I am not sure that was done for my convenience. Let’s read another article about the leaked settlement document, after all, by now the only thing that is confidential about it is paragraph 3.

Let’s see what Diane Dimond can make of it in a chat shall we? I should also tell you that I have added a commentary which is in Red font. I will admit too that at times it is snide and sarcastic but then I have never said I wasn’t.

Pay Off

Court TV’s Diane Dimond discusses Michael Jackson’s 1993 settlement of child molestation accusations
June 16, 2004

Court TV Host: Michael Jackson agreed to pay more than $20 million in 1993 to settle his first molestation suit, according to documents uncovered by Court TV. See Diane Diamond’s exclusive report from Tuesday’s Catherine Crier Live, watch her second in a series of three special reports on today’s program, 5pm ET/PT, and chat live with Diane Dimond about Michael Jackson live online. Court TV Host: Thank you Diane, for being our guest today. Diane Dimond: You bet! Court TV Host: Anything you’d like to say before we begin? Diane Dimond: Right off the top let me say that if you’ve been following my reports, sources tell me that Michael Jackson agreed to pay at least $25 million, not just the $20 million our website says. It had to be more than that too, because I’m not including what Jackson had to pay his defense team.( Yes it grows from minute to minute when Diane does the math) Question from chromophil: Where does the info come from that Larry Feldman got $5 million and the parents each $1.5 million in 1994? This is NOT in the redacted copy of the settlement agreement. Diane Dimond: That’s correct. That information comes from confidential sources of mine, and, coincidentally, has been confirmed by confidential sources of Maureen Orth’s of Vanity Fair magazine. You can see her explain it tonight on Catherine Crier Live at 5pm ET/PT. ( And we all know what paragons of truth yours and Maureen Orth’s sources are, what are you guys related to the Chandler’s or something or did you cut some kind of deal with them. If I use my bank role at Hard Copy I will be able to buy more victims for you. One smart person asks one smart question)

Question from jenni: Diane, do you know if the insurance paid the whole amount of the settlement?

Diane Dimond: No, there’s no way to tell. But I’m told that maybe more than one insurance company was involved.( Well Diane why don’t you read paragraph 3 again to see if you missed something or better yet read it aloud to the rest of the class)

Question from kali: Don’t you agree that the 20 million dollar settlement makes Michael Jackson look very guilty? How do you think this will affect his case?

Diane Dimond: Well, I must say I never heard of anyone else paying out $25 million on just an ALLEGATION of negligence. I don’t know that it will affect the current criminal case, because for 10 years we’ve heard about this settlement. So, I was just able to tell you the exact amount, but I don’t think it will change any juror’s minds. ( Well we can only hope I am tainting the jury pool.NO one else had you on the case Diane how would you know if it had never been done.)

Question from pearl: Diane, were you surprised what constituted “negligence” in that settlement document?

Diane Dimond: In that settlement, there was no definition of negligence, [(Diane crosses her fingers) That could not possibly be true all legal documents define everything. It is just in paragraph 3 and I don’t want anyone to know what was in that one] just that Jackson agreed to the allegation of negligence from the civil suit. If you’ll look at the civil suit posted on our website, and that is case # SC026226, and look at page 15, paragraphs 44-45, that’s the allegation Michael Jackson agreed to pay for. As you can see, it mentions that “Jackson negligently had offensive contacts with plaintiff which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise.” My reaction to this is: I can’t figure out how someone can be negligently “explicitly sexual” with a child and still deny sexual molestation occurred.( She references the original suit shall we see if she is right?) https://acrobat.com/#d=g6*8-fw2Vr97wN5b4Hi*Bw

(Yes. this lawsuit does say that. However the definition of negligence in the Confidential Settlement is most likely in paragraph 3 and she will not show it to us. One might ask her why? Does it have some information in it that may implicate that there was no contact because the only evidence is Jordan’s version of the story without supporting evidence like a matching description?)

Question from psychocat: Wow, thanks for being here, Diane! How long did it take you to get the document on Jackson?

Diane Dimond: 11 years. (That would appear to some as stalking, it would depend on the individuals definition of stalking maybe. Either that or she has the whole Journalist thing going so she can stalk someone and the California Shield Law protects her.)

Court TV Host: Does publication of this document now affect any terms of the settlement?

Diane Dimond: It’s my understanding that all of the money that was going to change hands has changed hands. It’s also my understanding that all the parties are still bound by the confidentiality agreement. It doesn’t matter that I’ve made this public now. They still are not supposed to talk about it. However, keep in mind that a subpoena to testify in a criminal case trumps a confidential civil settlement. If he’s subpoenaed, the boy, now a young man, will have to testify. (Did they do this to force Jordan to testify? What date did the FBI and Ron Zonen meet with him in New York?)


(Oh yes it was September 28th 2004 at a hotel in New York and to my surprise they sent both Ron Zonen and Gordon Auchincloss to New York more taxpayers money spent. HMMMMMMMMMM.)

Question from pearl: Diane, what surprised you the most in that settlement document?

Diane Dimond: I guess the fact that the family agreed to drop six of their seven complaints. They agreed to drop sexual battery, batter, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress… and they allowed Jackson only to pay only on the negligence… Also, I was staggered by the amount of money involved. To actually see it on the paper was stunning. Remember, the $15 million trust fund is an annuity, and sources tell me it is all tax-free money the boy will get for the rest of his life. He takes money from the interest earned, but the principal keeps growing and growing, so he stands to earn millions of dollars more. (It would seem that to Diane it was the gift that kept on giving. I think she may be confused on that what is the actual earning potential of that annuity? We need a tax attorney but then there was the provision in the Confidential Settlement that allowed them to show it to the necessary tax people, why would they add that if it was not taxable? Let’s ask H&R Block.)

Annuity Tax

Question from Angel: Did the insurance company do an investigation of their own before they agreed to pay?

Diane Dimond: I have no way of knowing that, and I don’t know which insurance company was involved. I wish I did. (Read paragraph 3 Diane.)

Question from jenni: Diane, how damaging to Michael Jackson do you think this being revealed is?

Diane Dimond: I’ve been surprised at the response to this, because again, everyone has heard for ten years about this settlement. I’m not sure that this will change anybody’s mind. (It was more that she ever could have hoped for wasn’t it Diane.)

Question from donna: Do you think the minor from the 93 “case” will be called to testify?

Diane Dimond: That’s the $64,000 question. If he does take the stand, this new document could be used to both strengthen his case and to weaken it. The state could say, look at how much money Michael Jackson paid him.( And what could the defense say “look all these years later these other kids are still denying it and the photos were never a match no evidence of sexual molestation to anyone”. But wait didn’t Uncle Ray tell you that when he gave you this?)

Question from JpDuke: Diane, was anything done that was illegal in getting this info?

Diane Dimond: The answer is absolutely not. And I understand the Jackson camp is now alleging that I paid “big bucks” for this document. Nothing could be further from the truth. (It is not illegal to purchase a legal document from a member of the family is it? Uncle Ray had to get the money to publish his book somewhere didn’t he?)

Question from jackiefly: If the now-adult accuser is subpoenaed in the current case, can he be questioned about the confidential settlement in addition to his interaction with MJ?

Diane Dimond: It’s my understanding he can. Again, a subpoena in a CRIMINAL case overrides any other type of agreement anyone might have made. (Evan, Jordan, Ray are you listening?)

Question from Incognito: Did you say that an insurance company paid the money? What kind of insurance would that be?

Diane Dimond: Note that Jackson agreed to pay on the allegation of negligence. Check out your homeowner’s policy. If you negligently leave out a banana peel that someone trips and falls over, your insurance company will pay out for your negligence. They will not, however, pay out if you committed a crime. That’s probably why he agreed only to the negligence claim. So his insurance company would have to kick in.( Yes, they settled on the claim of negligence because that is what insurance companies do. As for them doing their own investigation I would imagine they relied more on Michael’s photos and the tapes by Anthony Pellicano. I have always maintained and always will that this man had more than he showed us.)

Question from ty:
Are you biased towards M.J because of your own personal experience?

Diane Dimond: A lot of people ask me that question. No. I’ve never been molested. (No my bias and my eagerness to lead the public on a wild goose chase is based on greed and maintaining my status as a Michael Jackson expert. If I don’t make him look guilty who is because there isn’t really any evidence. Now, stop asking these silly questions I don’t want you to know the answers to.)

Court TV Host: Any closing thoughts?

Diane Dimond: I have to go get ready to do the Catherine Crier show. I hope you’ll all watch tonight and tomorrow for the end of my three part series… I’m on in twenty minutes! (How exciting! I’m sooooooo Important!)

And I will add the icing to the cake. This is the article from The Smoking Gun website regarding the Leaked Document. I may add more of my snide and sarcastic remarks that do have a tendency to appear as though I am attacking Diane Dimond who is a respected journalist as we all know.

Michael Jackson’s $15 Million Payoff

Agreed to pay $15 million to settle boy’s 1993 sex abuse claim

JUNE 16–Michael Jackson agreed to pay $15.3 million to settle child molestation charges leveled against him in 1993 by a California boy, according to a confidential legal agreement. A heavily redacted version of the 31-page document, a copy of which you’ll find below, was obtained by Court TV’s Diane Dimond.( See She is the one that did this they admit it.)

The January 1994 agreement contains a one-line reference to Jackson delivering “confessions of judgment” totaling $15,331,250 to the boy’s attorneys. However, since the entire eight-page section of the agreement titled “Settlement Payment” is not included in the document, it is unclear how the eight-figure payout was distributed to the boy or what his parents were paid. However, a reference to the establishment of a “qualified funding asset” would indicate that an annuity (likely tax free) was a central part of the settlement.( Well at least this person isn’t adding $ 10 million to it like she did.)

As with most confidential deals, Jackson admitted no wrongdoing, noting that the cash was to settle claims for “damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence” and not for “claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation.” The agreement also states that Jackson elected to settle “in view of the impact the action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and potential income.” (This is actually an important note here. It basically says that they had cost him enough already and he was through with them. I Could not agree with him more.)

The settlement was signed four months after the boy and his parents filed a civil suit against the King of Pop and just weeks after the teenager signed a sworn declaration luridly detailing Jackson’s alleged abuse.

The unredacted portions of the agreement do not address payment of the accuser’s legal fees, though a September 1993 retainer agreement between the family and attorney Larry Feldman called for the family to pay their counsel’s fee. According to the retainer, Feldman stood to earn $3 million on a $15 million settlement. Any recovery above that figure earned Feldman’s firm an additional ten percent. ( I have tried many, many times to open the link to that retainer document but it says time after time that I am not authorized. What is a retainer. This is where Evan promised to pay Larry Feldman no matter what the outcome was of the lawsuit. Since Evan probably didn’t have $3 million the only way Larry was going to get paid was to settle this case or win it in court. I will add more to this following this article.)

A redacted version of the settlement agreement was prepared in connection with a May 1996 lawsuit brought against Jackson by the child’s father, who claimed that the singer breached terms of the 1994 legal agreement during a June 1995 interview on ABC’s “Primetime Live.” During that chat with Diane Sawyer, Jackson and then-wife Lisa Marie Presley accused the boy of fabricating his tales of sexual abuse. Those televised statements, the father argued, violated a provision of the 1994 agreement guaranteeing that Jackson would not publicly accuse the boy or his parents of “any wrongful conduct whatsoever.” As part of the 1996 lawsuit, a California judge ordered that counsel for Presley–who married Jackson in May 1994 and divorced him in January 1996–be provided with the heavily redacted version of the 31-page settlement document. (Why would he, Lisa Marie’s Lawyer, only get this heavily Redacted version wasn’t he defending his client on the basis of the entire document? It doesn’t make sense to me. It also is against the law for her attorney to leak this document and he would risk losing his license to practice as he is an officer of the court)

That one wasn’t as bad as I thought to comment on. Now about the retainer, a retainer is a document where the attorney agrees to take the case for a specified fee. It is common practice in a civil suit to sign one at the time someone hires an attorney. It is usually understood that it will be paid when in full when the lawsuit is resolved. That said it would mean that Evan and/or June would probably pay him out of their share of the lawsuit which equaled $3million dollars. When you know this it would have been in Evan, June and Jordan’s best interest to settle this case once they knew that the evidence they had lead the public to believe was so damning, the description, was not a match. However that information is in Paragraph 3 and Diane won’t let us have it.

I should tell you the documents that I refer to are in the Adobe links. I published them to my account with Adobe and they can be acessed when you click on them to reveal the original documents.I am also working on adding many of the articles I use for reference to Adobe so I preserve them for us as references when we need them.I do not use less than 2 source articles and I do not use tabloid articles for my research. Once upon a time Court TV was a reputable source before the likes of Diane Dimond and her crew got involved, then they caused an avalanch of ignorance with spin on every topic.

I haven’t decided yet who my next article will be on I think it will probably be Larry Feldman and then Tom Sneddon so watch out you two. I can build quite a story out of newspaper articles just like Uncle Ray can.

Thank you Helena for your generosity sharing your investigation!