As I´ve taken it upon myself to disprove
what haters say about Michael Jackson and therefore have to
read some of their threads, I want to warn Michael´s supporters
that associating with haters can be very damaging for your mental
health not so much because of the danger of believing
these people or need to disprove a pile of their misconceptions
(though it will take half of your life to do that) but
because of a possibility of dirtying your minds by following
the way of thinking these people have. After attending haters´
places I always leave there feeling dirty all over, sick at
heart and wondering how on earth they can be living all their
lives in the world so full of hatred, mockery and cynicism.
Not all Michael´s followers are of course angels who are
completely pure and sinless in everything they do, but the majority
of them produce the impression of people whose mind is cleaner,
conversation gentler, opinions less judgemental, language more
decent and statements deeper in thought than those of Michael
Jackson´s haters and all this evidently under the
influence of the man they like and defend.
Why am I saying this? Because I´ve recently read a long
discussion between Michael´s haters and an intelligent
and thoughtful person on Michael´s side who worked for
20 years as an assistant to insurance defense attorneys and
who tried to explain why the name of the insurance company was
not mentioned in the settlement agreement between Jackson and
the Chandlers. The person was calm, civil, patient and took
great pains to explain how this insurance system worked
but all was in vain
As is always the case with Michael´s haters they seemed
to derive enormous pleasure from making fun of all those arguments
and narrowing the discussion to just calling Michael and his
supporter names. They were thriving on their hatred and
cultivating it as if it were something precious never to part
with. Their desire to disbelieve any possible good about Michael
Jackson was so overpowering that it looked more like a clinical
diagnosis than anything else. They did not WANT him to be innocent
and that´s that as if his innocence could be a
kind of an insult or the worst of the scenarios to them
Looking at these fanatics who´d rather set themselves
on fire than believe that Michael can turn out better than they
ever thought him to be, I caught myself thinking that I am
PROUD to be among those who are on Michael´s side.
What a relief it is to find oneself amongst the people with
so much difference in the QUALITY of what they think and do.
And what a curse it must be to have to associate with those
who have confined themselves to all this mockery, cynicism and
constant dirt on their minds
What is wrong with these people? Why are they doing this to
themselves? Are they unable to believe Michael´s pure
intentions, thoughts and behavior as they are probably having
a problem with these issues themselves same as a blind
person is incapable to imagine what light is? Is it the problem
of the like being attracted by the like and the physical law
of resonance being powerfully at work here?
You are surely interested in that legal person´s professional
opinion on why Michael Jackson´s insurance company was
not mentioned in his settlement agreement with the Chandlers.
Here it is:
Settlement agreements don´t mention insurance
companies because insurance company isn´t a party to the
agreement. That´s the way it works, and I know this because
I worked for many years for lawyers who defended doctors and
hospitals in malpractice claims and have seen hundreds of settlement
agreements. The physician (or hospital) signed the settlement
agreement and then turned the matter over to their insurance
company for payment. Saw many a physician objecting to settlement
too, but the insurance company said: If this goes to trial
and you lose, WE may have to pay a lot more, so we want you
to settle now.
Jackson could not be 100% assured that a jury would find in
his favor, as they did in 2005, so to avoid a long drawn out
and tawdry legal action, he was persuaded by counsel to let
his insurance company pay the claim and everybody go home.
In the case of Jackson, a global personality who may have all
kinds of crazies making claims about things he never did, he´s
got to have insurance to cover him for claims just like the
one made by Jordan Chandler´s insane father.
Some participants in this discussion are in effect saying: If
you want to win the lottery, just find a celebrity, make an
outrageous claim and let the threat of bad publicity force the
celebrity to pay you off not to squeal. Unfortunately,
this is exactly what happens in the United States, and many
celebrities become the victim of shakedown artists.
Tort reform would take care of this, but the lawyers´
lobby doesn´t want tort reform. Tort reform would require
the plaintiff to pay the defendant damages if the plaintiff
loses. The way it works now is attorneys work on contingency
so the plaintiff has nothing to lose by bringing a bogus cause
And this is the story of a woman who found herself in the
midst of such an insurance settlement:
Lynande: You are right about the insurance companies.
When a case is settled it is always settled by the 2 parties
involved. One is the plaintiff and the other is the defendant.
I have a little knowledge about this because of a claim I had
to file with my home owners insurance. A woman wandered into
my yard when she was drunk and fell off my steps and broke her
arm. I did not know this person and she was actually going to
the house next door. I did not have a railing on my steps and
so she fell off and broke her arm. It took a couple of weeks
but she finally decided to sue me a total stranger for her broken
arm. When the case was settled it was filed as settled in court
documents as being settled by the defendant (me) because I was
the one she sued, not my insurance company. I turned the claim
over to my insurance company and they paid her. All of this
was done without me spending one day in court or even seeing
the other person. I did not hire lawyers and the only part I
had in it was to go to the office of my insurance company and
sign the settlement. I had to settle for negligence too and
yes it is true they did not ask me my opinion or if it was what
I wanted. And as a matter of reference she got $250,000 for
falling of my steps and breaking her arm. That seemed like an
outrageous amount to me.
Thank you Helena for your generosity
sharing your investigation!