Proud to be on Michael´s side or why the Insurance company wasn´t mentioned in his agreement with Chandlers

  by Helena on

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 of action”…

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!