Michael Jackson's determination to turn over a new leaf and fight claims against him by former associate F. Marc Schaffel — rather than taking the more expedient and likely economical route of settling out of court — could end up further damaging his already battered reputation as more "ew" moments ooze out in court.
Jackson — who is avoiding California as if it were filled with horny women — isn't appearing at the Schaffel trial in Santa Monica Superior Court in the 3-D flesh, but instead on a 4' square video screen in depositions taped in London on Sept. 23, 2005, and May 22, 2006.
Schaffel claimed the now-throneless King of Pop owes him $3.8 million for work over three years including the never released 2002 charity single "What More Can I Give?" and two Fox television documentaries produced to bolster Jackson's reputation in 2003, in addition to expenses and loans that were not repaid. However, yesterday, Schaffel's lawyer, Howard King, said disputes over receipts, statutes of limitations and work agreements led him to cut the claim down to $1.6 million.
In Jackson's taped testimony viewed in court yesterday, he said he was "shocked" to learn Schaffel had been a gay porn director and producer prior to their business partnership. "I was shown a videotape by the lawyer and I was shocked by what I saw. ... [Schaffel] was directing two guys. They were naked from head to toe ... and he was telling one what to do with the other and he grabbed their penis or something," said Jackson, indicating that he then ordered advisors to sever all ties with the digit-handler.
Jackson also said that he didn't think the mothers of the world would approve of his associating with someone who moved "in that circle." By claiming he had no knowledge of Schaffel's naked guy porno past, Jackson opens the door to testimony from him refuting the claim. In earlier court papers, attorney King said that if Jackson made this claim, Schaffel would reveal "their intimate discussions" and discuss "Jackson's sexual proclivities."
Also on tape, the singer said he couldn't recall signing multimillion-dollar promissory notes or borrowing large sums of cash from financial advisors he barely remembered knowing.
On the witness stand, Schaffel said he failed to get receipts for cash payments he made from his own overseas accounts on Jackson's behalf, most startlingly $300,000 he said he delivered to a "Mr. X" in Argentina immediately after Jackson was charged with molestation in November of '03. He said it was "a very private transaction of a very sensitive nature for Mr. Jackson," and that he didn't record it in his business ledger because "it was during the criminal matter" - meaning Jackson's molestation trial, which ended in acquittal on all counts last summer. "I never imagined he would not pay it back to me," Schaffel added.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - veeno1
Its such a pity that you take Roger Friedman's tabloid speculations as though they were facts in any way even in suggestive ways.
Mr. King himself the lawyer to the plaintiff has admitted that he could have litigated differently had he known his claim would be cut in have 3.8M to 1.6M now.
We also know from AP articles that Mundell Mr. Jackson's lawyer and Mr. King have both admitted to having negotiations about a settlement but they couldn't agree. Even the judge told the jury as much. What Schaffel was asking for was a high amount to settle yet he has no evidence or receipts to the loans and monies he claims to have given/loaned Mr. Jackson.
You elude to some kind of embarrassing details being released by Schaffel because of this case. What you seem not to have thought about was that if Marc Schaffel had anything that damaging he would have released it now or threatened even further to release it if he's not paid. So far that has not happened. If Mr. Jackson's lawyers thought there was something THAT DAMAGING that Schaffel had I'm sure they also would have recommended settling the case instead. By Mr. Jackson and his lawyers moving forward with the case in court shows that they fear nothing and that's a good indication for any other greedy person who wants to sue him for anything to know Mr. Jackson isn't an ATM anymore and threats wont work.
Roger Friedman's source is Marc Schaffel and Stuart Backer man (MJ's former PR) both are pissed that MJ cut them from the money tree so they are trying to push such speculations in the media. Mr. Friedman yesterday happily said that amount "could have been a payout to a family" but later in court it was learnt that the money was taken from EU to Brazil by Schaffel to buy a condo for himself he then later moved that money to Argentina as a payout for Michael for a personal matter yet he has no single documentation for any of those transactions.
Go back and read the AP articles you'll find out that Schaffel's claims can not be proved in court, he's going to get nothing and now he's planting rumors with Roger Friedman as revenge.
Marc Schaffel and his lawyer had said they had damaging VM's of MJ's phone calls to Schaffel, they edited some of them negatively and played them on GMA but during the trial they have played the full tapes and what had come out is a clear, alert business man on the phone following up on his business while still remaining compassionate and pushing to get his charity music done and released. The deposition tapes and the VM's have shown Mr. Jackson in a very good light a complete opposite to what King, Schaffel and Roger Friedmans articles had been proclaiming before the trial began.
At least check your facts before you write an article but then again you and the tabloids are no different I suspect.
2 - Virginia Dare
As if we needed more evidence that money seems to destroy people, whether it makes them do crazy things, or makes them believe they can do all manner of questionable things as long as they have enough money to cover it up, etc. The whole thing is a disgusting display.
3 - friend
Quite frankly the eww moment was reading this um... article. Apparently the writer has learned the fine art of twisting the facts. The only damaging information that has come out of this trial so far has been against the plaintiff, not Mr. Jackson. Calling Friedman a Jacksonologist is laughable. Apparently the writer is a disciple of the likes of him, Diana Dimond, et al, who have developed the skill of overlooking the facts in light of trying to throw poisonous arrows at someone who has not been proven to have done any wrong, in this trial or any other. A Quick review of the facts. The plaintiff in this case has been trying to get a settlement (I see the writer picked up on that) almost from the day he filed his suit. Mr. Jackson is not settling because the plaintiff has yet to provide documentation substianting his claims. In the courtroom, the $300K that is being bandied about as pay off money, to this point can be proven as nothing more than a withdrawal of cash from a bank in S. America that only the plaintiff ever drew funds from. His documentation to substiantiate that Mr. Jackson owes him anything? His withdrawal slip. All of the nuances to payoff are the creations of Mr. Friedman. There has been no other source for this theory. The plaintiff made a contract with himself. The company Neverland Valley Enterprises, was a dba name for a solely owned company of the plaintiff that was opened under his own name. He adopted NVE to give the implication that he was an agent of Mr. Jackson's, and even after their association ended, he continued to parade himself as such, make deals, and sell rights to music that he didn't own. He pocketed the money (and oh by the way everything in my response is documented by Mr. Jackson's forensic accountants, not dreamed up by a gossip columnist, you can obtain copies for yourself if you like, the evidence of such is documented in the court documents and will be presented by the defense -- keep watching - you may find the actual facts more interesting even than a gossip columnist's fantasies) and used it as a partial payment for an expensive home in southern California. I could give you more, but I think you might be getting the point by now. I do agree with you this case will be extremely costly, but not to Mr. Jackson -- it will be excruciating for the plaintiff, as Mr. Jackson's lawyers have stated, he could have walked away with a big chunk of Mr. Jackson's money, but instead, he is going to be the one who owes Mr. Jackson at the end of this trial after the forensic accountant's work has been fully presented to the court. And the only criminal activities that will be brought out of the dark and into the light are those of Mr. Schaffel's as he has to turn over bank records that he has been hiding from the court's scrutiny.
4 - Irene
veeno1, friend , thanks for your comments , I found them very useful .
To Eric Olsen - you say that personal attacks are not allowed . In this case will you please stop picking on Michael's face . He is looking fine , there's nothing wrong with his face and that pics with your irrelevant comments ' separated at birth' are simply stupid .
5 - John
Lol, this Eric Olsen will never give up will he? No matter how many opinion pieces you obtain your information from, people DO still like Michael Jackson and his music. It's a shame for someone like you who evidently despises him, but for the rest of us it's a funny sight watching you immerse yourself in hate. The media's obession to usurp Michael Jackson with fake artists such as Justin Timberlake simply will not work.
6 - Alfredo C. Hidalgo
The man is sick. What else is there to say?
7 - Victory2004
Whatever alfredo
8 - RHJ
Seems if Michael isn't worried about these "ew" moments that could come out in court, he's ready for them to come out and deal with them. That tells me he's not really concerned because there isn't anything (more of Marc's bluffing) or he's decided not to be a victim of extortion and empty blackmail threats anymore. The one thing an extortionists doesn't count on is NOT having the upper hand or control of things. IF there are any "ew" moments, Michael is going to be the one to decide WHEN they come out, not Marc. If that place be a courtroom, so be it. Marc will be out of ammo and he can fade into the background or better yet, flee the country when all his illegal proclivities are exposed. Let's see if he's as ready for his biz to come out as Michael is. Btw... do you teach your 4 children to go around making fun of how someone looks? I imagine they will grow up to be as shallow and narrow minded as their lovely father. As a society we truly need more of your kind. <---joke.
9 - Eric Olsen
how I have missed the Mike Squad! Guys, all I did was report what's been going on in court and what people have been saying. I didn't come to any conclusions in particular on my own, expressed no opinion other than to observe the circumstances: no hate, just looking around and reporting what I see.
And some of you seem to think I am somehow defending this Schaffel clown or his position. Um, no. How could Michael Jackson get hooked up with such a turd?
And yes, I made a small visual joke about good old MJ. No, Irene, he is not looking fine.
Oh, and if the reader doesn't see the intended irony of a term like "Jacksonologist," the reader should perhaps get out of the house a bit more.
Carry on, zealots!
10 - Dy
you, not injecting your personal opinions in this article? what an understatement.
i think you need to get a refresher's course on journalism. this is a poor attempt on an unbiased journalistic report. you're losing it man. TOTALLY losing it. our campus journalist does a hell of a better job than you do and you know what's scary? I'm being kind.
11 - John
Eric Olsen, why do you think people that believe Michael Jackson is not guilty and also like his music are 'zealots'? Does that not pedal the 'Mike squad' assumption that you are biased against anything Michael Jackson related?
From my position I can see that you are writing these 'non opinion' pieces in order to incite arguments and visitors to your website. It's ironic and highly contradictory to your own position and beliefs about Michael Jackson. Anyone who reads your pieces can see that you are extremely biased towards anything that ridcules Jackson. Have you reported any of the recent news about Jackson and his new potential album, tour, management etc? Have you reported ANYTHING with a positive light without snidey remarks?
Again, don't take people who like Michael Jackson's music for mugs. Michael Jackson has many fans around the world and for you to label them all 'zealots' and part of the 'Mike squad' is truly condescending to millions around the world.
12 - friend
Glad to see I hit a nerve by poking fun at your description of Jacksonologist - and oh no - take credit where it is due -- quite sure your Master would agree with you, however, regardless of where my person is, I laugh at him, and those who take his word as gospel. By the way, you haven't been reporting what's been going on in court, you've ben "reporting" on what your Master Friedman has been saying. These are two very different things. As to your not coming up with your own conclusions? Let me refresh your memory, "It's an exquisite dilemma for Jackson." Your conclusion is that it's an "exquisite dilemma for [Mr.] Jackson" and "in this particular case seems extremely costly in light of the damaging information coming out..."
To address your conclusions specificially, Mr. Jackson has no dilemma. If he did, he wouldn't have confused your Master Friedman so much by refusing to settle. So far the plaintiff's case has been based on nothing but empty claims. He cannot back up what he claims he is owed, and therefore has resorted to innuendo, that is now being distributed by the likes of you and those whom you look up to as "facts," when clearly they are not. And in reponse to your conclusion about this being extremely costly in light of the damaging information coming out..." Again, I will direct you to the facts, rather than the innuendo. Thus far in this case, the plaintiff has been unprepared to present his claims to the court, and has so far had to reduce his claim from $3.8m to $1.6m - and this is during the time when his own attorney was presenting his side of the case. Next week when Mr. Jackson's attys present his side, you'll see that number drop. Furthermore, once Mr. Jackson's attys begin presenting the countersuit, the plaintiff's scams that he pulled, which can be documented, will turn his $3.8m claim into a large sum in which he will be owing to Mr. Jackson. The only sexy side to this case may what lies in the records that the plaintiff has refused to submit for the court's scrutiny, and of course what lies in your Master Friedman's head.
13 - Joyma
It seem to me that Eric along with people like Roger Friedman are the ones who are Mike Sqad and Zealots. Why else would these men focus more on Michael. There are THOUSANDS of other entertainer that these men DO NOT FOCUS on. I want to thank the people or fans who made the comments. You are very intelligent writers. Goes to show me that you can not believe these media people.
14 - aveeno1
Eric Olsen, nice try saying you're reporting what is going on in court. No you didn't you tried to report what other tabloids and AP reports are reporting then made it sound as though Mr. Jackson really has a dilema and there is much bad stuff that could come out about him.
Marc Schaffel can't prove his case so now he is retorting to making claims e.g the one last evening about Mr. Jackson "adopting boys in Brazil" he can't even make a good liar. 1st was I transfared cash to Brazil and the final destination was Argentina (2003) then it became I paid Mr. X in 2003 only after using MY money that I had initially transfered to Brazil to buy a condo. Then when he was being questioned about his ties to Brazil via the gay porn industry he feels cornered then he decided to say his initial trip to Brazil in 2001 was because Mr. Jackson wanted to adopt boys (thats in 2001 with nothing to do with the 300K that is being contested that happened in 2003) Mr. Schaffel actually shocked his own laywer by saying this that his lawyer tried to back peddle on that claim.....
See where I'm going with this. Roger Friedbrain the Jacksonologist as you claim him to be had said before the trial started that Schaffel had all the receipts, paper work and that all the others who worked with him were going to pay their way to come and be witnesses for him. That has not happened, in fact there have been only 2 people to testify on Schaffels side. Witman and Al Manik both said nothing negative about MJ and didn't do much to help Schaffels case. Al Manik testified he had used his money on MJ but he had been paid back all of it - a fact Roger Friedbrain had claimed before (in several articles) that Al Manik was still owed millions.
Schaffel directly and through Roger Friedbrain and Michelle Carusso made bold claims and threats before the case began, then when the actual case comes forward it gets cut in half then falters. His own laywer admited yesterday that they are no longer claiming Schaffel lent money to Mr. Jackson but that his only owed money that he had spent on MJ's business and even then they still can't prove that part. In just a week the plaintiff's side has rested and next week the defendants side begins... we can confidently say now that Mr. Schaffels is going to get very little or nothing at the end of this case and in fact he may end up owing Mr. Jackson a load of money... wouldn' that be sweet?
anyways I'll stop now because you clearly don't care about the truth...or the facts. Start seeking the truth it will set you free and you'll be pleasantly surprised at what you find.
If seeking the truth makes us 'zealots' then we accept that whole heartedly....we've done you a favor by visiting your blog this week, we probably won't be bothering anymore after this...
15 - Eric Olsen
I didn't say I was "reporting what's going on in court" - I said I was reporting what's going on, which includes what the press is saying.
I guess you missed the last story, which was exactly about the management changes, statements about getting serious about music again, moving to Europe and the like.
Yes, I do think Jackson has a dilemma, which I explained in the article.
What hasn't changed with the Mike Squad is if it isn't worshipful of MJ, it must be dismissed out of hand.
And I don't give a crap either way about Roger Friedman. Sometimes his "inside information" has been right, sometimes wrong. I have no way of knowing the veracity of his current claims.
Read what I actually write, please, not what you think I have written - it makes it much easier to discuss.
Lastly, still waiting on that Hurricane Katrina single - is it still right around the corner?
16 - Anne
1. I cannot imagine that there is somebody left in the music biz to do seriuos business with Jackson after hearing parts of that deposition and read some stuff about finances being criss-crossed over the Atlantic and finally disappearing..it is hair-raising. At the top of it all...there are no reciepts and bills to alleged multi-million deals;-)
2. How can Jackson counter suit if he claims not to remember a single deal? And has no records to show it otherwise as he says.
3. As to Jackson's alleged record deal and projects..nothing of that has been realized yet which seems to be a way of life with Jackson for a few years now as everybody could hear for themselves on those tapes and records Schaffel kept which can be a good substitute for missing receipts and bills, ever thought about that?
4. A zealot is somebody who blindly believes something others tell him to believe instead of following his own knowledge and instincts. Believing something is not knowing something. Admitted, it is very difficult to know something for sure in Jackson's world because Jackson simply hates the thought of people knowing about such things about having royalties in supposed charity singles and collaborating with loan sharks like Al Malnik! It is curiuos indeed that if you want to have some facts (no Jackson camp pr) you have to go and read court transcripts for it! Or else make educated guesses.....
17 - Eric Olsen
thanks for some common sense Anne - it's nice to feel the ship righting itself a bit
18 - friend
Yes, I missed your last "story" as this is the first blog of yours I've read, and after seeing how poorly written it is, I've no interest in reading others. So you now say you think that Mr. Jackson has a dilemma, so that would be a "conclusion" would it not? Though you purport not to "give a crap" about Mr. Friedman, you're story is based off his information, which by the way, he's changed "his story" now about what the $300K was used for, so you may want to check his latest article. See that is what happens when one chooses to redistribute information from non-reliable stories in the first place rather than going off facts, you look foolish. And as to sometimes his information is right and sometimes it isn't, sometimes my fortune cookies are right too, but I don't write articles based on the information I find in them. Actually, you should read what you write, if you check your response, which is #9 in this blog, and i'm pasting from you directly, "all I did was report what's been going on in court' -- so maybe you need to read yourself. As for the Katrina single, since I'm not one of his representatives, I cannot comment on that, but since what is being discussed in this blog is your article, and not his music, maybe you can stick to that. Let's keep our eye on the ball, shall we?
19 - Eric Olsen
"friend" person, about 10% of this article is based upon Friedman, and I just read his latest column and there isn't a word about what the $300K was used for - are you hallucinating?
What #9 says is "going on in court and what people have been saying" - obviously, most of this story is about what's been going on in court, but also about what is being said in the press.
I have been covering Jackson semi-regularly for the past few years - read it or not - it's up to you. I realize there aren't enough Jackson zealots in the media to keep fans happy - you'll have to make do.
20 - friend
Anne, sorry, you know I can't leave your comments alone -- so here we go bit by bit
1. I cannot imagine that there is somebody left in the music biz to do seriuos business with Jackson after hearing parts of that deposition and read some stuff about finances being criss-crossed over the Atlantic and finally disappearing..it is hair-raising. At the top of it all...there are no reciepts and bills to alleged multi-million deals;-)
A: Let's start first with those who are on the record wanting to work with Michael Jackson. This will not be a comprehensive list, mind you
1.Chris Brown - who just won several awards from BET
2.J.C. Chasez of N'sync
3. Wyclef Jean
4. Christian Ingebritsen of A1
5. Mariah Carey
6. Santana
that should be sufficient to cover that point. When you referenced that there were no receipts you confused me. I thought you were about to change mid-stream and defend Michael Jackson. You see, that is the point of his defense. The plaintiff in this case is the one who criss-crossed the Atlantic and did shady deals with money. The plantiff in this case is the one who is making claims that Michael Jackson should be reimbursing him for amounts that he can not substiante through receipts. In fact, what has been proven in the court this week is that amounts that the plaintiff withdrew, he then deposited into other bank accounts he owned, therefore Michael Jackson does not owe the plaintiff anything for withdrawing money that was not the plaintiff's in the first place and then depositing into another account. This transaction is representative of the rest of the plaintiff's case thus far in the courtroom as well. Copies of the transcripts are available, if you would like to read them and understand actually what is taking place in this case.
2. How can Jackson counter suit if he claims not to remember a single deal? And has no records to show it otherwise as he says.
A: On the point of the countersuit. I'll break this down for you. In the court documents, it is undisputed by the plaintiff that he did not personally pay the $2.8m for the production of the charity single What More Can I Give. This was funded by Michael Jackson, and is due back to him. Michael does not need to recall these details, as the forensic accountants are able to document the total of $4.4 million that Mr. Jackson gave to the plaintiff to be used for his projects by the plaintiff, but was not, and the plaintiff is refusing to provide the bank records to the court that explaines where the $4.4m went. Furthermore, it is undisputed by the plaintiff that the single was never reseleased and that he secretly entered into an agreement to sell rights he did not own to a group called Music Fighters, who will be witnesses for the defense next week when the defense presents its case. In exchange for the rights he sold the plaintiff received several hundred thousand dollars that he used to purchase an expensive home for himself in southern California. He did not own those rights, and he scammed Music Fighters. Were Michael Jackson to agree to let Music Fighters retain the rights they thought they bought, the money that the plaintiff pocketed would be due to Michael Jackson. Further the plaintiff stole artwork from Mr. Jackson valued at $250K. Once the bank records that the plaintiff has been resisting turning over have been submitted, then the final amount of what the plaintiff actually owes Mr. Jackson can be determined. I think I've made my point on this sufficiently.
3. As to Jackson's alleged record deal and projects..nothing of that has been realized yet which seems to be a way of life with Jackson for a few years now as everybody could hear for themselves on those tapes and records Schaffel kept which can be a good substitute for missing receipts and bills, ever thought about that?
A: There is no way that the tapes of Michael Jackson telling the plaintiff to do his job while he was in his employ can substitute for the millions he is claiming is owed to him. All those tapes prove is that one, the plaintiff had ulterior motives from the beginning otherwise why keep recordings of your boss telling you to do your job, and secondly it proves that Michael Jackson had to stay on top of him like some type of boss to a minimum wage earner to do what he's supposed to do. And as for projects not coming to fruition under the direction of the plaintiff further proves how incompetent he was and ill-fitted for the position that he was placed in.
4. A zealot is somebody who blindly believes something others tell him to believe instead of following his own knowledge and instincts. Believing something is not knowing something. Admitted, it is very difficult to know something for sure in Jackson's world because Jackson simply hates the thought of people knowing about such things about having royalties in supposed charity singles and collaborating with loan sharks like Al Malnik! It is curiuos indeed that if you want to have some facts (no Jackson camp pr) you have to go and read court transcripts for it! Or else make educated guesses.....
A: in other words a zealot would be one who listens to gossip columnists and to those who re-distribute their message and ignores the facts?
21 - friend
Keep spinning it Eric.
22 - Victor Plenty
You know, friend, you could benefit from improved reading comprehension skills. Consider enrolling in a course to help you with that.
Eric Olsen writes articles on a number of different topics here, reporting on the troubles and tribulations of numerous celebrities and politicians. No rational observer could think of him as "obsessed" with Jackson.
In fact I'm sure quite sure he'd love to spend less time talking about Michael Jackson, especially less time defending himself from distortions of his articles and baseless accusations thrown at him by people who clearly think Jackson can do no wrong.
23 - friend
Victory plenty, i don't recall stating that he was "obsessed" with anything. Who needs a reading comprehension skills course? As I've no interest in other topics he writes on, that was wasted effort on your part. Furthermore, he wrote the article and posted the blog. Not me. So if he'd rather spend his time on other initiatives, I'm in no way impeding him from doing so.
24 - Victor Plenty
You did in fact distort what Eric Olson wrote in comment #9, "friend" of something or other.
You're right about one thing, though. Talking about what rational observers might think is quite a waste of time in any conversation with a person as obsessed as you are.
25 - friend
Well maybe Victor your more suited to your and Eric's discussion about your "weird" paranormal experiences than you are talking about facts of a case that you'd much rather distort, and btw, personal attacks aren't allowed here.