Michael Jackson's attorney angrily vowed Tuesday to "land like a ton of bricks" on anyone who besmirches his client's reputation and charged that molestation allegations against the entertainer were motivated by money.

"If anybody doesn't think based upon what's happened so far that the true motivation of these charges and these allegations is anything but money and the seeking of money, then they're living in their own Neverland," Mark Geragos said, referring to Jackson's storybook playland near Santa Barbara.


Isn't that kind of a diss of Michael Jackson by his own lawyer? He's saying that if you don't think the allegations are money-related, you're living in Neverland, implying that you're living in some crazy fantasy world, cut off from reality and don't want to accept the truth. ;)

Originally posted by vashti1999
Isn't that kind of a diss of Michael Jackson by his own lawyer? He's saying that if you don't think the allegations are money-related, you're living in Neverland, implying that you're living in some crazy fantasy world, cut off from reality and don't want to accept the truth. ;)
No. Neverland is supposed to be a fantasy place, along the lines of Disneyland. I think his lawyer was saying that if you don't think the allegations are money related, you're living in a fantasy world.

You added the rest, "crazy...cut off from reality and don't want to accept the truth". That's one quantum leap, getting that from what the lawyer actually said. He could have said, Disneyland in place of Neverland to make his point.

His lawyer isn't going to, as you say, diss, his own client. He's not stupid.

I agree with what you're saying Janice, but there are lawyers out there that are dumb enough to put their foot in their mouth. I've come across a few already, and that's only from witnessing trials for my schooling. I can't imagine what kind of idiots are out there representing their clients. Actually, I can. My cousin is in jail for his lawyer being an idiot, at the trial no less. And I don't just mean not knowing how to handle the case, I mean by contradicting what he was saying constantly. He ruined my cousin. :rolleyes:

I agree that not all lawyers are brilliant, but I'll never believe that Jackson's lawyer meant that comment the way it was stated in the first post.
....and sorry about your cousin. That's rough stuff. :(

Originally posted by Janice
I agree that not all lawyers are brilliant, but I'll never believe that Jackson's lawyer meant that comment the way it was stated in the first post.
....and sorry about your cousin. That's rough stuff. :(

Well, I can agree with that. I guess we'll see how he handles the trial. It'll be another O.J. one for sure, unless of course there's another settlement. Who knows.

Thanks about my cousin. It's actually pretty horrible. He's in jail for murder and he didn't do it. His case is what pushed me to go back to school, granted right now all I can afford is the paralegal classes, but my goal is to work for a criminal law firm and take it from there. I was already told by the DA for my town, who is helping me with my court journels for school, that I could definitely reopen the case and represent him as long as I know the laws. She also said she would help me with it. Of course it's gonna take time, I still have a year before I graduate, ugh. Did you ever want something so bad that you wanted it yesterday? That's how I feel about helping my cousin. In time, I want to go all the way and become a lawyer. Wish me luck. :) Sorry for babbling so much. I get really excited about the whole thing. :crazy:

Let me just add real quick about my cousin's so-called attorney; towards the middle of the case he was telling my uncle and cousin he wasn't sure where to go with this. That's not the worst part, in the end he told my uncle it was his first criminal trial, he was a friggin bankruptcy lawyer. Can you believe that. My uncle was told he handled criminal litigation and he never stated any different. That bastard. Sorry, didn't mean to swear.

Originally posted by Janice
No. Neverland is supposed to be a fantasy place, along the lines of Disneyland. I think his lawyer was saying that if you don't think the allegations are money related, you're living in a fantasy world.

Well, that's pretty much the same difference: crazy fantasy world or fantasy world, a fantasy world is not reality, crazy or not. You're pretty much saying the same thing I'm saying.

You added the rest, "crazy...cut off from reality and don't want to accept the truth". That's one quantum leap, getting that from what the lawyer actually said. He could have said, Disneyland in place of Neverland to make his point.

Yeah, but he didn't say Disneyland, he said Neverland. Notice, I also put the wink smilie there because I don't really think the lawyer thinks Michael can't accept the truth, but even leaving that statement in context, by suggesting that people are "living in their own Neverland" doesn't sound like a positive reference to Michael's Neverland to me. He could have used another word. Using "Neverland" in that context gives it a negative connotation. That's the point I was trying to make.

His lawyer isn't going to, as you say, diss, his own client. He's not stupid.

We'll see.

Originally posted by vashti1999
Well, that's pretty much the same difference: crazy fantasy world or fantasy world, a fantasy world is not reality, crazy or not. You're pretty much saying the same thing I'm saying.

Yeah, but he didn't say Disneyland, he said Neverland. Notice, I also put the wink smilie there because I don't really think the lawyer thinks Michael can't accept the truth, but even leaving that statement in context, by suggesting that people are "living in their own Neverland" doesn't sound like a positive reference to Michael's Neverland to me. He could have used another word. Using "Neverland" in that context gives it a negative connotation. That's the point I was trying to make.
Neverland was created as a fantasy world, so we are in agreement there. That's why I fail to see the negative connotation when Jackson's lawyer used it as a reference. He probably used it by design. By saying Neverland in a normal fashion, it indicates that Neverland isn't what the accusers are saying. If he thinks Michael is innocent, then he can say Neverland with confidence because it doesn't have a negative connotation to him.
Disneyland, Neverland--it doesn't matter what word he used. The lawyer thinks Neverland isn't a bad place, so he can say someone is "living in their own Neverland".

As for your wink smilie next to your question...how was I supposed to know that meant to throw your question in the trash bin? I took your question as legitimate.

When you wrote:
"Isn't that kind of a diss of Michael Jackson by his own lawyer? He's saying that if you don't think the allegations are money-related, you're living in Neverland, implying that you're living in some crazy fantasy world, cut off from reality and don't want to accept the truth. ;) "

You meant none of that? You could have fooled me. In fact, you did.
Perhaps for clarity, next time if you want people to take a legitimate sounding question as a joke, you could use this smilie.
:joke:

The winkie one is too vague.

Janice,
You replied to vashi1999, but you didn't reply to me. :( Wish me luck, damn it!!! :D :lol:

Originally posted by LILFACE23
Janice,
You replied to vashi1999, but you didn't reply to me. :( Wish me luck, damn it!!! :D :lol:
I was getting to you honey. I admire your dedication to your cousin and your determination to have him freed.
After you do, write a book and have it made into a movie.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20031126/D7V2ECAO0.html

The full article, not an excerpt, with the Neverland reference.


DA Apologizes for Joking About Jackson

By TIM MOLLOY

LOS ANGELES (AP) - The district attorney making child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson apologized for joking last week when authorities announced an arrest warrant had been issued for the pop icon.

Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas W. Sneddon was responding to criticism about his demeanor at the Nov. 19 news conference.

At one point, the prosecutor drew chuckles when he welcomed reporters to Santa Barbara with the line, "I hope that you all stay long and spend lots of money because we need your sales tax to support our offices."

In a CNN interview Tuesday, Sneddon said, "I think the criticism was valid, I think to some extent (the comment) was inappropriate. I feel bad about it because I should have known better."

The apology came as questions emerged about the credibility of the family of Jackson's accuser and as the singer's attorney, Mark Geragos, vowed to "land like a ton of bricks" on anyone who besmirches his reputation.

"If anybody doesn't think based upon what's happened so far that the true motivation of these charges and these allegations is anything but money and the seeking of money, then they're living in their own Neverland," Geragos said Tuesday, referring to the singer's Santa Barbara County estate.

The statement followed revelations that Geragos and Jackson were secretly videotaped while flying on a private jet to Santa Barbara last week for Jackson's surrender and booking.

Geragos claimed in a lawsuit filed Tuesday against Santa Monica-based XtraJet that the charter company covertly installed two cameras in the plane's cabin.

The cameras "were recording attorney-client conversations and then somebody had the unmitigated gall to shop those tapes around to media outlets in order to sell them to the highest bidder," he said.

The tapes' existence came to light when representatives of XtraJet showed it to several news organizations, saying they had found two videotapes aboard one of their jets and wanted to know whether it was legal to distribute or sell them.

The attorney for XtraJet did not immediately return a call for comment. The FBI said it seized tapes from XtraJet and were trying to assess whether there had been a violation of federal law.

"Michael Jackson is not going to be abused," Geragos said. "Michael Jackson is not going to be slammed. He is not going to be a pinata for every person who has financial motives."

The developments came as details about the boy's family began to emerge, including two previous cases that involved abuse allegations: a lawsuit in which the family said they were battered by mall security guards, and a divorce fight in which the father pleaded no contest to spousal abuse and child cruelty.

In November 2001, J.C. Penney Co. paid the boy's family $137,500 to settle a lawsuit alleging security guards beat the boy, his mother and his brother in a parking lot in 1998 after the boy left the store with clothes that hadn't been paid for, court records show.

The mother also contended that she was sexually assaulted by one of the guards during the confrontation.

A month before the settlement, the boy's mother had filed for divorce, beginning a bitter fight that would include criminal charges of abuse. The father's attorney, Russell Halpern, said the mother had lied about the abuse and had a "Svengali-like" ability to make her children repeat her lies.

Halpern said the father once showed him a script his wife had allegedly written for their children to use when they were questioned in a civil deposition.

"She wrote out all their testimony. I actually saw the script," Halpern said Tuesday. "I remember my client showing me, bringing the paperwork to me."

The Associated Press does not identify alleged victims of sexual abuse. The child's mother has an unlisted number and could not be located for comment. J.C. Penney lawyers did not return a call seeking comment.

The family's past legal cases could be critical in the current molestation case, if Jackson attorneys can show the mother or the accuser lacks credibility, said Leonard Levine, a defense attorney who specializes in sexual assault cases.

"It sounds like music to a defense attorney's ears - that there have been other cases where they have sued and there is at least an argument that the allegations are similar to the ones here," Levine said.

Jackson's spokesman, Stuart Backerman, declined to comment about the past lawsuits involving the accuser's family. The Santa Barbara County district attorney's office declined to comment Tuesday.

In 2002, the boy's father was charged with four counts of child cruelty, and one count each of injuring a child, making a threat and false imprisonment. He pleaded no contest to one count of child cruelty but it was unclear from court records which of his children was involved. The other charges were dismissed.

The father also pleaded no contest to spousal abuse in 2001.

Originally posted by Janice
I was getting to you honey. I admire your dedication to your cousin and your determination to have him freed.
After you do, write a book and have it made into a movie.

AWE. You brought tears to my eyes. :) It's funny you said that about writing a book and having it made into a movie; my husband told me he could see it on Lifetime. Of course, T.V. for women. :lol: Thanks for your support. When I start to make some progress I'll make a thread to keep you updated. It won't be for a while though, but I'm not giving up. Thanks again Janice, your support means alot to me. I don't know you, but I know you judge fairly and have a great heart (I can tell by your posts), and I respect and admire you alot. So you saying good luck means alot to me.
;) :wave:

Originally posted by LILFACE23
your support means alot to me. I don't know you, but I know you judge fairly and have a great heart (I can tell by your posts), and I respect and admire you alot. So you saying good luck means alot to me. ;) :wave:
Right back at ya'. I think you're fair minded too. Yes, please keep me posted on your progress. I care.

Originally posted by Janice
Right back at ya'. I think you're fair minded too. Yes, please keep me posted on your progress. I care.

Thanks for the compliment. :) And have a great Thanksgiving Day tomorrow. :wave: