Jackson Speaks Out in Court...on Camera

If only he'd kept his receipts.

Michael Jackson said in videotaped testimony played in court Thursday that he believes that he did, in fact, pay a former business associate who is now suing him for $3.8 million, claiming that the onetime King of Pop most certainly did not make good on his debts.

Day two of the latest legal skirmish to darken Jackson's schedule featured a deposition he taped on Sept. 23, 2005, in response to F. Marc Schaffel's charge that he loaned the Bad singer hundreds of thousands of dollars several years ago and has since then not seen a penny of it--nor of the royalties or salary he is owed for helping Jackson produce two TV specials and a charity record.

During his opening remarks, Schaffel's attorney, Howard King, made pretty clear what he thought of Jackson and his no-show tactics.

"I've wanted Mr. Jackson to be here to tell his story," King said. "He won't be here except by deposition. I had to go to London to take it. He will make a fine presentation. He's finely made up, costumed. You'd think he'd been in front of cameras his whole life."

Touché.

During King's interview with Jackson last year, the singer--clad in a plain dark shirt--said that he was "sure [Schaffel] got money."

King asked Jackson how he could be so sure.

"Because he always seemed to be happy," Jackson replied. And King responded: "Money doesnÂ?t buy happiness."

In his quest to prove that Jackson wasn't really sure of the nature of his dealings with Schaffel, King told the Santa Monica court that he was prepared to call a number of Jackson's former associates to discuss the singer's (presumably oddball) business practices, including a Florida businessman named Alvin Malnik who allegedly offered his services to Jackson for free.

"Jackson will deny ever borrowing from Malnik, but Malnik will testify that he loaned Jackson $7 million in 2003," King said. "So we have a witness in Mr. Jackson who does not remember getting $7 million three years ago."

King then asked Jackson during the deposition whether he felt that Schaffel had wanted to get paid for helping him out. He told the court that his client was promised 20 percent of the grosses from two Fox specials Jackson made to burnish his flagging reputation, the videos of which Fox eventually sold for $10 million. Schaffel also originally received a salary of $50,000 a month for his work, King said, but it later dropped to $25,000 for a few months and then stopped coming altogether as Jackson's cash reserve allegedly emptied out.

"I know he wanted something from me, of course," Jackson said on tape last year. "I do remember these long letters. He wanted me to pay him."

Jackson's attorney, Thomas C. Mundell, took the offensive Wednesday, telling the court during jury selection that the legally beleaguered pop artist cut ties with Schaffel after finding out he was a producer of gay pornography.

King briefly touched upon his client's profession, saying, "Mr. Schaffel has a successful business background and one of these was in the legal adult entertainment business. In 2000 he was done with that and he began to work with Mr. Jackson." And he left it at that.

Mundell said that Schaffel actually owed Jackson hundreds of thousands (Jackson countersued in October) and that the adult entertainment exec had fraudulently pocketed his client's money and billed the Thriller artist for expenses after he had ceased to work for him. He also told the court that much of the money Schaffel had so-called "loaned" to Jackson was actually wire transfers from other people, and not Schaffel's own cash.

Detailed forensic accounting would prove it, Mundell said, admitting that Jackson had at one time owed Schaffel $500,000 and would have paid him--if not for this current lawsuit.

"The evidence will show Mr. Schaffel should have left well enough alone," he continued. "He could have gotten away with a chunk of money from Michael Jackson...but he sued for several million dollars."

"I'd love for [Jackson] to be here, but he lives in Bahrain," Mundell assured the court. (Until he moves, that is...)

Jackson is probably happy to miss out on the festivities, however, especially considering that 3 out of the 12 jurors who hold his financial fate in their hands may think that he's a child molester.

Either legal camp would be hard-pressed to find 12 individuals in Southern California who have not both heard a lot about Jackson's recent troubles and have formed an opinion about them.

Three out of four prospective jurors who raised their hands when Mundell asked if they thought Jackson was guilty of molestation, even though he was acquitted last year on all charges, were accepted on the panel.

"I have lots of opinions about this man," one of the three who was selected said. "How can you not? I read so much and I have tons of opinions."

Another man who said that Jackson possibly had a "character flaw" was dismissed.

Other potentials were dismissed after saying that they couldnÂ?t be fair to Jackson after learning about his behavior over the years.

"I feel his actions as I have seen on TV were inexcusable," one man said, recalling a past incident that was so talked about it inspired its own Law & Order episode. "Dangling the child is inexcusable. My feelings about Michael Jackson have been where there's smoke there's fire. I've been thinking about whether I can give him a fair trial and I'm not sure I can."

And still others were booted after saying they felt for the fallen pop idol.

"I have a slight bias toward Mr. JacksonÂ?that maybe people were trying to extort him for money," a media entertainment consultant told the court. "It happens to celebrities."

So, the remaining 12 all swore Thursday to decide the case to the best of their impartial ability, but what can be expected from six women and six men who burst into laughter when another lady, a nurse who saw Jackson when he was hospitalized after suffering burns during a commercial shoot, commented that he was "wonderful with the kids"?

To quote King, who told the court Wednesday that he was representing "the unfamous party" in this case:

"Everyone knows who Michael Jackson is."