independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 21st Jul 2017 7:44am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Michael Jackson: THe Musical Genius, Visionary & Pioneer
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 3 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #60 posted 03/05/17 12:16pm

HAPPYPERSON

Image result for ray chandler michael jackson

Ray Chandler

Michael Jackson’s Fifth Amendment right was the only priority because of the on-going criminal investigation, but the tabloid pundits had a limited perception. No wonder Larry Feldman laughed at their ignorance. In reality, these ignoramuses helped him achieve a settlement. In fact, Michael Jackson could not participate in any civil trial regarding molestation allegations for that very reason, and that means that he could not even file a lawsuit for slander against anyone who would come up with stories.

The singer, through his legal actions, proved that he wanted to be deposed first for the criminal proceedings. Jordan Chandler, through his lawyer’s motions, fought against it and proved that he wanted to avoid justice, and only asked for money. Every legal move the Chandlers made was only about money, and the allegations which were followed by the civil suit occurred after Jackson refused to pay the $20 million in August 1993.

Jordan Chandler could never be a credible witness, and that’s why he avoided the deposition long before the settlement of the civil case. Jackson’s lawyers had publicly stated how eager they were to cross examine him. He had changed his story under the influence of a drug (sodium amytal), he said he was aware of his father’s plan, and there was no one corroborating his story. All of the other kids (including their parents) defended Jackson and the tabloid “witnesses” didn’t say anything incriminating to the authorities. The search warrants and the six monthinvestigation did not result in anything incriminating either. The case was weak before the settlement. All of the discredited rumours were more than enough for the tabloids, but they would make little impression before a jury.

In 2004, during the secret Grand Jury proceedings for the Arvizo case (where no judge and no defense lawyers were present), in which “you can indict a ham sandwich”, there was wishful speculation in the tabloid press that maybe Jordan Chandler would be called to testify. Though people who had not spoken to Jordan, including his uncle Ray, speculated that he would flee the country, Jordan was photographed skiing in the US with his girlfriend. And the FBI files reveal that he was not interested in testifying against Jackson; in fact, he threatened to take legal action to fight a subpoena to testify against Jackson. On March 21, 2004, on Fox Live with Rita Cosby, prosecutor John Kelly was asked what value it would have to the Arvizo case:

RITA COSBY, HOST: John, I wanna start with you. How important is this first boy’s testimony to the case?

JOHN KELLY, PROSECUTOR: No value whatsoever. I mean

COSBY: No value? Why is that?

KELLY: Well, first of all, if they can’t get indictments, secure an indictment without bringing up some testimony from 11 years ago, the prosecution is in big trouble. Secondly, If they’re gonna bring him in to show some pattern or course of conduct, and they don’t have anything between 11 years ago and now, it’s gonna be inadmissible, and they’ll probably move to quash the subpoena in the first place. And thirdly, you gotta remember this boy literally took the money and ran 11 years ago and he’s not gonna give any helpful testimony to bring himself back into this right now.

In the same episode defense attorney Mel Sachs said Also the general rule is that uncharged crimes cannot be brought in against a defendant in court and there’s a balancing test: does the prejudicial effect outweigh the probative value. And here, this is highly prejudicial and inflammatory”.

James Rogan, a law professor, judge of the Superior Court of California, and one of the authors of the Prior Bad Acts Law, talked about the fact that prosecutors still could have pursued the 1993 allegation had they had a strong case on Crier Live, December 16 2004:

JAMES ROGAN, May I add one thing to that, Catherine, if I may?

CATHERINE CRIER: Yeah. Go ahead.

ROGAN: One other thing that if I were the defense attorney, I’d try to delve into this: just because there was a settlement, it still didn’t preclude a criminal charge from being brought.

The prosecution still could have subpoenaed witnesses, could have ordered a judge to have them testify. What does that say about the prosecution back in 1993 looking at that case and making a determination whether there was enough to prove it?

And so, there’s gonna be – I think there’s gonna be enough ammunition on both sides and really ultimately it’ll be a question for the jury if it goes to who’s credible and who’s believable.

In that same episode, defense attorney Victor Sherman commented on the fact that Larry Feldman and Johnnie Cochran Jr. were friends:

VICTOR SHERMAN: Well what I find particularly interesting about this situation is that the lawyers for the boy and the lawyers for Michael Jackson were all friends. So the settlement, in a sense, was among lawyers that knew each other, worked with each other, worked later in years with each other. I think one of the attorneys represented the other attorney. So, you know it’s all very murky what exactly happened in those days. And I think, I don’t know, but unfortunately it may be that all of the attorneys are going to be involved in – why did they reach a settlement? What was the motivation?

What was the facts behind it? Did they think that Michael Jackson really had a problem? Or did they feel that from a business point of view it was just better to pay the money even thought they didn’t think the charges were founded?

So it’s a very complicated case. And I think it could get very interesting. Now, I don’t know how far they’re gonna go into that as to why they reached a settlement…On the other hand, if they attorneys get into the fact that it was a business decision, then we have a different situation.

Howard Weitzman, Jackson’s lawyer from 1993, appeared on Geraldo Rivera on January 18, 2004, to discuss the issue:

HOWARD WEITZMAN: As I saw, I felt 10 years ago it was a case that could be tried and won. I feel today if that person surfaces again the lawyers, if they’re well prepared and do their job, will be able to dissuade people that the offense took place. Wait and see what happens.

In the same interview to Rivera, Mr. Weitzman said that the Chandlers never filed a criminal complaint. They only filed a civil one. He also said that he didn’t agree with the settlement, and he knew they could win the civil trial. That leaves only Johnnie Cochran – who was Feldman’s friend – as the only person in the Jackson camp who wanted to settle.

In 1993, Bert Fields said he was eager to cross examineJordan Chandler. Tom Mesereau said the same thing in 2005, and he made it clear that 1993 was not a problem for the defense. Jordan Chandler never appeared in court, nor did Evan Chandler, and Tom Sneddon didn’t even subpoena them. Sneddon had Ray Chandler in his witness list, but Ray Chandler never appeared in court. The defense (Michael Jackson) subpoenaed Ray Chandler to present his book documents in the trial and be cross examined, and he showed how strong his “revelations” were by fighting back the subpoena and failing to appear in court.

For years, TV pundits who knew nothing about the case and presented wishful thinking for their own personal reasons, would refer to the perfectly legal resolution of the civil case as “hush” money, failing, as always, to explain themselves and present the facts. They forgot that the criminal investigation was already weak, and Jordan Chandler didn’t give a deposition before the settlement, and he never intended to give one. Although he had been interviewed by the police long before the settlement, nothing happened to Michael Jackson.

The settlement of the civil case

On January 25, 1994, the lawyers of both sides went to court to submit the settlement, and the judge had to review it and approve it.

The terms of settlements are always confidential, and the court encourages people to settle because trials are both time -and money -consuming. In the eyes of the law, people who settle their civil disputes are not considered guilty, and civil trials have nothing to do with justice. They deal with liability and the defendant cannot be sentenced to jail. In fact, the majority of civil disputes result in settlements, and a civil lawyer’s job is to achieve a lucrative and quick settlement.

Both lawyers gave the following statements to the press after they left the court on January 25, 1994:

LARRY FELDMAN’S STATEMENTAttorney for PLAINTIFF Jordan Chandler

“We wish to jointly announce a mutual resolution of this lawsuit. As you are aware the plaintiff has alleged certain acts of impropriety by Mr. Jackson and from the inception of those allegations Mr. Jackson has always maintained his innocence. However the emotional trauma and strain on the respective parties have caused both parties to reflect on the wisdom of continuing with the litigation. The plaintiff has agreed that the lawsuit should be resolved and it will be dismissed in the near future. Mr. Jackson continues to maintain his innocence and withdraws any previous allegations of extortion. This will allow the parties to get on with their lives in a more positive and productive manner. Much of the suffering these parties have been put through has been caused by the publicity surrounding this case. We jointly request that members of the press allow the parties to close this chapter in their lives with dignity so that the healing process may begin.”

JOHNNIE COCHRAN’S STATEMENT-Attorney for DEFENDANT Michael Jackson

“In the past ten days the rumours and speculation surrounding this case have reached a fever pitch and by-and-large have been false and outrageous. As Mr. Feldman has correctly indicated Michael Jackson has maintained his innocence from the beginning of this matter and now, as this matter will soon be concluded, he still maintains that innocence. The resolution of this case is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson. In short, he is an innocent man who does not intend to have his career and his life destroyed by rumour and innuendo. Throughout this ordeal he has been subjected to an unprecedented media feeding frenzy; especially by the tabloid press. The tabloid press has shown an insatiable thirst for anything negative and have paid huge sums of money to people who have little or no information and who barely knew Michael Jackson. So today the time has come for Michael Jackson to move on to new business, to get on with his life, to start the healing process and to move his career forward to even greater heights. This he intends to do. At the appropriate time Michael Jackson will speak out publicly as to the agony, torture, and pain he has had to suffer during the past six months. Thank you very much”.

When Mr. Feldman was asked additional questions after the statement, he said that his client was “very happy with the resolution of this matterand thatnobody has bought anyone’s silence”. He also said that he is allowed to testify against Jackson in the criminal proceedings. Larry Feldman, referring to the settlement achievement, added that he is proud of what he did. Los Angeles D.A. Gil Garcetti said that the criminal investigation was on-going and irrelevant to the resolution of the civil case. Larry Feldman also stated that he had already given to prosecutors all the evidence they had. Again no charges were filed against Michael Jackson.

Anthony Pellicano said the following after the announcement of the settlement: “I have maintained Michael Jackson’s innocence from the very start, and I still maintain that he is innocent”. He added that the case was all about money from the beginning. Pellicano proved to be right because indeed after the settlement Evan Chandler quit his job.

Michael Freeman, June Chandler’s lawyer who quit in disgust, said to J. Randy Taraborelli that he believed in Michael’s innocence and added “I think he was wrongly accused. I think that Evan Chandler and Barry Rothman saw an opportunity and went for it. That’s my personal held opinion. I believe it was all about money and their strategy obviously worked”.

The Los Angeles Times commented on tabloids’ reaction:

“Just when the media has another great trial to look forward to, Michael Jackson goes and ruins it all by throwing cash at the 14-year-old boy whose lawsuit alleged that the entertainer had sexually molested him. Just when everyone was revving up. Just when the adrenaline was flowing. Now, this is no knock on Tonya Harding but, quite frankly, she’s no Michael. Who wants to fly over an ice rink? Michael, Michael, Michael. Do we deserve this kick in the pants?

On Wednesday night’s “Hard Copy,” you could see the sorrow and disappointment in the eyes of Diane Dimond’s, eyes that previously had danced with excitement at each mention of Michael Jackson, at each alleged deviant fusion of him with his accuser and other young boys. Her relentless reporting for “Hard Copy” had made her Michael’s tabloid Boswell, so renowned for insider poop that at one point she was interviewed about the case on “CBS This Morning.”

But this time, all she had for inquiring minds was a measly brief update, the usual money talk, an unsatisfying few words that hung in the air like a somber obituary for a story that she and her like-minded media lizards had slaved and slithered so hard to distort and hyperbolize. No wonder she seemed deflated.

Legal analysts warned that Michael Jackson’s fame and wealth can make him a magnet for false claims and extortion attempts, especially now that they saw someone achieving it. They were right and it happened again. Several disturbed people later tried to copy the Chandlers, but with no success.

It was reported right after the settlement that Michael’s insurance carrier actually paid the settlement, and not Michael Jackson. The news at the time mentioned TIG Insurance, the Transamerica subsidiary that held Jackson’s personal liability policy. Insurance carriers are not parties of the lawsuit and they are not named in a settlement agreement. Tom Mesereau’s filed motion in 2005 verifies that the settlement was indeed paid by Jackson’s insurance carrier.

In 2004, tabloid reporter Diane Dimond obtained the settlement document and proudly put it out for all of us to see in an effort to taint the jury pool. Michael Jackson released a statement to address the effort of the press to use that in order to further lynch him, and he a called it “an act of desperation”. Diane Dimond inaccurately “explained” the settlement document to her audience, and a lawyer’s reaction was “she didn’t understand what she was reading”. Actually she was reading from the 1993 lawsuit and not from the 1994 settlement. The terms are confidential, a word she did not understand and certainly didn’t respect. Many legal observers questioned the timing of this leak.

Michael Jackson’s press release on June 17, 2004, concerning the leak:

“I respect the obligation of confidentiality imposed on all of the parties to the 1993 proceedings. Yet, someone has chosen to violate the confidentiality of those proceedings. Whoever is now leaking this material is showing as much disrespect for the Santa Maria Court’s “gag order” as they are a determination to attack me.

No action or investigation has been taken to determine who is leaking this information or why they are permitted to violate the law in such a manner. I respectfully request that people see these efforts for what they are.

These kinds of attacks and leaks seek to try the case in the press, rather than to a jury who will hear all of the evidence that will show that I did not, and would not, ever, harm a child.

I have always maintained my innocence, and vehemently denied that these events ever took place. I reluctantly chose to settle the false claims only to end the terrible publicity and to continue with my life and career.

I ask all of my neighbours in Santa Maria, the people whom I give my loyal trust and admiration, to keep an open mind, and give me a chance to show that I am completely innocent of these charges. I will not let you down”.

Former San Diego District Attorney Paul Pfingst commented on the language in the settlement agreement and how it looks as if the wording was such that an insurance company could foot the bill. He appeared on MSNBC June 15, 2005:

PFINGST: First, it appears as though the settlement was in part paid for by insurance and you can tell that by the wording of the settlement. It seems to show that there was insurance money as part of the settlement. The second is that if you’re Michael Jackson’s team and you’re selling a lot of albums, settling a case for $15M or $20M dollars might actually make money by allowing you to sell albums for $40M, $60M or $100 M dollars.
But will this [settlement agreement] at the end of the day get in front of a jury in a criminal trial? No.

Michael Jackson’s Fifth Amendment right was the only priority because of the on-going criminal investigation, but the tabloid pundits had a limited perception. No wonder Larry Feldman laughed at their ignorance. In reality, these ignoramuses helped him achieve a settlement. In fact, Michael Jackson could not participate in any civil trial regarding molestation allegations for that very reason, and that means that he could not even file a lawsuit for slander against anyone who would come up with stories.

The singer, through his legal actions, proved that he wanted to be deposed first for the criminal proceedings. Jordan Chandler, through his lawyer’s motions, fought against it and proved that he wanted to avoid justice, and only asked for money. Every legal move the Chandlers made was only about money, and the allegations which were followed by the civil suit occurred after Jackson refused to pay the $20 million in August 1993.

Jordan Chandler could never be a credible witness, and that’s why he avoided the deposition long before the settlement of the civil case. Jackson’s lawyers had publicly stated how eager they were to cross examine him. He had changed his story under the influence of a drug (sodium amytal), he said he was aware of his father’s plan, and there was no one corroborating his story. All of the other kids (including their parents) defended Jackson and the tabloid “witnesses” didn’t say anything incriminating to the authorities. The search warrants and the six month investigation did not result in anything incriminating either. The case was weak before the settlement. All of the discredited rumours were more than enough for the tabloids, but they would make little impression before a jury.

In 2004, during the secret Grand Jury proceedings for the Arvizo case (where no judge and no defense lawyers were present), in which “you can indict a ham sandwich”, there was wishful speculation in the tabloid press that maybe Jordan Chandler would be called to testify. Though people who had not spoken to Jordan, including his uncle Ray, speculated that he would flee the country, Jordan was photographed skiing in the US with his girlfriend. And the FBI files reveal that he was not interested in testifying against Jackson; in fact, he threatened to take legal action to fight a subpoena to testify against Jackson. On March 21, 2004, on Fox Live with Rita Cosby, prosecutor John Kelly was asked what value it would have to the Arvizo case:

RITA COSBY, HOST: John, I wanna start with you. How important is this first boy’s testimony to the case?

JOHN KELLY, PROSECUTOR: No value whatsoever. I mean

COSBY: No value? Why is that?

KELLY: Well, first of all, if they can’t get indictments, secure an indictment without bringing up some testimony from 11 years ago, the prosecution is in big trouble. Secondly, If they’re gonna bring him in to show some pattern or course of conduct, and they don’t have anything between 11 years ago and now, it’s gonna be inadmissible, and they’ll probably move to quash the subpoena in the first place. And thirdly, you gotta remember this boy literally took the money and ran 11 years ago and he’s not gonna give any helpful testimony to bring himself back into this right now.

In the same episode defense attorney Mel Sachs said Also the general rule is that uncharged crimes cannot be brought in against a defendant in court and there’s a balancing test: does the prejudicial effect outweigh the probative value. And here, this is highly prejudicial and inflammatory”.

James Rogan, a law professor, judge of the Superior Court of California, and one of the authors of the Prior Bad Acts Law, talked about the fact that prosecutors still could have pursued the 1993 allegation had they had a strong case on Crier Live, December 16 2004:

JAMES ROGAN, May I add one thing to that, Catherine, if I may?

CATHERINE CRIER: Yeah. Go ahead.

ROGAN: One other thing that if I were the defense attorney, I’d try to delve into this: just because there was a settlement, it still didn’t preclude a criminal charge from being brought.

The prosecution still could have subpoenaed witnesses, could have ordered a judge to have them testify. What does that say about the prosecution back in 1993 looking at that case and making a determination whether there was enough to prove it?

And so, there’s gonna be – I think there’s gonna be enough ammunition on both sides and really ultimately it’ll be a question for the jury if it goes to who’s credible and who’s believable.

In that same episode, defense attorney Victor Sherman commented on the fact that Larry Feldman and Johnnie Cochran Jr. were friends:

VICTOR SHERMAN: Well what I find particularly interesting about this situation is that the lawyers for the boy and the lawyers for Michael Jackson were all friends. So the settlement, in a sense, was among lawyers that knew each other, worked with each other, worked later in years with each other. I think one of the attorneys represented the other attorney. So, you know it’s all very murky what exactly happened in those days. And I think, I don’t know, but unfortunately it may be that all of the attorneys are going to be involved in – why did they reach a settlement? What was the motivation?

What was the facts behind it? Did they think that Michael Jackson really had a problem? Or did they feel that from a business point of view it was just better to pay the money even thought they didn’t think the charges were founded?

So it’s a very complicated case. And I think it could get very interesting. Now, I don’t know how far they’re gonna go into that as to why they reached a settlement…On the other hand, if they attorneys get into the fact that it was a business decision, then we have a different situation.

Howard Weitzman, Jackson’s lawyer from 1993, appeared on Geraldo Rivera on January 18, 2004, to discuss the issue:

HOWARD WEITZMAN: As I saw, I felt 10 years ago it was a case that could be tried and won. I feel today if that person surfaces again the lawyers, if they’re well prepared and do their job, will be able to dissuade people that the offense took place. Wait and see what happens.

In the same interview to Rivera, Mr. Weitzman said that the Chandlers never filed a criminal complaint. They only filed a civil one. He also said that he didn’t agree with the settlement, and he knew they could win the civil trial. That leaves only Johnnie Cochran – who was Feldman’s friend – as the only person in the Jackson camp who wanted to settle.

In 1993, Bert Fields said he was eager to cross examine Jordan Chandler. Tom Mesereau said the same thing in 2005, and he made it clear that 1993 was not a problem for the defense. Jordan Chandler never appeared in court, nor did Evan Chandler, and Tom Sneddon didn’t even subpoena them. Sneddon had Ray Chandler in his witness list, but Ray Chandler never appeared in court. The defense (Michael Jackson) subpoenaed Ray Chandler to present his book documents in the trial and be cross examined, and he showed how strong his “revelations” were by fighting back the subpoena and failing to appear in court.

For years, TV pundits who knew nothing about the case and presented wishful thinking for their own personal reasons, would refer to the perfectly legal resolution of the civil case as “hush” money, failing, as always, to explain themselves and present the facts. They forgot that the criminal investigation was already weak, and Jordan Chandler didn’t give a deposition before the settlement, and he never intended to give one. Although he had been interviewed by the police long before the settlement, nothing happened to Michael Jackson.

The settlement of the civil case

On January 25, 1994, the lawyers of both sides went to court to submit the settlement, and the judge had to review it and approve it.

The terms of settlements are always confidential, and the court encourages people to settle because trials are both time -and money -consuming. In the eyes of the law, people who settle their civil disputes are not considered guilty, and civil trials have nothing to do with justice. They deal with liability and the defendant cannot be sentenced to jail. In fact, the majority of civil disputes result in settlements, and a civil lawyer’s job is to achieve a lucrative and quick settlement.

Both lawyers gave the following statements to the press after they left the court on January 25, 1994:

LARRY FELDMAN’S STATEMENTAttorney for PLAINTIFF Jordan Chandler

“We wish to jointly announce a mutual resolution of this lawsuit. As you are aware the plaintiff has alleged certain acts of impropriety by Mr. Jackson and from the inception of those allegations Mr. Jackson has always maintained his innocence. However the emotional trauma and strain on the respective parties have caused both parties to reflect on the wisdom of continuing with the litigation. The plaintiff has agreed that the lawsuit should be resolved and it will be dismissed in the near future. Mr. Jackson continues to maintain his innocence and withdraws any previous allegations of extortion. This will allow the parties to get on with their lives in a more positive and productive manner. Much of the suffering these parties have been put through has been caused by the publicity surrounding this case. We jointly request that members of the press allow the parties to close this chapter in their lives with dignity so that the healing process may begin.”

JOHNNIE COCHRAN’S STATEMENT-Attorney for DEFENDANT Michael Jackson

“In the past ten days the rumours and speculation surrounding this case have reached a fever pitch and by-and-large have been false and outrageous. As Mr. Feldman has correctly indicated Michael Jackson has maintained his innocence from the beginning of this matter and now, as this matter will soon be concluded, he still maintains that innocence. The resolution of this case is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson. In short, he is an innocent man who does not intend to have his career and his life destroyed by rumour and innuendo. Throughout this ordeal he has been subjected to an unprecedented media feeding frenzy; especially by the tabloid press. The tabloid press has shown an insatiable thirst for anything negative and have paid huge sums of money to people who have little or no information and who barely knew Michael Jackson. So today the time has come for Michael Jackson to move on to new business, to get on with his life, to start the healing process and to move his career forward to even greater heights. This he intends to do. At the appropriate time Michael Jackson will speak out publicly as to the agony, torture, and pain he has had to suffer during the past six months. Thank you very much”.

When Mr. Feldman was asked additional questions after the statement, he said that his client was “very happy with the resolution of this matterand thatnobody has bought anyone’s silence”. He also said that he is allowed to testify against Jackson in the criminal proceedings. Larry Feldman, referring to the settlement achievement, added that he is proud of what he did. Los Angeles D.A. Gil Garcetti said that the criminal investigation was on-going and irrelevant to the resolution of the civil case. Larry Feldman also stated that he had already given to prosecutors all the evidence they had. Again no charges were filed against Michael Jackson.

Anthony Pellicano said the following after the announcement of the settlement: “I have maintained Michael Jackson’s innocence from the very start, and I still maintain that he is innocent”. He added that the case was all about money from the beginning. Pellicano proved to be right because indeed after the settlement Evan Chandler quit his job.

Michael Freeman, June Chandler’s lawyer who quit in disgust, said to J. Randy Taraborelli that he believed in Michael’s innocence and added “I think he was wrongly accused. I think that Evan Chandler and Barry Rothman saw an opportunity and went for it. That’s my personal held opinion. I believe it was all about money and their strategy obviously worked”.

The Los Angeles Times commented on tabloids’ reaction:

“Just when the media has another great trial to look forward to, Michael Jackson goes and ruins it all by throwing cash at the 14-year-old boy whose lawsuit alleged that the entertainer had sexually molested him. Just when everyone was revving up. Just when the adrenaline was flowing. Now, this is no knock on Tonya Harding but, quite frankly, she’s no Michael. Who wants to fly over an ice rink? Michael, Michael, Michael. Do we deserve this kick in the pants?

On Wednesday night’s “Hard Copy,” you could see the sorrow and disappointment in the eyes of Diane Dimond’s, eyes that previously had danced with excitement at each mention of Michael Jackson, at each alleged deviant fusion of him with his accuser and other young boys. Her relentless reporting for “Hard Copy” had made her Michael’s tabloid Boswell, so renowned for insider poop that at one point she was interviewed about the case on “CBS This Morning.”

But this time, all she had for inquiring minds was a measly brief update, the usual money talk, an unsatisfying few words that hung in the air like a somber obituary for a story that she and her like-minded media lizards had slaved and slithered so hard to distort and hyperbolize. No wonder she seemed deflated.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #61 posted 03/05/17 12:16pm

HAPPYPERSON

Legal analysts warned that Michael Jackson’s fame and wealth can make him a magnet for false claims and extortion attempts, especially now that they saw someone achieving it. They were right and it happened again. Several disturbed people later tried to copy the Chandlers, but with no success.

It was reported right after the settlement that Michael’s insurance carrier actually paid the settlement, and not Michael Jackson. The news at the time mentioned TIG Insurance, the Transamerica subsidiary that held Jackson’s personal liability policy. Insurance carriers are not parties of the lawsuit and they are not named in a settlement agreement. Tom Mesereau’s filed motion in 2005 verifies that the settlement was indeed paid by Jackson’s insurance carrier.

In 2004, tabloid reporter Diane Dimond obtained the settlement document and proudly put it out for all of us to see in an effort to taint the jury pool. Michael Jackson released a statement to address the effort of the press to use that in order to further lynch him, and he a called it “an act of desperation”. Diane Dimond inaccurately “explained” the settlement document to her audience, and a lawyer’s reaction was “she didn’t understand what she was reading”. Actually she was reading from the 1993 lawsuit and not from the 1994 settlement. The terms are confidential, a word she did not understand and certainly didn’t respect. Many legal observers questioned the timing of this leak.

Michael Jackson’s press release on June 17, 2004, concerning the leak:

“I respect the obligation of confidentiality imposed on all of the parties to the 1993 proceedings. Yet, someone has chosen to violate the confidentiality of those proceedings. Whoever is now leaking this material is showing as much disrespect for the Santa Maria Court’s “gag order” as they are a determination to attack me.

No action or investigation has been taken to determine who is leaking this information or why they are permitted to violate the law in such a manner. I respectfully request that people see these efforts for what they are.

These kinds of attacks and leaks seek to try the case in the press, rather than to a jury who will hear all of the evidence that will show that I did not, and would not, ever, harm a child.

I have always maintained my innocence, and vehemently denied that these events ever took place. I reluctantly chose to settle the false claims only to end the terrible publicity and to continue with my life and career.

I ask all of my neighbours in Santa Maria, the people whom I give my loyal trust and admiration, to keep an open mind, and give me a chance to show that I am completely innocent of these charges. I will not let you down”.

Former San Diego District Attorney Paul Pfingst commented on the language in the settlement agreement and how it looks as if the wording was such that an insurance company could foot the bill. He appeared on MSNBC June 15, 2005:

PFINGST: First, it appears as though the settlement was in part paid for by insurance and you can tell that by the wording of the settlement. It seems to show that there was insurance money as part of the settlement. The second is that if you’re Michael Jackson’s team and you’re selling a lot of albums, settling a case for $15M or $20M dollars might actually make money by allowing you to sell albums for $40M, $60M or $100 M dollars.
But will this [settlement agreement] at the end of the day get in front of a jury in a criminal trial? No.

Tom Mesereau, in his filed motion concerning the settlement during the 2005 trial, wrote: As the court knows better than I do, civil settlements of this nature are often done where the negligence claim is settled so that insurance companies can fund the settlement. There was never any admission by Mr. Jackson that he ever did anything negligent or anything wrong at all. There was a public comment in the media, again, about this 11 year oldcase to the effect that somehow he admitted negligence, which was completely false. It was a technical legal way of settling a case so insurance companies could fund a settlement and he could get on with his personal life and business life.

The settlement document itself

The real amount was $15,331,250 dollars and not the usual $20 or $25 million that people who are ignorant about it mention to this day. Considering the fact that the leak came from Jackson’s detractors, we understand that paragraph 3 is full of blanks because it probably supports that the actual amount was indeed $5 million, as it was reported before the settlement. According to the Retainer Agreement Larry Feldman was paid from this money (approximately $5 million). June and Evan Chandler were also paid from this amount (approximately $3million), plus the settlement was taxed. This would leave an amount close to $5 million for the plaintiff, which was paid in installments over a period of years, which is the way that insurance companies pay. The last installment was paid in 1999.

Michael Jackson (and his insurance carrier) could for NO reason fail to pay, otherwise it would be considered a breach of the settlement, and he could be sued for it:

“Any failure by Jackson to make any of the payments provided in paragraph 3 when due shall be deemed a Material Breach of this Confidential Settlement”. “Jackson’s obligation to make the Settlement Payment as provided in this paragraph when due is absolute; notwithstanding any claimed or actual breach of the Confidential Settlement and notwithstanding any other claims that Jackson may assert or have against any party to this Confidential Settlement … Jackson shall not withhold any portion of the Settlement Payment.”

Michael Jackson settled over claims of negligence and NOT for molestation allegations, and he declares his innocence in the document. The wording for negligence is the standard used in every settlement.

“The parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph 3 are in settlement of claims by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler and June Chandler for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of molestation”.

“Forthwith upon the signing of this Confidential Settlement by the Parties hereto, the Minor, through his Guardians ad Litem in the Action and attorneys, shall dismiss, without prejudice, the first through sixth causes of action of the complaint on file in the Action, leaving only the seventh cause of action pending.

The seventh action pending is negligence, and he rejected the molestation allegations.

This Confidential Settlement shall not be construed as an admission by Jackson that he has acted wrongfully with respect to the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any other person. Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against, the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler or any other persons”.

Both parties could not talk to the media but they could talk to the authorities:

-“The parties acknowledge that Jackson is a public figure and that his name, image and likeness have commercial value and are an important element of his earning capacity. The parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in the action in view of the impact the action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and potential income”.

“The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Evan Chandler and June Chandler, and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree that they will not at any time in the future make any engagement, enter into any contract, agreement, commitment, understanding or other obligation, with any media, including, without limitation, any publishing, print, news, television, motion picture, cable, video, multimedia, software, recording, broadcast, radio or any other media, for purposes of or relating to the commercial exploitation by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler, June Chandler or the Minor’s attorneys of record in the Action of any story, documentary, docudrama, publication, magazine, tabloid, book, article, motion picture, television program or picture, “movie-of-the-week,” serial, miniseries, recording, record, audiotape, compact disc, videotape, program, television or other public or private appearance, interview or broadcast, related to Jackson in any capacity”

“The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, and Evan Chandler and June Chandler, and each of them individually on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree not to cooperate with, represent, or provide any information, to any person or entity that initiates any civil claim or action which relates in any manner to the subject matter of the Action against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releasees, except as may be required by law”.

“In the event the Minor, the Minor’s Legal Guardians, the Minor’s Guardian ad Litem, the Minor’s attorneys, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any of them individually or on behalf at their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, receive any subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted, or is investigating, any claim against Jackson or the Jackson Releasees or the Action or the Claims, they agree to give notice in writing to Jackson’s attorneys regarding the nature and scope of any such subpoena request for information, to the extent permitted by law. This notice shall be given before responding to the request in any manner other than objections or a refusal to respond and shall be given no later than five days following the receipt of the request”.

June Chandler confirmed the validity of this clause during the 2005 trial, when she testified 11 years after the 1994 settlement. She had no restrictions whatsoever to talk to authorities and testify in court like all the other parties involved in the perfectly legal settlement. From her direct examination by Tom Sneddon:

Q. With regard to those conversations, the first conversation we had, do you recall the substance of that conversation?

A. That I would be subpoenaed and for — testifying.

Q. And did I indicate to you that I wanted to talk to you, to do an interview with you?

A. That we would be speaking later on, yes.

Q. Okay. And did you — did you have to check with somebody to make sure that was okay because of the confidentiality agreement?

A. Yes.

Q. And who was that?

A. Larry Feldman.

Q. So is that one of the phone calls that you had with Mr. Feldman, was to make sure –

A. Yes.

Q. — to make sure it was okay for you to talk to me?

A. Correct.

Michael Jackson called them liars, and the Chandlers signed it. Michael Jackson declared again his innocence and the Chandlers could not speak to the media. They could only speak in court. No one prevented them from speaking in a criminal court, and they could do it and still keep the money. The resolution of the civil case had nothing to do with the criminal proceedings, otherwise it would be an obstruction of justice, and they all would go to jail (including the judge that reviewed it). Michael Jackson was asked by Larry Feldman to drop the allegations of extortion in order for a settlement to be reached.

They took the money that they were asking for since August 1993 and RAN.

Had Jackson not settled the civil case, he would have put his defense strategy in jeopardy by revealing his exculpatory evidence to the prosecution. When Tom Sneddon discovered the exculpatory evidence in the 2003 Arvizo case, instead of dropping it, he changed the dates, set it up, and misled the grand jury.

The 2005 defense’s motion to Compel Discovery on page 6 reveals that the prosecution withheld exonerating evidence not only for 2003 case but for 1993 as well:

Mr. Jackson’s right to receive exculpatory information from the prosecution also requires production of materials from the prior investigation. Law enforcement unquestionably developed information rebutting allegations of misconduct from the many people who testified before the grand juries or submitted to informal interview”.

“The prosecution has relied on information from the prior investigation in this case. Moreover, in view of the scope and result of the prior investigation, materials in the possession of law enforcement likely contain or will lead to exculpatory evidence”.

“The affidavit that has been used in support of the dozens of searches in this case refers to information developed during the prior investigation. The affidavit quotes material used to search Mr. Jackson’s ranch in the prior investigation and summarizes the district attorney’s explanation about how that investigation became inactive without criminal charges”.

It was the defense (Michael Jackson) that was asking for the 1993 evidence to be brought in. During the Arvizo caseit was reported that Anthony Pellicano had given all he had from the 1993 case to the FBI. The problem was that FBI gave them to Tom Sneddon.

Right after the settlement, the Chandlers were looking for more money. Ray Chandler approached publisher Judith Regan to shop a book deal. It was reported in early February 1994 and Judith Regan also talked about it on SIRIUS XM:

When this effort didn’t succeed the Chandlers gave Evan’s diary to Hard Copy in May 1994. They managed to fish a book deal with the proven liar Victor Gutierrez. When he tricked the Chandlers and published a pornographic book with his own fictions (it was banned in US) falsely turning Evan Chandler’s diary into Jordan’s, the Chandlers detached themselves and Ray Chandler called him a “sleazebag”. Ray Chandler published his own book, and legal experts noticed the trap he created for himself in 2004. In his effort to taint the jury pool and make some money he ended up being a witness for the defense. When Ray Chandler was asked from Jackson’s lawyers to present his stories in the 2005 trial he fought back the subpoena and never showed up. Ray Chandler gave an interview to Entertainment Weekly in June 1995 in which he said that the Chandlers love Michael and they bare him no ill will. Would a family of a real victim talk like that about a real abuser? He went on to say that there was no evidence against Jackson, and they only had Jordan’s words and nothing else. When he was asked why they settled, he answered “because they weren’t sure they would get any more money after a trial and they wanted the ordeal to end”.

Jordan Chandler went to live with his stepmother Natalie, who had divorced Evan Chandler. Several years later, reports would present Jordan as a shrewd businessman.

Retailers reported that Michael Jackson didn’t suffer any drop in his sales, and to this day he remains the most popular celebrity in the planet.

Evan Chandler had an interesting experience that was similar to that of Michael Jackson’s. He was sued by a model for malpractice regarding a dental procedure and the model’s claim was rejected. That happened prior to Evan Chandler’s settlement with Michael Jackson. When the model heard on the news that Mr. Chandler had money, she then remembered to sue him for sexual harassment. Though from the timing and the changed story it was obvious that the model made it up, Evan Chandler’s insurance carrier settled with her.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #62 posted 03/05/17 12:20pm

HAPPYPERSON

Image result for jordan chandler

Jordan Chandler

The aftermath and the on-going criminal investigation

A Santa Barbara Grand Jury began hearing testimonies in the context of the criminal investigation in early February 1994. Law enforcement sources told the Los Angeles Times that neither Michael Jackson nor Jordan Chandler had been called to testify. There was speculation at the time that while Gil Garcetti would not file charges without having any evidence to support his case, the Santa Barbara D.A. Tom Sneddon, who had the reputation of being aggressive, would try his best even with a weak case. Michael Cooney, an attorney who knew Sneddon well, said about the prosecutor: : ”Tom Sneddon is a very determined individual who will go further than almost anyone to prove something which he feels needs proving. Ones he decides action is worth taking, he will pursue it to the very end”. Steve R. Balash, who worked with Sneddon, the “Mad Dog”, also said about him: ”If you wanted to go to central casting to pick out a prosecutor, you’d pick Sneddon. He’s got a lot of power, and when he targets someone, it’s a battle.” Tom Sneddon has been accused of malicious prosecution, false allegations, personal vendettas and abuse of power by many other people.

It was rumoured that if the Santa Barbara Grand Jury found the evidence insufficient to indict Michael Jackson, the Los Angeles D.A. “would drop the political hot potato without career repercussions”. Gil Garcetti’s predecessor, Ira Reiner, had to leave office under the stigmatization of the McMartin Preschool case (the false child abuse allegations that Dr. Stanley Katz had diagnosed). Gil Garcetti said in 2004 that he primarily reserved the grand jury for cases with uncooperative witnesses or for difficult or high-profile cases in which he wanted to test the evidence before bringing charges.

USA Today wrote “Prosecutors in L.A. and S.B. counties are scrambling to salvage what’s left of their criminal investigations into sex abuse allegations against the pop music star”. Gil Garcetti was reportedly trying to change the law so minors who alleged they were abused could be forced to testify. The newspaper characterized their actions as desperate and referred to Blanca Francia’s concerns about investigators’ misconduct with her son who had repeatedly denied any abuse. It was quite obvious that the investigators were trying to create “victims” out of nowhere.

In the meantime Jackson’s lawyers asked for the photos of Michael’s body search, but Judge James M. Slater refused and said they were safely stored in a local bank. So safely stored that Geraldo Rivera had seen them, and there was a call made to the National Enquirer by someone who was trying to sell them the photos for $3 million. The rumours that the tabloids had the photos had been circulating since January 1994, and Jackson’s fans in Europe had started a campaign by gathering signatures so the photos would not be published.

In mid-February 1994 PBS aired the documentary “Frontline: Tabloid truth, the Michael Jackson Scandal”. The PBS correspondent, Richard Ben Cramer, followed the tabloid frenzy from behind the scenes when the scandal broke. He provided a great insight on how tabloids obstructed justice by interviewing con artists who were paid for their stories. It pointed out that the real news in Jackson’s case was poisoned by Hard Copy, A Current Affair, National Enquirer, and the blood thirsty London tabloids. These dubious characters who were motivated by money even made non-tabloid reporters lose their credibility. The New York Times revealed that Diane Sawyer went to Manila to interview the Quindoy couple. The newspaper negatively criticized her decision and they said that she started connecting herself to tabloids, and that was very dangerous for her reputation. It also came out that people who worked for tabloids were hired later for big networks. Checkbook journalism displayed by the tabloids was characterized as “disservice to truth and disservice to justice”, and its dubious impact on mainstream media was stressed. Diane Dimond was mocked by the non-tabloid press, and was characterized as a “tabloid princess” who made a name for herself by exploiting Michael Jackson. The Dayton Daily News wrote that “the trend toward tabloidization of news in America may be irreversible”. Hard Copy was severely criticized for the salacious coverage and the paid stories.

The sad reality is that Tom Sneddon’s §1108 evidence (enacted in 1995) based on hearsay “witnesses” came from tabloids like Hard Copy & National Enquirer, and they didn’t have any effect on any kind of jury that they were presented to (two Grand Juries, one civil trial, one criminal trial, and the police interviews in 1993 where they blamed the tabloids for their fictional stories), and the prosecutor could not use them to file charges. Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and professor at Loyola University School of Law, told News Press on 2004 regarding Sneddon’s action “The problem for the prosecutor is he’s always going with a one-victim case. The one witness you want to hear from in the prior case is the alleged victim. Part of the problem is that if you only bring in the other witnesses, it’s going to look like window dressing. The defense will say they don’t have the evidence so they’re trying to distract you with peripheral witnesses who have their own agenda”.

Most observers said that Judge Melville should not allow testimony from third parties who were making accusations about people who never accused Jackson and could not speak for themselves. Tom Mesereau, from morning session transcripts, on March 28, 2005, said:

Nowhere can we find they are just willy-nilly bringing in third-party witnesses to say they saw something without bringing the alleged victim in. Yet that is exactly what 99 percent of the evidence they plan to bring in is. And I submit the potential for prejudice there is overwhelming. They probably couldn’t win a civil case if they were pursuing a civil case based on nothing but third parties.

Who are their main witnesses? Their main witnesses sued Mr. Jackson in the mid ’90s, and for the first time Mr. Jackson decided, “I’m tired of settling these stupid cases, I’m actually going to defend this one.”

It resulted in the longest civil trial in the history of this courthouse. And the Court, I’m sure, knows a lot more about that case than I do. At numerous times during that six-month trial, the trial Judge made findings that the plaintiffs were lying, not being candid, changing their stories, even leaving the bench on a couple of occasions. And when the dust settled, the jury returned a verdict for Mr. Jackson, awarded Mr. Jackson damages, because the plaintiffs had stole from him.

The Judge then awarded not only costs, but legal fees, and in the end Mr. Jackson obtained a judgment for over a million dollars against these lying plaintiffs

They want the Court to allow these lying plaintiffs to come in now again and try and testify to improper acts, when there is no alleged victim they intend to call. That’s just plain wrong. And if they suggest it wouldn’t be time-consuming to litigate that issue, all the Court has to do is look at the six-month trial and its length to know that’s not true, because they sold stories to tabloids, they were caught lying, and they had a big judgment against them.

Now, the fourth alleged victim is Jason Francia. Jason Francia and his mother were interviewed by the sheriffs and a deposition of the mother was taken.

Money was paid to settle that case, again because Mr. Jackson didn’t want the press, didn’t want his family going through it, and wanted to pursue his music career.

There never was a criminal prosecution, even though the alleged victim was interviewed by the Los Angeles District Attorney and the Santa Barbara District Attorney together. And after their interview with Jason Francia – which was so wishy-washy about what happened, they never decided to pursue a criminal case, because there wasn’t one.

We have that taped interview – the mother, in a civil deposition in the Chandler litigation, began by saying she saw something and ended by saying she saw nothing. And indeed, stories were sold to tabloids, and money was paid to settle. He appears to be the only alleged victim they want to bring in.

Macaulay Culkin’s father also criticized Sneddon’s desperation and his weak case against the singer, as well as his decision not to even interview his son about the alleged molestation that several former Neverland employees claimed to have witnessed. Legal analysts also argued that it was wrong on the law and unfair to the defendant, violating his Sixth Amendment right. They added that they were proven untrustworthy by the prosecutor himself, who never filed charges for them, and there was never a conviction. They stressed that it was a blatant Confrontation Clause violation. All the imaginary alleged “victims” testified for Jackson’s defense, and Sneddon was left with his hearsay, having to explain why he called his tabloid “witnesses” and not the alleged “victims”. At the end the jury didn’t believe the “witnesses”, and Jackson was acquitted despite the official tainting.

Susan Drake, one of the 2005 trial jurors said to Larry King on June 23, 2005, after the exonerating verdict:

KING: Was there a chance you would have convicted anything guilty, Susan, on one of the minor counts?

DRAKE: Nothing. I went in there with a courage to convict a celebrity. Because I really believe in doing what is right. And witness after witness I was more convinced of the innocence, because of the motivations of financial gain and revenge, it was just amazing the way it was laid out.

During the month of April 1994, two Grand Juries (one from Santa Barbara, and one from Los Angeles) continued to hear testimonies, and were presented with the prosecutors outcomes of the criminal investigation. Some of the people who testified were Katherine Jackson, Miko Brando, Norma Staikos, Blanca Francia, Bob Jones, Anthony Pellicano, the rest of the “tell-all” tabloid witnesses, Janet Jackson’s ex-husband, and others that were not named in the press. While the two Grand Juries were in process, a source from the police investigation told Daily Variety that there was nothing that could incriminate Jackson. In the meantime it was reported that the prosecutors continued to meet with Jordan Chandler.

Both Grand Juries decided there was no case against Michael Jackson, and were disbanded in 1994 without issuing an indictment for the singer. One juror told CNN in May 1994 that he didn’t hear any damaging testimony and the only thing Michael Jackson could be found guilty of was bad judgement. The same was repeated in the Santa Barbara News Press in March 2004 when the paper interviewed members of the 1994 Santa Barbara Grand Jury who said that there were never shown enough evidence to issue an indictment. Michael Jackson’s 2005 lead defense attorney said on November 29, 2005, in his speech at Harvard University: “Sneddon had convened a grand jury in the early 90’s to try and get an indictment and he failed. And I have since spoken to someone who was on that grand jury quite recently from Los Angeles. She was on a Los Angeles grand jury that was convened at the same time. And they had real problems with these accusations. And the real problems were the sense that people were trying to get money out of Michael Jackson by generating these charges”.

On May 9 and 10, 1994, tabloid show Hard Copy invited as guests the paid tell all ex-employees, in an effort to exploit the story. This time excerpts from Evan Chandler’s diary were read. It was more than clear that Evan Chandler was still trying to cash in and he was breaching the terms of the settlement. Mr. Chandler confirms the $20 million and extortion and admits that when Jackson didn’t pay he then sent Jordan to Dr. Abrams, knowing that he was obligated by law to inform the police. The New York Amsterdam News criticized the tabloid for not pointing Mr. Chandler’s manipulations and accused the show for lack of fairness and objectivity.

On August 16, 1994, Jordan’s stepfather David Schwartz decided that he was left out of the game and it was time for him to earn some money from the singer. Mr. Schwartz, who was experiencing financial troubles for quite some time, and had even asked from June Chandler to persuade Michael Jackson to lend him millions of dollars (prior to the allegations), filed a lawsuit against Jackson for monetary compensation because he and his 6-year-old daughter Lily were “very traumatized by the allegations”. June Chandler, in her 2005 testimony, had a hard time recalling that everyone around her was desperate to profit from Michael Jackson. The motivation of money was so obvious that they could do nothing to hide it. David Schwartz hired Danny Davis as a lawyer. Danny Davis successfully represented the lead defendant in the McMartin Preschool case (in which false child abuse allegations where diagnosed by Dr. Katz). What a coincidence. Howard Weitzman’s comment was “this lawsuit is frivolous and another attempt to take advantage of Mr. Jackson’s notoriety and fame in order to try to extract money from him”. David Schwartz was the one who tried to alert Michael Jackson about Evan Chandler’s plan in 1993, and had accused Chandler of extortion.

On September 21, 1994 an official statement was made by Tom Sneddon and Gil Garcetti regarding the status of the investigation. They said they interviewed over 400 people, including children that denied any inappropriate contact, and 30 of these people testified in 2 grand juries. In their joint statement they admitted they had no evidence against Michael Jackson and therefore they could not file charges. Their only witness informed them on July 6, 1994 that he didn’t want to testify, and they quoted him “I am sorry, I do not want to and I will not testify” (Jordan Chandler would repeat the same thing in 2004 to Ron Zonen and the FBI agent). They said that if he decided to testify they would go forward with the case. They also said that the tabloid witnesses were interviewed as well, but they were not credible because they were paid for their stories. These people never said they witnessed molestation anyway.

After the settlement, the prosecutors continued to meet with Jordan and it was not until July 1994 that he informed them of his refusal to testify. Since the investigation had begun they had plenty of time to file charges if they had any incriminating evidence.

Gil Garcetti gracefully admitted that the 18-month investigation didn’t lead to anything incriminating. Tom Sneddon was too embarrassed to admit that the witch hunt, with the 6 search warrants, 2 grand juries and hundreds of witnesses lead to nothing. He referred to Jordan Chandler as “primary allegedvictim” but the problem is there are no primary, secondary and tertiary alleged victims. Either you have an alleged victim or you don’t. He went on to say that they discovered an alleged victim that denied any wrongdoing. How this individual became an alleged victim without admitting any wrongdoing was not explained. He also referred to another phantom alleged victim that conveniently was not in US at the time and was receiving therapy. The part where Mr. Sneddon tried to convict Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion is very confusing in its wording, and it doesn’t match with what he presented as phantom victims in his 1108 during the 2005 trial. The only one that received therapy was Jason Francia, and that was because his mother had questioned police’s techniques. He was also the one that denied any wrongdoing. On December 16, 1994 Hard Copy referred to Blanca Francia and her son asking for a settlement (thus copying the Chandlers after the police interviews and the grand jury depositions where nobody believed their story) and they used a clip of Sneddon talking about the alleged victim being on therapy. It was more than clear that Tom Sneddon mixed the story of Jason Francia to make it sound like a third alleged victim. The only person who was visited by authorities outside of the USA was Bret Barnes, who had publicly defended Jackson in 1993, and also defended him during police interviews in 1993-1994 and as a defense witness in the 2005 trial.

Tom Sneddon’s inappropriate behaviour was characterized as “a cheap shot at Michael Jackson” by USA Today, and the newspaper pointed out that the case was all about money from the very first day. While Mr. Sneddon had a hard time admitting that he spent the tax payers’ money on a witch hunt, Gil Garcetti tried to correct him after the press conference in the question and answer session with the media by saying the following: “Michael Jackson is presumed to be innocent as any citizen in this room is if they are not convicted with a crime. We are not charging Michael Jackson with a crime”.

Michael Jackson, who evidently had more class than Santa Barbara’s D.A. said the following: “I am thankful that the investigation has reached a conclusion. I continually maintained my innocence. I am grateful to all my family, friends and fans who have stood by me and also believed in my innocence. Lisa Marie and I look forward to getting on with our lives, raising a family, and will never forget the unending outpouring of love from all over the world. God Bless you”.

After the joint statement, Gil Garcetti said that it took them a long time to come to a conclusion because they “do not just willy-nilly go and charge someone after you get some initial information”. Mr. Gascon, the chief spokesman for the LAPD, said that they conducted the investigation, gave their information to the district attorneys, and made their decision. Ivy Mondy of the Department of Children’s Services, which was also investigating the case, said “we thought there would be a lot of attention given to this case because of who is involved, but when you get down to the facts of the case, youcan’t always proceed”. That was an interesting remark.

In October 1994, Mary Fischer published her article “Was Michael Jackson framed? The untold story” in GQ magazine. The article was nominated for National Magazine Award. She had interviewed many people involved in the case and although we now know more about the story, her revelations were very important in 1994. She appeared on The Today Show, CNN, KCBS-TV, CBS Morning News, and Entertainment Tonight to talk about her article. She was also interviewed for PBS’ documentary on the 1993 case before the publication of her report. In her article she concludes “To some observers, the Michael Jackson story illustrates the dangerous power of accusation, against which there is often no defense—particularly when the accusations involve child sexual abuse. To others, something else is clear now—that police and prosecutors spent millions of dollars to create a case whose foundation never existed”.

When Michael Jackson was arrested in 2003 for the Arvizo case, she was a guest on Greta Van Susteren’s show on November 25, 2003 and she defended her 1994 article and said that the current case was suspiciously similar to the 1993 case with the same people involved.

http://www.mjeol.com/audi...-25-03.mp3

In 2004 she also appeared on MSNBC, FOX, and CNN for the same reason. In June 2009, she gave permission to a blogger to reprint her article (http://www.abovetopsecret...477059/pg1).

On December 16, 1994, an orchestrated effort was displayed from tabloids to keep the story on their shows. Hard Copy reported that Blanca Francia and her son were seeking a settlement from Michael Jackson. This happened after Jackson’s lawyers rejected the proposal and Blanca Francia then asked for a little boost from tabloids to pressure Jackson. The maid was after her own concept of the American dream, and decided to copy the Chandlers’ playbook. The story was also reported in late January 1995 from British tabloids and New York Daily News. Blanca Francia, who blamed Hard Copy in 1993 for editing her interview, who was paid for the story, who told the police and grand jury she never witnessed anything inappropriate, who said her son denied any molestation, and who was now trying to cash in. She filed a civil complaint, not a criminal one, and found herself a civil lawyer to copy Larry Feldman. Sony, who was about to release Jackson’s “HIStory” album, intervened to save their multi-million dollar campaign from negative publicity. The maid had carefully chosen the timing to achieve her goal and ask for money. Jackson finally agreed to a settlement, which was not an admission of guilt, and did not prevent the Francias from testifying in court and talking to the police (they had already done it 2 years ago) and he added a unique paragraph (which was not the standard language for settlement agreements) to declare his innocence, and the reason for settling the case. Francia’s lawyer ,Kris Kallman, testified in 2005, along with both Blanca and Jason Francia. Mr. Kallman said that the settlement was reached either in 1995 or 1996. From Kris Kallman’s 2005 direct examination from Tom Sneddon:

Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Who was the individual that

12 the Complaint was directed towards?

13 A. Mr. Jackson.

14 Q. At some point in time, did you have contact

15 with individuals who were representing Mr. Jackson

16 over the proposed filing of the criminal — of the

17 civil complaint?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And who did you make contact with?

20 A. Initially our contacts were with Johnnie

21 Cochran and his associate, Carl Douglas.

22 Q. Do you recall approximately when it was when

23 you first made contact with Mr. — or when contact

24 was made between you and Mr. Cochran and Mr.

25 Douglas?

26 A. It was either late ‘94 or early ‘95.

27 Q. Did you, after your conversations with those

28 individuals, file the civil lawsuit? 4953

1 A. No.

2 Q. At some point in time later, were you then

3 dealing with other lawyers with regard to the

4 proposed filing of that civil lawsuit?

5 A. Yes. At some point, Mr. Jackson’s

6 representation was assumed by a lawyer named Zia

7 Modabber, and a lawyer named Howard Weitzman.

8 Q. And do you recall approximately when it was

9 that you then began contact with those particular

10 individuals?

11 A. I believe it was in mid 1995.

12 Q. And the purpose of those contacts?

13 A. Well, the –

14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague;

15 foundation.

16 THE COURT: Overruled.

17 You may answer.

18 THE WITNESS: The purpose of the contacts

19 was that they knew that we had a Complaint that we

20 were about to file in Santa Barbara County Superior

21 Court, and they didn’t want us to do that.

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;

23 foundation.

24 THE COURT: The answer is stricken.

25 Sustained.

26 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: As a result of the

27 conversations between these individuals, did you

28 pursue your lawsuit? 4954

1 A. Well, we never filed the lawsuit.

2 Q. Did you reach an agreement, a settlement

3 agreement?

4 A. Yes, we did.

5 Q. Did you reach a settlement agreement in

6 which Jason Francia received monetary compensation

7 from Mr. Jackson?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. Did you receive — did you reach an

10 agreement in which Blanca Francia received monetary

11 compensation from Mr. Jackson?

12 A. Yes, we did.

13 Q. During the time that you were

14 representing — during the time that you had

15 prepared a Complaint ready to be filed and you were

16 in contact with attorneys representing Mr. Jackson,

17 can you give the ladies and gentlemen of the jury an

18 idea of how old Jason Francia was at that particular

19 point in time?

20 A. Well, he was about 14 years old. He’s 24

21 now, as I understand it, and we’re talking about

22 things that happened just about exactly ten years

23 ago.

24 Q. And in your position as a civil litigator,

25 at the time that an individual is of minority, at

26 the age of 14, how do you deal with representing a

27 person like that?

28 A. Well, a child – 4955

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague;

2 foundation; relevance.

3 THE COURT: Overruled.

4 You may complete your answer.

5 THE WITNESS: A child, under California law,

6 under the age of 18, is not permitted to enter into

7 a contract. I suppose he or she could, but it

8 wouldn’t be enforceable. So the only way a child

9 can act legally is through a guardian ad litem. And

10 it’s normally the parent and normally the mother.

11 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Was that the case in this

12 particular instance?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, during the course of the time that you

15 were involved in obtaining a settlement from Mr.

16 Jackson on behalf of the Francias, did you deal

17 personally with Jason at any time?

18 A. Yeah. Sure.

19 Q. In what respect?

20 A. Well, I knew who he was, I met with him. I

21 met with he and his mom. He was a teenaged boy, and

22 a nice young man.

23 Q. Now, at some point in time was Jason

24 required to sign some kind of documents in

25 conjunction with the settlement?

26 A. Yes. When he turned 18, part of the

27 condition was that he sign a confidentiality

28 agreement. 4956

1 Q. Now, with regard to the confidentiality –

2 and to your knowledge, did he sign that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And with regard to the confidentiality

5 agreement, did it have a provision that required

6 notice to Mr. Jackson in the event that Jason

7 Francia talked to anybody?

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; move to

9 strike.

10 THE COURT: Overruled.

11 You may answer.

12 THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes.

13 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And what was the

14 requirement notice in the confidentiality agreement

15 with regard to notice to the defense?

16 A. I believe it’s five days.

17 Q. And were you at some point contacted by Mr.

18 Zonen of our department with regard to interviewing

19 your — Jason Francia?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And in that particular case, did you

22 indicate to Mr. Zonen that you would have to do

23 something before you could agree with that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And what was that?

26 A. Well, I’d have to notify somebody on Mr.

27 Jackson’s legal staff that they wanted to talk to

28 him. 4957

1 Q. And did you do that?

2 A. Yeah. Yes. Excuse me.

3 Q. And did you then grant permission for Mr.

4 Zonen to have a conversation with your — with Jason

5 Francia?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, were you present during the

8 conversations between Jason Francia and Mr. Zonen?

9 A. I don’t think so. I think I was there, and

10 then I think I had to go to another court or

11 something like that. I don’t remember being an

12 integral part of any of those — if there was more

13 than one, I don’t even know.

14 Q. And I’m talking about the conversations that

15 occurred after you gave notice to the defense in

16 this case, or gave notice to Mr. Jackson. To your

17 knowledge, was Mr. Cannon present?

18 A. I believe so. At least for part of it.

19 Again, I’m not certain.

20 Q. Do you remember when it was that you

21 finally — the year that you finally reached a

22 settlement agreement with Mr. Jackson?

23 A. Yes. It’s been a long time. But it was a

24 big deal. And I do remember –

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

26 move to strike.

27 THE COURT: The answer is stricken.

28 Nonresponsive. 4958

1 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Just –

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And what year was that, approximately?

4 A. It was either ‘95 or ‘96, I believe.

Cross examination from Tom Mesereau:

Q. Yes. Okay. Now, the prosecutor asked you

13 some questions about provisions in the settlement

14 agreement, okay? And one of the issues that was

15 carefully negotiated by the people representing Mr.

16 Jackson was that he deny any wrongdoing in that

17 agreement, right?

18 A. Again, the best evidence of that would be

19 what’s in the agreement. I don’t remember what’s in

20 there.

21 Q. Okay. Well, let me — the prosecutor read

22 you a provision, asked you about it.

23 Let me ask you about this: There was

24 language in that agreement that said, “The parties

25 acknowledge that Jackson has elected to settle the

26 claims solely in view of the potential impact any

27 litigation could have in the future on his

28 reputation, earnings and potential income, and not 4968

1 because of any alleged wrongful conduct on his

2 part,” right?

3 A. If you’re asking me if that’s in the

4 document, I’ll have to take your word for it. You

5 don’t need to show it to me. It sounds pretty

6 standard to me.

7 Q. The agreement further said — excuse me, let

8 me rephrase that.

9 Both agreements, the one involving Jason and

10 the one involving Blanca, his mother, both had

11 language which said, “This agreement shall not, in

12 any manner, be construed as an admission by Jackson

13 that he has acted wrongfully with respect to

14 Francia, Blanca, or any other person, or at all, or

15 that Francia or Blanca have any rights whatsoever

16 against Jackson or Jackson’s releasees.” Sound

17 familiar to you?

18 A. It sounds like standard language in

19 virtually every release that I deal with. But, yes,

20 it does sound familiar.

21 Q. Actually, there’s a whole separate paragraph

22 entitled, “Denial of Claims by Mr. Jackson,”

23 correct?

24 A. Don’t know.

25 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

26 you a copy?

27 A. It would.

28 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor? 4969

1 THE COURT: Yes.

2 THE WITNESS: It does refresh my

3 recollection.

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And do you recall

5 that language being in both agreements?

6 A. I believe so, yes, sir.

7 Q. Okay. In addition to the language that I

8 have read, there’s further language which says,

9 “Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to,

10 and denies any wrongful acts against, Francia,

11 Blanca or any other person and may continue to do so

12 publicly, to the extent reasonably necessary, to

13 respond to any inquiries in this regard.” Right?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. It said further, “The parties acknowledge

16 that Jackson is a public figure, and that his name,

17 image and likeness have commercial value and are an

18 important element of his earning capacity.” Right?

19 A. That’s true.

20 Q. And that language was in both settlement

21 agreements, the one involving Blanca Francia and the

22 one involving Jason Francia, correct?

23 A. I don’t remember that. I will take your

24 word for it. You don’t need to refresh my

25 recollection. It sounds like it should be or would

26 be.

27 Q. Now, Mr. Kallman, provisions in which a

28 settling party denies liability are fairly standard 4970

1 in settlement agreements, right?

2 A. True.

3 Q. But the language that I just read to the

4 jury is not standard language in a settlement

5 agreement, is it?

6 A. This is not a standard case, or was not.

7 And no, you’re right. These were carefully drafted

8 by a team of lawyers, and we agreed to the terms.

9 Q. And the reason those terms are different is

10 because Mr. Jackson is an unusual individual in

11 terms of his need to preserve his reputation and

12 public image so he can earn a living, right?

13 MR. SNEDDON: Calls for speculation on this.

14 It wasn’t drafted by him. No foundation.

15 MR. MESEREAU: I think it was drafted by

16 this witness.

17 THE COURT: All right. I’ll sustain a

18 foundation.

19 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

20 Q. When you settled these matters – and I’m

21 talking about matters involving Michael Jackson,

22 Blanca Francia, and Jason Francia – you put in

23 language involving denial of claims by Mr. Jackson

24 that was not standard language in a typical

25 settlement agreement, right?

26 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

27 object to the question as lack of foundation; that

28 he put the language in there. 4971

1 THE COURT: Well, that was the foundation I

2 was looking for.

3 So I’ll allow you to answer the question as

4 long as you understand the limitations of your

5 answer.

6 THE WITNESS: Well –

7 THE COURT: If you put the language in.

8 THE WITNESS: I didn’t draft that agreement.

9 THE COURT: Okay.

10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did lawyers from your

11 office draft the agreement?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Who drafted the agreement?

14 A. Somebody in Mr. Modabber’s office, the

15 Katten, Muchin, Zavis & Weitzman firm in Century

16 City.

17 Q. Did you have any input into the language in

18 the agreement?

19 A. Only to review it. And if there was

20 language we found objectionable, we could strike it,

21 I suppose.

22 Q. Okay.

23 A. But they wanted that in there, and I didn’t

24 find it objectionable.

25 Q. Okay. Now, you made a statement, I believe,

26 in response to the prosecutor’s questions, that if

27 someone from law enforcement wanted to speak to your

28 client, you had to first notify representatives of 4972

1 Mr. Jackson, true?

2 A. True.

3 Q. That — really, that language is not in that

4 agreement, is it?

5 A. I don’t know.

6 Q. Then why would you say it?

7 A. Because that’s part — in one of the

8 agreements, I have to give notice to the defense

9 team. And I’ve given notice once to Mr. Sanger.

10 And then when I got subpoenaed on Friday, I gave

11 notice to Mr. Modabber down in Los Angeles.

12 Q. But the notice you’re supposed to give to

13 the defense team does not involve requests by law

14 enforcement to speak to your client, does it?

15 A. I assume that anybody from law enforcement

16 that wants to talk to my client, there was a

17 requirement to notify somebody from the defense

18 team.

19 Q. Nowhere in those settlement agreements is

20 there language to that effect, is there?

21 A. I have no idea.

22 MR. SNEDDON: Object as immaterial;

23 irrelevant.

24 MR. MESEREAU: The prosecutor brought it up

25 on direct, Your Honor.

26 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. And

27 the answer came in as, “I have no idea.”

28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: It would be against public 4973

1 policy for a civil litigator to put language in a

2 settlement agreement precluding anyone from

3 cooperating with law enforcement, wouldn’t it?

4 A. In my opinion, yes.

5 Q. Lawyers are not allowed to have language

6 like that in settlement agreements, right?

7 A. Wrong.

8 Q. Pardon me?

9 A. No. It’s a notice requirement. It’s not a

10 preclusion requirement.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #63 posted 03/05/17 12:24pm

HAPPYPERSON

Image result for tom sneddon

Tom Sneddon

The lazy “journalists” who had no idea about Michael Jackson in general, would refer to that settlement as something new that had emerged during the 2005 trial. In reality it was very old news since 1995, but their stories were poorly researched, as usual.

Michael Jackson again released a statement on September 3, 2004, to talk about the settlements:

“It is unfortunate that yet, again, I must respond to untruths and sensationalism. Years ago, I settled with certain individuals because I was concerned about my family and the media scrutiny that would have ensued if I fought the matter in court. These people wanted to exploit my concern for children by threatening to destroy what I believe in and what I do. I have been a vulnerable target for those who want money”.

His defense attorney Tom Mesereau in a press conference dated September 17, 2004 said on the same issue:

“Mr. Jackson has been a target of frivolous lawsuits throughout his career. To date, well over a thousand ridiculous lawsuits have been filed or threatened against Mr. Jackson for all kinds of reasons by those who sought to obtain money by exploiting his achievements and love for people.

None of these claims involved allegations that he ever harmed a child. However, they involved, for the most part, creative and outrageous attempts to take money from Mr. Jackson. Throughout his career, Mr. Jackson’s desire to create and help our world has been subjected to efforts to exploit, undermine and take advantage of this wonderful human being.

Mr. Jackson has been repeatedly advised by those who stood to make fortunes in his business affairs to pay money, rather than face certain false allegations. As a result, many years ago, he did pay money, rather than litigate, two false allegations that he had harmed children.

People who intended to earn millions of dollars from his record and music promotions did not want negative publicity from these lawsuits interfering with their profits.

These two false allegations must be placed in a proper perspective. Mr. Jackson has interacted with millions of children. Many millions of children around the world love Michael Jackson and never alleged that he harmed them in any way.

Those who wanted to profit from his good deeds and vulnerabilities were also threatening to destroy his ability to raise his own children and to champion the welfare, integrity, humanity and interests of children around the world. Michael Jackson occupies a world where his privacy is continually violated.

Michael Jackson now regrets making these payments. Nevertheless, these efforts to settle are now being used against him regardless of the merits or the truth behind them. These settlements were entered into with one primary condition. That condition was that Mr. Jackson never admitted any wrongdoing.

Mr. Jackson always denied doing anything wrong. Mr. Jackson had hoped to buy peace in the process. He was advised that while these sums of money appeared large, they were actually very small compared to money he could make in music. Mr. Jackson has earned well over one billion dollars in his career. Placed in this perspective, they were very small sums, indeed.

Greed begets greed. Mr. Jackson now realizes that the advice he received was wrong. He should have fought these actions to the bitter end and vindicated himself. The recent publicity about these settlements is unfair and damaging to him, his family and his dedication to the world’s children. The false charges he is facing will be battled in a court of law within our justice system. He is innocent and will be vindicated”.

On January 9, 1995, Diane Dimond, while using Victor Gutierrez as a source, reported a false story during her interview on the “Klen and Barkley show” of KABC-AM radio. She said that a videotape existed of Michael Jackson engaging in unlawful conduct with a minor. She also said that Gutierrez had met with the kid’s mother in a hotel, showed her the tape and then the mother went to LAPD to report it but the police didn’t care (!). Then she said something that was contradictory to the previous report; that the investigators were looking for the tape, and that the investigation on Jackson was reopened.

Right after the show, Jackson’s lawyer Howard Weitzman, sent the following letter to Paramount Pictures:

“I learned earlier today that Diane Dimond, one of Paramount’s Hard Copy reporters, was on KABC talk radio this morning and indicated that an untrue and defamatory story about an alleged videotape depicting Michael Jackson engaging in sexual relations with a minor was true, and that she believed such a tape existed. I understand that Ms. Dimond also made claims that the Los Angeles and/or Santa Barbara District Attorneys’ offices are reopening their criminal investigation of Mr. Jackson, based on the purported existence of this videotape. Please be informed that Ms. Dimond’s claims regarding the existence of such a videotape are untrue and defamatory, as are her claims regarding the reopening of any criminal investigation concerning Mr. Jackson.”

He also called Hard Copy to warn them that they were repeating a false report. But Hard Copy ran with the false report the same night, and so did two British tabloids. After that, Howard Weitzman said again “this week several tabloid shows and magazines, along with certain individuals, publicly alleged a videotape existed of Michael Jackson engaging in unlawful conduct. No such tapes exist”.

Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, issued a statement after the false tabloid report:We have not reopened the investigation. We have heard about the alleged tape. We have not seen it and we don’t have it. Prosecutors were not involved in a search for such a video”. (Sandi Gibbons is also the one that made the statement outside the courthouse on January 25, 2011 regarding Conrad Murray’s trial on behalf of the Los Angeles district attorney).

Michael Jackson issued a statement as well:

Enough is enough! I will no longer stand by and watch reckless members of the media try to destroy my reputation. I intend to protect myself and my family. I have instructed my attorneys to file lawsuits against those persons who continue to spread vicious lies and rumors about me in their attempts to make money, benefit their careers, sell papers or get viewers to watch their programs”.

Michael Jackson filed a $100 million lawsuit against everyone involved for slander. “The plaintiff is compelled to defend himself because Dimond, Hard Copy and the other defendants appear more concerned with their ratings than they are with the accuracy of their broadcast or the harm caused their victims”.

The D.A. of Santa Barbara, Tom Sneddon, in an unusual move for a prosecutor, involved himself in the lawsuit to save his friend Dimond. He issued a declaration for the judge that he concluded that no such tape exists but according to his “memory and belief” he came to that conclusion after Dimond’s report, and as a result she could not be held responsible for malice. Not only was this highly unusual, but Tom Sneddon had nothing to do with this because it was not in his jurisdiction. The case belonged to the Los Angeles D.A. and LAPD, and Sandi Gibbons had already refuted the tabloid reporter. Diane Dimond was saved from the lawsuit because the court ruled that no malice was proved on her part, and that she only stated her opinion ,and did not present the false story as a fact. The court probably didn’t know that this was her tactic-presenting her opinion as a fact. After that, she owed Tom Sneddon for saving her and she exercised a biased, pro-prosecution slant to her coverage, and continued to report false stories during 2003-2005, for which she was negatively criticized. Court TV, the now defunct cable news channel that hired her for the trial’s coverage, was accused of becoming a tabloid for hiring someone who had a conflict of interest. Her ex -boss at Hard Copy, Burt Kearns wrote the following in 2005:Throughout the recent investigation and trial, Diane acted more like a prosecutor than a reporter. But she doesn’t have the smarts of a Nancy Grace. She was a clown in the circus and played the role to the hilt. Her performance in the Jackson case probably ended her hopes of ever again being taken seriously as a journalist, but it did get her a book deal”.

Gutierrez, the proven liar, told detective Gonterman that the mother was Margaret Maldonado, Jermaine Jackson’s ex-wife. Margaret Maldonado discredited Gutierrez, whom she had never even met. Gutierrez also said that L.A. district attorney Gil Garcetti had seen the tape, a lie that was refuted by the prosecutor. The investigation concluded that the tape story was a lie and Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn ordered Victor Gutierrez to pay $2.7 million to Michael Jackson for defamation.Jurors told us that they not only wanted to compensate Mr. Jackson and punish Victor Gutierrez, but to send a message that they are tired of tabloids lying about celebrities for money”, Jackson’s attorney Zia Modabber told the Associated Press. Much to his disappointment, Gutierrez’s lawyer had to repeat the jurors’ message as well. Gutierrez declared bankruptcy and left the country. Zia Modabber said in an interview after the verdict that people think that Michael Jackson is an easy target because he is rich, and he settled a previous civil case. She said that Michael Jackson is determined to defend himself in court and win so people’s dreams of making money out of the singer are over. She talked about people suing celebrities, which is a very common situationUnfortunately, anybody can walk into a courthouse with a couple of hundred dollars and file a lawsuit. And if you happen to be suing Michael Jackson or any other celebrity for that matter you are going to find yourself all over TV and you can tell the whole world about your scandalous accusations and people are going to listen to you”.

Margaret Maldonado wrote in her book about Gutierrez’s scam and how she learned about it:

“I received a telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson. I had known Ruth for quite a while and respected her integrity. It made what she had to tell me all the more difficult to hear.

“I wanted to warn you, Margaret,” she said. “There’s a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael molesting one of your sons, and that you have the tape.”

If anyone else had said those words, I would have hung up the phone. Given the long relationship I had with Ruth, however, I gave her the courtesy of a response. I told her that it wasn’t true, of course, and that I wanted the story stopped in its tracks.

She had been in contact with someone who worked at the National Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being written for that paper. Ruth cross-connected me with the woman, and I vehemently denied the story. Moreover, I told her that if the story ran, I would own the National Enquirer before the lawsuits I brought were finished. To its credit, the National Enquirer never ran the piece.

“Hard Copy,” however, decided it would. “Hard Copy” correspondent Diane Dimond had reported that authorities were reopening the child molestation case against Michael. She had also made the allegations on L.A. radio station KABC-AM on a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard. Dimond’s claims were based on the word of a freelance writer named Victor Gutierrez. The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I’d never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.”

It turned out that Gutierrez was trying to advertise his fictional book that contained pornographic fairytales of a person with a sick fantasy. Not even the tabloids were able to believe him, let alone Tom Sneddon. During a 2003 interview with a Chilean tabloid, Gutierrez went on with his hallucinations, saying that Tom Sneddon had contacted him about being a potential witness in the Arvizo case against Jackson. His lies and fantasies ended again when the tabloid received a phone call from Sneddon’s office that refuted the lie. The truth is far more disturbing because Gutierrez is not only a proven liar with a sick fantasy, but he is a self-admitted advocate of pedophilia, and he has attended these sick paraphiliacs’ conferences. The other disturbing fact is that he had admitted stalking Michael Jackson since 1986 (before the allegations), and writing a book about allegations that had not even been made. The most terrifying thing is that he met with Norma Salinas (Evan Chandler’s maid) as well as Jackson’s ex-employees, including Blanca Francia and Orietta Murdoch (Jackson’s ex secretary who didn’t say anything bad about him) before any allegations were made by Evan Chandler. The people he approached coincidentally spoke with Diane Dimond. Through Norma Salinas he met Evan Chandler, before the 1993 allegations. This was the man that NBC paid in 2004 to produce a program for the Arvizo case. The proven liar with the questionable past and suspicious involvement was used as a “source” for the tabloids. He repeated his lies for a German newspaper in 2005. The particular newspaper has been accused of promoting pedophilia. The fact that real predators, and people who support them, tried to use Jackson’s well-known known affection for children in order to normalize their sickness is abominable.

In 1995, while there was a lawsuit pending against her, Diane Dimond aired another story about a “phantom victim”. For this story she had to fly to Canada, and her producer had to pay the expenses for the show, so she had to bring a story back regardless of the result. The story was about a Canadian street kid that claimed he had been molested by Jackson, and he was able to offer a detailed story like every other liar can. The detective that questioned him said he sounded believable, and this could be another allegation on Michael Jackson. The only difference was that the police investigators in Canada actually did their job and discovered the lie. The kid was coached to lie by Rodney Allen, and he was the man that had been sending all the letters to Hard Copy making it seem as if different people were writing about being “victims”. The kid was arrested, and Rodney Allen was later arrested and convicted of pedophilia. What a coincidence!

Police investigators in the US only investigated Jackson and nobody else, and when they found nothing they didn’t bother to conduct a thorough investigation for the other side of the story as they should have done. They didn’t investigate all these people who were suspiciously connected to each other, and were popping up every time there was a story on Michael Jackson. On the other hand, the Canadian police did a better investigation without being biased against the singer, and they were able to uncover the truth.

On June 14, 1995, Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley Jackson gave an interview to Diane Sawyer of ABC’s Prime Time Live. He was asked about the 1993 case and he again declared his innocence. His album “HIStory, Past, Present & Future Book 1” was released on June 16, 1995. In that album Jackson appears very angry about the false allegations and he mocks Tom Sneddon for his malicious prosecution.

He would later mock him again in his short film Ghosts in 1997 by playing the mayor (Sneddon) who wanted the maestro (Jackson) out of his town. And Tom Sneddon would punish him with the 2003 fabricated Arvizo case and with further public lynching.

In 1995, five former Neverland employees followed the example of the “Hayvenhurst 5”. Kassim Abdool, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Sandy Domz and Melanie Bagnall filed a $16 million lawsuit against Michael Jackson (Case No. SM 89344), having Michael P. Ring as an attorney. They alleged they were harassed and threatened by security guards, and fired or forced to quit in 1994. Melanie Bagnall even alleged she was sexually harassed by a guard named Andrew Merritt (in the trial Merritt was not found liable of sexually harassing her). The judge refused Court TV’s request to televise the trial. The plaintiffs had sold their stories to the tabloids instead of going to the police. The civil case went to trial in September 1996, along with Michael Jackson’s cross-complaint. The singer’s countersuit said two of the former workers stole sketches, personal notes, hats, toys and candy from the ranch and sold some items to tabloids. Michael Ring was fined $28,350 for hiding evidence from Jackson’s lawyers during pre-trial fact-finding in March 1997. He was fined $10,000 previously for concealing facts. The trial lasted six months and the plaintiffs were sanctioned (approximately $66,ooo) for lying in court and contradicting their own testimony given the previous days. The Honorable Judge Zel Canter in one instance left the bench saying he was disgusted. On March 1, 1996, Michael Jackson was deposed for the civil case and a three minute video was released from News of the World tabloid in 2009. On March 18, 1997, the jury rejected the wrongful termination lawsuit and awarded Jackson $60,000 in damages. The plaintiffs were also ordered to pay a $1.4 million judgement in attorney fees and court costs to Michael Jackson.

“Today a jury in Santa Maria, California, sided with Michael Jackson and found that five former employees at his Neverland Ranch were not wrongfully terminated. In what was a complete win for the singer, the jury even awarded Jackson $60,000 in a countersuit that charged some of those employees stole items from the estate. The singer’s attorneys filed a countersuit, saying the five quit voluntarily and were not harassed. It also claimed two of the former workers–the maid and a bodyguard–stole sketches, personal notes, hats, toys and candy from the ranch, selling some items to tabloid newspapers. The jury of 10 women and two men agreed with Jackson. They ruled Tuesday there was no evidence to support the allegations brought against Jackson or the six aides mentioned in the lawsuit by his former employees. Jurors also decided that items were stolen and awarded Jackson the 60 grand. “We’re happy to be finally and fully vindicated,” said Jackson attorney Steve Cochrane”.

At least 2 of the employees declared bankruptcy, and when they testified in the 2005 trial, they admitted that their attorney advised them to sell salacious stories to tabloids, by using a media broker, so they can pay their legal expenses. Maid Adrian McManus admitted that she knew nothing about Jackson’s sex life with Presley but nevertheless signed contracts to sell fictional stories. Howard Weitzman said after the ruling: “Michael Jackson is thankful for the court’s ruling, he has consistently maintained that he has not engaged in wrongful conduct with any minors. The stories told by these guards on various tabloid shows, for which they were paid, were false”.

Matt Taibbi, referring to these people being called by the prosecution in the 2005 trial, summed it up for Rolling Stone on June 30, 2005:

The first month or so of the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case — almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse. The early witnesses against Jackson included a bodyguard who missed court because he was in custody facing charges stemming from a series of armed robberies, including holding up a Jack in the Box at gunpoint; a former Neverland maid who’d stolen a sketch Jackson had made of Elvis Presley and sold it to the tabloids for thirty grand; another former employee who’d lost a wrongful-termination suit against Jackson and had to pay part of a $1.4 million settlement as a result; a housekeeper whose son claims he was molested sold stories about Jackson to Hard Copy; and a Neverland chef whose off-duty hobbies included a porn site called Virtual Sin that featured “hours of live sex.”

J. Randy Taraborelli, who was a CBS news analyst during the 2005 trial, said that he had interviewed many of these Neverland employees but didn’t quote them in his book, because they had financial motives to lie: “If these people did not have this baggage and if their stories ended with ‘And then I called the police,’ my reaction would be ‘Oh my God’. But if you really saw these things, a normal person would call the police; you don’t call the National Enquirer.

These people were exposed for the second time when they testified in the 2005 trial and, the jurors didn’t believe them either. They also heard that other jurors in 1997 found them to be a fraud.

In 1996, another former employee, Jerome Johnson, decided to copy the “Hayvenhurst 5” and the “Neverland 5”. The bodyguard alleged he was unjustly fired in April 1995. His lawsuit was thrown out of the court by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Horowitz on May 13, 1997.

On May 7, 1996, Evan Chandler proved again it was all about money. He sued Michael Jackson, his wife Lisa Marie, ABC, Sony, Diane Sawyer, Howard Stern and 300 John Does, including Mary Fischer for her 1994 GQ article (it was reported at the time that she was deposed and that she revealed her sources). He said Jackson breached the settlement’s confidentiality and the others helped him and he asked for $60 million. He also asked the court’s permission to sing about the 1993 allegations by releasing an album called “EVANstory”! Evan Chandler, with that ridiculous request, actually admitted it was always his story, and his allegations. And why would he relate to songs with lyrics like “somebody’s out, somebody’s out to use me, they really wanna use me, they falsely accused me” and “you’ll do anything for money”? Did he falsely accuse Michael Jackson for money?

USA Today wrote “father, who accused singer of molesting son and is now suing again, ought to get a life”. Evan Chandler forgot that Michael Jackson declared his innocence inside the settlement document that he happily signed, and his declaration of innocence was also mentioned twice in the joint statement of Larry Feldman and Johnnie Cochran after the settlement.

The three arbitrators of the settlement document (retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Bonnie Martin, retired state Supreme Court Justice Edward Panelli, and retired Fourth District Court of Appeal Justice John K. Trotter) determined that there was not a breach of the settlement agreement “because the complained-of activities involved Jackson’s own public image, his music and his new album, not the plaintiffs”. They also said that Jackson could not be deemed by the settlement agreement to be barred for proclaiming his innocence in a public forum such as a TV interview: “In the present case, the arbitrators’ finding of no wrongful conduct based on their interpretation of the agreement did not conflict with any explicit and mandatory term of the agreement”. Evan Chandler’s lawsuit was thrown out of court.

Tom Sneddon and Gil Garcetti changed the law regarding child molestation allegations so an individual could be indicted with no evidence, based only on the claims of the alleged victim. The prosecutors would also be allowed to bring hearsay witnesses for these cases even though the defendant had no convictions about the alleged hearsay acts. Everything was ready to set up Michael Jackson in 2003.

In retrospect, we know that, like the singer said, the truth prevailed and Jackson was exonerated. Tom Sneddon was so desperate that in 1993 he even tried to prosecute Jackson under the Mann Act, a racist law, even though June Chandler was always present on the trips. The only thing Sneddon was able to prove was Jackson’s innocence. He left no stone unturned, he travelled the world, he did things beyond his jurisdiction, he changed the law, he tried to falsify evidence and create victims because he had nothing but his rage against Michael Jackson. Tom Sneddon, through his actions, proved the singer’s innocence himself.

When Sneddon tried to create victims in the 2005 trial ABC News wrote: Mesereau told the judge that the defense would put on a “mini-trial” on each allegation that is allowed in. “You can’t stop the defense from putting on a full-blown defense and I mean just that,” the defense attorney warned”. The prosecutor did not have any victims. All he had was Jason Francia, who both he and his mother had denied allegations, and he was then forced on record to create a story for the police, and his mother was paid from tabloids and asked Jakson for money. Tom Mesereau did put a full blown defense for these fictions as well, and still won the case.

The statute of limitations on the criminal case against Michael Jackson was set to expire on August 17, 1999. But not for Tom Sneddon, who did nothing usual and normal regarding Jackson. It was extended for 2 years, and the excuse was that the singer was out of the country for his History tour so the clock stopped.

In reality, the clock would forever stop for Tom Sneddon on June 13, 2005 at 2:25 pm PDT inside a Santa Maria courthouse in which he presented (for 5 months) to a conservative, pro-prosecution jury (which consisted of non African Americans) his 1108 hearsay-nonsense about 1993, and the fabricated and laughable Arvizo case, for which he had no evidence and no case, exactly like in 1993. The 12 jurors put an end to the twelve years of Sneddon’s vendetta against Michael Jackson. And they did it live.

Evan Chandler committed suicide in November 2009, and it was reported that no one attended his funeral.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #64 posted 03/05/17 12:32pm

HAPPYPERSON

It's ironic that during the whole media frenzy, they somehow "forgot" to inform the public that Evan Chandler was an aspiring script writer who knew MJ had connections to tinsel town! They also neglected to the tell the public that 1) Evan wanted to become a partner in Michael's newly approved Production Company ($ony gave him $40 million to help start it up) 2) Evan wanted $20 million for his movie script. This all occurred BEFORE Evan drafted up that BS molestation story.

Geraldine Hughes exposes facts about the case against Michael Jackson in 93 to explain her book Redemption.

The Shitstorm that surrounded his life during that period heavily inspired the 1995 album HIStory. Many believe as time goes by HIStory will be regarded as his most import body of work along with Dangerous and BOTDF.

Image result for HIStory album

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #65 posted 03/05/17 12:52pm

HAPPYPERSON

Money
Money
Lie for it
Spy for it
Kill for it
Die for it
So you call it trust
But I say it's just
In the devil's game
Of greed and lust
They don't care
They'd do me for the money
They don't care
They use me for the money
So you go to church
Read the holy word
In the scheme of life
It's all absurd
They don't care
They'd kill for the money
Do or dare
The thrill for the money
You're saluting the flag
Your country trusts you
Now you're wearing a badge
You're called the "Just Few"
And you're fighting the wars
A soldier must do
I'll never betray or deceive you my friend but
If you show me the cash
Then I will take it
If you tell me to cry
Then I will fake it
If you give me a hand
Then I will shake it
You do anything for money
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil
Insurance?
Where do your loyalties lie?
Is that your alibi?
I don't think so
You don't care
You'd do her for the money
Say it's fair
You sue her for the money
Want your pot of gold
Need the Midas touch
Bet you sell your soul
'Cause your God is such
You don't care
You kill for the money
Do or dare
The thrill for the money
Are you infected with the same disease of lust, gluttony and greed?
Then watch the ones
With the biggest smiles
The idle jabbers
'Cause they're the backstabbers
If you know it's a lie
Then you will swear it
If you give it with guilt
Then you will bear it
If it's taking a chance
Then you will dare it
You do anything for money
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil
You say you wouldn't do it
For all the money in the world
I don't think so
If you show me the man
Then I will sell him
If you ask me to lie
Then I will tell him
If you're stealing with God
Then you will hell him
You do anything for money
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil
Anything
Anything
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil

"Tabloid Junkie"

Speculate to break the one you hate
Circulate the lie you confiscate
Assassinate and mutilate
As the hounding media in hysteria
Who's the next for you to resurrect
JFK exposed the CIA
Truth be told the grassy knoll
As the blackmail story in all your glory

It's slander
You say it's not a sword
But with your pen you torture men
You'd crucify the Lord
And you don't have to read it, read it
And you don't have to eat it, eat it
To buy it is to feed it, feed it
So why do we keep foolin' ourselves

Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
Though everybody wants to read all about it
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual, actual
They say he's homosexual

In the hood
Frame him if you could
Shoot to kill
To blame him if you will
If he dies sympathize
Such false witnesses
Damn self righteousness
In the black
Stab me in the back
In the face
To lie and shame the race
Heroine and Marilyn
As the headline stories of
All your glory

It's slander
With the words you use
You're a parasite in black and white
Do anything for news
And you don't go and buy it, buy it
And they won't glorify it, 'fy it
To read it sanctifies it, 'fies it
Then why do we keep foolin' ourselves
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
Everybody wants to read all about it
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
See, but everybody wants to believe all about it

Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
See, but everybody wants to believe all about it
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual, actual
She's blonde and she's bisexual

Scandal
With the words you use
You're a parasite in black and white
Do anything for news
And you don't go and buy it, buy it
And they won't glorify it, 'fy it
To read it sanctifies it, 'fies it
Why do we keep foolin' ourselves
Slander
You say it's not a sin
But with your pen you torture men
Then why do we keep foolin' ourselves

Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
Though everybody wants to read all about it
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
See, but everybody wants to read all about it

Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual, actual
You're so damn disrespectable

"This Time Around"

This time around I'll never get bit
Though you really wanna fix me
This time around you're making me sick
Though you really wanna get me
Somebody's out
Somebody's out to get me
They really wanna fix me, hit me
But this time around I'm taking no s...
Though you really wanna get me
You really wanna get me

He really thought he really had
Had a hold on me
He really thought he really had
They thought they really had control of me
He really thought he really had
Control of me
He really thought he really had
They thought they really could control me

This time around I'll never get bit
Though you really wanna get me
This time around I'm taking no s...
Though you really wanna fix me
Somebody's out
Somebody's out to use me
They really want to use me
And then falsely accuse me
This time around
They'll take it like spit
'Cause you really can't control me

You know you can't control me
He really thought he really had
Had a hold on me
He really thought he really had
They thought they really had control of me
He really thought he really had
A hold on me
He really thought he really had
They thought they really had control of me
He really thought he really had
Had a hold on me
He really thought he really had
They thought they really had control of me
He really thought he really had
A hold on me
He really thought he really had
They thought they really had control of me

[Rap: The Notorious BIG]
Listen, I've got problems of my own
Flashin' cameras, taps on my phone
Even in my home I ain't safe as I should be
Things always missin'
Maybe it could be my friends
They ain't friends if they robbin' me
Stoppin' me from makin' a profit, see
Apology shallow like the ocean
I guess I'll resort to gun totin'
If I was dead broke and smokin'
I'd probably be by my lonesome
I'm a killer nigga I ain't jokin'
Endo smoke got me choked and I'm hopin'
The fool comes slippin'
So I could blow'em open
This time around
I changed up my flow
Got rid of the rocks
Got Pitts by the door
I've raised other peoples to watch my back
Stay away from strangers
So I won't slack
And I know my nigga Mike like that
Baby
[Michael]
This time around yeah...
He really thought he really had
Control of meHe really thought he really had
They thought they really had control of me
He really thought he really had
A hold on me
He really thought he really had
They thought they really had control of me
He really thought he really had
Had a hold on me
He really thought he really had
They thought they really had control of me
He really thought he really had
Control of me
He really thought he really had
They thought they really had control of me
He really thought he really had
A hold on me
He really thought he really had
They thought they really had control of me
This time around yeah
He really thought

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #66 posted 03/05/17 1:30pm

HAPPYPERSON

Michael Jackson TRANSCENDENCE and legacy

A summary of the words spoken by eminent professors,thinkers, social critics and historians Dr. Michael Eric Dyson & Dr. Cornel West asessing the legacy, the cultural impact , social and musical influence, and the capacity of an icon to break all barriers possible.

Michael Jackson - Profoundly Astonishing & Transcendent (Howard Bloom & Dr Wayne Dyer)


Beautiful and important words from two leading thinkers who personally knew Michael Jackson and have shared some insights about their time with him... Howard Bloom (author, scientific thinker, former publicist) and Dr Wayne Dyer (author, motivational speaker). Thank you for the truth in these wonderful words! We love you, Michael.

Michael Jackson : A Black Man's Dream

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #67 posted 03/05/17 3:27pm

KoolEaze

avatar

eek

Wow. That´s a lot to read....and digest.

Thanks for all the info.

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"




http://kooleasehvac.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #68 posted 03/05/17 3:29pm

HAPPYPERSON

Studying Michael for me is first of all listen to what he says, listen to his music, read his books

An Interview with Author, Lorena Turner by

An Interview with Q and Jamon from by

An Interview with Ryan Garey by


An Interview with Author, Zack O’Malley Greenburg by

An Interview with Professor Marie Plasse of Merrimack College by

An Interview with Isabelle Petitjean by

An Interview with Author, Willa Stillwater by

An Interview with Author, Susan Woodward by

An Interview with Academic, Joseph Vogel by



  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #69 posted 03/05/17 7:17pm

Goddess4Real

avatar

Michael Jackson's personal photographer reveals his favorite moments http://abc7chicago.com/en...s/1783518/

Keep Calm & Listen To Prince
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #70 posted 03/06/17 7:42pm

HAPPYPERSON

Questlove on Michael Jackson (BBC Culture Show)

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #71 posted 03/07/17 11:42am

purplethunder3
121

avatar

Michael's legacy will always remain intact even if he goes out of style. His fan community, on the other hand, has scattered to the wind. It seems inevitable that this will happen with Prince also...

nothing's forbidden... and nothing's taboo.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #72 posted 03/07/17 7:29pm

214

Thank you so much, but take it easy you put too much information.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #73 posted 03/11/17 11:07am

HAPPYPERSON

"I will study and look back on the whole world of entertainment and perfect it." - Michael Jackson


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #74 posted 03/15/17 1:44pm

HAPPYPERSON

Jackson's tributes to Astaire. The admiration and respect were mutual.

Gene Kelly, Michael Jackson. White socks and loafers.

No doubt that Jackson studied both Astaire and Kelly. His pastiche is a mixture of romanticism rooted in urban street.

I always get shit when I post these but it is not to say that Michael stole them. He was smart enough to understand that if he >>>

took these moves and made them his own (which he clearly did) it was a tribute to the greats who came before him. He brought >>>


dance history to his era and made them his own. No doubt Michael Jackson was the greatest artist ever.

Gene Kelly said that when he started dancing on screen, he wanted to wear socks and loafers to represent the common man.

Michael Jackson is the most fascinating person ever. The more you read, the more you realize just how deep he was.

Just one little tidbit is the fact that MJ used Esperanto on the History teaser. Critics panned it and said nobody spoke/understood it.

Jackson's idea was that it boosted his theme of global understanding/love/empathy.

Did you know that in the 1940's, a print of Daybreak was in 1 of 4 American households? Art historians believe that the print was >>>

popular because of the symmetry and nature. Think Michael didn't know that? Think again.

As most of the knows, Michael studied and worked hard as a child under Berry Gordy at Motown.

He went on to his solo career with Quincy Jones.

But what many outside the fan base don't understand is that in many areas, Michael Jackson was an autodidact.

An article posted shortly after Michael's death in 2009 stated he had over 10,000 books at Neverland Ranch.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #75 posted 03/15/17 2:46pm

Curtwill1975

The most important mainstream entertainer post 1960. His legacy begins during the latter part of the Motown era and extends after his death. You can hear echo of his music in so many modern-day genres and sub-genres whether its music, performing, marketing, etc. Off the Wall concieved contemporary R&B and Thriller brought an new energy to the industry that last to this day even as sales in the industry are depressed compared to the 80s, 90s and early 2000s. There will never be another like him and I was just glad to be able to witness him in my lifetime.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #76 posted 03/15/17 3:41pm

HAPPYPERSON

Story Behind Michael Jackson's "Remember The Time" video

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #77 posted 03/15/17 5:12pm

HAPPYPERSON

Michael Jackson was WOKE and an activist long before movement- is 's HIStory


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #78 posted 03/17/17 1:04am

bboy87

avatar

"We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #79 posted 03/17/17 1:06am

bboy87

avatar

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/michael-jacksons-20-greatest-videos-the-stories-behind-the-vision-20140624/8-leave-me-alone-1989-0203194

"We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #80 posted 03/17/17 4:56am

Scorp

HAPPYPERSON said:

Michael Jackson was WOKE and an activist long before #BlackLivesMatterBlackHistoryMonth.png movement- #BlackHIstory is #MichaelJackson's HIStory

C693whPV0AAzblb.jpg

contrary to popular belief

when this video debuted on CBS on August of 1987, this is when the career of the greatest entertainer on the planet and the industry's most prolific recording artist started to decline.

at the very least, 80-85% percent of the audience in the united states who tuned in did not recognize him at all

and when I saw this video debut as a teenager, honestly, I did not believe that was him, I honestly thought it was somebody else and that no way could that be Michael Jackson......I did not believe it was him but the only way I knew it was him because it was him.

but after watching this video the second time and really sat back and took in the vibe, it became clear that MJ was championing the concept of racial indifference where he moved beyond his natural being.

as a fan, this is the only reason I've made a fuss about things the way I have over time, it's because he was harming himself.

then he pushed the envelop even further 4 years later when he said it didn't matter if you're black or white.

I wished he would not have pushed the envelope because he had sealed the deal already with who he already was leading up to the pinnacle.....his life would have been easier and happier

with all that said, Michael Jackson is truly missed and Ill always appreciate his musical message

[Edited 3/18/17 5:28am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #81 posted 03/19/17 10:44am

HAPPYPERSON

"Undeniably Mike overshadowed his brothers, his cherubic face alone gracing the cover of magazines."

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #82 posted 03/20/17 11:34pm

bboy87

avatar

MJCast interview with Michael Prince, who worked with Michael from 1995 to 2009

http://www.themjcast.com/episode-052-michael-prince-special/

"We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #83 posted 03/21/17 10:19am

HAPPYPERSON

This week In 1984, Michael Jackson (by Andy Warhol) was on the cover of TIME Magazine. It became their 5th best selling issue of all time.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #84 posted 03/21/17 7:34pm

DonRants

"Michael Jackson was woke......etc, etc"

Now that is one for the ages.

To All the Haters on the Internet
No more Candy 4 U
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #85 posted 03/26/17 6:15pm

HAPPYPERSON

Despite the media's claims that Michael Jackson's career was “over”, demand for his London concerts was unprecedented, breakiDespite the media's claims that Michael Jackson's career was “over”, demand for his London concerts was unprecedented, breaking records:


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #86 posted 03/28/17 3:20pm

4You92

Scorp said:



HAPPYPERSON said:


Michael Jackson was WOKE and an activist long before #BlackLivesMatterBlackHistoryMonth.png movement- #BlackHIstory is #MichaelJackson's HIStory



C693whPV0AAzblb.jpg






contrary to popular belief



when this video debuted on CBS on August of 1987, this is when the career of the greatest entertainer on the planet and the industry's most prolific recording artist started to decline.



at the very least, 80-85% percent of the audience in the united states who tuned in did not recognize him at all



and when I saw this video debut as a teenager, honestly, I did not believe that was him, I honestly thought it was somebody else and that no way could that be Michael Jackson.....I did not believe it was him but the only way I knew it was him because it was him.



but after watching this video the second time and really sat back and took in the vibe, it became clear that MJ was championing the concept of racial indifference where he moved beyond his natural being.



as a fan, this is the only reason I've made a fuss about things the way I have over time, it's because he was harming himself.



then he pushed the envelop even further 4 years later when he said it didn't matter if you're black or white.



I wished he would not have pushed the envelope because he had sealed the deal already with who he already was leading up to the pinnacle.....his life would have been easier and happier




with all that said, Michael Jackson is truly missed and Ill always appreciate his musical message





[Edited 3/18/17 5:28am]




Which explains why his 1992 Dangerous album was the fastest selling album in history at the time correct?

Michael had a skin disorder that he was encouraged to conceal for quite sometime. He had a nose job because his nose was picked on. Michael was selling out tickets like hotcakes right before his death. Thriller is still breaking records to this day. I don't think his career ever truly took a hit, at least not how people love to portray it.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #87 posted 03/28/17 4:50pm

Scorp

4You92 said:

Scorp said:

contrary to popular belief

when this video debuted on CBS on August of 1987, this is when the career of the greatest entertainer on the planet and the industry's most prolific recording artist started to decline.

at the very least, 80-85% percent of the audience in the united states who tuned in did not recognize him at all

and when I saw this video debut as a teenager, honestly, I did not believe that was him, I honestly thought it was somebody else and that no way could that be Michael Jackson......I did not believe it was him but the only way I knew it was him because it was him.

but after watching this video the second time and really sat back and took in the vibe, it became clear that MJ was championing the concept of racial indifference where he moved beyond his natural being.

as a fan, this is the only reason I've made a fuss about things the way I have over time, it's because he was harming himself.

then he pushed the envelop even further 4 years later when he said it didn't matter if you're black or white.

I wished he would not have pushed the envelope because he had sealed the deal already with who he already was leading up to the pinnacle.....his life would have been easier and happier

with all that said, Michael Jackson is truly missed and Ill always appreciate his musical message

[Edited 3/18/17 5:28am]

Which explains why his 1992 Dangerous album was the fastest selling album in history at the time correct? Michael had a skin disorder that he was encouraged to conceal for quite sometime. He had a nose job because his nose was picked on. Michael was selling out tickets like hotcakes right before his death. Thriller is still breaking records to this day. I don't think his career ever truly took a hit, at least not how people love to portray it.

The fastest selling album?....

By the spring of 1992 towards the fall of 1992, Dangerous (as much as I enjoyed and still enjoy that record) wasn't charting on the Billboard Top 100, falling as low as 120-126th on the charts in his home country....this was going on even as he released the video for JAM, the same video that featured the greatest basketball player on the planet and the greatest ever, featuring Kris Kross who that spring was the hottest rap act in the country and had the #1 song on Billboard, and featuring the late great Heavy D who was right at the heart of his run as a performer........even as he was geared on becoming an exclusively international artist after BAD, he knew no matter all those stadiums he was selling out overseas, he lost the majority of his audience in his homeland, particularly his urban audience.

Michael Jackson wasn't having that but tried to regain that audience on his terms, but to put himself in position to do that, he started making all those public appeareances, and performed at that 1993 Super Bowl in Pasadena, California, and attended those 1993 Grammy Awards, and especially, initiated that interview with Oprah Winfrey. All those efforts were done for one purpose, to boost record sales, because his american audience, and especially his urban audience who supported Michael Jackson's career from day one were alarmed and stunned by his every changing appearance, this is what the majority of his international fans were not aware of and still not aware of to this day......his career when it comes to what should have continued being no longer was and he spent the remainder of his career trying to regain the audience he knew he had lost while giving the impression to his fans abroad that he wasn't......

With Dangerous, this is the album where Michael would begin to rely on the support of musical contemporaries to shape his music and stamp his presentation where with OTW and Thriller, he did not have to do that, this is why he started having all those other celebrities in his videos, Eddie Murphy, Iman, Naomi Campbell, Magic Johnson, Heavy D., Kris Kross, Michael Jordan........whoever was the most successful in their field at that particular time, or whoever was the most popular, that's who Michael sought to appear in his videos and sing on his records that were heavily promoted......the Boyz II Mens, the Shaquille Oneal's, the Notorious B.I.G., his sister Janet Jackson, Another Bad Creation....then he had high profile movie director's craft his videos, I'm talking the big videos, the John Singleton's, The Spike Lee's, the Paul Hunters of the world....he did all of that in efforts to regain his black following from the past because he knew w/out the foundation, his record sales would continue to wane.

as far as this issue of plastic surgery, for the past 30 years, nobody who has been given the platform to talk about this issue, they swim around the issue like to and from, throwing out this explanation and that explanation, anything that comes to mind, they throw out there, because they do not, will not, and never will get right down to the heart of the issue because it would be way too disconcerting to consider what the issue really is and how the roots of all of it started before Michael Jackson released his first adult solo album.

What we need to do instead of peeping out these books that speak on the tail end of this story and rehashes the same assertions time and time again ad nauseum.....peel those layers and tear down those walls and the truth will be staring right at them......

it's convenient to surmise and conclude Michael's odyssey with plastic surgery was because of being teased by his family and all that jive.......that's the convenient explanation because that provides an immediate scapegoat.....that's the ultimate default move...when all else fails, blame the family.......

but what society really needs to start doing is reading about how the entertainment industry, particularly the music industry pushed viable black performers to begin contorting their look to generate mass commercial appeal without allowing his/her's own talent to acheive that goal naturally, because as the 70s would begin to conclude and with the backlash of disco, the airwaves on top 40 radio were segregated across racial lines....black performers who were prominent on the r&b charts were totally negated from being given the opportunity to receive exposure on top 40 radio

THIS is why the recording industry was almost on the brink of collapse by 1980-1981, and with that in mind, record labels who sought to back black performers to step in the forefront of commercial viability nationally and globally sought the means to make these efforts possible.....and then, they came up w/the perfect formula, or so they thought....

and what was the channel, the means to make this happen...................Plastic Surgery...

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #88 posted 03/28/17 5:01pm

HAPPYPERSON

March, 1991: Michael Jackson signed the biggest recording contract in history, setting new standards for the entertainment industry.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #89 posted 03/28/17 5:02pm

HAPPYPERSON

Michael Jackson's ‘Thriller’ (the best selling album EVER, released 34 YEARS ago!) is currently #2 on the U.S. iTunes Album Chart!


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 3 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Michael Jackson: THe Musical Genius, Visionary & Pioneer