I haven't been following closely because I am tired of celebrity trials and think that we should not allow the press into the courtroom. I think the act of observation changes the way its conducted, and not for the better.
But I've heard enough to have formed an opinion, and I'm intrigued by the whole dynamic of parents exposing their children to any possibility that where there's smoke, there's fire, just for money. I am saddened that at the very least Michael gets his emotional needs met by children and won't get help for himself to stop it.
So--what do you think?
Jay Leno obviously feels Michael is guilty, and he did make one interesting point--Martha Stewart goes to jail while all these other celebs get off for sexual or violent crimes? What gives?
And apparently, character assasination of a mother works to discredit the child. Did anyone consider that she could be a lying golddigger and her child could still be telling the truth? I don't see that reflected in the juror's statements.
I hear that analysts think the prosecution erred by introducing the conspiracy charges, opening up the mother to scrutiny. Obviously that was a bad move.
I hope that at least, as Jesse Jackson said, Michael will change his behavior to avoid this kind of thing in the future.
Full Version: Michael Jackson: What do you think?
I followed the case closely. If you wanted to know what was going on you couldn't rely on mass media outlets because the reporting was done by people who either had an agenda or were ignorant of what was going on in the courtroom (you had to buy transcripts), or they relied on inaccurate information from the past.
The media portrayed Michael as if he was guily of previous charges of molestation even though charges had never been brought before the current case. They assumed that because he supposedly paid 20 million dollars to one boy and his family and 2 milion to another boy and his family that therefore that proves he was guilty in both those instances and the current case as well.
Lets go back to the first case in 1993.
1. He didn't pay anything.
2. Many people think (because the media has spread the false story) that the boy and his parents who profited from that case could not testify in criminal court against Michael because that was part of the settlement deal. Therefore the story goes that the charges were never brought because the boy and his parents wouldn't testify.
In fact the website thesmokingun.com got a hold of the deal and published them on their website.
The truth is that no such deal was made because it is illegal. You cannot legally pay someone off and have a contract which forbids them from testifying in a criminal case. You can have a contract which forbids them from bringing a civil case. So even though the boy and his parents received 15 million dollars from Michaels insurance company, they were under no obligation to refrain from going along with the prosecution of Michael in the criminal case, but they would not take part and the case fell apart.
Why wouldn't they take part?
The reason they didn't want to take part in the criminal case is because they knew they would have lost, lost big. The boys father (a dentist) was heavily in debt because of gambling. He had asked Michael for millions of dollars and help setting up a movie production company. When that never materialized he began making threats. Michael was asked several times more, each time with threats and a lowering of the amount demanded. Michael refused.
This is from Anatomy of a scam
The following was written before it was revealed that Michael did not pay to settle the first case, his insurance company forced the case to be settled and they payed against Michaels and his lawyers wishes.
An investigative reporter writing for GQ researched that case and published Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story in October 1994.
What about the reports from the media that the boy from that case could describe Michaels penis? Again not accurate. The boy was asked to give descriptions 3 times. The first two were wrong. That was before the photos were taken. After Tom Sneddon (the district attorney) forced Michael to have photos taken, then there was a third description by the boy, this time accurate.
How about the other boy who was paid off?
The legal secretary for the lawyer of the first boy went on to write a book called Redemption: The Truth Behind the Child Molestation Allegation. She claims the whole thing was a scam cooked up by her boss and the boys father. Her ex boss denies what she claims and has said that what she wrote could be grounds for a lawsuit. But there has been no lawsuit
How do you know Geraldine Hughes is telling the truth about the Chandlers?
This is from the recent court case, transcript from the court where Michaels attorney is questioning a lady paralegal (Holzer) who was working for Janet Arvizo (the boys mom) in her lawsuit against JCPenney.
The media portrayed Michael as if he was guily of previous charges of molestation even though charges had never been brought before the current case. They assumed that because he supposedly paid 20 million dollars to one boy and his family and 2 milion to another boy and his family that therefore that proves he was guilty in both those instances and the current case as well.
Lets go back to the first case in 1993.
1. He didn't pay anything.
QUOTE
In recently released court documents, it turns out that Michael Jackson's insurance company negotiated and settled the 1993 civil suit against his wishes.The following are excerpts from that recently released court document (.PDF):
Pg3
The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.
It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.
…Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added).
…An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.
Pg2
Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury.
Pg3
The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.
Pg3
The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.
It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.
…Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added).
…An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.
Pg2
Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury.
Pg3
The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.
2. Many people think (because the media has spread the false story) that the boy and his parents who profited from that case could not testify in criminal court against Michael because that was part of the settlement deal. Therefore the story goes that the charges were never brought because the boy and his parents wouldn't testify.
In fact the website thesmokingun.com got a hold of the deal and published them on their website.
The truth is that no such deal was made because it is illegal. You cannot legally pay someone off and have a contract which forbids them from testifying in a criminal case. You can have a contract which forbids them from bringing a civil case. So even though the boy and his parents received 15 million dollars from Michaels insurance company, they were under no obligation to refrain from going along with the prosecution of Michael in the criminal case, but they would not take part and the case fell apart.
Why wouldn't they take part?
The reason they didn't want to take part in the criminal case is because they knew they would have lost, lost big. The boys father (a dentist) was heavily in debt because of gambling. He had asked Michael for millions of dollars and help setting up a movie production company. When that never materialized he began making threats. Michael was asked several times more, each time with threats and a lowering of the amount demanded. Michael refused.
This is from Anatomy of a scam
The following was written before it was revealed that Michael did not pay to settle the first case, his insurance company forced the case to be settled and they payed against Michaels and his lawyers wishes.
QUOTE
THE 1993 ALLEGATIONS
In 1992, Michael Jackson met and befriended the Chandler family, becoming particularly close to 12-year-old Jordan, his half-sister Lily and their mother June Schwartz. Jackson often travelled with the family and they were frequent guests at his Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara.
- According to June Schwartz's former divorce attorney Michael Freeman, the boy's father and June's ex-husband Evan Chandler "began to get jealous of their involvement [with Jackson] and felt left out."
- In June 1993, Evan Chandler hired attorney Barry Rothman to represent him in his custody case against June Schwartz. Rothman was not a family lawyer but he had recently handled a custody case that involved child molestation allegations.
- At Jordan's 8th grade graduation that month, Evan Chandler confronted his ex-wife with his alleged suspicions of sexual misconduct on Jackson's part. Freeman says that June Schwartz "thought the whole thing was baloney" and announced that she and her children still planned to accompany Jackson on his Dangerous world tour. According to Freeman, Chandler then threatened to go to the press with his suspicions.
- Chandler's behaviour prompted Jackson to hire lawyer Bert Fields and Private Investigator Anthony Pellicano. Taking Pellicano's advice, Jordan Chandler's stepfather Dave Schwartz recorded a telephone conversation that took place between him and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Chandler said:
"I had good communication with Michael. We were friends. I like him and I respect him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. I've been rehearsed about what to say and not to say."
"[Jackson] broke up the family. [Jordan] has been seduced by this guy's power and money."
"I am prepared to move against Michael Jackson. It's already set. There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I've paid them to do it. Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I've given him full authority to do that."
"And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son] and Michael's career will be over."
"[Jordan's welfare is] irrelevant to me. It's going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want."
"This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find. All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He's nasty, he's mean, he's very smart, and he's hungry for the publicity."
- Upon hearing the taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz, Pellicano immediately interviewed the boy in question. According to Pellicano, Jordan Chandler denied any wrongdoing on Jackson's part.
- In mid-July, Evan Chandler convinced his ex-wife to allow him a one-week visitation period with their son. From that point on, the boy was isolated from his friends and family members.
- According to Rothman's former legal secretary Geraldine Hughes, Chandler was receiving advice from Rothman on how to report child abuse without liability to the parent.
- Taking Rothman's advice, Chandler contacted psychiatrist Mathis Abrams and presented him with a hypothetical situation (i.e- my son spent time alone with an adult male- is it possible that sexual abuse might have occurred and if so, what are the various ways that it can be reported to authorities?). In a written response to Chandler's phone call, Abrams wrote that if a child were to come out with sexual abuse allegations during a therapy session, the therapist would be required by law to report it to the police.
- Chandler took this letter and, according to Pellicano, attempted to blackmail Jackson with it. In a meeting that took place in early August 1993, Chandler allegedly made a demand for a $20 million screenwriting deal in return for his not going forward with the child abuse allegations.
- Several days after the meeting, Pellicano tape recorded a conversation that took place between him, Barry Rothman and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Rothman and Chandler can be heard negotiating the amount of money it would take to keep Chandler from going forward with the child molestation allegations. Chandler restated his demand for $20 million and, according to Geraldine Hughes, was later told by Pellicano that Jackson would not pay him any money. Keep in mind that if Jackson had paid Chandler at that point, the entire criminal investigation would have been avoided.
- According to an investigative reporter from KCBS-TV, Evan Chandler then gave his son a controversial psychiatric drug known as sodium amytal. It has been widely documented that you can easily plant false memories into a person's mind when they are under the influence of this drug.
- Evan Chandler claimed that he only used sodium amytal to pull Jordan's tooth and that while under the drug's influence, the boy came out with the allegations. According to Mark Torbiner, the anaesthesiologist who administered the drug: "If I used it, it was for dental purposes." Numerous medical experts have agreed, however, that the use of sodium amytal to pull a tooth would be a highly questionable practice at best.
- During an interview with a psychiatrist, Jordan Chandler recalled the first time that he told his father about the alleged sexual abuse. His story corroborates the allegation that his father used sodium amytal to extract a confession from him: "[My father] had to pull my tooth out one time, like, while I was there. And I don't like pain, so I said could you put me to sleep? And he said sure. So his friend put me to sleep; he's an anesthesiologist. And um, when I woke up my tooth was out, and I was alright - a little out of it but conscious. And my Dad said - and his friend was gone, it was just him and me - and my dad said, 'I just want you to let me know, did anything happen between you and Michael?' And I said 'Yes,' and he gave me a big hug and that was it." [Note: The transcript of Jordan Chandler's interview with the psychiatrist was made public by the boy's uncle Ray Chandler]
- On August 16th, 1993, June Schwartz's attorney filed an ex-parte motion on her behalf to assist her in getting her son back. While in court the next day, Chandler never made any mention of child abuse allegations. If Chandler had told the judge about the supposed suspicions he'd had for the past three weeks, the judge would have immediately ordered for the boy to be taken away from his mother. But Chandler said nothing, presumably because his plan was to report the abuse using a third party (the psychiatrist). By filing the ex-parte motion, June Schwartz had thrown her ex-husband a curveball. The court ordered Evan Chandler to return Jordan to his mother immediately.
- On August 17th, 1993, the same day that Jordan Chandler was supposed to be returned to his mother, Evan Chandler took him to see Dr. Abrams. While there, the boy came out with the sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and so began the police investigation into alleged misconduct on Jackson's part.
THE CIVIL LAWSUIT
Because of double jeopardy, anyone accused of a crime will never have to defend themselves for the same allegation twice unless one trial takes place in civil court and the other in criminal court. This was the situation with Michael Jackson in 1993.
- On September 14 1993, less than a month after the child abuse allegations against Michael Jackson had been reported to the police, the accusing family filed a $30 million lawsuit against Jackson with the help of civil attorney Larry Feldman.
- Up until that point, the alleged victim's mother June Schwartz had maintained that Jackson was innocent of the allegations. As soon as the civil suit was filed, however, she changed her tune and joined forces with her ex-husband Evan Chandler and their son Jordan. At that point, June Schwartz's divorce attorney Michael Freeman resigned. "The whole thing was such a mess," he explained. "I felt uncomfortable with Evan. He isn't a genuine person, and I sensed he wasn't playing things straight."
- The Chandlers sued Jackson for sexual battery, battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence.
- The civil suit was filed while the police investigation was still ongoing. As a result, the civil trial was scheduled to take place before the criminal trial began which would have been a violation of Jackson's constitutional right to not self-incriminate. Typically, when there are two trials dealing with the same allegation, the criminal trial takes place before the civil trial (i.e- the O.J Simpson case). This is to ensure that the Defendant's defense in the criminal case will not be compromised as a result of the civil proceedings.
- Jackson's attorneys filed a motion asking for the civil trial to be delayed until after the criminal trial was over. They cited numerous cases such as Pacer, Inc. v. Superior Court to support their request. The Federal case held that, "when both criminal and civil proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the Defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved." Other cases cited include Dustin W. Brown v. The Superior Court, Dwyer v. Crocker National Bank, Patterson v. White and Huot v. Gendron.
- Larry Feldman argued that if the civil trial were to be postponed, the plaintiff, being a minor, might forget certain details about what had supposedly happened to him. The judge felt that the boy's "fragile state" was more important than Jackson's 5th Amendment rights and ruled in the boy's favour.
- Jackson's attorneys filed another motion asking that District Attorney Tom Sneddon be blocked from obtaining evidence used in the civil trial. Again, the Jackson team lost the motion. The DA made it clear that he was planning to use the evidence from the civil proceedings to assist him in his criminal case against Jackson.
- If Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, he would have put his entire defense strategy in jeopardy by revealing it to the prosecution months before the criminal case went to trial.
- Let's pretend for a moment that Michael Jackson had gone through with the civil trial. What would have happened? He would have presented the court with all of his evidence of extortion and Sneddon would have been watching the entire thing unfold. He could have then taken Jackson's most critical exonerating evidence from the civil trial and found ways to discredit it so that Jackson would have nothing left to defend himself with in the criminal trial.
- During the civil trial, Jackson’s lawyers would have undoubtedly revealed any inconsistencies in the accuser’s story. This would have given Sneddon the opportunity to examine and amend the weaknesses in his own case against Jackson.
- As you can see, allowing the civil trial to proceed would have given the prosecution the upper hand in the far more important criminal trial. Although this is the primary reason behind Michael Jackson's decision to settle the case, there were many other factors involved:
1) In a criminal trial, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative; in other words, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of a crime. In civil trials, if the jury thinks the Defendant might be responsible for what he or she is accused of, they can still hold the Defendant liable.
2) In criminal law, if the Defendant chooses not to testify, their refusal cannot be used against them. In a civil trial, however, the Defendant must be cooperative for all depositions and testimony. If the Defendant in a civil trial invokes his or her Fifth Amendment privilege, the judge will tell the jury that they may make an inference against the party who refused to testify. If Michael Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, his entire personal life would have been put on display. Defendants in sex abuse crimes are often asked extremely personal questions on the stand; imagine what this process would be like for somebody like Michael Jackson who is admittedly shy and whose personal life is always subject to severe media scrutiny.
3) In civil trials the jury's verdict does not have to be unanimous. If at least 50% of the jurors find the Defendant liable, the Plaintiff will still get money.
4) The Defendant in a civil trial has fewer rights. In criminal law, police must obtain search warrants before searching or seizing items from a person's property. In civil law, a lawyer may demand information from the defense about any matter relevant to the case. This is known as the discovery process and it does not usually involve the court. Discovery may include: written questions to be answered under oath; oral deposition under oath; requests for pertinent documents; physical or mental examinations where injury is claimed; and requests to admit facts not in dispute. If Jackson had allowed the civil trial to proceed, Larry Feldman would have had access to Jackson's medical and financial records without obtaining a warrant.
5) The civil trial would have taken months to resolve. Michael Jackson would have been paying millions of dollars in legal fees while at the same time limiting his source of income by putting his career on hold. There was probably also a lot of pressure from his record company to settle the lawsuit because the case was affecting his career.
6) Such a long, drawn out process would have caused Michael Jackson and his family immeasurable amounts of stress. Even after the civil trial was resolved, he would still have the criminal proceedings to contend with. Why go through all of that twice?
7) According to Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit might have prompted Jackson's insurance company to force him to settle the case. "I have brought child molestation cases against Defendants and I always include a negligence allegation," Oxman explained. "That means that the homeowners' insurance policy takes over and a homeowners' insurance policy can settle right out from under the Defendant. The Defendant can scream, 'I will not settle that case,' and they have no choice because the insurance company settles it." (which is actually what did happen, Michael and his team wanted to go try the case but his insurance company had the final say and they payed the boy and his family off, see above .PDF)
The Civil Settlement
For various legal, personal, professional, financial and practical reasons, Michael Jackson settled the civil lawsuit filed against him by his accuser's family in 1993. The recently leaked settlement document reveals several interesting facts:
1) Michael Jackson denied any wrongdoing.
2) The boy and his parents could have still testified against Jackson in the criminal trial.
3) Jackson only settled over claims of negligence and not over claims of child molestation.
Tabloid reporter Diane Dimond, who leaked the details of the settlement, tried to make it seem as if Jackson admitted to molesting the boy simply because he settled over the negligence allegation. Dimond pointed out that the original lawsuit said: "Defendant Michael Jackson negligently had offensive contacts with plaintiff which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise." It is clear, however, from the wording of the settlement document, that the "negligence" allegation was redefined:
"Such claims include claims for bodily injuries resulting from negligence; whereas, Evan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress; whereas, Jordan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress."
Negligence has been defined in the settlement as the "infliction of emotional distress"; there is no mention of sexual abuse. Referring to the lawsuit's definition of "negligence" is inconclusive because each legal document intentionally defines the terms to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. Furthermore, if the negligence allegation was directly related to the child molestation allegations, why did Evan Chandler also claim to be the victim of negligence?
OTHER INTERESTING EXCEPRTS FROM THE DOCUMENT:
"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 or at all, or that the Minor, Evan Chandler and June Chandler have any rights whatsoever against Jackson. Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler or any other persons. 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."
Jackson repeatedly asserts his innocence while the accusing family does not once maintain that the boy's allegations are true.
"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 sexual molestation."
Sorry Diane.
THE PAYMENT:
The document states that $15,331,250 was put into a trust fund for Jordan Chandler. Both of his parents, as well as their attorney Larry Feldman, got a cut of the settlement. (Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz, two principle players in the case who were left out of the settlement, later filed their own individual lawsuits against Jackson). Eight pages detailing the payment were allegedly missing from Dimond's copy of the settlement but according to Jackson's current attorney, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit prompted Jackson's insurance company to step in and settle the case for him. This means that Jackson might not have paid the Chandlers anything. It also means that the insurance company most likely conducted their own investigation into the allegations and concluded that Jackson did not molest the boy; insurance companies generally do not settle if they believe the Defendant is liable. They will, however, settle for negligent behaviour.
DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION:
The document also shows that the Chandlers dropped the child molestation allegations from their complaint:
"Forthwith upon the signing of this Confidential Settlement by the Parties hereto, the Minor through his Guardian ad Litem 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."
"Upon the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments... the Minor, through his Guardian ad Litem, shall dismiss the entire action with prejduice."
The first through sixth causes of action were the sexual abuse allegations; the seventh cause of action was negligence. Again, Jackson settled over the family’s claims of negligence and not over their claims of child molestation.
WAS IT HUSH MONEY?
Finally, the document makes it clear that the Chandlers could have still testified against Jackson in a criminal trial:
"The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, and 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 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 Releases, except as may be required by law."
The only stipulation in the settlement is that the parties could not testify about the allegations in civil court.
"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... receive a subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted or is investigating, any claim against Jackson... 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."
The above paragraph makes it clear that the Chandlers were not prohibited from testifying against Jackson in a criminal trial, as long as they notified Jackson's attorneys beforehand. Contrary to popular belief, the settlement did NOT silence anybody. It was the family's own decision not to testify in the criminal case; they could have gotten money and justice but they only opted to take the money.
Ask yourself this: if your child was molested, would you not do everything in your power to put the person responsible behind bars? The Chandlers did not. Instead, they dropped the claims of child abuse against Jackson, signed a document where he basically called them liars, took his money and refused to talk to authorities. I have already pointed out the numerous reasons why Jackson settled the case; what reason did the Chandlers have to not testify?
One could argue that they did not want to be put through a public trial, however, this assertion does not make sense when you consider the fact that the Chandlers were more than willing to testify in the civil trial. In fact, court documents reveal that the only reason the judge refused to stay the civil proceedings was because Feldman was allegedly worried that Jordan Chandler would forget his story when testifying. Furthermore, Evan Chandler later sued Jackson and asked the court to allow him to produce an album of songs about the allegations. The actions of the Chandlers are not indicative of a family reluctant to tell their story.
For the past ten years, the media have been referring to the settlement as a "pay off" but here is my question: what exactly did Michael Jackson "buy" when he settled the civil lawsuit? How can anyone call it "hush money" when it did not prevent the accuser from testifying against him? How can anyone call it "hush money" when the entire world already knew about the allegations? How can anyone call it "hush money" when there was still an ongoing criminal investigation that was not affected by the civil suit?
Finally, Evan Chandler asked for $20 million before the allegations were reported to authorities. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested Jordan Chandler, why did he not take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid Evan Chandler and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he rejected Chandler's initial demand for money. If he was guilty, why did he do that?
If it is still your contention that Jackson's plan was to settle the civil lawsuit in order to bribe the boy into not testifying against him in the criminal trial, can you please explain to me why Michael Jackson asked for the civil trial to be postponed? He wanted the civil trial to take place after the criminal trial was resolved, which means any potential settlement would have been negotiated after Jackson was either acquitted or convicted. This would have made it impossible for him to "bribe" the boy into not testifying. Jackson's actions contradict the notion that he wanted to buy Jordan Chandler's silence.
In 1992, Michael Jackson met and befriended the Chandler family, becoming particularly close to 12-year-old Jordan, his half-sister Lily and their mother June Schwartz. Jackson often travelled with the family and they were frequent guests at his Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara.
- According to June Schwartz's former divorce attorney Michael Freeman, the boy's father and June's ex-husband Evan Chandler "began to get jealous of their involvement [with Jackson] and felt left out."
- In June 1993, Evan Chandler hired attorney Barry Rothman to represent him in his custody case against June Schwartz. Rothman was not a family lawyer but he had recently handled a custody case that involved child molestation allegations.
- At Jordan's 8th grade graduation that month, Evan Chandler confronted his ex-wife with his alleged suspicions of sexual misconduct on Jackson's part. Freeman says that June Schwartz "thought the whole thing was baloney" and announced that she and her children still planned to accompany Jackson on his Dangerous world tour. According to Freeman, Chandler then threatened to go to the press with his suspicions.
- Chandler's behaviour prompted Jackson to hire lawyer Bert Fields and Private Investigator Anthony Pellicano. Taking Pellicano's advice, Jordan Chandler's stepfather Dave Schwartz recorded a telephone conversation that took place between him and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Chandler said:
"I had good communication with Michael. We were friends. I like him and I respect him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. I've been rehearsed about what to say and not to say."
"[Jackson] broke up the family. [Jordan] has been seduced by this guy's power and money."
"I am prepared to move against Michael Jackson. It's already set. There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I've paid them to do it. Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I've given him full authority to do that."
"And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son] and Michael's career will be over."
"[Jordan's welfare is] irrelevant to me. It's going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want."
"This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find. All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He's nasty, he's mean, he's very smart, and he's hungry for the publicity."
- Upon hearing the taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz, Pellicano immediately interviewed the boy in question. According to Pellicano, Jordan Chandler denied any wrongdoing on Jackson's part.
- In mid-July, Evan Chandler convinced his ex-wife to allow him a one-week visitation period with their son. From that point on, the boy was isolated from his friends and family members.
- According to Rothman's former legal secretary Geraldine Hughes, Chandler was receiving advice from Rothman on how to report child abuse without liability to the parent.
- Taking Rothman's advice, Chandler contacted psychiatrist Mathis Abrams and presented him with a hypothetical situation (i.e- my son spent time alone with an adult male- is it possible that sexual abuse might have occurred and if so, what are the various ways that it can be reported to authorities?). In a written response to Chandler's phone call, Abrams wrote that if a child were to come out with sexual abuse allegations during a therapy session, the therapist would be required by law to report it to the police.
- Chandler took this letter and, according to Pellicano, attempted to blackmail Jackson with it. In a meeting that took place in early August 1993, Chandler allegedly made a demand for a $20 million screenwriting deal in return for his not going forward with the child abuse allegations.
- Several days after the meeting, Pellicano tape recorded a conversation that took place between him, Barry Rothman and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Rothman and Chandler can be heard negotiating the amount of money it would take to keep Chandler from going forward with the child molestation allegations. Chandler restated his demand for $20 million and, according to Geraldine Hughes, was later told by Pellicano that Jackson would not pay him any money. Keep in mind that if Jackson had paid Chandler at that point, the entire criminal investigation would have been avoided.
- According to an investigative reporter from KCBS-TV, Evan Chandler then gave his son a controversial psychiatric drug known as sodium amytal. It has been widely documented that you can easily plant false memories into a person's mind when they are under the influence of this drug.
- Evan Chandler claimed that he only used sodium amytal to pull Jordan's tooth and that while under the drug's influence, the boy came out with the allegations. According to Mark Torbiner, the anaesthesiologist who administered the drug: "If I used it, it was for dental purposes." Numerous medical experts have agreed, however, that the use of sodium amytal to pull a tooth would be a highly questionable practice at best.
- During an interview with a psychiatrist, Jordan Chandler recalled the first time that he told his father about the alleged sexual abuse. His story corroborates the allegation that his father used sodium amytal to extract a confession from him: "[My father] had to pull my tooth out one time, like, while I was there. And I don't like pain, so I said could you put me to sleep? And he said sure. So his friend put me to sleep; he's an anesthesiologist. And um, when I woke up my tooth was out, and I was alright - a little out of it but conscious. And my Dad said - and his friend was gone, it was just him and me - and my dad said, 'I just want you to let me know, did anything happen between you and Michael?' And I said 'Yes,' and he gave me a big hug and that was it." [Note: The transcript of Jordan Chandler's interview with the psychiatrist was made public by the boy's uncle Ray Chandler]
- On August 16th, 1993, June Schwartz's attorney filed an ex-parte motion on her behalf to assist her in getting her son back. While in court the next day, Chandler never made any mention of child abuse allegations. If Chandler had told the judge about the supposed suspicions he'd had for the past three weeks, the judge would have immediately ordered for the boy to be taken away from his mother. But Chandler said nothing, presumably because his plan was to report the abuse using a third party (the psychiatrist). By filing the ex-parte motion, June Schwartz had thrown her ex-husband a curveball. The court ordered Evan Chandler to return Jordan to his mother immediately.
- On August 17th, 1993, the same day that Jordan Chandler was supposed to be returned to his mother, Evan Chandler took him to see Dr. Abrams. While there, the boy came out with the sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and so began the police investigation into alleged misconduct on Jackson's part.
THE CIVIL LAWSUIT
Because of double jeopardy, anyone accused of a crime will never have to defend themselves for the same allegation twice unless one trial takes place in civil court and the other in criminal court. This was the situation with Michael Jackson in 1993.
- On September 14 1993, less than a month after the child abuse allegations against Michael Jackson had been reported to the police, the accusing family filed a $30 million lawsuit against Jackson with the help of civil attorney Larry Feldman.
- Up until that point, the alleged victim's mother June Schwartz had maintained that Jackson was innocent of the allegations. As soon as the civil suit was filed, however, she changed her tune and joined forces with her ex-husband Evan Chandler and their son Jordan. At that point, June Schwartz's divorce attorney Michael Freeman resigned. "The whole thing was such a mess," he explained. "I felt uncomfortable with Evan. He isn't a genuine person, and I sensed he wasn't playing things straight."
- The Chandlers sued Jackson for sexual battery, battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence.
- The civil suit was filed while the police investigation was still ongoing. As a result, the civil trial was scheduled to take place before the criminal trial began which would have been a violation of Jackson's constitutional right to not self-incriminate. Typically, when there are two trials dealing with the same allegation, the criminal trial takes place before the civil trial (i.e- the O.J Simpson case). This is to ensure that the Defendant's defense in the criminal case will not be compromised as a result of the civil proceedings.
- Jackson's attorneys filed a motion asking for the civil trial to be delayed until after the criminal trial was over. They cited numerous cases such as Pacer, Inc. v. Superior Court to support their request. The Federal case held that, "when both criminal and civil proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the Defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved." Other cases cited include Dustin W. Brown v. The Superior Court, Dwyer v. Crocker National Bank, Patterson v. White and Huot v. Gendron.
- Larry Feldman argued that if the civil trial were to be postponed, the plaintiff, being a minor, might forget certain details about what had supposedly happened to him. The judge felt that the boy's "fragile state" was more important than Jackson's 5th Amendment rights and ruled in the boy's favour.
- Jackson's attorneys filed another motion asking that District Attorney Tom Sneddon be blocked from obtaining evidence used in the civil trial. Again, the Jackson team lost the motion. The DA made it clear that he was planning to use the evidence from the civil proceedings to assist him in his criminal case against Jackson.
- If Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, he would have put his entire defense strategy in jeopardy by revealing it to the prosecution months before the criminal case went to trial.
- Let's pretend for a moment that Michael Jackson had gone through with the civil trial. What would have happened? He would have presented the court with all of his evidence of extortion and Sneddon would have been watching the entire thing unfold. He could have then taken Jackson's most critical exonerating evidence from the civil trial and found ways to discredit it so that Jackson would have nothing left to defend himself with in the criminal trial.
- During the civil trial, Jackson’s lawyers would have undoubtedly revealed any inconsistencies in the accuser’s story. This would have given Sneddon the opportunity to examine and amend the weaknesses in his own case against Jackson.
- As you can see, allowing the civil trial to proceed would have given the prosecution the upper hand in the far more important criminal trial. Although this is the primary reason behind Michael Jackson's decision to settle the case, there were many other factors involved:
1) In a criminal trial, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative; in other words, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of a crime. In civil trials, if the jury thinks the Defendant might be responsible for what he or she is accused of, they can still hold the Defendant liable.
2) In criminal law, if the Defendant chooses not to testify, their refusal cannot be used against them. In a civil trial, however, the Defendant must be cooperative for all depositions and testimony. If the Defendant in a civil trial invokes his or her Fifth Amendment privilege, the judge will tell the jury that they may make an inference against the party who refused to testify. If Michael Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, his entire personal life would have been put on display. Defendants in sex abuse crimes are often asked extremely personal questions on the stand; imagine what this process would be like for somebody like Michael Jackson who is admittedly shy and whose personal life is always subject to severe media scrutiny.
3) In civil trials the jury's verdict does not have to be unanimous. If at least 50% of the jurors find the Defendant liable, the Plaintiff will still get money.
4) The Defendant in a civil trial has fewer rights. In criminal law, police must obtain search warrants before searching or seizing items from a person's property. In civil law, a lawyer may demand information from the defense about any matter relevant to the case. This is known as the discovery process and it does not usually involve the court. Discovery may include: written questions to be answered under oath; oral deposition under oath; requests for pertinent documents; physical or mental examinations where injury is claimed; and requests to admit facts not in dispute. If Jackson had allowed the civil trial to proceed, Larry Feldman would have had access to Jackson's medical and financial records without obtaining a warrant.
5) The civil trial would have taken months to resolve. Michael Jackson would have been paying millions of dollars in legal fees while at the same time limiting his source of income by putting his career on hold. There was probably also a lot of pressure from his record company to settle the lawsuit because the case was affecting his career.
6) Such a long, drawn out process would have caused Michael Jackson and his family immeasurable amounts of stress. Even after the civil trial was resolved, he would still have the criminal proceedings to contend with. Why go through all of that twice?
7) According to Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit might have prompted Jackson's insurance company to force him to settle the case. "I have brought child molestation cases against Defendants and I always include a negligence allegation," Oxman explained. "That means that the homeowners' insurance policy takes over and a homeowners' insurance policy can settle right out from under the Defendant. The Defendant can scream, 'I will not settle that case,' and they have no choice because the insurance company settles it." (which is actually what did happen, Michael and his team wanted to go try the case but his insurance company had the final say and they payed the boy and his family off, see above .PDF)
The Civil Settlement
For various legal, personal, professional, financial and practical reasons, Michael Jackson settled the civil lawsuit filed against him by his accuser's family in 1993. The recently leaked settlement document reveals several interesting facts:
1) Michael Jackson denied any wrongdoing.
2) The boy and his parents could have still testified against Jackson in the criminal trial.
3) Jackson only settled over claims of negligence and not over claims of child molestation.
Tabloid reporter Diane Dimond, who leaked the details of the settlement, tried to make it seem as if Jackson admitted to molesting the boy simply because he settled over the negligence allegation. Dimond pointed out that the original lawsuit said: "Defendant Michael Jackson negligently had offensive contacts with plaintiff which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise." It is clear, however, from the wording of the settlement document, that the "negligence" allegation was redefined:
"Such claims include claims for bodily injuries resulting from negligence; whereas, Evan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress; whereas, Jordan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress."
Negligence has been defined in the settlement as the "infliction of emotional distress"; there is no mention of sexual abuse. Referring to the lawsuit's definition of "negligence" is inconclusive because each legal document intentionally defines the terms to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. Furthermore, if the negligence allegation was directly related to the child molestation allegations, why did Evan Chandler also claim to be the victim of negligence?
OTHER INTERESTING EXCEPRTS FROM THE DOCUMENT:
"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 or at all, or that the Minor, Evan Chandler and June Chandler have any rights whatsoever against Jackson. Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler or any other persons. 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."
Jackson repeatedly asserts his innocence while the accusing family does not once maintain that the boy's allegations are true.
"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 sexual molestation."
Sorry Diane.
THE PAYMENT:
The document states that $15,331,250 was put into a trust fund for Jordan Chandler. Both of his parents, as well as their attorney Larry Feldman, got a cut of the settlement. (Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz, two principle players in the case who were left out of the settlement, later filed their own individual lawsuits against Jackson). Eight pages detailing the payment were allegedly missing from Dimond's copy of the settlement but according to Jackson's current attorney, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit prompted Jackson's insurance company to step in and settle the case for him. This means that Jackson might not have paid the Chandlers anything. It also means that the insurance company most likely conducted their own investigation into the allegations and concluded that Jackson did not molest the boy; insurance companies generally do not settle if they believe the Defendant is liable. They will, however, settle for negligent behaviour.
DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION:
The document also shows that the Chandlers dropped the child molestation allegations from their complaint:
"Forthwith upon the signing of this Confidential Settlement by the Parties hereto, the Minor through his Guardian ad Litem 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."
"Upon the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments... the Minor, through his Guardian ad Litem, shall dismiss the entire action with prejduice."
The first through sixth causes of action were the sexual abuse allegations; the seventh cause of action was negligence. Again, Jackson settled over the family’s claims of negligence and not over their claims of child molestation.
WAS IT HUSH MONEY?
Finally, the document makes it clear that the Chandlers could have still testified against Jackson in a criminal trial:
"The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, and 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 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 Releases, except as may be required by law."
The only stipulation in the settlement is that the parties could not testify about the allegations in civil court.
"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... receive a subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted or is investigating, any claim against Jackson... 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."
The above paragraph makes it clear that the Chandlers were not prohibited from testifying against Jackson in a criminal trial, as long as they notified Jackson's attorneys beforehand. Contrary to popular belief, the settlement did NOT silence anybody. It was the family's own decision not to testify in the criminal case; they could have gotten money and justice but they only opted to take the money.
Ask yourself this: if your child was molested, would you not do everything in your power to put the person responsible behind bars? The Chandlers did not. Instead, they dropped the claims of child abuse against Jackson, signed a document where he basically called them liars, took his money and refused to talk to authorities. I have already pointed out the numerous reasons why Jackson settled the case; what reason did the Chandlers have to not testify?
One could argue that they did not want to be put through a public trial, however, this assertion does not make sense when you consider the fact that the Chandlers were more than willing to testify in the civil trial. In fact, court documents reveal that the only reason the judge refused to stay the civil proceedings was because Feldman was allegedly worried that Jordan Chandler would forget his story when testifying. Furthermore, Evan Chandler later sued Jackson and asked the court to allow him to produce an album of songs about the allegations. The actions of the Chandlers are not indicative of a family reluctant to tell their story.
For the past ten years, the media have been referring to the settlement as a "pay off" but here is my question: what exactly did Michael Jackson "buy" when he settled the civil lawsuit? How can anyone call it "hush money" when it did not prevent the accuser from testifying against him? How can anyone call it "hush money" when the entire world already knew about the allegations? How can anyone call it "hush money" when there was still an ongoing criminal investigation that was not affected by the civil suit?
Finally, Evan Chandler asked for $20 million before the allegations were reported to authorities. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested Jordan Chandler, why did he not take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid Evan Chandler and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he rejected Chandler's initial demand for money. If he was guilty, why did he do that?
If it is still your contention that Jackson's plan was to settle the civil lawsuit in order to bribe the boy into not testifying against him in the criminal trial, can you please explain to me why Michael Jackson asked for the civil trial to be postponed? He wanted the civil trial to take place after the criminal trial was resolved, which means any potential settlement would have been negotiated after Jackson was either acquitted or convicted. This would have made it impossible for him to "bribe" the boy into not testifying. Jackson's actions contradict the notion that he wanted to buy Jordan Chandler's silence.
An investigative reporter writing for GQ researched that case and published Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story in October 1994.
QUOTE
Why put so much faith in the GQ article?
Why not? First of all, Mary A. Fischer (the author of the article) is not known for writing about celebrities. She is a well-respected investigative reporter who has had a successful 18-year career. Her article on Gulf War Syndrome won an award from Northwestern University and she has been nominated twice for the National Magazine Award. She has also been published in Rolling Stone, Life Magazine, Men's Journal and the New York Times. Why would this woman put her credibility on the line by writing an inaccurate article in Michael Jackson's defense?
Secondly, let's look at her sources:
- Geraldine Hughes, the legal secretary for Jordan Chandler's attorney.
- Michael Freeman, the lawyer who represented June Chandler in her custody case.
- Bert Fields, Jackson's first lawyer who resigned due to conflict within the legal team.
- Anthony Pellicano, Jackson's private investigator who also backed out of the case.
- Court records and legal documents.
- Several psychiatrists and medical experts.
- An audio tape of a conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz.
- Mark Torbiner, the anesthesiologist who administered the sodium amytal to Jordan Chandler.
All of Mary Fischer's sources were involved with the case and some of the information she reported is indisputable as it is backed up by court documents, audio/video recordings, etc. Also, Bert Fields and Anthony Pellicano left Michael Jackson's legal team because they were unhappy with the new laywers who were brought in. They had no reason to remain loyal to Jackson when being interviewed for the article as they were no longer being employed by him.
In addition, when Evan Chandler sued Dave Schwartz and June Chandler for invasion of privacy in 1994, Mary Fischer was subpoenaed to produce information concerning her article. Evan Chandler and his attorneys were well aware of what Fischer wrote. If she had not referenced the information in her article, Evan Chandler would have had grounds for a lawsuit. Chandler, however, did not sue. This indicates that all of the information in Fischer's article was backed up by sources so the validity of the article boils down to the credibility of those who provided Fischer with information. Since all of the sources were actually involved in the case, did not have any apparent agenda in coming forward and all opted to reveal their identities (except for Geraldine Hughes, who later came forward with all of her information), there is no reason to assume that Ms. Fischer's article was untrue.
Why not? First of all, Mary A. Fischer (the author of the article) is not known for writing about celebrities. She is a well-respected investigative reporter who has had a successful 18-year career. Her article on Gulf War Syndrome won an award from Northwestern University and she has been nominated twice for the National Magazine Award. She has also been published in Rolling Stone, Life Magazine, Men's Journal and the New York Times. Why would this woman put her credibility on the line by writing an inaccurate article in Michael Jackson's defense?
Secondly, let's look at her sources:
- Geraldine Hughes, the legal secretary for Jordan Chandler's attorney.
- Michael Freeman, the lawyer who represented June Chandler in her custody case.
- Bert Fields, Jackson's first lawyer who resigned due to conflict within the legal team.
- Anthony Pellicano, Jackson's private investigator who also backed out of the case.
- Court records and legal documents.
- Several psychiatrists and medical experts.
- An audio tape of a conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz.
- Mark Torbiner, the anesthesiologist who administered the sodium amytal to Jordan Chandler.
All of Mary Fischer's sources were involved with the case and some of the information she reported is indisputable as it is backed up by court documents, audio/video recordings, etc. Also, Bert Fields and Anthony Pellicano left Michael Jackson's legal team because they were unhappy with the new laywers who were brought in. They had no reason to remain loyal to Jackson when being interviewed for the article as they were no longer being employed by him.
In addition, when Evan Chandler sued Dave Schwartz and June Chandler for invasion of privacy in 1994, Mary Fischer was subpoenaed to produce information concerning her article. Evan Chandler and his attorneys were well aware of what Fischer wrote. If she had not referenced the information in her article, Evan Chandler would have had grounds for a lawsuit. Chandler, however, did not sue. This indicates that all of the information in Fischer's article was backed up by sources so the validity of the article boils down to the credibility of those who provided Fischer with information. Since all of the sources were actually involved in the case, did not have any apparent agenda in coming forward and all opted to reveal their identities (except for Geraldine Hughes, who later came forward with all of her information), there is no reason to assume that Ms. Fischer's article was untrue.
What about the reports from the media that the boy from that case could describe Michaels penis? Again not accurate. The boy was asked to give descriptions 3 times. The first two were wrong. That was before the photos were taken. After Tom Sneddon (the district attorney) forced Michael to have photos taken, then there was a third description by the boy, this time accurate.
How about the other boy who was paid off?
QUOTE
In December 2003, former Sheriff Jim Thomas told the media that there was a second boy who accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse in 1993. According to Thomas: "It was a boy [whose] mother was actually an employee of the [Jackson] family." Thomas alleged that the boy would not cooperate with authorities because he was too "embarrassed."
The boy in question is the son of Blanca Francia, Jackson's former maid. Authorities got in contact with Francia after she appeared on Hard Copy and told the tabloid show that she had witnessed Jackson act inappropriately with her son. She repeated these statements in a sworn deposition for the Chandlers' civil lawsuit but when questioned by authorities, Francia claimed that the boy had never accused Jackson of any wrongdoing. Under deposition by one of Jackson's attorneys, Francia also admitted that she had exaggerated during her Hard Copy interview.
Still, investigators insisted on interviewing Francia's son and even offered to send him to a therapist. According to an article from USA Today: "Investigators from the county sheriff's office recently arranged for the 13-year-old son of Jackson's former maid to see a therapist. The boy was first interviewed by police after his mother told them he had spent time alone with Jackson. According to his mother, the child has repeatedly denied being abused in any way by the pop music star." The article explains that the offer of a therapist was made because Francia "felt uncomfortable" with the way authorities had been harassing her son.
Francia later blackmailed Jackson by threatening to accuse him of molesting her son unless she received a financial settlement from the Jackson camp. Jackson's associates advised him to pay Francia off, fearing that the bad publicity from a second accusation would irreparably harm his record sales. After receiving $2 million, Francia did not file suit against Jackson.
Given the fact that Francia only made accusations against Jackson in exchange for financial compensation, one must question why Jim Thomas would be so quick to claim that her son was a "victim" of Jackson's. Perhaps he is trying to taint the jury pool? Thomas is, aferall, admittedly good friends with the District Attorney.
While we are on the subject of jury pool tainting, in April 2004, news broke that an 18-year-old man named Daniel Kapon had told the Santa Barbara Police Department he'd been molested by Jackson when he was 3 years old. He claimed that he had repressed the memories and as a result, only recently remembered being abused. The SBPD turned him away because they could not determine whether or not the man had even met Michael Jackson. For some reason, however, the SBPD did not file charges against Kapon. Consequently, he took his story to the Los Angeles Police Department who also concluded that his allegations were bogus.
It was later revealed that attorney Gloria Allred and psychiatrist Carole Lieberman were behind the man's accusations. For those unfamiliar with the names, Lieberman is the self-proclaimed "media" psychiatrist whose official website declares her "the first psychiatrist to have made formal child abuse complaints against Michael Jackson, beginning in November 2002" and Allred is the Jackson-obsessed attorney who keeps making public requests for the singer's children to be removed from his custody. Allred also breifly represented Jackson's first accuser Jordan Chandler in 1993 but was fired after she told the media that the Chandlers were interested in justice. Since then, Allred's relationship with Jackson has been contentious; in 2002, he publicly told her to "go to hell."
After Lieberman helped Kapon "remember" the abuse he allegedly suffered 15 years earlier, Allred signed on as his attorney. Their plans to go forward with the case were derailed, however, when the LAPD issued a statement saying they would not press charges. Although Jackson was cleared of any wrongdoing, the news of another accuser had already done significant damage to his image. "This appears to be a malicious attempt to undermine Mr. Jackson's right to a fair hearing on the charges presently pending," Jackson's lawyers said in a statement.
The only person who benefited from the ordeal was Daniel Kapon who sold his story to the British tabloid News of the World.
The boy in question is the son of Blanca Francia, Jackson's former maid. Authorities got in contact with Francia after she appeared on Hard Copy and told the tabloid show that she had witnessed Jackson act inappropriately with her son. She repeated these statements in a sworn deposition for the Chandlers' civil lawsuit but when questioned by authorities, Francia claimed that the boy had never accused Jackson of any wrongdoing. Under deposition by one of Jackson's attorneys, Francia also admitted that she had exaggerated during her Hard Copy interview.
Still, investigators insisted on interviewing Francia's son and even offered to send him to a therapist. According to an article from USA Today: "Investigators from the county sheriff's office recently arranged for the 13-year-old son of Jackson's former maid to see a therapist. The boy was first interviewed by police after his mother told them he had spent time alone with Jackson. According to his mother, the child has repeatedly denied being abused in any way by the pop music star." The article explains that the offer of a therapist was made because Francia "felt uncomfortable" with the way authorities had been harassing her son.
Francia later blackmailed Jackson by threatening to accuse him of molesting her son unless she received a financial settlement from the Jackson camp. Jackson's associates advised him to pay Francia off, fearing that the bad publicity from a second accusation would irreparably harm his record sales. After receiving $2 million, Francia did not file suit against Jackson.
Given the fact that Francia only made accusations against Jackson in exchange for financial compensation, one must question why Jim Thomas would be so quick to claim that her son was a "victim" of Jackson's. Perhaps he is trying to taint the jury pool? Thomas is, aferall, admittedly good friends with the District Attorney.
While we are on the subject of jury pool tainting, in April 2004, news broke that an 18-year-old man named Daniel Kapon had told the Santa Barbara Police Department he'd been molested by Jackson when he was 3 years old. He claimed that he had repressed the memories and as a result, only recently remembered being abused. The SBPD turned him away because they could not determine whether or not the man had even met Michael Jackson. For some reason, however, the SBPD did not file charges against Kapon. Consequently, he took his story to the Los Angeles Police Department who also concluded that his allegations were bogus.
It was later revealed that attorney Gloria Allred and psychiatrist Carole Lieberman were behind the man's accusations. For those unfamiliar with the names, Lieberman is the self-proclaimed "media" psychiatrist whose official website declares her "the first psychiatrist to have made formal child abuse complaints against Michael Jackson, beginning in November 2002" and Allred is the Jackson-obsessed attorney who keeps making public requests for the singer's children to be removed from his custody. Allred also breifly represented Jackson's first accuser Jordan Chandler in 1993 but was fired after she told the media that the Chandlers were interested in justice. Since then, Allred's relationship with Jackson has been contentious; in 2002, he publicly told her to "go to hell."
After Lieberman helped Kapon "remember" the abuse he allegedly suffered 15 years earlier, Allred signed on as his attorney. Their plans to go forward with the case were derailed, however, when the LAPD issued a statement saying they would not press charges. Although Jackson was cleared of any wrongdoing, the news of another accuser had already done significant damage to his image. "This appears to be a malicious attempt to undermine Mr. Jackson's right to a fair hearing on the charges presently pending," Jackson's lawyers said in a statement.
The only person who benefited from the ordeal was Daniel Kapon who sold his story to the British tabloid News of the World.
The legal secretary for the lawyer of the first boy went on to write a book called Redemption: The Truth Behind the Child Molestation Allegation. She claims the whole thing was a scam cooked up by her boss and the boys father. Her ex boss denies what she claims and has said that what she wrote could be grounds for a lawsuit. But there has been no lawsuit
How do you know Geraldine Hughes is telling the truth about the Chandlers?
QUOTE
If the information Geraldine Hughes has written about is untrue, why hasn't Barry Rothman (the attorney she worked for) taken legal action against her? He sued Michael Jackson for defamation of character (read about the court proceedings here) and didn't get any money. Why isn't he suing Geraldine Hughes? Surely her book is far more damaging to his legal practice than anything Michael Jackson has ever said. Perhaps Rothman has not sued Ms. Hughes because the ultimate defense against being accused of defamation of character is if you are telling the truth.
One might ask if Geraldine Hughes is telling the truth, why hasn't Rothman sued her for violating attorney/client priviliges. In response to this question, Ms. Hughes cited the following California evidentiary code:
§956 Exception: Crime or fraud
There is no privilege under this article if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or a fraud.
Ms. Hughes' defense is that Rothman was hired to commit extortion so obviously she has evidence to back up her claims. This evidence could protect her in either a slander lawsuit or a violation of attorney/client priviliges lawsuit. Why else would she risk getting sued? To help Michael Jackson? I think we've all seen that writing salacious stories about him makes for a much more profitable career.
Furthermore, it's not like Ms. Hughes came out and said "Evan Chandler told me he made the whole thing up." To prove her contention that the Chandlers were guilty of extortion, Hughes uses the details surrounding the custody battle (backed up by court documents), the motions that were filed in relation to the civil lawsuit (backed up by court documents) and Evan Chandler's own words (backed up by an audio tape). She did witness some suspicious behaviours but these were not the basis of her arguments. Instead, her own personal observations merely served to corroborate the overwhelming amount of documented evidence that proves Jackson was the victim of an elaborate extortion plot.
One might ask if Geraldine Hughes is telling the truth, why hasn't Rothman sued her for violating attorney/client priviliges. In response to this question, Ms. Hughes cited the following California evidentiary code:
§956 Exception: Crime or fraud
There is no privilege under this article if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or a fraud.
Ms. Hughes' defense is that Rothman was hired to commit extortion so obviously she has evidence to back up her claims. This evidence could protect her in either a slander lawsuit or a violation of attorney/client priviliges lawsuit. Why else would she risk getting sued? To help Michael Jackson? I think we've all seen that writing salacious stories about him makes for a much more profitable career.
Furthermore, it's not like Ms. Hughes came out and said "Evan Chandler told me he made the whole thing up." To prove her contention that the Chandlers were guilty of extortion, Hughes uses the details surrounding the custody battle (backed up by court documents), the motions that were filed in relation to the civil lawsuit (backed up by court documents) and Evan Chandler's own words (backed up by an audio tape). She did witness some suspicious behaviours but these were not the basis of her arguments. Instead, her own personal observations merely served to corroborate the overwhelming amount of documented evidence that proves Jackson was the victim of an elaborate extortion plot.
This is from the recent court case, transcript from the court where Michaels attorney is questioning a lady paralegal (Holzer) who was working for Janet Arvizo (the boys mom) in her lawsuit against JCPenney.
QUOTE
HOLZER: I was in charge of -- I don’t want to call it hand-holding, but pretty much -- they didn’t have a car, so I drove them to appearances.
I sometimes helped out when they didn’t have child care, when they needed -- if David or Janet needed to go somewhere for the case. Not personal.
HOLZER: They would come into the office. Usually they would pop in every once in a while and the children would come in my office, and sit on my lap, and draw me pictures, tell me how much they loved me, and write little notes and post it on my pin board, and say how great I was, and that I was helping their family.
MESEREAU: Would Janet tell you how great you were?
HOLZER: Yes.
BY MR. MESEREAU: What did Janet Arvizo tell you about her children learning to act?
HOLZER: She said she wanted them to become good actors so she could tell them what to say and how to behave.
MESEREAU: Did she ever say anything to you about Gavin getting his stories straight in the J.C. Penney case?
HOLZER: Yes.
MESEREAU: What did she say?
HOLZER: She said she wasn’t worried. This was at the Independent Medical Examination for psychiatric of all three, Gavin, Star and Janet. And when we were at the doctor’s office, she was very concerned about them completing general forms, you know, like, “Generally do you feel happy?” “Generally do you feel sad?” You know, “What kind of days” -- “How do you feel when you wake up?” Those kind of forms.
And she refused to have the children fill them out. And then she wanted to participate in the medical examinations with the doctor and the children.
And I asked her, you know, I said, you know, “It doesn’t work that way.” You know, “The doctor sees the children on their own.” You know, “You can’t go in there.”
And she said, “Well, I’m pretty sure Gavin will get the story straight, but I’m not sure Star will remember what we practiced and what I told him to say.”
BY MR. MESEREAU: What did Janet Arvizo do in the driveway when she was there for that examination?
HOLZER: She threw herself down on the ground, started kicking and screaming, carrying on that the doctor was the devil, and the nurses were the devil, and they were all out to get her.
And I explained to her that they were only asking her standard questions that they ask in an Independent Medical Examination; that -- the history of her injuries and how she obtained the injuries.
And she was very defensive. And they asked us to leave because she was so irate.
MESEREAU: Did you leave?
HOLZER: Yes, I took her out.
MESEREAU: Did you ever have a chance to discuss with Janet Arvizo those photographs?
HOLZER: Yes.
MESEREAU: And what did she tell you about those photographs while that lawsuit was going on?
HOLZER: She told me that the bruises that were on her body were inflicted by David that night after the altercation at J.C. Penney’s.
MESEREAU: And what was your response to her telling you that?
HOLZER: Well, it scared me.
MESEREAU: Why?
HOLZER: Well, I represent my law firm, and when a client admits to fraud, it’s kind of scary.
MESEREAU: And did you say anything to Mrs. Arvizo in response?
HOLZER: Yes, I did.
MESEREAU: What did you say to Ms. Arvizo about that?
HOLZER: I told her that she couldn’t do that, that that was wrong, and that, you know, she needed to retract that, and that she needed to speak to Mr. Rothstein about it.
MESEREAU: Did you tell her that was fraudulent?
HOLZER: I don’t know whether I used that word. I told her it was wrong; that “You can’t do that.”
MESEREAU: And --
HOLZER: I was very upset.
MESEREAU: Did she threaten you?
HOLZER: Yes, she did.
MESEREAU: How?
HOLZER: She told me that David’s brother Ray is in the Mexican mafia and runs drugs between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and that she knows where I live, because she had been to my house on several occasions, and they would come and kill me and my nine-year-old daughter.
MESEREAU: Did this terrify you?
HOLZER: Yes.
MESEREAU: Did you ever tell anyone at the law firm about what Janet had told you?
HOLZER: No, I did not.
MESEREAU: Or, let me rephrase it. Did you ever have any further discussions with her about the fake claims against J.C. Penney?
HOLZER: I did. I tried to get her to speak to Mr. Rothstein about it. I asked her if I could speak to Mr. Rothstein about it, because we run a clean law firm, and I really didn’t feel that we should be involved in something like that.
And she proceeded to call me daily and tell me she had told David, and David was raging mad, and that he was going to come after me, and that I better watch my back.
MESEREAU: How many times do you think Janet Arvizo threatened you and your daughter?
HOLZER: I’d say about eight, nine times.
BY MR. ZONEN: And from that settlement was spent all the expenses, was paid for the expenses; is that correct?
HOLZER: A. Some of it was expenses. There was attorney fees. There was expert fees.
ZONEN: Yes.
HOLZER: The children received a portion.
ZONEN: Yes.
HOLZER: And David rejected any portion. And, you know, he had dropped out of the case, so....
ZONEN: David Arvizo was paid nothing?
HOLZER: Paid nothing.
ZONEN: Are you certain?
HOLZER: Yes.
ZONEN: Did she tell you that she went home and picked up the children first?
HOLZER: She told me that when they got -- she said when they got home -- these were her words. When they got home, David was raging mad and accused her of creating the chaos at J.C. Penney’s and Tower Records.
BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever see the booking photos at the jail which were taken when Janet Arvizo was arrested the day of the J.C. Penney events?
…
MESEREAU: They don’t show any injuries, do they?
HOLZER: No.
MESEREAU: Do you recall ever asking her, “When did you take the photograph that shows the injuries?” that Prosecutor Zonen just described?
HOLZER: No, I never asked her.
MESEREAU: And just to clarify, how long after the J.C. Penney incident did your law firm get involved with the Arvizos, if you know?
HOLZER: I would say nine months maybe.
BY MR. MESEREAU: When did you last talk to Janet Arvizo?
…
THE WITNESS: She called me, I would say, about three, four months ago.
BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know why?
HOLZER: She wanted to be friends.
MESEREAU: What did you say?
HOLZER: I said I was very busy.
MESEREAU: Did she say anything else?
HOLZER: She asked me to call her. She’d like to get together and maybe have a girls’ weekend. And that she had just had a baby and she was remarried. And I felt like --
…
BY MR. MESEREAU: Did she say anything about this case at any time?
HOLZER: No.
MESEREAU: Did she say anything about the J.C. Penney case?
HOLZER: Well, yes, she did. I rephrase that. Yes, she did.
MESEREAU: Did she talk about the J.C. Penney case?
HOLZER: No, she talked about this case.
MESEREAU: Did she remind you of her threats?
HOLZER: No. She proceeded to tell me that Michael Jackson was no longer her savior. He was now the devil.
I sometimes helped out when they didn’t have child care, when they needed -- if David or Janet needed to go somewhere for the case. Not personal.
HOLZER: They would come into the office. Usually they would pop in every once in a while and the children would come in my office, and sit on my lap, and draw me pictures, tell me how much they loved me, and write little notes and post it on my pin board, and say how great I was, and that I was helping their family.
MESEREAU: Would Janet tell you how great you were?
HOLZER: Yes.
BY MR. MESEREAU: What did Janet Arvizo tell you about her children learning to act?
HOLZER: She said she wanted them to become good actors so she could tell them what to say and how to behave.
MESEREAU: Did she ever say anything to you about Gavin getting his stories straight in the J.C. Penney case?
HOLZER: Yes.
MESEREAU: What did she say?
HOLZER: She said she wasn’t worried. This was at the Independent Medical Examination for psychiatric of all three, Gavin, Star and Janet. And when we were at the doctor’s office, she was very concerned about them completing general forms, you know, like, “Generally do you feel happy?” “Generally do you feel sad?” You know, “What kind of days” -- “How do you feel when you wake up?” Those kind of forms.
And she refused to have the children fill them out. And then she wanted to participate in the medical examinations with the doctor and the children.
And I asked her, you know, I said, you know, “It doesn’t work that way.” You know, “The doctor sees the children on their own.” You know, “You can’t go in there.”
And she said, “Well, I’m pretty sure Gavin will get the story straight, but I’m not sure Star will remember what we practiced and what I told him to say.”
BY MR. MESEREAU: What did Janet Arvizo do in the driveway when she was there for that examination?
HOLZER: She threw herself down on the ground, started kicking and screaming, carrying on that the doctor was the devil, and the nurses were the devil, and they were all out to get her.
And I explained to her that they were only asking her standard questions that they ask in an Independent Medical Examination; that -- the history of her injuries and how she obtained the injuries.
And she was very defensive. And they asked us to leave because she was so irate.
MESEREAU: Did you leave?
HOLZER: Yes, I took her out.
MESEREAU: Did you ever have a chance to discuss with Janet Arvizo those photographs?
HOLZER: Yes.
MESEREAU: And what did she tell you about those photographs while that lawsuit was going on?
HOLZER: She told me that the bruises that were on her body were inflicted by David that night after the altercation at J.C. Penney’s.
MESEREAU: And what was your response to her telling you that?
HOLZER: Well, it scared me.
MESEREAU: Why?
HOLZER: Well, I represent my law firm, and when a client admits to fraud, it’s kind of scary.
MESEREAU: And did you say anything to Mrs. Arvizo in response?
HOLZER: Yes, I did.
MESEREAU: What did you say to Ms. Arvizo about that?
HOLZER: I told her that she couldn’t do that, that that was wrong, and that, you know, she needed to retract that, and that she needed to speak to Mr. Rothstein about it.
MESEREAU: Did you tell her that was fraudulent?
HOLZER: I don’t know whether I used that word. I told her it was wrong; that “You can’t do that.”
MESEREAU: And --
HOLZER: I was very upset.
MESEREAU: Did she threaten you?
HOLZER: Yes, she did.
MESEREAU: How?
HOLZER: She told me that David’s brother Ray is in the Mexican mafia and runs drugs between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and that she knows where I live, because she had been to my house on several occasions, and they would come and kill me and my nine-year-old daughter.
MESEREAU: Did this terrify you?
HOLZER: Yes.
MESEREAU: Did you ever tell anyone at the law firm about what Janet had told you?
HOLZER: No, I did not.
MESEREAU: Or, let me rephrase it. Did you ever have any further discussions with her about the fake claims against J.C. Penney?
HOLZER: I did. I tried to get her to speak to Mr. Rothstein about it. I asked her if I could speak to Mr. Rothstein about it, because we run a clean law firm, and I really didn’t feel that we should be involved in something like that.
And she proceeded to call me daily and tell me she had told David, and David was raging mad, and that he was going to come after me, and that I better watch my back.
MESEREAU: How many times do you think Janet Arvizo threatened you and your daughter?
HOLZER: I’d say about eight, nine times.
BY MR. ZONEN: And from that settlement was spent all the expenses, was paid for the expenses; is that correct?
HOLZER: A. Some of it was expenses. There was attorney fees. There was expert fees.
ZONEN: Yes.
HOLZER: The children received a portion.
ZONEN: Yes.
HOLZER: And David rejected any portion. And, you know, he had dropped out of the case, so....
ZONEN: David Arvizo was paid nothing?
HOLZER: Paid nothing.
ZONEN: Are you certain?
HOLZER: Yes.
ZONEN: Did she tell you that she went home and picked up the children first?
HOLZER: She told me that when they got -- she said when they got home -- these were her words. When they got home, David was raging mad and accused her of creating the chaos at J.C. Penney’s and Tower Records.
BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever see the booking photos at the jail which were taken when Janet Arvizo was arrested the day of the J.C. Penney events?
…
MESEREAU: They don’t show any injuries, do they?
HOLZER: No.
MESEREAU: Do you recall ever asking her, “When did you take the photograph that shows the injuries?” that Prosecutor Zonen just described?
HOLZER: No, I never asked her.
MESEREAU: And just to clarify, how long after the J.C. Penney incident did your law firm get involved with the Arvizos, if you know?
HOLZER: I would say nine months maybe.
BY MR. MESEREAU: When did you last talk to Janet Arvizo?
…
THE WITNESS: She called me, I would say, about three, four months ago.
BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know why?
HOLZER: She wanted to be friends.
MESEREAU: What did you say?
HOLZER: I said I was very busy.
MESEREAU: Did she say anything else?
HOLZER: She asked me to call her. She’d like to get together and maybe have a girls’ weekend. And that she had just had a baby and she was remarried. And I felt like --
…
BY MR. MESEREAU: Did she say anything about this case at any time?
HOLZER: No.
MESEREAU: Did she say anything about the J.C. Penney case?
HOLZER: Well, yes, she did. I rephrase that. Yes, she did.
MESEREAU: Did she talk about the J.C. Penney case?
HOLZER: No, she talked about this case.
MESEREAU: Did she remind you of her threats?
HOLZER: No. She proceeded to tell me that Michael Jackson was no longer her savior. He was now the devil.
QUOTE (Tapati @ Jun 14 2005, 07:48 PM)
I hope that at least, as Jesse Jackson said, Michael will change his behavior to avoid this kind of thing in the future.
Apparently he will: Jackson 'to change his lifestyle'.
p.s
Jordan Chandler, the 1993 accuser, filed for legal emancipation from both his parents after he received his part of the settlement money from the insurance company, and after his biological father, Evan Chandler, sued Michael Jackson (for 30 million dollars) AGAIN and lost.
So after the settlement the boys father wanted more money, as did his mother. The boy got himself legally emanicapted from them and has not spoken to them since.
Jordan Chandler, the 1993 accuser, filed for legal emancipation from both his parents after he received his part of the settlement money from the insurance company, and after his biological father, Evan Chandler, sued Michael Jackson (for 30 million dollars) AGAIN and lost.
So after the settlement the boys father wanted more money, as did his mother. The boy got himself legally emanicapted from them and has not spoken to them since.
Hahaha did anyone see that peculiar blonde lady who had ten white doves in a cage and kept releasing one after another to fly into the sky in tandem with each successive non-guilty verdict. That was the best.
p.s.s
Jordan Chandler the boy from the 1993 civil settlement refused to testify for the prosecution in the recent case.
Jordan Chandler the boy from the 1993 civil settlement refused to testify for the prosecution in the recent case.
Some would defend mr. jackson and look the other way in order to avoid the truth of his molesting ways with young boys.
Just like they make excuses for the molesters in the corrupt iskcon movement.
One sick-o covering for another sick-o.
Love,
YOURMASTER your AUTHORITY
Just like they make excuses for the molesters in the corrupt iskcon movement.
One sick-o covering for another sick-o.
Love,
YOURMASTER your AUTHORITY
The actual reason why they made this whole case is his most valuable asset: the Beatles song rights he bought in the 1980s for about $48 million, now estimated to be worth $400 million or more. So, everytime they want to world wide play a Beatle song on a radio station they have to pay to Mr. Michael Jackson. An intolerable situation for the globalization mafia.
QUOTE (jatayu @ Jun 15 2005, 06:45 AM)
The actual reason why they made this whole case is his most valuable asset: the Beatles song rights he bought in the 1980s for about $48 million, now estimated to be worth $400 million or more. So, everytime they want to world wide play a Beatle song on a radio station they have to pay to Mr. Michael Jackson. An intolerable situation for the globalization mafia.
Almost. In 1995 he merged ATV (which owned some 4,000 songs including 'Northern Songs' company which was started by the Beatles and had around 250 of their songs, Michael bought ATV for 48 million in 1985) with Sony. He now owns half of the ATV/Sony catalogue which is worth an estimated 850 to over 1 billion dollars and increases substantially in worth annually. It includes some 250 Beatles songs as well as songs by Elvis, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Stevie Nicks, Mariah Carey, Neil Diamond, Little Richard, Pointer Sisters and others.
As anyone who is familiar with the music business and the entertainment business in general knows, it is permeated by organized crime. The most powerful entertainment corporation for most of the 20th century was MCA (Music Corporation of America) which owned Univeral pictures and studios. It also illegally controlled the entire movie and entertainment business through exclusive illegal mafia enforced control over the talent booking business. MCA was started by a mafia connected guy from Chicago and was essentially owned by the Chicago Outfit, the Cleveland Mob, Meyer Lansky etc, through frontmen Jules Stein and Lew Wasserman. See:
The Last Mogul: Lew Wasserman, McA, and the Hidden History of Hollywood
Since then MCA has gone through various organized crime connected owners, including Matsushita, Vivendi, Seagrams, and has merged with numerous other corporations and companies now its part of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Universal and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivendi_Universal
http://www.moldea.com/MCA.html
http://www.moldea.com/MCAMusic.html
Anyways...The point is that the music business and entertainment business has been crime controlled for a long time. One thing they do to celebrities is extort them. They demand money, paying jobs for doing nothing, do certain movies on demand, etc. If you dont go along with it, in the past, you couldn't get booked, you would get roughed up, etc. Now they will attempt to ruin your career. The Laywer who has been the driving force in the molestation cases, Barry Rothman is mentioned in those books on the MCA mafia connection as an MCA lawyer. In one of them there is an interview with a mafia guy. He talks about how his job was to extort money from celebrities, including Dionne Warwick and Michael Jackson. He said Michael wouldn't pay. It was not long after that when the first molestation case started, pushed by a guy who owed the mob lots of money from gambling debts (Evan Chandler) with the aid and schemes of an ex MCA lawyer.
Then there is Sony which wants 100% control over the ATV/Sony catalogue. Who knows what they are into, but their choice for head of sony records (Michael's label) was Tommy Mottola. Michael went on a media campaign calling Mottola a racist a few years back which ended up in so much bad publicity Sony had to remove Mottola as head of Sony records. This is from an Entertainment Weekly article; Mariah Carey speaking about Tommy Mottola, her ex-husband.
"Talking about the split, Mariah Carey chooses her words carefully, as she is prone to do. At once candid and coy, she'll answer "yes," then hedge for five minutes. On the subject of her marriage, the indirectness is understandable in light of the unflattering attention it received in a Vanity Fair profile of Mottola last December. The article, rife with denials from the record mogul, painted him as a controlling, Mafia-connected obsessive who'd turned Cinderella into Rapunzel inside their Bedford estate."
i am sure pres. bush is part of the problem in some way.
Love,
YOURMASTER YOUR AUTHORITY
Love,
YOURMASTER YOUR AUTHORITY
I think we will never know if he was guilty or not. He is rich enough to buy himself justice and despite being so eccentric and weird is certainly no fool. The mother of the boy could very well be a greedy liar, but the same could be said about those who testified in M.J.'s favor, for example his former so-called wife Debbie. So we will never know.
He does seem lost and messed up emotionally. The dangling of his third child from the hotel window was very disturbing. I wonder how he got away with THAT?!
He does seem lost and messed up emotionally. The dangling of his third child from the hotel window was very disturbing. I wonder how he got away with THAT?!
QUOTE (Milla @ Jun 15 2005, 09:01 PM)
I think we will never know if he was guilty or not. He is rich enough to buy himself justice and despite being so eccentric and weird is certainly no fool. The mother of the boy could very well be a greedy liar, but the same could be said about those who testified in M.J.'s favor, for example his former so-called wife Debbie. So we will never know.
He does seem lost and messed up emotionally. The dangling of his third child from the hotel window was very disturbing. I wonder how he got away with THAT?!
He does seem lost and messed up emotionally. The dangling of his third child from the hotel window was very disturbing. I wonder how he got away with THAT?!
It wasn't just Janet Arvizo but also her kids including the accuser who were exposed as liars on the stand many times during the case. In fact pretty much all of the prosecution witnesses were destroyed by the defense and exposed as liars over and over.
From mj-case.net
• Gavin Arvizo initially told authorities that the alleged molestation occurred before he and his family made videotaped statements in Jackson's defense. This would also mean that the alleged abuse occurred before the boy defended Jackson to social workers in February. Gavin Arvizo now contends that the molestation took place after he repeatedly denied any wrongdoing on Jackson's part. While it is understandable that the boy cannot remember the exact dates on which he was allegedly molested, his original assertion that the abuse took place before the videotape was made cannot be attributed to confusion on the boy's part because he also told investigators that the videotape was made to cover-up the alleged molestation.
• Based on what District Attorney Tom Sneddon said in his opening statement, it's possible that Michael Jackson was not even with the Arvizos at Neverland throughout the month of February. From pages 115-116 of Sneddon's opening statement:
"I believe that the records from the ranch logs and the testimony from individuals involved here will show that from basically March the 2nd to March the 5th, that the defendant and the Arvizos were on the ranch together. That again, from March 9th until March 12th, when the Arvizos left for the last time, that the Jackson -- Michael Jackson, the defendant in this case, was present."
It suffices to say that if investigators did discover that Mr. Jackson was not with the Arvizos throughout the month of February (as Sneddon implied in his opening statement), they must have realized that Gavin Arvizo was lying when he claimed to have been molested sometime between February 7th and February 20th. Hence, the changing of the timeline from February 7th - March 10th (as stated in the original charges) to February 20th - March 12th (as stated in the current set of charges)
• According to an investigator, the boy originally claimed that he was molested between five and seven times. Gavin Arvizo only testified to two incidences of alleged molestation.
• Gavin Arvizo's younger brother Star, who supposedly walked in on Jackson molesting his brother, said under cross-examination that there are seven locks on Jackson's bedroom door and an alarm that goes off if anybody approaches. Yet somehow, Star Arvizo managed to walk into Jackson's room unnoticed on two seperate occasions.
• In his grand jury testimony and in past police interviews, Star Arvizo claimed to have witnessed Jackson rubbing his penis against Gavin Arvizo's behind while the boy slept. While testifying at the trial, Star Arvizo denied ever having made such a statement.
• When Jackson's defense attorney pointed out that Star Arvizo's description of the second incident of alleged molestation differed from an earlier description that he had given of the same incident, Mr. Arvizo suddenly claimed to have actually witnessed three incidences of alleged abuse.
• Star Arvizo alleged that Jackson once appeared naked in front of him and his brother. During his testimony, Gavin Arvizo was asked whether or not he was aware of the fact that Jackson has a skin disorder called Vitiligo that eats away at his pigment. Mr. Arvizo acknowledged that he was aware of Jackson's skin disease. Jackson's attorney then asked him whether or not he was aware of the fact that Jackson has brown patches on his body, to which Mr. Arvizo replied, "I didn't know about patches. I thought he was just all white." There are various pictures of Mr. Jackson on the Internet where one can clearly see that his body is not white all over, as Gavin Arvizo claimed.
• In his testimony, Star Arvizo claimed that he and his brother got drunk with Jackson from the time they arrived at Neverland from Miami (February 7th) to the time they left the ranch for the first time with house manager Jesus Salas (February 12th). As mentioned earlier, the District Attorney said that Jackson was not at Neverland with the Arvizos during this time frame.
• The accuser's older sister Davellin Arvizo claims that she walked into the wine cellar and witnessed Jackson serving alcohol to her younger brothers. Under cross-examination, it was revealed that she never made such a statement in her earlier interviews with police.
• Davellin Arvizo claims that Jackson served her alcohol in the wine cellar. Star Arvizo, however, testified that Jackson served Davellin Arvizo alcohol in the kitchen
• When confronted with a conflicting statement that he had made regarding the alcohol allegations, Star Arvizo blamed the court reporter, claiming that she had misquoted him.
• Jackson's defense attorney revealed that the magazine that Jackson had supposedly shown Star Arvizo and his brother, was actually released in August 2003 - five months after the Arvizos had left the ranch for the last time.
• In his grand jury testimony in April 2004, Star Arvizo testified that he and his brother had once surfed porn sites. When confronted with a transcript of this testimony, Star Arvizo replied "that's just a paragraph that somebody wrote."
• The prosecution contends that the Arvizos were forced to defend Jackson in February 2003. Gavin Arvizo, however, testified that he meant most of what he said in his videotaped defense of Jackson.
• When the boy was still claiming that the alleged abuse happened before the rebuttal film was made, the prosecution claimed that the tape was made to cover up the alleged molestation. Now that the boy is claiming that the alleged abuse happened after the rebuttal film was made, the prosecution is claiming that the tape was actually made as part of a conspiracy to improve Jackson's public image.
• The former employees who claim to have witnessed inappropriate behaviour on Jackson's part all sold their stories to tabloids. Five of the former employees also tried to sue Jackson for wrongful termination in 1995. Jackson denied the allegations and counter-sued, alleging that two of them stole belongings from his home and sold the items to tabloids. The jury sided with Jackson, awarding him $60,000 from the ex-employees who robbed him. The ex-employees filed for bankruptcy as a result.
There is much much more but that is just a little bit showing the constant lies.
Debbie Rowe (Michaels ex-wife and mother of two of his kids); "could the same be said" about her? She was never exposed in court as a liar, repeatedly. None of the people who spoke in favor of the defense were exposed as liars, not one.
Just like the dupes who thought OJ was innocent, there are some who think MJ is so innocent. But we all know what is on his mind. Little boys.
Love,
YOURMASTER
Love,
YOURMASTER
Shivaslingam, I haven't followed the case closely and am not a fan of MJ. I didn't say that Debbie Rowe is a liar, I just said that she could very well be motivated by greed to describe MJ as a wonderful father and person.
It's tempting to be cynical when all of your information about someone is from ill motivated low rent exploitative hateful media vampires searching for scandal for ratings sake, or for other darker motives. I understand the power of manipulation and brainwashing that the mass media possesses. They count on people's ignorance in their propaganda campaigns. They hire demagogues instead of thinkers. They call them pundits when they should call them hacks and harpies. Think for yourself, don't let trashy venomous media sources tell you what is truth or what people are all about.
Let Michael speak for himself and let the hired goon squads slither back into the bowels of darkness from whence they came.
Let Michael speak for himself and let the hired goon squads slither back into the bowels of darkness from whence they came.
I think Debbie had some good motivations to give a positive testimony. She put him in a position to be very grateful and indebted to her, thus smoothing the way for her to get more contact with her kids. (And what was up with her being asked to sign away rights in the first place? If Michael is this great guy with kids and so altruistic, why did she have to do that? Wouldn't they be best served by two involved parents?)
Logic tells me she had something to gain by her testimony, and the fact that it caught prosecutors by surprise leads me to believe that she gave them the opposite impression. That undermines her credibility right there. I know they went over things with her before she testified, and they obviously wouldn't have put her on to bolster Michael's case.
Logic tells me she had something to gain by her testimony, and the fact that it caught prosecutors by surprise leads me to believe that she gave them the opposite impression. That undermines her credibility right there. I know they went over things with her before she testified, and they obviously wouldn't have put her on to bolster Michael's case.
I had said
You wrote
Like I said already; it's tempting to be cynical about people you do not know when you are receiving information about them from people who also don't know them but can make money by reporting negativity.
Years ago she gave an interview where she said she offered to have children for Michael because she knew he wanted to be a father. She went on to say that from the beginning she got pregnant solely as a gift to Michael. She said she didn't want to be their day to day mother. The marriage was for legal reasons. She never lived with Michael nor the kids. She did have visitation rights. As the years went on she had a change of mind. She wanted to be more closely involved with the kids. She says a problem arose for her because of the nature of the visitations. She said she eventually gave up those visits because they were so tightly controlled by Jackson's nannies that "it wasn't a quality relationship." She felt that the visitations were being handled poorly by Michaels nannies. So she has gone to court to try and get a better visitation situtation. But most insiders say that in fact she just wants to be closer to Michael.
Lets let her speak for herself: From a 1997 interview
From 2001
QUOTE
I understand the power of manipulation and brainwashing that the mass media possesses. They count on people's ignorance in their propaganda campaigns
You wrote
QUOTE
(And what was up with her being asked to sign away rights in the first place? If Michael is this great guy with kids and so altruistic, why did she have to do that? Wouldn't they be best served by two involved parents?)
Like I said already; it's tempting to be cynical about people you do not know when you are receiving information about them from people who also don't know them but can make money by reporting negativity.
Years ago she gave an interview where she said she offered to have children for Michael because she knew he wanted to be a father. She went on to say that from the beginning she got pregnant solely as a gift to Michael. She said she didn't want to be their day to day mother. The marriage was for legal reasons. She never lived with Michael nor the kids. She did have visitation rights. As the years went on she had a change of mind. She wanted to be more closely involved with the kids. She says a problem arose for her because of the nature of the visitations. She said she eventually gave up those visits because they were so tightly controlled by Jackson's nannies that "it wasn't a quality relationship." She felt that the visitations were being handled poorly by Michaels nannies. So she has gone to court to try and get a better visitation situtation. But most insiders say that in fact she just wants to be closer to Michael.
Lets let her speak for herself: From a 1997 interview
QUOTE
Kelly Lange: Debbie Rowe, she is Mrs. Michael Jackson, she’s the mother of this
years most famous baby, she has never talked to anyone or given any kink of
interview. She is rarely even photographed, but she did talk to my partner Chuck
Henty about motherhood, marriage and Michael. And he has the exclusive
interview for us now, Chuck...
Chuck Henry: Thanks Kelly, Debbie Rowe works as a nurse at a doctor’s office
She keeps her job, she goes to work every morning, she really is an ordinary
woman. But she’s involved in an extraordinary situation.
Debbie Rowe: I haven't abandoned him, a lot of people think I’ve abandoned him,
I haven't abandoned him. I haven't abandoned my husband. I'm there, it's not like
I'm that far away. I can be there in 13 hours.
Chuck Henry: And Debbie flies to Paris twice a month for a weekend visit. Do
you miss your son?
Debbie Rowe: Sure, and I miss Michael a lot too. But, I don’t feel like I have to
be there, I don't think being there 24 hours a day makes a better relationship.
Chuck Henry: Debbie says there was no prenuptial agreement, and no financial
payoff for her carrying Jackson's child, which she says was conceived naturally.
Debbie Rowe: I would never do this for money, I did this because I love him.
That’s the only reason I did this.
Chuck Henry: Given all the stories about Michael Jackson, does Debbie feel
totally comfortable about this arrangement?
Debbie Rowe: Obviously I wouldn't have had a child.
Chuck Henry: And you wouldn't leave your child.
Debbie Rowe: And I wouldn't leave our child there.
Chuck Henry: If any of those things were true.
Debbie Rowe: If any of them were true, If I even suspected any of them were
true.
Debbie Rowe: He feeds him, he changes his diapers, he reads to him, she sings to
him. If he’s on the phone, the baby's in his arms. If he’s having a meeting, the
baby’s there. He takes naps with him, he's the, I don’t need to be there. I don’t
need to be there, cause Michael's, I'd have nothing to do.
Chuck Henry: On her visits to Paris, Debbie says the three of them just...
Debbie Rowe: Get up in the morning, watch cartoons, cause I like cartoons, play
with baby, all day, just hang out.
Chuck Henry: Having the baby was her idea, it was a subject talked about before
Jackson's marriage to Lisa Marie Presley.
Debbie Rowe: He did, he loved her very very much, still does, still cares about her
very much. But, uh, it didn't work out, and um, he was devastated.
Chuck Henry: After the divorce, Debbie, who met Jackson while working at a
doctor’s office, again brought up the subject of children.
Debbie Rowe: "Michael," I said. "You know my, my offer still stands."
Chuck Henry: So if you want to be a parent
Debbie Rowe: So I said, I said
Chuck Henry: I'm available?
Debbie Rowe: So I said, "If you still want to be a daddy, I want to do it."
Chuck Henry: A week after that story broke, Debbie got a call from Jackson.
Debbie Rowe: He asked me if I would get married, and I said, “You really want
to?”, and he said, "Yeh." And I said, "It's not gonna affect our friendship, and
we're s till going to be friends, right?" And he said, "Promise." "Because, the first
time this marriage interferes with our friendship we're going back to being friends,
and forget this other stuff." And he says, "It won't happen, I promise."
Chuck Henry: So now you've had the baby.
Debbie Rowe: It was the world's best experience.
Chuck Henry: And through it all Michael never left her side.
Debbie Rowe: Did not let go, of my hand the whole time. It was like, "No, no, go
see what he looks like." "No I'm not going to leave." "No, you have to, you have
to go."
Chuck Henry: Do you want to have more children?
Debbie Rowe: Yes
Chuck Henry: Does Michael want to have more children?
Debbie Rowe: Yeh.
Chuck Henry: So you will have more children.
Debbie Rowe: Oh, we hope so, yeh!
Chuck Henry: Sooner, later?
Debbie Rowe: Well, It depends on our scheduling. (Laugh)
Chuck Henry: Interesting story, Debbie says that she and Michael also plan to
have a home together, someday.
Chuck Henry: Debbie Rowe and Michael Jackson don’t live together everyday,
she flies to Paris about twice a month to see her husband and her baby.
Debbie Rowe: I think a lot of husbands, or fathers would say, "You need to be
here, this is your duty, this is your job." And it's not my job, it's not my duty. And
he understands that. And he understands that I need my independence, I need to
still be Debbie.
Chuck Henry: Yes, she is Mrs. Michael Jackson, Yes, she is the mother of a 14
week old baby. So why isn't she living full-time with her little boy?
Debbie Rowe: We're untraditional people, he works there, and I work here. And I
think that it;s better that a baby is with it's parent, whether it be his mom or his
dad. More than he, the child, would be with a nanny. If the baby were here, it
would be with a nanny, because I do work, everyday.
Chuck Henry: Now I notice that there are no pictures of the baby anywhere in this
apartment, why is that?
Debbie Rowe: Well, my apartment had been broken into, and pictures had been
stolen of Michael and I. And I don't want that to happen again. I also, am basically
a very selfish person, when it comes to certain things, and this is one of them. I
don't want to have to share my child, or the way he looks, or what he looks like,
or adorable moments with any body.
Chuck Henry: Debbie says there are just a few people that either of them can
trust, so they end up living a very quiet life together.
Debbie Rowe: I don’t like to go out to dinner, I don’t like to go to affairs, and
things like that. I like to stay home, and I like spending time with him, and the
baby.
Chuck Henry: Would you consider yourself Michael Jackson’s best friend?
Debbie Rowe: I consider him my best friend, I would hope I am one of his closest
friends.
Chuck Henry: Now Debbie also says that anyone who know her, knows that
money is the last thing on her mind. She says that she and Michael have no
financial arrangement, whatsoever. She also says they might have another child.
Chuck Henry: Let's address the speculation, Debbie Rowe says that she was not
paid to have Jackson's child. The child was conceived the old-fashioned way, and
there was no prenuptial agreement. Debbie Rowe is probably unlike any woman
Michael Jackson has ever known.
Chuck Henry: Michael Jackson's wife loves to ride her Harley. An outspoken
women, who’s independent and self reliant.
Chuck Henry: Have you ever got Michael Jackson on this thing (Harley)?
Debbie Rowe: Yes, a couple of times.
Chuck Henry: Why is it, that you and Michael don’t live together?
Debbie Rowe: I'm really independent, and Michael understands that, and I’m
really fortunate to have a husband who does understand that. Who know that I
need to work, and I need to have my own self. Because he is so big, and he is so
Michael. I don’t need to live with him 24 hours a day, he’s working right now.
And when he comes home we’ll have time, and we'll be together more. I don’t
want to give up my job, I don’t want to do that, be part of that lifestyle.
Chuck Henry: What would you say to people that would say, "Well, you and
Michael must of had some sort of financial arrangement. that this is the way it was
meant to be, you were just gonna have the baby."
Debbie Rowe: I don't need money, I would never, I would never do this for
money. I did this because I love him. Michael Jackson is an entertainer, what he
does on stage is everyone's business. You know, what he does with me, is my
business, our life is our business, and no one else's.
Chuck Henry: This week tabloid papers are once again speculating, this time
they’re speculating that Mrs. Jackson's pregnant again. She says that is simply not
true.
years most famous baby, she has never talked to anyone or given any kink of
interview. She is rarely even photographed, but she did talk to my partner Chuck
Henty about motherhood, marriage and Michael. And he has the exclusive
interview for us now, Chuck...
Chuck Henry: Thanks Kelly, Debbie Rowe works as a nurse at a doctor’s office
She keeps her job, she goes to work every morning, she really is an ordinary
woman. But she’s involved in an extraordinary situation.
Debbie Rowe: I haven't abandoned him, a lot of people think I’ve abandoned him,
I haven't abandoned him. I haven't abandoned my husband. I'm there, it's not like
I'm that far away. I can be there in 13 hours.
Chuck Henry: And Debbie flies to Paris twice a month for a weekend visit. Do
you miss your son?
Debbie Rowe: Sure, and I miss Michael a lot too. But, I don’t feel like I have to
be there, I don't think being there 24 hours a day makes a better relationship.
Chuck Henry: Debbie says there was no prenuptial agreement, and no financial
payoff for her carrying Jackson's child, which she says was conceived naturally.
Debbie Rowe: I would never do this for money, I did this because I love him.
That’s the only reason I did this.
Chuck Henry: Given all the stories about Michael Jackson, does Debbie feel
totally comfortable about this arrangement?
Debbie Rowe: Obviously I wouldn't have had a child.
Chuck Henry: And you wouldn't leave your child.
Debbie Rowe: And I wouldn't leave our child there.
Chuck Henry: If any of those things were true.
Debbie Rowe: If any of them were true, If I even suspected any of them were
true.
Debbie Rowe: He feeds him, he changes his diapers, he reads to him, she sings to
him. If he’s on the phone, the baby's in his arms. If he’s having a meeting, the
baby’s there. He takes naps with him, he's the, I don’t need to be there. I don’t
need to be there, cause Michael's, I'd have nothing to do.
Chuck Henry: On her visits to Paris, Debbie says the three of them just...
Debbie Rowe: Get up in the morning, watch cartoons, cause I like cartoons, play
with baby, all day, just hang out.
Chuck Henry: Having the baby was her idea, it was a subject talked about before
Jackson's marriage to Lisa Marie Presley.
Debbie Rowe: He did, he loved her very very much, still does, still cares about her
very much. But, uh, it didn't work out, and um, he was devastated.
Chuck Henry: After the divorce, Debbie, who met Jackson while working at a
doctor’s office, again brought up the subject of children.
Debbie Rowe: "Michael," I said. "You know my, my offer still stands."
Chuck Henry: So if you want to be a parent
Debbie Rowe: So I said, I said
Chuck Henry: I'm available?
Debbie Rowe: So I said, "If you still want to be a daddy, I want to do it."
Chuck Henry: A week after that story broke, Debbie got a call from Jackson.
Debbie Rowe: He asked me if I would get married, and I said, “You really want
to?”, and he said, "Yeh." And I said, "It's not gonna affect our friendship, and
we're s till going to be friends, right?" And he said, "Promise." "Because, the first
time this marriage interferes with our friendship we're going back to being friends,
and forget this other stuff." And he says, "It won't happen, I promise."
Chuck Henry: So now you've had the baby.
Debbie Rowe: It was the world's best experience.
Chuck Henry: And through it all Michael never left her side.
Debbie Rowe: Did not let go, of my hand the whole time. It was like, "No, no, go
see what he looks like." "No I'm not going to leave." "No, you have to, you have
to go."
Chuck Henry: Do you want to have more children?
Debbie Rowe: Yes
Chuck Henry: Does Michael want to have more children?
Debbie Rowe: Yeh.
Chuck Henry: So you will have more children.
Debbie Rowe: Oh, we hope so, yeh!
Chuck Henry: Sooner, later?
Debbie Rowe: Well, It depends on our scheduling. (Laugh)
Chuck Henry: Interesting story, Debbie says that she and Michael also plan to
have a home together, someday.
Chuck Henry: Debbie Rowe and Michael Jackson don’t live together everyday,
she flies to Paris about twice a month to see her husband and her baby.
Debbie Rowe: I think a lot of husbands, or fathers would say, "You need to be
here, this is your duty, this is your job." And it's not my job, it's not my duty. And
he understands that. And he understands that I need my independence, I need to
still be Debbie.
Chuck Henry: Yes, she is Mrs. Michael Jackson, Yes, she is the mother of a 14
week old baby. So why isn't she living full-time with her little boy?
Debbie Rowe: We're untraditional people, he works there, and I work here. And I
think that it;s better that a baby is with it's parent, whether it be his mom or his
dad. More than he, the child, would be with a nanny. If the baby were here, it
would be with a nanny, because I do work, everyday.
Chuck Henry: Now I notice that there are no pictures of the baby anywhere in this
apartment, why is that?
Debbie Rowe: Well, my apartment had been broken into, and pictures had been
stolen of Michael and I. And I don't want that to happen again. I also, am basically
a very selfish person, when it comes to certain things, and this is one of them. I
don't want to have to share my child, or the way he looks, or what he looks like,
or adorable moments with any body.
Chuck Henry: Debbie says there are just a few people that either of them can
trust, so they end up living a very quiet life together.
Debbie Rowe: I don’t like to go out to dinner, I don’t like to go to affairs, and
things like that. I like to stay home, and I like spending time with him, and the
baby.
Chuck Henry: Would you consider yourself Michael Jackson’s best friend?
Debbie Rowe: I consider him my best friend, I would hope I am one of his closest
friends.
Chuck Henry: Now Debbie also says that anyone who know her, knows that
money is the last thing on her mind. She says that she and Michael have no
financial arrangement, whatsoever. She also says they might have another child.
Chuck Henry: Let's address the speculation, Debbie Rowe says that she was not
paid to have Jackson's child. The child was conceived the old-fashioned way, and
there was no prenuptial agreement. Debbie Rowe is probably unlike any woman
Michael Jackson has ever known.
Chuck Henry: Michael Jackson's wife loves to ride her Harley. An outspoken
women, who’s independent and self reliant.
Chuck Henry: Have you ever got Michael Jackson on this thing (Harley)?
Debbie Rowe: Yes, a couple of times.
Chuck Henry: Why is it, that you and Michael don’t live together?
Debbie Rowe: I'm really independent, and Michael understands that, and I’m
really fortunate to have a husband who does understand that. Who know that I
need to work, and I need to have my own self. Because he is so big, and he is so
Michael. I don’t need to live with him 24 hours a day, he’s working right now.
And when he comes home we’ll have time, and we'll be together more. I don’t
want to give up my job, I don’t want to do that, be part of that lifestyle.
Chuck Henry: What would you say to people that would say, "Well, you and
Michael must of had some sort of financial arrangement. that this is the way it was
meant to be, you were just gonna have the baby."
Debbie Rowe: I don't need money, I would never, I would never do this for
money. I did this because I love him. Michael Jackson is an entertainer, what he
does on stage is everyone's business. You know, what he does with me, is my
business, our life is our business, and no one else's.
Chuck Henry: This week tabloid papers are once again speculating, this time
they’re speculating that Mrs. Jackson's pregnant again. She says that is simply not
true.
From 2001
QUOTE
Q= Questions asked of Debbie Rowe
A= Her answers to those questions
Q. Do you want the court to terminate your parental rights?
A. Yes
Q. Okay.
A. Because --
Q. That was my next question. Why?
A. Because Michael is a wonderful man. First of all, a brilliant father. And it's the best -- as their mother, it is the best interest for the children.
I don't know if judge Lachs understands this. But when I was seeing them every 45 days, it felt like an intrusion on their life and they're going to have enough intrusions at it is. I don't want to be part of it.
I'm absolutely around if ever Michael needs me, if the children need me for a liver, kidney, a hello, whatever, I will always be around for him.
These are his children. I had the children for him. They wouldn't be on this planet if it wasn't for my love of him. I did it for him to become a father. Not for me to become a mother. You earn the title parent. I have done absolutely nothing to earn that title.
Q. How long have you thought about your decision?
A. Since -- I've thought about it for a year. The reason I didn't do it a year ago, everybody would have gone "Uh", "uh", "uh", gasp, gasp, gasp. "Oh, my God, have you thought this out?"
So just so everybody understands, I've thought about this a lot. And this is -- this is for what's the best for the kids.
Do you know what I mean, about the intrusion and stress? Do you understand?
The Court: I think I understand.
A= Her answers to those questions
Q. Do you want the court to terminate your parental rights?
A. Yes
Q. Okay.
A. Because --
Q. That was my next question. Why?
A. Because Michael is a wonderful man. First of all, a brilliant father. And it's the best -- as their mother, it is the best interest for the children.
I don't know if judge Lachs understands this. But when I was seeing them every 45 days, it felt like an intrusion on their life and they're going to have enough intrusions at it is. I don't want to be part of it.
I'm absolutely around if ever Michael needs me, if the children need me for a liver, kidney, a hello, whatever, I will always be around for him.
These are his children. I had the children for him. They wouldn't be on this planet if it wasn't for my love of him. I did it for him to become a father. Not for me to become a mother. You earn the title parent. I have done absolutely nothing to earn that title.
Q. How long have you thought about your decision?
A. Since -- I've thought about it for a year. The reason I didn't do it a year ago, everybody would have gone "Uh", "uh", "uh", gasp, gasp, gasp. "Oh, my God, have you thought this out?"
So just so everybody understands, I've thought about this a lot. And this is -- this is for what's the best for the kids.
Do you know what I mean, about the intrusion and stress? Do you understand?
The Court: I think I understand.
Shivaslingam, rather than posting large blocks of copyrighted material, can you post a small, fair-use excerpt and the link? We appreciate your help in limiting our exposure to copyright infringement problems.
Thanks!
As for Rowe, now that she's changed her mind and has been seeking increased access to her kids, my impression of her surprising (to the prosecution) testimony stands.
But frankly, I don't care enough to debate it because these are simply celebrities, not my personal friends or anything.
Thanks!
As for Rowe, now that she's changed her mind and has been seeking increased access to her kids, my impression of her surprising (to the prosecution) testimony stands.
But frankly, I don't care enough to debate it because these are simply celebrities, not my personal friends or anything.
Nothing of what I posted is illegal to re produce freely.
QUOTE (Tapati @ Jun 16 2005, 08:00 PM)
Shivaslingam, rather than posting large blocks of copyrighted material, can you post a small, fair-use excerpt and the link? We appreciate your help in limiting our exposure to copyright infringement problems.
Thanks!
As for Rowe, now that she's changed her mind and has been seeking increased access to her kids, my impression of her surprising (to the prosecution) testimony stands.
But frankly, I don't care enough to debate it because these are simply celebrities, not my personal friends or anything.
Thanks!
As for Rowe, now that she's changed her mind and has been seeking increased access to her kids, my impression of her surprising (to the prosecution) testimony stands.
But frankly, I don't care enough to debate it because these are simply celebrities, not my personal friends or anything.
You started this thread and asked for input.
QUOTE (shivaslingam @ Jun 16 2005, 01:22 PM)
QUOTE (Tapati @ Jun 16 2005, 08:00 PM)
Shivaslingam, rather than posting large blocks of copyrighted material, can you post a small, fair-use excerpt and the link? We appreciate your help in limiting our exposure to copyright infringement problems.
Thanks!
As for Rowe, now that she's changed her mind and has been seeking increased access to her kids, my impression of her surprising (to the prosecution) testimony stands.
But frankly, I don't care enough to debate it because these are simply celebrities, not my personal friends or anything.
Thanks!
As for Rowe, now that she's changed her mind and has been seeking increased access to her kids, my impression of her surprising (to the prosecution) testimony stands.
But frankly, I don't care enough to debate it because these are simply celebrities, not my personal friends or anything.
You started this thread and asked for input.
Yes I did, and you're welcome to keep giving it. I was simply explaining why I don't feel like going on with this particular part of the discussion. I'm not that passionate about the subject of Debbie Rowe and her personal life, except to the degree it affected the trial. Having said what I wanted to say about that, I'm done.
The copyright issue is a separate thing and is a board policy. I don't have money for lawsuits.
I personally am sick to death of celebrity trials and never follow them. The OJ Simpson trial came right on the heels of the Oklahoma Bombing. Sometimes I joke that I would be the perfect person to sit on the jury.
What is really sad is that while the US is following the events of the trial, there is nary a peep from the press about the incriminating Downing Street Memo which makes it clear that Bush planned to invade Iraq regardless of whether WMD were found or not. This is an impeachable offence. Wake up America. I think there have been some articles about the memo on www.commondreams.org - a favorite progressive site of mine.
The libertarian-oriented whatreallyhappened.com and antiwar.com also have info on the DSM.
If you don't know what the Downing Street Memo is, you owe it to yourself, especially if you are a US citizen, to find out now. Write your local press and ask why this scandal of all scandals isn't being covered. Clinton got impeached for far less.
http://www.impeachbush.tv/
http://www.rise4news.net/impeach.html
What is really sad is that while the US is following the events of the trial, there is nary a peep from the press about the incriminating Downing Street Memo which makes it clear that Bush planned to invade Iraq regardless of whether WMD were found or not. This is an impeachable offence. Wake up America. I think there have been some articles about the memo on www.commondreams.org - a favorite progressive site of mine.
The libertarian-oriented whatreallyhappened.com and antiwar.com also have info on the DSM.
If you don't know what the Downing Street Memo is, you owe it to yourself, especially if you are a US citizen, to find out now. Write your local press and ask why this scandal of all scandals isn't being covered. Clinton got impeached for far less.
http://www.impeachbush.tv/
http://www.rise4news.net/impeach.html
Preyo,
I just sent off e-mails to my 3 representatives in the U.S. Congress demanding impeachment for the current U.S. President whom I absolutely loathe and despise.
Thanks for giving me the incentive here. Asking America to wake up is a tall order.
I have to say I don't see it happening. The local sheep are so wedded to their
ignorance and fanatacism. It is despairing.
I'm afraid the only thing that will change things here is some natural massive calamity. Where's Indra when you need him?
I just sent off e-mails to my 3 representatives in the U.S. Congress demanding impeachment for the current U.S. President whom I absolutely loathe and despise.
Thanks for giving me the incentive here. Asking America to wake up is a tall order.
I have to say I don't see it happening. The local sheep are so wedded to their
ignorance and fanatacism. It is despairing.
I'm afraid the only thing that will change things here is some natural massive calamity. Where's Indra when you need him?
QUOTE (jonny rama @ Jul 14 2005, 12:03 AM)
Preyo,
I just sent off e-mails to my 3 representatives in the U.S. Congress demanding impeachment for the current U.S. President whom I absolutely loathe and despise.
Thanks for giving me the incentive here. Asking America to wake up is a tall order.
I have to say I don't see it happening. The local sheep are so wedded to their
ignorance and fanatacism. It is despairing.
I'm afraid the only thing that will change things here is some natural massive calamity. Where's Indra when you need him?
I just sent off e-mails to my 3 representatives in the U.S. Congress demanding impeachment for the current U.S. President whom I absolutely loathe and despise.
Thanks for giving me the incentive here. Asking America to wake up is a tall order.
I have to say I don't see it happening. The local sheep are so wedded to their
ignorance and fanatacism. It is despairing.
I'm afraid the only thing that will change things here is some natural massive calamity. Where's Indra when you need him?
Thank you so much JR for your e-mails to Congress. We cannot let up and let the pResident and his minions off the hook just because of the London bombings. Keeping these neocons in power will guarantee more bombings and world terror - regardless of whether they are committed by "terrorists" or by the government itself. These souless killers must go.
It is really hard to wake up the sheep. I have spoken with a number of people who despise our current regime but feel that they are powerless and that it is too late to do anything. This all reminds me of Orwell's 1984 where Winston thought that the hope was in the proles; but then he discovered that they were not going to wake up as long as they had enough beer and entertainment.
This past week I have been considering making a complete jump to Canada by getting a secular job here (I am here as a Religious Worker now) and permanent residence - as a step to citizenship. Even my son who has opposed this for so long is starting to support this. Also, I have a legal place for him if there is a draft, as he can get automatic PR as well until he is 22 based on my visa.
I want my country back but at the same time - but I fear this may be difficult. In the end, history will judge US Americans the way history has judged Germans during WWII. For me, I feel blood on my hands and my conscience screams out. Sometimes I feel that it will be better to work from outside - to encourage other nations to put pressure on the States to stop their Empire building. Most Canadians I know are really horrified by the US at present. They don't understand why there isn't massive uprising against Bush and the cons. But it is more as John Lennon once wrote:
Keep you doped with religion* and sex and tv
and you think you're so clever and classless and free
but you're still f*cking peasants as far as I can see.
Bush keep serving the super rich, but the peasants keep cheering him on. I don't get it.
Anyway, thanks again for your efforts.
*I'm a rather religious person, but I agree with this assessment because what passes for "religion" in the States is really a kind of dope rather than the faith of love and forgiveness that Christ really taught.
QUOTE (Preyobrazhenya @ Jun 16 2005, 11:13 PM)
I personally am sick to death of celebrity trials and never follow them. The OJ Simpson trial came right on the heels of the Oklahoma Bombing. Sometimes I joke that I would be the perfect person to sit on the jury.
http://www.impeachbush.tv/
http://www.rise4news.net/impeach.html
http://www.impeachbush.tv/
http://www.rise4news.net/impeach.html
Simpson guilty of robbery, kidnap charges
Ex-football star faces prison sentence of 15 years to life over Vegas
QUOTE
LAS VEGAS - O.J. Simpson, who went from American sports idol to celebrity-in-exile after he was acquitted of murder in 1995, was found guilty Friday of robbing two sports-memorabilia dealers at gunpoint in a Las Vegas hotel room.
The 61-year-old former football star could spend the rest of his life in prison. Sentencing was set for Dec. 5.
The 61-year-old former football star could spend the rest of his life in prison. Sentencing was set for Dec. 5.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.