a moment of freedom

[theist]

I had such a moment yesterday and I am going to try to hold onto it. It came when the verdict in the Michael Jackson (AKA Peter Pedophile Pan) was read in court. Not guilty on all counts. It was left in the hands of the jury now known by me as the Santa Maria Brain Dead Twelve.

 

I was disappointed by the injustice but this time Krsna helped me past me the usual reaction of rage and cursing and the solemn realization set in that America is dead.

 

Oh not the America of Jefferson and the other founding fathers in spirit but what we have now is a far cry from their vision and unless there is some major upheaval in the present status quo it won't be realized.

 

It has been irreparably crushed by corprate greed and the libral viewpoint of moral relativity that has swept over the populace.

 

This came as an epiphany to me. While I have understood since the late sixties that things were very wrong I always clung on to the thought that things could be changed. Now I still believe that but my David vs. Golaith fantasy bubble of a small number sparking great social transformation and MY ATTACHMENT to that ideal was yesterday popped.

 

Freed from that I can still mouth off against what I perceive to be injustices and try to plant some seeds of the God conscious life into public discourse but that intense desire to enjoy the fruit just isn't there anymore. I am off the emotional roller coaster and by the mercy of the Lord I ain't getting back on.

 

Ahhh...the dawning of a bright new day...how sweet.

[Guest guest]

IN A HASTILY CONVENED NEWS CONFERENCE this morning, President George W. Bush announced that the Prisoner of War Camp at Guantanamo, Cuba, had been closed last night and all its prisoners transferred by Executive Order via the private Gulfstream fleets of George Soros and Amnesty International to Neverland Ranch in California.

 

"Upon being found not-guilty of playing too rough with his boy-toys," the President remarked, "Mr. Jackson telephoned me from his Suburban and offered to take some of my younger Arab prisoners off my hands.

 

"Using the congressional negotiating skills which my administration has become known for, I immediately caved in to his request and offered up every single one of my 520 fat and happy Arab boys to his tender mercies. To me this is the very best example of the private sector stepping in to do the job that big government cannot do for itself.

 

"Mr. Jackson, in making this offer so quickly after his recent crucifixion, shows once again that he is not only a great American, but an even great lover of humanity, especially when they are young, cute, male, far-from home, and have gone a long, long time without the kind of hands-on treatment that excitable boys really need.

 

"You'll all get a hand-out describing the improved conditions the prisoners will have at Neverland, with special attention to their 'Kids-Ride-Free' pass, special urine resistant Korans, fresh white jockey shorts, and Mr. Jackson's plans to build a half-scale reproduction of Mecca's Haram Mosque and the well of Zamzam right next to the ferris wheel for mini-hajs on the part of his new friends. I'll now take questions, but only those dealing with Social Security."

 

The President's announcement revealed the reason behind the many Gulfstream jets that had been seen landing throughout the night on Neverland's private air-strip. While they were first believed to be bringing the various parts of Elizabeth Taylor, that did not explain the bizarre Arabic keening and yelping that had been heard soon after. Spokesmen later revealed that the sounds were 'natural byproducts of our ranch training rituals' as the Guantanamo 520 were being moved from the planes to their private pool-side cabanas.

 

A Black Muslim spokesman for Mr. Jackson revealed that, during the week in which the Jackson jury was collecting free tuna-fish sandwiches and Fritos from the state of California, Mr. Jackson had indeed converted from Jesus-juice to the Muslim faith.

 

"We thank Allah," said Kareem Abdul Gefilte (Nee, George Washington Jackson of Mobile, Alabama), "that He gathered Michael to His bosom just after Michael prayed, Dear God, Jesus, Buddha, Allah -- whomever comes first -- just get me out of this and I'll take in any homeless boys you've got. Promise. Michael has agreed to legally change the name of Neverland to Meccaland and to swap out the Jesus Juice for Allah's Ambrosia."

 

Speaking through an interpreter whose voice was pitched several octaves lower so that it could be heard by human ears, Mr. Jackson appeared at briefly before his supporters at the gates of Never/Mecca/land flanked by two lithe if confused looking Arab boys grasping Tikilounge glasses with colorful paper umbrellas in which ice and a clear fluid could be seen.

 

"You are so beautiful," Jackson said. "And I am so beautiful. And aren't my new friends here the most beautiful you've ever seen? I want to thank everyone who has given me the support and the love and these 520 young boys in such fine, healthy, and well-fed shape. I'm sorry that they all had to sleep alone in those dreadful cages for so long, but that's all over now, isn't it? Yes, our long national Guantanamo nightmare is over, and its time for the free rides and late night videos at Neverland to start all over again. I want to send a shout-out to my new Muslim brothers all over the world and say,

'Give me your tired, your poor,

Your unemployed but buff boys yearning to ride free,

The broken-in boy refuse of your teeming jihad,

Send these, the easily-influenced, suicidal, to me,

I lift my sheets beside the Carousel.'

 

In other news the offices of Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy announced they had accepted Mr. Jackson's invitation to a banquet and a series of "Victory Laps" at Neverland this coming weekend.

 

/images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[AncientMariner]

That's the way I look at it. Even though I have supported the Republican Party for many years they have been woeful in protecting cows and they even encourage people to eat cows. I listen to Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage for hours everyday and though I do respect them they all eat steak and don't see anything wrong with it. They think you are joking and primitive when you urge the protection of cows. I think they are people that are in the mixed mode of goodness, passion and ignorance so until they realize that injustice and war is caused by the slaughter of cows then the viscious cycle in America will continue. If it takes electing liberals to get America to protect cows then I might even vote democrat next time. The politicians of America have really missed the boat and the good people of America are a victim of this bad leadership.

[muralidhar_das]

One of the biggest strongest memories I carry with me is the time I spent sitting with Srila Prabhupada at Sydney airport in 72, while he and Satswarup were waiting for a plane to America.

 

One thing he told me then has always stuck in my mind. He said to me, "Avoid meat eaters. They are barbarians."

 

The politicians all support meat eating, even the Greens, who I usually vote for (voting is compulsory in Australia, and I feel the Greens are less bad than the rest). But in the end, they are all cow eaters. I gave up believing in politicians and their ideologies long ago.

 

[gHari]

 

I am glad he was protected from these demons. Some people cannot understand celibacy. I now find most cannot conceive of being in a bed with someone and not having sexual desires. I find their opinions reflect who they are, not who Jackson is. There are many who cannot see a grown-up playing basketball with a kid not their own, except for sexual reasons. It is a sick world they inhabit. Unfortunately we share the planet.

 

 

[theist]

gHari, I am shocked.

[krsna]

From shiva,

From Anatomy of a scam

 

"In January 2000, a woman named Janet Arvizo consulted with a civil lawyer about suing Michael Jackson for having allegedly molested her son. This would have been the second child molestation lawsuit filed against Jackson, the first being the result of sexual abuse allegations that were made by a 13-year-old boy in 1993.

 

The problem, however, is that in January 2000, Janet Arvizo had never met Michael Jackson; neither had her son. In fact, it would still be another seven months before Jackson would even be introduced to the Arvizo family.

 

Three years after their initial meeting in August 2000, Janet Arvizo’s son accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse"

 

--------------------------

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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 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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

[theist]

More like the anatomy of a pedophile. Of course I didn't read shiva's work in defense of the perp Peter Pedophile Pan. Nor do I want to spend anytime thinking about him. I am just very surprised to see others here doing so.

[Kulapavana]

"Avoid meat eaters. They are barbarians."

 

yes, there is generalisation here, but it is justified. also, most likely SP had cow-eaters in mind, as meat eating was going on even in vedic times.

 

anyway, trust is a matter of degree. some barbarians can be trusted, but only to a point. and some cant be trusted at all. it is extremely rare, that a person can be trusted completely.

 

[krsna]

Good opinion:

 

 

Does the Michael Jackson acquittal mean that pedophilia has finally obtained mainstream American acceptance?

 

Years of corporate shilling using sexual exploitation of minors appears to have paved the way. Jackson now is the proud owner of a get-out-of-jail-free card for the rest of his life, as no authority would dare arrest him for anything.

 

The jurors probably strictly followed their oath to acquit him (it is almost impossible to prove something 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in the absence of a confession if the accused has the money to pay for competent representation), but must have known how he would celebrate, a fact which apparently caused them no moral qualms.

 

This shouldnt sound like a 'winger with a stupid slippery slope argument, but NAMBLA must be very pleased.

[gHari]

 

Please, no facts, Ma'am. I'm a subliminal mind-***ed American Idiot.

 

[theist]

 

Does the Michael Jackson acquittal mean that pedophilia has finally obtained mainstream American acceptance?

 

 

At least for "celebraties". And I agree the pedophiles in NAMBLA were undoubtly very pleased at this further slippage of Earth into hell.

[Guest guest]

And I stopped being amazed at the madness long ago. There's a "devotee" in Beserkeley who claims MJ is the reincarnation of St. Michael and his motives are pure.... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

The proof of his guilt is in the queer porno collection, which reveals his mind and mentality. The guy is a sick freak. Money may buy justice in America, as we've seen ala OJ, Robert Blake and others, but the Yamaduttas can't be bribed in a similar fasion... /images/graemlins/blush.gif