Skip to content

Talking to haters about Michael Jackson’s CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT (text)

April 28, 2010

This post is about the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT between Michael Jackson and the Chandlers and MJ haters’ opinion about it.

The haters say: “Jordan didn’t testify, because he was being paid in the millions for his silence. These sleazy deals are structured by lawyers for wealthy defendants like Jacko. The victim is not paid in lump sum, but rather over a long period of time to ensure their silence, or they lose their payoff money”.

To verify the above we need to check up the text of the Agreement. I’ve found a redacted version of it in the Smoking gun archives which provide 22 pages out of this 31-page document. The archives refer to Diane Dimond as their source of information (naturally) who in her turn obtained it from an unnamed source (?)

The Smoking gun says: “The January 1994 agreement contains a one-line reference to Jackson delivering “confessions of judgment” totaling $15,331,250 to the boy’s attorneys. However, since the entire eight-page section of the agreement titled “Settlement Payment” is not included in the document, it is unclear how the eight-figure payout was distributed to the boy or what his parents were paid.  A reference to the establishment of a “qualified funding asset” would indicate that an annuity (likely tax free) was a central part of the settlement”.

Well, now it is more or less common knowledge that Evan and June Chandler obtained 1.5 million each (during the 2005 trial June Chandler said it was Jordan’s idea for the parents to collect their own separate monies). Their attorney Larry Feldmangot 3 million plus 10% of the settlement which would bring his earnings to 5 million dollars. The remaining part of the $15 mln. sum was kept in trust for Jordan Chandler and the last part of it was paid to him in 1999.

Let us check up the main clauses of the Agreement (the full text is provided below). Please correct me if I am wrong:

1) The sum WAS to be paid in parts as the wording of several clauses refers to a certain schedule of payment:

“Any failure by Jackson to make any of the payments provided in paragraph 3  when due shall be deemed a Material Breach of this Confidential Settlement”.

2) Under NO circumstances could Michael’s side refuse to make payments (which makes the previous point unimportant).  Even if the Chandlers broke the agreement no sums could be withheld as Michael’s payment obligations were ABSOLUTE:

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

3) What is regarded as a breach of the agreement? Or vice versa, what is regarded as its complete fulfillment? In other words what was the money paid for?

The money was paid for the Chandlers being silent with the MEDIA , but not with LAW enforcement bodies.

More than a half (!) of the agreement dwells on the Chandlers’ obligation not to cooperate with the media or any publishing business. The criminal investigation went on for another 8 months after the settlement and the Chandlers had ample opportunity to give their testimony in court  – which they were perfectly allowed to do:

”The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Evan Chandler and June Chandler, and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents… agree that they will not at any time in the future make any engagement, enter into any contract, agreement, commitment, understanding or other obligation, with any media including … ”

“The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, and Evan Chandler and June Chandler… 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 except as may be required by law”.

4) What was the Chandlers’ course of action if they were subpoenaed to court?  Could anyone stop them from testifying?  No, the MOST Michael could do was just being notified about the subpoena:

“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… receive any subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted, or is investigating, any claim against Jackson or the Jackson Releasees or the Action or the Claims, they agree to give notice in writing to Jackson’s attorneys regarding the nature and scope of any such subpoena request for information, to the extent permitted by law.”

“The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, and Evan Chandler and June Chandler, and each of them individually …  agree not to cooperate with, represent, or provide any information, to any person or entity that initiates any civil claim or action which relates in any manner to the subject matter of the Action against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releasees, except as may be required by law.”

The validity of these clauses was confirmed by June Chandler”s presence at the 2005 trial, when she did testify and did it 12 years after the 1993 allegations (due to Sneddon’s changes in the legislation which prolonged the period allowing such testimony). Tom Sneddon specifically asked June Chandler whether there were any restrictions to her under the Confidentiality Agreement and she said she checked it up with her lawyer and he said it was okay for her to talk to the prosecutors:

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes.

Q. And who was that?

A. Larry Feldman.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. Correct.

5)  So the Chandlers  could testify and it was no breach of the agreement.  Spreading their allegations in the media was the ONLY way for them to break the agreement.  What was Michael’s or Chandler’s  course of action in case such an infringement took place?

“In the event any Party claim that any other Party has committed a Material Breach …the Parties will attempt to resolve the dispute informally. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute informally …then any party may submit the matter to arbitration before a three-judge panel of retired judges”.

6) Were there any sanctions? Was the family to return at least part of the money if the judges found the Chandlers had broken the agreement? Most probably YES, if Jackson chose to claim compensation for that:

“The Chandlers, and each of them, understand … that Jackson may contend in any such arbitration that he is entitled to recover as damages the Settlement Payment or part thereof paid in accordance with this Confidential Settlement”.

Is this the clause Michael’s haters are so unhappy with? But the whole point of the agreement was to stop the Chandlers  from further tongue-wagging and harassing him in the media ! If they breached this point it means they didn’t observe the Agreement at all– so why allow them keep the money?

If the Chandlers wanted to talk or have justice THEY COULD STILL TESTIFY IN COURT. Here they had two possibilities:

1)     They go to court and prove their point. The culprit goes to prison and they keep the money.

2)     They go to court and cannot prove their point. The falsely accused guy walks out free and they probably have to return the money (as there is actually nothing to pay for).

Was this second variant the one that Evan Chandler was afraid of ? Which is why he and Jordan never testified in court? And Jordan even left the country for the duration of the trial to avoid being called? And changed his whereabouts three times according to his uncle? All of this because he knew his lies would be ripped into shreds if scrutinized in court?

The FBI files say that Ronald Zonen from Santa Barbara together with a FBI guy went to New York to interview Jordan Chandler – and he said he didn’t want to testify, he “had done his part” and would take legal action if they forced him to do it.  He was going to SUE them for urging him to speak up in court!

So what would be the answer to those Michael’s haters who claim that Michael ensured the Chandlers’ silence by making the agreement?  Paradoxically it will be Yes and No:

The Chandlers were NOT allowed to speak to the media, but were FULLY allowed to speak in court. One of Michael’s supporters put it this way: “Jordy had to stay quiet in terms of not giving interviews, but he could testify and still get all the money because the criminal case is separate and you can’t get in trouble for testifying. So his silence in court wasn’t bought, his silence in the media was”.

Considering the murderous amount of media harassment Michael had to go through, NO ONE can blame him for wanting some quiet – at last.  It is a normal desire of any normal human being, who found himself in the abnormal circumstances and had to deal with abnormal people.

As to the Chandlers being afraid that the money wouldn’t be paid in full if they talked in public, a special clause of the agreement took care of such a danger – the obligation to pay the agreed sum was ABSOLUTE and didn’t depend on the alleged or even REAL breach of the agreement. And it is clear why – what seems to be a real breach to one party may look fictional to the other and it is only the panel of arbitration judges who can decide what’s what.  So the money should still come in whatever claims of the dissatisfied party are…

Off the agreement went to the insurance company (which is no party to the agreement as is usual in these cases ) and off the news of it went to media outlets.  If Michael hoped to close that awful page of his life and scramble it back together now, his hopes were never to come true .  Despite the fact that the next day after the settlement the Reuters and USA today reported that Jordan’s description had nothing to do with reality no one noticed this news or believed it. The media frenzy resumed with a new force…

JUST IN CASE SOMEONE FORGOT IT:  Michael Jackson vehemently denied that any wrongdoing had taken place, and the Agreement refers to it in several clauses:

“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…

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

*   *   *

Below is the redacted text of the agreement the way it is provided by the Smoking Gun.

They provide 22 pages though the last page of the agreement is  numbered 31. This means that 9 pages concerning payment are missing:

CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL GENERAL RELEASE

CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL GENERAL RELEASE (“Confidential Settlement”} is made and entered into, as of January ….1994, by and between MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON (“Jackson”), on the one hand, and [Jordan Chandler], a minor child through his Guardian ad Litem [name of the judge] EVAN CHANDLER, and [blacked out] on the other hand, (at times referred to collectively herein as the “Parties”).

WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Minor through his Guardians ad Litem in the Action has made claims against Jackson as alleged in the complaint in the action entitled J. Chandler, Plaintiff v. Michael Jackson, Defendant, Superior Court of the State of California for the County оf Los Angeles, Case No. SC 026226 (hereinafter the “Action”). Such claims include claims for bodily injuries resulting from negligence;

WHEREAS, Evan Chandler has made claims against Jackson bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress;

WHEREAS, [blacked out] has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress;

WHEREAS, this Confidential Settlement is being made and entered into pursuant to the Parties’ desire and intention to resolve the Action and the Claims and settle fully and finally all differences between them on a strictly confidential and private basis.

WHEREAS, the Parties intend to seek court approval of this Confidential Settlement insofar as it applies to the Minor as allowed and required by law with the intent and desire that this Confidential Settlement be completely binding and enforceable.

NOW, THEREFORE, in light of the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, it is agreed as follows:

1. Definitions

a. “Action” refers to the action entitled J. Chandler, Plaintiff v. Michael Jackson, Defendant, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case Ho. SC 026226.
b. “Claims” refer to the claims of Evan Chandler and June Chandler as described in the recitals above and any and all other claims that could be asserted by them against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releasees as a result of any act or omission of Jackson or any of the Jackson Releases up through the date of this Confidential Settlement.
c. “Chandler Releasees” refer to the Minor, Evan Chandler, June Chandler, and each of their respective current and former agents, attorneys, representatives, employees, and investigators, and their respective heirs, spouses, administrators, executors, guardians, conservators, successors, assigns, and any companies or corporations owned or controlled by the Chandlers or any of them.
d. “Confidential Settlement” refers to this written agreement and each and all of the provisions hereof, collectively and separately.
e. “Guardian ad Litem” refers to [name of the judge].
f. “Jackson” refers to Michael Joseph Jackson, a party to this Confidential Settlement and a defendant in the Action.
g. “Jackson Releasees” refer to Jackson and Jackson’s current and former agents, attorneys, investigators, representatives, and employees, and his heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors, assigns and Related companies (and owners, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, shareholders, directors, officers, employees, former employees, representatives, stockholders of such Related Companies) .
h. “Legal Guardians” refer to the parents of the Minor, Evan Chandler and June Chandler.
i.  “Minor” refers to Jordan Chandler, a minor child and a party to this Confidential Settlement and the plaintiff through his Guardians Ad Litem.
j. “Related Companies” refers to A Child’s Heart Foundation; A Child’s Heart Foundation Admin, Inc; ATV Music Limited; Breakaway Songs Limited; Comet Music; Desert Songs Limited; Encino Productions, Inc.; Experiment in Sound; Heal L.A.; Heal L.A. Foundation; Heal L.A. Foundation Administration, Inc.; Heal the World; Heal the World Foundation; Heal the World Foundation Administration, Inc.; Jackson-Strong Alliance, Inc; Lawrence Wright Music Co.; Lenmac Music; Michael Jackson, an individual; Michael Jackson d/h/a MIJAC Music; Michael Jackson d/b/a Miran International; Michael J. Jackson- d/b/a Neverland Valley Ranch; MJJ Artistic, Inc.; MJJ Productions, Inc.; MJJ Productions d/b/a Miran Publishing; MJJ Ventures, Inc.; Mystical Light Music; Nation Comics; Nation Productions, Inc.; Nation Records; Neverland Ranch; Neverland Zoo Foundation; Northern Songs Limited; Optimum Productions, Inc.; Rhymeglen Music; Smooth Pictures, Inc.; Triumph International (Las Vegas Museum) ; Triumph International, Inc.; TTC Touring Corp; Ultimate Productions; Welbeck Music, and any other corporations or foundations owned or controlled by Jackson.
к. “Settlement Payment” refers to the financial consideration to be paid pursuant to this Confidential Settlement by Jackson in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 hereinbelow.

2. 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 or June chandler have any rights whatsoever against Jackson. Jackson specifically disdains 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 ha 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.

3. Settlement Payment.

a. …………….
b. ……………….
c. ……………….
d. ……………….
e. Upon court approval of this confidential Settlement, Jackson will execute and deliver to the Minor’s attorneys of record confessions of judgment, in forms to be approved by the attorneys of record for the Minor prior to execution of this Confidential Settlement, in the total amount of $15,331.250, to be held in trust by the Minor’s attorneys of record with no copies to be made or provided to any other person, In addition to any other legal or equitable remedies available for breach of this paragraph 3, the Minor’s attorneys of record are authorized to file, enter and execute upon such judgment only to the extent of any breach by Jackson of his payment obligations under this paragraph 3. To the extent any part of the amount set forth in the confession of judgment has been paid by Jackson prior to the filing of the confession of judgment, the judgment creditor under the confession of judgment shall file a satisfaction of judgment to the extent the debt has been paid. Any failure by Jackson to make any of the payments provided in paragraph 3 when due shall be deemed a Material Breach of this Confidential Settlement.

f. Jackson’s obligation to make the Settlement Payment as provided in this paragraph when due is absolute; notwithstanding any claimed or actual breach of the Confidential Settlement and notwithstanding any other claims that Jackson may assert or have against any party to this Confidential Settlement or their attorneys or respective agents, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors, and assigns, or anyone else, Jackson shall not withhold any portion of the Settlement Payment.

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

4. The Settlement Payment shall constitute full and complete satisfaction and settlement of any and all claims by the Minor, Evan chandler or June Chandler and each of them individually collectively, against Jackson or any of the Jackcson.

5. Dismissal of the Action.

The Action shall be dismissed, with prejudice, in accordance with the following schedule: .

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

b. Upon (I) the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments provided in paragraph 3.a.(6)(a); (2) the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments provided in paragraph 3.b. (1); the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments provided in paragraph 3.c.(l); the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments provided in paragraph 3.d..(1); and (4) the earlier of (i) the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments provided in paragraph 3.а. (1)-(4) above or (ii) agreement by Jackson to Qualified Assignments, accompanied by receipt by each assignee from Jackson of the Qualified Funding Asset Premiums by the QFAP Funding Dates, the Minor, through his Guardian ad Litem, shall dismiss the entire action with prejudice.

6.  Release of Jackson and Jackson Releasees

The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Evan Chandler and June Chandler, and each of them individually and on behalf of each of their agents, hairs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors, assigns and anyone else who could make claims against Jackson by, through or on behalf of any one of them, hereby irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and forever discharge the Jackson Releasees, including Jackson, and Jackson’s agents, attorneys, representatives, investigators (current and former), employees (current and former), heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors, assigns and Related Companies (and owners, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, shareholders, directors, officers, employees, former employees, representatives, and stockholders of such Related Companies) , from any and all charges, complaints, claims, liabilities, obligations, promises, agreements, controversies, injuries, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, rights, demands, costs, losses, debts and expenses of any nature or kind whatsoever, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, fixed or contingent, which they or any one of them individually now have, own, hold, or claim to have, claim to own or claim to hold, or which they at any time heretofore had, owned, held or claimed to have, claimed to own, or claimed to hold, against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releasees, including, without limitation, all claims which were alleged or could have been alleged in the Action and the Claims; provided, however, that if any person released pursuant to this paragraph (other than Jackson) makes a claim against the Chandlers, or any of them, or against any of the other releasors in this paragraph, then the release set forth in this paragraph shall be null and void as to the person making the claim.

7. Release of Minor, Evan Chandler, June Chandler and Chandler Releasees

Jackson, individually, and on behalf of his agents, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors, assigns and Related Companies hereby irrevocably and unconditionally releases, acquits and forever discharges the Chandler Releasees, including the Minor, Evan chandler, June Chandler, and each of their agents, attorneys, representatives, employees (current and former), investigators (current and former) , heirs, administrators, executors, guardians, conservators, successors, assigns, and any companies or corporations owned or controlled by the Chandlers or any of them, from any and all charges, complaints, claims, liabilities, obligations, promises, agreements, controversies, injuries, damages, actions, causes of action, stilts, rights, demands, costs, losses, debts and expenses of any nature or kind whatsoever, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, fixed or contingent, which he now has, owns, holds, or claims to have, claims to own, or claims to hold, or which he at any time heretofore had, owned, held or claimed to have, claimed to own, or claimed to hold, against the Minor, Evan Chandler, June Chandler or any of the Chandler Releasees; provided, however, that if any person released pursuant to this paragraph (other than the Chandlers or any of them) makes a claim against Jackson or against any of the other releasors in this paragraph, then the release set forth in this paragraph shall be null and void as to the person making the claim.

8. The Parties expressly waive and relinquish any and all rights under California civil Code Section 1542, which provides as follows:

A general release does not extend to which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which is known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor.

Accordingly, the releases herein shall remain in effect as a full and complete release of any and ill claims otherwise exempted by Civil Code Section 1542, notwithstanding the discovery of the existence of any additional claims or facts relating thereto.

9. The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Evan Chandler and June Chandler, and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree that they will not at any time in the future make any engagement, enter into any contract, agreement, commitment, understanding or other obligation, with any media, including, without limitation, any publishing, print, news, television, motion picture, cable, video, multimedia, software, recording, broadcast, radio or any other media, for purposes of or relating to the commercial exploitation by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler, June Chandler or the Minor’s attorneys of record in the Action of any story, documentary, docudrama, publication, magazine, tabloid, book, article, motion picture, television program or picture, “movie-of-the-week,” serial, miniseries, recording, record, audiotape, compact disc, videotape, program, television or other public or private appearance, interview or broadcast, related to Jackson in any capacity, any recreation or likeness of Jackson or his image, Jackson’s relationship with the Minor or Evan Chandler or June Chandler, the allegations made in the Action, any information revealed through discovery in the Action, or the Claims. In addition to any other legal or equitable remedy as may be available as a result of any breach of this paragraph, the Parties acknowledge that Jackson or his heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, shall be entitled to recoup as recovery for unjust enrichment, or any other applicable cause of action, any sums as may be received by the breaching party as compensation for such commercial exploitation.

10. Jackson, individually, and on behalf of his agents, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors, assigns and Related Companies hereby agrees that they will not at any time in the future make any engagement, enter into any contract, agreement, commitment, understanding or other obligation, with any media, including, without limitation, any publishing, print, news, television, motion picture, cable, video, multimedia, software, recording, broadcast, radio or any other media, for purposes of or relating to the commercial exploitation by Jackson or any Related Companies or his attorneys of record in the Action of any story, documentary, docudrama, publication, magazine, tabloid, book, article, motion picture, television program or picture, “movie-of-the-week,” serial, miniseries, recording, record, audiotape, compact disc, videotape, program, television or other public or private appearance, interview or broadcast, related to the Minor or Evan Chandler or June Chandler in any capacity, any recreation or likeness of the Minor or Evan Chandler or June Chandler or their image, Jackson’s relationship with the Minor or Evan chandler or June Chandler, the allegations made in the Action, any information revealed through discovery in the Action, or the Claims. In addition to any other legal or equitable remedy as may be available as a result of any breach of this paragraph, the Parties acknowledge that the Minor or Evan Chandler or June Chandler or their respective heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, shall be entitled to recoup as recovery for unjust enrichment, or any other applicable cause of action, any sums as may be received by the breaching party as compensation for such commercial exploitation.

11. The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Evan Chandler, June Chandler, the Minor’s attorneys of record in the Action and the Minor’s legal representatives, and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree to keep the terms and conditions of this confidential Settlement strictly confidential. Each of the aforementioned individuals agrees that they will not at any time disclose any information concerning the contents of this Confidential Settlement to anyone, including, without limitation any investigator (current or former), expert or consultant hired in connection with the Action, representative of any media, family members and friends; provided, however, that the Parties may make disclosures as may be necessary or required by law to tax advisors, accountants, taxing authorities, insurers, or the consultant hired in connection with the Settlement Payment to the Minor as provided in paragraphs 3.а. (1}-(5) hereinabove.

b. The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Evan Chandler and June Chandler, and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree to make no further claims or statements in any public forum that accuse Jackson of any wrongful conduct whatsoever with regard to the Minor or any other person.

c. Jackson, Jackson’s attorneys, and Jackson’s legal representatives and agents, and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree to keep the terms and conditions of this confidential Settlement strictly confidential. Each of the aforementioned individuals agrees that they will not at any time disclose any information concerning the contents of this Minor’s Agreement to anyone, including, without limitation any investigator (current or former) , expert or consultant, hired in connection with the Action, representative of any media, family members and friends; provided, however, that the Parties may make disclosures as may be necessary or required by law to tax advisors, accountants, taxing authorities, insurers, or the consultant hired in connection with the Settlement Payment to the ‘Minor as provided in paragraphs 3.a.(l)-(5) hereinabove.

d. Jackson, Jackson’s attorneys, and Jackson’s legal representatives and agents, and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree to make no further claims or statements in any public forum that accuse the Minor, his attorneys of record in the Action, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any of them, of any wrongful conduct whatsoever with regard to the Jackson or any other person.

e. The Parties to this Confidential Settlement, and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, shall not make any releases or voluntary statements to the press or media regarding this Confidential Settlement or the dismissal with prejudice of the Action, except as expressly agreed upon in writing by counsel for the Parties. Upon execution of this Confidential Settlement, the attorneys of record for the Parties shall make a joint statement as set forth in the attached Exhibit A hereto.

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

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

h. The Parties, the Parties’ attorneys, and the Minor’s Guardian ad Litem, and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, acknowledge and agree that the terms of this paragraph and all of its subparts are material and essential terms of this Confidential Settlement and a material inducement to Jackson to make the Confidential Settlement. Any breach of the provisions of this paragraph shall be deemed to be a Material Breach of this Confidential Settlement, and shall be subject to the arbitration provisions as set forth in paragraph i. hereinbelow,

i. In the event any Party claim that any other Party has committed a Material Breach, as defined in subparagraph h, hereinabove or any breach at subparagraphs 11 a., c., or e., hereinabove, the Party claiming that such a breach has occurred will notify the Party claimed to have committed such breach as well as all other Parties and attorneys of record in writing within five days of the alleged breach. The Parties will attempt to resolve the dispute informally. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute informally within five business days of receipt of the written notice, then any party, within five business days thereafter, may submit the matter to arbitration before a three-judge panel of retired judges, by written notice to all other parties. The parties shall, by mutual agreement, select the three judges to hear the dispute from the register of neutrals maintained by JAMS. The Chandlers, and each of them, understand, without agreeing to the merits of any such claim, without waiving any defenses thereto, and without conceding any appropriate remedy or measure of damage, that Jackson may contend in any such arbitration that he is entitled to recover as damages the Settlement Payment or part thereof paid in accordance with this Confidential Settlement.

j. The Parties acknowledge and agree that equitable relief, in addition to any other legally available remedy, shall be available to enjoin and restrain a breach of the obligations imposed by the provisions of this paragraph of the confidential Settlement.

12. The parties make the following representations and warranties to each other:

a. None of the Parties or their attorneys, individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, have made any engagements, entered into any contract, agreement, commitment, understanding or other obligation, with any media, including, without limitation, any publishing, print, news, television, motion picture, cable, video, multimedia, software, recording, broadcast, radio or any other media, for purposes of or relating to any commercial exploitation by any of the parties of any publication, magazine, tabloid, book, article, motion picture, television program or picture, “movie-of-the-week, serial, miniseries, recording, record, audio tape, compact disc, videotape, program, television or other public or private appearance, interview, or broadcast related to Jackson or the Jackson Releasees in any capacity, any recreation or any likeness of Jackson or his image, the Minor, Evan Chandier or June Chandler in any capacity or recreation or any likeness, the Minor’s relationship with Jackson, the allegations made in the Action, any information revealed through discovery in the Action, or the Claims.

b. All of the Parties to this Confidential Settlement have thoroughly discussed all aspects of confidential Settlement with their attorneys or have had the opportunity to do so. They have read and fully understand all of the provisions of this Confidential Settlement and are entering into it voluntarily, of their own free will and without the undue influence of any person.

q. The Guardian ad Litem represents and warrants that he is authorized to enter into this Confidential Settlement on behalf of the Minor. Evan Chandler and June Chandler, as the Minor’s parents, represent and warrant that this Confidential Settlement is in the best interests of the Minor.

d. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson and Jackson’s attorneys have not been notified of any liens or claims against the Settlement Payment made by any person or entity. The Minor, through the Minor’s Guardian ad Litem and the Minor’s attorneys represent and warrant that there are no such liens or claims against the Settlement Payment that could give rise to any liability on the part of Jackson, and the Minor through the Minor’s Legal Guardians, agree to indemnify and hold Jackson harmless against any such claims as may be made against Jackson to the extent they arise in the future.

  1. The attorneys of record for all the Parties represent and warrant that they will use their best efforts to safeguard, secure and protect the discovery obtained in the Action from disclosure.

13. This Confidential Settlement shall be submitted to a court of competent jurisdiction to be duly approved as may be required by applicable law. This Confidential Settlement is subject to and conditioned upon such approval and shall not be binding upon the Parties until such approval. The Parties agree that any petition for court approval as contemplated hereunder shall be filed with the court under seal and all proceedings therein shall be sealed and kept strictly confidential by the Parties and their respective agents, attorneys, representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns.

14. It is the intent of the Parties that this Confidential Settlement be enforceable and binding to the fullest extent possible.

15. This Confidential Settlement is the result of protracted, arms-length negotiation between the Parties, and through their counsel, each of whom has participated in the process. This Confidential Settlement shall be deemed to be drafted by all of the Parties hereto, so that the principle that ambiguities should be unenforceable, the other parts shall remain fully valid and enforceable.PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. THIS CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT INCLUDES A RELEASE FO ALL KNOWN AND UNKNOWN CLAIMS.

DATED: January 25, 1994

Signed by Jordan Chandler by his Guardian ad Litem [Evan Chandler]…….

Signed by Evan Chandler, individually and as the Legal Guardian of the Minor…

Signed by [June Chandler], individually and as the Legal Guardian of the Minor

Signed by Larry R.Feldman of FOGEL, FELDMAN, OSTROV, RINGLER & KLEVENS
Attorneys for the Minor

Signed by Michael Joseph Jackson

Signed by Johnnie L.Cochran, Jr. ofLAW OFFICES OF JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR.
Attorneys for Michael Joseph Jackson

Signed by Howard L. Weizman of …
Attorneys for Michael Joseph Jackson

Source:  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html

1 1993 settlement2 1993 settlement3 1993 settlement4 1993 settlement5 1993 settlement15 1993 settlement7 1993 settlement8 1993 settlement18 1993 settlement19 1993 settlement20 1993 settlement21 1993 settlement22 1993 settlement23 1993 settlement24 1993 settlement25 1993 settlement26 1993 settlement27 1993 settlement28 1993 settlement29 1993 settlement28 1993 settlement31 1993 settlement  

55 Comments leave one →
  1. May 28, 2013 10:47 am

    “By the time it was settled he was just happy to get anything while avoiding jail time for extortion.” – Tatum

    Of course. Evan Chandler was afraid that he would be found an extortionist, and he really was one because he had no proof of what he was claiming. The settlement was a blessing for the Chandlers. Simultaneously with them dropping their claims against MJ, Michael dropped his claim to Evan Chandler for extortion. And the sum asked by the Chandlers was reduced from the initial $30mln to $15,3mln.

    My personal opinion is that Michael finally agreed to a settlement only because the trial was to be televised and in order to prove his innocence he had to produce the photos of his genitalia – which had nothing to do with Jordan Chandler’s description.

    So even that “negligence” was a mere formality – they had to write something and they did.

    Some of these matters are covered in this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/jackson-case-what-the-public-didnt-hear/

    Like

  2. Tatum Marie permalink
    May 28, 2013 9:50 am

    In the Chandlers case they ended up withdrawing the sexual claims because they knew nothing happened. However, I think they still had the claim of parental alienation, or loss of consortium. Jordan could claim he suffered from emotional distress because of Michael’s interference with their family. The term negligence in this case is such a cop out. I know that some say Evan received what he wanted, but really he didn’t. By the time it was settled he was just happy to get anything while avoiding jail time for extortion.

    Like

  3. ares permalink
    June 16, 2011 1:04 am

    @ Mary,

    the first and most important thing that you should keep in mind is that the settlement agreement didn’t prevent the Chandlers from going to the police. So basically they could take the money that got from the settlement and talk to the police about the case. The only thing that the settlement prevented the family from was for them to speak to the media or write books about the allegations and this kind of things. But the Chandlers could still pursue the case in court if they wanted to.This was something that even Larry Feldman, the lawyer of the Chandlers, admitted. Secondly, that settlement had to get the approval of a court first. A court wouldn’t approve a settlement that had terms that obstracted justice. Thirdly, the part that you are asking i believe is about money. Chandlers wouldn’t receive any additional money from MJ, even if they made additional claims. The whole thing was about the money after all. If Chandlers wanted justice because they thought that their kid was hurt in some way, they wouldn’t make agreements with their kids abuser, don’t you think? They would have gone straight to the police. This is how i understand your question. I hope someone more qualified answer to your question but i honestly thing that it is already answered.

    Like

  4. Mary permalink
    June 16, 2011 12:33 am

    ?

    Like

  5. June 14, 2011 9:55 pm

    “The only reason Ray could fought it was because he was the editor of the book and it has something to do with the law about journalist.”

    The reason why Ray Chandler could fight a subpoena (from the defense) is that a publisher enjoys the same rights as a journalist under the Shield law. The fact that he specially opened a publishing house to write a book for which no one could take him to court was disclosed by Ray Chandler at the very last minute of his tug of war with the defense:

    “The protection of the California shield law are not restricted to a journalist “employed” by a media outlet. The Code uses the phrase “or other person connected with or employed (by the media), and it specifically included publishers as well as reporters. Defendant has incorrectly identified the publisher of Raymond Chandler’s book as Windsong Press Ltd. of Gurnee, Illinois. The correct publisher is Nevada Corporation (doing business in California) that is also named Windsong Press. Raymond Chandler is the sole owner of this publishing company, which holds the copyright of his book. As such Chandler is not only a journalist by way of authorship of a non-fiction book, he is also “connected with or employed by” the publisher.”

    For details please go to this post:
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/ray-chandler-subpoena-happy-end-for-the-dear-old-uncle/

    Like

  6. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 6:47 am

    @lynande51

    The only reason Ray could fought it was because he was the editor of the book and it has something to do with the law about journalist.

    Like

  7. Mary permalink
    June 14, 2011 4:46 am

    One last question.

    When you said that “That part was added so the settlement would cover any damages against any other claims that Evan and June might have had against Michael or anyone that worked for him”

    You mean other claims of negligence or it doesn’t matter what claims?

    Like

  8. nan permalink
    June 13, 2011 3:12 am

    you know how they were not truthful regarding whether or not jordan would testify even after he told them in no uncertain terms while with the F.B.I , and yet they tried tolead the defense to believe he would come in…….i just wonder if they put some of these names on there to imply their case was stronger then it really was..like a scare tactic..just to keep the defense off center..when you read the conversation evan had with schwartz, it sounds like he doesnt want his wifen antalia anywhere near this because she wasnt going along with it at first…..

    Like

  9. lynande51 permalink
    June 13, 2011 2:24 am

    No but you can fight it remember Ray.My guess is they changed their minds about the wisdom of calling them . Of course it was the defense that was calling ray as a custodian of documents that he fought.

    Like

  10. nan permalink
    June 13, 2011 12:39 am

    I wonder if they really intended to call those people..i know ray wouldnt come in, because of the ca, shield law or what ever. but what excuse did evan or his wife have for not showing up..i would love for mesereau to cross examine evan…i cant believe sneddon would want evan to be cross examined by mesereau…

    Like

  11. shelly permalink
    June 13, 2011 12:10 am

    @lynande

    You can’t refuse a subponea.

    Like

  12. lynande51 permalink
    June 13, 2011 12:04 am

    Yess all of them were including Ray and Nathalie. However the only one that answered the call was June.

    Like

  13. shelly permalink
    June 12, 2011 11:57 pm

    @nan

    Yes, he was on the witness list.

    Like

  14. nan permalink
    June 12, 2011 11:49 pm

    I was wondering if anyone knew if the prosecutors had Evan Chandler on their witness list?..I was thinking no… because then Mesereau could have brought up extortion and really hammered him on when he started all this stuff seeing lawyers etc…….I know he brought it up with June ,who feigned ignorance ,that she didnt know who Robt Shapiro was,,…. and that he was giving them advice as a criminal atty in regard to mj cross complaint of extortion..Evan would not have been able to distance himself from that stuff…….Plus Evan was volatile and I think he would have come off as the nut he was….June kept saying Jordan and his family, like she was not in the know ,she just collected some cash….I really think June was playing Mj for husband number three,which imo was why she kept inviting him over to dinner at her house, telling him her tales of woe., using her child for her own agenda…… ,forcing her son on MJ. at the rent a wreck …….I also notice that when she married chandler , took the Chandler name ….,kept it when she married the older wealthy Shapiro and didnt even give her daughter with Schwartz her fathers last name, kept Chandler for that too., not even hyphenated…..She seems to me, like a woman always planning her next three moves………The other thing I noticed about her just in a passing picture of her going into court was how much she seemed to enjoy the attn, dressed impeccably…..If I thought someone had harmed my child and caused a rift between me and my child,so that I hadnt been able to speak to them in years,I would be seething on that stand., not trying to come off as demure ……Evan is the one that told Schwartz before June even came on board with this stuff, she would never get to speak to Jordan again….That had nothing to do with Michael..It had to do with her telling him to go f himself. because SHE wanted to go on tour with MJ…
    i look at some of this stuff and while i realize the prosecution only cares about winning the case.. but,I just cannot believe that the things they chose to leave out., including not telling the defense the FBI, found no kiddie porn on any of mj computers………did not ,show them as well ,that Michael was in fact the VICTIM….

    Like

  15. Mary permalink
    June 12, 2011 10:20 pm

    Thank You🙂

    Like

  16. lynande51 permalink
    June 12, 2011 10:05 pm

    They claimed negligence against Michael that resulted in bodily injury from emotional distress. It names Evan and June Chandler. That part was added so the settlement would cover any damages against any other claims that Evan and June might have had against Michael or anyone that worked for him. An example of that would be if they were going to sue Michael for Pellicano playing that tape and claiming extortion because it made him look bad making him suffer more “emotional distress”. It basically says they can’t sue him for anything else related to this case leading up to the settlement.

    Like

  17. Mary permalink
    June 12, 2011 9:05 pm

    @lynande51 It’s paragraph 1

    Like

  18. lynande51 permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:42 pm

    If they decided in the future to sue Michael again. Michael Jacksons relesee’s are all of those companies that are listed. If you tell me which paragraph it is I will read the whole paragraph and I will be able to explain it better.

    Like

  19. Mary permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:26 pm

    @lynande51 Thank You! I understood what claim is what I don’t understand is what they meant with “any and all other claims that could be asserted by them against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releasees as a result of any act or omission of Jackson or any of the Jackson Releases”

    What “any and all other claims that could be asserted by them” means?

    I apologize for my ignorance.

    Like

  20. Mary permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:21 pm

    @David I know that the settlement was not sign of guilt. I never said that nor think that. It’s clearly says and TWICE that it was settled for
    negligence and not for sexual abuse.

    I just don’t understand this clause and I just want to know everything. Thank you for your time. I love this amazing site which is precious.

    Like

  21. lynande51 permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:17 pm

    Mary here is the definition of a claim.
    claim 1) v. to make a demand for money, for property, or for enforcement of a right provided by law. 2) n. the making of a demand (assert a claim) for money due, for property, for damages or for enforcement of a right. If such a demand is not honored, it may result in a lawsuit. In order to enforce a right against a government agency (ranging for damages from a negligent bus driver to a shortage in payroll) a claim must be filed first. If rejected or ignored by the government, it is lawsuit time.

    Like

  22. lcpledwards permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:05 pm

    @ Mary
    I’m one of the co-admins of the site, and I saw your question, and since I’m not a legal expert, I’m going to ask one of the other co-admins to answer it. She is a lawyer, and has contributed to this site. Your question was very “deep” to say the least, and that complex legal language requires a very complex answer, so I’ll let you know what she says.

    In the meantime, I’ll say this fundamental point (since I’m not familiar with your knowledge of the case, since you’re a new visitor to the site): the settlement wasn’t a sign of guilt, and nothing in that agreement prevented the Chandlers from testifying in criminal court. They simply chose not to because money is all the wanted from the beginning.

    It may take me a few days to get an answer, so stay tuned!

    Like

  23. Mary permalink
    June 12, 2011 7:38 pm

    Anybody can please explain what the definition of “claims” in the settlement means? Especially the part where it’s said :”So what they meant by ” any and all other claims that could be asserted by them against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releasees as a result of any act or omission of Jackson or any of the Jackson Releases up through the date of this Confidential Settlement.”

    Thank You.

    Like

  24. Suzy permalink
    June 12, 2011 5:41 pm

    @ Truth Prevail

    The “lewd books” weren’t lewd except for those with a dirty mind. There were two books which contained nude boys (not all pics were nude, they just had nude pics in them). Both were accumulated in 1993, not in the 2003 raid.

    You can read about them here:

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/porn-found-inat-michael-jacksons-home/

    One was called “The Boy: A Photographic Essay” which is an artistic photo book about the making of the 1963 movie “Lord of the Flies”.

    In that there was an inscription by Michael which said:

    “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children, MJ.”

    Is that a p-le looking at those pics? I don’t think so.

    The other book was “Boys will be boys” which also had an inscription in it: “To Michael: From your fan, Rhonda. Love XXXOOO ♥ Rhonda – 1983, Chicago.”

    So it was a gift from a fan.

    One thing you have to know about p-les is that they cannot stop themselves! If Michael had been a p-le, there would have been lots of child porn found in his possession. There was NONE! These books are not illegal to have, they are not child porn or erotica. They are art books depicting children playing carelessly. And the books were accumulated in 1993. They were parading them around in 2005 because they didn’t find anything else in the 2003 raid.

    Like

  25. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 12, 2011 4:53 pm

    Sources said that a lewd book showing nude photos of 7- to 12-year-old boys “at play” was uncovered.

    i wondre what book that was and if it was that bad and if it was lewd then why didnt he use that as evidence against michael 2 prove he was a P and why the hell was sneddon still claiming the picturs matched when years later geraldo revealed he had seen the picturs and it was no match!

    Like

  26. ZEROMARCY permalink
    June 12, 2011 4:14 pm

    @mary good questions

    Like

  27. Mary permalink
    June 12, 2011 1:10 am

    What amazes me the most is how people forget or want to forget the most important thing here and most basic one-That this was A CIVIL LAWSUIT!
    Nobody goes to jail when a civil lawsuit is filled. Civil lawsuit is all about MONEY. No matter who wins the winner gets money!

    Even if there would be a civil trial-money is what the winner would get.

    Thanks for this post.

    By the way can you please explain me something I didn’t really understand and it’s the definition of “claims”.

    They say “Claims” refer to the claims of Evan Chandler and June Chandler as described in the recitals above and any and all other claims that could be asserted by them against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releasees as a result of any act or omission of Jackson or any of the Jackson Releases up through the date of this Confidential Settlement.

    They stated above that June and Evan chandler made claims for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress. And the settlement was for claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of molestation. They stated it twice.

    So what they meant by ” any and all other claims that could be asserted by them against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releasees as a result of any act or omission of Jackson or any of the Jackson Releases up through the date of this Confidential Settlement.”

    What “any and all other claims” they talked about? Can you please explain it,I didn’t understand that.

    Thank You.

    Like

  28. ZEROMARCY permalink
    June 10, 2011 2:39 pm

    oh ok guys thank u so much for ur answers .’-)

    Like

  29. June 10, 2011 7:51 am

    @ZEROMARCY because that’s the way it’s written in settlements. The insurance carrier was not the one that was sued-the civil dispute was between MJ and the Chandlers. It’s standard procedure.

    Like

  30. shelly permalink
    June 10, 2011 12:42 am

    Probably because he was the one who was sued by the Chandler and because he settled the case.

    Like

  31. ZEROMARCY permalink
    June 10, 2011 12:21 am

    guys i was wondering: why there’s Michael name and not the name of the insurance at the beginning of the settlment?

    Like

  32. lynande51 permalink
    May 29, 2011 3:37 am

    According to court documents he went to Australia one time in June of 1994. They went after Detective Russ Birchim and Tom Sneddon met secretly with Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool. Originally they stated that the acts of M*******. that they had seen happened to Brett. During the trial they changed their testimony to Jordan never testifying about Brett. It is in a Court document about it if you go to the site and type in Lizette Barnes I bet it will come up for you to read it. The Prosecution wanted to limit her testimony so she did not make Sneddon look bad?
    He also went with Diane Dimond to Toronto when they went to see that boy that was working to set up Michael with Rodney Allen/ John Templeton. Templeton was hanging out in Boystown and passed himself off as a guidance councilor/ Social worker to the boys. He had previously given DD a lot of information in 1993 as to the lay out of Neverland and Havenhurst. He had gotten his information from former employees. He insisted that he had been molested by a different family member years earlier which was found to be untrue. I think you can find the video of it on you tube. Rodney Allen was convicted of child molestation 2 years after he tried to set up Michael with that kid.

    Like

  33. shelly permalink
    May 28, 2011 9:05 pm

    Do we know how many times Sneddon tryed to contact Jordan during the nineties? We know he went several times in Australia in order to have Barnes testifying against MJ.

    Like

  34. shelly permalink
    May 3, 2011 9:35 pm

    Thank you Lynande, and I agree with you abput Dimond.

    Like

  35. lynande51 permalink
    May 3, 2011 9:24 pm

    Here you go Shelley. It is a terminology used in something called a strucutured settlement which is what this was. It is common language in an insurance settlement and it basically means that Jordan was to receive payments to an annuity at a certain amount and by a certain time. Once it was paid in full he could not sue Michael again for the same reasons.
    http://www.structuredpayments.org/what-is-a-qualified-funding-asset
    It sure would have been a lot easier for us to read and understand if Diane Dimond had left paragraph 3 in it wouldn’t it?

    Like

  36. shelly permalink
    May 3, 2011 8:13 pm

    Can someone explain to me what that part means
    “by Jackson to Qualified Assignments, accompanied by receipt by each assignee from Jackson of the Qualified Funding Asset Premiums by the QFAP Funding Dates, the Minor, through his Guardian ad Litem, shall dismiss the entire action with prejudice.”

    What is an assignee and what is a qualified funding asset premium. I tried to find it on google but it’s not easy to understand when english is not your first langage.

    Like

  37. Olga permalink
    October 22, 2010 4:24 pm

    Let’s not forget that in civil cases it’s the defendant that offers a settlement to the plaintiff. In this case it was the PLAINTIFF that was asking for a settlement. That was the weirdest thing of all and should have rung a huge bell to everybody. But it seems that many people don’t have common sense and they don’t even understand legal terminology. I was just 14 at the time and I knew back then what I know today about the case. Years later I was proven to be correct about what I had figured out concerning information that didn’t exist at the time like the actual text of the settlement. When I read it in 2004 it made no difference. Everybody could do the same thing with the information we had back then. There is no other excuse rather than stupidity and lack of common sense.

    Like

  38. August 3, 2010 4:06 am

    I am the first time on this site and am really enthusiastic about and so many good articles. I think it’s just very good.

    Like

  39. David permalink
    June 28, 2010 9:15 pm

    Hey guys, I found a case that is very similar to MJ. A priest was accused of molesting a child in the 1980’s, although the “victim” didn’t come forward until 2006. His Archdiocese was named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit (the article doesn’t say if a criminal investigation was initiated, although it’s highly doubtful since the molestation occurred 20 years ago).

    Despite his pleas of innocence, the Archdiocese settled the civil lawsuit for $1.4 million dollars. However, the priest’s lawyer had the case dismissed because the victim filed his lawsuit after the statute of limitations had expired. (I’m not sure how much, if any, of that settlement was actually paid.)

    The priest has since filed a counter-lawsuit against the “victim” for defamation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He’s seeking at least $500,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. He claimed that he suffered and endured acute nervousness, bodily pain and ruination and impairment of his reputation for honesty and integrity because of the accusations and media attention.

    Gee, does that sound familiar?

    Like I said, the case is very similar to MJ because:

    1), when the victim his epiphany and decided it was time to go public with his accusations, instead of going to the cops he goes to a civil attorney.

    2) The Archdiocese negotiated and paid the settlement (most likely without the Priests’ approval), thus giving the public the idea that there must be some validity to the accuser’s story. Who knows? Maybe he’s guilty, maybe he’s innocent, but regardless, the victim filed a civil lawsuit, and it was settled out of court, thus hurting the priest in the court of public opinion.

    If you read the comments at the bottom of the article, you’ll see it’s about 50/50 support for the priest. Ironically, one of his supporters cited MJ as an example of people being falsely accused of molestation.

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/priest-sues-accusers-after-abuse-suit-dismissed-on-technicality.html

    Like

  40. Lynette permalink
    June 18, 2010 2:27 am

    I remember reading in All That Glitters Evan was talking about Gary Hearne Michaels chauffer of many years and how he was sent by Anthony Pellicano to Michaels condo in Century City to remove a briefcase before the police searched it. Evan Chandler liked to insinuate that it had incriminating evidence in it but in truth I bet what was in the briefcase was the property of Anthony Pellicano. His electronic surveilence equipment and the tapes that would prove extortion. In the book Evan was all about his hatred of Anthony Pellicano. Evan wrote things about him and ridiculed him in the book and bragged up and down about how he got the better of this man when he presented him with a copy of the laws regarding taping of a conversation.As a matter of fact he is more vile about Anthony Pellicano than he is Michael which seems strange considering what he accused Michael of. I was reading the settlement papers the other day and it finally hit me that the reason that the arbitrators found in Michaels favor in 1996 was because the settlement did not prevent Michael from proclaiming his innocence it prohibited him from accusing the Chandlers of extortion.

    Like

  41. David permalink
    June 18, 2010 12:37 am

    Hey guys, in case y’all haven’t read this yet, here is Mesereau’s request to not allow Sneddon to use the 1994 settlement as a sign of MJ’s guilt in the 2005 trial. This shows how utterly desperate Sneddon was!

    Mesereau argued that Sneddon was trying to prejudice the jury with irrelevant information, and he listed several court cases that established the legal precedent that out of court settlements are not admissions of guilt. This document officially confirmed that it was MJ’s insurance carried that negotiated AND paid the settlement without MJ’s consent or consideration!

    It’s around 13 pages long, but focus on the following pages and lines:

    Page 2, lines 2-11, 22-27
    Page 3, lines 6-21
    Page 4, lines 10-14
    Page 8, lines 25-28 This is where Mesereau says that Sneddon is only filing this motion because of MJ’s fame!

    Page 9, Lines 16-28 PAY ATTENTION!! On line 27, it states that “no criminal charges were filed” as a result of the interview with Jordie Chandler!!

    Page 10, Lines 1-4 These lines reiterate that Chandler’s “story” in 1994 was NOT enough to warrant an arrest then, are IRRELEVANT now!

    There are other important parts of that request that you can skim over yourself, but I highlighted the most important ones. Any MJ hater that tries to say that MJ “paid the settlement to buy the Chandler’s silence” should have this legal document shoved down their throat, because they obviously haven’t done any research!!!

    http://heeheeshamone.com/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

    Like

  42. Incognito permalink
    June 17, 2010 10:33 pm

    @ Helena

    Not to worry I know there has been many comments with lots of information to get through.

    That ‘love letter’ doesn’t seem like one at all – it seems as if he is writing to his brother. Also, he emphasises his love for June twice – he says “I can’t stop loving your mother and sister” and “Tell Mom I love her”.

    I might be making something out of nothing but, if I was to write a love letter to someone – I would soley write it to the recipient – not say ‘I love you and oh by the way I love your grandma too’.

    Also, he seems like a big brother looking out for a younger brother as he says “I have such golden dreams for you. I want you to be a giant in the industry” – We’re all protective of our younger brothers/sisters and want the best for them. Especially as we have been through things before them.

    From Taraborelli’s book: Michael said Jordie could one day be an amazing film director – “He has a vision” and “I think he could do wonderful things”. Also, in the book it says Michael was so upset that he could never see Jordie again and called him his soul-mate.

    This is a stark contrast to how he felt about Gavin. In Taraborelli’s book, it says Gavin and his family got upset that Michael was avoiding them, because when Gavin started to get better and he would still come around to Neverland, Michael instructed his staff to tell the Arvizos that he wasn’t there – but one day he bumped into Mike and found out he was avoiding them. Also – it states that even after the 2005 trial, Mike couldn’t get over it and still was hurt by it, to the point that he would say “I know this is bad, and please don’t tell my mother I said this but, I hate that kid”.

    Another interesting thing that happened is that AFTER Jordie ‘confessed’ in the dentist chair, he and his father met up with Michael and Pellicano – and he ran to Mike and hugged him and kissed him. He also said “I missed you .. I can’t believe whats going on” and said “you should know that” but wasn’t able to finish his sentence.

    Guess what Evan said … “Nice to see you, Michael” and he embraced him – What kind of reaction is that to a guy that supposedly molested your son!!

    Also Mike bought a laptop and used to let Jordie use it – and so during the negotiations Evan asked if Mike would give the laptop to Jordie. – I have no words!

    Like

  43. Suzy permalink
    June 17, 2010 9:17 pm

    Helena,

    I know this letter and I think it’s real. But like with everything the media were trying to twist it – into a “love letter to Jordy” while it’s very clearly not. Like you pointed out if anything it’s a “love letter to June” because he twice mentions loving her.

    But I’m not sure if it was a romantic interest. Michael was loving, caring and affectionate with everyone. He said “I love you” to all kind of people all the time: women, men, children – and it wasn’t in a romantic way, of course. He was just desperate to give love and get love.

    My opinion is that also his “friendships with little boys” were kind of taken out of context by the media. Notice how many times it wasn’t just a friendship with the boys, it was a friendship with whole families – especially the mothers. The Casico brothers told how Michael used to stay at their house and liked to help their mom cleaning the house, cook – and just to be in a normal family, treated normally. To me Michael’s “pattern” is not that of a pedophile, but that of a man who is desperately craving for a harmonious, normal family life that was never given to him.

    Like

  44. June 17, 2010 8:11 pm

    Incognito, sorry for being so late with the reply. June’s testimony is top important as it is a key to many of our questions. I am thinking of making a post of it but the conclusions I came to are rather raw at the moment – so I would ask you to give me some time to make a clearer picture of it.

    But even from the excerpts you provided and the type of conversations she had with Michael (about males in her life, etc.) it seems there was some romantic relationship between them – at least she was the one who hoped for it very much. Ray Chandler refers to a certain ‘love letter’ allegedly sent by Michael to the Chandlers – Ray thinks it is solely about Jordan while to me it looks like being about June (though the whole thing may be a complete LIE too):

    “[Boy’s name], you’re not only my cousin but also my best friend. I can’t stop loving your mother and sister. I have found true love in all of you. If more people were like us the world would change instantly. I have such golden dreams for you. I want you to be a giant in the industry. You are my new inspiration. I love you. Doo doo head. Applehead. Disneyland soon. Love, doo doo. Call soon, bye, doo doo head. Tell Mom I love her.”

    Like

  45. David permalink
    June 15, 2010 2:32 am

    Speaking of Evan & Jordie Chandler, can you believe that Diane Dimond had the nerve to write an article on her blog about the impact of Victim Impact Statements that crime victims make to their perpetrators during the sentencing phase of a trial?

    She was present at the sentencing of John Gardner, who was recently convicted of killing two teenage girls in California. She talks about how brave the families were to give those statements (which they were, and I’m not arguing about that), and she wonders if she would have had the courage to do the same if she was in that same situation.

    True crime victims will stop at nothing to seek justice against their perpetrators, and would eagerly travel from the other side of the Earth to be in court to give their Victim Impact Statement.

    But as I read this article, I couldn’t help but think about Jordie and Evan Chandler. Their lack of cooperation in prosecuting MJ in 1993 & 2005 doesn’t only speak volumes, but it SCREAMS volumes!

    It’s just ironic that Diane rightfully praises the families in this article, but over the years she has continually DEFENDED Evan and Jordie’s lack of cooperation by saying they “wanted to avoid the media circus”, or some crap like that. She has never called them out for the cowards that they really are. What a hypocrite!

    http://dianedimond.net/the-impact-of-victim-impact-statements/

    Like

  46. Lynette permalink
    June 15, 2010 1:23 am

    I found an article written in 1995 about Tom Sneddond reaction to the Diane Sawyer interview. No wonder Evan Chandler thought he could sue Michael again. Pay attention to the part of the artcle about the description and the Photos. What did they do there have penis line up? I am flabergasted!

    LAWYER: JACKSON LIED ABOUT BOY.(MAIN)
    Date: August 8, 1995 Publication: Albany Times Union (Albany, NY)
    A prosecutor says Michael Jackson repeatedly lied about his alleged sexual relationship with an underage boy during his June 14 TV interview with Diane Sawyer.
    In September’s Vanity Fair, out this week, Santa Barbara, Calif., district attorney Tom Sneddon called the pop star’s contention that there wasn’t “one iota of information that was found that could connect me to these charges,” “untrue and incorrect and not consistent with the evidence in the case.”
    Sources told the magazine that Jackson’s accuser drew an accurate picture of markings on Jackson’s genital area and afterward identified a police photo of them.
    Sneddon also disputed Jackson’s contention that a police search of his home yielded nothing incriminating.
    Sources said that a lewd book showing nude photos of 7- to 12-year-old boys “at play” was uncovered.
    Sneddon called the assertion on the show that Jackson has been cleared of all charges “a glaring mistake,” adding that charges could be filed until the six-year statute of limitations runs out or “until somebody comes forward” and testifies.
    Monday, a Sawyer spokeswoman said she “misspoke” when she told the TV audience of 60 million that Jackson had “been cleared of all charges.”
    The article also quotes sources as saying that Jackson’s lawyers are negotiating a settlement with another boy who claimed a relationship with the entertainer. Jackson’s people didn’t return calls Monday.

    Like

  47. Truth permalink
    June 14, 2010 10:37 pm

    Evan Chandler and Jordan Chandler were both on the list of the state’s witnesses for the case. Now I know Jordan refused to testify but I don’t know why Evan did not show up.

    This is what I have read in the Floacist blog:

    Jordan had not spoken to Evan since 1995/6 – but during the time of the trial, Evan and Jordan started talking again and even moved in an apartment together. Apparently (but I don’t know how true this is) the reason for this is that Evan told Jordan about his illness.

    People assume that Jordan left the country – but this isn’t true – during the trial he was holidaying in the USA – this is true because he was photographed by paparazzi. Apparently the prosecutors said that Jordan left the country to the trial judge when trying to get him to allow testimonies from the employees of Neverland regarding 1993 and Jordan Chandler. This is because the Judge would obviously say that they should get Jordan to testify instead.

    It is also believed that Mesereu and his team knew that Jordan had denied to people close to him that anything had happened to him (remember the video where Mesereu said he had witness waiting to testify to this). Moreover, it is said that Brian Oxman was fired from the team for many reasons including trying to contact Jordan Chandler and get him to testify.

    Like

  48. Incognito permalink
    June 14, 2010 10:13 pm

    @ Suzy and Lynette

    Suzy you’re probably right – but it was strange that Mesereu asked those questions. He may have tried to give the jury this impression.

    Maybe June is not that bright – because Mesereu asked her if she sued Michael to which she said no – but then he asked her if she was a plaintiff to a suit against Michael to which she said yes! I agree, she probably wanted to show that it wasn’t her idea to sue and that she only went along with it.

    I’m not trying to be rude – but she sorta seems like a goldigga. The testimony shows she obviously liked the high life. Who else would stop everything in their life and go with Michael around the world – did she not have a job? And I kno this probably sounds bitchy but have you seen David Scwartz – he’s obviously much older than her and not very easy on the eye. And Wade Robson’s mother said she ‘acted like the mistress of Neverland’ – who does that in somebody else’s home?

    But I do feel sorry for – she hadn’t spoken to her son in 11 years. It’s just a sad story all around.

    Like

  49. Lynette permalink
    June 14, 2010 10:09 pm

    I know it was just a little weird. If I was testifying I would have said my son sued Michael not Jordan Chandler sued Michael. She must have totally disconnected herself from the whole thing in her head. Was she trying to get back in Michael’s good graces? And I still want to know why they didn’t call Evan wouldn’t he have been chomping at the bit to get on the stand and make everyone believe him? That shows he knew better in some respect, because he could have volunteered to testify if he wanted. Maybe they just wanted the whole thing to remain shrouded in mystery so it would continue to hurt Michael because as long as no one KNEW the truth theycould continue with their lie.They never wanted to let him off their hook.

    Like

  50. Suzy permalink
    June 14, 2010 6:36 pm

    @ Lynette

    I noticed that answer by her also. To me it sounded as if she tried to distance herself from suing Michael….

    Like

  51. Lynette permalink
    June 14, 2010 12:13 pm

    Does anyone else find it odd that when June is asked about suing Michael Jakcosn she says it was Jordan Chandler and his family that sued Michael ? It almost sounds like she didn’t consider him her son it sounds like he was a stranger to her.

    Like

  52. Suzy permalink
    June 14, 2010 6:13 am

    @ Incognito

    I know you asked Helena, but maybe you don’t mind if I give my opinion too.

    I think it was in Aphrodite Jones’s book that usually Michael looked indifferent when listening to the testimonies, but when June was on the stand he became very attentive and stared at her all the time.

    Then there was that letter he wrote to Jordan telling him he sees a bright future for him and it ended with “tell mom I love her”. And also he showered her with gifts.

    Now, of course those who think MJ was a pedophile will interpret it as just buying the mother’s trust. And some interpret it as romantic interest in June.

    I don’t think either. Michael was like that with everybody! Generous, giving, affectionate, telling all kinds of people that he loved them. I think the reason he stared at June blamingly on court is because he trusted and liked her as a friend and she betrayed him.

    Like

  53. Incognito permalink
    June 14, 2010 1:29 am

    Hi Helena, I would like to know your thoughts on June Chandler’s cross-examination testimony.

    It was very hard to understand and just all over the place. A number of times she clearly perjured herself and was evasive with Mesereu, but Mesereu just let her carry on and speak. When other witnesses had perjured themselves, he made this very clear, but when it came to her, he didn’t say anything, he just kept asking questions. Sometimes these question seeemed irrelevant.

    I think Mesereu was trying to show that June Chandler did not believe anything was going on and thought Evan was making it up.

    I have been reading some comments about her on some forums and some people believe he was trying to imply that there was a romantic relationship between June and Michael.

    E.g:

    Q. Okay. When did Michael go to Cartier and buy you that jewelry?
    A. When we went to Las Vegas.
    Q. Was he with you when he did that?
    A. No.
    Q. Did he do it on his own?
    A. He did it with Jordie.
    Q. Okay. And did he come back and give it to you?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Now, you described that to the Los Angeles District Attorney as a love bracelet, did you not?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Is that what it was?
    A. Yes.
    Q. What is a love bracelet?
    A. It’s a bracelet that’s a gold bracelet and that’s what it’s called.
    Q. Okay. Had you ever told Michael Jackson you liked that kind of jewelry?
    A. No.
    Q. Were you surprised when he bought it for you?
    A. Yes.

    Q. And why were you in the bedroom those ten times?
    A. Because I’m Jordie’s mother. I’m allowed to go into the bedroom.
    Q. Were you dropping clothes off?
    A. Oh, I might have. I don’t recall.
    Q. Did you ever sit down and watch T.V. or anything in there?
    A. Yes.
    Q. How often did you do that?
    A. A few times.
    Q. Did you ever have food delivered to you in Michael Jackson’s bedroom?
    A. I don’t recall.

    Q. Okay. You told the prosecutor that Mr. Jackson got upset at one point about your not trusting him, right?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And he said words to you to the effect that, “We’re family,” right?
    A. Correct.
    Q. You suggested that you let Jordie sleep wherever he wants to sleep, right?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you told him, “Look, I’ve had two husbands that I can’t trust,” right?
    A. Correct.
    Q. You said, “I think you’re a wonderful person, but I can’t let my trust down,” right?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And you described Michael as saying that he was going to take care of you, right?
    A. No.
    MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, excuse me, I’m going to object as vague as to point in time of the conversation.
    MR. MESEREAU: Sure. Sure.
    Q. When was the conversation where Michael got upset because he didn’t think you trusted him?
    A. In Las Vegas in the hotel room.
    Q. Okay. You said to Michael, “I’ve had males in my life that, you know, have disappointed me. How can I have you in my life and you’re saying that you’re going to take care of us, that you’re so wonderful, everything’s going to be okay, how am I going to do that?”
    MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to object to counsel reading from the document. MR. MESEREAU: I haven’t finished the question yet, Your Honor.
    MR. SNEDDON: Well, he’s reading —
    THE COURT: Well, all right, what is the question?
    MR. MESEREAU: I was going to ask her if she made that statement.
    THE COURT: All right. You may.
    Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you make a statement to that effect?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And Michael said to you he wanted a family to just treat him like a regular person, right? A. Correct.
    Q. He said he didn’t want to be like a stranger, right?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And he asked you to trust him, right?
    A. Yeah.

    I have also read in some people’s comments that Michael Jackson’s brother said that Michael and June had a romantic relationship and also that Dave Schwartz intimated this in his divorce.

    What are yor thoughts on this?

    Like

  54. May 5, 2010 2:10 pm

    Louise, I am sorry it took me so long to answer you. There is no way I can know that name of that agent of course but here is a link to the FBI files about this particular case: http://foia.fbi.gov/jackson_michael/305b-la-239204.PDF

    And this is a link to all the 333 FBI pages on Michael Jackson: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/jackson_michael.htm

    Like

  55. Louise permalink
    April 29, 2010 9:03 pm

    Hi Helena,

    I totaly agree with your analysis of the agreement. There is another important fact said by Mesereau during the 2005 case: MJ protested against the agreement but signed because – as you wrote – he did not want another OJ trial. But also Sony, Pepsi, … who made millions of dollars because of him, pushed him to sign.

    Can you possibly quote from FBI files about the agent who went to find Jordan Chandler?

    Thanks for your seraching and thorough work

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: