Reading between the lines of Larry Feldman’s speech – THE STORY OF LEAKS part 1
All of us are so shocked by the disgraceful behavior of the so-called MJ’s “defense” attorney Carl Douglas at the Frozen in Time seminar that on a background like that Larry Feldman produces the impression of almost a benefactor to Michael Jackson.
This impression is completely wrong. The reason for it is that Larry Feldman is a top professional who is able to manipulate people’s minds in so masterful a way that you simply don’t notice it.
Carl Douglas is just an abject figure of a helpless and dishonest lawyer who effectively showed to us that with legal assistants like that Michael had absolutely no chance to win the fight in the Jordan Chandler 1993 case against a legal shark like Larry Feldman – even despite Michael’s complete innocence.
However it was LARRY FELDMAN who was the real creator of the Chandlers’ success and it is therefore important to uncover the maneuvers he made in order to win a case which the prosecution (Gil Garcetti and Tom Sneddon) could not bring even to the point of filing charges against MJ.
It is also important to understand the real story behind Larry Feldman’s polished speech in which he manages to present a totally false picture of the events while almost never telling a flat lie.
Larry Feldman is the man who expertly tells lies by speaking half-truths only. When all those bits and pieces are brought together it is their fusion which makes the story false though its separate fragments may be true.
His lies are of a very subtle nature and are far from the outrageously false ‘love letters’ by Diane Dimond which no one has ever seen, or crazy ‘blood baths’ from Maureen Orth which are completely out of MJ’s character – no, lies in Larry Feldman’s case arise just from a simple omission of facts, which is the manner no one can really find fault with – what if the man is just forgetful?
That is why the only right way to listen to Larry Feldman is to read between the lines of what he is saying and tell the rest of the story ourselves.
With so much of what could have been said but was omitted by Larry Feldman restoring the truth to its original version and size is quite a laborious task. I’ve tried to do it by introducing into the picture the facts we have already learned by now, however the end result is a kind of a review which is so long that it had to be separated into several parts. I couldn’t help it – the truth is much more detailed and colorful than Larry Feldman wants it to be.
Larry Feldman’s full speech at the Frozen in Time seminar has been broken into short statements each of which is supplemented by big pieces of information from various sources including the Santa Barbara News Archive and the LA Times which meticulously and not too objectively (for Michael) reported the 1993 and 2005 cases. Their full collection was generously presented to this blog by our reader Olga (thank you, dear!).
These quotations are absolutely indispensable for restoration of the real truth as otherwise the full story could look like a mere speculation on my part. At times however I couldn’t resist making my own comment on the very specific method of ‘telling the truth’ employed by Larry Feldman.
The first one is the story of LEAKS
Good evening, I had the privilege to represent two young boys, both who claimed they were molested by Michael Jackson. They had some similarities that, even though they were ten years apart, that’s worth pointing out, and some differences about those cases that I think are worth pointing out. Bearing in mind, they were both civil.
In one, the first case, I actually litigated that case and went through the same stuff that Judge Melville talked about, and fought about the same issues, and I’ll get into that when it’s time to talk about that. And in one case, we didn’t really litigate it because the criminal case went first. But both boys had this in common: they were thirteen years of age, they were pre-pubescent young men. Both of these boys came from broken homes. Both of these boys lived with their mothers at the time that the alleged molestations took place. Both of these boys came from homes that their mothers allowed them to spend an inordinate amount of time with Michael Jackson, alone.
I hope you are getting Larry’s main goal. The point about ‘common features’ is not a simple illustration of the fact that the cases were similar (and as such should have been handled in the same way). The actual idea is to subtly suggest that there was a ‘pattern of behavior’ on Michael’s part which is typical of those despicable people whom we won’t even name here.
Larry’s message about fatherless boys living with their mothers is a sample of the truth told in halves only. Jordan Chandler’s father Evan claimed in full earnest that he was a good father to the boy and they had been a closely-knit family until Michael Jackson split them up (this was Evan Chandler’s major complaint in the taped conversation with David Schwartz, the stepfather, if you remember).
And in Gavin Arvizo’s case the mother’s absence at the ill boy’s side is even more clear and dramatic according to an eye-witness of the events, Azja Pryor who was very close to the family at the time:
AZJA: I was present when these children were at Neverland. I spoke to these children several times a day when this was supposedly happening.
INTERVIEWER: You were present at Neverland?
AZJA: Yes I was and these children were very happy to be there.
INTERVIEWER: Tell me about your experiences with this family
AZJA: Well, when I first met the family, the accuser bragged about how Michael was his best friend and all the things that they would do and the friendship that they had, and it seemed like something that really brought a lot of joy to his life. In the entire time while he was sick and undergoing chemotherapy, I actually never even met the mom. The mom never seemed to come around until after he was better. And you know, once he was better and we started to do other things, then the mom was around all the time and I never saw his father anymore.
INTERVIEWER: So the mom was not there in the beginning, and the dad was not there in the end?
AZJA: I never met the mom for a year.
Now if this is what ‘similarities’ were like Larry Feldman should have probably mentioned the differences too – for example, that Jordan Chandler had a no-nonsense, strict but loving mother who wouldn’t let her son make a single move without her control or approval – while Gavin Arvizo’s mother is a messy, emotional and uncontrollable mental case.
Gavin’s association with Michael sprang from the ‘dying wish’ of the boy who was universally considered to be terminally ill. The boy had undergone an operation, was bald and so weak from chemotherapy that Michael had to move him around Neverland in a wheelchair. The reason why Michael lavished him with attention was an attempt (a highly successful one) to bring a ray of hope into his life – which easily explains the fact emphasized by Larry Feldman that the family allowed their son ‘to spend an inordinate time with Michael Jackson’.
The LA TIMES quoted Michael who was later very much sorry that he had allowed Gavin into his home:
“Years ago, I allowed a family to visit and spend time Neverland. Neverland is my home. I allowed this family into my home because they told me their son was ill with cancer and needed my help.” http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/31/local/me-statement31
Both of these mothers allowed their boys to sleepover at Michael Jackson’s house, in the bedroom, in the bed, that Michael Jackson slept in.
It is tiresome to have to repeat that Gavin Arvizo never slept with Michael in one bed, but it is a necessary thing to say again and again. The truth was stated by Gavin and his mother in no uncertain terms in their several interviews conducted on February 14-27, 2003 by the police and the L.A. Department of Children & Family Services who repeated in their November Memo the same year that no such thing ever happened between Michael and Gavin:
The DCFS Memorandum of November 26, 2003 says:
“The investigation by the Sensitive Case Unit concluded the allegations of neglect and sexual abuse to be unfounded both by the LAPD-Wilshire Division and the Department. The children’s mother stated that she believed the media had taken everything out of context. Mother stated that child was in stage 4 cancer and had received a year of chemotherapy in addition to having his spleen and one kidney removed. Mother stated that the entertainer was like a father to the children and a part of her family. ..
As per the sexual abuse allegations, the mother stated that her children are never left alone with the entertainer. She further stated that he son has slept in the same room as the entertainer but they did not share a bed. The entertainer would sleep on the floor.
The child (…) was interviewed by the CSW as to the allegations and he denied any form of sexual abuse. He denied that he ever slept in the same bed as the entertainer. The child (…) also denied sexual abuse. Both children expressed a fondness for the entertainer and stated they enjoyed visiting his home…
The oldest sibling (…) age 16, was also interviewed by the CSW. She stated that she had accompanied her brothers on sleepovers at the entertainer’s home and had never seen anything sexually inappropriate between her brothers and the entertainer”.
(see the Smoking Gun story: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/early-probe-cleared-michael-jackson
and our Lynette’s post complete with the document https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/dont-let-ron-zonen-and-larry-feldman-lie-to-you/)
The same was repeated by Michael Jackson to the the CBS “60 minutes”:
“I didn’t sleep in bed with the child. Even if I did it’s OK. I slept on the floor. I give the bed to the child.”
So if the boy, his mother and Michael insisted it never happened does it mean that Larry Feldman was lying when he said, “Both of these mothers allowed their boys to sleepover at Michael Jackson’s house, in the bedroom, in the bed, that Michael Jackson slept in”?
I’ve reread Larry’s statement and had to admit that technically speaking he is right – Gavin did sleep in the bed Michael Jackson slept in at that period of time, and it is only a small omission that they were never in the same bed together which distorted the whole picture.
To me it sounds more like “he slept in the bed where King Henry VIII (once) slept in” and looks an absolutely perfect way to tell a lie in a way that no one can find fault with – the separate words are correct while the overall impression is wrong, which is exactly what Larry Feldman is aiming at.
The truth of the story with those slumber parties was that Michael learned his lesson in 1993 and took special care to safeguard himself from any possible future accusations – he always had another adult present in his room if any child stayed there. However refusing the boy who was ‘terminally ill’ and damping his spirits by not letting him take the star’s bed was not customary for Michael, so he did allow Gavin to do it. Unfortunately he did …
Michael’s former guard Mike LaPerruque revealed their sleeping security arrangements to Roger Friedman who reported on March 12, 2004 the following http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114041,00.html:
“Yesterday I talked to Mike LaPerruque, a retired sergeant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who remains on reserve after a 22-year active career.
LaPerruque says he worked for Jackson from August 2001 until June 2003.
– I was with him 24/7,” LaPerruque was able to tell me. “I had a key to his room at all times, and I was never told not to use it.”
– Did you ever walk into Michael Jackson’s bedroom and see him in bed with a child other than one of his own?
– “No! Of course not,” said LaPerruque.
He called the mother of Jackson’s 13-year-old accuser “the type of woman who knew how to manipulate people.”
When LaPerruque heard the newsbreak last November 17 about the Neverland raid and Jackson’s latest problems, he says his first thought was, “Poor guy. He can’t catch a break. He had a new album coming out and a lot of stuff happening.”
Under oath he will testify that he’s had experience with child molesters in his 22 years as a cop, and that Jackson does not fit the profile.
He said he has two kids, and he would feel comfortable with either one of them — a boy and a girl — spending time with Jackson.
However the sleep-in-one-bed story made up by Larry Feldman does not end there. When the DCFS Memorandum stating the Arvizos’ earlier statements about never sleeping in one bed surfaced in the press, Larry Feldman did his utmost to eradicate this information altogether and on completely legal grounds too.
Two weeks after the leak he wrote a letter of complaint that it had broken the law and ‘violated privacy rights’ and made an official claim on the DCFS claiming damages on behalf of the Arvizos who by then had already changed their story.
Just imagine that the attempt could have been successful, the information hushed up and none of us could have ever learned the truth! The text of the claim says (Larry Feldman speaks of himself in the 3d person):
“These investigations are confidential and the law prohibits them from disclosing information regarding these investigations to the public.
By a letter dated December 11, 2003, Larry R. Feldman, Claimant’s counsel, protested this improper release of the November 26, 2003 memorandum and requested that the Department conduct an immediate investigation into this illegal and improper disclosure.
Although the Department claimed that it was conducting such an investigation, it has not provided any information to Claimants regarding such a purported investigation, nor has the Department had the human decency to apologize to the Claimants for the Department’s total failure to maintain their privacy as required by law.
The improper release of information regarding Claimants by the Department has violated the privacy rights of Claimants thereby injuring and damaging Claimants in an amount to be established.”
(For the full text see the documents posted by our Lynette: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/dont-let-ron-zonen-and-larry-feldman-lie-to-you/)
I fully agree that law should be respected and would totally share Larry Feldman’s righteous anger with those who break it if it weren’t for one minor thing only – some eleven months prior to that, in February the same year (2003), his highly esteemed law corporation ALSO leaked a top confidential document which very much ‘violated the privacy rights’ of EVERYONE mentioned there and none of his own lawyers ever had ‘the human decency to apologize’ for this leak EITHER.
And that case was a much graver infringement – besides heavily injuring the feelings of those indicated in the document it also broke the confidentiality agreement of 1994 one of the guarantors of which was no other but lawyer LARRY FELDMAN…
Yesss, I am talking about a certain ‘declaration’, made by a certain “J.” Chandler ten years earlier, in December 1993, typed on the paper of a certain law corporation called “Fogel, Feldman, Ostrov, Ringler” of California, which is signed by someone who is supposed to be Jordan (though the signature looks suspiciously adult to me and doesn’t contain the verification by any of the lawyers).
The absence of any verification should be reason enough for any sensible person to suspect the document to be a fake, however I learned from lawyer Lisa G., that the lenient law of California does allow declarations (not depositions!) to be signed by a declarant with no verification from the lawyer in whose presence it is made.
The lawyer just takes his company’s paper, types the summary of the declarant’s story, has it signed by him (or somebody else) in the absence of the defendant’s lawyers and here you are – the declaration is ready.
This of course offers ample opportunity for fraud, and there is no way for us to know whether the document is true except Larry Feldman’s word for it.
However Larry Feldman kept complete silence when his office leaked that document in February 2003 and this leaves us with a nice alternative of EITHER the document being a fake and Larry keeping silent as he is unwilling to have anything to do with it, OR the paper being real and Larry keeping silent as he is breaking law and all human decency rules (by making it known to the public AFTER the confidentiality agreement he is a guarantor to).
Whatever is the case with the authenticity of that paper the declaration was leaked from Larry Feldman’s office and he never shed a tear about it breaking law, ‘violating privacy rights’ and infringing the confidentiality agreement which effectively stated that it was lifting all the charges (except neglect) prior to it. The agreement specifically stipulates that point:http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html
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…hereby irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and forever discharge the Jackson Releasees, including Jackson, … from any and all charges, complaints… including, without limitation, all claims which were alleged or could have been alleged in the Action and the Claims;
(an identical clause is stipulated for Jackson)
Special mention is made there of the fact that the agreement is no admission of any guilt:
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.
Giving Larry Feldman the benefit of the doubt I am ready to suppose that the ‘declaration’ was in possession of the police too and it could have been them who leaked the document – however they had plenty of their own interviews with Jordan and could have leaked theirs if they wanted to…
But even if it was their doing it was Larry Feldman’s direct responsibility and even duty to make a thunderous statement in the press that such a document was a gross infringement of the agreement ‘violating the privacy rights’ and injuring all those to whom the declaration referred to, including Jordan Chandler in the first place.
Didn’t Larry Feldman express grave concern for Jordan’s well-being in his speech at the seminar? Didn’t he justify the desire to avoid a court trial by the need to take care of the boy’s feelings fiirst and foremost? Then why did he leak the declaration ten years after the events – when the boy’s ‘wounds’ (if there were any) were supposed to have already long ‘healed’?
Wasn’t it LARRY FELDMAN’s duty to safeguard Jordan Chandler’s rights under the confidentiality agreement and why did it have to be MICHAEL JACKSON who had to remind him of his duties?
The Smoking Gun says about Michael’s statement following the release of the declaration:
“After TSG first published the below document on February 6, 2003, Jackson issued a statement noting that he “has respected the obligation of confidentiality imposed on all the parties to the prior proceedings, yet someone has chosen to violate that confidentiality” and use the boy’s statements to “further sully” the star’s character.
He added that, “it should be remembered that, at the time, the confidentiality obligation was a mutual one, designed as much to protect the teenage boy as the singer himself”.
Jackson concluded, “Whoever is now leaking this material is showing as much disregard for the boy as their determination to attack Michael.”
Isn’t it truly surprising to see Larry Feldman complaining about the leak of what the Arvizos really said to the Department of Children’s and Family services and never saying a word about the leak of a suspicious document from his office though it violated the agreement he himself signed and was a warrantor to?
Shouldn’t he have immediately disclaimed that declaration as soon as it was published? And shouldn’t he have been asked this question at the Frozen in Time lawyers seminar?
Generally lawyers are supposed to act for their clients only while they are retained by them. And when the legal process is over they are not supposed to go on working against their former opponents. If they do so – and ten years after the settlement too – it means they have an agenda.
But what is even more surprising and even astonishing is that the leak was made on exactly the same day when Bashir’s film was aired!
- Did you notice the DATE given by the Smoking Gun?
- You know, the Smoking Gun will soon turn into my favorite source of information – besides once making a blunder over the color of the blotch supposedly seen by Jordan Chandler on Michael’s genitalia (which fully contradicted the later photos and Tom Sneddon’s vague description – see the story here ) now the Smoking gun tells us that Jordan’s declaration was first published by TSG on February 6, 2003 which is the official day of releasing Bashir’s film in the US!
What the hell does this coincidence mean in the Michael Jackson mystery smear campaign? Does it mean that:
- it wasn’t only Bashir who was standing behind the new wave of allegations against Michael Jackson and that there were other big people involved in this really big plan?
- by releasing J.Chandler’s “declaration” made 10 years earlier on the same day as the film someone wanted to enhance the effect of it?
- someone was prompting the right words to the possible new accuser though he was not yet there?
- Larry Feldman not only represented the plaintiff Chandler’s interests when he was retained by him but also took part in the defamation campaign against the former defendant even after the case had been settled?
- he was ready to risk the reputation of a guarantor of the confidentiality agreement in order to get rid of his former opponent?
- In short does it mean that Larry Feldman also had an agenda same as prosecutor Tom Sneddon?
All of the above deserves much more attention on our part but we have to go with Larry Feldman’s speech which is still polished, clean and tidy as if none of all this dirt has ever taken place. Larry Feldman goes on with sinister hints at a certain pattern of MJ’s behavior which is masquerading as an innocent talk about ‘similarities’ in Jordan and Gavin cases:
Both of these parents, mothers at least, received things of value from Michael Jackson during the time that they had this relationship with Michael Jackson.
Well, June Chandler did receive some jewelry and ‘a love bracelet’ which Michael gave to her for some reason known to only the two of them, however Janet Arvizo had from him only money for her immediate needs for shopping in town like waxing her legs and the like.
If this way of spending money on Michael’s part is something meaningful to Larry Feldman let me remind him that Michael Jackson gave ‘things of value’ not only to these two women but to the whole world besides them – he presented a Mustang car to Ryan White, the boy ill with AIDS, and paid $100,000 for the operation of a Hungarian child whose liver was replaced, he gave away to others all the proceeds from his Victory tour and his much bigger proceeds reaching $150 mln. from his Dangerous tour to the Heal the World Foundation which was to spend the money on numerous charity, educational and relief projects. This is not to mention small things like giving away the $1.5 million compensation from Pepsi to the Burn Center for Children, 43 tons of medication, blankets, and winter clothes sent to Sarajevo and donating to charity the 1 million pounds for the exclusive photos of his son Prince, made by the British magazine “OK!”
Actually the list of those who received gifts and money support from Michael Jackson is so long that I will never be able to finish this post about Larry Feldman’s speech, and we do need to get back to the old man again….
(to be continued)