Ray Chandler’s lies and subpoena as a way to answer for them
ENTER RAY CHANDLER
May 4, 2010
After having a look at the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT between the Chandlers and Michael Jackson it is interesting to see how well it was observed by both parties.
(for the text of it please go to https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/mjagreement/)
As soon as the Chandlers agreed not to ruin Michael’s life any further (the grace which cost Michael or his insurance company some $15 mln.) Evan Chandler and his brother Ray Chandler immediately started looking for an opportunity to break this agreement. As Ray considered he was not bound by it he began negotiations about publishing his version of Jordan’s saga.
I wonder why Ray was not bound by the agreement. Isn’t it strange that Michael’s lawyers included there almost everyone in sight but overlooked Evan’s immediate kin – his brother Ray? The brother, however, could still be regarded as a ‘representative’ of the family, so who knows how the arbitration court would have looked upon the case if it ever came to a dispute?
You will remember that the sum of the agreement was to be paid in full in any case – even if the contract was breached – but there was still a danger that Michael could take some money back if the arbitration court ruled in his favor. However even despite a possible claim from Michael’s side the Chandlers’ desire to break the agreement was simply too strong to overcome, so here they go …
The story Ray Chandler told various publishers clearly points to Evan Chandler being part of the project. An American editor and book publisher Judith Regan says she was approached by Ray Chandler within days of the family settling the case:
- “I received a call from Jordan’s uncle. He wanted to do a book in which he would describe in detail the allegation of molestation against Michael Jackson. So I asked him how he proposed to do this given the fact that the Chandlers had actually signed a confidentiality agreement and taken $20mln. ($15,3 mln. to be exact). And he said that Jordan’s father had given him all the information he needed for the book and he believed he was outside the bounds of the Confidentiality agreement because he would be the author. At the time I had the impression that the Chandlers were brazen opportunists and I found the entire proposal by the uncle to be distasteful. They enter a Confidentiality agreement and before the ink is even dry they are shopping a deal that violates this agreement?”
Let me post the tape again in case someone missed it:
Indeed, first they sign an agreement and snatch the money, and the next moment they break it without even batting an eyelid? Well, whatever each of us thinks of the reasons for signing the agreement, such a gross violation of the obligations stated there and the easy manner in which it was done speaks volumes about Evan Chandler’s beautiful character, decent behavior and overall integrity, doesn’t it?
One of the steps the Chandlers took was to refute Mary Fischer’s article “Was Michael Framed?” which was originally published by the GQ Magazine in October 1994. It was published on a haters’ site where they referred to it as a “persuasive argument that M. Fischer’s article is at best extremely sloppy and at worst intentionally false”.
The author of the anti-Fischer article is most probably Ray Chandler as the person who wrote it often refers to the book “All that glitters” as his doing.
However this is a supposition only as the exact name of the author, the source where the article comes from and the date on which it was published are enveloped in some mystery. The October 1994 date in the headline actually refers to Mary Fischer’s article and is evidently put there on purpose to direct readers from the real article by Mary Fischer to a fake one by Ray Chandler which he calls her ‘rebuttal’.
So giving the same title and date to the article is just a small marketing trick on the part of the author which is meant to confuse the readers – they look for one thing and get another and instead of Mary’s article go to something totally the opposite. And it is this person who employs such dirty tricks who intends to disprove Mary Fischer’s article as intentionally false? Well, well…
The so-called rebuttal was of course written much later as the author refers there to the book “All that glitters” which was published in September 2004 only. He also falsely claims that the same month Mary Fischer had “a change of heart” and asked for her article to be removed.
Well, firstly, she did not have a “change of heart” as only recently she allowed her article to be reprinted at AboveTopSecret.com (I saw her consent with my own eyes there), and secondly, it would be nice if the author of the article stopped telling lies and doing dirty tricks to draw attention to his story. Or does he think that is it through lies that the truth should be told?
Whatever the case let us see what this somewhat mysterious and cunning guy has to say. His article is a well-structured mass of details where important issues (Jason Francia) and unimportant (the number of scripts Evan Chandler wrote) ones are mixed together to create the general impression of a serious research made with not a single detail overlooked or non-analyzed.
The main idea of the article is to try and prove that it was no extortion and replace it by the idea that the parties were involved in negotiations usual for all out-of-court settlements.
While raking through the 22 pages of the innumerable and unnecessary details I searched for an answer to a question which is really crucial to the matter and will settle it once and for all – WHO WAS THE FIRST TO SUGGEST THE FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT?
If it was Michael who offered the money, it could give some grounds for thinking that he was indeed ‘buying the Chandlers’ silence’, but if it were the Chandlers who were the first to demand it, this would point into a totally different direction …
The matter was not quite clear especially since the article vaguely implied that it was “Pellicano who suggested the movie deals”. So I really did not expect to find an answer to my question in this particular article and was pleasantly surprised when I did – which is all the more precious as this is firsthand information coming from the original source (Ray or probably Evan Chandler himself).
After some 12 pages of dwelling on this and that the author finally asks Mary Fischer in a somewhat defiant manner “so when did the extortion occur?” and answers the question himself a couple of paragraphs further: “after the August 4, 1993 Westwood Marquis meeting between Evan, Jordan, Michael and Pellicano ended with no resolution, Pellicano and Rothman met at Rothman’s office later that day, at which point Rothman made a demand for $20 million”.
Rothman made a DEMAND for $20 million”!
So it was Rothman! And so it was consequently Evan Chandler who raised the question of money! And even ‘demanded’ it as the author puts it. Thank God Michael didn’t have anything to do with it…
However the author evidently didn’t notice what he has just said and is trying to prove the point that the whole thing was nothing but negotiations:
- “Pellicano did not reject the $20 million demand outright. He stated he would talk to his client and get back to Rothman. Pellicano’s secretly recorded tape of Rothman reveals that Pellicano made a counteroffer of $1 million on August 9, which was rejected by Evan. To punish Evan for arguing with him, Pellicano came back with a $350,000 offer on August 13. On August 17, as evidenced by Pellicano’s recording, the two men were still negotiating”.
- ”The negotiations took over a period of two weeks and were cited by authorities as just one of the reasons they concluded that no extortion had occurred. Another reason was that the police did not hear any words of extortion on the two recordings offered by the Jackson camp. Neither did the press.”
Now are they serious about that? What a laughable thing to say! The police did not hear the exact words of extortion and it hindered them from seeing the true nature of Evan Chandler’s project? I didn’t know that the police were so naïve and needed someone else to prompt them how to put two and two together…
The author goes on:
- “According to the official statement made by the LAPD, the evidence revealed that the parties were involved in legitimate negotiations to settle legal claims out of court – something the law encourages, the police spokesman said”.
I agree that such negotiations may sometimes be legitimate and the law might even encourage things like that – for example, if the party accused of any wrongdoing offers money of his own free will, but having his arms twisted the way it was done in this particular case adds a totally different dimension to the whole story! No wonder that the author devoted only half a page of his 22 page narration to this crucial but uncomfortable issue – he clearly feels uneasy about it.
The fact that Michael did not offer any money himself, was totally against any payment to the Chandlers and didn’t settle then – when it was still possible to avoid all the horror of a criminal investigation and harassment from the press – is proof enough he did not feel guilty of any wrongdoing and was facing the future with a hope to get fair treatment and some justice even if it came to criminal proceedings against him.
What else is interesting about the Chandler article?
- It tells and repeats at least twice an outrageous lie that the boy gave an “accurate description of the distinctive marks on Michael’s genitals” though the author knows it for sure both in 1994, 2005 or whatever the year of the article is that it is a complete lie and that the description and photos were as similar and ‘matching’ as black and white are.
- The author also alleges there was child pornography found in Jackson’s home which is a completely ridiculous thing to say – if it had been that way this fact alone would have been enough to indict Michael, try him and put him into jail (without any Chandler’s accusations) as keeping child pornography is a criminal offence in itself.
- The article also says that one of the bodyguards alleged that Michael had ordered him to destroy a picture of a naked young boy that was taped to the mirror in his private bathroom. I incidentally happen to know that name of that body guard – it was Leroy Thomas who told this lie and even recklessly submitted himself to a polygraph test to prove it. In her book “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” Lisa Campbell says that “the results showed he was truthful on some questions but he failed other questions, most notably that Michael had asked him to destroy a photo of a nude boy” (which was not there in the first place, not to mention the need to destroy it).
- The author also refutes the sodium amytal story which says that the truth was extracted from Jordan together with his tooth. This refutation was however denied again by the author himself who gave a completely different account of the same circumstances in his “All that glitters” book. There he says that the boy was put to sleep to have his tooth pulled out and the first question his father asked him was about Jackson’s wrongdoing to him and it was the first time he said “yes”.
This boring enumeration can go on – it is just the usual tedious mixture of lies and half-lies sprinkled with some truth to be taken by a spoonful at night by an average tabloid reader…
The ending of the story is extremely impressive though – see how hypocrisy and falsehood are dripping from every word of the author’s thunderous conclusion:
- “Time and time again history has taught us that a free and unfettered press is essential for a democratic society to thrive. So self-evident was this to our Founding Fathers that they protected the press in the very first amendment to the Constitution.
- Since that time, particularly in recent years, The Supreme Court has continued to safeguard the media’s vital role by awarding reporters increasing protection for refusing to reveal sources, and increasing immunity from liability for reporting what they believed to be the truth, even it turned out to be false and defamatory”.
Well, doesn’t it look like the author is practically warning us that what we have just read in his article may turn out to be “false and defamatory’ and there will be no one to blame for it as this right is safeguarded by the Supreme Court?
The article goes on to dwell on the responsibility to report the truth, but since it does not have any bearing on this particular author we shall just leave it at that.
Here is a link to the article (not recommended):
Our contributor David agrees that it is Ray Chandler who stands behind the above article. Here is his analysis:
“… though the author isn’t listed, I believe it was Ray Chandler. We have to “rebut” his rebuttal in order to stand behind our research! So I’ll try my best to do that.
I included an excerpt that talks about the use of sodium amytal. This is the most important piece of information to exonerating MJ from those charges. MJ haters love to use Jordie’s declaration as irrefutable “proof” that MJ is guilty, so we have to make sure that we can definitely prove that sodium amytal was used. Even though OBVIOUSLY we can never prove with 100% accuracy that it was used (only Jordie and Dr. Torbiner could do that), the fact that Jordie didn’t get the description correct speaks volumes, and eradicates his “declaration” found on the Smoking Gun.
Ray uses the same flawed logic that Diane Dimond used in her book: because Dr. Torbiner didn’t file the correct paperwork, then he couldn’t have used it. Also, because there is “no demand” for sodium amytal on the street, he couldn’t have possibly have obtained it illegally. If it’s possible for Dr. Torbiner to get those other drugs and illegally use them for non-dental purposes (which caused UCLA to “ask him to leave” his role as assistant professor), then it’s certainly within the realm of possibility for him to get sodium amytal without the DEA’s knowledge. Maybe he asked another sleazy doctor to obtain it for him?
Now, Ray did bring up a good point, which is something that I alluded to in a previous email. Why would either Evan or Dr. Torbiner admit or even imply that sodium amytal was used? My only theory is that somehow that reporter (whose name is Henry Levin) found out through a source close to Evan, and then he ambushed Evan with the question, catching him off guard. After seeing the report, Mary Fisher went to Dr. Torbiner, and because it was almost a year later he probably had a fuzzy memory about the incident (because he makes so many “house calls” to his patients, I guess), which is why he said “If I did use it, it was for dental purposes”. I don’t know Raven, that’s just my spin on it!! Ray also questions when or if Henry Levin even interviewed Evan, which is what I’ve wondered about as well due to the confidentiality agreement being signed in January 1994.
Next, Ray goes on to imply that since the media didn’t report this “bombshell” evidence that would help exonerate MJ, then it must not be true. But since when does the media report ANYTHING that would exonerate MJ? As for his assertion that Evan & Dr. Torbiner couldn’t have implanted those memories because they had no training, well, maybe someone else did over a period of several days or weeks, or maybe they really DID have some type of training. Remember, according to Dr. Resnick, just merely asking questions in a non-neutral way (i.e. leading questions) could implant those memories. And Evan said that he had people “in certain positions” that were waiting for his “call”, so maybe he had some assistance? Ray furthers implies that there’s no way that those memories could have been implanted because Jordie fooled so many police, therapists, etc. But the whole point of implanting false memories is to get the victim to believe they’re true, and subsequently everyone else will believe them too! Look at those other cases where people were hypnotized with sodium amytal or other methods, and put their “perpetrators” arrested and even jailed!!
Ray then uses Pellicano’s description of Jordie at their meeting to say that Jordie couldn’t have been brainwashed. But remember, Evan told Jordie that he would never tell anyone, so Jordie’s look could have been embarrassment that Evan was threatening MJ with those allegations, not that they weren’t true. Even though he was brainwashed, he still believed that Evan would keep the allegations secret.
Lastly, Ray goes on to peddle the same lie that Sneddon, Dimond, Orth, and so many people in the media have said for years: Jordie’s description matched!!! What absolutely baffles me when people say this, is that they never explain why MJ wasn’t arrested!! The whole point of that strip search was to determine if there was a match, which would have been the probable cause needed to arrest him! They claim Jordie’s description of the vitiligo blotches match, but they always IGNORE the most defining characteristic of any man’s penis: MJ WAS NOT CIRCUMCISED!!!
At the end of the excerpt, I included a footnote about Dr. Torbiner refusing to acknowledge what he did or didn’t say to Fischer, citing doctor-patient privilege. I’m sure if Fischer lied about what she claims that Dr. Torbiner said to her, he would have taken legal action shortly after the article was released in 1994. His silence is a tacit acknowledge of his honesty, in my opinion!
Well, I included a link to the entire rebuttal. I only wanted to stick to the most important topic, but you’re free to look at it and see if there’s anything else you want to rebut. No matter what Ray, Orth, Dimond, or anyone else says, us MJ fans have these facts on our side that haters need to address before they call MJ guilty:
1. The Chandlers acknowledged themselves that had MJ paid the $20 million in August 1993, they wouldn’t have notified authorities of Jordie’s “molestation”. (ATG page 128)
2. Jordie’s description DID NOT MATCH. Period.
3. MJ’s insurance carrier negotiated and paid the $20 million dollar settlement without his approval, and the agreement did not prevent the Chandlers from testifying in criminal court. And there’s no guarantee that MJ would have been indicted even if they cooperated with authorities.
4. In July 2009, Judith Regan acknowledged that Ray Chandler proposed to her a book deal telling “their side of the story” BEFORE the confidentiality agreement was signed, and she described them as “brazen opportunists”. And Evan also assisted Victor Guiterrez in writing “MJ Was My Lover”!
5. Jordie legally emancipated himself sometime in 1994, which is very suspicious. He got back in contact with Evan sometime in 2005, and Evan almost murdered him in August 2005.
6. In 1996, Evan sued MJ, Lisa Marie Presley, ABC News, & Sony for $60 million dollars, and the right to record a rebuttal album called “EVAN-story”. He didn’t want the media attention from testifying in court against MJ, but wanted to record a freakin’ album? Are you serious?
7. Jordie, Evan, and Ray refused to testify against MJ in court, and June’s testimony was full of lies. She claimed that she had no knowledge of Dave Schwartz being $5 million in debt, when Ray said that not only did she know, but she asked MJ to loan them $4 million. She also said she didn’t sue MJ, when her name is all over that lawsuit.
8. Jordie told the FBI in 2004 that he would take legal action against Sneddon if he was subpoenaed. Why was her so scared of being cross-examined? Was it because of the witnesses that Mesereau had to testify against him?”
Ray Chandler subpoenaed by the Defense?
June 23, 2010
There has been some discussion here of Ray Chandler’s “All that glitters” book. The author (whoever he is – Ray or Evan Chandler) claims that the book is based on ‘authentic’ documents. This claim was taken advantage of by Michael Jackson’s defense team who subpoenaed Ray Chandler to testify in court as a ‘custodian of documents”. Here is a marvellous article about it from mjeol.com:
Ray Chandler Subpoenaed by the Defense?
MJEOL Bullet #205 (shortened)
30 September 2004
It looks like Ray Chandler’s (Charmatz) mouth may have written a check that his proverbial ass can’t cash. Appearing on Crier Live yesterday (Sept 29 2004), tabloid reporter Diane Dimond says that the 1993 accuser’s uncle, Ray Chandler, has been subpoenaed by the defense as a “custodian of documents”.
She insinuated that he is being “intimidated” by the defense. Observers of the “case” say that Chandler has inserted himself into this “case” by doubtlessly trying to taint the jury pool and it has totally backfired on him.
The tabloid reporter claims that Chandler told her he’s being “intimidated” because, he says, that’s what happened in 1993. This is preposterous. In his zeal to trash Jackson, he has inserted himself into this situation. He has allegedly credible, documented info—if the documents aren’t forgeries—directly regarding the 1993 investigation.
He has also made numerous statements, most of which couldn’t possibly be true, to the public about that investigation as well. He claimed that police found commercial produced child pornography at Jackson’s ranch in 1993. This is a complete lie because possession of child pornography is a FEDERAL offense. And had this have been true, Jackson would have been charged with a crime in federal court 11 years ago. There are other examples of ridiculous claims as well.
But now Chandler is whining and playing the victim because he has been called to the floor as a result of such statements. Cue the violins!
It’s quite clear that ‘Uncle Ray’ could have only gotten certain information and documents related to the 1993 investigation from a very small number of places. Those documents are simply the unchallenged, un-cross-examined, unfounded allegation that initially started the ’93 investigation.
Prosecutors only seem to want to invoke the 1993 investigation when it’s convenient to them. They actually alleged in court during one of the pretrial hearings that they weren’t sure if they were going to use the ’93 investigation. And called it “irrelevant” when defense attorneys asked the judge to force prosecutors to hand-over discovery (information) from the ’93 investigation! We learned from court documents that the defense is hot on the prosecution’s tail in trying to get them to hand-over documents from the ’93 investigation every since Mark Geragos was Jackson’s attorney.
His attorneys say that the information from 1993 is “necessary to preserve Mr. Jackson’s right to a fair trial.” Now, remember, this is the defense talking. Thus, they either have information themselves or knowledge of the existence of material that something was discovered during the 1993 investigation that “will likely” be exculpatory to Jackson. What is also astonishing is the admission that law enforcement found information which indicates the 93 allegation was not true.
From the defense’s motion: “Mr. Jackson’s right to receive exculpatory information from the prosecution also requires production of materials from the prior investigation”.
Ray Chandler has specific knowledge and documents about the ’93 investigation which definitely should be challenged in court. His information, and that big mouth of his, makes him a REAL witness in this ‘case’ and not an ‘impeaching’ witness as prosecutors have disingenuously tried to claim with other people around this case.
What has always been a problem with the 1993 gang is that NEITHER one of them have ever actually come to court to testify to any of the things they have been saying—either directly or through ‘sources’—in a court of law where their shady stories can be challenged.
Chandler has had it very easy from the media because everyone who has interviewed him, from the Today Show to Diane Dimond, have absolutely NOT asked him any hard questions about some of the outrageous claims he has made in his book or in previous interviews. On second thought, Geraldo Rivera (Fox) got to ask one zinger of a question about whether or not the 1993 accuser’s father “pimped” the accuser’s allegation for money. We didn’t get a straight answer from Chandler because he claimed his audio wasn’t working properly.
One of the issues which may be addressed concern the documents Chandler cites in his book and posted on his website. Questions may be raised about the origin of these documents and who gave them to Chandler. Did he get them from Evan Chandler, the ’93 accuser’s father? If so, can E. Chandler be sued for breaking the confidentiality agreement? Did he get the documents from leaks in the prosecution’s office or the sheriff’s department? If so, who? And what sanctions can be sought as a result? ETC.
Another issue revolves around the authenticity of at least some of the memos cited by Chandler. In MJEOL Bullet #197, Geraldine Hughes’s response to Chandler’s book was discussed. Hughes was a sole legal secretary to Barry Rothman, the ’93 accuser’s first attorney. Hughes asserts that several of the documents appearing on Chandler’s website seem to have forged signatures at the bottom. The documents show her initials, gh, at the bottom as the typists but she says she never typed some of them. She also reveals that her then-boss’s signature doesn’t even match from document to document:
Geraldine Hughs: “When I review the documents that he has on his website, I am convinced that several of the documents, even though they bear my initials as the typist, I did not type that particular document. Several of these documents have been manufactured and are not even bearing the correct signature of my attorney Barry Rothman”.
As a matter of fact, one of the documents has no signature at the bottom at all. These types of documents, again, had to be given to Chandler for the specific purpose of either writing his book to cash-in on the latest news or to try to taint the jury pool because more than one source has said he probably wasn’t privy to any of this information during the ’93 investigation.
Now the defense wants a chance to ask Chandler some highly important questions, and he’s trying to wrap himself up in this ‘victim’ nonsense.
* * *
After reading this true masterpiece of an article from the Mjeol website I searched the internet for information whether Ray Chandler did give his testimony at the 2005 trial or not – but couldn’t find a single scrap of it … This did not discourage me from making my own conclusions though. Correct me if I’m wrong:
That simple and easy to prove?
1) Ray Chandler SAYS his accusations of Michael Jackson are based on ‘authentic’ documents. Right?
2) Michael’s DEFENSE team (just think of this paradox!) subpoenaes him to testify in 2005 as a ‘custodian of those documents’. Right?
3) If not defense, then PROSECUTION should be summoning such a key witness to state his case in court. Right?
4) If they didn’t insist on his testimony they must have known there was something FISHY about his evidence. They probably insisted on it though (?).
5) If Ray Chandler HAD appeared in court as a custodian of priceless documents the mere fact of it would have been blasted all over the media. It wouldn’t be so hush-hush now and we wouldn’t have to check each piece of the 2005 court transcripts in search for his name. Right?
6) If there had been no hue and cry in the media over Ray Chandler’s evidence it means he NEVER testified in court. And never proved his documents to be really authentic. Right?
7) NOTHING prevented him from disclosing his documents in court except the fact that they were false and fabricated. If the family refrained from using them in the 1993 case (though they could have) it was Ray Chandler’s last chance to shine and get the ‘culprit’ finally nailed down in the year 2005. Right?
8) 8) The fear of Michael’s fans could be absolutely no pretext for his not showing up in court as publishing lies about Michael in a BOOK is no less dangerous than telling the same lies in COURT. Right?
9) So we don’t even have to read the ‘Redemption’ book to see that Ray Chandler is a LIAR and has NO incriminating documents against Michael, do we?
10) And we didn’t even move our little finger to make sure that Ray Chandler’s “All that glitters” is a SCAM?
Am I delusional or is it really THAT easy and simple to prove?
Ray Chandler’s incredible cynicism
August 8, 2010
Now that you know the outcome of Ray Chandler subpoena I suggest having a closer look at the documents unsealed by the Superior Court of California concerning this matter: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/ctdocs.php (type Ray Chandler in the “search” section and you get them).
The short of the previous post about Ray Chandler subpoena:
Ray Chandler was summoned by the Defense as a ‘custodian of documents’ to prove their authenticity in court but the mere idea of it horrified him so much that he used every possible and impossible pretext to avoid the procedure.
In fact the terror of it was so big that not only did Ray Chandler refuse to appear in court but he also claimed he was covered by the Protective Order which gave the right to Michael Jackson’s witnesses not to disclose to anyone that they had been supboenaed at all. Yes, the right he did have, but the cynicism of this decision is incredible.
I wondered what this Protective Order was all about. Though its exact reason is still unknown to me we can nevertheless get some idea of it from the very text of the document. It will also be correct to start our minute study of the Superior Court documents with this paper as it is dated July 9, 2004 and chronologically comes first in the succession of documents preceding Ray Chandler subpoena (see pages 27-28 of the 70-page long Ray Chandler’s Motion to Quash the subpoena):
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara
The People of the state of California, (Plaintiff) vs. Michael Jackson, (Defendant)
Case No. 1133603
Protective Order regarding Defendant’s Subpoenas Duces Tecum
Good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the clerk of the court permit Defendant Michael Jackson, by and through his counsel, to subpoena materials without disclosing the nature of the subpoena, the person or items sought by the subpoena, or the response to the subpoena and any materials returned therewith.
It is further ordered, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, that:
- The clerk of the court shall segregate and keep confidential and not disclose to the People any materials pertaining to the subpoena, including returns, documents, and other materials returned in response to said subpoena.
- The clerk of the court shall permit Counsel for the defendant to subpoena materials to the court on days and times at which the case itself is not on calendar for other purposes.
- Persons or entities subpoenaed by the defendant shall not disclose directly or indirectly to the People the fact that they have been subpoenaed or the nature of the subpoena.
- Any appearance, objection, compliance, or other communication by a party subpoenaed by the defendant shall be filed under seal.
- Any hearings involving the materials pertaining to the subpoena, including returns, documents and other materials returned in response to the subpoena regarding compliance, privacy or other issues shall be held in camera.
- This order does not affect the right of any party whose records are subpoenaed to assert any applicable claims of privilege.
- Subject to the resolution of any issues of privilege that may be asserted, the clerk of the court shall permit counsel for the defendant to inspect and copy the subpoenaed materials.
- A copy of this order shall be served with each subpoena to which it pertains.
Dated July 09 2004 Rodnye S.Melville, Judge of the Superior Court
I don’t know what you think of this document, but my impression of it is rather painful. Its last point says it all – it will be served with each subpoena, so that the subpoenaed person will immediately know (right there on the spot) that his privacy will be protected in every way independent of whether he complies with the subpoena, objects to it or just appears before the judge. No one will ever know that he or she has been subpoenaed – all the movements of a witness will be filed under seal. Even any hearings of the materials in connection with the subpoena will be made in camera (in the chambers of the judge with no onlookers or the jury attending).
The only thing which is required of a witness is to come, please come, don’t be afraid to come, don’t think of the publicity consequences of your decision – your privacy will be well taken care of, only please come…
The unwillingness of many to take part in this nightmarish process was evidently so huge that even Michael’s true friend, MaCauley Culkin, was not too enthusiastic to go to court, as he said in a interview with Larry King, and would have avoided it if his conscience had ever allowed it (see a post about his testimony in court which he did give and turned into another of his hits: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/macauley-culkin-is-michael-jacksons-true-friend/
I can imagine Ray Chandler laughing at obtaining this protective order together with the subpoena and rejoicing at the opportunities it offered. Well, he did make good use of those opportunities. It was because of this document that Ray Chandler demanded hearing of his “documents” in camera only… And it was this order which allowed him to keep everything so hush-hush that no one really knows about his refusal to testify in court even now and the information about it is practically impossible to find….
If it weren’t for just a bit of luck we would have probably never known about the outcome of Ray Chandler subpoena either. Moreover, if he hadn’t made the mistake of babbling about the subpoena himself at various TV shows we would never have known about it at all.
Thank God we do.
How much cynicism should a person have to spread lies about Jackson for years, and when subpoenaed to speak about these lies in court, first refuse to do so under various pretexts and then demand protection of his privacy under the protective order shielding the witnesses of a person he is so shamelessly slandering – only to resume his lies again immediately after escaping the subpoena?
Infinite, immeasurable, indescribable...
Ready to tell even some truth to avoid testifying!
August 6, 2010
I know that the posts about Ray Chandler subpoena are becoming too numerous but there so many documents made by Ray Chandler’s lawyers to save him from Michael Jackson’s subpoena that their number alone shows the ferocity of his opposition to it. One would think he is fighting for his life…
The documents that come next are dated October 25, 2004 and include the Motion of Third Party Raymond Chandler to Quash Subpoenas and/or in Camera Review and hisDeclaration.
I decided to have a closer look at these impressive 70 pages of legal thought: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/102504nommot3rdpty.pdf
1) Ray Chandler starts with a NOTICE OF MOTION to object to the subpoena (i.e. with declaring that it is useless to wait for his arrival to testify on November 4, 2004). See what grounds for objection he gives:
NOTICE OF MOTION
To defendant Michael Jackson and his attorneys of record:
Please TAKE NOTICE THAT on November 4, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in Department SM-2 of the Santa Barbara Superior Court, located at 312 East Cook Street, Santa Maria, California 93456, third-party RAYMOND CHANDLER will move this Court for an order quashing the subpoena duces tecum served on him on September 23, 2004.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT at the time and place specified above RAYMOND CHANDLER will request an in camera inspection by the Court of all documents requested in the subpoena.
This motion will be made on the grounds that the subpoenas do not provide adequate cause for compelling production of the documents by a third party; the documents sought by the defendant are not material to the issues involved in the case; that Raymond Chandler is a journalist protected from complying with this subpoena by the journalists’ privilege. In the alternative, Raymond Chandler proposes that this Motion be continued until such time as the Court rule on the admissibility of the 1993 child molestation allegations that are the subject of these subpoenas. Finally, Raymond Chandler asks this Court to review in camera to subpoenaed documents to determine which, if any, should be provided to Defendant for review and copying.
This motion will be based on this notice of motion, on the Declaration of Raymond Chandler, the memorandum of points and authorities served and filed herewith, on the papers and recorded on file herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing.
Dated: 10/25, 2004 Herb Fox, Attorney for Third-Party Raymond Chandler
– So while every Michael’s hater thinks it an absolute must for Ray Chandler to present his invaluable documents to court, Ray himself is of the opinion that the subpoena from the Defense is not an “adequate cause” for compelling production of those documents…. Interesting, isn’t it?
– And while Tom Sneddon is digging into Michael’s past for every speck of dust there and every art book in his library to evidence possible molestation Ray Chandler claims that the “documents” which laid the basis for his tell-all book about MJ “molesting” Jordan ‘are not material to the issues involved in the case’?
In principle, after Ray Chandler admitting a thing like that we could close the issue of his ‘All That Gitters’ book as virtually non-existent and move on to other subjects, but there are other revelations awaiting us, so let’s go on with it.
– Though we previously thought that Ray Chandler’s profession was someone in construction projects to be later turned into a lawyer (the back cover of his book says, “he earned his J.D. from the Santa Barbara College of Law and was admitted to the bar in 2001, and currently practices law in Santa Barbara”), now we suddenly find out that Ray Chandler is actually a journalist who is protected from Michael Jackson’s subpoena by the journalists’ privilege. The more we read the more fantastic it gets…
– We also learn that the only thing Ray Chandler agrees to is having his ‘documents’ reviewed in camera (in the judge’s chambers with no onlookers or jury present). Since the procedure did most probably take place before the trial but none of those invaluable documents surfaced ground it shows that even the authorities could not fish out anything worthy of their attention there. Very enlightening piece of information …
2) The Notice is followed by 10 pages of “MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES” and 4 pages of Ray Chandler’s DECLARATION both dated October 25, 2004 (the date is important as one more declaration will be made in November ).
Since the main idea of these documents is already clear to us (objecting to the subpoena) let me disregard all the numerous “irrelevance to the case” issues and legal precedents supporting the objection and focus on some fresh ideas found here. I mean the following:
1. Ray Chandler admits that he is a dedicated harasser of Michael Jackson though he says he possesses NO personal knowledge of the sexual abuse of his nephew:
- “My intent in 1993 was, and at the present time continues to be, to investigate, gather and publicly disseminate the true facts surrounding the 1993 molestation scandal and civil lawsuit brought by Jordan Chandler against Michael Jackson for sexual battery.”
- “I was not a witness to, nor do I possess personal knowledge of, the sexual molestation of my nephew, Jordan Chandler, by Michael Jackson”. (from Declaration)
2. He says he has disseminated in the internet at least 500 hateful materials about Michael Jackson. For this purpose he has set up a special site on the internet (I tried the website, but it isn’t operative).
He is tracing down all positive information about Michael Jackson on a regular basis and is exposing the role of these media outlets in covering up his “crimes”. He sees dissemination of “truth” (i.e. lies) about Michael Jackson as his mission on earth:
- “…Raymond Chandler has posted on a public Web site (www.atgbook.net) over 500 pages of documents gathered during the course of a ten-year investigation” (from Memorandum)
- From approximately September 12 to the present I have posted on the internet (free of charge for the first month) at www.atgbook.com over 500 pages of documents relating to the 1993 scandal. On that same Web site I have posted, and continue to post (free of charge) several reports authored by me concerning the role played by various media outlets in covering up the crimes committed by Michael Jackson against my nephew in 1993. The aforementioned Web site has received over 18 million “hits” (I always said Ray Chandler was a villain!)
- From 1993 until the present I have continued, and will continue, to investigate the 1993 molestation scandal for the purpose of publicly disseminating the true facts concerning that event, and to provide the public with information concerning child abuse (from Declaration).
3. He says he posted on the internet a lengthy report on Michael Jackson’s interview with Diane Sawyer conducted in 1995 (which we found on that haters’ yola site here: http://michael-jackson-facts.yolasite.com/primetime.php and immediately recognized it as Ray or Evan Chandler’s doing):
- “In 1998 I posted on the internet for public dissemination a lengthy report of statements made in an interview with Michael Jackson conducted by Diane Sawyer on the ABC News television program Prime Time Live. The purpose of my report was to expose false statements made by Mr. Jackson, Ms. Sawyer and ABC News. At that time I appeared on various television and radio programs for the same purpose.”
- “At that time I publicly stated that I was still considering publishing a book regarding the 1993 scandal. My public appearances and statements were reported in the New York Post and the Santa Barbara News Press. True and correct copies of said articles are attached collectively as Exhibit E”
4. Ray Chandler’s main exhibit offered to court is his book “All that Glitters” (exhibit A). The other valuable exhibits are cuts from newspapers: The Hot copy – 1pc ( exhibit D), The New York Post – 3 pcs, Off the Beat – 1pc (exhibit E), the Los Angeles Times – 2 pcs (exhibit F) and once again The Los Angeles Times – 2 pcs (exhibit G).
5. He says that there is nothing in those “documents” to aid Michael Jackson in his defense. Over here I fully agree – those paper cuts naturally have nothing to aid Jackson with, as the media had different intentions towards Michael, but his team was not looking for any aid from those paper cuts. Even if they did not say it openly, their aim was to see whether Ray Chandler did indeed have the ‘documents’ he repeatedly spoke about and check their authenticity in case he really happened to possess them.
However Ray Chandler subtly shifts the attention of the reader from the matter of authenticity to the matter of Michael being on a ‘fishing expedition’ for some facts to exonerate him:
- “I do not possess or have in my control any documents, recordings or other information that would tend to exonerate or otherwise aid Michael Jackson in a defense to the molestation of Jordan Chandler” (from the Declaration)
- “The request for discovery must describe the information sought and offer a plausible justification for production of the requested documents. The Defendant may not engage in a “fishing expedition”
- “…the published pages … offer not one example of a statement made by Jordan or Evan Chandler to indicate that any additional statements might be found in the requested documents that would aid in Jackson’s defense. Rather, defendant Jackson is on a fishing expedition, as is evidenced by the broad scope of the requested documents” (from the Memorandum)
6. Ray Chandler says that all the documents he is talking about are available from other sources so there is no need for him to present them to court. Some of the documents can indeed be found on that “yola” haters’ site I’ve mentioned (which can very well be Ray’s site judging by its content):
- “Raymond Chandler’s book and Web site contain letters and deposition testimony of former agents of Michael Jackson. Mr. Jackson either possesses these documents or can readily obtain them from his former agents, who can authenticate them. Chandler cannot.”
- “The book and Web site contain letters between Evan Chandler’s 1993 attorney and Mr. Jackson’s 1993 attorneys and investigators. Mr. Jackson is either in possession of these letters or can readily obtain them from his former attorney, who can authenticate them. Chandler cannot.”
- “The book and Web site contain transcriptions from an audiotape interview between Jordan Chandler and a psychiatrist. This tape can readily be obtained from Jordan Chandler (if only he came) or his former attorney, who can authenticate that tape. Chandler cannot.”
- “Documents evidencing communications between Raymond Chandler and Evan Chandler (Request No.8) can be obtained from Evan Chandler (if only he came), who may be called as percipient witness to the 1993 events. In contrast, Raymond Chander is not a percipient witness to the sexual misconduct of Michael Jackson in 1993” (which doesn’t prevent you from detailing this ‘misconduct’ in your book though).
- “If 1993 evidence is admitted, then defendant must first request the documents from others who are in possession of the documents. These are persons who, unlike Raymond Chandler, are witnesses who were involved in the 1993 matter and have already been or are likely to be subpoenaed to testify in this case” (you bastard, first you brag you have the documents, and now you say Michael should turn to others to get them?)
7. The mammoth scope of his internet and media activity gives Ray Chandler a pretext to claim that he is a “journalist”. Proving this point is the MAIN idea of his declaration:
- “What makes journalist journalism is not its format but its content” (congratulations to everybody – all of us are journalists!)
- “The critical question for deciding whether a person may invoke the journalist’s privilege is whether the information was gathered for dissemination to the public” (we do qualify)
- “Ray Chandler’s activities over the past ten years meet that standard, (ours too) and he is protected by the journalist’s privilege from disclosing non-public documents or sources” (from the Memorandum)
8. In his zeal to prove that he is a journalist Ray Chandler starts disclosing valuable personal information about his activities against Michael Jackson.
He says that it has been his intent to collect materials for an incriminating book about Jackson from the very beginning of the case and he specially moved to his brother’s place for that purpose in August 1993 (so all that Evan Chandler’s sobbing over the telephone after being ‘beaten by a journalist’s camera’ was indeed a soap opera as we suspected it all along). Now he speaks about it in a very matter-of-fact and no-nonsense way:
- “Within two days after the Michael Jackson child molestation scandal became public in August of 1993, Raymond Chandler traveled from his home in Santa Barbara to Los Angeles and began gathering information and conducting interviews with persons directly and indirectly connected with the molestation allegations. From that point in time to the present (even after the publication of the book), Raymond Chandler has continued to gather information related to the 1993 sexual battery complaint brought by Jordan Chandler against Michael Jackson..”.
- “As evidenced by the following, Raymond Chandler’s intent in 1993 was, and at the present time continues to be, to investigate, gather and publicly expose the true facts surrounding that lawsuit and scandal” (from Memorandum).
- “From late August 1993 through December of 1993, I lived in the home of Evan and Jordan Chandler in Los Angeles. During that time I talked extensively with Evan Chandler, Jordan Chandler, June Chandler (Jordan’s mother), and other persons directly and indirectly connected with the molestation allegations”.
9. Ray Chandler continues to reveal his secrets as he thinks they will never be disclosed to the general public and the documents containing them will be sealed by the court (following that protective order).
So he openly tells us of his plans to publish the book immediately after the confidentiality agreement was signed in 1994 but says he didn’t do it “at the request of his brother and his attorney” (translation: because they were afraid to be sued for breaching the agreement):
- “Within days after Jordan Chandler’s civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson was settled in January, 1994, Raymond Chandler traveled to New York City to seek a publisher for the purpose of putting the information he had gathered in the form of a non-fiction book for dissemination to the public”. (from Memorandum)
- “Shortly after Jordan Chandler’s civil molestation suit against Michael Jackson was settled in January 1994, I traveled to New York City to seek a publisher for my book. An article attesting to this fact appeared in the New York Post. A true and correct copy of said article is attached as Exhibit D. (At the request of my brother and his attorney I did not publish a book at that time)”.(from Declaration)
10. Though the Chandler brothers waited for some ten years to publish the book (its release date is September 12, 2004) Ray Chandler occasionally reminded Michael Jackson via different media channels that ‘he was considering publishing a book regarding the 1993 scandal’.
From the strange way he goes on repeating this idea even in the Memorandum and Declaration it looks like he is either reconnoitering for a possible reaction to it from the opposite side or wants to keep Michael in suspense over the danger of a slanderous book…
Could it be a form of a blackmail to keep Michael from ever opening his mouth about the Chandlers’ exoneration effort and overall allegations against him? The over-sensitive reaction of Evan Chandler to a couple of Michael’s innocent words in the Diane Sawyer interview (which took the form of a $60mln suit against him) strongly speak in favor of this possibility.
Could it be a form of a threat meant to force Michael Jackson pay them the whole sum? Well, we know now that those fears were groundless – the confidentiality agreement said that Michael Jackson’s duty to pay was absolute and the Chandlers were to receive the money in any case. The only danger was in having to return the money if the arbitration court proved that the Chandlers had talked to the media and had thus broken the agreement – which was what they were actually doing without any shame or remorse:
- “In the Fall of 1994 I wrote approximately ten letters requesting interviews with Michael Jackson’s attorneys, private investigator and other agents, in which I stated that I would soon be publishing a book regarding the 1993 scandal” (Declaration)
- “At that time  Raymond Chandler appeared on various television and radio programs to discuss his report, and he publicly stated that he was still considering publishing a book regarding the 1993 lawsuit and scandal” (Memorandum)
- “In 1998 … I publicly stated that I was still considering publishing a book regarding the 1993 scandal”
- “On September 12, 2004, I appeared on the NBC News television program Dateline at which time I publicly stated that my intent in becoming involved in 1993 was, among other things, for the purpose of publishing a book regarding the molestation scandal”. (Declaration)
11. Since Ray Chandler declared himself a journalist he now claims that he is “protected by a reporter’s privilege” so that “the burden shifts to the defendant to make the showing required to overcome the privilege”.
The burden of disproving that he is a journalist is now shifted to the defendant? No comment.
12. He also makes a lot of fuss over the fact that the day before signing the confidentiality agreement Michael Jackson withdrew his claim of extortion (same as the Chandlers withdrew their claim of molestation) and this for some reason proves that Evan Chandler was no extortioner:
- “As to Evan Chandler, on January 24, 1994, Michael Jackson publicly withdrew his claim that Evan Chandler attempted to extort from him in 1993 (Exhibit G).
13. In conclusion Raymond Chandler promises to produce his valuable ‘documents’ to the court for in camera review. As this is exactly what all haters are dribbling over let’s see what these documents look like:
- “Notwithstanding this Motion to Quash and the Objections to Subpoena Duces Tecum, filed concurrently, Raymond Chandler has produced the documents and tapes that appear to be responsive to the Subpoena for in camera review. These documents include several thousand pages of newspaper and magazine clippings, copies of deposition and court pleadings, and approximately six to eight hours of tape recordings”.
The only interesting point in this paragraph is “deposition transcripts” as the recordings are already known to us, not to mention “thousands of newspaper and magazine clippings”.
The law encyclopedia says that a DEPOSITION is “a pre-trial interrogation in which a witness in a case answers questions under oath. The testimony delivered during the deposition may be used during the trial”. And also: “The deposition, because it is taken with counsel present and under oath, becomes a significant evidentiary document.”
An interesting thing about a deposition in the Chandlers’ case is that Jordan NEVER MADE IT as was confirmed by Johnnie Cochran (see Lisa Campbell’s book “The King of Pop’s darkest hour”, p.183). But even if we don’t believe Lisa Campbell the same conclusion may be derived from the fact that no deposition from Jordan was ever used in court (though this is its direct goal and application).
The most Jordan made was a DECLARATION (the authenticity of which still remains to be proven). The law encyclopedia says that the legal value of a declaration is not as high as that of a deposition (as it cannot be used in court in the absence of a witness) and “in the law of evidence, it is a statement or narration made not under oath but simply in the middle of things, as a part of what is happening”.
Even if made under oath its legal value is minimal as the person cannot answer for perjury even if the statements he made in the declaration are false. So whatever deposition transcripts were in possession of Ray Chandler we may be sure that Jordan’s deposition was NOT among them.
14. The final conclusion made by Ray Chandler on October 25, 2004 is the following:
- “For all of the above reasons the subpoena duces tecum should be quashed. In the alternative Defendant should not be provided access to said documents until the Court rules on the 1993 evidence. Finally, this Court may inspect the requested documents in camera to determine what documents, if any, should be produced for inspection and copying by the defendant”. (Memorandum)
Okay, we know that Defendant Michael Jackson was never given that right as Ray Chandler’s subpoena was quashed, but it is also interesting to see that the Prosecution didn’t use any of those documents either. Evidently the “determine what documents, if any” clause showed that there was NOTHING worth of submitting to the 2005 trial even for Sneddon.
If you think that this is how this endless legal argument terminated you’ll be wrong. The Defense made an opposition to the above Motion, saying that Ray Chandler could not qualify as a journalist.
You’ll be amazed by Ray Chandler’s answer…
HAPPY END FOR THE DEAR OLD UNCLE
August 14, 2010
When you read the ton of Ray Chandler’s papers against the subpoena he received from Michael Jackson’s defense team, you have to occasionally pinch yourself to remind you that it is the DEFENSE which insists on the Accuser coming to court and accusing the Defendant there.
Since the idea is difficult to grasp, I’ll repeat it.
Michael Jackson’s Defense team knows that Accuser Ray Chandler has written a tell-all book All That Glitters where he describes the Defendant’s alleged crimes. They also know that the Accuser claims that the book is based on authentic documents, and that is why ask him to come to court and accuse the Defendant there (and not in the book).
The previous two parts of this post however showed to us that the Accuser didn’t like the idea and categorically refused to go to court and present his documents there, saying that they were ‘irrelevant’, and that the same information could be obtained ‘from other sources’ like Evan and Jordan Chandler (who didn’t want to go to court either), and that it was ‘invasion of his privacy’ and that Ray Chandler was a ‘journalist’ who was protected from testifying in court and disclosing his sources by the Shield law.
This was followed by a sort of a tug of war between the parties where the Defense insisted that Ray Chandler wasn’t a journalist while he insisted that he was. So this is exactly where we are at the moment.
The next document in this tug of war is Michael Jackson’s objection to Ray Chandler’s objection to the Subpoena which is dated November 5, 2004 and called “MR. JACKSON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH CHANDER SUBPOENA AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL”.
The full document is here and I will cite only some excerpts from this 24-page document which is trying to persuade Ray Chandler to be so kind to come and make his accusations against Michael Jackson in court:
“Mr. Jackson’s Objection and Opposition is based on the following grounds:
(1) Petitioner is not a journalist nor engaged in any news gathering activities as a reporter, editor, publisher, or person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, and he is not entitled to protection under the Shield law.
(2) Petitioner is a ‘witness’ to the 1993-94 events who cannot withhold unpublished information, and he is acting as a recently admitted attorney who is promoting his brother and nephew.
(3) Petitioner’s objections to Mr. Jackson’s subpoena are without foundation because there is no invasion of privacy, no overbreath, and no undue burden in requiring petitioner to respond to the subpoena”.
…. “On September 19, 2004, Mr. Jackson served the subpoenaed party with two (2) subpoenas. The first was a Subpoena Duces Tecum where the response was due on October 5, 2004. The second was a subpoena for personal appearance at trial, and the production of documents where the response is due on January 31, 2005.
On October 25, 2004, the subpoenaed party served a Motion to Quash and Application for In Camera Review. The motion challenged the subpoena because the subpoenaed party seeks protection under the California Shield Law contained in Evidence Code section 1070. However, Petitioner is not a journalist. He is an attorney who has never engaged in news gathering or otherwise worked for a news organization… and he doesn’t satisfy section 1070’s definition of a journalist..”
“In addition, petitioner was a witness to the events in 1993 and 1994 when his brother, Evan Chandler, and his nephew, Jordan Chandler, made claims against Michael Jackson. By his own admission he does not gather news because he is a recently licensed attorney who practices law in Santa Barbara, and on both the cover of his book and his self-promotion web site, he states he was a witness to the events of which he writes.”
“Petitioner’s own web site states that he is a witness to the events:
“The 1993 Michael Jackson scandal has remained a closely held secret for over ten years. Other than speculation and innuendo, the facts have never been revealed – until now. Inside All That Glitters, Ray Chandler, the boy’s uncle, provides the hard evidence. From the day the boy met Michael, through six months of frenzied publicity, and into the scarring years that followed, this is a story told by one who witnesses the events as they unfolded, and he has the proof to back it up.
Did the King of Pop sexually molest a thirteen-year-old boy in 1993? In this account, the master of invention is unmasked” (Exhibit “2”) (emphasis added)”.
“In his declaration attached to his motion, petitioner states:
“From late August through December of 1993, I lived in the home of Evan and Jordan Chandler in Los Angeles. During that time I talked extensively with Evan Chandler, Jordan Chandler, June Chandler (Jordan’s mother), and other persons directly and indirectly connected with the molestation allegations”
Petitioner is a witness to the events of which are relevant to this legal proceeding”… “As a witness, he cannot withhold unpublished information regarding the events he witnessed”
Pinch yourselves, guys – you are reading the paper provided by the DEFENSE, not prosecution.
It is the Defense which is demanding the Accuser’s documents.
And it is the Defense which is using the Accuser’s own words to prove to him that he qualifies for an accuser.
And it is the Accuser who fiercely denies such a fact.
The situation is completely absurd and now that you have awakened to the absurdity of it, let’s move on.
“In his Memorandum, petitioner requests the court to delay ruling on his motion until it determines the admissibility of the allegations involving the 1993 case. While petitioner is correct there has been no determination by the court regarding whether such matters will be admissible, Mr. Jackson is in the position of having to prepare for trial. In the past two (2) weeks, the government has disclosed approximately 22, 000 documents relating to 1993 case, and it is necessary for Mr. Jackson to conduct his defense in a reasonable manner, which necessitates information from petitioner”.
“Petitioner challenges the relevance of the subpoenaed documents by claiming they have nothing to do with the current case. However, with the government disclosing 22,000 pages of information regarding the case, with petitioner being a witness to the events involving that case, and petitioner having documents and statements from the persons involved in that case, the subpoenaed documents are beyond question relevant and material to the proceeding”.
So the government already disclosed a mammoth amount of documents about the 1993 case even there had been no ruling about it from the judge yet… no surprise though… when it comes to Michael Jackson no one really expects things to be fair…
“Petitioner contends there are other sources who might be an equal source of information that is in petitioner’s possession such as his website or Jordan Chandler. However, the unpublished information which the petitioner seeks to withhold is, by definition, not published on his website. Further, he makes no showing of what Jordan Chandler does or does not have in his possession or whether Jordan Chandler is amenable to process”.
“Petitioner states that newspapers, public pleadings, and magazine articles are not necessary to be produced. Mr. Jackson agrees, and he does not seek such documents. Rather, he seeks information that is not publicly available”.
Wait, guys, so the Defense team does NOT even know what incriminating documents Ray Chandler may have on Michael Jackson?
And in spite of it they still insist that he discloses EVERYTHING he has?
Which means that they are SO sure of Michael’s innocence that they feel they can handle ANY document he might have in his closet?
Because only a COMPLETELY innocent man will behave in a confident and insistent manner like that?
And this is just another of our proofs of his total innocence adding to the MOUNTAIN we already have?
“Petitioner claims such documents “are not relevant to the subject matter at hand and none of these documents contain any information regarding any claims of child molestation or defenses of such claims’.
No, we really have to pinch ourselves again… Is it me who is dumb, or is something terribly wrong going on here?
Why do the papers to which Ray Chandler refers in his book as ‘hard evidence’ and ‘proof to back up the events as they unfolded’ all of a sudden become ‘irrelevant’ and not containing ‘any claims of molestation or defenses of such claims’?
What do they contain then? Anecdotes on the issue of ‘child molestation’?
Let us make a mental note of it and move on – if we stop at every paragraph the way this text compells us to it will be a never-ending story…
“Petitioner claims the documents would invade his privacy and reveal personal financial information. Michael Jackson is not interested in his personal financial information. … He is only interested in documents that have a “reasonable possibility the information will materially assist his defense,” which outweighs petitioner’s privacy concerns.”
This ‘material assistance to the defense’ issue was cunningly interpreted by Ray Chandler as positive statements by Jordan or Evan Chandler in support of Michael Jackson which he said they would not find in his portfolio.
However we know that there is only one way in which the accuser’s information can materially assist the Defense – if it turns out to be false and the Defense proves it.
And in this respect the Defense was looking for Ray Chandler’s documents not because they hoped to find Michael Jackson’s glorification there but because they wanted to check their AUTHENTICITY and overall importance.
THIS was the only reason why they wanted to see Ray Chandler in court.
Same as the only reason why the Defense was so incredibly fearless in their demand for the Accuser’s documents was their confidence in Michael’s complete INNOCENCE.
* * *
HOWEVER, THE EFFORTS OF THE DEFENSE TO PULL RAY CHANDLER INTO THE COURTROOM WERE DOOMED TO FAIL FROM THE VERY START.
This was found out in the reply to the Defense’s Opposition paper which Ray Chandler’s team made three days later, on November 8, 2004. The document is called THIRD PARTY RAYMOND CHANLER’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH.
It may be found here and it presents undeniable proof that Ray Chandler was indeed protected by the California Shield Law and was therefore immune to the Defense’s pleas to come to court and accuse Michael Jackson there.
Ray Chandler finally laid out his last card which had remained hidden until the very last moment:
- “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) (underline added), 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.”
So instead of taking his ‘documents’ to court and having an honest talk there, our good old uncle turned them into a fiction book and set up a publishing company to hide behind its walls – with the only purpose to say whatever he wanted and never have to prove his lies in court…
How very prudent and cowardly… How very intricate and simple… And how very effective… Killing two or more birds with one stone… Openly telling lies and never having to answer for them in such a terribly legal way…. Fantastic… No wonder he was a lawyer and knew how to bypass law…
The rest of his revelations in this final document (which, as you remember, he never expected to be made public) are also sensational but can in no way surpass the blow he has just delivered to Michael Jackson and his team. Speaking about gathering information about the 1993 case, Ray Chandler reveals that:
- “he purposefully placed himself in the position to gather such information with the intent to disseminate it” – which turns his story about Evan Chandler’s sobbing on the phone and imploring Ray to come after he was attacked by a journalist into a blatant lie. Now he says that he purposefully placed himself in the position of a resident in Evan’s house (what a troupe of clowns these Chandlers are).
- the issues raised in his book “include unethical and possibly criminal activities among members of the bar and other state-licensed professionals, unethical and possibly criminal activities on the part of certain media, and information on child abuse”. Which means that there are certain lawyers and media outlets which may be equally slandered by Ray Chandler in his book and they cannot sue him either as the good old uncle is covered by the shield law (those who have the book please check it for his other victims – you’ll surely find Mary Fischer there, as well as Geraldine Hughes).
- “even after the publication of the book he has continued to gather information regarding the molestation of his nephew”. This way he admits he dedicated his whole life to harassing Michael Jackson and unwittingly discloses that he and the other members of the gang did not have any direct evidence of Michael’s ‘guilt’ – otherwise he wouldn’t have spent ten or more years of his life gathering newspaper clips about his alleged misconduct (it is absolutely incredible that so many people have chased Michael for decades – Tom Sneddon, Ray and Evan Chandler and Diane Dimond to name only a few!)
- Ray Chandler also reveals that though he harassed Michael Jackson all his life “he was not, and has never claimed to be, a witness to either the molestation of Jordan Chandler or the alleged extortion attempt by Evan Chandler against Michael Jackson. This explains why defendant has subpoenaed Raymond Chandler only as a custodian of records, and not as a percipient witness”. Well, this statement of Ray never being a witness naturally contradicts his own words in numerous TV interviews and on the cover of the book saying that “this is a story told by one who witnessed the events as they unfolded”. But adding just one more lie to the whole pile of them is no longer significant to many of us here …
- Finally he sneers at Jackson and his defense team by accepting the fact that “the only way that the documents may reasonably assist the defense is to “impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness”. So he knows that this is the only way, but feels quite relaxed and sure of himself as he knows equally well that the Defense will not have access to him and his ‘documents’ now and will therefore never be able to ‘impeach his credibility’ in court.
After hearing both sides and finding out that Ray Chandler was actually a publisher and was covered by the Shield law, the judge put an end to his subpoena the same day (Nov.8, 2004) and sealed all the documents pertaining to it by this order.
And since Ray Chandler was also covered by the Protective order of July 9, 2004 regarding Defendant’s Subpoenaes, which allowed the subpoenaed people not to disclose the fact of the subpoena to anyone at all, he shamelessly applied for that status and immediately received it – as it was the Defense which subpoenaed him, not Prosecution.
Reviewing the battlefield we can say that:
- Everything is quiet now
- No one really knows that Ray Chandler refused to come to court and produce his “hard evidence” against Michael Jackson which laid the basis for his slanderous All That Glitters book
- The good old uncle can safely go on with his lies on every TV, radio and media channel
- He should not be afraid to answer for what he says as he is protected by the California Shield law
- His book can still be on sale making profit for the author and publisher and can still disseminate lies about Michael Jackson.
YES, except that he never thought these documents would be unsealed and somebody would look in…