Happy Birthday Michael Jackson!

happy-birthday-michael-i-love-you-michael-jackson-24904115-720-572

Please visit my updated Happy Birthday message for 2015, thank you! ❤  https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2015/08/29/happy-birthday-michael-jackson-we-love-you-more/

Today we honor the late King of Pop, Michael Jackson on what would have been his 56th birthday. He changed the world forever with his music and his messages of love, peace, and unity. He was a visionary and a pioneer who was a trailblazer that revolutionized music, dance and short film. Michael Jackson’s biggest aspirations become a source of inspiration for many who dared to go after their own dreams. He wasn’t afraid to think, dream and do big things. From his iconic short films and legendary dance moves to his unique fashion style, he wasn’t afraid to be different.

The world was touched by his music and humanitarian endeavors, but more importantly his heart and concern for mother Earth and her children. Michael Jackson taught the world that in order for change to come, we must first start with ourselves; the person in the mirror who stares right back at us. Michael Jackson practiced what he preached and dared us to do the same; he didn’t just talk the talk but walked it as well.

Michael Jackson did what most artists weren’t willing to do with their music: bring important issues to the forefront. He sang about the world we live in because he knew the most powerful platform in the world is music. Music can touch and influence people and get a message across better than any other medium. Michael knew this and also knew to whom much is given much is expected. The great responsibility Michael had in his unique position made it even more important to become the messenger of hope, peace, and change.

As the years go by, I see more and more people getting to know the real Michael; not the Michael as told by mainstream media. More and more people are learning about Michael and his innocence. Cold hearts are slowly warming up to him as they gradually learn the truth behind the lies. Future generations will know more about Michael the artist and the humanitarian than the distorted version we were fed for over 2 decades.

There will never be another Michael Jackson, and while I never got the chance to meet him, I am fortunate enough to have witness this angel who truly walked amongst us.

Love always,

– MJsFan

P.S. – Please visit my updated Happy Birthday message for 2015, thank you! ❤  https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2015/08/29/happy-birthday-michael-jackson-we-love-you-more/

Michael Jackson was messy?

Neverland-applehead-mj-30410303-511-424

Recently, a new story has surfaced claiming that Michael Jackson was messy and hard to clean up after while he lived at Neverland. I’m sugar coating what the original article said because I don’t feel the need to re-iterate the details of it here. According to a few maids, Michael Jackson had bad hygiene habits, was unkempt and untidy. From what I read, these maid chose to remain anonymous. Why do I have the funny feeling the “two lie crew” Francia Blanca and Adrian McManus were involved in this story? Why do I strongly believe they’ve chose to remain anonymous because their stories have been debunked already and were realized as nothing more than liars. Remember, Wade Robson wanted to use them as witnesses for his B,S. molestation story as well. Their past history of lying and termination due to theft of MJ’s personal items from Neverland made them unreliable “witnesses.” Also, the fact that Stacy Brown is involved speaks volumes (another Michael hater who has been shown to be a liar as well, don’t believe me, read the 2005 court transcripts and sites that slam his stories).

Once again, there is someone who is willing to tell THE TRUTH and debunk the maids’ and Stacy Brown’s ridiculous story! Judi Brisse, a former Neverland maid, worked at Neverland around the same time as these maids.

Lisa's response to fake maid stories

Thank you Lisa Brisse for providing this information! – http://www.maninourmirror.com/2014/08/

Also, here is another example from one of Michael’s long time friend’s Frank Cascio talking about cleaning being one of Michael Jackson’s favorite activities. (In the following pictures, I tried to match the picture’s font and layout above to keep the flow going)

michael-with-the-cascio-s-michael-jackson-27045263-439-338oh

and here is another example of Michael actions speaking louder than any trash tabloid magazine “anonymous” sources.

524964_1282769976320_fullk

Quote taken from “http://www.michaeljackson.com/hu/node/108687” but you can google “Michael Jackson picking up popcorn in studio” and many sites with this quote will pop up.

So there you have it, these are just a FEW (I’m pretty sure there are many more out there) examples of yet another salacious story being debunked.

I also want to point something out that I feel is very important, from since MJ’s residence at Neverland, people from all walks of life visited and even stayed there. He opened his home to family, friends and the general public. Family, friends, and even some fans who managed to develop a friendship with Michael stayed at Neverland; this even included sleeping and hanging in his bedroom when he wasn’t there. Now if he allowed people to come and visit anytime they wanted, wouldn’t that place have to be clean 24/7? If his house was as dirty as these maids allegedly claimed, I’m pretty sure more people would have said something. We’re basing this story off of people who rubbed Michael the wrong way at one point during their employment at Neverland. Also if he had bad hygiene habits as they stated, trust and believe people would have talked about it LONG BEFORE his death and it wouldn’t come from maids with a gripe against their former employer.

It’s sad that even after 5 years since the passing of one of the worlds greatest entertainer’s (in my opinion THE greatest), people still feel the need to smear and lie on Michael Jackson for money or personal vendettas. Thank God, there are people out there who are willing to speak up in the name of truth. I commend you.

paper-and-pen1s

Fact Checking Diane Dimond’s Lies from TruTV’s “In Session”

Great great great website with incredible research!

Vindicating Michael

On Friday, September 16th,2011 Tru TV’s legal orientated show “In Session” aired a round table discussion on Michael Jackson’s life, legacy, and upcoming trial. It was hosted by Ryan Smith, and consisted of Steve Manning (one of MJ’s former publicists), Mike Garcia (one of three of MJ’s former bodyguards, who was scheduled to help write a book, but, according to their Facebook page, is no longer associated with that project), Anthony DeCurtis (contributing editor for Rolling Stone), and the notorious Diane Dimond, who replaced author Joe Vogel at the last minute!

The one-hour discussion was divided into different segments and shown throughout the day 8am through 3pm CST. I was fortunate to record all of it on my DVR, and after watching it I was so disgusted by Dimond’s lies that I decided to transcribe the segment on – you guessed it! – the allegations…

View original post 12,120 more words

Michael Jackson and Martin Bashir – Why A Positive + Negative Will ALWAYS Equal A Negative

“She’s pushing her kids onto me.” he said, visibly concerned. He had a strange uncomfortable feeling about it. “Frank, they can’t stay.” (Michael told Frank Cascio)

Martin Bashir set off a chain of events that led to Michael Jackson’s premature death. That “documentary” that aired was NOT approved by Jackson, as Bashir has originally promised it would be. Instead, Bashir edited the footage on his own, added his own negative commentary, and ruined Jackson’s reputation by implying that he was a child molester.

For example, prior to shooting that infamous scene, he told Gavin Arvizo to hold MJ’s hand and place his head on MJ’s shoulder, and then when the cameras started rolling he ambushed them into talking about Gavin’s sleeping arrangements. What many people don’t know, however, was that Michael was very uncomfortable doing this (holding Gavin’s hands), but Bashir assured him that it’s okay and it would be great footage. (I wish Michael listened to his gut feeling instead).

Gavin slept in MJ’s bed, while MJ slept on the floor (also corroborated by long time friend, Frank Cascio and the Alternative Services document I posted below), but because they were holding hands, Bashir was able to insinuate that there was sexual misconduct, when there were none whatsoever.

When Bashir was called to testify at MJ’s trial, he hid behind the California Journalistic Shield Law, and was thus able to avoid answering any questions about his selectively edited “documentary”. While you may believe it was inappropriate for MJ to share his bed or bedroom, it was not criminal, and he didn’t do anything that many people don’t already do when they have guests. MJ never forced anyone to sleep in his bed or bedroom, and the parents always had to give permission.

If any of them had a reason to say no, then they wouldn’t have been at Neverland in the first place! His “bedroom” was actually a 2 story duplex that was larger than most apartments, so it was very common for entire families to sleep in his living quarters. There were many parents who defended MJ in the press, and a few even testified on his behalf at his trial. There were no “urges” or anything of that nature, and Jackson was not a “pervert”, so please stop promoting that fallacy.

What Michael didn’t bother to explain, and what Bashir didn’t care to ask about, was that Michael’s suite at Neverland, as I’ve said before, was a gathering place, with a family room downstairs and a bedroom upstairs. Michael didn’t explain that he always offered guests his bed, and for the most part slept on the floor in the family room below. But, perhaps, most important, he didn’t explain that the guests were always close friends like us Cascios and his extended family.” – Long time friend, Frank Cascio.

Michael Jackson trusted Bashir to present him in a good light while they were filming the documentary. He didn’t know Bashir had an agenda to portray him as a pervert; Michael was manipulated by Bashir.

More to come.

The original version that MJ thought was going to air on TV (and the original version we were cheated out of).

Aphrodite Jones – TRUE CRIME SHOW – Michael Jackson Episode (FULL documentary)

Aphrodite Jones talks about how Martin Bashir set up Michael Jackson

Martin Bashir called Tom Mesereau after Michael Jackson died!

 

Tom Sneddons Secret Motives For Michael Jackson WitchHunt Revealed33

Frank Cascio explains why MJ let Gavin Arvizo sleep in his bedroom!

Gavin BEGGED Michael to sleep in his bedroom

 

Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Defining 1994 GQ Article by Mary A. Fischer That Sets The Record Straight on the 1993 Allegations.

10275986_554247258029927_820959341497913345_n (1)

Was Michael Jackson Framed?
The Untold Story
Mary A. Fischer
GQ, October 1994

Did Michael Do It?

The untold story of the events that brought down a superstar

Before O.J. Simpson, there was Michael Jackson—another beloved black celebrity seemingly brought down by allegations of scandal in his personal life. Those allegations—that Jackson had molested a 13-year-old boy—instigated a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, two grand-jury investigations and a shameless media circus. Jackson, in turn, filed charges of extortion against some of his accusers. Ultimately, the suit was settled out of court for a sum that has been estimated at $20 million; no criminal charges were brought against Jackson by the police or the grand juries. This past August, Jackson was in the news again, when Lisa Marie Presley, Elvis’s daughter, announced that she and the singer had married.

As the dust settles on one of the nation’s worst episodes of media excess, one thing is clear: The American public has never heard a defense of Michael Jackson. Until now.

It is, of course, impossible to prove a negative—that is, prove that something didn’t happen. But it is possible to take an in-depth look at the people who made the allegations against Jackson and thus gain insight into their character and motives. What emerges from such an examination, based on court documents, business records and scores of interviews, is a persuasive argument that Jackson molested no one and that he himself may have been the victim of a well-conceived plan to extract money from him.

More than that, the story that arises from this previously unexplored territory is radically different from the tale that has been promoted by tabloid and even mainstream journalists. It is a story of greed, ambition, misconceptions on the part of police and prosecutors, a lazy and sensation-seeking media and the use of a powerful, hypnotic drug. It may also be a story about how a case was simply invented.

Neither Michael Jackson nor his current defense attorneys agreed to be interviewed for this article. Had they decided to fight the civil charges and go to trial, what follows might have served as the core of Jackson’s defense—as well as the basis to further the extortion charges against his own accusers, which could well have exonerated the singer.

Jackson’s troubles began when his van broke down on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles in May 1992. Stranded in the middle of the heavily trafficked street, Jackson was spotted by the wife of Mel Green, an employee at Rent-a-Wreck, an offbeat car-rental agency a mile away. Green went to the rescue. When Dave Schwartz, the owner of the car-rental company, heard Green was bringing Jackson to the lot, he called his wife, June, and told her to come over with their 6-year-old daughter and her son from her previous marriage. The boy, then 12, was a big Jackson fan. Upon arriving, June Chandler Schwartz told Jackson about the time her son had sent him a drawing after the singer’s hair caught on fire during the filming of a Pepsi commercial. Then she gave Jackson their home number.

lily2

hqdefault

“It was almost like she was forcing [the boy] on him,” Green recalls. “I think Michael thought he owed the boy something, and that’s when it all started.”

Certain facts about the relationship are not in dispute. Jackson began calling the boy, and a friendship developed. After Jackson returned from a promotional tour, three months later, June Chandler Schwartz and her son and daughter became regular guests at Neverland, Jackson’s ranch in Santa Barbara County. During the following year, Jackson showered the boy and his family with attention and gifts, including video games, watches, an after-hours shopping spree at Toys “R” Us and trips around the world—from Las Vegas and Disney World to Monaco and Paris.

By March 1993, Jackson and the boy were together frequently and the sleepovers began. June Chandler Schwartz had also become close to Jackson “and liked him enormously,” one friend says. “He was the kindest man she had ever met.”

Jackson’s personal eccentricities—from his attempts to remake his face through plastic surgery to his preference for the company of children—have been widely reported. And while it may be unusual for a 35-year-old man to have sleepovers with a 13-year-old child, the boy’s mother and others close to Jackson never thought it odd. Jackson’s behavior is better understood once it’s put in the context of his own childhood.

“Contrary to what you might think, Michael’s life hasn’t been a walk in the park,” one of his attorneys says. Jackson’s childhood essentially stopped—and his unorthodox life began—when he was 5 years old and living in Gary, Indiana. Michael spent his youth in rehearsal studios, on stages performing before millions of strangers and sleeping in an endless string of hotel rooms. Except for his eight brothers and sisters, Jackson was surrounded by adults who pushed him relentlessly, particularly his father, Joe Jackson—a strict, unaffectionate man who reportedly beat his children.

Jackson’s early experiences translated into a kind of arrested development, many say, and he became a child in a man’s body. “He never had a childhood,” says Bert Fields, a former attorney of Jackson’s. “He is having one now. His buddies are 12-year-old kids. They have pillow fights and food fights.” Jackson’s interest in children also translated into humanitarian efforts. Over the years, he has given millions to causes benefiting children, including his own Heal The World Foundation.

But there is another context—the one having to do with the times in which we live—in which most observers would evaluate Jackson’s behavior. “Given the current confusion and hysteria over child sexual abuse,” says Dr. Phillip Resnick, a noted Cleveland psychiatrist, “any physical or nurturing contact with a child may be seen as suspicious, and the adult could well be accused of sexual misconduct.”

Jackson’s involvement with the boy was welcomed, at first, by all the adults in the youth’s life—his mother, his stepfather and even his biological father, Evan Chandler (who also declined to be interviewed for this article). Born Evan Robert Charmatz in the Bronx in 1944, Chandler had reluctantly followed in the footsteps of his father and brothers and become a dentist. “He hated being a dentist,” a family friend says. “He always wanted to be a writer.” After moving in 1973 to West Palm Beach to practice dentistry, he changed his last name, believing Charmatz was “too Jewish-sounding,” says a former colleague. Hoping somehow to become a screenwriter, Chandler moved to Los Angeles in the late Seventies with his wife, June Wong, an attractive Eurasian who had worked briefly as a model.

Chandler’s dental career had its precarious moments. In December 1978, while working at the Crenshaw Family Dental Center, a clinic in a low-income area of L.A., Chandler did restoration work on sixteen of a patient’s teeth during a single visit. An examination of the work, the Board of Dental Examiners concluded, revealed “gross ignorance and/or inefficiency” in his profession. The board revoked his license; however, the revocation was stayed, and the board instead suspended him for ninety days and placed him on probation for two and a half years. Devastated, Chandler left town for New York. He wrote a film script but couldn’t sell it.

Months later, Chandler returned to L.A. with his wife and held a series of dentistry jobs. By 1980, when their son was born, the couple’s marriagewas in trouble. “One of the reasons June left Evan was because of his temper,” a family friend says. They divorced in 1985. The court awarded sole custody of the boy to his mother and ordered Chandler to pay $500 a month in child support, but a review of documents reveals that in 1993, when the Jackson scandal broke, Chandler owed his ex-wife $68,000—a debt she ultimately forgave.

A year before Jackson came into his son’s life, Chandler had a second serious professional problem. One of his patients, a model, sued him for dental negligence after he did restoration work on some of her teeth. Chandler claimed that the woman had signed a consent form in which she’d acknowledged the risks involved. But when Edwin Zinman, her attorney, asked to see the original records, Chandler said they had been stolen from the trunk of his Jaguar. He provided a duplicate set. Zinman, suspicious, was unable to verify the authenticity of the records. “What an extraordinary coincidence that they were stolen,” Zinman says now. “That’s like saying ‘The dog ate my homework.’ ” The suit was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Despite such setbacks, Chandler by then had a successful practice in Beverly Hills. And he got his first break in Hollywood in 1992, when he cowrote the Mel Brooks film Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Until Michael Jackson entered his son’s life, Chandler hadn’t shown all that much interest in the boy. “He kept promising to buy him a computer so they could work on scripts together, but he never did,” says Michael Freeman, formerly an attorney for June Chandler Schwartz. Chandler’s dental practice kept him busy, and he had started anew family by then, with two small children by his second wife, a corporate attorney.

At first, Chandler welcomed and encouraged his son’s relationship with Michael Jackson, bragging about it to friends and associates. When Jackson and the boy stayed with Chandler during May 1993, Chandler urged the entertainer to spend more time with his son at his house. According to sources, Chandler even suggested that Jackson build an addition onto the house so the singer could stay there. After calling the zoning department and discovering it couldn’t be done, Chandler made another suggestion—that Jackson just build him a new home.

That same month, the boy, his mother and Jackson flew to Monaco for the World Music Awards. “Evan began to get jealous of the involvement and felt left out,” Freeman says. Upon their return, Jackson and the boy again stayed with Chandler, which pleased him—a five-day visit, during which they slept in a room with the youth’s half brother. Though Chandler has admitted that Jackson and the boy always had their clothes on whenever he saw them in bed together, he claimed that it was during this time that his suspicions of sexual misconduct were triggered. At no time has Chandler claimed to have witnessed any sexual misconduct on Jackson’s part.

Chandler became increasingly volatile, making threats that alienated Jackson, Dave Schwartz and June Chandler Schwartz. In early July 1993, Dave Schwartz, who had been friendly with Chandler, secretly tape-recorded a lengthy telephone conversation he had with him. During the conversation, Chandler talked of his concern for his son and his anger at Jackson and at his ex-wife, whom he described as “cold and heartless.” When Chandler tried to “get her attention” to discuss his suspicions about Jackson, he says on the tape, she told him “Go fuck yourself.”

“I had a good communication with Michael,” Chandler told Schwartz. “We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want.”

Admitting to Schwartz that he had “been rehearsed” about what to say and what not to say, Chandler never mentioned money during their conversation. When Schwartz asked what Jackson had done that made Chandler so upset, Chandler alleged only that “he broke up the family. [The boy] has been seduced by this guy’s power and money.” Both men repeatedly berated themselves as poor fathers to the boy.

Elsewhere on the tape, Chandler indicated he was prepared to move against Jackson: “It’s already set,” Chandler told Schwartz. “There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I’ve paid them to do it. Everything’s going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy [his attorney, Barry K. Rothman, presumably] is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I’ve given him full authority to do that.”

Chandler then predicted what would, in fact, transpire six weeks later: “And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I’ve checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]…and Michael’s career will be over.”

“Does that help [the boy]?” Schwartz asked.

That’s irrelevant to me,” Chandler replied. “It’s going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want.”

Instead of going to the police, seemingly the most appropriate action in a situation involving suspected child molestation, Chandler had turned to a lawyer. And not just any lawyer. He’d turned to Barry Rothman.

“This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find,” Chandler said in the recorded conversation with Schwartz. “All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He’s nasty, he’s mean, he’s very smart, and he’s hungry for the publicity.”

(Through his attorney, Wylie Aitken, Rothman declined to be interviewed for this article. Aitken agreed to answer general questions limited to the Jackson case, and then only about aspects that did not involve Chandler or the boy.)

To know Rothman, says a former colleague who worked with him during the Jackson case, and who kept a diary of what Rothman and Chandler said and did in Rothman’s office, is to believe that Barry could have “devised this whole plan, period. This [making allegations against Michael Jackson] is within the boundary of his character, to do something like this.” Information supplied by Rothman’s former clients, associates and employees reveals a pattern of manipulation and deceit.

Rothman has a general-law practice in Century City. At one time, he negotiated music and concert deals for Little Richard, the Rolling Stones, the Who, ELO and Ozzy Osbourne. Gold and platinum records commemorating those days still hang on the walls of his office. With his grayish-white beard and perpetual tan—which he maintains in a tanning bed at his house—Rothman reminds a former client of “a leprechaun.” To a former employee, Rothman is “a demon” with “a terrible temper.” His most cherished possession, acquaintances say, is his 1977 Rolls-Royce Corniche, which carries the license plate “BKR 1.”

Over the years, Rothman has made so many enemies that his ex-wife once expressed, to her attorney, surprise that someone “hadn’t done him in.” He has a reputation for stiffing people. “He appears to be a professional deadbeat… He pays almost no one,” investigator Ed Marcus concluded (in a report filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, as part of a lawsuit against Rothman), after reviewing the attorney’s credit profile, which listed more than thirty creditors and judgment holders who were chasing him. In addition, more than twenty civil lawsuits involving Rothman have been filed in Superior Court, several complaints have been made to the Labor Commission and disciplinary actions for three incidents have been taken against him by the state bar of California. In 1992, he was suspended for a year, though that suspension was stayed and he was instead placed on probation for the term.

In 1987, Rothman was $16,800 behind in alimony and child-support payments. Through her attorney, his ex-wife, Joanne Ward, threatened to attach Rothman’s assets, but he agreed to make good on the debt. A year later, after Rothman still hadn’t made the payments, Ward’s attorney tried to put a lien on Rothman’s expensive Sherman Oaks home. To their surprise, Rothman said he no longer owned the house;three years earlier, he’d deeded the property to Tinoa Operations, Inc., a Panamanian shell corporation. According to Ward’s lawyer, Rothman claimed that he’d had $200,000 of Tinoa’s money, in cash, at his house one night when he was robbed at gunpoint. The only way he could make good on the loss was to deed his home to Tinoa, he told them. Ward and her attorney suspected the whole scenario was a ruse, but they could never prove it. It was only after sheriff’s deputies had towed away Rothman’s Rolls Royce that he began paying what he owed.

Documents filed with Los Angeles Superior Court seem to confirm the suspicions of Ward and her attorney. These show that Rothman created an elaborate network of foreign bank accounts and shell companies, seemingly to conceal some of his assets—in particular, his home and much of the $531,000 proceeds from its eventual sale, in 1989. The companies, including Tinoa, can be traced to Rothman. He bought a Panamanian shelf company (an existing but nonoperating firm) and arranged matters so that though his name would not appear on the list of its officers, he would have unconditional power of attorney, in effect leaving him in control of moving money in and out.

Meanwhile, Rothman’s employees didn’t fare much better than his ex-wife. Former employees say they sometimes had to beg for their paychecks. And sometimes the checks that they did get would bounce. He couldn’t keep legal secretaries. “He’d demean and humiliate them,” says one. Temporary workers fared the worst. “He would work them for two weeks,” adds the legal secretary, “then run them off by yelling at them and saying they were stupid. Then he’d tell the agency he was dissatisfied with the temp and wouldn’t pay.” Some agencies finally got wise and made Rothman pay cash up front before they’d do business with him.

The state bar’s 1992 disciplining of Rothman grew out of a conflict-of-interest matter. A year earlier, Rothman had been kicked off a case by a client, Muriel Metcalf, whom he’d been representing in child-support and custody proceedings; Metcalf later accused him of padding her bill. Four months after Metcalf fired him, Rothman, without notifying her, began representing the company of her estranged companion, Bob Brutzman.

The case is revealing for another reason: It shows that Rothman had some experience dealing with child-molestation allegations before the Jackson scandal. Metcalf, while Rothman was still representing her, had accused Brutzman of molesting their child (which Brutzman denied). Rothman’s knowledge of Metcalf’s charges didn’t prevent him from going to work for Brutzman’s company—a move for which he was disciplined.

By 1992, Rothman was running from numerous creditors. Folb Management, a corporate real-estate agency, was one. Rothman owed the company $53,000 in back rent and interest for an office on Sunset Boulevard. Folb sued. Rothman then countersued, claiming that the building’s security was so inadequate that burglars were able to steal more than $6,900 worth of equipment from his office one night. In the course of the proceedings, Folb’s lawyer told the court, “Mr. Rothman is not the kind of person whose word can be taken at face value.”

In November 1992, Rothman had his law firm file for bankruptcy, listing thirteen creditors—including Folb Management—with debts totaling $880,000 and no acknowledged assets. After reviewing the bankruptcy papers, an ex-client whom Rothman was suing for $400,000 in legal fees noticed that Rothman had failed to list a $133,000 asset. The former client threatened to expose Rothman for “defrauding his creditors”—a felony—if he didn’t drop the lawsuit. Cornered, Rothman had the suit dismissed in a matter of hours.

Six months before filing for bankruptcy, Rothman had transferred title on his Rolls-Royce to Majo, a fictitious company he controlled. Three years earlier, Rothman had claimed a different corporate owner for the car—Longridge Estates, a subsidiary of Tinoa Operations, the company that held the deed to his home. On corporation papers filed by Rothman, the addresses listed for Longridge and Tinoa were the same, 1554 Cahuenga Boulevard—which, as it turns out, is that of a Chinese restaurant in Hollywood.

It was with this man, in June 1993, that Evan Chandler began carrying out the “certain plan” to which he referred in his taped conversation with Dave Schwartz. At a graduation that month, Chandler confronted his ex-wife with his suspicions. “She thought the whole thing was baloney,” says her ex-attorney, Michael Freeman. She told Chandler that she planned to take their son out of school in the fall so they could accompany Jackson on his “Dangerous” world tour. Chandler became irate and, say several sources, threatened to go public with the evidence he claimed he had on Jackson. “What parent in his right mind would want to drag his child into the public spotlight?” asks Freeman. “If something like this actually occurred, you’d want to protect your child.”

Jackson asked his then-lawyer, Bert Fields, to intervene. One of the most prominent attorneys in the entertainment industry, Fields has been representing Jackson since 1990 and had negotiated for him, with Sony, the biggest music deal ever—with possible earnings of $700 million. Fields brought in investigator Anthony Pellicano to help sort things out. Pellicano does things Sicilian-style, being fiercely loyal to those he likes but a ruthless hardball player when it comes to his enemies.

Given the facts about sodium Amytal and a recent landmark case that involved the drug, the boy’s allegations, say several medical experts, must be viewed as unreliable, if not highly questionable.“It’s a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact.”

10289927_795604463785502_8438604098579982596_n (1)

Michael Jackson NEVER paid the $20 million dollar settlement…The public thought it was a case of child molestation, but behind the scenes it was all about extortion. When Michael Jackson refused to give Evan Chandler $20 million to make a movie, he launched the false allegation of child molestation solely to ruin Michael Jackson’s career and so that he could get paid.

– Geraldine Hughes, the Legal Secretary who worked for Evan Chandler’s lawyer in 1993.

On July 9, 1993, Dave Schwartz and June Chandler Schwartz played the taped conversation for Pellicano. “After listening to the tape for ten minutes, I knew it was about extortion, says Pellicano. That same day, he drove to Jackson’s Century City condominium, where Chandler’s son and the boy’s half-sister were visiting. Without Jackson there, Pellicano “made eye contact” with the boy and asked him, he says,“very pointed questions”: “Has Michael ever touched you? Have you ever seen him naked in bed?” The answer to all the questions was no. The boy repeatedly denied that anything bad had happened.

On July 11, after Jackson had declined to meet with Chandler, the boy’s father and Rothman went ahead with another part of the plan—they needed to get custody of the boy. Chandler asked his ex-wife to let the youth stay with him for a “one-week visitation period.” As Bert Fields later said in an affidavit to the court, June Chandler Schwartz allowed the boy to go based on Rothman’s assurance to Fields that her son would come back to her after the specified time, never guessing that Rothman’s word would be worthless and that Chandler would not return their son.

Wylie Aitken, Rothman’s attorney, claims that “at the time [Rothman] gave his word, it was his intention to have the boy returned.” However, once “he learned that the boy would be whisked out of the country [to go on tour with Jackson], I don’t think Mr. Rothman had any other choice.” But the chronology clearly indicates that Chandler had learned in June, at the graduation, that the boy’s mother planned to take her son on the tour. The taped telephone conversation made in early July, before Chandler took custody of his son, also seems to verify that Chandler and Rothman had no intention of abiding by the visitation agreement. “They [the boy and his mother] don’t know it yet,” Chandler told Schwartz, “but they aren’t going anywhere.”

On July 12, one day after Chandler took control of his son, he had his ex-wife sign a document prepared by Rothman that prevented her from taking the youth out of Los Angeles County. This meant the boy would be unable to accompany Jackson on the tour. His mother told the court she signed the document under duress. Chandler, she said in an affidavit, had threatened that “I would not have [the boy] returned to me.” A bitter custody battle ensued, making even murkier any charges Chandler made about wrong-doing on Jackson’s part. (As of this August [1994], the boy was still living with Chandler.) It was during the first few weeks after Chandler took control of his son—who was now isolated from his friends, mother and stepfather—that the boy’s allegations began to take shape.

At the same time, Rothman, seeking an expert’s opinion to help establish the allegations against Jackson, called Dr. Mathis Abrams, a Beverly Hills psychiatrist. Over the telephone, Rothman presented Abrams with a hypothetical situation. In reply and without having met either Chandler or his son, Abrams on July 15 sent Rothman a two-page letter in which he stated that “reasonable suspicion would exist that sexual abuse may have occurred.” Importantly, he also stated that if this were a real and not a hypothetical case, he would be required by law to report the matter to the Los Angeles County Department of Children’s Services (DCS).

According to a July 27 entry in the diary kept by Rothman’s former colleague, it’s clear that Rothman was guiding Chandler in the plan. “Rothman wrote letter to Chandler advising him how to report child abuse without liability to parent,” the entry reads.

At this point, there still had been made no demands or formal accusations, only veiled assertions that had become intertwined with a fierce custody battle. On August 4, 1993, however, things became very clear. Chandler and his son met with Jackson and Pellicano in a suite at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. On seeing Jackson, says Pellicano, Chandler gave the singer an affectionate hug (a gesture, some say, that would seem to belie the dentist’s suspicions that Jackson had molested his son), then reached into his pocket, pulled out Abrams’s letter and began reading passages from it. When Chandler got to the parts about child molestation, the boy, says Pellicano, put his head down and then looked up at Jackson with a surprised expression, as if to say “I didn’t say that.” As the meeting broke up, Chandler pointed his finger at Jackson, says Pellicano, and warned “I’m going to ruin you.”

At a meeting with Pellicano in Rothman’s office later that evening, Chandler and Rothman made their demand – $20 million.

On August 13, there was another meeting in Rothman’s office. Pellicano came back with a counteroffer—a $350,000 screenwriting deal. Pellicano says he made the offer as a way to resolve the custody dispute and give Chandler an opportunity to spend more time with his son by working on a screenplay together. Chandler rejected the offer. Rothman made a counterdemand—a deal for three screenplays or nothing—which was spurned. In the diary of Rothman’s ex-colleague, an August 24 entry reveals Chandler’s disappointment: “I almost had a $20 million deal,” he was overheard telling Rothman.

Before Chandler took control of his son, the only one making allegations against Jackson was Chandler himself—the boy had never accused the singer of any wrongdoing. That changed one day in Chandler’s Beverly Hills dental office.

In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal—which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson. A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with allegations. Asked for this article about his use of the drug on the boy, Torbiner replied: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.”

Given the facts about sodium Amytal and a recent landmark case that involved the drug, the boy’s allegations, say several medical experts, must be viewed as unreliable, if not highly questionable.

“It’s a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact,” says Dr. Resnick, the Cleveland psychiatrist. “People are very suggestible under it. People will say things under sodium Amytal that are blatantly untrue.” Sodium Amytal is a barbiturate, an invasive drug that puts people in a hypnotic state when it’s injected intravenously. Primarily administered for the treatment of amnesia, it first came into use during World War II, on soldiers traumatized—some into catatonic states—by the horrors of war. Scientific studies done in 1952 debunked the drug as a truth serum and instead demonstrated its risks: False memories can be easily implanted in those under its influence. “It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question,” says Resnick. But its effects are apparently even more insidious: “The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened,” says Resnick.

Recently, the reliability of the drug became an issue in a high-profile trial in Napa County, California. After undergoing numerous therapy sessions, at least one of which included the use of sodium Amytal, 20-year-old Holly Ramona accused her father of molesting her as a child. Gary Ramona vehemently denied the charge and sued his daughter’s therapist and the psychiatrist who had administered the drug. This past May, jurors sided with Gary Ramona, believing that the therapist and the psychiatrist may have reinforced memories that were false. Gary Ramona’s was the first successful legal challenge to the so-called “repressed memory phenomenon” that has produced thousands of sexual-abuse allegations over the past decade.

As for Chandler’s story about using the drug to sedate his son during a tooth extraction, that too seems dubious, in light of the drug’s customary use. “It’s absolutely a psychiatric drug,” says Dr. Kenneth Gottlieb, a San Francisco psychiatrist who has administeredsodium Amytal to amnesia patients. Dr. John Yagiela, the coordinator of the anesthesia and pain control department of UCLA’s school of dentistry, adds, “It’s unusual for it to be used [for pulling a tooth]. It makes no sense when better, safer alternatives are available. It would not be my choice.”

Because of sodium Amytal’s potential side effects, some doctors will administer it only in a hospital. “I would never want to use a drug that tampers with a person’s unconscious unless there was no other drug available,” says Gottlieb. “And I would not use it without resuscitating equipment, in case of allergic reaction, and only with an M.D. anesthesiologist present.”

Chandler, it seems, did not follow these guidelines. He had the procedure performed on his son in his office, and he relied on the dental anesthesiologist Mark Torbiner for expertise. (It was Torbiner who’d introduced Chandler and Rothman in 1991, when Rothman needed dental work.)

The nature of Torbiner’s practice appears to have made it highly successful. “He boasts that he has $100 a month overhead and $40,000 a month income,” says Nylla Jones, a former patient of his. Torbiner doesn’t have an office for seeing patients; rather, he travels to various dental offices around the city, where he administers anesthesia during procedures.

This magazine has learned that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is probing another aspect of Torbiner’s business practices: He makes housecalls to administer drugs—mostly morphine and Demerol—not only postoperatively to his dental patients but also, it seems, to those suffering pain whose source has nothing to do with dental work. He arrives at the homes of his clients—some of them celebrities—carrying a kind of fishing-tackle box that contains drugs and syringes. At one time, the license plate on his Jaguar read “SLPYDOC.” According to Jones, Torbiner charges $350 for a basic ten-to-twenty-minute visit. In what Jones describes as standard practice, when it’s unclear how long Torbiner will need to stay, the client, anticipating the stupor that will soon set in, leaves a blank check for Torbiner to fill in with the appropriate amount.

Torbiner wasn’t always successful. In 1989, he got caught in a lie and was asked to resign from UCLA, where he was an assistant professor at the school of dentistry. Torbiner had asked to take a half-day off so he could observe a religious holiday but was later found to have worked at a dental office instead.

A check of Torbiner’s credentials with the Board of Dental Examiners indicates that he is restricted by law to administering drugs solely for dental-related procedures. But there is clear evidence that he has not abided by those restrictions. In fact, on at least eight occasions, Torbiner has given a general anesthetic to Barry Rothman, during hair-transplant procedures. Though normally a local anesthetic would be injected into the scalp, “Barry is so afraid of the pain,” says Dr. James De Yarman, the San Diego physician who performed Rothman’s transplants, “that [he] wanted to be put out completely.” De Yarman said he was “amazed” to learn that Torbiner is a dentist, having assumed all along that he was an M.D.

In another instance, Torbiner came to the home of Nylla Jones, she says, and injected her with Demerol to help dull the pain that followed her appendectomy.

On August 16, three days after Chandler and Rothman rejected the $350,000 script deal, the situation came to a head. On behalf of June Chandler Schwartz, Michael Freeman notified Rothman that he would be filing papers early the next morning that would force Chandler to turn over the boy. Reacting quickly, Chandler took his son to Mathis Abrams, the psychiatrist who’d provided Rothman with his assessment of the hypothetical child-abuse situation. During a three-hour session, the boy alleged that Jackson had engaged in a sexual relationship with him. He talked of masturbation, kissing, fondling of nipples and oral sex. There was, however, no mention of actual penetration, which might have been verified by a medical exam, thus providing corroborating evidence.

The next step was inevitable. Abrams, who is required by law to report any such accusation to authorities, called a social worker at the Department of Children’s Services, who in turn contacted the police. The full-scale investigation of Michael Jackson was about to begin.

Five days after Abrams called the authorities, the media got wind of the investigation. On Sunday morning, August 22, Don Ray, a free-lance reporter in Burbank, was asleep when his phone rang. The caller, one of his tipsters, said that warrants had been issued to search Jackson’s ranch and condominium. Ray sold the story to L.A.’s KNBC-TV, which broke the news at 4 P.M. the following day.

After that, Ray “watched this story go away like a freight train,” he says. Within twenty-four hours, Jackson was the lead story on seventy-three TV news broadcasts in the Los Angeles area alone and was on the front page of every British newspaper. The story of Michael Jackson and the 13-year-old boy became a frenzy of hype and unsubstantiated rumor, with the line between tabloid and mainstream media virtually eliminated.

The extent of the allegations against Jackson wasn’t known until August 25. A person inside the DCS illegally leaked a copy of the abuse report to Diane Dimond of Hard Copy. Within hours, the L.A. office of a British news service also got the report and began selling copies to any reporter willing to pay $750. The following day, the world knew about the graphic details in the leaked report. “While laying next to each other in bed, Mr. Jackson put his hand under [the child’s] shorts,” the social worker had written. From there, the coverage soon demonstrated that anything about Jackson would be fair game.

“Competition among news organizations became so fierce,” says KNBC reporter Conan Nolan, that “stories weren’t being checked out. It was very unfortunate.” The National Enquirer put twenty reporters and editors on the story. One team knocked on 500 doors in Brentwood trying to find Evan Chandler and his son. Using property records, they finally did, catching up with Chandler in his black Mercedes. “He was not a happy man. But I was,” said Andy O’Brien, a tabloid photographer.

Next came the accusers—Jackson’s former employees. First, Stella and Philippe Lemarque, Jackson’ ex-housekeepers, tried to sell their story to the tabloids with the help of broker Paul Barresi, a former porn star. They asked for as much as half a million dollars but wound up selling an interview to The Globe of Britain for $15,000. The Quindoys, a Filipino couple who had worked at Neverland, followed. When their asking price was $100,000, they said ” ‘the hand was outside the kid’s pants,’ ” Barresi told a producer of Frontline, a PBS program. “As soon as their price went up to $500,000, the hand went inside the pants. So come on.” The L.A. district attorney’s office eventually concluded that both couples were useless as witnesses.

Next came the bodyguards. Purporting to take the journalistic high road, Hard Copy’s Diane Dimond told Frontline in early November of last year that her program was “pristinely clean on this. We paid no money for this story at all.” But two weeks later, as a Hard Copy contract reveals, the show was negotiating a $100,000 payment to five former Jackson security guards who were planning to file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs.

On December 1, with the deal in place, two of the guards appeared on the program; they had been fired, Dimond told viewers, because “they knew too much about Michael Jackson’s strange relationship with young boys.” In reality, as their depositions under oath three months later reveal, it was clear they had never actually seen Jackson do anything improper with Chandler’s son or any other child:

“So you don’t know anything about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?” one of Jackson’s attorneys asked former security guard Morris Williams under oath.

“All I know is from the sworn documents that other people have sworn to.”

“But other than what someone else may have said, you have no firsthand knowledge about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?”

“That’s correct.”

“Have you spoken to a child who has ever told you that Mr. Jackson did anything improper with the child?”

“No.”

When asked by Jackson’s attorney where he had gotten his impressions, Williams replied: “Just what I’ve been hearing in the media and what I’ve experienced with my own eyes.”

“Okay. That’s the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?”

“That’s right, nothing.”

(The guards’ lawsuit, filed in March 1994, was still pending as this article went to press.)

[NOTE: The case was thrown out of court in July 1995.]

Next came the maid. On December 15, Hard Copy presented “The Bedroom Maid’s Painful Secret.” Blanca Francia told Dimond and other reporters that she had seen a naked Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys. She also told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson—an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible.

A copy of Francia’s sworn testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000, and had Dimond checked out the woman’s claims, she would have found them to be false. Under deposition by a Jackson attorney, Francia admitted she had never actually see Jackson shower with anyone nor had she seen him naked with boys in his Jacuzzi. They always had their swimming trunks on, she acknowledged.

The coverage, says Michael Levine, a Jackson press representative, “followed a proctologist’s view of the world. Hard Copy was loathsome. The vicious and vile treatment of this man in the media was for selfish reasons. [Even] if you have never bought a Michael Jackson record in your life, you should be very concerned. Society is built on very few pillars. One of them is truth. When you abandon that, it’s a slippery slope.”

The investigation of Jackson, which by October 1993 would grow to involve at least twelve detectives from Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties, was instigated in part by the perceptions of one psychiatrist, Mathis Abrams, who had no particular expertise in child sexual abuse. Abrams, the DCS caseworker’s report noted, “feels the child is telling the truth.” In an era of widespread and often false claims of child molestation, police and prosecutors have come to give great weight to the testimony of psychiatrists, therapists and social workers.

Police seized Jackson’s telephone books during the raid on his residences in August and questioned close to thirty children and their families. Some, such as Brett Barnes and Wade Robson, said they had shared Jackson’s bed, but like all the others, they gave the same response—Jackson had done nothing wrong. “The evidence was very good for us,” says an attorney who worked on Jackson’s defense. “The other side had nothing but a big mouth.”

Despite the scant evidence supporting their belief that Jackson was guilty, the police stepped up their efforts. Two officers flew to the Philippines to try to nail down the Quindoys’ “hand in the pants” story, but apparently decided it lacked credibility. The police also employed aggressive investigative techniques—including allegedly telling lies—to push the children into making accusations against Jackson. According to several parents who complained to Bert Fields, officers told them unequivocally that their children had been molested, even though the children denied to their parents that anything bad had happened. The police, Fields complained in a letter to Los Angeles Police Chief Willie Williams, “have also frightened youngsters with outrageous lies, such as ‘We have nude photos of you.’ There are, of course, no such photos.” One officer, Federico Sicard, told attorney Michael Freeman that he had lied to the children he’d interviewed and told them that he himself had been molested as a child, says Freeman. Sicard did not respond to requests for an interview for this article.

@2:39 the assorted reports:

“After millions of dollars were spent by prosecutors and police departments in two jurisdictions, and after two grand juries questioned close to 200 witnesses, including 30 children who knew Michael Jackson, not a single corroborating witness could be found.”

Newsday, 1993,

“No hard evidence had been gathered from the hundreds of papers, photographs and videotapes seized during the raids on Jackson’s Neverland home and Century City apartment.”

The Times, 1993

Having spent much of last week watching Jackson’s videotape collection, officers admitted they could not find no proof there of child sex abuse.”

The Times, 1993

“On Monday, police searched another property used by Jackson, a three-bedroom flat at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas, but after 30 minutes the officers left empty-handed.”

The Times, 1993

“The Los Angeles Police Department raided his Neverland home in the Santa Ynez Valley, confiscating videos and photographs that Jackson has taken of children. The LAPD report that they have all turned out to be totally innocent. Many of the children that Jackson has befriended, including Home Alone star Macauley Culkin, have been questioned by police and have testified that their relationship was perfectly innocent. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of children have visited the star’s home. The allegations centre on the evidence of just one boy.”

The Daily Telegraph, 1993

“The source, who asked not to be identified said the photographs did not tally with a description given to police by a 14-year boy who accused Jackson in a civil suit of secually abusing him. “The pictures simply didn’t match the boy’s description, the source said.”

Prosecutors in Los Angeles said settlement of the civil suit did not end their investigation, and there was no provision in the settlement to bar him from testifying in a possible criminal case.

Reuters, 1994

All along, June Chandler Schwartz rejected the charges Chandler was making against Jackson—until a meeting with police in late August 1993. Officers Sicard and Rosibel Ferrufino made a statement that began to change her mind. “[The officers] admitted they only had one boy,” says Freeman, who attended the meeting, “but they said, ‘We’re convinced Michael Jackson molested this boy because he fits the classic profile of a pedophile perfectly.’ ”

“There’s no such thing as a classic profile. They made a completely foolish and illogical error,” says Dr. Ralph Underwager, a Minneapolis psychiatrist who has treated pedophiles and victims of incest since 1953. Jackson, he believes, “got nailed” because of “misconceptions like these that have been allowed to parade as fact in an era of hysteria.” In truth, as a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study shows, many child-abuse allegations—48 percent of those filed in 1990 —proved to be unfounded.

“It was just a matter of time before someone like Jackson became a target,” says Phillip Resnick. “He’s rich, bizarre, hangs around with kids and there is a fragility to him. The atmosphere is such that an accusation must mean it happened.

The seeds of settlement were already being sown as the police investigation continued in both counties through the fall of 1993. And a behind-the-scenes battle among Jackson’s lawyers for control of the case, which would ultimately alter the course the defense would take, had begun.

By then, June Chandler Schwartz and Dave Schwartz had united with Evan Chandler against Jackson. The boy’s mother, say several sources, feared what Chandler and Rothman might do if she didn’t side with them. She worried that they would try to advance a charge against her of parental neglect for allowing her son to have sleepovers with Jackson. Her attorney, Michael Freeman, in turn, resigned in disgust, saying later that “the whole thing was such a mess. I felt uncomfortable with Evan. He isn’t a genuine person, and I sensed he wasn’t playing things straight.”

Over the months, lawyers for both sides were retained, demoted and ousted as they feuded over the best strategy to take. Rothman ceased being Chandler’s lawyer in late August, when the Jackson camp filed extortion charges against the two. Both then hired high-priced criminal defense attorneys to represent them.. (Rothman retained Robert Shapiro, now O.J. Simpson’s chief lawyer.) According to the diary kept by Rothman’s former colleague, on August 26, before the extortion charges were filed, Chandler was heard to say “It’s my ass that’s on the line and in danger of going to prison.” The investigation into the extortion charges was superficial because, says a source, “the police never took it that seriously. But a whole lot more could have been done.” For example, as they had done with Jackson, the police could have sought warrants to search the homes and offices of Rothman and Chandler. And when both men, through their attorneys, declined to be interviewed by police, a grand jury could have been convened.

“It was just a matter of time before someone like Jackson became a target. He’s rich, bizarre [and] hangs around with kids…

In mid-September, Larry Feldman, a civil attorney who’d served as head of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association, began representing Chandler’s son and immediately took control of the situation. He filed a $30 million civil lawsuit against Jackson, which would prove to be the beginning of the end.

Once news of the suit spread, the wolves began lining up at the door. According to a member of Jackson’s legal team, “Feldman got dozens of letters from all kinds of people saying they’d been molested by Jackson. They went through all of them trying to find somebody, and they found zero.”

With the possibility of criminal charges against Jackson now looming, Bert Fields brought in Howard Weitzman, a well-known criminal-defense lawyer with a string of high-profile clients—including John DeLorean, whose trail he won, and Kim Basinger, whose Boxing Helena contract dispute he lost. (Also, for a short time this June, Weitzman was O.J. Simpson’s attorney.) Some predicted a problem between the two lawyers early on. There wasn’t room for two strong attorneys used to running their own show.

From the day Weitzman joined Jackson’s defense team, “he was talking settlement,” says Bonnie Ezkenazi, an attorney who worked for the defense. With Fields and Pellicano still in control of Jackson’s defense, they adopted an aggressive strategy. They believed staunchly in Jackson’s innocence and vowed to fight the charges in court. Pellicano began gathering evidence to use in the trial, which was scheduled for March 21, 1994. “They had a very weak case,” says Fields. “We wanted to fight. Michael wanted to fight and go through a trial. We felt we could win.”

Dissension within the Jackson camp accelerated on November 12, after Jackson’s publicist announced at a press conference that the singer was canceling the remainder of his world tour to go into a drug-rehabilitation program to treat his addiction to painkillers. Fields later told reporters that Jackson was “barely able to function adequately on an intellectual level.” Others in Jackson’s camp felt it was a mistake to portray the singer as incompetent. “It was important,” Fields says, “to tell the truth. [Larry] Feldman and the press took the position that Michael was trying to hide and that it was all a scam. But it wasn’t.”

On November 23, the friction peaked. Based on information he says he got from Weitzman, Fields told a courtroom full of reporters that a criminal indictment against Jackson seemed imminent. Fields had a reason for making the statement: He was trying to delay the boy’s civil suit by establishing that there was an impending criminal case that should be tried first. Outside the courtroom, reporters asked why Fields had made the announcement, to which Weitzman replied essentially that Fields “misspoke himself.” The comment infuriated Fields, “because it wasn’t true,” he says. “It was just an outrage. I was very upset with Howard.” Fields sent a letter of resignation to Jackson the following week.

“There was this vast group of people all wanting to do a different thing, and it was like moving through molasses to get a decision,” says Fields. “It was a nightmare, and I wanted to get the hell out of it.” Pellicano, who had received his share of flak for his aggressive manner, resigned at the same time.

With Fields and Pellicano gone, Weitzman brought in Johnnie Cochran Jr., a well-known civil attorney who is now helping defend O.J. Simpson. And John Branca, whom Fields had replaced as Jackson’s general counsel in 1990, was back on board. In late 1993, as DAs in both Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties convened grand juries to assess whether criminal charges should be filed against Jackson, the defense strategy changed course and talk of settling the civil case began in earnest, even though his new team also believed in Jackson’s innocence.

Why would Jackson’s side agree to settle out of court, given his claims of innocence and the questionable evidence against him? His attorneys apparently decided there were many factors that argued against taking the case to civil court. Among them was the fact that Jackson’s emotional fragility would be tested by the oppressive media coverage that would likely plague the singer day after day during a trial that could last as long as six months. Politics and racial issues had also seeped into legal proceedings—particularly in Los Angeles, which was still recovering from the Rodney King ordeal—and the defense feared that a court of law could not be counted on to deliver justice. Then, too, there was the jury mix to consider. As one attorney says, “They figured that Hispanics might resent [Jackson] for his money, blacks might resent him for trying to be white, and whites would have trouble getting around the molestation issue.” In Resnick’s opinion, “The hysteria is so great and the stigma [of child molestation] is so strong, there is no defenseagainst it.”

Jackson’s lawyers also worried about what might happen if a criminal trial followed, particularly in Santa Barbara, which is a largely white, conservative, middle-to-upper-class community. Any way the defense looked at it, a civil trial seemed too big a gamble. By meeting the terms of a civil settlement, sources say, the lawyers figured they could forestall a criminal trial through a tacit understanding that Chandler would agree to make his son unavailable to testify.

Others close to the case say the decision to settle also probably had to do with another factor—the lawyers’ reputations. “Can you imagine what would happen to an attorney who lost the Michael Jackson case?” says Anthony Pellicano. “There’s no way for all three lawyers to come out winners unless they settle. The only person who lost is Michael Jackson.” But Jackson, says Branca, “changed his mind about [taking the case to trial] when he returned to this country. He hadn’t seen the massive coverage and how hostile it was. He just wanted the whole thing to go away.”

On the other side, relationships among members of the boy’s family had become bitter. During a meeting in Larry Feldman’s office in late 1993, Chandler, a source says, “completely lost it and beat up Dave [Schwartz].” Schwartz, having separated from June by this time, was getting pushed out of making decisions that affected his stepson, and he resented Chandler for taking the boy and not returning him.

“Dave got mad and told Evan this was all about extortion, anyway, at which point Evan stood up, walked over and started hitting Dave,” a second source says.

To anyone who lived in Los Angeles in January 1994, there were two main topics of discussion—the earthquake and the Jackson settlement. On January 25, Jackson agreed to pay the boy an undisclosed sum. The day before, Jackson’s attorneys had withdrawn the extortion charges against Chandler and Rothman.

The actual amount of the settlement has never been revealed, although speculation has placed the sum around $20 million. One source says Chandler and June Chandler Schwartz received up to $2 million each, while attorney Feldman might have gotten up to 25 percent in contingency fees. The rest of the money is being held in trust for the boy and will be paid out under the supervision of a court-appointed trustee.

“Remember, this case was always about money,” Pellicano says, “and Evan Chandler wound up getting what he wanted.” Since Chandler still has custody of his son, sources contend that logically this means the father has access to any money his son gets.

By late May 1994, Chandler finally appeared to be out of dentistry. He’d closed down his Beverly Hills office, citing ongoing harassment from Jackson supporters. Under the terms of the settlement, Chandler is apparently prohibited from writing about the affair, but his brother, Ray Charmatz, was reportedly trying to get a book deal.

In what may turn out to be the never-ending case, this past August, both Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz (two principal players left out of the settlement) filed civil suits against Jackson. Schwartz maintains that the singer broke up his family. Rothman’s lawsuit claims defamation and slander on the part of Jackson, as well as his original defense team—Fields, Pellicano and Weitzman—for the allegations of extortion. “The charge of [extortion],” says Rothman attorney Aitken, “is totally untrue. Mr. Rothman has been held up for public ridicule, was the subject of a criminal investigation and suffered loss of income.” (Presumably, some of Rothman’s lost income is the hefty fee he would have received had he been able to continue as Chandler’s attorney through the settlement phase.)

As for Michael Jackson, “he is getting on with his life,” says publicist Michael Levine. Now married, Jackson also recently recorded three new songs for a greatest-hits album and completed a new music video called “History.”

And what became of the massive investigation of Jackson? After millions of dollars were spent by prosecutors and police departments in two jurisdictions, and after two grand juries questioned close to 200 witnesses, including 30 children who knew Jackson, not a single corroborating witness could be found. (In June 1994, still determined to find even one corroborating witness, three prosecutors and two police detectives flew to Australia to again question Wade Robson, the boy who had acknowledged that he’d slept in the same bed with Jackson. Once again, the boy said that nothing bad had happened.)

The sole allegations leveled against Jackson, then, remain those made by one youth, and only after the boy had been give a potent hypnotic drug, leaving him susceptible to the power of suggestion.

“I found the case suspicious,” says Dr. Underwager, the Minneapolis psychiatrist, “precisely because the only evidence came from one boy. That would be highly unlikely. Actual pedophiles have an average of 240 victims in their lifetime. It’s a progressive disorder. They’re never satisfied.

Given the slim evidence against Jackson, it seems unlikely he would have been found guilty had the case gone to trial. But in the court of public opinion, there are no restrictions. People are free to speculate as they wish, and Jackson’s eccentricity leaves him vulnerable to the likelihood that the public has assumed the worst about him.

So is it possible that Jackson committed no crime—that he is what he has always purported to be, a protector and not a molester of children? Attorney Michael Freeman thinks so: “It’s my feeling that Jackson did nothing wrong and these people [Chandler and Rothman] saw an opportunity and programmed it. I believe it was all about money.”

To some observers, the Michael Jackson story illustrates the dangerous power of accusation, against which there is often no defense—particularly when the accusations involve child sexual abuse. To others, something else is clear now—that police and prosecutors spent millions of dollars to create a case whose foundation never existed.

Did Evan Chandler get a taste of his own medicine?

10401535_795582330454382_1105371834461569489_n

A couple of years after the allegations, in 2004, we learned about the nature of the settlement because they were leaked.

mj1993

WAS THE SETTLEMENT AN ADMISSION OF GUILT BY MICHAEL JACKSON?

No. In fact, the official settlement agreement clearly states that Michael Jackson “specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against the Chandlers.” At another point it is written that the civil settlement is explicitly “for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and NOT for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation.”

As part of the civil case, the Chandlers also announced within the settlement agreement that the first through sixth causes of actions (consisting of:  sexual battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud) would be dismissed without prejudice  which the Chandlers likewise agreed to drop once the money was received.

Quotes: “Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against, the Minor [Jordan Chandler], [Evan Chandler] or [June Chandler] or any other persons. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson is a public figure and that his name, image and likeness have commercial value and are an important element of his earning capacity. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in the Action in view of the impact the Action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and potential income.

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

DID THE SETTLEMENT PREVENT JORDAN CHANDLER FROM TESTIFYING IN COURT?

Absolutely not. One of the most commonly misconstrued beliefs of the settlement agreement is that it somehow prevented Jordan Chandler from testifying against Jackson in criminal court.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The 1993 settlement dealt exclusively with the civil case brought against Michael Jackson by the Chandlers, not the then on-going criminal investigation.  A civil case, in this perspective, is one that is filed with the single goal of obtaining monetary gain via a judgment against the defendant. Thus, when the Chandlers and their high-profile civil attorney Larry Feldman filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson, they did so with the sole intent of acquiring a certain degree of wealth;  not justice.

NOTHING within the settlement documents in any way prohibited the Chandlers from pressing criminal charges and pursuing the matter in criminal court, REGARDLESS of any financial settlement in the civil case. The Chandlers had every RIGHT to carry the case over to CRIMINAL COURT, even after obtaining the financial settlement.

In fact, Jordan Chandler was given more years to testify against Michael Jackson in a criminal court system than virtually any other alleged molestation victim, and was even granted a rare second opportunity to come forward during the 2005 criminal trial but refused. (Reports from his uncle, Ray Chandler, indicated that he had left the country in both 1998 at the age of 18 and again in 2005 to avoid having to testify).

By law, Jordan Chandler was permitted to testify at any time against Michael Jackson in court up through August of 2000. However, Tom Sneddon announced in 2001 that he had actually extended the statute of limitations of the 1993 case so that it “can be reopened at any time.”

According to Sneddon, the statute of limitations was frozen in time “because Jackson was living out of the country for much of that time.” On February 6, 2003, Tom Sneddon echoed a similar statement in a press release: “the 1993 case could be reactivated upon the discovery of new, credible evidence or victims willing to cooperate. Nothing has changed. The investigation remains ‘open, but inactive.’”

Between 1993 and 1994, the criminal allegations were investigated for over 12 months by Gil Garcetti of Los Angeles and Tom Sneddon of Santa Barbara.

TWO grand juries from both jurisdictions convened and spent months listening to the prosecution’s evidence and third party witnesses. At the end, each grand jury agreed that there was not enough evidence to indict.

Both district attorneys insisted that the reason they could not indict Michael Jackson on criminal charges is due to the “unavailability of the primary alleged victim.” It was made clear that Jordan Chandler could have come forward to testify at any point, but he never did.

DID THE INSURANCE COMPANY NEGOTIATE THE SETTLEMENT?

Ever since the initial leak of the settlement documents in 2004, speculation has spread that it was in fact an Insurer Carrier that ultimately negotiated and paid for the settlement, NOT Michael Jackson himself.

In a 2005 legal document filed in court by Michael Jackson’s defense, this theory grew feet.

On a Web chat conducted by Diane Dimond on June 16, 2004, among the questions discussed was the following one:
QUESTION from Incognito:  Did you say that an insurance company paid the money? What kind of insurance would that be?

DIANE DIMOND: Note that Jackson agreed to pay on the allegation of negligence. Check out your homeowner’s policy. If you negligently leave out a banana peel that someone trips and falls over, your insurance company will pay out for your negligence. They will not, however, pay out if you committed a crime. That’s probably why he agreed only to the negligence claim”. (note – as stated before, the civil case was for global claims of negligence, NOT molestation. Celebrities, businesses, hospitals, wealthy people insurers pay out negligence claims all the time – they are the easiest claims to bring against someone/an entity because they don’t necessarily require corroborating evidence).

Little more was said about the insurance settlement theory until the trial of 2005.

On March 22, 2005, a motion was filed in court on behalf of Michael Jackson and within the said court document, numerous statements were made that an insurance carrier had negotiated and settled the 1993 civil case. The relevant section from the document is transcribed below:

“The 1993 Civil Settlement was Made by Mr. Jackson’s Insurance Company and was not within Mr.Jackson’s control. The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr.Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is unfair for an insurance company’s settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson’s prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could NOT CONTROL NOR INTERFERE with his insurance carrier’s demand to settle the dispute”.

Word Picture Source for both images: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/analyzing-the-media’s-hypocrisy-in-reporting-on-michael-jackson’s-settlements-vs-the-settlements-of-other-celebrities-part-1/

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/the-questions-asked-about-the1993-settlement/

The document belowe showed Michael Jackson did NOT pay out the settlement; his Insurance carrier did and it was for Global Claims of NEGLIGENCE NOT molestation (as stated above)! It was the media who erroneously kept reporting that Michael Jackson settled the “molestation” lawsuit.

Negligence claims were the easiest suit to bring against someone because they didn’t necessarily require corroborating evidence. Many Insurance Companies have immediately paid out negligence claims despite a client’s protest or objection. This one lady I know, throws a huge party every year with food and drinks and makes sure EVERYONE signs a LIABILITY WAIVER contract so they can’t sue her for NEGLIGENCE. Had MJ made the Chandlers sign a LIABILITY WAIVER Evan’s chances of suing MJ would have been low to non-existent b/c he would have forfeited his rights to sue. This case was all about money. It was a CIVIL case meaning payouts and MONEY! He got what he wanted ALL ALONG: MONEY! He knew by suing for negligence would ensure a quick payout. Had he filed molestation charges against Michael he would have had to prove it occurred and possibly testify against Michael in court.

– By February 1994, police still did not have a witness who was willing to testify against Jackson. Investigators consequently turned to the tabloids for leads, contacting several of Jackson’s former employees who had sold their stories to the media. For example, investigators flew to the Philippines to interview the Quindoys, a couple who had told the tabloids that they’d seen Jackson act inappropriately with a child. Police decided that their story was not credible based on the fact that the more money they received, the more salacious their story became. – The Floacist (As stated in previous posts, people admitted to being approached by tabloids to lie on Michael Jackson for money, some said “no” and some agreed to go along like the Quindoys).

Evan Chandler had up to 10 years to file criminal charges against Michael Jackson and NEVER did. He never pursued those molestation charges b/c odds are him, his son and MJ would have had to take the stand and face cross examination! When Tom Sneddon asked both Evan and Jordan to testify in the 2005 trial they said “no” … so what does this tell you? It was all about M-O-N-E-Y from day one.

settlementinsurance1 settlementinsurance2 settlementinsurance3

settlementinsurance4

The link where you can download the full document:

032205mjmemospprtobj

Even once Jordan Chandler began to toe his father’s line, his testimony was so unconvincing that DA Tom Sneddon took his case to three separate grand juries and none of them allowed him to bring charges against Michael Jackson. Contrary to widely reported myth, Jordan Chandler did not accurately describe Jackson’s genitals. Among other inaccuracies, he claimed that Jackson was circumcised while police photographs proved that he was not.

Unsurprisingly, none of this information has made its way into the mainstream media’s reportage of Evan Chandler’s death. Instead, Chandler’s suicide is seen as another opportunity to sling mud at Michael Jackson and perpetuate the same, tired old myths about the 1993 allegations – particularly with regard to the settlement.

News outlets the world over are once more reporting that in 1994 Jackson paid the Chandlers a settlement. This is total fiction.

Court documents which came to light in 2005 state clearly that Jackson’s insurance carrier “negotiated and paid the settlement over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel.”

Jackson didn’t even agree with the settlement, let alone pay it.

– Charles Thomson, award winning journalist, http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/11/evan-chandler-suicide-higlights-media.html

 

Rush Limbaugh Defending Michael Jackson in 1994!

Geraldine Hughes, the Legal Secretary who worked for Evan Chandler’s lawyer in 1993.

The truth of the 1993 case and her part in it had fallen on deaf ears. As the legal secretary for the Chandler’s lawyers, Geraldine Hughes played a very important and key witness in the 1993 case. She had access to information the general public and mainstream media didn’t have at the time. She heard and saw things that most of us wouldn’t. She knew the case was nothing more than an extortion plot. Back in the 2000s before the 2005 trial, she tried to go to most main stream media outlets to reveal the truth, but wasn’t met with welcoming arms.

In 1993, after being investigated by the Los Angeles Sheriff, the Los Angeles LAPD, the Santa Barbara Sheriffs, the Santa Barbara LAPD and, we later learned after his death, there was an FBI probe, he was exonerated of all accusations of child molestation from 1993 and 2003. – Geraldine Hughes, Legal secretary who worked for Evan Chandler’s attorney in 1993; http://geraldinehughes.blogspot.com/

Tom Mesereau Had Witnesses Ready to Testify Against Chandler in 2005

… Jordan Chandler went to court when he was 16 and gained legal emancipation from both of his parents. When called to appear at Jackson’s 2005 trial, he refused to testify against his former friend. Had he taken the stand, Jackson’s legal team had a number of witnesses who were prepared to testify that Jordan – who now lives in Long Island under an assumed name – had told them in recent years that he hated his parents for what they made him say in 1993, and that Michael Jackson had never touched him.

The evidence surrounding the 1993 allegations overwhelmingly supports Michael Jackson’s innocence. It is for this reason that during the lengthy investigation, which continued for many months before Jackson’s insurance carrier negotiated a settlement, Michael Jackson was never arrested and he was never charged with any crime.

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Evan Chandler masterminded the allegations as a money making scheme, believing it would help him to achieve his dream of working in Hollywood. The aforementioned tape recorded telephone conversation heard him dismiss the boy’s wellbeing as ‘irrelevant’ and claim that he was out to take Jackson for all he was worth. – Award winning journalist, Charles Thomson, http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/11/evan-chandler-suicide-higlights-media.html

Elizabeth Taylor defends Michael Jackson – Larry King Live

She describes that she was a witness to the sleepovers.

and according to people who worked with Tom Sneddon racism played a huge role in his pursuit against Michael Jackson

Tom Sneddon's Secret Motives for Michael Jackson WitchHunt

Picture Source: MJJ-777.com http://www.mj-777.com/?p=8062

Just how easy was it to make a false child molestation claim against Michael Jackson?

Look at the video below.

very important comment on original video (video has been since taken down and we had look for another copy, however, we managed to save important comment)

…This is a SCAM that some other ENEMY of MJ tried to manufacture in Canada. But it proves how ANYONE can be coached to LIE about molestation. But unlike LA where they did NO INVESTIGATION of the Chandlers, in Canada THE POLICE DID THEIR JOB and investigated. See in the Chandler case, the police allowed EXTORTION of MJ and had no questions of the credibility of them. They accepted the Chandler story without ever questioning MOTIVES of Evan Chandler. – MJMedia09Returns

A Book Publisher who was approached by members of Chandler family to write a book about their story. She believed they were “brazen opportunists.”

 

sean-lennon

What many people don’t realize is this scam eventually led to Janet Arvizo attempting to do the same thing in 2003 with the help of the Martin Bashir documentary and of course Tom Sneddon

MJ’s 2003 accuser, LIED. That he admitted to his middle school classmate and the principal, that Michael never did anything to him, and that he was taught to do this by his mother (to lie for gain) and that he was bragging to classmates about hanging out with MJ right before the Bashir docu and then suddenly the family’s story changed. This is IMPORTANT information

 

 

 

 

Rumors Vs. Facts – 1993 and 2003 cases.

The-Trial-January-2005-michael-jackson-21538737-1441-1200f

1. Have there been other accusers?

In December 2003, former Sheriff Jim Thomas told the media that there was a second boy who accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse in 1993. According to Thomas: “It was a boy [whose] mother was actually an employee of the [Jackson] family.” Thomas alleged that the boy would not cooperate with authorities because he was too “embarrassed.”

The boy in question is the son of Blanca Francia, Jackson’s former maid. Authorities got in contact with Francia after she appeared on Hard Copy and told the tabloid show that she had witnessed Jackson act inappropriately with her son. She repeated these statements in a sworn deposition for the Chandlers’ civil lawsuit but when questioned by authorities, Francia claimed that the boy had never accused Jackson of any wrongdoing. Under deposition by one of Jackson’s attorneys, Francia also admitted that she had exaggerated during her Hard Copy interview.

Still, investigators insisted on interviewing Francia’s son and even offered to send him to a therapist. According to an article from USA Today: “Investigators from the county sheriff’s office recently arranged for the 13-year-old son of Jackson’s former maid to see a therapist. The boy was first interviewed by police after his mother told them he had spent time alone with Jackson. According to his mother, the child has repeatedly denied being abused in any way by the pop music star.” The article explains that the offer of a therapist was made because Francia “felt uncomfortable” with the way authorities had been harassing her son.

Francia later blackmailed Jackson by threatening to accuse him of molesting her son unless she received a financial settlement from the Jackson camp. Jackson’s associates advised him to pay Francia off, fearing that the bad publicity from a second accusation would irreparably harm his record sales. After receiving $2 million, Francia did not file suit against Jackson.

Given the fact that Francia only made accusations against Jackson in exchange for financial compensation, one must question why Jim Thomas would be so quick to claim that her son was a “victim” of Jackson’s. Perhaps he is trying to taint the jury pool? Thomas is, afterall, admittedly good friends with the District Attorney [Tom Sneddon].

While we are on the subject of jury pool tainting, in April 2004, news broke that an 18-year-old man named Daniel Kapon had told the Santa Barbara Police Department he’d been molested by Jackson when he was 3 years old. He claimed that he had repressed the memories and as a result, only recently remembered being abused. The SBPD turned him away because they could not determine whether or not the man had even met Michael Jackson. For some reason, however, the SBPD did not file charges against Kapon. Consequently, he took his story to the Los Angeles Police Department who also concluded that his allegations were bogus.

It was later revealed that attorney Gloria Allred and psychiatrist Carole Lieberman were behind the man’s accusations. For those unfamiliar with the names, Lieberman is the self-proclaimed “media” psychiatrist whose official website declares her “the first psychiatrist to have made formal child abuse complaints against Michael Jackson, beginning in November 2002” and Allred is the Jackson-obsessed attorney who keeps making public requests for the singer’s children to be removed from his custody. Allred also briefly represented Jackson’s first accuser Jordan Chandler in 1993 but was fired after she told the media that the Chandlers were interested in justice. Since then, Allred’s relationship with Jackson has been contentious; in 2002, he publicly told her to “go to hell.”

After Lieberman helped Kapon “remember” the abuse he allegedly suffered 15 years earlier, Allred signed on as his attorney. Their plans to go forward with the case were derailed, however, when the LAPD issued a statement saying they would not press charges. Although Jackson was cleared of any wrongdoing, the news of another accuser had already done significant damage to his image. “This appears to be a malicious attempt to undermine Mr. Jackson’s right to a fair hearing on the charges presently pending,” Jackson’s lawyers said in a statement.

The only person who benefited from the ordeal was Daniel Kapon who sold his story to the British tabloid News of the World.

Daniel Kapon – Paid $500k By The News Of The World

A lawsuit filed by a young man who alleged he was molested as a boy by Michael Jackson — and who also claimed he fathered the singer’s two oldest children and saw him dine with Fidel Castro — was dismissed today by a judge.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu granted a motion by Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas C. Mundell, to throw out the case after the 22-year- old plaintiff, {tag Daniel Kapon}, failed to show up for the scheduled start of today’s trial.

“I think the judge realized how crazy the lawsuit was,” Mundell said outside the courtroom.”

—————-

2. Was Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s genitalia accurate?

In 1994, sources told USA Today that “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.” Because this statement came from anonymous sources, some Jackson critics are quick to dismiss the article as erroneous and continue to insist that Jordan Chandler’s description was accurate. There has never been any evidence to substantiate this claim; on the other hand, the fact that no charges were ever brought against Jackson indicates that the description did NOT match. A member of the grand jury in 1994 even told CNN that “no damaging evidence was heard.”

3. Should a 45-year-old man be allowed to have children sleep over at his house?

Michael Jackson has been widely criticized for his statements regarding children sharing his bedroom. It is not illegal for him to do this and it does not make him guilty of anything besides going against a societal norm.

Sexual abuse does not always occur at night or in a bed. If you argue that the sleepovers are wrong because they provide an opportunity for sexual abuse to occur, then I guess you could also argue that no adult should ever be alone with any child. Whether or not they’re related is irrelevant because there’s something called incest that people seem to have forgotten about.

So why are the sleepovers viewed as wrong? It’s Jackson’s personal belief that there’s nothing inappropriate about falling asleep next to a child and there’s no logical reason that proves otherwise. Perhaps he should keep children out of his bedroom to avoid any appearance of impropriety but, again, bad judgement does not make a person guilty.

With that said, I’d like to point out that if there was anything inappropriate going on during those sleepovers, why would Jackson draw attention to his behaviour by talking about the sleepovers so openly on national television? Also, if he really wanted to molest children, why wouldn’t he do it somewhere that wouldn’t look suspicious?

Finally, we do not know the context of the sleepovers, how often they occur, with whom, if there is supervision, etc. Any conclusions drawn about Jackson’s behaviour are presumptuous and speculative at best. What we do know is that Michael Jackson has said that he never invites children into his bedroom; even his current accuser made it clear that he was the one who asked Jackson if he could stay with him one night. Keep in mind that the boy was a recovering cancer patient at the time; when you take this fact into consideration, his request to spend the night with an adult he trusted does not seem unusual.

4. Isn’t it hard to believe that he’s been falsely accused twice?

No. The second set of accusations only materialized after the first allegations made headline news again in February 2003. After the 1993 case, ten years passed without any accusations being made against Michael Jackson. Suddenly, the controversial Living with Michael Jackson documentary aired, the District Attorney released a press statement about the 1993 case, the civil lawyer from the 1993 case started doing the TV rounds, the boy’s deposition from the 1993 case was leaked on the Internet, Maureen Orth’s slanderous Vanity Fair article was published and finally, after all of that controversy, a second accuser came forward. And not just any accuser- the second alleged victim just happened to be the same boy who appeared on the documentary and caused all of the uproar in the first place.

Furthermore, the two allegations are not isolated from one another. The same District Attorney, the same civil lawyer and the same psychiatrist were all involved in both sets of accusations. I definitely see a pattern but it has nothing to do with Michael Jackson’s alleged criminal behaviour.

5. Even if Jackson is innocent, why did he put himself in this position again?

Answer this question: if a man is falsely accused of rape, should he stay away from women for the rest of his life? And if he is falsely accused of rape again, is it his fault?

The only way Michael Jackson could have protected himself from being the victim of another false allegation is if he had completely cut off contact with children after 1993. Molestation can occur anywhere, not just at night and not just in a bed. He could have put an end to the sleepovers and still have been accused of abusing a child someplace else.

The sleepovers might give more credence to the allegations in the minds of the general public but their opinions should be irrelevant because they are not the ones responsible for investigating claims of child molestation. That job belongs to members of law enforcement and regardless of how “strange” Michael Jackson’s behavior might appear to some, falling asleep next to a child is not a crime. People’s opinions on the sleepovers should not matter; the facts of this case should be the only determinants of Michael Jackson’s innocence or guilt. If members of law enforcement are not doing their jobs properly, that is not Michael Jackson’s fault. The justice system is supposed to protect the innocent, regardless of their lifestyle choices and supposed eccentricities.

6. Although Evan Chandler only wanted money, isn’t it possible that his son really was molested?

No. Remember, before carrying out his plan, Evan Chandler went to Michael Jackson first and asked for money. Chandler used a letter from a psychiatrist to try to blackmail Jackson and was turned away. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested Jordan Chandler, why didn’t he take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid up right then and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he refused to pay the Chandlers. If he was guilty, please explain to me why he did that.

It’s undeniable that Evan Chandler only wanted money; knowing this, why didn’t Michael Jackson just buy his silence in the beginning? Imagine how different things would have been for him. His career would not have been jeopardized, his image would not have been tarnished and, again, assuming he was indeed a pedophile, he could have carried on with his activities without people suspecting anything. The only logical reason to explain why he didn’t pay off Evan Chandler is because he was innocent and naively assumed that justice would be on his side.

Also, keep in mind that pedophiles have hundreds of victims. Out of the thousands of children who have been to Neverland, you expect me to believe that Jackson only molests children whose parents are dishonest and greedy? Surely he would have other victims besides Jordan Chandler and the new accuser. Why haven’t they come forward? Let me guess, he paid them all off? None of his victims have parents who are normal, honest people? None of them want justice for their sexually abused children? Bullshit.

7. Why put so much faith in the GQ article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?”?

Why not? First of all, Mary A. Fischer (the author of the article) is not known for writing about celebrities. She is a well-respected investigative reporter who has had a successful 18-year career. Her article on Gulf War Syndrome won an award from Northwestern University and she has been nominated twice for the National Magazine Award. She has also been published in Rolling Stone, Life Magazine, Men’s Journal and the New York Times. Why would this woman put her credibility on the line by writing an inaccurate article in Michael Jackson’s defense?

Secondly, let’s look at her sources:
– Geraldine Hughes, the legal secretary for Jordan Chandler’s attorney.
– Michael Freeman, the lawyer who represented June Chandler in her custody case.
– Bert Fields, Jackson’s first lawyer who resigned due to conflict within the legal team.
– Anthony Pellicano, Jackson’s private investigator who also backed out of the case.
– Court records and legal documents.
– Several psychiatrists and medical experts.
– An audio tape of a conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz.
– Mark Torbiner, the anesthesiologist who administered the sodium amytal to Jordan Chandler.

All of Mary Fischer’s sources were involved with the case and some of the information she reported is indisputable as it is backed up by court documents, audio/video recordings, etc. Also, Bert Fields and Anthony Pellicano left Michael Jackson’s legal team because they were unhappy with the new lawyers who were brought in. They had no reason to remain loyal to Jackson when being interviewed for the article as they were no longer being employed by him.

In addition, when Evan Chandler sued Dave Schwartz and June Chandler for invasion of privacy in 1994, Mary Fischer was subpoenaed to produce information concerning her article. Evan Chandler and his attorneys were well aware of what Fischer wrote. If she had not referenced the information in her article, Evan Chandler would have had grounds for a lawsuit. Chandler, however, did not sue. This indicates that all of the information in Fischer’s article was backed up by sources so the validity of the article boils down to the credibility of those who provided Fischer with information. Since all of the sources were actually involved in the case, did not have any apparent agenda in coming forward and all opted to reveal their identities (except for Geraldine Hughes, who later came forward with all of her information), there is no reason to assume that Ms. Fischer’s article was untrue. But if you choose to continue living in denial, that’s your prerogative…

8. How do you know Geraldine Hughes is telling the truth about the Chandlers?

If the information Geraldine Hughes has written about is untrue, why hasn’t Barry Rothman (the attorney she worked for) taken legal action against her? He sued Michael Jackson for defamation of character and didn’t get any money. Why isn’t he suing Geraldine Hughes? Surely her book is far more damaging to his legal practice than anything Michael Jackson has ever said. Perhaps Rothman has not sued Ms. Hughes because the ultimate defense against being accused of defamation of character is if you are telling the truth.

One might ask if Geraldine Hughes is telling the truth, why hasn’t Rothman sued her for violating attorney/client priviliges. In response to this question, Ms. Hughes cited the following California evidentiary code:

§956 Exception: Crime or fraud

There is no privilege under this article if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or a fraud.

Ms. Hughes’ defense is that Rothman was hired to commit extortion so obviously she has evidence to back up her claims. This evidence could protect her in either a slander lawsuit or a violation of attorney/client priviliges lawsuit. Why else would she risk getting sued? To help Michael Jackson? I think we’ve all seen that writing salacious stories about him makes for a much more profitable career.

Furthermore, it’s not like Ms. Hughes came out and said “Evan Chandler told me he made the whole thing up.” To prove her contention that the Chandlers were guilty of extortion, Hughes uses the details surrounding the custody battle (backed up by court documents), the motions that were filed in relation to the civil lawsuit (backed up by court documents) and Evan Chandler’s own words (backed up by an audio tape). She did witness some suspicious behaviours but these were not the basis of her arguments. Instead, her own personal observations merely served to corroborate the overwhelming amount of documented evidence that proves Jackson was the victim of an elaborate extortion plot.

Michael Jackson NEVER paid the $20 million dollar settlement…The public thought it was a case of child molestation, but behind the scenes it was all about extortion. When Michael Jackson refused to give Evan Chandler $20 million to make a movie, he launched the false allegation of child molestation solely to ruin Michael Jackson’s career and so that he could get paid.

– Geraldine Hughes, the Legal Secretary who worked for Evan Chandler’s lawyer in 1993.

9. What about all of those employees who came forward during the 1993 investigation?

In 1993, many of Michael Jackson’s former employees ran to the media with their stories of alleged inappropriate behaviour on Jackson’s part. These employees included Jackson’s maid Blanca Francia, several security guards, and Orietta Murdoch, one of Jackson’s administrative assistants. Under deposition, all of the employees admitted they were paid to fabricate stories about Jackson. As a result of their televised accusations, however, they were subpoenaed to appear in front of the grand jury in 1994. The fact that no charges were brought indicates that the employees did not reveal anything incriminating about Jackson during their testimonies.

Some of the employees later filed a wrongful termination suit against Jackson claiming that they were fired because they refused to tell Jackson what they said in front of the grand jury. Jackson denied their allegations and even counter sued, alleging that the employees had stolen items from his home and sold them to tabloids. The jury sided with Jackson saying there wasn’t any evidence to substantiate the employees’ claims. Jackson was awarded $60,000 from each employee.

Another opportunist from the 1993 case is Robert Wegner, Jackson’s former head of security. Wegner wrote a book called “My Three Years Working for Michael Jackson” where he alleged that Jackson frequently invited boys into his bedroom. Wegner claims he released the book because he wanted to “protect children”; you would think calling the police would be a more logical alternative but that seems to be the last place people go when accusing Michael Jackson of wrongdoing.

When asked why he did not testify to his claims in front of the grand jury in 1994, Wegner replied: “I got injured… and they convinced LAPD that I could not come to the grand jury hearing… if I had testified there, there wouldn’t have been a book.” Right.

10. How do you know the taped conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz is real?

The tape does, in fact, exist because Evan Chandler sued Dave Schwartz for invasion of privacy in 1994. Chandler complained that Schwartz recorded their conversation and gave the tape to a third party who in turn broadcast the tape on national television. Sorry to break your heart, but the tape is real. That is indeed Evan Chandler making his twisted motives crystal clear. That’s him saying, “if I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I’ve checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son] and Michael’s career will be over.” He also says his son’s best interests are “irrelevant” to him and threatens that it will be a “massacre if I don’t get what I want.” Indeed.

11. Did Evan Chandler try to sue Michael after 1993?

Yes. Evan Chandler tried to sue Michael Jackson in 1996, claiming that Jackson violated the terms of their civil settlement by denying that he ever sexually abused the boy. In his lawsuit, Chandler cited Jackson’s 1995 album HIStory as well as an interview that Jackson did with Diane Sawyer. In addition to the $60 million he demanded, Chandler also wanted a court order to allow him to produce and distribute his own album called EVANstory. From the lawsuit:

As an additional direct and proximate result of Defendant Jackson’s and others’ material breach of the agreement as herein alleged, and because of the need to repair the reputation of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks the equitable remedy of an order to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for sale a certain musical composition entitled “EVANstory.” This album will include such songs as: “D.A. Reprised”; “You Have No Defense (For My Love)”; “Duck Butter Blues”; “Truth”; and other songs.

That’s right. Instead of getting justice for his son who was allegedly molested, Evan Chandler wanted to sing songs about it. The lawsuit was thrown out of court.

12. Who is Diane Dimond and how is she involved in this case?

Diane Dimond is the former host of Hard Copy who has apparently declared herself the expert on the Michael Jackson case. She’s obviously very close to the District Attorney Tom Sneddon but is far from accurate in her reporting. Here’s a little history lesson on Diane Dimond:

– In 1993, Dimond did a segment with two of Jackson’s former bodyguards. They claimed they were fired because they knew too much about Jackson’s alleged relationships with young boys. Dimond swore that the bodyguards were not paid for their story. A contract later revealed that they were given $100,000 to appear on her show. When taken to court, both bodyguards admitted that they had made the whole thing up.

– That same year, Jackson’s former maid Blanca Francia appeared on Hard Copy claiming she’d seen Jackson naked with young boys. A copy of Francia’s testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000 to make this story up. Again, under oath, the disgruntled ex-employee admitted she had lied.

– A man named Victor Gutierrez appeared on Hard Copy claiming he’d seen a tape of Michael Jackson sexually abusing his nephews. Dimond later repeated his comments on a Los Angeles TV station. When it was proven that Gutierrez made the entire thing up, Jackson filed a lawsuit against him and Hard Copy. Although Dimond was dismissed from the lawsuit because of “journalistic integrity” (which should not even be used in the same sentence with the name “Diane Dimond”), Gutierrez was forced to pay Jackson $2.7 million in damages.

– When Jackson’s former sister-in-law was tragically murdered, Dimond implied that Jackson might have had something to do with it.

– In 1995, Dimond found a random street kid from Toronto who told her that Michael Jackson had sexually abused him. Diane escorted the boy to the police station where investigators questioned him for hours. Dimond was ready to report the story on Hard Copy but the boy confessed that he had made it all up. Since Dimond had already signed on to the story, she was forced to report it. She tried to make it seem as if she was also a victim of the boy’s lie but it’s obvious that she was the one who sought him out. Why would a kid go to her of all people and make accusations against Michael Jackson?

– In June 2003, Dimond appeared on television and said: “When I saw the part of the documentary with that little cancer boy sitting next to Michael Jackson holding his hand I thought ‘this is the proof that it’s still going on.'”

– Dimond admitted that she knew about the new allegations in advance. Why was the DA leaking information to a tabloid journalist? She was also at Neverland when the police conducted their search of the grounds.

– In November, Dimond reported that police found love letters addressed to Jackson’s accuser at Neverland. It was later revealed that no such letters existed. Perhaps the DA realized it was an illogical story (why would Jackson store incriminating evidence at his house, especially when he suspected in February that this family would accuse him?) and that’s why he denied it.

– When a man who won a collection of Jackson memorabilia started doing the rounds on various TV shows, Diane Dimond got in contact with him. While visiting him, Dimond found a pair of 20-year-old, dirty underwear (which could have belonged to any member of the Jackson family). She phoned Tom Sneddon and told him to take DNA samples from the item. She then proceeded to pick up the underwear and parade them around on television.

– Dimond, after getting a copy of a confidential document revealing the details of Jackson’s 1993 civil settlement, leaked the contents of the document to the press. She also falsely stated that Jackson admitted to wrongdoing in the agreement.

Do not be fooled by Diane’s sudden emergence as a credible journalist. The only reason why the District Attorney is giving her confidential information (among other possible reasons) is because they both have a grudge against Michael Jackson stemming from the 1993 allegations.

13. Don’t you think Michael Jackson seems weird based on what he said in that documentary?

Living with Michael Jackson is precisely what started this whole mess. Martin Bashir wanted to make a documentary that would raise eyebrows, cause controversy and get people talking and that is exactly what he did. The documentary put great emphasis on Michael Jackson’s relationship with children, particularly with the boy who is now making accusations. After Living with Michael Jackson aired, people were already implying that Jackson had abused the boy on the documentary. Not only that, but the allegations from 1993 resurfaced and were being discussed all over again. It was only a matter of time before a new allegation surfaced.

If you watched The Michael Jackson Interview: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See, Michael Jackson was painted in a much more positive light. It just goes to show that the person who compiles the footage, writes the commentary, and conducts the voiceovers has the most influence on how the documentary turns out. It has nothing to do with the actual subject and much to do with the agenda of the person producing the documentary. Both programs showed footage from the exact same interview but one painted Jackson out to be completely irresponsible with children while the other portrayed him as a loving, devoted father. Which one shows the real Michael Jackson? There are very few people who can answer this question for certain. People need to understand that watching a heavily edited 2 hour documentary on Michael Jackson does not give anyone insight into who he is as a person. Do you have any idea what Michael Jackson is like when there are no cameras on him? Probably not.

14. Hasn’t it occurred to you that maybe the new accuser was too scared to come forward when he was initially asked about the abuse?

So after having every opportunity in the world to come forward, this boy finally confessed his dark and painful secret to Larry Feldman, the civil lawyer who just happened to represent Michael Jackson’s first accuser in 1993? And he must have told Larry Feldman because Feldman was the one who sent him to see a psychiatrist. How was Feldman able to get a confession out of him when several social workers were unable to? I guess it’s official- Larry Feldman is now the saviour of abused children everywhere.

15. How is the current case an extortion attempt if the mother is not filing a civil lawsuit?

Everybody has been saying that because the family has not filed a civil suit, they do not want money. Of course nobody mentions the fact that if the family did file a civil lawsuit, nothing would be done with it until after the criminal trial was resolved. The law was changed after 1993 so that if there was a civil trial and a criminal trial dealing with the same allegation, the civil proceedings would remain inactive until after the criminal proceedings. It would make no sense for the family to file a civil lawsuit now. They were obviously considering it at one point seeing as how they went to Larry Feldman (the civil lawyer from the 1993 case) first. There is nothing stopping the family from filing a civil suit later. They could also make a vast amount of money from TV appearances, books, interviews, etc.

In addition to that, if Jackson is convicted, the family can seek restitution, which is money provided to the victims of physical or sexual assault, rape, incest, and other forms of abuse.

16. Is there any truth to Maureen Orth’s recent article about the Michael Jackson case?

Vanity Fair magazine recently acknowledged that the bulk of information from Maureen Orth’s article on Michael Jackson came from former Jackson chief financial officer Myung-Ho Lee. Lee told Orth that Jackson had once given a Japanese boy alcohol in a soda can to get him drunk. Orth used this story to show a pattern of behaviour on Jackson’s part, as he is accused of giving his alleged victim wine in a soda can.

Shortly after the article was written, however, the boy Orth had written about came forward. In an interview with NBC’s Mike Taibbi, Richard Matsuura said the allegations in Orth’s article were “completely false” and that Jackson had never acted inappropriately around him. The boy’s father also said the information in the Vanity Fair magazine article was untrue.

Orth admitted that she had never actually spoken with Matsuura but said she stood by her source. Myung-Ho Lee, who provided Orth with most of her information, also stood by his story, which begs the question: how much of Orth’s report was actually true? If Orth did not bother to follow up on Lee’s story about the Japanese boy, what else did she fail to look into?

The February 2004 article was not Orth’s first forray into “investigative reporting.” In 2003, she wrote a similar article about Jackson where she reported that the singer had participated in a ritual blood bath to put a voodoo spell on Steven Spielberg. According to Orth’s “source,” Jackson had hundreds of cows ritually sacrificed for this little venture. So far, no witch doctors have come forward to deny the story but if the source of this information is as credible as Myung-Ho Lee, one has to wonder about the validity of Orth’s claims. Besides, last time I checked, Steven Spielberg was alive and well.

So why do members of the media frequently invite Maureen Orth onto their shows, hail her as a Jackson “expert” and continue to provide a platform for her stupidity? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that she is married to Tim Russert, the senior vice president of NBC News.

17. Does Michael Jackson fit the profile of a pedophile?

No. According to Michael Borak, a forensic psychiatrist who has evaluated many pedophiles, Michael Jackson’s eccentric behavior is “not typical of most offenders. Most offenders are ‘normal’ people who could be your neighbors, not freaky or weird.” In response to people who think Jackson’s image is typical of pedophiles, another psychiatrist, Dr. Ralph Underwager, who has treated pedophiles and victims of incest since 1953 says, “There’s no such thing as a classic pedophile. They made a completely foolish and illogical error.” He says Jackson is an easy target because “misconceptions like these have been allowed to parade as fact in an era of hysteria.”

One undisputable fact about pedophiles is that they have hundreds of victims. Why does Michael Jackson only have two accusers? Why were both allegations made under such questionable circumstances (one boy was under the influence of a psychiatric drug and the other only came forward after getting involved with the same civil lawyer from the first case)? You can speculate about Jackson’s supposed resemblance to all of the pedophiles you know (or perhaps you don’t actually know any pedophiles and you’re just buying into media hype) but the facts surrounding the case remain the same.

18. Michael Jackson has lied about things in the past. How do you know he’s telling the truth now?

Flawed logic is a force to be reckoned with but let me try to explain this. If Michael Jackson has lied in the past, it has only been about trivial things that should not be of any concern to normal, rational people. Who cares about how much plastic surgery he’s had? Who cares about his sex life? Who cares about how his children were conceived? This is nobody’s business but Michael Jackson’s and none of us have any right to know the answers to these questions. If he wants to give people false information about his personal life, he has every right to do so. Whether he’s even lied about certain things is debatable but it really makes no difference because none of that changes the facts surrounding the case.

19. Michael doesn’t seem to have normal relationships with women. Doesn’t this make him seem kind of suspicious?

It’s funny how in the absence of any tangible evidence, people will resort to making useless observations about Michael Jackson’s personal relationships. The fact of the matter is, you don’t know Michael Jackson any better than I do. I could sit here and list everything he’s ever said and done that is indicative of his heterosexuality but it would be pointless because I don’t know him. Neither do you so how can you possibly say that he doesn’t have normal relationships with women? Perhaps he likes to keep his private life private. Perhaps he’s seen from his last two marriages that any woman who gets involved with him will be subjected to the most severe media scrutiny imaginable. Perhaps he doesn’t want strangers discussing his personal life. Whatever the case may be, using what you (don’t) know about Michael’s personal life to try to convict him is grasping at straws.

William Wagener Interviews MJ’s Women:

My nagging question is, why MJ attorneys did not bring in the 4 or 5 gorgeous women, MJ has secretly dated over the past years to prove he is…. well…. normal. To me that would have put more “REASONABLE DOUBT”. I have spoken to two, and they both said, it is part of the deal. If MJ trusts you to date him you can’t blab about it to the tabloids or anyone. Okay. I understand, and that is smart, but heck his life, his kids, his freedom is on the line here. MJ won’t budge. His girlfriends keep their mouths shut. MJ keeps his shut.”

20. If there is so much evidence pointing to Michael Jackson’s innocence, why has this case come so far?

The case has only come this far because of Tom Sneddon’s vendetta against Michael Jackson. First of all, Sneddon charged Jackson under a penal code that does not require any corroborating evidence. All he needs for a conviction is the accuser’s testimony.

Secondly, by taking his case to a grand jury, Sneddon avoided a preliminary hearing. During a preliminary hearing, the defense would have had an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and ask the judge to have the case thrown out.

Finally, it has been alleged that Sneddon did not conduct the grand jury proceedings appropriately and failed to show exculpatory evidence properly.

By charging Jackson under a penal code that requires no evidence, taking away Jackson’s right to a preliminary hearing and conducting the grand jury proceedings in a biased, unfair manner, Sneddon has ensured that his case will go to trial.

All credit goes to: Mjjr.net – http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/faq.html

Michael Jackson vs. District Attorney Tom Sneddon

090412-music-reasons-we-love-michael-jackson-kick-dance-move tom sneddon

    “D.S.” – Michael Jackson 

They wanna get my ass
Dead or alive
You know he really tried to take me
Down by surpriseI bet he missioned with the CIA
He don’t do half what he sayDom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold manHe out shock in every single way
He’ll stop at nothing just to get his political say
He think he bad cause he’s BSTA
I bet he never had a social life anyway
You think he brother with the KKK?
I know his mother never taught himright anyway
He want your vote just to remain TA.
He don’t do half what he sayDom Sheldon is a cold man [x2]
Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold manDoes he send letters to the FBI?
Did he say to either do it or die?

Dom Sheldon is a cold man [x2]
Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

– After having spent millions of dollars on the Michael Jackson investigation in 1993, District Attorney Tom Sneddon did not find enough evidence to bring charges against the pop star.

– Over the next few years, Sneddon and several of his employees made numerous statements to the press where they implied that there was indeed evidence to corroborate Jordan Chandler’s story. They failed to explain, however, why two grand juries did not indict Michael Jackson if such evidence actually existed.

– According to reporter Geraldo Rivera, members of the Santa Barbara Police Department were shown footage of the strip search of Jackson’s genitalia. “I’ve got a videotape that was shown to every cop in Santa Barbara of Michael Jackson’s penis,” Rivera said.

– In 1995, Jackson wrote a song about Tom Sneddon that appeared on his album HIStory: Past, Present and Future Book I. In the song, Jackson claims that he was over-targetted by the DA’s office and accuses Sneddon of being obsessed with attaining political fame. Click here to read the lyrics. (Because Michael Jackson couldn’t actually use Tom Sneddon’s name, he titled it D.S. for legal reasons.)

– Many legal experts dismissed the idea that Sneddon would prosecute Jackson solely for his own self-aggrandizement but perhaps there are other motives involved. According to Thambiah Sundaram, a dentist who filed and won a lawsuit against Santa Barbara prosecutors in 1996, the commercial prospects of Neverland might be one factor influencing authorities’ relentless pursuit of Jackson.

– In 1994, Sundaram attended a private fundraising event where he allegedly heard Sneddon discuss a plan to run Jackson out of Santa Barbara and turn Neverland into a winery. According to Sundaram, Sneddon planned to do this by finding another child to accuse Jackson of sexual abuse. While Sundaram’s allegations are difficult to prove or disprove at this point, it is a widely known fact that winemaking is the leading agricultural industry in Santa Barbara, accounting for about $360 million of the county’s annual economy. The Santa Ynez Valley, where Jackson owns almost 3,000 acres of land, is particularly well suited for growing grapes because of its ideal climate and soil conditions. Numerous wineries located in the Santa Ynez Valley are looking to expand but there isn’t enough available land in the area to do so.

– Whether or not Sundaram’s allegations have any merit remains to be seen, but there are other facts that point to Sneddon having a vendetta against Michael Jackson. Sneddon said in a press conference that after 1993, he changed certain California laws pertaining to child molestation specifically because of the Michael Jackson case.

– In 1995, Sneddon told Vanity Fair magazine: “The state of the investigation [of Jackson] is in suspension until somebody comes forward.”

– Upon viewing the Living with Michael Jackson documentary that aired in February 2003, Sneddon saw an opportunity to re-open the case. In a press statement released on February 6, 2003, Sneddon said: “After conversations with Sheriff Jim Anderson, it was agreed that the BBC broadcast would be taped by the Sheriff’s Department. It is anticipated that it will be reviewed.”

– Regarding Jackson’s comments that there is nothing wrong with sharing a bedroom with a child, Sneddon replied by saying it was, “unusual at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking the matter seriously.” He then urged any victims to come forward. Read the full press release here.

– Shortly after this statement was released, Sneddon gave an interview to tabloid reporter Diane Dimond where he discussed the 1993 case.

– Coincidentally, the boy who appeared in Living with Michael Jackson – the documentary that Sneddon taped and watched – is the same boy who ended up becoming Jackson’s second accuser. Did Sneddon have something to do with this boy coming forward?

– During his testimony at a pre-trial hearing, Sneddon admitted to having met with the second accuser’s mother in an empty parking lot to give her papers that would qualify her for a state victim’s fund. He also personally investigated the second set of allegations against Michael Jackson, a job that is supposed to be carried out by investigators.

– Linda Fairstein, a leading sex crimes prosecutor, said of Sneddon’s actions: “It’s way too personal. It’s way out of line. If he does any substantive parts of an investigation, he may become a witness in the case.” She continued: “It lets these very talented defense attorneys take him apart before the jury and explain that it’s not his place to do that. He creates trouble in and out of the courtroom for himself by taking on that role.”

– Although the accusing family’s story had numerous holes in it, Sneddon went forward with the case and pressed charges. Read on to learn about the second set of allegations against Michael Jackson.

WHAT’S GOING ON IN SANTA BARBARA?
While it is obvious that District Attorney Tom Sneddon has a vendetta against Michael Jackson, there are other allegations of abuse on Sneddon’s part that have been ignored by the mainstream media. The following people have accused Sneddon and his employees of malicious prosecution, conspiracy, abuse of power and civil rights violations.

And these are just the cases that have been made public…

Gary Dunlap
Efren Cruz
Thambiah Sundaram
Slick Gardner
The Adams Brothers
Emilio Sutti
Nuevo Energy Company
Art Montandon
William Wagener
Diana Hall
Members of the SBPD
Police Abuse Lawsuit
The case Sneddon ignored
Druyan Byrne
Conrad Jess Zapien
Anthenasios Boulas
James William Herring
Richard Joal Wagner

Gary Dunlap

In November 2003, Santa Barbara defense attorney Gary Dunlap filed a $10 million lawsuit against Tom Sneddon, accusing him of racketeering, witness tampering, conspiracy and malicious prosecution. Earlier that year, Sneddon had charged Dunlap with perjury, witness intimidation, filing false documents and preparing false documents in a case that Dunlap had handled. Dunlap was acquitted on all charges but claims his reputation has been irreparably harmed as a result of the proceedings. In an interview with Online Legal Review’s Ron Sweet, Dunlap claimed that Sneddon stacked the charges against him in order to get a conviction on at least one count; apparently, this is a common occurrence in Sneddon’s office. Dunlap also discussed Sneddon’s frequent abuse of power and claimed that there are other lawyers who have seen this. A judge recently upheld most of Dunlap’s lawsuit and the case will soon go to trial unless a civil settlement is reached.

In related news, Dunlap’s lawyer Joe Freeman recently sent a complaint asking that federal, state and county officials investigate Tom Sneddon and members of the Santa Barbara Police Department for misconduct. “In my opinion, the matters to be investigated are the possible criminal violations of several felony and misdemeanour statutes, including conspiracy, illegal taping, deceiving a court and a prosecutor illegally assisting the defense of a case,” Freeman said in his complaint. “I respectfully request that the U.S. Attorney, the California Attorney General, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury and the State Bar open investigations and seek whatever sanctions are found to be warranted against Sneddon and his staff.” In response to the allegations, the SBPD’s attorney Jake Stoddard said that Sneddon and his employees are immune from legal action because they are prosecutors.
Efren Cruz

In 2001, a man named Efren Cruz filed a federal lawsuit against Santa Barbara prosecutors accusing them of negligence and conspiracy to keep him in prison. The lawsuit also accused District Attorney Tom Sneddon of malicious prosecution. Cruz was incarcerated for four years after being convicted of murder in 1997. The lawsuit claimed that prosecutors had evidence favourable to Cruz but failed to hand it over to the defense before the trial. After Cruz was convicted, the real murderer was caught on tape confessing to the crime. Regardless, Santa Barbara prosecutors stood by their conviction until the case was taken to a higher court where Cruz was exonerated.
Thambiah Sundaram

Thambiah Sundaram’s contentious relationship with Santa Barbara authorities began when he opened a non-profit dental clinic in the county and began to attain political status as a result. After unsuccessfully trying to have the clinic shut down, authorities arrested Sundaram for grand theft, impersonating a doctor and malicious mischief. His wife was also arrested and an employee at the clinic was later charged with committing a drive-by shooting. All three were found not guilty. Sundaram sued Sneddon and his employees for conspiracy, false imprisonment and several civil rights violations. He was awarded almost $300,000 in damages.

Sundaram also attended a private fundraising dinner in 1994 where Tom Sneddon and other government officials allegedly discussed their plans to get rid of certain individuals in Santa Barbara who owned substantial amounts of land. Michael Jackson’s property was allegedly brought up during this meeting; Sundaram claimed that authorities wanted to acquire Neverland for vineyards.
Slick Gardner

Slick Gardner is a horse rancher who owns 2,000 acres of land in Santa Barbara. In 2003, Gardner was investigated for animal abuse after his neighbours reported that some of his horses looked unhealthy. Around the same time the allegations hit, Gardner ran for 3rd District Supervisor against John Buttny, Steve Pappas and Brooks Firestone. Firestone – who owns a successful winery in Santa Barbara and who also has political ties to Tom Sneddon and former Sheriff Jim Thomas – won the election by a landslide. As a result of the bad publicity from the animal abuse allegations, Gardner got the least amount of votes.

While investigating Gardner for animal abuse, Santa Barbara authorities also stumbled upon evidence of grand theft. Gardner was charged with 12 felony counts and hired defense attorney Steve Balash to represent him in the case. Balash later backed out of the case saying it was too complicated.

According to Gardner, Sneddon has had a grudge against him for 30 years and is only prosecuting him out of spite. “It just seems like it’s almost a vendetta deal. These guys are going so far out of their way to do things to me that normally wouldn’t be done,” Gardner said.

“The same thing that’s happening to Michael Jackson happened to me. One day Sneddon is going to wake up with a boot up his ass with a white glove in it, and it will be about time.”

Judge Rodney Melville, the same judge who will be presiding over Michael Jackson’s trial, is also involved in Gardner’s case.
Adams Bros. Farming, Inc.

In 1997, the Adams brothers purchased 268-acres of land in Orcutt and began agricultural grading on the site. 95-acres of their land was deemed an “environmentally sensitive wetland” by Santa Barbara authorities, which prevented the farmers from using it.

The brothers filed a lawsuit against the County in 2000, alleging that officials had falsely designated a portion of their land as wetland in an attempt to jeopardize the company’s financial earnings. At the request of Santa Barbara County officials, Judge Rodney Melville dismissed the brothers’ action. The brothers took their case to an appeals court where Melville’s decision was overturned.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the County had violated the company’s constitutional right to use its land and that the County and a county consultant had conspired to interfere with the company’s income.

Emilio Sutti

Emilio Sutti is a dairyman and farmer who recently filed a $10 million lawsuit against Santa Barbara County, claiming to have been the target of a government conspiracy to interfere with his company’s profits. Sutti alleged that Santa Barbara authorities have been targeting his family’s land for years. The battle began when Emilio’s brother and business partner Ed was sued by Santa Barbara County Planning and Development for alleged environmental and grading ordinance violations.

After winning a partial victory in the lawsuit, Ed Sutti was arrested and indicted for arson, witness intimidation, making terrorist threats, making false statements to an insurer, giving false deposition and four counts of state income tax evasion.

Emilio’s Sutti’s civil lawsuit was handled by Judge Rodney Melville.

Nuevo Energy Company

According to an article from The Lompoc Record: “Nuevo Energy Company has a launched a three-pronged legal attack on Santa Barbara County, claiming it violated state environmental law in using wrong baseline data in an environmental impact report, wasn’t the correct lead agency to prepare the report and wrongly applied mitigation measures in denying the Tranquillon Ridge project.” Judge Rodney Melville presided over the case.
Art Montandon

Santa Maria City Attorney Art Montandon recently filed a claim against the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office, alleging that they falsely accused him of bribing a defense attorney in a case that Sneddon was prosecuting. Montandon had evidence favourable to the defense and prosecutors tried to stop him from interfering by threatening to bring bribery charges against him. A judge later ruled that Sneddon’s office had no right to stop Montandon’s involvement in the case.

In a letter, Montandon denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at Sneddon and his employees, saying: “Unlike (Assistant District Attorney Christie) Stanley and current and former members of her office, I have never had my license to practice law suspended by the State Bar, have never been convicted of a crime, and have never been terminated from any attorney job.”

At the end of his letter, Montandon said he would reveal in court: “the full and complete story of not only the District Attorney’s unprofessional conduct, but the inappropriate conduct and motives of others working behind the scenes to cause community conflict.”

Recently, Montandon requested that the State Bar investigate Sneddon and his office for obstruction of justice.

Diana Hall

According to Gary Dunlap, when a local judge refused to change her ruling in Sneddon’s favour, Sneddon brought bogus charges against her, ruined her career and publicly humiliated her by exposing that she was a lesbian. When it became apparent to Sneddon that this judge would be a witness in the Gary Dunlap case, he threatened to bring more charges against her. The judge in question is Diana Hall.

On September 29, 2003, Hall was acquitted on charges of battery but eight months later found herself accused of violating campaign laws. On January 16th, 2004, she showed up at Michael Jackson’s arraignment because she wanted to see how Judge Rodney S. Melville handled motions. Hall told reporters: “I’m not being treated well. This has ruined my reputation, and I’m just not going to take it any longer.”

Members of the SBPD

In 2002, Santa Barbara County law enforcement groups filed a lawsuit against Tom Sneddon for threatening the police officers’ right to privacy. The lawsuit stems from a policy which allows the District Attorney’s office to give information about police misconduct to defense attorneys at its own discretion. According to Sgt. Mike McGrew, “It’s confusing. He’s an aggressive DA. There are actually no files right now on any officers in Santa Barbara. We really don’t know why he did this.” Future blackmail material perhaps?

David Allen Richardson, Carina Richardson and George Beeghly

In a civil lawsuit that was settled out of court, David Allen Richardson, Carina Richardson George Beeghly sued Sheriff Jim Thomas and several Santa Barbara police officers for unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest/false imprisonment, excessive force, retaliation for exercise of speech and petition rights, conspiracy to violate civil rights, violation of First Amendment right of association, malicious prosecution, negligence, battery and conspiracy and other charges.
The Case Sneddon Ignored

Is Tom Sneddon a concerned government official seeking justice for an allegedly abused child or is he merely a prosecutor with a grudge trying to get a conviction? Sneddon’s handling of a past child molestation case would indicate the latter.

In 2002, David Bruce Danielson, a forensic investigator for the Santa Barbara Police Department, was accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl. After returning home intoxicated, Danielson climbed into his bed where the girl, who was a guest at his home, was sleeping. Danielson admitted to “accidentally” molesting her, claiming he had mistaken her for his wife. Sneddon closed the case stating that there was no evidence to corroborate the girl’s claims.

The girl involved in the case wrote her feelings down in a letter that was published in the Santa Maria Times. “I am astounded at the stupidity the DA showed by allowing this man to be released of all charges. David Danielson may be free, but I am still emotionally trapped. There is not one day that I don’t wish I wouldn’t have come clean.”

About Sneddon’s handling of the Michael Jackson case, the girl’s father said, “Maybe it’s because it is high profile… but still, in her mind it’s the same situation. She’s still angry.”

While it seems that child abuse might not be Tom Sneddon’s first priority, the question still remains whether or not he would really pursue seemingly false allegations in order to carry out his own personal agenda. After learning the facts about the Michael Jackson case and reading through the numerous accusations that have been made against Tom Sneddon, I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about that…

Druyan Byrne

In September 2003, a drama teacher named Druyan Byrne was arrested after police were told that Byrne had photographs of a partially nude 15-year-old girl on his camera. Although the photographs were taken for an art project and were not sexual in nature, authorities insisted on going forward with their case against Byrne.

The girl in the photographs, who was brought in for questioning on five separate occasions, repeatedly denied that anything sexual had transpired between her and Byrne. In response, police told the girl that she was a liar and that it was “obvious to everyone around here that there is some kind of relationship going on.”

Santa Barbara Police Detective Stuart Gardner then lied to the girl, falsely stating that police had proof of Byrne’s past sexual relationships with minors. Although no such evidence actually existed, Gardner convinced the girl that Byrne was a sexual predator and that it was up to her to prevent him from harming anybody else. “I’m just telling you the pattern with these guys. And he fits it to a tee,” Gardner told the girl. “Do you see how this could happen to other girls? Do you see how important you are that this isn’t going to happen to any other girls?”

After being interrogated for hours, the girl finally told Gardner that she and Byrne had kissed on the lips, a statement that she later recanted. “I felt the only way I was going to get out of that room was to tell [Gardner] what he wanted and tell him something happened,” she testified.

The case against Druyan Byrne is still pending. Thanks to MJEOL for the info.

Conrad Jess Zapien

In 1985, Conrad Jess Zapien was arrested for allegedly murdering his brother-in-law’s mistress. While jury selection was underway, Deputy District Attorney Gary Van Camp and investigator Harry Heidt inadvertently came across a tape that belonged to Zapien’s defense counsel. The tape was in a sealed envelope that bore the name of Zapien’s attorney Bill Davis.

Upon finding the package, Van Camp allegedly urged Heidt to open the envelope and listen to the tape. Van Camp later denied ever having made such a statement and both he and Heidt denied ever having listened to the tape, an act that would have violated Zapien’s attorney-client privileges. Rather than return the package to Zapien’s attorney, Heidt discarded of the package by throwing it in a dumpster.

Zapien’s attorney argued that by getting rid of the package, Heidt had “deprived the defense of the only physical evidence it could use to impeach Heidt and Van Camp regarding whether they unsealed the envelope and listened to the tape.” For example, if the envelope was unsealed, he argued, such evidence would have contradicted both Van Camp’s and Heidt’s assertion that they did not open the package. Furthermore, tests could have been conducted on the tape to determine whether or not it had been listened to.

Zapien later filed a motion asking that Tom Sneddon and the entire Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office be recused from the case. Zapien argued that although Sneddon had taken Van Camp off of the case, he failed to properly investigate the violation of Zapien’s attorney-client privileges. He further argued that Sneddon brought an auto theft charge against him even though there was no credible evidence to support the charge. Zapien’s motion was denied.

Anthenasios Boulas

In 1985, a man named Anthenasios Boulas retained a lawyer after being arrested for selling cocaine. Shortly after hiring the lawyer, referred to in court documents as “Attorney S,” Boulas also hired a Private Investigator named William Harkness. On Boulas’ behalf, Harkness got in contact with sheriff’s deputy Scott Tunnicliffe to inquire about a possible plea bargain. In exchange for leniency, Boulas would provide authorities with the names of several drug dealers in the area. “Attorney S” was not aware of this potential deal.

After meeting with Boulas and Harkness, Tunnicliffe broached the subject of a plea bargain to Robert Calvert, the Deputy District Attorney at the time. Calvert said that he would only agree to the deal if Boulas fired his attorney and hired a lawyer that met with his approval. After being convinced by Tunnicliffe that “Attorney S” was a drug addict who could not be trusted, Boulas fired him and attempted to find another attorney. Taking the advice of Sheriff’s deputies, he hired “Attorney C,” who later backed out of the case.

Without a lawyer representing him and under the pretense that he would be receiving a plea bargain, Boulas met with authorities and gave them information about several drug dealers in the area. After giving them this information, Boulas was told by authorities that the plea bargain would no longer be possible.

Several months later, Boulas filed a motion to have the charges dismissed. The court ruled that although “conduct by the district attorney’s office and the sheriff’s department interfered with his rights to counsel and to a fair trial,” they would not drop the charges against him.

Boulas then took his case to a higher court where the case was ultimately dismissed. According to documents, the court found the conduct of Sneddon’s office: “outrageous in the extreme, and shocking to the conscience; we are, thereby, compelled to order the dismissal of the present case.”
James William Herring

In 1993, the Santa Barbara District’s Attorney’s office was admonished for making racially insensitive comments during the trial of James William Herring, a biracial man who had been accused of rape. During closing arguments, prosecutors described Herring as “primal man in his most basic level… his idea of being loved is sex. He wouldn’t know what love was. He’s like a dog in heat.”

Herring’s conviction was overturned because of the highly prejudicial, unfounded comments that prosecutors made about him throughout the trial. Prosecutors described him as a “parasite” and made the inference that because Herring was unemployed, he was more likely to have raped the complaining witness. Furthermore, prosecutors made inflammatory comments about defense attorneys in general, saying: “my people are victims. His people are rapists, murderers, robbers, child molesters. He has to tell them what to say. He has to help them plan a defense. He does not want you to hear the truth.” Such a statement created the false impression that anyone who is accused of a crime is guilty.

The Court of Appeals ruled that “the prosecutor’s… statements about a biracial defendant are, at the very least, in bad taste” and that his unfounded remarks about Herring’s defense counsel lead to an unfair conviction. As a result, Herring’s conviction was overturned.
Richard Joal Wagner

In the early 1970s, Richard Joal Wagner was convicted in a Santa Barbara court of selling marijuana. He appealed the jury’s conviction, claiming prosecutorial misconduct during his own cross-examination because prosecutors implied that he had been caught dealing narcotics in the past. Some of the questions asked include:

“Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Wagner, that in Alaska you are not only in the business of putting up fences, but you are also in the business … of furnishing cocaine a drug, for sale, illegally, isn’t that correct?

“Q. … Isn’t it true that you have in fact sold heroin?

“Q. … To your knowledge, at your place of business, is there any illegal sale of narcotic activity going on?

“Q. … Isn’t it true that on December 30, 1971, that you have received … a shipment of ‘pure pharmacy’ cocaine?

“Q. … Now, isn’t it true that on December 30, 1971, you had in your possession approximately three kilograms of pure pharmacy cocaine . .?

“Q. … Isn’t it true that those three kilograms of cocaine were in a shoebox?”

Although prosecutors failed to present any evidence of Wagner’s alleged past offenses, they created the impression in the minds of the jurors that Wagner had been involved in the sale of narcotics before, thus leading to an unfair conviction. Sneddon was not the District Attorney at the time but he was one of the led prosecutors on the case. The appeals court ruled that the conduct of the District Attorney’s office was prejudicial to the defendant and thus overturned Wagner’s conviction.

All credit goes to: Mjjr.net – http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/tomsneddon.html

And racism play a HUGE role in Tom Sneddon’s witch hunt against Michael Jackson.

Tom Sneddon's Secret Motives for Michael Jackson WitchHunt

Picture Source: MJJ-777.com http://www.mj-777.com/?p=8062