Jul 14 2010

M.O.N.E.Y. : The Extortion of Michael Jackson (1993) Part II

Category: Justice,MJ Quotes,Photos,Quotes About MJ,VideosSeven @ 12:57 am

I presented Part I of this comprehensive study yesterday, into the child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson in 1993. As promised, here is Part II of the study done by Christy the Writer and Lisa the Attorney. I encourage Michael Jackson fans and non-fans alike to read these two pieces of incredible research and writing thoroughly and to share them with anyone who has any doubts about Michael’s innocence regarding these allegations.

Much evidence is presented in Part I and below – not against Michael, but rather against Evan Chandler and others who were out for their own interests against Michael Jackson. To call Evan Chandler, the media, and other self-interested parties involved in what amounts to a veritable lynching “maggots” is a compliment. Continue reading and you’ll understand why I make such a harsh statement. This folks,is a picture-window into how the lowest bottom-feeders in our society operate. . .especially when there’s money to be made from their crimes.

Mad Dogs and Media

Mad Dogs and Media

Coming Out of the Woodwork

In an effort to feed the media’s insatiable appetite for a story, the Quindoys and LeMarques, former domestic workers at Neverland, came forward.

Just three days after the Jackson story broke, ABC’s Primetime sent a freelance producer to Manila to talk to the Quindoys . . . But the network was offering only star power; a chat with Diane Sawyer . . . For this kind of story, money talks.” According to Diane Dimond, the “Quindoys at first wanted $900,000. Where they got that figure I have no idea. It came down to half a million [dollars].” The Quindoys accepted an offer from the News of the World and sat down for an interview with Stuart White. However, after a few days with the Quindoys, News of the World pulled Mr. White from the story and told him to return to his London office. News of the World did not pay the Quindoys, but their story headlined the paper’s cover. As it turned out, just three years before the Chandler story broke, the Quindoys and The Sun had entered into a contractual agreement where, for $25,000, the Quindoys would provides exclusives about Michael’s life at Neverland. The Sun and News of the World were both owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Story.

According to Allan Hall of the Sun, the original interviewer:

The Sun drew up a contract for $25,000 and I spent some time with them in Los Angeles doing the Life and Times with Michael Jackson . . . [They] didn’t have a bad word to say about the guy, not one bad thing . . . Nothing, absolutely nothing. That he was just a kind man with children. They had signed a contract to say they would tell the full and frank account of their lives and clearly, from what later transpired they didn’t, if what they are telling right now is the truth.

They are two people that I would not trust at all. And I think that they have really gone to town to do Michael Jackson down for the mighty dollar. Now, they see money being offered around again and they want some more.

According to Stuart White, “the Quindoys were not, unfortunately, acting totally in good faith.” In fact, the Quindoys appeared on Geraldo on July 24, 1992 praising him.

Another couple, Phillippe and Stella LeMarques also came forward. They had worked for Michael for ten months but ceased that relationship in 1991. However, rather than going directly to media outlets with their tales of abuse to Macaulay Culkin, they retained former porn star, Paul Barresi to act as an agent or go-between to sell their story. Mr. Barresi’s only interest was in the percentage he would recover for the sale of the story.

Mr. Barresi eventually recorded the LeMarques and sold their story for $15,000. He turned the tape over to the District Attorney while cameras from the Globe rolled. He later said, “[t]he first time I heard the story about Jackson, his hand was outside of the kid’s pants. They were asking $100,000. As soon as their price went up to $500,000, the hand went inside the pants, so c’mon.”

On September 21, 1993, officers from the LAPD and Santa Barbara sheriff’s office went to Manila, Philippines to interview former domestic workers Mariano Quindoy and his wife Faye Quindoy regarding claims of child molestation. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) files related to Michael Jackson, the FBI acted as a liaison during this meeting. The police interviewed the Quindoys on September 22nd and 23rd. Although originally scheduled to leave on Saturday September 25, 1993, they returned to Los Angeles on the morning of September 24, 1993.

The Quindoys left Neverland due to disagreements with co-workers and a pay dispute. They claimed that Michael owed them over $283,000 in “overtime” and had tried to get the money from Michael. When he would not pay, they claimed to have seen acts of fondling. Naturally, they failed to report any of this to the police at any time prior to the Chandler story breaking the news. The Quindoys sold their story to the tabloids and never gave sworn testimony.

The FBI files include an inquiry about an alleged prior report that Michael had molested two Mexican boys. However, that inquiry came from an unnamed source and, after a search by the FBI, reports or documents related to the alleged investigation could not be located. Lending to the dubious nature of the report, the unnamed source was writing a book about the allegations and could have been on a fishing expedition to determine what type of information the FBI had.

There was also a report by a passenger who claimed to have observed Michael being overly protective of a young cousin in the FBI files. This is significant because as of the time of this particular report, 1992, the FBI was investigating threats against Mr. Jackson by a Janet Jackson fan/stalker. The ‘witness’ claimed to have heard strange sounds coming from an adjacent room. While it is highly unlikely that she would have been able to hear anything, or for that matter identify the actual parties involved, the fact is, the FBI looked into this claim and determined that it had no merit.

Despite assisting the District Attorney, as early as September 8, 1993, the FBI declined to pursue federal claims against Michael Jackson under the Mann Act.

Congress, as a means to address prostitution and immorality in general, enacted the Mann Act. It has been used to punish the transportation of women across state lines for sexual purposes. Since Jordie had traveled across state lines with Michael, prosecution under the Mann Act would have been viable, had there been any immoral conduct. The authorities may have suggested that the FBI prosecute under the Mann Act due to allegations in the Abrams letter. According to Mathis Abrams’ letter, “the minor is in danger whether the relationship continues or ends…These circumstances create the possibility that there exists negligence towards the child…even as far as prostitution.” In fact, Jordie Chandler claimed that acts of molestation occurred in New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Monaco. Yet none of the authorities in any of those jurisdictions investigated or prosecuted him and the FBI declined to prosecute under the Mann Act.

This is particularly relevant when Hard Copy paid Michael Jackson’s former security guards $100,000 for their televised story that they “smuggled” boys for Michael Jackson. Certainly child trafficking is a federal and state offense and the security guards would have been prosecuted as criminals.

Police also traveled on taxpayer dollars to Australia to question Michael’s friend Brett Barnes for a second time. Although Barnes said he had slept in the same bed as Michael, he denied that anything untoward occurred.

The FBI also assisted the London Bureau office in looking into tabloid reports of disc jockey, Terry George, who purportedly had several long distance telephone conversations with Michael Jackson in 1983. During one such telephone conversation, he claimed that Michael masturbated while on the phone. Neither the FBI, under authority of the 1984 Telecommunications Act, or authorities in England pursued the claim. After their son made several long distance phone calls to Michael Jackson, Mr. George’s parents disconnected their phone. While Mr. George stands by his tabloid story, he is an avowed fan and never considered himself a “victim.” He did not report the story until 1993 after the Chandler story broke.

Meanwhile, Michael remained on tour promoting the Dangerous album. His final performance was on November 11, 1993, in Mexico City; at that time, Elizabeth Taylor and her husband Larry Fortensky joined him. On November 12, 1993, Michael announced that he was seeking treatment for an addiction to painkillers. Pepsi Co. severed its relationship with Michael on November 14, 1993; Pepsi claimed that the relationship was severed because Michael’s tour had ended. Disney continued its support of Michael, noting that he was still a hot commodity in November 1993.

Michael’s fans continued their support. Biographer, J. Randy Taraborrelli was quoted saying, “[c]ertainly if the worst-case scenario happens and he’s found guilty of any of these ridiculous charges, it would be the end of his recording career. But, if it’s not true, I have a sense that his fans, who are such an incredibly loyal bunch of people, will still support him. I also have a feeling that this may even bring a new artistic depth to his music that would command respect from critics that he has hoped for.”

The Body Search

As early as October 1993, there was talk of obtaining a warrant for a strip search. According to USA Today, on November24, 1993 Larry Feldman said he wanted a doctor “to examine [Michael Jackson],” presumably to corroborate the boy’s descriptions of Jackson’s genitalia. Since no acts of penetration were alleged, this was the only way to substantiate the boy’s claims.

In October 1993, while the Jacksons were in Arizona attending the funeral of Joseph Jackson’s father, the police raided the Hayvenhurst home located in Encino. They seized a videotape labeled “Chicks” and were certain that this was evidence of child pornography. Upon returning to their office, the police confirmed that the video contained chicks, as in fowl.

In November, the District Attorney was able to obtain a search warrant allowing Michael Jackson to be photographed in the nude to determine whether descriptions of Michael’s penis and buttocks area matched descriptions provided by Jordie. The Smoking Gun claimed that it had an affidavit by a police officer describing Jordie’s description of Michael Jackson’s penis. There are extensive legal technicalities of that form of double hearsay, but suffice it to say that the affidavit indicated that Jordie’s description included that Michael was circumcised. Jordie also provided details about discolorations on Michael’s penis and buttocks area, presumably the result of his vitiligo. In addition to the affidavit, Jordie drew a picture of what he claimed to be Michael’s genitalia. The drawing expressly stated, “Michael is circumcised.”

The body search took place on December 20, 1993. Prior to the body search, Jackson’s attorneys were not given a copy of the affidavit indicating the reason for “probable cause.” At the time of the search, Michael’s attorney Howard Weitzman requested a copy of the affidavit. It has been reported that in response to the request, Detective Russ Birchim of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office, stated, “I don’t think so.” Weitzman laughed and said, “[i]t never hurts to try.

Michael Jackson requested that everyone leave the room except his physician, Dr. Arnold Klein; his personal photographer, Louis Swayne; Sergeant Gary Spiegel, the sheriff’s office photographer; and the DA’s dermatologist, Dr. Richard Strick.

The first aspect of the body examination that contradicted Jordie’s descriptive affidavit and drawing was the issue of whether Michael Jackson was circumcised. Evan Chandler was Jewish and his son was 13 years old when the affidavit and drawing were created. It is possible that with both Evan and Jordie having been circumcised themselves, Evan had not thought of the possibility that a poor, black child born in Indiana in 1958 would not have been circumcised. In either case, it is simply not possible that someone who provided a detailed affidavit and drawing in which circumcision is expressly identified, would have missed so critical a fact if he had actually seen Michael Jackson’s penis. However, as confirmed during the body search and noted by Dr. Strick, Michael Jackson was not circumcised. This detail is also corroborated in the recently released autopsy report on Michael Jackson.

In addition, it is claimed that Jordie described a spot present on an area just under Michael’s penis. Sergeant Spiegel was a police photographer who had read the affidavit and was familiar with the descriptions. Therefore, he asked that Michael re-arrange his anatomy so that he could view the area in question. Sergeant Spiegel claims that the mark was present. Interestingly, while the photographer himself claimed that the mark was present, that same photographer neglected to take a single photograph or video of the alleged mark. Sergeant Spiegel—a police photographer presumably familiar with what would be required when photographing a body search—explained his inability to capture the spot because he did not have assistants to help him hold flash and close-up photography equipment. One wonders why Sergeant Spiegel and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s office would not have had all the resources needed on hand, since all of them had presumably read the affidavit and knew that such a spot would need to be photographed. However, the affidavit is the only evidence that Jordie’s description was remotely accurate.

It is important to rebut the later claims of policemen that Michael Jackson may have bleached his skin in an attempt to remove any conspicuous markings. However, as described above, prior to the viewing, the policemen and District Attorney’s office did not provide Michael Jackson or his attorneys with Jordie Chandler’s affidavit or drawing of what he described to be Michael Jackson’s penis. In addition, he certainly did not re-grow a foreskin. Of course, had the discolored spot existed where Jordie said it would be (just under the penis), how could Jordie have seen it, while at the same time missing the very obvious fact of the lack of a circumcision?

It is also significant to note that Jordie claims that the first sexual act occurred in Morocco after he and Michael took a bath together. Certainly, there was ample opportunity to make an accurate description.

The media perpetuated the erroneous belief that Jordie Chandler accurately described Michael’s genitalia by printing and reporting that the examining physicians stated that the description bore “striking similarities” but was not a definitive match. Of course, there is a gaping hole in that statement.

In October 2009, Geraldo Rivera interviewed Dr. Strick who said, “the genitalia were very oddly colored with dark skin and light skin and I was told later that the description and the photos that were taken absolutely matched what the child had described.” There were only two doctors in the room, Dr. Strick and Dr. Arnold Klein; Dr. Strick was there to make the determination on behalf of the sheriff’s office. The fact that Dr. Strick admitted that he was told that there was a match confirmed that he did not make the determination and contradicted media reports that he had made such a determination. The question remains: who determined that there was a similarity?

In 2005, the answer to that question was Tom Sneddon. In an attempt to introduce the photographs taken from the December 20, 1993, body search into the 2005 trial in order to demonstrate that Michael was not shy, Mr. Sneddon signed an attorney affirmation indicating that he observed Jordie Chandler’s affidavit and drawing of Michael’s erect penis, and determined that it was a match with the subsequently taken photographs. It is significant to note that the photographs were to be introduced solely on the issue of whether Michael’s penis was blemished, not whether the original description was accurate. However, Judge Melville, in an unusual ruling in favor of the defense in this case, denied admission of the photographs, noting that they would be too prejudicial given the defense’s inability to cross-examine Jordie Chandler who refused to testify.

In the 1995 Prime Time Live interview with Diane Sawyer Michael denied that the description matched and Lisa Marie said that when the description did not match, the newspapers only printed a tiny article detailing that fact.

JACKSON: There was nothing that matched me to those charges…Nothing.

SAWYER: So when we heard there was a marking of some kind?

JACKSON: No marking.

SAWYER: No marking?

JACKSON: No. Why am I still here then?

PRESLEY: You’re not going to ask me about that are you? About the markings?

SAWYER: You can volunteer.

PRESLEY: No. The point is when that finally got concluded that there was no matchup, then it was printed this big [she makes the tiny sign with two fingers] as opposed to how big it was, what the matchup was supposed to be.

Diane Sawyer ignored their statements completely.

On December 22, 1993, Michael issued a statement declaring his innocence. In that statement he advised the public that he had in fact undergone a body search during which photographs were taken of his buttocks and penis.

As of January 2, 1994, the District Attorney’s office had spent two million dollars investigating the child molestation claims, a heretofore unheard of use of state funds. Keep in mind that this money was spent over a five-month period, which means more than $400,000 per month was spent on this investigation alone. Did the taxpayers of Los Angeles and Santa Barbara county know this was how their tax dollars were being used?

Michael Jackson: No criminal, but certainly targeted by them

Michael Jackson: No criminal, but certainly targeted by them

Settlement: Why Innocent People Agree to Settlements

On January 25, 1994, the L.A. District Attorney’s office decided that it would not probe Chandler’s alleged criminal extortion attempts of Michael Jackson. This decision sets the stage for settlement. The reason for this decision is clear: it would be absurd for a District Attorney to build a case for molestation against a defendant while simultaneously bringing charges against the complainant for extortion. “Notably, few in the media reported Michael’s claims of extortion.” USA Today reported “information leaked in the child-molestation case against Michael Jackson and the public record of the unnamed 13-year-old boy’s father’s custody fight raise questions about the accuser’s motivation,” [and] “the media’s failure to treat the alleged extortion plot seriously from the beginning unfairly damaged Jackson’s image.

Based upon the advice of his friends, Michael Jackson agreed to settle the Chandler lawsuit.

A lot of people think that Michael settled the 1993 suit with money from his own pocket. However, when informed that the money was actually paid by Michael’s insurer, the payout made a lot more sense. While most of the claims filed against Michael were intentional in nature, intentional claims such as battery, willful misconduct fraud, etc. would not have been covered under an insurance policy. The inclusion of a negligence claim guaranteed that Michael’s insurance company would have been involved to fund a settlement. In doing a quick mathematical calculation, we can estimate that in 1993, assuming six attorneys at eight hours a day, it would have cost the insurer over ten million dollars to defend Michael for 365 days. (The 2005 investigation and trial lasted 572 days). In 1993, there was a pending civil suit and a counterclaim where Jackson claimed extortion by the Chandlers. Civil suits can drag on for years. A conservative estimate would be 3-5 years. In addition, it was anticipated that a criminal proceeding would also soon be commenced. Given the diversity of the cases, two legal teams would have been necessary. No insurance company is going to pay twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) annually for defense when it can settle and be done. Keep in mind that this estimate does not include investigators, paralegals or other litigation costs.

While detractors claim that there is no proof that Michael Jackson’s insurance company paid the Chandler settlement, evidence by virtue of an attorney memorandum was submitted to the Court on March 22, 2005. Michael Jackson’s defense attorneys filed legal papers seeking to preclude evidence of the 1993 settlement amount specifically because Michael did not have control over the settlement. The memorandum of law submitted by Tom Mesereau in 2005 stated:

The plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence of the civil settlement of the 1993 lawsuit through the testimony of Larry Feldman, attorney for the current complaining family and attorney for the plaintiff in the 1993 matter. The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference. Shapero v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Cal. App.3d 433, 438 (1971); Ivy v. Pacific Automobile Ins. Co., 156 Cal. App.2d 652, 660 (1958)(the insured is precluded from interfering with settlement procedures). Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added). Merritt v. Reserve Ins. Co., 34 Cal. App.3d 858, 870 (1973). An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements. 44 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, sec. 1392, at 326-27 (rev. ed 2002).

It would be unethical for an attorney to make false statements to the Court; and in such a highly publicized case, it would be professional suicide.

Non-lawyers seem to think that an insurance company cannot make you settle a lawsuit. However, insurance is to provide you with an attorney and pay for a judgment up to the policy limits. In fact, the standard language in an indemnity policy provides: “We may, at our discretion, investigate any “occurrence” and settle any claim or “suit” that may result.” Nowhere in that language does a standard liability policy allow you to consent to a settlement made at the insurance company’s discretion. Contrary to popular belief, insurance of this type does not exist to guarantee a day in Court. Therefore, once the insured is sued, the insurer can make any settlements that are in its best interests. Since insurance companies are in the business of making money, settling for less than defense costs is in their best interests. If the insured does not agree to settle within the policy limits, an insurer can rescind the policy for failure to cooperate, leaving the insured without coverage.

If you have ever been involved in a car accident, you may not even realize that a claim was brought against you because it was investigated and settled by your insurance company.

As part of this settlement, all of the parties signed a confidential settlement agreement, not a confidentiality agreement. (The agreement has been widely available online for years.) It is important to mention that the agreement dismissed the first six causes of action without prejudice. When actions are settled with prejudice, all claims asserted in the action are forever barred from being brought again. When actions are settled without prejudice, it allows the plaintiff to revive those claims— should they want to do so—at a later time. Since Jordie was a minor at the time of the settlement, his rights to bring an action against Michael until his age of majority were expressly preserved. Therefore, had Jordie decided to pursue claims against Michael, he would have been able to do so up until the statute of limitations expired. Since he was a minor, the statute of limitations would have been tolled to add additional time for him to achieve the age of majority and bring a suit.

In 1993, the existing law prevented authorities from compelling an alleged victim of child abuse to testify. Therefore, when Jordie Chandler accepted the settlement money, he was permitted to refuse to testify in a criminal matter, and he did so. In fact, he left the state of California, which simultaneously removed him from state’s subpoena power.
However, had he re-commenced his claims, he would then have been compelled to testify in a criminal trial. In other words, the door was left open for Jordie to pursue civil claims against Michael, but had he done so, Jordie would have simultaneously been forced to testify had the state decided to pursue criminal charges.

Referring to the settlement, the Chandlers’ attorney Larry Feldman stated, “nobody’s bought anybody’s silence.” Under the terms of the agreement, the parties were to seek Court approval of the document. In fact, the settlement was not binding until the Court approved of the document. Since it is unlawful to obstruct justice by requiring another’s silence of a crime, the Court could not have permitted a settlement that required Jordie Chandler to refuse to testify or in essence, obstruct justice.

Notably, on January 28, 1994, USA Today printed that Reuters News Service was reporting that, photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.” The Orlando Sun Sentinel also reported, “[p]olice photographs of Michael Jackson’s genitals, which the pop superstar said deeply embarrassed him, may end up being his salvation in avoiding criminal charges of child molestation, a source close to the pop star said Thursday.” Therefore, given the totality of the media reports, Jordie’s description did not match the body search.

It’s interesting to note that many people who have not learned the facts about Jordie Chandler’s inability to accurately describe Michael’s penis also claim that Michael Jackson settled after the body search because of the description. However, it behooves us to pose this question: If there was going to be a match, why not settle before the body search? Michael Jackson was always a very private person. He had been shy and religiously observant. Why would he allow photographs of his penis to be taken if a settlement could have prevented the body search that so embarrassed him? Remember, the body search was prompted by the Chandlers’ allegations; without their cooperation, there would be no body search. In addition, the Chandlers’ lawyer began asking for a body search a month before the subpoena was issued. Therefore, Michael had adequate notice that the Chandlers would request such a search.

However, if you believed that by allowing the body search you could get the District Attorney to drop the charges if there was no match, wouldn’t you consent to a body search? In my own experience, defendants always think that they can get out of a case by telling the authorities the whole story and showing them the proof. In fact, they have to be told that they cannot win their case by explaining the facts, but they can lose it. Needless to say, Michael Jackson was not the first—and will not be the last—defendant to learn that, even if you show authorities they are wrong, they are not likely to simply abandon a case.

One has to question the motives of the Chandlers. What parent in the whole world would accept money if their child was truly molested? In addition, there would have been absolutely nothing to prevent bringing the civil suit after a criminal trial if Michael had been convicted. According to the civil attorney at the time, quite a bit of money had been spent in preparing the civil case; the obvious risk to the Chandlers and their attorney, had they proceeded with the criminal case prior to the civil case, would have been an acquittal in the criminal case. Such an acquittal would have—as it did for the Arvizos—stopped any movement toward a subsequent civil law suit. This is the only justification we can find for going ahead with the civil suit first: money.

The violation of Michael Jackson’s Constitutional rights was a second aspect motivating the Chandler settlement. The Fifth Amendment guarantees to every American the right not to testify against himself in a criminal matter; however, the District Attorney’s office set a course to deny Michael Jackson those rights. Soon after the Chandler civil action was commenced, Larry Feldman, Jordie’s attorney, made a motion seeking an expedited trial due to Jordie’s age. The would-be prosecutors from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties supported the motion and sought any discovery obtained during that civil action. The discovery would have included a deposition of Michael, something the prosecutors were absolutely barred from obtaining in a criminal matter. In opposing the motion, Michael’s new counsel, Johnnie Cochran, sought to delay the civil action until the criminal statute of limitations expired as to all potential claims. This was a mistake.
As an attorney, if you ask for too much, you’ll usually get nothing. (It’s of note that this same argument has been used to defend the Los Angeles District Attorney’s decision to charge Conrad Murray with only one count of involuntary manslaughter in the homicide of Michael Jackson.) The defense should have merely asked that criminal charges related to Jordie Chandler as complainant be prosecuted prior to the civil action. Such an argument would have also preserved Michael’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. However, this was not done.

In fact, in discussing the tactic, Michael’s business attorney John Branca told Michael, “people here think you’re trying to delay the trial for six years.” Michael said, “[s]ix years? What are you talking about Branca? I don’t want to delay the trial, not even a day.” Michael criticized his defense attorneys for the move.
This became moot when, denying Michael’s right to a speedy trial, the judge granted Mr. Feldman’s motion and on January 14, 1994, ordered that Michael Jackson appear for a deposition in the civil matter between January 25 and February 2, 1994. The judge also set a trial date for March 21, 1994.

Upon reaching a settlement, Jordie Chandler’s attorney publicly stated:

We wish to jointly announce a mutual resolution of this lawsuit. As you are aware, the plaintiff has alleged certain acts of impropriety by Mr. Jackson. And from the inception of those allegations, Mr. Jackson has maintained his innocence. However, the emotional trauma and strain on the respective parties have caused both parties to reflect on the wisdom of continuing with this litigation. The plaintiff has agreed that the lawsuit should be resolved and it will be dismissed in the near future. While Mr. Jackson continues to maintain his innocence, he withdraws any previous allegations of extortion. This will allow the parties to get on with their lives in a more positive and productive manner.
Much of the suffering these parties have been put through was caused by the publicity surrounding this case. We jointly request that the members of the press allow the parties to close this chapter of their lives with dignity.

After the settlement, Evan’s brother, Raymond Chandler stated that his brother and nephew bear Jackson no ill will: “[t]hey all loved him — that was why it was so hard to come to grips with what was going on. It’s too bad to see his career take the hit it did and we all hope he gets it back. They don’t hold any malice in their hearts toward Michael. I think they understand what’s happened in his life and how he’s an even bigger victim of abuse.”

Evidence Presented to Two Grand Juries

Jordie Chandler named several other boys who he claimed were also “victims.” Those boys included actor Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes and Wade Robson. The Sexually Exploited Child Unit of the LAPD interviewed the boys. None of the boys corroborated Jordie Chandler’s allegations. In fact, the DCFS interviewed Macaulay Culkin who exonerated Michael.But that didn’t stop the Police Departments in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara from searching for evidence after the civil settlement. Among those interviewed were Emmanuel Lewis, Jimmy Safechuck and Jonathan Spence.

DeWayne Wickham quipped in USA Today, “[i]f you haven’t figured it out yet, this case is about money – and nothing else. Having been duped into launching their criminal investigations, [Gil Garcetti] and Sneddon spent tens of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars looking for evidence while the singer’s accusers remained focused on their money grab.”The District Attorneys scoured the earth—literally—looking for another witness to corroborate molestation claims in 1993 and came up with nothing.

Following the settlement, criminal claims against Michael Jackson were brought to two grand juries. Neither one would indict. It is important to note that grand juries hear the evidence that the prosecution intends to present; typically, there is no cross-examination or questioning, and the defense presents no case at all. Therefore it is the prosecution’s evidence without any opportunity to rebut any of the claims. Even though this one-sided form of evidence was presented to two different grand juries, Michael was not indicted.
On May 2, 1994, the Los Angeles grand jury was disbanded. One juror commented that he did not hear any damaging testimony and the panel was never asked to render an indictment. The FBI followed up and on August 8, 1994 the agent was told that the Los Angeles District Attorney had not yet decided whether he would file charges.

Ultimately, by September 1994, Prosecutors Gil Garcetti (L.A.) and Tom Sneddon (Santa Barbara) were willing to announce that, “after an exhaustive probe involving more than 400 witnesses, including 30 called before grand juries, they were left with only Jackson’s principal accuser, who refused to testify in court and could not be compelled to by law.”Therefore, neither District Attorney would file charges.

The District Attorney found the Quindoys and the LeMarques useless as witnesses. The Quindoys later tried to shop around a book deal. In connection with their attempts to find a buyer, they claimed to have secret witnesses that they withheld from the District Attorney.

The statute of limitations on the case had another five years to expire, which allowed Jordie or Evan to change their minds and offer testimony in support of criminal charges. That never occurred. Once Evan Chandler obtained the money noted in his diary months earlier, if the allegations were true, he did not seek justice for his son.

June Chandler’s former attorney Michael Freeman said, “I think [Michael Jackson] was wrongly accused. I think that Evan Chandler and Barry Rothman saw an opportunity and went for it. That’s my personally held belief. I believe it was all about money, and their strategy obviously worked.

Settlement Not Enough

In 1996, Evan Chandler sued Michael Jackson, seeking sixty million dollars, claiming that Michael had violated the terms of the confidential settlement agreement by denying the molestation claims. The claims arose from Michael Jackson’s appearance on ABC’s Prime Time Live when Michael and Lisa Marie Presley told Diane Sawyer the molestation charges were “lies, lies, lies, lies.” Evan Chandler claimed that Michael’s statement violated the terms of the settlement agreement and, as if it were possible, damaged his family’s reputation. The May 7, 1996, complaint alleged 16 causes of action including breach of contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander-libel and conspiracy. Evan Chandler’s suit claimed that when Michael wrote “They Don’t Care About Us,” the song portrayed him in a bad light because the lines “Jew me, sue me” and “Kick me, kike me” referred to him; since he was Jewish, the statements were derogatory. (Of note, Evan Chandler changed his last name from ‘Charmatz’ to Chandler purportedly because he thought it was too Jewish sounding.) The matter was submitted to arbitration. On July 26, 1999, the arbitrator ruled that the confidentiality agreement specifically provided that neither party was guilty of any crime or had committed any wrongdoing. Therefore, Michael did not damage the Chandler’s reputation by declaring his innocence. The Supreme Court in California confirmed the arbitrator’s decision in October 2000. The matter was disposed in June 2001, when the arbitrator ordered Evan Chandler to pay Michael Jackson’s attorneys’ fees.

On August 5, 2005, Jordie and his father were living together in a high-rise luxury building overlooking the Hudson River in New York City when, from behind, Evan hit Jordie with a 12 ½ -pound dumb bell. For good measure, Evan then sprayed Jordie in the face with mace. Jordie obtained a temporary restraining order against Evan under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. The restraints were continued by an order dated August 19, 2005; however, Jordie sought a permanent restraining order against his father. At trial, after Jordie rested his case, Evan’s counsel moved for dismissal pursuant to Rule 4:37-2(b). In dismissing Jordie’s claims, the judge found that the men were members of the same household when the abusive act occurred. The judge also found that the weight could cause serious bodily injury or death. Thus, the judge was satisfied that Jordie had provided evidence, which if believed, would support a finding of aggravated assault. However, despite that finding, the judge refused to issue a final restraining order, reasoning as follows:
I’m persuaded, at this point, that the allegation . . . while serious in and of itself, is not a pattern of abusive and controlling behavior [Emphasis added].

The case was initially dismissed, but on appeal, the appeals court in New Jersey determined that Jordie presented enough evidence to warrant a trial to determine if Evan Chandler represented enough of a danger to warrant a permanent restraining Order. The Appellate Court’s decision was rendered on June 8, 2006 (DOCKET NO. A-0422-05T10422-05T1). In June 2006, Jordie finally obtained a permanent restraining order against his father.

On November 17, 2009, it was widely reported that the body of Evan Chandler was found in his luxury apartment in Jersey City after he missed a doctor’s appointment. He died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head on November 5, 2009. He was cremated without a single friend or family member in attendance. It’s somewhat surprising that someone who claimed he had so much to say about Michael Jackson—and purportedly relished an opportunity to testify against Michael—did not leave a suicide note.

48 Responses to “M.O.N.E.Y. : The Extortion of Michael Jackson (1993) Part II”

  1. Joyce says:

    Seven and David,
    I just finished reading the “Voices Education Case Study” by Jan Carlson. It is another excellent presentation of the facts related to the media’s despicable and biased treatment of Michael throughout his career. It goes along very well with the information you have just presented in the 2 part article. It is a sad and frightening picture of what so called “journalism” has devolved into, not only in this country but throughout the world. I will definitely be sending links to all of this information on to friends and family in hopes that they will read it and open their eyes and mind to the truth!
    My heart breaks everytime I think about the pain and humiliation that Michael suffered all because of the incredible greed and cruelty of so many “snakes”.
    I hope that Michael knew and can still feel somehow, that his true fans and his children always believed in him, and will continue to always love him forever.

  2. nessie says:

    Oprah has one more season on TV. I dream about getting Seven on Oprah (just for the level of exposure), but we may need to put this request on a billboard outside Harpo studios to get her attention (like the great guy who wanted a show about puppy mills and got it)! Seven, ever want to get on TV? Or is the almighty O too inured to the industry to take on your level of critique? I am sorta serious–If I weren’t so cash poor, I’d be more serious!

  3. Hayat says:

    On the link I send, you can read a bit more on the fact that
    Evan Chandler wanted MORE from Michael after the 20 Mill. he got.
    He wanted Michael to help him put out an album for him, ‘EVANSTory’…
    Sick man – a real sick sick ‘man’.

    I feel sorry for Jordan.
    Reading what he’s been through with that figure as a father, you
    can’t really help but wonder where he is and how he’s dealing
    with everything.
    He’s the only one who can vindicate Michael by telling
    the world what really happend.
    Wich was NOTHING.
    Why doesn’t he just come forward.
    I know – Michael is gone, its too late, but its never
    too late to tell the truth..
    Especially since the majority of people refer to him
    Michel as a predator…


  4. Pamela says:

    These are really concise and well articulated articles. Christy and Lisa are looking/have a publisher I presume, or is that avenue still closed to anyone who wants to tell the truth about Michael Jackson?

  5. Susan says:

    Hi Seven:

    Did you ever see the video of Dr. Richard Strick being interviewed by Craig Rivera, Geraldo’s brother. Dr. Strick’s daughter is married to Geraldo’s son. What gets me is Geraldo’s attitude towards Michael – he actually says “I would never contradict my son’s new father-in-law”. Oh really Geraldo? So nepotism trumps evidence? Dr. Strick says he was told Michael’s genitalia was an absolute match to Jordan’s description. B.S. So circumcised vs non-circumcised is irrelevant? And again he states he was TOLD it was a match. Geraldo then goes on to make disparaging remarks about Michael’s nose surgery. Did anyone have any morals when it came to Michael?

    Seven, I’ll put in the link to the video, but if that doesn’t work I just Google: Geraldo; the truth behind michael jackson’s plastic surgery, vitiligo secrets revealed. I found it on the “Vindicating Michael” website, another great site.

  6. Lauren says:

    Hi Seven:
    I found your site just recently. I am one of the many
    who came to know Michael again after his death and I find myself
    very protective of Michael and now, of his legacy. I am
    so appreciative of your efforts to print the truth about
    what happened to Michael. Personally, I am angry that I
    missed out on years of appreciating the man and especially
    his messages and the universal love that he promoted for so
    many years. I take responsibility for my part in that, but
    I know that the media was complicit in planting that doubt.

    I still have trouble reading about what Michael went through
    in 1993. So unfair and cruel. I don’t believe he ever recovered
    from the humiliation he endured and 2005 destroyed so much
    of his soul that he never was the same person again.

    The challenge now is to push this information into mainstream
    consciousness—thank you for what you are doing–

  7. Lisa D. says:

    Thank you again,your passion in getting the truth out for our beloved Michael Jackson..Yes, I agree we should have a MJ Legacy channel, all day long..I was a fan, but did not know who he really was. I always loved his music and never beleived the lies because I felt his pain..Yet, it wasn’t until after his death that I researched in depth, did I get to know the MAN and as well as the superstar..And I must say like all those who didn’t know him until June 25, 2009, I fell totally madly in love..His love for God, his compassion, his spirit, his love for humanity, his work ethics, his wisdom, his courage, his intelligence, his creative genius..and his sense of humor..then add on his beautiful aura..THRE WILL NEVER BE ANOTHER MICHAEL JACKSON. All these people, the vampires, lyches, the maggots..I call them parasites-
    These people are the examples of a diseased spirit..they are the results of fear, jealousy, eny, racism, greed, and I can go on and on…One thing all these parasites all have in common, they cannot stand the Light because they live in Darkness.. Michael Jackson was a light in this world. He was God’s Gift to Us..to show us remind us what LOVE is. I have made a promise to God, to myself, and to Michael, that I will live the rest of my life in keeping his extraordinary legacy ALIVE..I am now in the process of writing a book about him, I would love to interview you..please let me know..and please go into my website; essenceofmjj.com to know more about the book..Again–thank you Seven..for your wisdom, your heart and the truth..RIP my King of Pop, King of Hearts..

  8. ButterFlyGirl says:

    Thank you for another great article on MJ, I have poured through all of the court transcripts and FBI files looking at all of the mistakes that were permitted to take place in the name of the law. The judicial system is so antiquated and awash with corruptions. MJ would have never gotten a fair trial, the deck was already stacked aagainst him before the ink was dried on the indictments.

    His legal team was not in it for MJ the only saw money, they could have cared less about MJ getting a fair trial. To this day I do not understand why that tom sneddon was not brought up on charges, and why MJ lawyers never brought charges against him, clearly from the transcripts there was casue. My heart aches for the pain and humiliation MJ had to go throguh, I wish for a day I could have stood in place for him, nobody should have to go through that type of dehumanization.

    I agrre with another poster stating we need a channel for MJ all day everyday so everybody can finally get the truth and not repeat all the lies that the media wants us to beLIEve. I guess we can flood Oprah’s e-mail with request since she has here OWN network now. OPRAH WINFREY NETWORK.


  9. David says:

    Seven, here is a video of actor Todd Bridges, who was a child star in the 80’s from the sitcom “Diff’rent Strokes” (along with the late, great Gary Coleman). In this clip, he talks with Oprah about the child molestation he suffered at the hands of an adult male. In the first video, he begins to discuss this at the 3:30 mark. Look at his reaction when he finishes reading the excerpt from his book that describes the molestation! Notice the EMOTIONS that he has! He can barely compose himself! Now read Jordie Chandler’s Oct. 1993 interview with Dr. Gardner, and notice the complete LACK OF EMOTION! Did Jordie ever stop to cry? No!!!

    (In fact, there was a blog entry on this very subject on Vindicate MJ, http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/how-to-tell-a-true-testimony-from-a-fake-one/)


    Next, here’s where it gets interesting! Notice the reaction that Todd Bridges’ mother had when he told her that he had been molested, and she tried to get the molester to leave her home and he wouldn’t!

    And then at 2:04, NOTICE WHAT TODD BRIDGES SAYS HE’LL DO TO ANYONE WHO MOLESTS HIS CHILDREN!! I had to write that in all caps in order to emphasize my point!

    Now, compare the reactions of Todd Bridges and his mom to the actions of Evan Chandler when found out that Jordie had been “molested” by MJ!! Tell me whose story is more credible! LOL! I think you should incorporate these videos into a future post in order to show your readers how people REALLY react to child molestation.

  10. Lisa says:

    @ David

    I don’t believe that the Gardner interview is authentic, but if it is, did you notice the “happiness” in discussing girls at the end of the interview? I’ve read hundreds of transcripts and believe that I can tell a liar even if I didn’t see them testify. In my opinion, Jordie was lying.

  11. David says:

    @ Lisa

    Did you notice that the declaration is dated Dec. 28th, 1993, which is AFTER the strip search. The civil lawsuit that was filed in Sept. 14, 1993. It seems very suspicious that the declaration that leaked in Feb. 2003 was the one dated Dec. 28, 1993. Many people believe that there was an original declaration that was also filed in Sept. 1993, with the civil lawsuit, but after Jordie’s description didn’t match, Feldman re-filed it and omitted any references to Jordie fondling and masturbating MJ, to imply that even if Jordie couldn’t give an accurate description of MJ’s penis, the molestation still could have happened.

    Also, did you notice how in the declaration it says “J. Chandler” instead of “Jordan Chandler”? I thought that you had to use your complete name on a legal document? And his signature is scribbled like an adult! It doesn’t look like the signature of a 13 year old kid! And he describes the molestation in “phases”, with the terms “and the next step”, which is also suspicious.

    Unfortunately, Dr. Gardner committed suicide in May 2003, and that interview was leaked in 2004 by Ray Chandler, so Dr. Gardner couldn’t verify it or say whether or not he believed Jordie.

  12. gigi says:


    I always prayed that Oprah could do a show where the true facts are presented behind this two bogus cases. Unfortunately, Oprah is like a lot of other people in the media. Oprah thinks Michael was guilty. I and quite a few other people had posted on her website, where someone had started a MJ forum mainly asking why she was taking so long to acknowledge Michael with a show after his passing. Quite a few people wanted her to research and present the true facts, a show that would really set the media and public straight. People where posting true facts behind 93 and 05.

    Well, she finally did do a show, I must say a very poor show. I wouldn’t even call it a tribute show. To me it was just basically her critiquing the 93 interview she had done with Michael. 4 or 5 times she kept saying “but this was before the allegations, this was before the allegations.” When Michael had mentioned his Moonwalker book during the 93 interview. Oprah’s critique of that was how it drives her crazy when someone says “well, read my book” and her expression the way she said it was with this kind of attitude. I just found that strange to me when she said that, because Oprah has been telling folks for years to read this book and that book. And, I can’t recall what section of the 93 interview it was, but she said “well I didn’t or don’t believe him there”.

    Also, she replayed the part of when she asked if Michael was a virgin. I remember I was 12 years old at the time of this 93 interview. I can remember thinking why in the world is she asking him that question. The other thing that stood out to me is towards the end of her “tribute” show she said something like I could have been his friend. But like a lot of other people that could have publicly stepped forward and say wait these accusations are a lie, she didn’t not reach out to Michael. While Michael was here I really don’t think she ever thought about being just a friend to him. I can’t recall Oprah’s exact words, but in her “tribute” show, Oprah mentioned how she was more excited about how huge it was for her that she was the one to get that interview with Michael that she overlooked this person opening up to her. Anyway, based on how after Michael’s passing how Oprah and Gayle were on their radio show talking about 93 and 05 basically saying Michael was guilty. I don’t think Oprah is willing to read the real true facts and admit that she like others in the media are sadly wrong.

    That being said one never knows, maybe if we keep sending her factual information maybe one day she will have a change of heart and would open up to looking deeper into things. She and her production people research and look into everything else, maybe one day she will take a serious look into this as well. I pray that she will one day.

  13. Sue says:

    I too am pleased I found this web-site.I have never really been a “fan” of anyone, but I always felt I liked MJ as a person, and of course his wonderful music was always there. Over the years I was aware of the bizarre stories about him, took them with a pinch of salt, and never gave them much thought.
    I had heard about the (Chandlers’) allegations, didn’t believe them for a minute,and at the time did not know how contrived and malicious they were. I did however watch the Martin Bashir documentary. It was a topic of conversation at work the next day, and even the “Wacko Jacko” brigade felt it had been cleverly edited, and left certain statements MJ had made about sharing his bed open to (the wrong) interpretation.Personally I didn’t think he meant it literally , any more than sharing a meal means eating from the same plate.
    After the Arvizo trial I decided to research the background to this whole sorry mess, partly because I didn’t like to think that I admired a paedophile.I came to realise just how unfairly MJ had been treated over the years. Perhaps a lot of the hurtful insults he may have learned to shrug off, but how he must have felt to have these dreadful ( molestation) allegations made against him, and the subsequent indignities he endured, I can’t begin to imagine.

    I hope he felt vindicated when he saw the incredible reaction to the THIS IS IT concerts ,albeit too late.
    I hope in the years to come he will be completely vindicated, not only of the molestaion allegations, but also of the idea that he was some sort of strange child who never grew up.
    My conclusions about him are that he was a kind, sensitive and sincere man who genuinely and unconditionally wanted to share his good fortune, and of course he would have had his bad points…. just like the rest of us!!

    I am in my early 60s and consider myself to be fairly ordinary and sensible. with no interest in the celebrity culture, but I hate injustice of any kind. So each day I spare a thought for this man I never knew ( and frequently a few tears as well ), who was destroyed by the despicable greed and malice of others in life, and continues to be insulted and exploited by so many in death

  14. Dialdancer says:


    Has anyone ever seen the infamous Body Search Warrant.
    “The body search took place on December 20, 1993. Prior to the body search, Jackson’s attorneys were not given a copy of the affidavit.” Weitzman asks to see it on the day of the search and he gets told, “I don’t think so” by a Cop…. WHAT THE HELL???? And this incompetent chucklehead lets this happen???

    I have searched the majority of court documents for 2004 where Sneddon is petitioning for the 1993 information to be included. I cannot find a copy of the document, which Superior Court Judge signed it or anything else other than Media reported hearsay.

    Since Sneddon was capable of leaking Jordan’s suppose Declaration to Dimond and she to others why would he not leak a copy of the actual Search Warrant. Think of how humiliated his foe would have been to have that plastered everywhere. Or is it because of the disparity in dates? The Search Warrant is older than the Declaration it was predicated off of?

    Does anyone remember any member of the Media saying they had seen the Warrant or published it anywhere?

    P.S. I think Michael’s arrest photo was photoshopped like many of his photos in the Tabloids during the carnage. But that is for another day.

  15. aldebaranredstar says:

    thanks so much for great article and comments. i have some responses:

    1) interesting re jordie’s declaration having a date after the strip search–i think the idea that it was changed from an earlier description is accurate. this is in line with sneddon changing the dates of the alleged molestation in the case of gavin arvizo–that was pretty amazing in itself!

    2) yes, sneddon needs to go to jail and why he isn’t in jail right now is a mystery to be explored.

    3) the court system is a mess, as we can see from how mj was treated. the fact that he was practically forced to settle due to the “expedited trial” request being granted by a judge. btw, does anyone know who was the judge in the 93 rulings? the fact that a child under the age of 14 (jordie was 13) has a right to an expedited trial within 90 days is amazing–on the grounds that they wouldn’t be able to remember what happened over a longer period of time. since there were hundreds of witnesses, there was no way that mj’s lawyers could prepare for the civil suit in that time. read geraldine hughes’ book redemption for all the rulings that did not go mj’s way.

    4) re weitzman–the quote says “it was reported” that weitzman said with a laugh ‘it doesn’t hurt to ask’ re the denial of his request to see the affadavit. so did he really say that or laugh? i need better proof than this. accrding to hughes, mj’s lawyers in 93 were divided re fight or settle– he had 2 different teams–first bert fields and then johnnie cocheran (he did the same in 2003-5 but was able to get mesereau and fire the others early on). having read hughes’ book, it seems the judge who gave rulings on the filing was going overboard to hurt mj and protect “the child” of 13. hughes believes that mj’s constitutional rights to due process and to cite the 5th amendment were violated. we also need to consider that lisa maria was advising mj to settle; she said that mj was going into a downward spiral over this. i agree with the commenter who said that the strip search was like putting a slave on the block. truly amazing that this could happen in this day and age and in usa. i also agree with a commenter who said we are still living in this broken world.

    5) it is so sad that this info is only now coming out after his death–although it is true the hughes and jones books were available before he died. their arguments and evidence did not receive the attention in the media that they and mj deserved.

    thanks again for great comments and article!!

    love you mj!!!!

  16. carina for mjj says:

    Just a bit about insurance companies and what they agree to pay for; They did pay for the Chandler extortion case.In contrast ,murray´s insurance company (for dr´s malpractice which every
    physician has) has clearly stated that they will not pay for any of his legal bills to keep. his license,and if convicted no other fees either.They do pay for mistakes when for ex. a difficult
    diagnosis may lead to a mistake and other honest mistakes, gross wilful malpractice is not covered.

  17. Lisa says:


    The quote about Weitzman comes from either JR Taraborelli or Diane Dimond’s account of the evening at Michael Jackson’s home. Unfortunately, that’s the best I can do for confirmation.

    As far as protecting Jordie’s ability to accurately recall the events, he submitted a declaration and could have done a deposition, which would have recorded his testimony. I think that Johnnie Cochran and many others suggested settlement even though it was not truly in Michael Jackson’s best interest.

  18. trish says:

    Michael Jackson is innocent and he is just targeted by media without knowing the proper information of someone and they dont care about anyone so justice is needed for Michael Jackson and his family

Leave a Reply