sorry but i have to ask

ur not understanding....the father signed an affidavit that was sworn. the lawyer engaged in illegal conduct and manipulation to force mj into a settlement. the shrink lied and manipulated the boy.

feldman and katz can lose their license over allegations like that. evan can't be touched b/c statute of limitations has passed.

the father will not simply say his son is lying. not when he can sue and make money. he sued mj for something so simple and plain. u don't think he'll sue jordan? after all, he hit him in the head w/ a 12lb weight....loyalty isn't high on his scale

I don't care what affidavit the Father signed, or what Feldman or The Doctor did, Michael Jackson did not have to agree to the settlement. What you are saying to me is that Michael Jackson's lawyers settled a case knowing that Feldman and the Doctor lied and were involved in illegal activities when it came to the 1993 allegations.

If Michael Jackson was FORCED to settle the case, then his attorneys should loose their licences to practice law. And Michael could have hired other lawyers to sue them for malpractice.

If this is what you are saying took place, then this really looks bad for Michael Jackson.:yes:
 
Last edited:
Im sorry, I think I'm lost....but are you guys saying that JC coming out and telling the truth wouldn't help Michael???
 
I don't care what affidavit the Father signed, or what Feldman or The Doctor did, Michael Jackson did not have to agree to the settlement. What you are saying to me is that Michael Jackson's lawyers settled a case knowing that Feldman and the Doctor lied and were involved in illegal activities when it came to the 1993 allegations.

If Michael Jackson was FORCED to settle the case, then his attorneys should loose their licences to practice law. And Michael could have hired other lawyers to sue them for malpractice.

If this is what you are saying took place, then this really looks bad for Michael Jackson.:yes:
yeesh, lol

their first claim was for very sexually explicit misconduct on a minor. no one would settle to that....they don't, it's always changed to something that if later the police get wind of it (r.kelly) it's for something fairly sterile.

feldman AND cochran knew this (they were buddies) so feldman w/drew teh initial allegations and submitted a new lawsuit for negligence. key word for insurance companies and that's what happened. his homeowner's insurance came in and paid it 'against the wishes of mr. jackson and his attorneys' but he had that company for a reason and they did that for a reason. mj didn' tpay, his insurance did.

they didn't settle on anything illegal, had they done it on the sexual allegations then it would've been illegal. feldman did what he had to do to ensure a monetary award for his client in which he took half! lol

so legally, nothing was done wrong w/ the 'negligence' part of the lawsuit. it was what caused everything to initially happen that was illegal and could cause feldman his license.

that's what the confidentiality will protect. cuz if he does an interview about this and they ask why was it just negligence, then jordan will go into detail revealing the illegal actions that caused the said renovation of the allegations and lawsuit
 
yeesh, lol

their first claim was for very sexually explicit misconduct on a minor. no one would settle to that....they don't, it's always changed to something that if later the police get wind of it (r.kelly) it's for something fairly sterile.

feldman AND cochran knew this (they were buddies) so feldman w/drew teh initial allegations and submitted a new lawsuit for negligence. key word for insurance companies and that's what happened. his homeowner's insurance came in and paid it 'against the wishes of mr. jackson and his attorneys' but he had that company for a reason and they did that for a reason. mj didn' tpay, his insurance did.

they didn't settle on anything illegal, had they done it on the sexual allegations then it would've been illegal. feldman did what he had to do to ensure a monetary award for his client in which he took half! lol

so legally, nothing was done wrong w/ the 'negligence' part of the lawsuit. it was what caused everything to initially happen that was illegal and could cause feldman his license.

that's what the confidentiality will protect. cuz if he does an interview about this and they ask why was it just negligence, then jordan will go into detail revealing the illegal actions that caused the said renovation of the allegations and lawsuit

But you are not making any sense(not you personally, but the explaination)...

So based on what you are saying, it looks like everyone protected themselves and to hell with Michael Jackson.
Fraud is Fraud!!! If Michael believes fraud took place in settleling the case and there are people within the legal field that says fraud took place, then there is no confidentiality agreement that can't be broken and the judges can go back and look into this. That's what appealate courts are for.

And if his home insurance paid the settlement, then Michael Jackson did pay Jordan Chandler $20 million. Who do you think is paying the premium on the insurance policy? How can a criminal attorney authorize paying money out? Michael or an accountant/business manager that is approved by Michael had to agree on using the insurance policy. Criminal attorneys don't have that authority.

Outside of the fan world, there are a lot of people that don't have respect for Michael Jackson because of the settlement. Most people felt if he was innocent then he should have put up a bigger fight against those allegations. Because he didn't fight, there are some people who think there is some truth to those allegations of 1993. You don't agree to negligence if you are innocent period. And I'm sure there were a lot of attorneys that Michael could have sought legal advice from.

And it wasn't just Johnny Cochran, it was also Howard Weitzman who was Michael's attorney long before Cochran came on the scene. Johnny Cochran was a well respected lawyer and he would not have done anything if it wasn't approved by Michael. And Mrs Jackson said that when Cochran became Michael's lawyer, she felt that she could sleep better at night knowing that he was going to be Michael's lawyer.

And it doesn't matter if what Feldman did wasn't illegal, Michael Jackson didn't not have to settle. He could have fought.

I agree with Terrell on this point there needs to be some kind of closure or the 1993 allegation are always going to rear there nasty heads.

Like I said before, Michael Jackson got NOTHING.
 
even mez himself stated in the dep that it was against his will....BUT if he went ahead w/ the case, he would've been deposed. no crim charges were filed yet and there's no way cochran would've allowed himi to be deposed before crim charges were filed....there was the potential for it if they didn't settle right away.

so mj, even though he didn't want to, eventually accepted his insurance's bid to settle. if he didn't, he'd have a hard time finding a NEW insurance carrier to insure his ranch.

the laws NOW protect against what happened to michael back then. u have to file a criminal charges before u can enact a civil lawsuit. that's y the grifters didn't sue him.

it started as fraud, it went on to be a non-descriptive suit with an insurance carrier willing to settle. they were painted into a corner and they knew it. cochran wasn't innocent, he and feldman were friends.

and for the record, howard w. didn't want to settle but saw thelogic. it was a lose lose...settle and be looked at as someone who bought his way out of this or not settle, be on the record, end up paying out of pocket, ultimately having th epotential of being charged, and not finding a carrier for ur homeowner's insurance.

the tactics were underhanded. whta was illegal was katz and feldman's initial behaviours....the motions that started it all. what ended it was a logical scene of events that made sense based on the options mj had
 
even mez himself stated in the dep that it was against his will....BUT if he went ahead w/ the case, he would've been deposed. no crim charges were filed yet and there's no way cochran would've allowed himi to be deposed before crim charges were filed....there was the potential for it if they didn't settle right away.

so mj, even though he didn't want to, eventually accepted his insurance's bid to settle. if he didn't, he'd have a hard time finding a NEW insurance carrier to insure his ranch.

the laws NOW protect against what happened to michael back then. u have to file a criminal charges before u can enact a civil lawsuit. that's y the grifters didn't sue him.

it started as fraud, it went on to be a non-descriptive suit with an insurance carrier willing to settle. they were painted into a corner and they knew it. cochran wasn't innocent, he and feldman were friends.

and for the record, howard w. didn't want to settle but saw thelogic. it was a lose lose...settle and be looked at as someone who bought his way out of this or not settle, be on the record, end up paying out of pocket, ultimately having th epotential of being charged, and not finding a carrier for ur homeowner's insurance.

the tactics were underhanded. whta was illegal was katz and feldman's initial behaviours....the motions that started it all. what ended it was a logical scene of events that made sense based on the options mj had

SoSo Def Read you PM I will send you...
 
and really...what difference does it make? you can have jesus christ give an endorsement, and there will still be people who wanna believe MJ is a molester.

there's nobody in the world who can get the whole world's favour. so MJ did what was best, and as long as he is innocent, who gives a f*** what the detractors think? especially since there's an army of people who belive in MJ. the most favored presidents have great popularity, and still have detractors.

anybody who thinks there is one human on earth who doesn't have detractors(no matter how savvy or innocent that human is) is truly fooling themselves. and there never will be anyone who has the entire world's favor.
 
honestly im over this thread tho...lol i got ur pm...sent u two! lol maybe three....yeah, ima send another lol!

'93 is a sore pain in everyone's ass. i did a report on this crap so i know it inside and out. there are a LOT of misconceptions w/ this case


note.....:

NO CRIM CHARGES FILED

ALLEGATIONS AND CIVIL SUIT FILED BEFORE START OF CRIM INVESTIGATION

CRIM INVESTIGATION STARTED B /C OF ALLEGATIONS.

NO ONE WENT TO POLICE WHEN THEY 'FOUND OUT' THIS INFO OF AN ALLEGED MOLESTATION

NO ONE COOPERATED W/ POLICE VIA GJ

TWO GRAN JURIES CONVENED...ONCE IN SBC ONE IN LA COUNTY AND NO INDICTMENTS

ONCE GJ COMMENCED BOTH SNEDDON AND GARCETTI SAID THEY WERE FACT FINDING GJ'S....NO FACTS WERE FOUND TO SUSTAIN CHARGES

ALLRED WAS CHANDLER'S ATTORNEY ASWELL.

LEFT ONCE SHE REALIZED FATHER DIDN'T WANT TO WORK W/ POLICE AND FELT IF BOY WAS LYING, SHE WOULDN'T BE A PART OF IT.

KATZ HAS NO EXPERIENCE WITH CHILDREN YET THAT WAS NEVER DULY NOTED

A 'WIN' IN CIVL CASE IS ONLY 51% MORE LIKELY THAN NOT

A WIN IN CRIM CASE IS 98% CERTAINTY

JORDAN HAS NO RELEATIONSHIP W/ JUNE CHANDLER TO THIS DAY

JORDAN HAD NO RELATIONSHIP W/ EVAN UNTIL MJ WAS ARRESTED....HE WAS LATER ASSAULTED BY HIS FATHER W/ A 12LB WEIGHT AND IS CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION W/ HIM

JORDAN'S FRIENDS WERE WILLING AND READY TO TESTIFY FOR MICHAEL JACKSON TO THE FACT THAT JORDAN SAID HE WAS NEVER MOLESTED AND THE WHOLE THING WAS A LIE....

THEIR TESTIMONY WOULDHAVE BEEN A DIRECT ALLOWANCE HAD THE AFFIDAVIT GONE IN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCEPTIONAL HEARSAY TESTIMONY.

SNEDDON FOUND OUT AND THEN RECINDED HIS REQUEST FOR ALLOWING THE AFFIDAVIT.

EVAN'S STORY WAS ALWAYS THAT HE HAD NO IDEA HIS SON WAS BEING ABUSED AND PUT A STOP TO IT IMMEDIATELY.

IN HIS BOOK HE SUGGESTED HIS SON HAD A 'MUTAL' RELATIONSHIP W/ MJ AND HE HAD TO CONSULT HIS WIFE ON IF THEY SHOULD STOP IT.

AT THE TIME OF THE CIVIL CASE, HE WAS BEHIND IN CHILD SUPPORT AND HAD THREE MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS AGAINST HIM. HE WAS IN SERIOUS DEBT

THERE IS CURRENTLY A LAW THAT PREVENTS FILING A CIVIL SUIT ON SOMETHING THAT CAN STILL BE ACTIONABLE IN CRIMINAL COURT. U NEED TO EXHAUST ALL OPTIONS TO GET THE STATE TO FILE OR INVESTIGATE CLAIM BEFORE SUING.

THAT LAW DID NOT EXIST IN 1993.

WHEN U AHVE A DEFENDANT WHO IS BEING SUED IN CIVIL COURT FOR SOMEHTING THAT CAN BE ACTIONABLE IN CRIMINAL COURT, THEY NOW HOLD THE CIVIL CASE UNTIL AFTER THE CRIM CASE.

BECAUSE A DEFENDANT HAS TO TESTIFY IN CIVIL COURT, ANYTHING SAID ON THE RECORD CAN BE USED AGAINST THEM IN CRIMINAL COURT. THAT IS WHY MJ'S ATTORNEY'S FILED THREE MOTIONS TO HOLD OFF ON A CIVIL CASE UNTIL THEY FOUND OUT IF CRIM CHARGES WOULD BE FILED.

THEY LOST ALL THREE MOTIONS PUTTING THEM IN A HORRIBLE POSITION AND THAT IS WHEN, WHEN THE FINAL MOTION WAS STRUCK DOWN, THEY UNFORTUNATELY HAD TO SETTLE...AGAIN, AGAINST THEIR WISHES BUT THERE WAS NOTHING LEGALLY THEY COULD DO TO PROTECT MJ.

A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT IS WHERE PARTIES SIGN TO SOMETHING AND IF ANYONE BREAKS THE TERMS, THEY CAN BE SUED. THEY ARE NOT BOUND BY COURT TESTIMONY.

A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT IS WHERE PARTIES SIGN AND IF SOMEONE SPEAKS, EVEN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND IN COURT, THEY ACN BE SUED AND THE MONEY IS TAKEN BACK.

MICHAEL JACKSON SIGNED A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. PARTIES CAN SPEAK ABOU TTHIS IN COURT AND IN COURT ONLY. THAT APPLIES TO LAWYERS INVOLVED, THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT, THE PARENTS, THE SHRINK, AND HEIRS OF BOTH CHANDLER AND JACKSON.

WHICH WAS Y MEZ WAS ALLOWED TO SPEAK ABOUT IT BUT SANGER IS NOT.

sneddon and mag nicola were heard during their initial investigation that they were gonna run the man out of santa ynez...they thought humiliating him, putting out false info, and maligning his character would work.

guys, no internet back then. none of this stuff came out.

remember the arvizo allegations? tuesday it struck...by friday u had reporters talking about th emother's issues and jc pennys....it was a different world back then. had it happened when everyone was so dependant on the web and could search for their own truth, it'd be a different animal.
 
Last edited:
honestly im over this thread tho...lol i got ur pm...sent u two! lol maybe three....yeah, ima send another lol!

'93 is a sore pain in everyone's ass. i did a report on this crap so i know it inside and out. there are a LOT of misconceptions w/ this case


note.....:

NO CRIM CHARGES FILED

ALLEGATIONS AND CIVIL SUIT FILED BEFORE START OF CRIM INVESTIGATION

CRIM INVESTIGATION STARTED B /C OF ALLEGATIONS.

NO ONE WENT TO POLICE WHEN THEY 'FOUND OUT' THIS INFO OF AN ALLEGED MOLESTATION

NO ONE COOPERATED W/ POLICE VIA GJ

TWO GRAN JURIES CONVENED...ONCE IN SBC ONE IN LA COUNTY AND NO INDICTMENTS

ONCE GJ COMMENCED BOTH SNEDDON AND GARCETTI SAID THEY WERE FACT FINDING GJ'S....NO FACTS WERE FOUND TO SUSTAIN CHARGES

ALLRED WAS CHANDLER'S ATTORNEY ASWELL.

LEFT ONCE SHE REALIZED FATHER DIDN'T WANT TO WORK W/ POLICE AND FELT IF BOY WAS LYING, SHE WOULDN'T BE A PART OF IT.

KATZ HAS NO EXPERIENCE WITH CHILDREN YET THAT WAS NEVER DULY NOTED

A 'WIN' IN CIVL CASE IS ONLY 51% MORE LIKELY THAN NOT

A WIN IN CRIM CASE IS 98% CERTAINTY

JORDAN HAS NO RELEATIONSHIP W/ JUNE CHANDLER TO THIS DAY

JORDAN HAD NO RELATIONSHIP W/ EVAN UNTIL MJ WAS ARRESTED....HE WAS LATER ASSAULTED BY HIS FATHER W/ A 12LB WEIGHT AND IS CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION W/ HIM

JORDAN'S FRIENDS WERE WILLING AND READY TO TESTIFY FOR MICHAEL JACKSON TO THE FACT THAT JORDAN SAID HE WAS NEVER MOLESTED AND THE WHOLE THING WAS A LIE....

THEIR TESTIMONY WOULDHAVE BEEN A DIRECT ALLOWANCE HAD THE AFFIDAVIT GONE IN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCEPTIONAL HEARSAY TESTIMONY.

SNEDDON FOUND OUT AND THEN RECINDED HIS REQUEST FOR ALLOWING THE AFFIDAVIT.

EVAN'S STORY WAS ALWAYS THAT HE HAD NO IDEA HIS SON WAS BEING ABUSED AND PUT A STOP TO IT IMMEDIATELY.

IN HIS BOOK HE SUGGESTED HIS SON HAD A 'MUTAL' RELATIONSHIP W/ MJ AND HE HAD TO CONSULT HIS WIFE ON IF THEY SHOULD STOP IT.

AT THE TIME OF THE CIVIL CASE, HE WAS BEHIND IN CHILD SUPPORT AND HAD THREE MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS AGAINST HIM. HE WAS IN SERIOUS DEBT

THERE IS CURRENTLY A LAW THAT PREVENTS FILING A CIVIL SUIT ON SOMETHING THAT CAN STILL BE ACTIONABLE IN CRIMINAL COURT. U NEED TO EXHAUST ALL OPTIONS TO GET THE STATE TO FILE OR INVESTIGATE CLAIM BEFORE SUING.

THAT LAW DID NOT EXIST IN 1993.

WHEN U AHVE A DEFENDANT WHO IS BEING SUED IN CIVIL COURT FOR SOMEHTING THAT CAN BE ACTIONABLE IN CRIMINAL COURT, THEY NOW HOLD THE CIVIL CASE UNTIL AFTER THE CRIM CASE.

BECAUSE A DEFENDANT HAS TO TESTIFY IN CIVIL COURT, ANYTHING SAID ON THE RECORD CAN BE USED AGAINST THEM IN CRIMINAL COURT. THAT IS WHY MJ'S ATTORNEY'S FILED THREE MOTIONS TO HOLD OFF ON A CIVIL CASE UNTIL THEY FOUND OUT IF CRIM CHARGES WOULD BE FILED.

THEY LOST ALL THREE MOTIONS PUTTING THEM IN A HORRIBLE POSITION AND THAT IS WHEN, WHEN THE FINAL MOTION WAS STRUCK DOWN, THEY UNFORTUNATELY HAD TO SETTLE...AGAIN, AGAINST THEIR WISHES BUT THERE WAS NOTHING LEGALLY THEY COULD DO TO PROTECT MJ.

A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT IS WHERE PARTIES SIGN TO SOMETHING AND IF ANYONE BREAKS THE TERMS, THEY CAN BE SUED. THEY ARE NOT BOUND BY COURT TESTIMONY.

A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT IS WHERE PARTIES SIGN AND IF SOMEONE SPEAKS, EVEN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND IN COURT, THEY ACN BE SUED AND THE MONEY IS TAKEN BACK.

MICHAEL JACKSON SIGNED A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. PARTIES CAN SPEAK ABOU TTHIS IN COURT AND IN COURT ONLY. THAT APPLIES TO LAWYERS INVOLVED, THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT, THE PARENTS, THE SHRINK, AND HEIRS OF BOTH CHANDLER AND JACKSON.

WHICH WAS Y MEZ WAS ALLOWED TO SPEAK ABOUT IT BUT SANGER IS NOT.

sneddon and mag nicola were heard during their initial investigation that they were gonna run the man out of santa ynez...they thought humiliating him, putting out false info, and maligning his character would work.

guys, no internet back then. none of this stuff came out.

remember the arvizo allegations? tuesday it struck...by friday u had reporters talking about th emother's issues and jc pennys....it was a different world back then. had it happened when everyone was so dependant on the web and could search for their own truth, it'd be a different animal.

Thanks!! Soso Def... I'm through too. This is such a frustrating case. :scratch:
 
and really...what difference does it make? you can have jesus christ give an endorsement, and there will still be people who wanna believe MJ is a molester.

there's nobody in the world who can get the whole world's favour. so MJ did what was best, and as long as he is innocent, who gives a f*** what the detractors think? especially since there's an army of people who belive in MJ. the most favored presidents have great popularity, and still have detractors.

anybody who thinks there is one human on earth who doesn't have detractors(no matter how savvy or innocent that human is) is truly fooling themselves. and there never will be anyone who has the entire world's favor.

Aaaamen!
 
and really...what difference does it make? you can have jesus christ give an endorsement, and there will still be people who wanna believe MJ is a molester.

there's nobody in the world who can get the whole world's favour. so MJ did what was best, and as long as he is innocent, who gives a f*** what the detractors think? especially since there's an army of people who belive in MJ. the most favored presidents have great popularity, and still have detractors.

anybody who thinks there is one human on earth who doesn't have detractors(no matter how savvy or innocent that human is) is truly fooling themselves. and there never will be anyone who has the entire world's favor.
Oh please, it makes a difference in a big way. The point is not about pleasing detractors, it is about telling the truth and for those who want to know the truth to hear it. Like I said, there are believe to do not think Michael will do something like that and these people like him but they still have reservations because he settled. It will make a difference as I have copy the settlement agreement and showed people and their view about Michael was changed to being back happy to know what I showed them. Now, if that can happen, Jordan, as a grown man SAYING it out loud or doing something to finally tell the truth will be refreshing. I think many folks will common sense know you can not please everyone but at the same time they won't have BS to continue to talk about. Like I said, Latoya use to be quoted but Now she is NOT quoted because she admitted she lied. I will let it rest. Thank SoSo for your outline. I will copy it and keep it.
 
i think more will be made a bout 'why' he came forward, if he did, than the fact he did .what was his motive? did mj pay him? etc.....it has to be in a sterile way like court so hopefully he gets his dayin court w/ his father and can say something on record like he wanted to in sbc
 
i think more will be made a bout 'why' he came forward, if he did, than the fact he did .what was his motive? did mj pay him? etc.....it has to be in a sterile way like court so hopefully he gets his dayin court w/ his father and can say something on record like he wanted to in sbc

Everyone talks about the father. What was up with Jordan Chandler's mother? I think she had a thing for Michael. To me she was just as bad as the father. She knew a lie had taken place. What's her roll in this mess?
 
they had a relationship. that's y mj was so close w/ the kids, both of them. it was over w/ david, he was jealous, and even sued mj for b reaking up his family.
 
i think more will be made a bout 'why' he came forward, if he did, than the fact he did .what was his motive? did mj pay him? etc.....it has to be in a sterile way like court so hopefully he gets his dayin court w/ his father and can say something on record like he wanted to in sbc
I do not think so. He is now a GROWN man and can speak for himself. that is the way MOSt people with brains will view it. And no one, who was really abuse in life, would defend an abuser, especially as an adult.
 
terrell common sense is NOT so common anymore...if u can't see that, then there's nothing i can say anymore. im done w/ the double talk and the hypotheticals. it's bull ish imo cuz if logic applied, then y do people look at him in a negative way?
 
terrell common sense is NOT so common anymore...if u can't see that, then there's nothing i can say anymore. im done w/ the double talk and the hypotheticals. it's bull ish imo cuz if logic applied, then y do people look at him in a negative way?

i agree with that statement. regular common sense society is much more messed up at large than Michael's world is. and they have the nerve to criticize Michael. in a world where drunk drivers are treated like saints and get commercials that say 'friends don't let friends plead guilty', i wouldn't criticize MJ's way of handling things in his world. his staunchest critics are nowhere near as successful as he is.
 
terrell common sense is NOT so common anymore...if u can't see that, then there's nothing i can say anymore. im done w/ the double talk and the hypotheticals. it's bull ish imo cuz if logic applied, then y do people look at him in a negative way?
SOME people look at him because he SETTLED. I understand that, why can't you. I think MOST people do have common sense and want to hear the hear the truth. I will NOT take a brush to all of society into thinking people cannot think however some people continue to have reservations due to the settlement. What is so "not so common sense" to understand about that. I am not dealing in this discussion about nothing else in MJs life, only about a guy (Jordan) who LIED on a man who one day (I do not care how, in court or out of court) needs to tell the truth and say HE LIED on MJ. And I will continue to stand by feeling that way no MATTER what anyone say. THat is the right thing to do regardless if it involved Micheal Jackson or Michael Smith. We can talk about society all we want but we have to live in it for now and do the best we can and I hope people will do right. I think they will. And I am not talking about the media, MOST people know our media full of BS (even though there are a FEW idoits who do believe everything which is due to the nonsense is to thier liking and appeal. this is why I do not care what haters think but I do care what good thinking people think and want to hear). Yes, we can end this discuss. In the end, Jordan is still a coward and a lier until he clear this mess. Silence on a lie is just as bad as speaking/defending a lie. I am out on this issue.
 
SOME people look at him because he SETTLED. I understand that, why can't you. I think MOST people do have common sense and want to hear the hear the truth. I will NOT take a brush to all of society into thinking people cannot think however some people continue to have reservations due to the settlement. What is so "not so common sense" to understand about that. I am not dealing in this discussion about nothing else in MJs life, only about a guy (Jordan) who LIED on a man who one day (I do not care how, in court or out of court) needs to tell the truth and say HE LIED on MJ. And I will continue to stand by feeling that way no MATTER what anyone say. THat is the right thing to do regardless if it involved Micheal Jackson or Michael Smith. We can talk about society all we want but we have to live in it for now and do the best we can and I hope people will do right. I think they will. And I am not talking about the media, MOST people know our media full of BS (even though there are a FEW idoits who do believe everything which is due to the nonsense is to thier liking and appeal. this is why I do not care what haters think but I do care what good thinking people think and want to hear). Yes, we can end this discuss. In the end, Jordan is still a coward and a lier until he clear this mess. Silence on a lie is just as bad as speaking/defending a lie. I am out on this issue.

It is frustrating, I know. I believe the truth will come out. And I know Soso Def has explained to the best of her abilities about this case. But the one thing that get's me is WHY HE HAD TO SETTLE? That is what most people don't understand including me.

I think to most people who do not support that Michael settled the case comes from their belief of his lack of integrity. The argument that I get is that Michael's stance should have been:

" IF I NEVER EVER SELL ANOTHER RECORD AGAIN, IF I NEVER EVER PERFORM ANOTHER CONCERT, I AM NOT GOING TO SETTLE ON SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T DO. I'LL BE DAMNED IF I PAY ANY MONEY TOO ANYONE ON SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T DO".

That is how a lot of people feel.:yes:
 
And Michael never settled.

As for Jordan Chandler...he will always believe Michael abused him. No question he believes that.

Remember he was given sodium amytal?

Read case studies on people who have taken that.
 
And Michael never settled.

As for Jordan Chandler...he will always believe Michael abused him. No question he believes that.

Remember he was given sodium amytal?

Read case studies on people who have taken that.

case studies don't blanket everybody. there's always an anamoly or more. and the depths of the mind aren't necessarily totally understood. for those who believe in the human soul, nobody truly knows what's inside Jordan...what he is thinking when he is alone at night, and maybe, not sleeping. what voices are truly in his head. MJ can't worry about what the entire world thinks. they should be getting on with their own lives. he can only live for himself. as should be the case with everybody.
 
case studies don't blanket everybody. there's always an anamoly or more. and the depths of the mind aren't necessarily totally understood. for those who believe in the human soul, nobody truly knows what's inside Jordan...what he is thinking when he is alone at night, and maybe, not sleeping. what voices are truly in his head. MJ can't worry about what the entire world thinks. they should be getting on with their own lives. he can only live for himself. as should be the case with everybody.

Most of the time I don't agree with you, but have to agree with you on this.:yes:
 
It is frustrating, I know. I believe the truth will come out. And I know Soso Def has explained to the best of her abilities about this case. But the one thing that get's me is WHY HE HAD TO SETTLE? That is what most people don't understand including me.

i've refrained from posting in here again cause i am of the feeling to let sleeping dogs lie, but maybe this will help.

Geraldine Hughes was the sole legal secretary who worked for Barry Rothman, representing jordan's dad. she was in the enemy's camp. after all was said and done she wrote a book about the extortion her boss and jordan's dad cooked up against Michael called Redemption. she didnt put the book out until 10 years after the case. her conscience would not let her let it alone.

She goes into a lot of detail about the civil lawsuit, which is what was settled on.

She said the civil suit had nothing to do with the criminal investigation. She said people thought Michael bought his way out of the criminal investigation, but that is not so. The criminal investigation did in fact go on regardless of the civil suit. The settlement had NO EFFECT on the outcome of the criminal investigation.

There is so much detail in that book that I can't post it all here without this becoming a book, but suffice it to say Michael's civil rights were trampled on by a number of motions filed and rulings by the courts that removed constitutional protections that are afforded to everyone else, except him. if you get the book just skip to page 113 for the play by play.

the judge presiding over the criminal suit was in cahoots with sneddon's office, and the da was being given unprecedented access. what happened to Michael was unconstitutional and the whole thing was a set up to frame him.

the da eventually had to drop the criminal investigation, not because of the civil settlement, but because they had no case. she said 400 witnesses were interviewed, two grand juries were held, a lot of money was spent over an 8 month investigation when they ended, but they left the case open for 6 YEARS after the investigation just in case they could get ONE CORROBORATING WITNESS, WHICH THEY NEVER DID. they would have kept it open indefinitely except there is a statute of limitations.

out of all those witnesses, out of all that money spent, after two grand juries went through every piece of non-evidence sneddon and associates could pull together from all those raids on NVL, his other residences, and his family's residences, no evidence to prove the case, and NOT ONE CORROBORATING WITNESS. just one child out of the tens of thousands that visited NVL and had come into contact with Michael over his lifetime.

one child whose dad who before he filed the case had secretly tried to get Michael to give him $20 million dollars, and threatened him if he didn't he was going to ruin him. This is called Blackmail.

Michael refused. this is before this ever went anywhere, all behind closed doors, the kid's dad's lawyer and Michael's representative.

she also says for those who are not familiar with the legal system, a settlement is the most preferred way to resolve a dispute, not going to court. she said it has never been recognized in the legal field that a settlement is an admission of guilt. further the courts require parties to participate in mandatory settlement conferences (i.e. mediation) before going to trial.

ok this pretty much became a book, but i hope that helps. if not get the book. she answers your questions in a lot more detail than i can here.
 
i've refrained from posting in here again cause i am of the feeling to let sleeping dogs lie, but maybe this will help.

Geraldine Hughes was the sole legal secretary who worked for Barry Rothman, representing jordan's dad. she was in the enemy's camp. after all was said and done she wrote a book about the extortion her boss and jordan's dad cooked up against Michael called Redemption. she didnt put the book out until 10 years after the case. her conscience would not let her let it alone.

She goes into a lot of detail about the civil lawsuit, which is what was settled on.

She said the civil suit had nothing to do with the criminal investigation. She said people thought Michael bought his way out of the criminal investigation, but that is not so. The criminal investigation did in fact go on regardless of the civil suit. The settlement had NO EFFECT on the outcome of the criminal investigation.

There is so much detail in that book that I can't post it all here without this becoming a book, but suffice it to say Michael's civil rights were trampled on by a number of motions filed and rulings by the courts that removed constitutional protections that are afforded to everyone else, except him. if you get the book just skip to page 113 for the play by play.

the judge presiding over the criminal suit was in cahoots with sneddon's office, and the da was being given unprecedented access. what happened to Michael was unconstitutional and the whole thing was a set up to frame him.

the da eventually had to drop the criminal investigation, not because of the civil settlement, but because they had no case. she said 400 witnesses were interviewed, two grand juries were held, a lot of money was spent over an 8 month investigation when they ended, but they left the case open for 6 YEARS after the investigation just in case they could get ONE CORROBORATING WITNESS, WHICH THEY NEVER DID. they would have kept it open indefinitely except there is a statute of limitations.

out of all those witnesses, out of all that money spent, after two grand juries went through every piece of non-evidence sneddon and associates could pull together from all those raids on NVL, his other residences, and his family's residences, no evidence to prove the case, and NOT ONE CORROBORATING WITNESS. just one child out of the tens of thousands that visited NVL and had come into contact with Michael over his lifetime.

one child whose dad who before he filed the case had secretly tried to get Michael to give him $20 million dollars, and threatened him if he didn't he was going to ruin him. This is called Blackmail.

Michael refused. this is before this ever went anywhere, all behind closed doors, the kid's dad's lawyer and Michael's representative.

she also says for those who are not familiar with the legal system, a settlement is the most preferred way to resolve a dispute, not going to court. she said it has never been recognized in the legal field that a settlement is an admission of guilt. further the courts require parties to participate in mandatory settlement conferences (i.e. mediation) before going to trial.

ok this pretty much became a book, but i hope that helps. if not get the book. she answers your questions in a lot more detail than i can here.

thank you. the most damming thing for these enemies of Michael is that they spent a LOT of MONEY. and nobody likes to do that. except MJ himself, of course.

anyway, this post of yours is why i have no problem believing conspiracies are against him.

they'd like it to be 'damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.' and this is the government and court system we are talking about. it's supposed to protect its citizens, no matter what...unless they actually did something wrong. and MJ did not do this ish. this treatment never happened to anyone before, in the usa, (prior to his acquittal) and will never happen again. and the fact that he got acquitted doesn't make logical sense, considering how he was treated, prior to acquittal, by the prosecution. and no one else would've gotten an acquittal after that treatment..whether or not they were innocent(in today's twilight zone court system where u can be convicted without physical evidence, cus of the atmosphere created in the media and such)...even tho MJ's defense team put up an unshakeable defense. which is why a lot of people counted him to be a goner, before the verdict. what he went through, here, mirrors his career. a lot of people count him to be a goner, before the actual result always turns out to be different(in a positive way) than what was expected.
 
Last edited:
i've refrained from posting in here again cause i am of the feeling to let sleeping dogs lie, but maybe this will help.

Geraldine Hughes was the sole legal secretary who worked for Barry Rothman, representing jordan's dad. she was in the enemy's camp. after all was said and done she wrote a book about the extortion her boss and jordan's dad cooked up against Michael called Redemption. she didnt put the book out until 10 years after the case. her conscience would not let her let it alone.

She goes into a lot of detail about the civil lawsuit, which is what was settled on.

She said the civil suit had nothing to do with the criminal investigation. She said people thought Michael bought his way out of the criminal investigation, but that is not so. The criminal investigation did in fact go on regardless of the civil suit. The settlement had NO EFFECT on the outcome of the criminal investigation.

There is so much detail in that book that I can't post it all here without this becoming a book, but suffice it to say Michael's civil rights were trampled on by a number of motions filed and rulings by the courts that removed constitutional protections that are afforded to everyone else, except him. if you get the book just skip to page 113 for the play by play.

the judge presiding over the criminal suit was in cahoots with sneddon's office, and the da was being given unprecedented access. what happened to Michael was unconstitutional and the whole thing was a set up to frame him.

the da eventually had to drop the criminal investigation, not because of the civil settlement, but because they had no case. she said 400 witnesses were interviewed, two grand juries were held, a lot of money was spent over an 8 month investigation when they ended, but they left the case open for 6 YEARS after the investigation just in case they could get ONE CORROBORATING WITNESS, WHICH THEY NEVER DID. they would have kept it open indefinitely except there is a statute of limitations.

out of all those witnesses, out of all that money spent, after two grand juries went through every piece of non-evidence sneddon and associates could pull together from all those raids on NVL, his other residences, and his family's residences, no evidence to prove the case, and NOT ONE CORROBORATING WITNESS. just one child out of the tens of thousands that visited NVL and had come into contact with Michael over his lifetime.

one child whose dad who before he filed the case had secretly tried to get Michael to give him $20 million dollars, and threatened him if he didn't he was going to ruin him. This is called Blackmail.

Michael refused. this is before this ever went anywhere, all behind closed doors, the kid's dad's lawyer and Michael's representative.

she also says for those who are not familiar with the legal system, a settlement is the most preferred way to resolve a dispute, not going to court. she said it has never been recognized in the legal field that a settlement is an admission of guilt. further the courts require parties to participate in mandatory settlement conferences (i.e. mediation) before going to trial.

ok this pretty much became a book, but i hope that helps. if not get the book. she answers your questions in a lot more detail than i can here.

Thank you for this. :)
 
Back
Top