New topic
Printable
Michael Jackson's personal photographer reveals his favorite moments http://abc7chicago.com/en...s/1783518/
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Legal analysts warned that Michael Jackson’s fame and wealth can make him a magnet for false claims and extortion attempts, especially now that they saw someone achieving it. They were right and it happened again. Several disturbed people later tried to copy the Chandlers, but with no success.It was reported right after the settlement that Michael’s insurance carrier actually paid the settlement, and not Michael Jackson. The news at the time mentioned TIG Insurance, the Transamerica subsidiary that held Jackson’s personal liability policy. Insurance carriers are not parties of the lawsuit and they are not named in a settlement agreement. Tom Mesereau’s filed motion in 2005 verifies that the settlement was indeed paid by Jackson’s insurance carrier.In 2004, tabloid reporter Diane Dimond obtained the settlement document and proudly put it out for all of us to see in an effort to taint the jury pool. Michael Jackson released a statement to address the effort of the press to use that in order to further lynch him, and he a called it “an act of desperation”. Diane Dimond inaccurately “explained” the settlement document to her audience, and a lawyer’s reaction was “she didn’t understand what she was reading”. Actually she was reading from the 1993 lawsuit and not from the 1994 settlement. The terms are confidential, a word she did not understand and certainly didn’t respect. Many legal observers questioned the timing of this leak.Michael Jackson’s press release on June 17, 2004, concerning the leak:
Former San Diego District Attorney Paul Pfingst commented on the language in the settlement agreement and how it looks as if the wording was such that an insurance company could foot the bill. He appeared on MSNBC June 15, 2005:
Tom Mesereau, in his filed motion concerning the settlement during the 2005 trial, wrote: As the court knows better than I do, civil settlements of this nature are often done where the negligence claim is settled so that insurance companies can fund the settlement. There was never any admission by Mr. Jackson that he ever did anything negligent or anything wrong at all. There was a public comment in the media, again, about this 11 year oldcase to the effect that somehow he admitted negligence, which was completely false. It was a technical legal way of settling a case so insurance companies could fund a settlement and he could get on with his personal life and business life.The settlement document itselfThe real amount was $15,331,250 dollars and not the usual $20 or $25 million that people who are ignorant about it mention to this day. Considering the fact that the leak came from Jackson’s detractors, we understand that paragraph 3 is full of blanks because it probably supports that the actual amount was indeed $5 million, as it was reported before the settlement. According to the Retainer Agreement Larry Feldman was paid from this money (approximately $5 million). June and Evan Chandler were also paid from this amount (approximately $3million), plus the settlement was taxed. This would leave an amount close to $5 million for the plaintiff, which was paid in installments over a period of years, which is the way that insurance companies pay. The last installment was paid in 1999.Michael Jackson (and his insurance carrier) could for NO reason fail to pay, otherwise it would be considered a breach of the settlement, and he could be sued for it:
Michael Jackson settled over claims of negligence and NOT for molestation allegations, and he declares his innocence in the document. The wording for negligence is the standard used in every settlement.
The seventh action pending is negligence, and he rejected the molestation allegations.
Both parties could not talk to the media but they could talk to the authorities:
June Chandler confirmed the validity of this clause during the 2005 trial, when she testified 11 years after the 1994 settlement. She had no restrictions whatsoever to talk to authorities and testify in court like all the other parties involved in the perfectly legal settlement. From her direct examination by Tom Sneddon:
Michael Jackson called them liars, and the Chandlers signed it. Michael Jackson declared again his innocence and the Chandlers could not speak to the media. They could only speak in court. No one prevented them from speaking in a criminal court, and they could do it and still keep the money. The resolution of the civil case had nothing to do with the criminal proceedings, otherwise it would be an obstruction of justice, and they all would go to jail (including the judge that reviewed it). Michael Jackson was asked by Larry Feldman to drop the allegations of extortion in order for a settlement to be reached.They took the money that they were asking for since August 1993 and RAN.Had Jackson not settled the civil case, he would have put his defense strategy in jeopardy by revealing his exculpatory evidence to the prosecution. When Tom Sneddon discovered the exculpatory evidence in the 2003 Arvizo case, instead of dropping it, he changed the dates, set it up, and misled the grand jury.The 2005 defense’s motion to Compel Discovery on page 6 reveals that the prosecution withheld exonerating evidence not only for 2003 case but for 1993 as well:
It was the defense (Michael Jackson) that was asking for the 1993 evidence to be brought in. During the Arvizo caseit was reported that Anthony Pellicano had given all he had from the 1993 case to the FBI. The problem was that FBI gave them to Tom Sneddon.Right after the settlement, the Chandlers were looking for more money. Ray Chandler approached publisher Judith Regan to shop a book deal. It was reported in early February 1994 and Judith Regan also talked about it on SIRIUS XM:
When this effort didn’t succeed the Chandlers gave Evan’s diary to Hard Copy in May 1994. They managed to fish a book deal with the proven liar Victor Gutierrez. When he tricked the Chandlers and published a pornographic book with his own fictions (it was banned in US) falsely turning Evan Chandler’s diary into Jordan’s, the Chandlers detached themselves and Ray Chandler called him a “sleazebag”. Ray Chandler published his own book, and legal experts noticed the trap he created for himself in 2004. In his effort to taint the jury pool and make some money he ended up being a witness for the defense. When Ray Chandler was asked from Jackson’s lawyers to present his stories in the 2005 trial he fought back the subpoena and never showed up. Ray Chandler gave an interview to Entertainment Weekly in June 1995 in which he said that the Chandlers love Michael and they bare him no ill will. Would a family of a real victim talk like that about a real abuser? He went on to say that there was no evidence against Jackson, and they only had Jordan’s words and nothing else. When he was asked why they settled, he answered “because they weren’t sure they would get any more money after a trial and they wanted the ordeal to end”.Jordan Chandler went to live with his stepmother Natalie, who had divorced Evan Chandler. Several years later, reports would present Jordan as a shrewd businessman.Retailers reported that Michael Jackson didn’t suffer any drop in his sales, and to this day he remains the most popular celebrity in the planet.Evan Chandler had an interesting experience that was similar to that of Michael Jackson’s. He was sued by a model for malpractice regarding a dental procedure and the model’s claim was rejected. That happened prior to Evan Chandler’s settlement with Michael Jackson. When the model heard on the news that Mr. Chandler had money, she then remembered to sue him for sexual harassment. Though from the timing and the changed story it was obvious that the model made it up, Evan Chandler’s insurance carrier settled with her.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Jordan Chandler
The aftermath and the on-going criminal investigationA Santa Barbara Grand Jury began hearing testimonies in the context of the criminal investigation in early February 1994. Law enforcement sources told the Los Angeles Times that neither Michael Jackson nor Jordan Chandler had been called to testify. There was speculation at the time that while Gil Garcetti would not file charges without having any evidence to support his case, the Santa Barbara D.A. Tom Sneddon, who had the reputation of being aggressive, would try his best even with a weak case. Michael Cooney, an attorney who knew Sneddon well, said about the prosecutor: : ”Tom Sneddon is a very determined individual who will go further than almost anyone to prove something which he feels needs proving. Ones he decides action is worth taking, he will pursue it to the very end”. Steve R. Balash, who worked with Sneddon, the “Mad Dog”, also said about him: ”If you wanted to go to central casting to pick out a prosecutor, you’d pick Sneddon. He’s got a lot of power, and when he targets someone, it’s a battle.” Tom Sneddon has been accused of malicious prosecution, false allegations, personal vendettas and abuse of power by many other people.It was rumoured that if the Santa Barbara Grand Jury found the evidence insufficient to indict Michael Jackson, the Los Angeles D.A. “would drop the political hot potato without career repercussions”. Gil Garcetti’s predecessor, Ira Reiner, had to leave office under the stigmatization of the McMartin Preschool case (the false child abuse allegations that Dr. Stanley Katz had diagnosed). Gil Garcetti said in 2004 that he primarily reserved the grand jury for cases with uncooperative witnesses or for difficult or high-profile cases in which he wanted to test the evidence before bringing charges.USA Today wrote “Prosecutors in L.A. and S.B. counties are scrambling to salvage what’s left of their criminal investigations into sex abuse allegations against the pop music star”. Gil Garcetti was reportedly trying to change the law so minors who alleged they were abused could be forced to testify. The newspaper characterized their actions as desperate and referred to Blanca Francia’s concerns about investigators’ misconduct with her son who had repeatedly denied any abuse. It was quite obvious that the investigators were trying to create “victims” out of nowhere.In the meantime Jackson’s lawyers asked for the photos of Michael’s body search, but Judge James M. Slater refused and said they were safely stored in a local bank. So safely stored that Geraldo Rivera had seen them, and there was a call made to the National Enquirer by someone who was trying to sell them the photos for $3 million. The rumours that the tabloids had the photos had been circulating since January 1994, and Jackson’s fans in Europe had started a campaign by gathering signatures so the photos would not be published.In mid-February 1994 PBS aired the documentary “Frontline: Tabloid truth, the Michael Jackson Scandal”. The PBS correspondent, Richard Ben Cramer, followed the tabloid frenzy from behind the scenes when the scandal broke. He provided a great insight on how tabloids obstructed justice by interviewing con artists who were paid for their stories. It pointed out that the real news in Jackson’s case was poisoned by Hard Copy, A Current Affair, National Enquirer, and the blood thirsty London tabloids. These dubious characters who were motivated by money even made non-tabloid reporters lose their credibility. The New York Times revealed that Diane Sawyer went to Manila to interview the Quindoy couple. The newspaper negatively criticized her decision and they said that she started connecting herself to tabloids, and that was very dangerous for her reputation. It also came out that people who worked for tabloids were hired later for big networks. Checkbook journalism displayed by the tabloids was characterized as “disservice to truth and disservice to justice”, and its dubious impact on mainstream media was stressed. Diane Dimond was mocked by the non-tabloid press, and was characterized as a “tabloid princess” who made a name for herself by exploiting Michael Jackson. The Dayton Daily News wrote that “the trend toward tabloidization of news in America may be irreversible”. Hard Copy was severely criticized for the salacious coverage and the paid stories.The sad reality is that Tom Sneddon’s §1108 evidence (enacted in 1995) based on hearsay “witnesses” came from tabloids like Hard Copy & National Enquirer, and they didn’t have any effect on any kind of jury that they were presented to (two Grand Juries, one civil trial, one criminal trial, and the police interviews in 1993 where they blamed the tabloids for their fictional stories), and the prosecutor could not use them to file charges. Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and professor at Loyola University School of Law, told News Press on 2004 regarding Sneddon’s action “The problem for the prosecutor is he’s always going with a one-victim case. The one witness you want to hear from in the prior case is the alleged victim. Part of the problem is that if you only bring in the other witnesses, it’s going to look like window dressing. The defense will say they don’t have the evidence so they’re trying to distract you with peripheral witnesses who have their own agenda”.Most observers said that Judge Melville should not allow testimony from third parties who were making accusations about people who never accused Jackson and could not speak for themselves. Tom Mesereau, from morning session transcripts, on March 28, 2005, said:
Macaulay Culkin’s father also criticized Sneddon’s desperation and his weak case against the singer, as well as his decision not to even interview his son about the alleged molestation that several former Neverland employees claimed to have witnessed. Legal analysts also argued that it was wrong on the law and unfair to the defendant, violating his Sixth Amendment right. They added that they were proven untrustworthy by the prosecutor himself, who never filed charges for them, and there was never a conviction. They stressed that it was a blatant Confrontation Clause violation. All the imaginary alleged “victims” testified for Jackson’s defense, and Sneddon was left with his hearsay, having to explain why he called his tabloid “witnesses” and not the alleged “victims”. At the end the jury didn’t believe the “witnesses”, and Jackson was acquitted despite the official tainting.Susan Drake, one of the 2005 trial jurors said to Larry King on June 23, 2005, after the exonerating verdict:
During the month of April 1994, two Grand Juries (one from Santa Barbara, and one from Los Angeles) continued to hear testimonies, and were presented with the prosecutors outcomes of the criminal investigation. Some of the people who testified were Katherine Jackson, Miko Brando, Norma Staikos, Blanca Francia, Bob Jones, Anthony Pellicano, the rest of the “tell-all” tabloid witnesses, Janet Jackson’s ex-husband, and others that were not named in the press. While the two Grand Juries were in process, a source from the police investigation told Daily Variety that there was nothing that could incriminate Jackson. In the meantime it was reported that the prosecutors continued to meet with Jordan Chandler.Both Grand Juries decided there was no case against Michael Jackson, and were disbanded in 1994 without issuing an indictment for the singer. One juror told CNN in May 1994 that he didn’t hear any damaging testimony and the only thing Michael Jackson could be found guilty of was bad judgement. The same was repeated in the Santa Barbara News Press in March 2004 when the paper interviewed members of the 1994 Santa Barbara Grand Jury who said that there were never shown enough evidence to issue an indictment. Michael Jackson’s 2005 lead defense attorney said on November 29, 2005, in his speech at Harvard University: “Sneddon had convened a grand jury in the early 90’s to try and get an indictment and he failed. And I have since spoken to someone who was on that grand jury quite recently from Los Angeles. She was on a Los Angeles grand jury that was convened at the same time. And they had real problems with these accusations. And the real problems were the sense that people were trying to get money out of Michael Jackson by generating these charges”.On May 9 and 10, 1994, tabloid show Hard Copy invited as guests the paid tell all ex-employees, in an effort to exploit the story. This time excerpts from Evan Chandler’s diary were read. It was more than clear that Evan Chandler was still trying to cash in and he was breaching the terms of the settlement. Mr. Chandler confirms the $20 million and extortion and admits that when Jackson didn’t pay he then sent Jordan to Dr. Abrams, knowing that he was obligated by law to inform the police. The New York Amsterdam News criticized the tabloid for not pointing Mr. Chandler’s manipulations and accused the show for lack of fairness and objectivity.On August 16, 1994, Jordan’s stepfather David Schwartz decided that he was left out of the game and it was time for him to earn some money from the singer. Mr. Schwartz, who was experiencing financial troubles for quite some time, and had even asked from June Chandler to persuade Michael Jackson to lend him millions of dollars (prior to the allegations), filed a lawsuit against Jackson for monetary compensation because he and his 6-year-old daughter Lily were “very traumatized by the allegations”. June Chandler, in her 2005 testimony, had a hard time recalling that everyone around her was desperate to profit from Michael Jackson. The motivation of money was so obvious that they could do nothing to hide it. David Schwartz hired Danny Davis as a lawyer. Danny Davis successfully represented the lead defendant in the McMartin Preschool case (in which false child abuse allegations where diagnosed by Dr. Katz). What a coincidence. Howard Weitzman’s comment was “this lawsuit is frivolous and another attempt to take advantage of Mr. Jackson’s notoriety and fame in order to try to extract money from him”. David Schwartz was the one who tried to alert Michael Jackson about Evan Chandler’s plan in 1993, and had accused Chandler of extortion.On September 21, 1994 an official statement was made by Tom Sneddon and Gil Garcetti regarding the status of the investigation. They said they interviewed over 400 people, including children that denied any inappropriate contact, and 30 of these people testified in 2 grand juries. In their joint statement they admitted they had no evidence against Michael Jackson and therefore they could not file charges. Their only witness informed them on July 6, 1994 that he didn’t want to testify, and they quoted him “I am sorry, I do not want to and I will not testify” (Jordan Chandler would repeat the same thing in 2004 to Ron Zonen and the FBI agent). They said that if he decided to testify they would go forward with the case. They also said that the tabloid witnesses were interviewed as well, but they were not credible because they were paid for their stories. These people never said they witnessed molestation anyway.After the settlement, the prosecutors continued to meet with Jordan and it was not until July 1994 that he informed them of his refusal to testify. Since the investigation had begun they had plenty of time to file charges if they had any incriminating evidence.Gil Garcetti gracefully admitted that the 18-month investigation didn’t lead to anything incriminating. Tom Sneddon was too embarrassed to admit that the witch hunt, with the 6 search warrants, 2 grand juries and hundreds of witnesses lead to nothing. He referred to Jordan Chandler as “primary allegedvictim” but the problem is there are no primary, secondary and tertiary alleged victims. Either you have an alleged victim or you don’t. He went on to say that they discovered an alleged victim that denied any wrongdoing. How this individual became an alleged victim without admitting any wrongdoing was not explained. He also referred to another phantom alleged victim that conveniently was not in US at the time and was receiving therapy. The part where Mr. Sneddon tried to convict Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion is very confusing in its wording, and it doesn’t match with what he presented as phantom victims in his 1108 during the 2005 trial. The only one that received therapy was Jason Francia, and that was because his mother had questioned police’s techniques. He was also the one that denied any wrongdoing. On December 16, 1994 Hard Copy referred to Blanca Francia and her son asking for a settlement (thus copying the Chandlers after the police interviews and the grand jury depositions where nobody believed their story) and they used a clip of Sneddon talking about the alleged victim being on therapy. It was more than clear that Tom Sneddon mixed the story of Jason Francia to make it sound like a third alleged victim. The only person who was visited by authorities outside of the USA was Bret Barnes, who had publicly defended Jackson in 1993, and also defended him during police interviews in 1993-1994 and as a defense witness in the 2005 trial.Tom Sneddon’s inappropriate behaviour was characterized as “a cheap shot at Michael Jackson” by USA Today, and the newspaper pointed out that the case was all about money from the very first day. While Mr. Sneddon had a hard time admitting that he spent the tax payers’ money on a witch hunt, Gil Garcetti tried to correct him after the press conference in the question and answer session with the media by saying the following: “Michael Jackson is presumed to be innocent as any citizen in this room is if they are not convicted with a crime. We are not charging Michael Jackson with a crime”.Michael Jackson, who evidently had more class than Santa Barbara’s D.A. said the following: “I am thankful that the investigation has reached a conclusion. I continually maintained my innocence. I am grateful to all my family, friends and fans who have stood by me and also believed in my innocence. Lisa Marie and I look forward to getting on with our lives, raising a family, and will never forget the unending outpouring of love from all over the world. God Bless you”.After the joint statement, Gil Garcetti said that it took them a long time to come to a conclusion because they “do not just willy-nilly go and charge someone after you get some initial information”. Mr. Gascon, the chief spokesman for the LAPD, said that they conducted the investigation, gave their information to the district attorneys, and made their decision. Ivy Mondy of the Department of Children’s Services, which was also investigating the case, said “we thought there would be a lot of attention given to this case because of who is involved, but when you get down to the facts of the case, youcan’t always proceed”. That was an interesting remark.In October 1994, Mary Fischer published her article “Was Michael Jackson framed? The untold story” in GQ magazine. The article was nominated for National Magazine Award. She had interviewed many people involved in the case and although we now know more about the story, her revelations were very important in 1994. She appeared on The Today Show, CNN, KCBS-TV, CBS Morning News, and Entertainment Tonight to talk about her article. She was also interviewed for PBS’ documentary on the 1993 case before the publication of her report. In her article she concludes “To some observers, the Michael Jackson story illustrates the dangerous power of accusation, against which there is often no defense—particularly when the accusations involve child sexual abuse. To others, something else is clear now—that police and prosecutors spent millions of dollars to create a case whose foundation never existed”.When Michael Jackson was arrested in 2003 for the Arvizo case, she was a guest on Greta Van Susteren’s show on November 25, 2003 and she defended her 1994 article and said that the current case was suspiciously similar to the 1993 case with the same people involved.http://www.mjeol.com/audi...-25-03.mp3In 2004 she also appeared on MSNBC, FOX, and CNN for the same reason. In June 2009, she gave permission to a blogger to reprint her article (http://www.abovetopsecret...477059/pg1).On December 16, 1994, an orchestrated effort was displayed from tabloids to keep the story on their shows. Hard Copy reported that Blanca Francia and her son were seeking a settlement from Michael Jackson. This happened after Jackson’s lawyers rejected the proposal and Blanca Francia then asked for a little boost from tabloids to pressure Jackson. The maid was after her own concept of the American dream, and decided to copy the Chandlers’ playbook. The story was also reported in late January 1995 from British tabloids and New York Daily News. Blanca Francia, who blamed Hard Copy in 1993 for editing her interview, who was paid for the story, who told the police and grand jury she never witnessed anything inappropriate, who said her son denied any molestation, and who was now trying to cash in. She filed a civil complaint, not a criminal one, and found herself a civil lawyer to copy Larry Feldman. Sony, who was about to release Jackson’s “HIStory” album, intervened to save their multi-million dollar campaign from negative publicity. The maid had carefully chosen the timing to achieve her goal and ask for money. Jackson finally agreed to a settlement, which was not an admission of guilt, and did not prevent the Francias from testifying in court and talking to the police (they had already done it 2 years ago) and he added a unique paragraph (which was not the standard language for settlement agreements) to declare his innocence, and the reason for settling the case. Francia’s lawyer ,Kris Kallman, testified in 2005, along with both Blanca and Jason Francia. Mr. Kallman said that the settlement was reached either in 1995 or 1996. From Kris Kallman’s 2005 direct examination from Tom Sneddon:Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Who was the individual that12 the Complaint was directed towards?13 A. Mr. Jackson.14 Q. At some point in time, did you have contact15 with individuals who were representing Mr. Jackson16 over the proposed filing of the criminal — of the17 civil complaint?18 A. Yes.19 Q. And who did you make contact with?20 A. Initially our contacts were with Johnnie21 Cochran and his associate, Carl Douglas.22 Q. Do you recall approximately when it was when23 you first made contact with Mr. — or when contact24 was made between you and Mr. Cochran and Mr.25 Douglas?26 A. It was either late ‘94 or early ‘95.27 Q. Did you, after your conversations with those28 individuals, file the civil lawsuit? 49531 A. No.2 Q. At some point in time later, were you then3 dealing with other lawyers with regard to the4 proposed filing of that civil lawsuit?5 A. Yes. At some point, Mr. Jackson’s6 representation was assumed by a lawyer named Zia7 Modabber, and a lawyer named Howard Weitzman.8 Q. And do you recall approximately when it was9 that you then began contact with those particular10 individuals?11 A. I believe it was in mid 1995.12 Q. And the purpose of those contacts?13 A. Well, the –14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague;15 foundation.16 THE COURT: Overruled.17 You may answer.18 THE WITNESS: The purpose of the contacts19 was that they knew that we had a Complaint that we20 were about to file in Santa Barbara County Superior21 Court, and they didn’t want us to do that.22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;23 foundation.24 THE COURT: The answer is stricken.25 Sustained.26 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: As a result of the27 conversations between these individuals, did you28 pursue your lawsuit? 49541 A. Well, we never filed the lawsuit.2 Q. Did you reach an agreement, a settlement3 agreement?4 A. Yes, we did.5 Q. Did you reach a settlement agreement in6 which Jason Francia received monetary compensation7 from Mr. Jackson?8 A. Yes, sir.9 Q. Did you receive — did you reach an10 agreement in which Blanca Francia received monetary11 compensation from Mr. Jackson?12 A. Yes, we did.13 Q. During the time that you were14 representing — during the time that you had15 prepared a Complaint ready to be filed and you were16 in contact with attorneys representing Mr. Jackson,17 can you give the ladies and gentlemen of the jury an18 idea of how old Jason Francia was at that particular19 point in time?20 A. Well, he was about 14 years old. He’s 2421 now, as I understand it, and we’re talking about22 things that happened just about exactly ten years23 ago.24 Q. And in your position as a civil litigator,25 at the time that an individual is of minority, at26 the age of 14, how do you deal with representing a27 person like that?28 A. Well, a child – 49551 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague;2 foundation; relevance.3 THE COURT: Overruled.4 You may complete your answer.5 THE WITNESS: A child, under California law,6 under the age of 18, is not permitted to enter into7 a contract. I suppose he or she could, but it8 wouldn’t be enforceable. So the only way a child9 can act legally is through a guardian ad litem. And10 it’s normally the parent and normally the mother.11 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Was that the case in this12 particular instance?13 A. Yes.14 Q. Now, during the course of the time that you15 were involved in obtaining a settlement from Mr.16 Jackson on behalf of the Francias, did you deal17 personally with Jason at any time?18 A. Yeah. Sure.19 Q. In what respect?20 A. Well, I knew who he was, I met with him. I21 met with he and his mom. He was a teenaged boy, and22 a nice young man.23 Q. Now, at some point in time was Jason24 required to sign some kind of documents in25 conjunction with the settlement?26 A. Yes. When he turned 18, part of the27 condition was that he sign a confidentiality28 agreement. 49561 Q. Now, with regard to the confidentiality –2 and to your knowledge, did he sign that?3 A. Yes.4 Q. And with regard to the confidentiality5 agreement, did it have a provision that required6 notice to Mr. Jackson in the event that Jason7 Francia talked to anybody?8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; move to9 strike.10 THE COURT: Overruled.11 You may answer.12 THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes.13 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And what was the14 requirement notice in the confidentiality agreement15 with regard to notice to the defense?16 A. I believe it’s five days.17 Q. And were you at some point contacted by Mr.18 Zonen of our department with regard to interviewing19 your — Jason Francia?20 A. Yes.21 Q. And in that particular case, did you22 indicate to Mr. Zonen that you would have to do23 something before you could agree with that?24 A. Yes.25 Q. And what was that?26 A. Well, I’d have to notify somebody on Mr.27 Jackson’s legal staff that they wanted to talk to28 him. 49571 Q. And did you do that?2 A. Yeah. Yes. Excuse me.3 Q. And did you then grant permission for Mr.4 Zonen to have a conversation with your — with Jason5 Francia?6 A. Yes.7 Q. Now, were you present during the8 conversations between Jason Francia and Mr. Zonen?9 A. I don’t think so. I think I was there, and10 then I think I had to go to another court or11 something like that. I don’t remember being an12 integral part of any of those — if there was more13 than one, I don’t even know.14 Q. And I’m talking about the conversations that15 occurred after you gave notice to the defense in16 this case, or gave notice to Mr. Jackson. To your17 knowledge, was Mr. Cannon present?18 A. I believe so. At least for part of it.19 Again, I’m not certain.20 Q. Do you remember when it was that you21 finally — the year that you finally reached a22 settlement agreement with Mr. Jackson?23 A. Yes. It’s been a long time. But it was a24 big deal. And I do remember –25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;26 move to strike.27 THE COURT: The answer is stricken.28 Nonresponsive. 49581 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Just –2 A. Yes.3 Q. And what year was that, approximately?4 A. It was either ‘95 or ‘96, I believe.Cross examination from Tom Mesereau:Q. Yes. Okay. Now, the prosecutor asked you13 some questions about provisions in the settlement14 agreement, okay? And one of the issues that was15 carefully negotiated by the people representing Mr.16 Jackson was that he deny any wrongdoing in that17 agreement, right?18 A. Again, the best evidence of that would be19 what’s in the agreement. I don’t remember what’s in20 there.21 Q. Okay. Well, let me — the prosecutor read22 you a provision, asked you about it.23 Let me ask you about this: There was24 language in that agreement that said, “The parties25 acknowledge that Jackson has elected to settle the26 claims solely in view of the potential impact any27 litigation could have in the future on his28 reputation, earnings and potential income, and not 49681 because of any alleged wrongful conduct on his2 part,” right?3 A. If you’re asking me if that’s in the4 document, I’ll have to take your word for it. You5 don’t need to show it to me. It sounds pretty6 standard to me.7 Q. The agreement further said — excuse me, let8 me rephrase that.9 Both agreements, the one involving Jason and10 the one involving Blanca, his mother, both had11 language which said, “This agreement shall not, in12 any manner, be construed as an admission by Jackson13 that he has acted wrongfully with respect to14 Francia, Blanca, or any other person, or at all, or15 that Francia or Blanca have any rights whatsoever16 against Jackson or Jackson’s releasees.” Sound17 familiar to you?18 A. It sounds like standard language in19 virtually every release that I deal with. But, yes,20 it does sound familiar.21 Q. Actually, there’s a whole separate paragraph22 entitled, “Denial of Claims by Mr. Jackson,”23 correct?24 A. Don’t know.25 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show26 you a copy?27 A. It would.28 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor? 49691 THE COURT: Yes.2 THE WITNESS: It does refresh my3 recollection.4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And do you recall5 that language being in both agreements?6 A. I believe so, yes, sir.7 Q. Okay. In addition to the language that I8 have read, there’s further language which says,9 “Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to,10 and denies any wrongful acts against, Francia,11 Blanca or any other person and may continue to do so12 publicly, to the extent reasonably necessary, to13 respond to any inquiries in this regard.” Right?14 A. Correct.15 Q. It said further, “The parties acknowledge16 that Jackson is a public figure, and that his name,17 image and likeness have commercial value and are an18 important element of his earning capacity.” Right?19 A. That’s true.20 Q. And that language was in both settlement21 agreements, the one involving Blanca Francia and the22 one involving Jason Francia, correct?23 A. I don’t remember that. I will take your24 word for it. You don’t need to refresh my25 recollection. It sounds like it should be or would26 be.27 Q. Now, Mr. Kallman, provisions in which a28 settling party denies liability are fairly standard 49701 in settlement agreements, right?2 A. True.3 Q. But the language that I just read to the4 jury is not standard language in a settlement5 agreement, is it?6 A. This is not a standard case, or was not.7 And no, you’re right. These were carefully drafted8 by a team of lawyers, and we agreed to the terms.9 Q. And the reason those terms are different is10 because Mr. Jackson is an unusual individual in11 terms of his need to preserve his reputation and12 public image so he can earn a living, right?13 MR. SNEDDON: Calls for speculation on this.14 It wasn’t drafted by him. No foundation.15 MR. MESEREAU: I think it was drafted by16 this witness.17 THE COURT: All right. I’ll sustain a18 foundation.19 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.20 Q. When you settled these matters – and I’m21 talking about matters involving Michael Jackson,22 Blanca Francia, and Jason Francia – you put in23 language involving denial of claims by Mr. Jackson24 that was not standard language in a typical25 settlement agreement, right?26 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to27 object to the question as lack of foundation; that28 he put the language in there. 49711 THE COURT: Well, that was the foundation I2 was looking for.3 So I’ll allow you to answer the question as4 long as you understand the limitations of your5 answer.6 THE WITNESS: Well –7 THE COURT: If you put the language in.8 THE WITNESS: I didn’t draft that agreement.9 THE COURT: Okay.10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did lawyers from your11 office draft the agreement?12 A. No.13 Q. Who drafted the agreement?14 A. Somebody in Mr. Modabber’s office, the15 Katten, Muchin, Zavis & Weitzman firm in Century16 City.17 Q. Did you have any input into the language in18 the agreement?19 A. Only to review it. And if there was20 language we found objectionable, we could strike it,21 I suppose.22 Q. Okay.23 A. But they wanted that in there, and I didn’t24 find it objectionable.25 Q. Okay. Now, you made a statement, I believe,26 in response to the prosecutor’s questions, that if27 someone from law enforcement wanted to speak to your28 client, you had to first notify representatives of 49721 Mr. Jackson, true?2 A. True.3 Q. That — really, that language is not in that4 agreement, is it?5 A. I don’t know.6 Q. Then why would you say it?7 A. Because that’s part — in one of the8 agreements, I have to give notice to the defense9 team. And I’ve given notice once to Mr. Sanger.10 And then when I got subpoenaed on Friday, I gave11 notice to Mr. Modabber down in Los Angeles.12 Q. But the notice you’re supposed to give to13 the defense team does not involve requests by law14 enforcement to speak to your client, does it?15 A. I assume that anybody from law enforcement16 that wants to talk to my client, there was a17 requirement to notify somebody from the defense18 team.19 Q. Nowhere in those settlement agreements is20 there language to that effect, is there?21 A. I have no idea.22 MR. SNEDDON: Object as immaterial;23 irrelevant.24 MR. MESEREAU: The prosecutor brought it up25 on direct, Your Honor.26 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. And27 the answer came in as, “I have no idea.”28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: It would be against public 49731 policy for a civil litigator to put language in a2 settlement agreement precluding anyone from3 cooperating with law enforcement, wouldn’t it?4 A. In my opinion, yes.5 Q. Lawyers are not allowed to have language6 like that in settlement agreements, right?7 A. Wrong.8 Q. Pardon me?9 A. No. It’s a notice requirement. It’s not a10 preclusion requirement. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tom Sneddon
The lazy “journalists” who had no idea about Michael Jackson in general, would refer to that settlement as something new that had emerged during the 2005 trial. In reality it was very old news since 1995, but their stories were poorly researched, as usual.Michael Jackson again released a statement on September 3, 2004, to talk about the settlements:
His defense attorney Tom Mesereau in a press conference dated September 17, 2004 said on the same issue:
On January 9, 1995, Diane Dimond, while using Victor Gutierrez as a source, reported a false story during her interview on the “Klen and Barkley show” of KABC-AM radio. She said that a videotape existed of Michael Jackson engaging in unlawful conduct with a minor. She also said that Gutierrez had met with the kid’s mother in a hotel, showed her the tape and then the mother went to LAPD to report it but the police didn’t care (!). Then she said something that was contradictory to the previous report; that the investigators were looking for the tape, and that the investigation on Jackson was reopened.Right after the show, Jackson’s lawyer Howard Weitzman, sent the following letter to Paramount Pictures:
Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, issued a statement after the false tabloid report: “We have not reopened the investigation. We have heard about the alleged tape. We have not seen it and we don’t have it. Prosecutors were not involved in a search for such a video”. (Sandi Gibbons is also the one that made the statement outside the courthouse on January 25, 2011 regarding Conrad Murray’s trial on behalf of the Los Angeles district attorney).Michael Jackson issued a statement as well:
Michael Jackson filed a $100 million lawsuit against everyone involved for slander. “The plaintiff is compelled to defend himself because Dimond, Hard Copy and the other defendants appear more concerned with their ratings than they are with the accuracy of their broadcast or the harm caused their victims”.The D.A. of Santa Barbara, Tom Sneddon, in an unusual move for a prosecutor, involved himself in the lawsuit to save his friend Dimond. He issued a declaration for the judge that he concluded that no such tape exists but according to his “memory and belief” he came to that conclusion after Dimond’s report, and as a result she could not be held responsible for malice. Not only was this highly unusual, but Tom Sneddon had nothing to do with this because it was not in his jurisdiction. The case belonged to the Los Angeles D.A. and LAPD, and Sandi Gibbons had already refuted the tabloid reporter. Diane Dimond was saved from the lawsuit because the court ruled that no malice was proved on her part, and that she only stated her opinion ,and did not present the false story as a fact. The court probably didn’t know that this was her tactic-presenting her opinion as a fact. After that, she owed Tom Sneddon for saving her and she exercised a biased, pro-prosecution slant to her coverage, and continued to report false stories during 2003-2005, for which she was negatively criticized. Court TV, the now defunct cable news channel that hired her for the trial’s coverage, was accused of becoming a tabloid for hiring someone who had a conflict of interest. Her ex -boss at Hard Copy, Burt Kearns wrote the following in 2005: “Throughout the recent investigation and trial, Diane acted more like a prosecutor than a reporter. But she doesn’t have the smarts of a Nancy Grace. She was a clown in the circus and played the role to the hilt. Her performance in the Jackson case probably ended her hopes of ever again being taken seriously as a journalist, but it did get her a book deal”.Gutierrez, the proven liar, told detective Gonterman that the mother was Margaret Maldonado, Jermaine Jackson’s ex-wife. Margaret Maldonado discredited Gutierrez, whom she had never even met. Gutierrez also said that L.A. district attorney Gil Garcetti had seen the tape, a lie that was refuted by the prosecutor. The investigation concluded that the tape story was a lie and Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn ordered Victor Gutierrez to pay $2.7 million to Michael Jackson for defamation. “Jurors told us that they not only wanted to compensate Mr. Jackson and punish Victor Gutierrez, but to send a message that they are tired of tabloids lying about celebrities for money”, Jackson’s attorney Zia Modabber told the Associated Press. Much to his disappointment, Gutierrez’s lawyer had to repeat the jurors’ message as well. Gutierrez declared bankruptcy and left the country. Zia Modabber said in an interview after the verdict that people think that Michael Jackson is an easy target because he is rich, and he settled a previous civil case. She said that Michael Jackson is determined to defend himself in court and win so people’s dreams of making money out of the singer are over. She talked about people suing celebrities, which is a very common situation “Unfortunately, anybody can walk into a courthouse with a couple of hundred dollars and file a lawsuit. And if you happen to be suing Michael Jackson or any other celebrity for that matter you are going to find yourself all over TV and you can tell the whole world about your scandalous accusations and people are going to listen to you”.Margaret Maldonado wrote in her book about Gutierrez’s scam and how she learned about it:
It turned out that Gutierrez was trying to advertise his fictional book that contained pornographic fairytales of a person with a sick fantasy. Not even the tabloids were able to believe him, let alone Tom Sneddon. During a 2003 interview with a Chilean tabloid, Gutierrez went on with his hallucinations, saying that Tom Sneddon had contacted him about being a potential witness in the Arvizo case against Jackson. His lies and fantasies ended again when the tabloid received a phone call from Sneddon’s office that refuted the lie. The truth is far more disturbing because Gutierrez is not only a proven liar with a sick fantasy, but he is a self-admitted advocate of pedophilia, and he has attended these sick paraphiliacs’ conferences. The other disturbing fact is that he had admitted stalking Michael Jackson since 1986 (before the allegations), and writing a book about allegations that had not even been made. The most terrifying thing is that he met with Norma Salinas (Evan Chandler’s maid) as well as Jackson’s ex-employees, including Blanca Francia and Orietta Murdoch (Jackson’s ex secretary who didn’t say anything bad about him) before any allegations were made by Evan Chandler. The people he approached coincidentally spoke with Diane Dimond. Through Norma Salinas he met Evan Chandler, before the 1993 allegations. This was the man that NBC paid in 2004 to produce a program for the Arvizo case. The proven liar with the questionable past and suspicious involvement was used as a “source” for the tabloids. He repeated his lies for a German newspaper in 2005. The particular newspaper has been accused of promoting pedophilia. The fact that real predators, and people who support them, tried to use Jackson’s well-known known affection for children in order to normalize their sickness is abominable.In 1995, while there was a lawsuit pending against her, Diane Dimond aired another story about a “phantom victim”. For this story she had to fly to Canada, and her producer had to pay the expenses for the show, so she had to bring a story back regardless of the result. The story was about a Canadian street kid that claimed he had been molested by Jackson, and he was able to offer a detailed story like every other liar can. The detective that questioned him said he sounded believable, and this could be another allegation on Michael Jackson. The only difference was that the police investigators in Canada actually did their job and discovered the lie. The kid was coached to lie by Rodney Allen, and he was the man that had been sending all the letters to Hard Copy making it seem as if different people were writing about being “victims”. The kid was arrested, and Rodney Allen was later arrested and convicted of pedophilia. What a coincidence!Police investigators in the US only investigated Jackson and nobody else, and when they found nothing they didn’t bother to conduct a thorough investigation for the other side of the story as they should have done. They didn’t investigate all these people who were suspiciously connected to each other, and were popping up every time there was a story on Michael Jackson. On the other hand, the Canadian police did a better investigation without being biased against the singer, and they were able to uncover the truth.On June 14, 1995, Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley Jackson gave an interview to Diane Sawyer of ABC’s Prime Time Live. He was asked about the 1993 case and he again declared his innocence. His album “HIStory, Past, Present & Future Book 1” was released on June 16, 1995. In that album Jackson appears very angry about the false allegations and he mocks Tom Sneddon for his malicious prosecution.He would later mock him again in his short film Ghosts in 1997 by playing the mayor (Sneddon) who wanted the maestro (Jackson) out of his town. And Tom Sneddon would punish him with the 2003 fabricated Arvizo case and with further public lynching.In 1995, five former Neverland employees followed the example of the “Hayvenhurst 5”. Kassim Abdool, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Sandy Domz and Melanie Bagnall filed a $16 million lawsuit against Michael Jackson (Case No. SM 89344), having Michael P. Ring as an attorney. They alleged they were harassed and threatened by security guards, and fired or forced to quit in 1994. Melanie Bagnall even alleged she was sexually harassed by a guard named Andrew Merritt (in the trial Merritt was not found liable of sexually harassing her). The judge refused Court TV’s request to televise the trial. The plaintiffs had sold their stories to the tabloids instead of going to the police. The civil case went to trial in September 1996, along with Michael Jackson’s cross-complaint. The singer’s countersuit said two of the former workers stole sketches, personal notes, hats, toys and candy from the ranch and sold some items to tabloids. Michael Ring was fined $28,350 for hiding evidence from Jackson’s lawyers during pre-trial fact-finding in March 1997. He was fined $10,000 previously for concealing facts. The trial lasted six months and the plaintiffs were sanctioned (approximately $66,ooo) for lying in court and contradicting their own testimony given the previous days. The Honorable Judge Zel Canter in one instance left the bench saying he was disgusted. On March 1, 1996, Michael Jackson was deposed for the civil case and a three minute video was released from News of the World tabloid in 2009. On March 18, 1997, the jury rejected the wrongful termination lawsuit and awarded Jackson $60,000 in damages. The plaintiffs were also ordered to pay a $1.4 million judgement in attorney fees and court costs to Michael Jackson.
At least 2 of the employees declared bankruptcy, and when they testified in the 2005 trial, they admitted that their attorney advised them to sell salacious stories to tabloids, by using a media broker, so they can pay their legal expenses. Maid Adrian McManus admitted that she knew nothing about Jackson’s sex life with Presley but nevertheless signed contracts to sell fictional stories. Howard Weitzman said after the ruling: “Michael Jackson is thankful for the court’s ruling, he has consistently maintained that he has not engaged in wrongful conduct with any minors. The stories told by these guards on various tabloid shows, for which they were paid, were false”.Matt Taibbi, referring to these people being called by the prosecution in the 2005 trial, summed it up for Rolling Stone on June 30, 2005:
J. Randy Taraborelli, who was a CBS news analyst during the 2005 trial, said that he had interviewed many of these Neverland employees but didn’t quote them in his book, because they had financial motives to lie: “If these people did not have this baggage and if their stories ended with ‘And then I called the police,’ my reaction would be ‘Oh my God’. But if you really saw these things, a normal person would call the police; you don’t call the National Enquirer.”These people were exposed for the second time when they testified in the 2005 trial and, the jurors didn’t believe them either. They also heard that other jurors in 1997 found them to be a fraud.In 1996, another former employee, Jerome Johnson, decided to copy the “Hayvenhurst 5” and the “Neverland 5”. The bodyguard alleged he was unjustly fired in April 1995. His lawsuit was thrown out of the court by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Horowitz on May 13, 1997.On May 7, 1996, Evan Chandler proved again it was all about money. He sued Michael Jackson, his wife Lisa Marie, ABC, Sony, Diane Sawyer, Howard Stern and 300 John Does, including Mary Fischer for her 1994 GQ article (it was reported at the time that she was deposed and that she revealed her sources). He said Jackson breached the settlement’s confidentiality and the others helped him and he asked for $60 million. He also asked the court’s permission to sing about the 1993 allegations by releasing an album called “EVANstory”! Evan Chandler, with that ridiculous request, actually admitted it was always his story, and his allegations. And why would he relate to songs with lyrics like “somebody’s out, somebody’s out to use me, they really wanna use me, they falsely accused me” and “you’ll do anything for money”? Did he falsely accuse Michael Jackson for money?USA Today wrote “father, who accused singer of molesting son and is now suing again, ought to get a life”. Evan Chandler forgot that Michael Jackson declared his innocence inside the settlement document that he happily signed, and his declaration of innocence was also mentioned twice in the joint statement of Larry Feldman and Johnnie Cochran after the settlement.The three arbitrators of the settlement document (retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Bonnie Martin, retired state Supreme Court Justice Edward Panelli, and retired Fourth District Court of Appeal Justice John K. Trotter) determined that there was not a breach of the settlement agreement “because the complained-of activities involved Jackson’s own public image, his music and his new album, not the plaintiffs”. They also said that Jackson could not be deemed by the settlement agreement to be barred for proclaiming his innocence in a public forum such as a TV interview: “In the present case, the arbitrators’ finding of no wrongful conduct based on their interpretation of the agreement did not conflict with any explicit and mandatory term of the agreement”. Evan Chandler’s lawsuit was thrown out of court.Tom Sneddon and Gil Garcetti changed the law regarding child molestation allegations so an individual could be indicted with no evidence, based only on the claims of the alleged victim. The prosecutors would also be allowed to bring hearsay witnesses for these cases even though the defendant had no convictions about the alleged hearsay acts. Everything was ready to set up Michael Jackson in 2003.In retrospect, we know that, like the singer said, the truth prevailed and Jackson was exonerated. Tom Sneddon was so desperate that in 1993 he even tried to prosecute Jackson under the Mann Act, a racist law, even though June Chandler was always present on the trips. The only thing Sneddon was able to prove was Jackson’s innocence. He left no stone unturned, he travelled the world, he did things beyond his jurisdiction, he changed the law, he tried to falsify evidence and create victims because he had nothing but his rage against Michael Jackson. Tom Sneddon, through his actions, proved the singer’s innocence himself.When Sneddon tried to create victims in the 2005 trial ABC News wrote: “Mesereau told the judge that the defense would put on a “mini-trial” on each allegation that is allowed in. “You can’t stop the defense from putting on a full-blown defense and I mean just that,” the defense attorney warned”. The prosecutor did not have any victims. All he had was Jason Francia, who both he and his mother had denied allegations, and he was then forced on record to create a story for the police, and his mother was paid from tabloids and asked Jakson for money. Tom Mesereau did put a full blown defense for these fictions as well, and still won the case.The statute of limitations on the criminal case against Michael Jackson was set to expire on August 17, 1999. But not for Tom Sneddon, who did nothing usual and normal regarding Jackson. It was extended for 2 years, and the excuse was that the singer was out of the country for his History tour so the clock stopped.In reality, the clock would forever stop for Tom Sneddon on June 13, 2005 at 2:25 pm PDT inside a Santa Maria courthouse in which he presented (for 5 months) to a conservative, pro-prosecution jury (which consisted of non African Americans) his 1108 hearsay-nonsense about 1993, and the fabricated and laughable Arvizo case, for which he had no evidence and no case, exactly like in 1993. The 12 jurors put an end to the twelve years of Sneddon’s vendetta against Michael Jackson. And they did it live.Evan Chandler committed suicide in November 2009, and it was reported that no one attended his funeral. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It's ironic that during the whole media frenzy, they somehow "forgot" to inform the public that Evan Chandler was an aspiring script writer who knew MJ had connections to tinsel town! They also neglected to the tell the public that 1) Evan wanted to become a partner in Michael's newly approved Production Company ($ony gave him $40 million to help start it up) 2) Evan wanted $20 million for his movie script. This all occurred BEFORE Evan drafted up that BS molestation story.
Geraldine Hughes exposes facts about the case against Michael Jackson in 93 to explain her book Redemption.
The Shitstorm that surrounded his life during that period heavily inspired the 1995 album HIStory. Many believe as time goes by HIStory will be regarded as his most import body of work along with Dangerous and BOTDF.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"Tabloid Junkie" Speculate to break the one you hate
Circulate the lie you confiscate Assassinate and mutilate As the hounding media in hysteria Who's the next for you to resurrect JFK exposed the CIA Truth be told the grassy knoll As the blackmail story in all your glory It's slander You say it's not a sword But with your pen you torture men You'd crucify the Lord And you don't have to read it, read it And you don't have to eat it, eat it To buy it is to feed it, feed it So why do we keep foolin' ourselves Just because you read it in a magazine Or see it on the TV screen Don't make it factual Though everybody wants to read all about it Just because you read it in a magazine Or see it on the TV screen Don't make it factual, actual They say he's homosexual In the hood Frame him if you could Shoot to kill To blame him if you will If he dies sympathize Such false witnesses Damn self righteousness In the black Stab me in the back In the face To lie and shame the race Heroine and Marilyn As the headline stories of All your glory It's slander With the words you use You're a parasite in black and white Do anything for news And you don't go and buy it, buy it And they won't glorify it, 'fy it To read it sanctifies it, 'fies it Then why do we keep foolin' ourselves Just because you read it in a magazine Or see it on the TV screen Don't make it factual Everybody wants to read all about it Just because you read it in a magazine Or see it on the TV screen Don't make it factual See, but everybody wants to believe all about it Just because you read it in a magazine Or see it on the TV screen Don't make it factual See, but everybody wants to believe all about it Just because you read it in a magazine Or see it on the TV screen Don't make it factual, actual She's blonde and she's bisexual Scandal With the words you use You're a parasite in black and white Do anything for news And you don't go and buy it, buy it And they won't glorify it, 'fy it To read it sanctifies it, 'fies it Why do we keep foolin' ourselves Slander You say it's not a sin But with your pen you torture men Then why do we keep foolin' ourselves Just because you read it in a magazine Or see it on the TV screen Don't make it factual Though everybody wants to read all about it Just because you read it in a magazine Or see it on the TV screen Don't make it factual See, but everybody wants to read all about it Just because you read it in a magazine Or see it on the TV screen Don't make it factual Just because you read it in a magazine Or see it on the TV screen Don't make it factual Just because you read it in a magazine Or see it on the TV screen Don't make it factual, actual You're so damn disrespectable "This Time Around" This time around I'll never get bit
Though you really wanna fix me This time around you're making me sick Though you really wanna get me Somebody's out Somebody's out to get me They really wanna fix me, hit me But this time around I'm taking no s... Though you really wanna get me You really wanna get me He really thought he really had Had a hold on me He really thought he really had They thought they really had control of me He really thought he really had Control of me He really thought he really had They thought they really could control me This time around I'll never get bit Though you really wanna get me This time around I'm taking no s... Though you really wanna fix me Somebody's out Somebody's out to use me They really want to use me And then falsely accuse me This time around They'll take it like spit 'Cause you really can't control me You know you can't control me He really thought he really had Had a hold on me He really thought he really had They thought they really had control of me He really thought he really had A hold on me He really thought he really had They thought they really had control of me He really thought he really had Had a hold on me He really thought he really had They thought they really had control of me He really thought he really had A hold on me He really thought he really had They thought they really had control of me [Rap: The Notorious BIG] Listen, I've got problems of my own Flashin' cameras, taps on my phone Even in my home I ain't safe as I should be Things always missin' Maybe it could be my friends They ain't friends if they robbin' me Stoppin' me from makin' a profit, see Apology shallow like the ocean I guess I'll resort to gun totin' If I was dead broke and smokin' I'd probably be by my lonesome I'm a killer nigga I ain't jokin' Endo smoke got me choked and I'm hopin' The fool comes slippin' So I could blow'em open This time around I changed up my flow Got rid of the rocks Got Pitts by the door I've raised other peoples to watch my back Stay away from strangers So I won't slack And I know my nigga Mike like that Baby [Michael] This time around yeah... He really thought he really had Control of meHe really thought he really had They thought they really had control of me He really thought he really had A hold on me He really thought he really had They thought they really had control of me He really thought he really had Had a hold on me He really thought he really had They thought they really had control of me He really thought he really had Control of me He really thought he really had They thought they really had control of me He really thought he really had A hold on me He really thought he really had They thought they really had control of me This time around yeah He really thought
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Michael Jackson TRANSCENDENCE and legacy
A summary of the words spoken by eminent professors,thinkers, social critics and historians Dr. Michael Eric Dyson & Dr. Cornel West asessing the legacy, the cultural impact , social and musical influence, and the capacity of an icon to break all barriers possible.
Michael Jackson - Profoundly Astonishing & Transcendent (Howard Bloom & Dr Wayne Dyer)
Beautiful and important words from two leading thinkers who personally knew Michael Jackson and have shared some insights about their time with him... Howard Bloom (author, scientific thinker, former publicist) and Dr Wayne Dyer (author, motivational speaker). Thank you for the truth in these wonderful words! We love you, Michael.
Michael Jackson : A Black Man's Dream | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Wow. That´s a lot to read....and digest. Thanks for all the info. " I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Studying Michael for me is first of all listen to what he says, listen to his music, read his books
An Interview with Author, Lorena Turner by @MJAS29
An Interview with Q and Jamon from @TheMJCast by @MJAS29 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Keep Calm & Listen To Prince | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Questlove on Michael Jackson (BBC Culture Show)
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Michael's legacy will always remain intact even if he goes out of style. His fan community, on the other hand, has scattered to the wind. It seems inevitable that this will happen with Prince also... "Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything." --Plato
https://youtu.be/CVwv9LZMah0 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Thank you so much, but take it easy you put too much information. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"I will study and look back on the whole world of entertainment and perfect it." - Michael Jackson
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Jackson's tributes to Astaire. The admiration and respect were mutual.
Gene Kelly, Michael Jackson. White socks and loafers. 
No doubt that Jackson studied both Astaire and Kelly. His pastiche is a mixture of romanticism rooted in urban street. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The most important mainstream entertainer post 1960. His legacy begins during the latter part of the Motown era and extends after his death. You can hear echo of his music in so many modern-day genres and sub-genres whether its music, performing, marketing, etc. Off the Wall concieved contemporary R&B and Thriller brought an new energy to the industry that last to this day even as sales in the industry are depressed compared to the 80s, 90s and early 2000s. There will never be another like him and I was just glad to be able to witness him in my lifetime. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Story Behind Michael Jackson's "Remember The Time" video
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Michael Jackson was WOKE and an activist long before #BlackLivesMatter
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/michael-jacksons-20-greatest-videos-the-stories-behind-the-vision-20140624/8-leave-me-alone-1989-0203194 "We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
contrary to popular belief
when this video debuted on CBS on August of 1987, this is when the career of the greatest entertainer on the planet and the industry's most prolific recording artist started to decline.
at the very least, 80-85% percent of the audience in the united states who tuned in did not recognize him at all
and when I saw this video debut as a teenager, honestly, I did not believe that was him, I honestly thought it was somebody else and that no way could that be Michael Jackson......I did not believe it was him but the only way I knew it was him because it was him.
but after watching this video the second time and really sat back and took in the vibe, it became clear that MJ was championing the concept of racial indifference where he moved beyond his natural being.
as a fan, this is the only reason I've made a fuss about things the way I have over time, it's because he was harming himself.
then he pushed the envelop even further 4 years later when he said it didn't matter if you're black or white.
I wished he would not have pushed the envelope because he had sealed the deal already with who he already was leading up to the pinnacle.....his life would have been easier and happier
with all that said, Michael Jackson is truly missed and Ill always appreciate his musical message
[Edited 3/18/17 5:28am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"Undeniably Mike overshadowed his brothers, his cherubic face alone gracing the cover of magazines." #MichaelJackson
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MJCast interview with Michael Prince, who worked with Michael from 1995 to 2009
http://www.themjcast.com/episode-052-michael-prince-special/ "We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
This week In 1984, Michael Jackson (by Andy Warhol) was on the cover of TIME Magazine. It became their 5th best selling issue of all time.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"Michael Jackson was woke......etc, etc"
Now that is one for the ages. To All the Haters on the Internet
No more Candy 4 U | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Despite the media's claims that Michael Jackson's career was “over”, demand for his London concerts was unprecedented, breakiDespite the media's claims that Michael Jackson's career was “over”, demand for his London concerts was unprecedented, breaking records:
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Scorp said:
contrary to popular belief
when this video debuted on CBS on August of 1987, this is when the career of the greatest entertainer on the planet and the industry's most prolific recording artist started to decline.
at the very least, 80-85% percent of the audience in the united states who tuned in did not recognize him at all
and when I saw this video debut as a teenager, honestly, I did not believe that was him, I honestly thought it was somebody else and that no way could that be Michael Jackson.....I did not believe it was him but the only way I knew it was him because it was him.
but after watching this video the second time and really sat back and took in the vibe, it became clear that MJ was championing the concept of racial indifference where he moved beyond his natural being.
as a fan, this is the only reason I've made a fuss about things the way I have over time, it's because he was harming himself.
then he pushed the envelop even further 4 years later when he said it didn't matter if you're black or white.
I wished he would not have pushed the envelope because he had sealed the deal already with who he already was leading up to the pinnacle.....his life would have been easier and happier
with all that said, Michael Jackson is truly missed and Ill always appreciate his musical message
[Edited 3/18/17 5:28am] Which explains why his 1992 Dangerous album was the fastest selling album in history at the time correct? Michael had a skin disorder that he was encouraged to conceal for quite sometime. He had a nose job because his nose was picked on. Michael was selling out tickets like hotcakes right before his death. Thriller is still breaking records to this day. I don't think his career ever truly took a hit, at least not how people love to portray it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The fastest selling album?....
By the spring of 1992 towards the fall of 1992, Dangerous (as much as I enjoyed and still enjoy that record) wasn't charting on the Billboard Top 100, falling as low as 120-126th on the charts in his home country....this was going on even as he released the video for JAM, the same video that featured the greatest basketball player on the planet and the greatest ever, featuring Kris Kross who that spring was the hottest rap act in the country and had the #1 song on Billboard, and featuring the late great Heavy D who was right at the heart of his run as a performer........even as he was geared on becoming an exclusively international artist after BAD, he knew no matter all those stadiums he was selling out overseas, he lost the majority of his audience in his homeland, particularly his urban audience.
Michael Jackson wasn't having that but tried to regain that audience on his terms, but to put himself in position to do that, he started making all those public appeareances, and performed at that 1993 Super Bowl in Pasadena, California, and attended those 1993 Grammy Awards, and especially, initiated that interview with Oprah Winfrey. All those efforts were done for one purpose, to boost record sales, because his american audience, and especially his urban audience who supported Michael Jackson's career from day one were alarmed and stunned by his every changing appearance, this is what the majority of his international fans were not aware of and still not aware of to this day......his career when it comes to what should have continued being no longer was and he spent the remainder of his career trying to regain the audience he knew he had lost while giving the impression to his fans abroad that he wasn't......
With Dangerous, this is the album where Michael would begin to rely on the support of musical contemporaries to shape his music and stamp his presentation where with OTW and Thriller, he did not have to do that, this is why he started having all those other celebrities in his videos, Eddie Murphy, Iman, Naomi Campbell, Magic Johnson, Heavy D., Kris Kross, Michael Jordan........whoever was the most successful in their field at that particular time, or whoever was the most popular, that's who Michael sought to appear in his videos and sing on his records that were heavily promoted......the Boyz II Mens, the Shaquille Oneal's, the Notorious B.I.G., his sister Janet Jackson, Another Bad Creation....then he had high profile movie director's craft his videos, I'm talking the big videos, the John Singleton's, The Spike Lee's, the Paul Hunters of the world....he did all of that in efforts to regain his black following from the past because he knew w/out the foundation, his record sales would continue to wane.
as far as this issue of plastic surgery, for the past 30 years, nobody who has been given the platform to talk about this issue, they swim around the issue like to and from, throwing out this explanation and that explanation, anything that comes to mind, they throw out there, because they do not, will not, and never will get right down to the heart of the issue because it would be way too disconcerting to consider what the issue really is and how the roots of all of it started before Michael Jackson released his first adult solo album.
What we need to do instead of peeping out these books that speak on the tail end of this story and rehashes the same assertions time and time again ad nauseum.....peel those layers and tear down those walls and the truth will be staring right at them......
it's convenient to surmise and conclude Michael's odyssey with plastic surgery was because of being teased by his family and all that jive.......that's the convenient explanation because that provides an immediate scapegoat.....that's the ultimate default move...when all else fails, blame the family.......
but what society really needs to start doing is reading about how the entertainment industry, particularly the music industry pushed viable black performers to begin contorting their look to generate mass commercial appeal without allowing his/her's own talent to acheive that goal naturally, because as the 70s would begin to conclude and with the backlash of disco, the airwaves on top 40 radio were segregated across racial lines....black performers who were prominent on the r&b charts were totally negated from being given the opportunity to receive exposure on top 40 radio
THIS is why the recording industry was almost on the brink of collapse by 1980-1981, and with that in mind, record labels who sought to back black performers to step in the forefront of commercial viability nationally and globally sought the means to make these efforts possible.....and then, they came up w/the perfect formula, or so they thought....
and what was the channel, the means to make this happen...................Plastic Surgery...
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
March, 1991: Michael Jackson signed the biggest recording contract in history, setting new standards for the entertainment industry. #King
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Michael Jackson's ‘Thriller’ (the best selling album EVER, released 34 YEARS ago!) is currently #2 on the U.S. iTunes Album Chart!
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
