Michael Jackson married his nanny!

[Grimmlok]

or its bastard cousin, obsession and fantardism.

[CherryDarling]

Originally Posted by bychance

He? Always had the impression that he was female. Always had that PMS aura to me.

And you wonder why you got an infraction for insulting board members?

Originally Posted by bychance

That was enough for me, so I just left it alone. If you get your kicks from talking to people like that, good for you than.

Do you want to be the pot or the kettle? Methinks someone's getting plenty of kicks for insulting longstanding, well respected GR members.

[VenusInFauxFurs]

Originally Posted by CherryDarling

And you wonder why you got an infraction for insulting board members?



Do you want to be the pot or the kettle? Methinks someone's getting plenty of kicks for insulting longstanding, well respected GR members.

Bychance should not have complained about getting an infraction. The crack at Grimm, saying he came across as a female, with PMS, calling everyone ignorant a few times because we don't buy into a bunch of copy and pasted bullshit and still believe Jacko to be a pedophile.

[Grimmlok]

I would like to say that I'm nowhere NEAR insulted.

it's a Michael Jackson fan. I mean.. come on.

[CherryDarling]

Originally Posted by VenusInFauxFurs

Bychance should not have complained about getting an infraction. The crack at Grimm, saying he came across as a female, with PMS, calling everyone ignorant a few times because we don't buy into a bunch of copy and pasted bullshit and still believe Jacko to be a pedophile.

WORD Venus!

backatcha babe.

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

I would like to say that I'm nowhere NEAR insulted.

it's a Michael Jackson fan. I mean.. come on.

I know...but it's the principle Grimmy. It's not right.

Cherry's fur is RAISED and claws are out.

[VenusInFauxFurs]

He's a baby dangling, kiddie fiddler and I wouldn't let my kid have a sleep over at his place.. hell no. I can't think of anyone who might. Maybe bychance might, call me ignorant, [go for it!] but he sounds off every alarm not only as a parent, but as someone who has worked with survivors of child sexual abuse. The guy is a fucking freak.

[CherryDarling]

^^
AMEN Venus.

On top of all that, I'd still love an explanation as to why he paid off the first kid with the 14 mil hush money. If you're "innocent", why would you have to pay someone off? Sick demented fucker.

[VenusInFauxFurs]

If someone accused me of something inherently untrue, I'd dig my heels into the ground and fight like fuck and not give them a fucking cent of my money.

[CherryDarling]

Originally Posted by VenusInFauxFurs

If someone accused me of something inherently untrue, I'd dig my heels into the ground and fight like fuck and not give them a fucking cent of my money.

I rest my case.

[VenusInFauxFurs]

Hell, I'd counter sue them for defamation of character!

[Gen X EJC]

you guys are just uneducated and illogical. jeez!

personally I like having the defenders around, it gives me sooooooo much to work with. if everyone just agrees all the time it gets boring.

[VenusInFauxFurs]

Ignorant! At least call me ignorant it turns me on.

[Gen X EJC]

Venus, you're not ignorant. You know VERY WELL the Michael Jackson on the cover of Ebony didn't twaddle those little boys.

It was the 'black Michael' that did all of that. Luckily he's been bleached away, because he was a BAD MAN.

[/sarcasm]

[bychance]

I wonder if the OP will ever return to see whats happened to this thread.

Originally Posted by VenusInFauxFurs

Bychance should not have complained about getting an infraction. The crack at Grimm, saying he came across as a female, with PMS, calling everyone ignorant a few times because we don't buy into a bunch of copy and pasted bullshit and still believe Jacko to be a pedophile.

If you didn't find the humor in this than thats your problem If that of all things, deserves an infraction, but constantly calling me names throughout I don't know, this whole thread 20148320423048203 times, than so be it.

I called people ignorant?

Copy/Paste, who cares. Its whats written that counts. If I don't feel like typing the same thing again, if I decide to use Ctrl + C & Ctrl + V, thats me.

Originally Posted by CherryDarling

^^
AMEN Venus.

On top of all that, I'd still love an explanation as to why he paid off the first kid with the 14 mil hush money. If you're "innocent", why would you have to pay someone off? Sick demented fucker.

Wtf? THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION WAS ALREADY GIVEN TO YOU, THOROUGHLY. Why do you/people keep asking the same thing over and over? People ignore said answers, than ask the same question that they'd "love" to hear.

***

I'm going to repost some various excerpts I have read in an article a few years ago that I want to share, instead of paraphrasing. I know, this is going to be a LONG read. But do with what you will with it.






For various legal, personal, professional, financial and practical reasons, Michael Jackson settled the civil lawsuit filed against him by his accuser’s family in 1993. The recently leaked settlement document reveals several facts:

1) Michael Jackson denied any wrongdoing.

2) The boy and his parents could have still testified against Jackson in the criminal trial.

3) Jackson only settled over claims of negligence and not over claims of child molestation.

Tabloid reporter Diane Dimond, who leaked the details of the settlement, tried to make it seem as if Jackson admitted to molesting the boy simply because he settled over the negligence allegation. Dimond pointed out that the original lawsuit said: “Defendant Michael Jackson negligently had offensive contacts with plaintiff which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise.”

It is clear, however, from the wording of the settlement document, that the “negligence” allegation was redefined:

“Such claims include claims for bodily injuries resulting from negligence; whereas, Evan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress; whereas, Jordan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress.”

Negligence has been defined in the settlement as the “infliction of emotional distress”; there is no mention of sexual abuse. Referring to the lawsuit’s definition of “negligence” is inconclusive because each legal document intentionally defines the terms to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. Furthermore, if the negligence allegation was directly related to the child molestation allegations, why did Evan Chandler also claim to be the victim of negligence?

OTHER EXCERPTS FROM THE DOCUMENT:

“This Confidential Settlement shall not be construed as an admission by Jackson that he has acted wrongfully with respect to the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any other person or at all, or that the Minor, Evan Chandler and June Chandler have any rights whatsoever against Jackson. Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler or any other persons. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson is a public figure and that his name, image and likeness have commercial value and are an important element of his earning capacity. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in the Action in view of the impact the Action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and potential income.”

Heres a quick screen shot I made from the Smoking Gun.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 839x507.



Jackson repeatedly asserts his innocence, while the accusing family does not once maintain that the boy’s allegations are true.

“The Parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph 3 are in settlement of claims by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler and June Chandler for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation.”


THE PAYMENT

The document states that $15,331,250 was put into a trust fund for Jordan Chandler. Both of his parents, as well as their attorney Larry Feldman, got a cut of the settlement. (Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz, two principle players in the case who were left out of the settlement, later filed their own individual lawsuits against Jackson). Eight pages detailing the payment were allegedly missing from Dimond’s copy of the settlement but according to Jackson’s current attorney, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit prompted Jackson’s insurance company to step in and settle the case for him.

This means that Jackson might not have paid the Chandlers anything. It also means that the insurance company most likely conducted their own investigation into the allegations and concluded that Jackson did not molest the boy; insurance companies generally do not settle if they believe the Defendant is liable. They will, however, settle for negligent behavior.


DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION:

The document also shows that the Chandlers dropped the child molestation allegations from their complaint:

“Forthwith upon the signing of this Confidential Settlement by the Parties hereto, the Minor through his Guardian ad Litem shall dismiss, without prejudice, the first through sixth causes of action of the complaint on file in the Action, leaving only the seventh cause of action pending.”
“Upon the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments… the Minor, through his Guardian ad Litem, shall dismiss the entire action with prejudice.”

The first through sixth causes of action were the sexual abuse allegations; the seventh cause of action was negligence. Again, Jackson settled over the family’s claims of negligence and not over their claims of child molestation.

Finally, the document makes it clear that the Chandlers could have still testified against Jackson in a criminal trial:

“The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, and Evan Chandler and June Chandler , and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree not to cooperate with, represent, or provide any information, to any person or entity that initiates any civil claim or action which relates in any manner to the subject matter of the Action against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releases, except as may be required by law.”

The only stipulation in the settlement is that the parties could not testify about the allegations in civil court.

“In the event the Minor, the Minor’s Legal Guardians, the Minor’s Guardian ad Litem, the Minor’s attorneys, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any of them individually… receive a subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted or is investigating, any claim against Jackson… they agree to give notice in writing to Jackson’s attorneys regarding the nature and scope of any such subpoena request for information, to the extent permitted by law. This notice shall be given before responding to the request.”

The above paragraph makes it clear that the Chandlers were not prohibited from testifying against Jackson in a criminal trial, as long as they notified Jackson’s attorneys beforehand. Contrary to popular belief, the settlement did NOT silence anybody. It was the family’s own decision not to testify in the criminal case; they could have gotten money and justice but they only opted to take the money. Ask yourself this: if your child was molested, would you not do everything in your power to put the person responsible behind bars? The Chandlers obviously did not. Instead, they dropped the claims of child abuse against Jackson, signed a document where he basically called them liars, took his money and refused to talk to authorities.

I have already pointed out the numerous reasons why Jackson settled the case; what reason did the Chandlers have to not testify? One could argue that they did not want to be put through a public trial, however, this assertion does not make sense when you consider the fact that the Chandlers were more than willing to testify in the civil trial. In fact, court documents reveal that the only reason the judge refused to stay the civil proceedings was because Feldman was allegedly worried that Jordan Chandler would forget his story when testifying. Furthermore, Evan Chandler later sued Jackson and asked the court to allow him to produce an album of songs about the allegations. The actions of the Chandlers are not indicative of a family reluctant to tell their story.

What exactly did Michael Jackson “buy” when he settled the civil lawsuit? How can anyone call it “hush money” when it did not prevent the accuser from testifying against him? How can anyone call it “hush money” when the entire world already knew about the allegations? How can anyone call it “hush money” when there was still an ongoing criminal investigation that was not affected by the civil suit? Finally, Evan Chandler asked for $20 million before the allegations were reported to authorities. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested Jordan Chandler, why did he not take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid Evan Chandler and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he rejected Chandler’s initial demand for money. If he was guilty, why did he do that?

If it is still your contention that Jackson’s plan was to settle the civil lawsuit in order to bribe the boy into not testifying against him in the criminal trial, can you please explain to me why Michael Jackson asked for the civil trial to be postponed? He wanted the civil trial to take place after the criminal trial was resolved, which means any potential settlement would have been negotiated after Jackson was either acquitted or convicted. This would have made it impossible for him to “bribe” the boy into not testifying. Jackson’s actions contradict the notion that he wanted to buy Jordan Chandler’s silence.

- When the boy who accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse in 1993 refused to cooperate with authorities, the police investigation fell apart.

- Police obtained Jackson’s telephone books and contacted about thirty children and their families. Although investigators allegedly used aggressive interrogation techniques to scare the children into making accusations against Jackson, they still could not find another accuser. All of the children questioned maintained that Jackson had never sexually abused them.

- In an attempt to find corroborating evidence, the Santa Barbara Police Department subjected Jackson to a strip search to see if the description the accuser provided of Jackson’s genitalia was accurate. According to an article from USA Today: “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.”

- By February 1994, police still did not have a witness who was willing to testify against Jackson. Investigators consequently turned to the tabloids for leads, contacting several of Jackson’s former employees who had sold their stories to the media. For example, investigators flew to the Philippines to interview the Quindoys, a couple who had told the tabloids that they’d seen Jackson act inappropriately with a child. Police decided that their story was not credible based on the fact that the more money they received, the more salacious their story became.

- Police also got in contact with Blanca Francia, Jackson’s former maid who had sold her story to Hard Copy for $20,000. On December 15 1993, Francia told the tabloid show that she had witnessed Jackson showering with young boys and that she had also seen him act inappropriately with her own son. Francia repeated these statements in a sworn deposition for the Chandlers’ civil lawsuit. While under deposition by one of Jackson’s attorneys, however, Francia admitted that she had 'exaggerated' details during her Hard Copy interview and that the producers had paid her for her story.

- In the mid 90s, Francia threatened to accuse Jackson of molesting her son unless she received money from the Jackson camp. To avoid the negative publicity that would have inevitably resulted from a second child abuse allegation, Jackson’s associates advised him to quietly settle the case. After receiving $2 million from Jackson, Francia did not go forward with the civil lawsuit.

- While Francia seemed more than willing to make accusations against Jackson in exchange for financial compensation, she did not have anything incriminating to reveal when authorities questioned her during the criminal investigation in 1994. Contrary to what she had previously claimed (and to what she would claim in the future in 2003), Francia told investigators that her son had repeatedly denied being sexually abused by Jackson. Here is an excerpt from a USA Today article that was published on February 7th, 1994:

Investigators from the county sheriff’s office recently arranged for the 13-year-old son of Jackson’s former maid to see a therapist. The boy was first interviewed by police after his mother told them he had spent time alone with Jackson. According to his mother, the child has repeatedly denied being abused in any way by the pop music star.
The offer of a therapist was made after the woman, an immigrant from Central America, complained about meetings and phone conversations sheriff’s deputies had with the boy while she was not present.

It made her “feel uncomfortable,” she said in a deposition, that she didn’t know what the deputies were talking about with the young boy. When she asked them “who should I talk to” about her concerns, they arranged for the woman and her son to see separate therapists at the county’s expense, she said in the sworn statement.

- In 1994, two grand juries were convened to hear evidence in the Jackson case but no charges were ever brought; in fact, evidence was so scant that prosecutors did not even ask for an indictment. According to a report from CNN that aired on May 2, 1994: “One jury member said no damaging evidence was heard.”

- Because of double jeopardy, anyone accused of a crime will never have to defend themselves for the same allegation twice unless one trial takes place in civil court and the other in criminal court. This was the situation with Michael Jackson in 1993.


- On September 14 1993, less than a month after the child abuse allegations against Michael Jackson had been reported to the police, the accusing family filed a $30 million lawsuit against Jackson with the help of civil attorney Larry Feldman.


- Up until that point, the alleged victim’s mother June Schwartz had maintained that Jackson was innocent of the allegations. As soon as the civil suit was filed, however, she changed her tune and joined forces with her ex-husband Evan Chandler and their son Jordan. At that point, June Schwartz’s divorce attorney Michael Freeman resigned. “The whole thing was such a mess,” he explained. “I felt uncomfortable with Evan. He isn’t a genuine person, and I sensed he wasn’t playing things straight.”


- The Chandlers sued Jackson for sexual battery, battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence.


- The civil suit was filed while the police investigation was still ongoing. As a result, the civil trial was scheduled to take place before the criminal trial began which would have been a violation of Jackson’s constitutional right to not self-incriminate. Typically, when there are two trials dealing with the same allegation, the criminal trial takes place before the civil trial (i.e- the O.J Simpson case). This is to ensure that the Defendant’s defense in the criminal case will not be compromised as a result of the civil proceedings.

- Jackson’s attorneys filed a motion asking for the civil trial to be delayed until after the criminal trial was over. They cited numerous cases such as Pacer, Inc. v. Superior Court to support their request. The Federal case held that, “when both criminal and civil proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the Defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved.” Other cases cited include Dustin W. Brown v. The Superior Court, Dwyer v. Crocker National Bank, Patterson v. White and Huot v. Gendron.


- Larry Feldman argued that if the civil trial were to be postponed, the plaintiff, being a minor, might forget certain details about what had supposedly happened to him. The judge felt that the boy’s “fragile state” was more important than Jackson’s 5th Amendment rights and ruled in the boy’s favour.


- Jackson’s attorneys filed another motion asking that District Attorney Tom Sneddon be blocked from obtaining evidence used in the civil trial. Again, the Jackson team lost the motion. The DA made it clear that he was planning to use the evidence from the civil proceedings to assist him in his criminal case against Jackson.


- If Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, he would have put his entire defense strategy in jeopardy by revealing it to the prosecution months before the criminal case went to trial.


- Let’s pretend for a moment that Michael Jackson had gone through with the civil trial. What would have happened? He would have presented the court with all of his evidence of extortion and Sneddon would have been watching the entire thing unfold. He could have then taken Jackson’s most critical exonerating evidence from the civil trial and found ways to discredit it so that Jackson would have nothing left to defend himself with in the criminal trial.


- During the civil trial, Jackson’s lawyers would have undoubtedly revealed any inconsistencies in the accuser’s story. This would have given Sneddon the opportunity to examine and amend the weaknesses in his own case against Jackson.


- As you can see, allowing the civil trial to proceed would have given the prosecution the upper hand in the far more important criminal trial. Although this is the primary reason behind Michael Jackson’s decision to settle the case, there were many other factors involved:


1) In a criminal trial, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative; in other words, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of a crime. In civil trials, if the jury thinks the Defendant might be responsible for what he or she is accused of, they can still hold the Defendant liable.


2) In criminal law, if the Defendant chooses not to testify, their refusal cannot be used against them. In a civil trial, however, the Defendant must be cooperative for all depositions and testimony. If the Defendant in a civil trial invokes his or her Fifth Amendment privilege, the judge will tell the jury that they may make an inference against the party who refused to testify. If Michael Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, his entire personal life would have been put on display. Defendants in sex abuse crimes are often asked extremely personal questions on the stand; imagine what this process would be like for somebody like Michael Jackson who is admittedly shy and whose personal life is always subject to severe media scrutiny.