Revisiting the Chandler Saga

[suspicious mind]

Thanks for these articles as I was about to ask what other important news was ongoing during 1993 when Michael was again at the epitome' of his career everywhere but in America.  :confused: This was during the Dangerous era aboad, no, and Michael was off the charts. He was touring, did the big super bowl halftime show and...that interview with Oprah (where she asked about the crotch grabbing & his skin color)  :icon_rolleyes: which seems coincidental that the 2 biggest interviews he ever gave, first with Oprah and then with Bashir resulted in his being accused of terrible crimes against children. If I remember correctly during this period is also when Oprah really started lambasting the Catholic church for molesting young boys.  And in 2005 she formulated her infamous child predator watch list.

The following statement was taken from Oprah.com:
"Oprah's long-standing commitment to children led her to initiate the National Child Protection Act in 1991, when she testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to establish a national database of convicted child abusers. On December 20, 1993, the "Oprah Bill" was signed into law. In 2005, Oprah launched Oprah's Child Predator Watch List and her pledge to provide a $100,000 reward per case to those individuals whom the FBI or local law enforcement officials say provided critical information leading to the capture and arrest of fugitives featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show or Oprah.com. Since its launch, nine of the featured fugitives have been captured."

Who knows who else was on it and who's assistance was relegated (Bashir).

Here's some interesting thoughts to ponder from the New York Post:  http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/pulling_back_the_curtain_on_oprah_o8pmz6I4T3lZ8san4GHvlN/1

...and then this article from 1992

Airing Sexual Exploitation Of Children While Claiming To Expose It Incites The Impressionable To Make Up Things That Never Happened

By NICHOLAS VON HOFFMAN
POSTED: September 09, 1992

If Jerry Lewis uses muscular dystrophy to perpetuate his career, Oprah Winfrey is using child abuse to further hers.

Of late it has been nearly impossible to turn on a television set without being treated to Ms. Oprah's sobersided delectations over adults touching children in their no-no zones. Mr. Lewis is tasteless while Ms. Winfrey is tasty in her disguising the essential prurience of her program content under the guise of addressing a social problem.

That the sexual abuse of children is an important social problem remains to be convincingly proven. That it occurs, even outside the confines of the Roman Catholic Church, there is no doubt, but that it is a serious problem when stacked up against all the other difficulties facing the nation and its children seems improbable.

In trying to ascertain what the facts of the matter are it is a mistake to

put much reliance on the suspect "studies" turned out by people from the psychology industry which has a palpable, material interest in nailing down the proposition that millions of child molesters are to be found in home and school. Statistics on this topic may be taken only with a grain of salt.

Counting child abuse cases is like counting a bucket of wriggling eels. No common definition of what constitutes child abuse exists and none can say when it may have occurred and therefore should be counted - not in an era of sexual McCarthyism. Television to the contrary, the United States probably has not become a nation of vile adults taking lustful advantage of its children.

Oprah Winfrey, and the television networks that have aired her child-abuse special, Scared Silent, cash in on her game. They are spreading hysteria and encouraging the juridical lynching of people falsely accused of having sexual congress with children.

The last years have seen enough Salem show trials of people ruined by the accusations of deranged adults speaking through children whom they have coached and controlled.

Thanks to the Oprah Winfrey Watch and Ward Vigilante Association other lives will be destroyed as new people are dragged to the bar of injustice.

Having show business personalities on prime time glamorizing the subject of sexual exploitation of children while claiming to fight it is an incitement of the impressionable to make up things that never happened. Winfrey and the networks who put this nonsense on the air are facilitating hysterical contagion and building an atmosphere that makes growing up a little harder, a little more lonely, than it otherwise might have been.

Thanks to Oprah and her confederates an increasing number of adults, especially men, are steering clear of any contact with children. Outside of formal situations where contact is sanctioned, men are keeping their distance

from children of all ages. Increasingly, they don't touch them, they don't talk to them, they don't help them in distress, they don't even smile at them.

Once upon a time the rearing of children was regarded as something of a communal responsibility. Older people bothered with youngsters who weren't their own. You're asking for a lawsuit, if not an arrest, today if you look crosswise at a child. Their care and rearing is left to their parents, their teachers and those Rasputins of modern life, the psychologists.

The child abuse scam is backed by the psychology industry. A sharp line is drawn here between the psychology business and psychiatry, a licensed profession practiced by people trained in medical art and science.

Psychology is another matter. Counseling the innocent, mugging pedestrians and pushing drugs may be the last areas of unfettered free enterprise.

Anybody can hang up a shingle, call him or herself an expert and make a living off the child abuse scare. Given the growing reputation of therapists for taking sexual advantage of their patients, there is a certain irony in calling on their services in these matters.

There's a lot of money to be made because everybody becomes a potential paying patient. The candidates for "help," "treatment" and/or "therapy" include: a) the putative victim, b) the victim's family, classmates and chums and c) the alleged perpetrator. All aboard, everybody goes to group therapy!

For the "treatment providers," this deal is better than buying an annuity. The need for their services never ends, because the new shibboleth of this racket is that no one is ever cured. The patients or clients or marks are taught to think, say and believe that they are always "recovering," never recovered. Therapy ad nauseam, payments ad perpetuum.

To help keep the money rolling in, judges have been persuaded to sentence persons convicted of sex offenses to treatment. But sentencing people to therapy raises new questions.

If a person is suffering from a disease that deprives him of the power to control his acts, why was he convicted? Don't send him to a law court, send him to a doctor. Conversely, if a person has committed a crime, why is he being treated for an illness? He's a criminal, punish him. Heads I win, tails you lose, but always pay the shrinkologist.

If I didn't know better I would suspect George Bush and the Republicans of putting Oprah and the networks up to unleashing this storm on the nation two months before election day. Those Oprah introduced offered titillating, first person accounts of what Daddy did to me and how it felt. These couldn't be better calculated to distract attention from what our children need.

When is Ms. Oprah going to devote a weekend of network television to parents making enough money so that one of them has the time to stay home and rear their children? And while she's at it, let's not have a weekend but a month consecrated to schools and schooling.

Yes, some children are injured by sex molesters, but more of them are victims of celebrity abuse and media molestation. Now that, Ms. Oprah, is a problem you are in a position to do something about. You can even do it quietly, off camera."

Some things just make me wonder  :icon_e_confused:  :Crash: :ghsdf:

It's also an interesting timing for Oprah's first real efforts towards a show about molestation being 2/21/03 - Confessions of Molestation right around the time of Michael's accusation although he was officially indicted in December 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/18/jackson.case/index.html?_s=PM:LAW

Michael Jackson formally charged in molestation case
Thursday, December 18, 2003 Posted: 10:35 PM EST (0335 GMT)

District Attorney Tom Sneddon announces charges against Michael Jackson.

SANTA BARBARA, California (CNN) -- Setting the stage for a contentious legal battle played out in the world's media spotlight, California prosecutors on Thursday formally filed molestation charges against pop star Michael Jackson in a case involving a cancer-stricken boy invited to the singer's Neverland Ranch.

Jackson was charged with nine counts -- seven of child molestation and two of administering an intoxicating agent for the purpose of a committing a felony. The charges involve incidents alleged to have occurred in February and March of this year, District Attorney Tom Sneddon said.

In addition, the complaint includes special allegations that could make Jackson ineligible for probation in the case, Sneddon said.

In a prepared statement released Thursday, Sneddon said the alleged victim would take the stand at a trial. "The family is committed to this process," the district attorney said.

Later Thursday, Jackson attorney Mark Geragos again asserted Jackson's innocence and told reporters that the entertainer's legal team would "take no quarter" in their defense of the accused singer.

The charges against the 45-year-old singer were filed nearly a month after local authorities raided his Neverland Ranch home. He was booked November 20 on suspicion of multiple counts of child molestation and has been free on $3 million bond.

The singer and his lawyers maintain he is innocent, and contend that the boy in the current case and his family have brought the allegations for financial gain.

Geragos -- who acknowledged he was brought into the case soon after Jackson appeared with the cancer-stricken boy, the alleged victim, in a documentary in February -- said his client will "fight these charges with every fiber of his soul."

"Michael Jackson is unequivocally and absolutely innocent of these charges," he said.

"I'm telling you right now that there is absolutely no way that we will stand for this besmirching of this man with these horrible, horrible allegations, and I will tell you right now that there is no way that the prosecution will prevail in this case."

Geragos called the case "an intersection between a shakedown" -- the alleged victim's family looking for money -- and an investigator who's "got an ax to grind."

Jackson was accused of child molestation in 1993, but the case was settled, reportedly for millions of dollars, and no charges were filed. Sneddon was the district attorney who looked into that case. Later Jackson released a song widely considered to be an indictment of Sneddon for his efforts to prosecute Jackson in the 1993 case. Sneddon denies that the current case stems from a personal animus against Jackson.

Thursday evening, Katherine Jackson, the singer's mother, released a statement proclaiming Michael's innocence.

"On behalf of the Jackson family we know these vicious lies are totally untrue, malicious and motivated by pure greed and revenge," the statement said. "We proudly stand next to Michael who we know could never commit any of the acts he is accused of. We will fight with every ounce of our energy to reveal the truth behind these false allegations and the motivations behind those who have falsely accused Michael."

Dates may be crucial to case

A complaint filed with Santa Barbara County Superior Court accused Jackson of having "substantial sexual conduct" with a boy under the age of 14 in incidents alleged to have occurred in February and March of this year.

Five of the child molestation counts accuse Jackson of a "lewd act upon a child," a felony, "on or between February 7, 2003, and March 10, 2003, in the county of Santa Barbara." The other two molestation counts allegedly happened on or between February 20 and March 10, according to the complaint.

The two counts of administering an intoxicating agent allegedly happened on or between February 20 and March 10 of this year, according to the complaint.

A source close to the investigation told CNN the "intoxicating agent" was wine.

The specific dates could be significant for both prosecutors and defense attorneys. In mid-February, Los Angeles County child welfare officials found there was no evidence Jackson had had inappropriate contact with the boy. (Full story)

Additionally, Jackson's attorneys played for a CNN legal analyst an audiotape from mid-February in which the boy and mother said there had been no inappropriate contact.

Sneddon said prosecutors were aware of the agency's report before seeking a search and arrest warrant for Jackson, but he contended the welfare officials did not conducted interviews, or any investigation.

On the audiotape, sources told CNN that a Jackson representative was present when it was recorded by a private investigator hired by Jackson.

Jackson to travel to Britain

Jackson attorney Mark Geragos speaks to reporters Thursday.
Thursday's charges were filed in Santa Maria, a working-class town close to Jackson's Neverland Ranch.

The filing came after Sneddon had agreed to delay Jackson's arraignment a week to January 16, and return Jackson's passport to allow him to travel overseas. Sneddon said prosecutors agreed to return to Jackson his passport for a planned trip to Great Britain, because Jackson could face "significant economic problems" if he missed the trip.

Stuart Backerman, spokesman for the 45-year-old pop star, said Jackson planned "to relax and enjoy the surroundings of the Christmas season."

On Thursday, Sneddon denied suggestions that the state waited to file charges in hopes of finding evidence in the interim. "That was never, never, never the intent of our office," he said.

Given the intense interest in the case, he said, prosecutors wanted to wait until a Web site was in place, he said. "They're having technical difficulties. I told the court we're not going to wait any longer."

In another development, Geragos told CNN in a phone interview that reports of famed attorney Johnnie Cochran joining the Jackson defense team are false.

"I have known Johnnie Cochran for many years as an attorney and personal friend but he has already expressed publicly that he is not on this case," said Geragos.

The attorney also dismissed other reports that Jackson replaced his management staff with representatives of the Nation of Islam as "tabloid trash."

:animal0017:  Too many coincidences to actually be coincidental for my taste

yep ! let's figure out how to isolate our kids to where there is no other input than ours in their way of looking at life.

[MJonmind]

Hes, I wonder how many lives have been ruined by false accusation?  In MJ's case there's a whole line-up of culpable people who should be sued starting with the 2 wealthiest --Oprah and Sneddon, then Bashir, Dimond, Grace, and a host of supporting cast.  If KJ wins even a few billion out of this trial, with the 2005 trial revelations that come forth, perhaps they should be shaking in their boots for who/what's next, especially since MJ's alive and haunting.  Threatened lyrics:

This is judgement night, execution, slaughter...

[Australian MJ BeLIEver]

any parent whose son to abused receiving money in Exchange, also think that it was a mistake by Michael  have reached this agreement.

It wasen't Michaels decision to pay and settle, it was Michaels insurance company who desided to pay and go on leave this behind.
I have seen a interview with Katherine where she says not exact quote, and i can't find the interview or part of the interview where Katherine declares, but going to continue to search for it.

I have too seen this interview.

MJ employed the best lawyers to make expert decisions for him to risk manage the situation. Morally, MJ would to be proving innocence in court, but career / business wise, it was far less risky to settle. a) to make it go away and move forward then go in to damage control mode and b) considering who was REALLY behind Chandler Snr / Tom Sneddon, there was no point going to court to prove innocence, as the same PTB would have infiltrated the court situation and corrupted evidence and outcome. It was in MJs best interests to settle, against all his moral fibre.

Death hoax is where he gets to have his day and show how the world was fooled by evil media and higher sources that he was a Chil>>> Mol>>>>

[ShyBleuEyes]

any parent whose son to abused receiving money in Exchange, also think that it was a mistake by Michael  have reached this agreement.

It weren't his Laywers who gave the advice to settle , it was his insurance company who did, against the laywers advice and against Michaels will. I think it's important to know how things really went, that's why i did repost it, not that i want to be right and have the last word , but only for the importance of this matter.

It wasen't Michaels decision to pay and settle, it was Michaels insurance company who desided to pay and go on leave this behind.
I have seen a interview with Katherine where she says not exact quote, and i can't find the interview or part of the interview where Katherine declares, but going to continue to search for it.

I have too seen this interview.

MJ employed the best lawyers to make expert decisions for him to risk manage the situation. Morally, MJ would to be proving innocence in court, but career / business wise, it was far less risky to settle. a) to make it go away and move forward then go in to damage control mode and b) considering who was REALLY behind Chandler Snr / Tom Sneddon, there was no point going to court to prove innocence, as the same PTB would have infiltrated the court situation and corrupted evidence and outcome. It was in MJs best interests to settle, against all his moral fibre.

Death hoax is where he gets to have his day and show how the world was fooled by evil media and higher sources that he was a Chil>>> Mol>>>>

Aussie, Welcome Back  :bearhug:

It weren't his Laywers who gave the advice to settle , it was his insurance company who did, against the laywers advice and against Michaels will. I think it's important to know how things really went, that's why i did repost it, not that i want to be right and have the last word , but only for the importance of this matter.

Michael Jackson Forced By Insurers To Pay Off Child Molestation Accuser
July 8th, 2009 11:06pm EDT  Add to My News
Like
1
Tweet 0 4Comment 11 Michael Jackson's insurance company forced the late King of Pop to pay a reported $20 million to his first child molestation accuser, rather than challenge him in court, according to a new book which sets out to clear the pop superstar of his bad name.

The cash deal left many feeling sure Jackson was guilty and had something to hide, but investigative journalist Ian Halperin's new tome "Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson" claims the singer was not a paedophile who preyed on children.

And Halperin suggests Jackson would have been acquitted of any wrongdoing, had his first child molestation case in the mid-1980s gone to trial.

A second accusation two decades later ended with Jackson being acquitted in 2005 - after a long and embarrassing trial.

Many believe the case took so much out of the King of Pop and he never truly recovered.

An insider, who has read the upcoming book, tells In Touch magazine, "The book shows documents proving that Michael's insurance company forced the (Jordy) Chandler settlement on him against his will and against the advice of his lawyers. He collapsed in hysterics when he found out he had to do that."

Halperin's new tome is sure to enrage family and friends who are still mourning Jackson's untimely death, because the journalist also suggests Jackson was secretly gay and once picked up a construction worker in Las Vegas.

The insider tells the publication, "They then regularly met at a motel. Michael would dress up as a woman. The lover admitted Michael made him sign a confidentiality agreement."

I havent found the interview with Katherine....yet , where she states that insurance company did the settlement, but this article also says it was the insurance company who did the settlement, and it was also against the advise of the laywers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2_ROMwK60Q&NR=1&feature=endscreen

At 5.55. there's the document that show also it was his insurance company who did the settlement.

[RememberHisTime]

News of the Chandlers' domestic dispute comes as Jackson remains on the down-low somewhere in Europe, either in London or Dublin, ....

Sorry if this is a bit OT but this part of the article really caught my eye! At the time when no one on earth would have disputed the fact that Michael Jackson was alive, even THE MEDIA didn't know precisely where to locate him.  Now the media would say that he's dead, but that's only because they can't find him. They have no photographic evidence. My point is, if it happened once already, it could happen again. It's happening now.

[sweetsunsetwithMJ]

News of the Chandlers' domestic dispute comes as Jackson remains on the down-low somewhere in Europe, either in London or Dublin, ....

Sorry if this is a bit OT but this part of the article really caught my eye! At the time when no one on earth would have disputed the fact that Michael Jackson was alive, even THE MEDIA didn't know precisely where to locate him.  Now the media would say that he's dead, but that's only because they can't find him. They have no photographic evidence. My point is, if it happened once already, it could happen again. It's happening now.

Could you explain a bit more what are you saying?  I find it very interesting.

[Australian MJ BeLIEver]

Insurers / Lawyers, whichever professional hat made the decision / pushed for settlement, did it in the interests of reducing risk and from a business perspective as well as to reduce financial damages as much as possible. Right thing to do? yes, for KOP, yes! For MJ morally / ethicaly? No. Now is his time!

Kaboom! Bring it!

Again, we don't know *really* what happened. But I hope to God upcoming vindication and justice is on the cards! (not that I subscribe to tarots, lol)
We love you MJ xx

[hopi]

Insurers / Lawyers, whichever professional hat made the decision / pushed for settlement, did it in the interests of reducing risk and from a business perspective as well as to reduce financial damages as much as possible. Right thing to do? yes, for KOP, yes! For MJ morally / ethicaly? No. Now is his time!

Kaboom! Bring it!

Again, we don't know *really* what happened. But I hope to God upcoming vindication and justice is on the cards! (not that I subscribe to tarots, lol)
We love you MJ xx

Yep, that's it!

[RememberHisTime]

News of the Chandlers' domestic dispute comes as Jackson remains on the down-low somewhere in Europe, either in London or Dublin, ....

Sorry if this is a bit OT but this part of the article really caught my eye! At the time when no one on earth would have disputed the fact that Michael Jackson was alive, even THE MEDIA didn't know precisely where to locate him.  Now the media would say that he's dead, but that's only because they can't find him. They have no photographic evidence. My point is, if it happened once already, it could happen again. It's happening now.

Could you explain a bit more what are you saying?  I find it very interesting.

I just mean that when this article was written, in 2006, MJ was still officially alive. Yet whoever wrote this article wasn't sure of his whereabouts (EITHER London or Dublin), so it doesn't surprise me that even today MJ is still able to avoid being found. If he didn't plan the hoax well, some tabloid would have snapped photos of him already post June 25, 2009 and the hoax would have been blown. Just goes to show that he is good at hiding when he doesn't want to be found. :Michael_Jackson_dancing_smile

[sweetsunsetwithMJ]

News of the Chandlers' domestic dispute comes as Jackson remains on the down-low somewhere in Europe, either in London or Dublin, ....

Sorry if this is a bit OT but this part of the article really caught my eye! At the time when no one on earth would have disputed the fact that Michael Jackson was alive, even THE MEDIA didn't know precisely where to locate him.  Now the media would say that he's dead, but that's only because they can't find him. They have no photographic evidence. My point is, if it happened once already, it could happen again. It's happening now.

Could you explain a bit more what are you saying?  I find it very interesting.

I just mean that when this article was written, in 2006, MJ was still officially alive. Yet whoever wrote this article wasn't sure of his whereabouts (EITHER London or Dublin), so it doesn't surprise me that even today MJ is still able to avoid being found. If he didn't plan the hoax well, some tabloid would have snapped photos of him already post June 25, 2009 and the hoax would have been blown. Just goes to show that he is good at hiding when he doesn't want to be found. :Michael_Jackson_dancing_smile

Thanks for the explanation, yes of course he is good in hiding because he's able to disguise in a way that even his own mother wouldn't recognize him  :icon_mrgreen: however Michael isn't able to fool his brother Marlon because Marlon would always recognize Michael's body language  :icon_lol: was it Marlon or Jackie who said that about Michael's body language?  :icon_eek: it doesn't matter  :icon_lol:

[Loveunited]

Insurers / Lawyers, whichever professional hat made the decision / pushed for settlement, did it in the interests of reducing risk and from a business perspective as well as to reduce financial damages as much as possible. Right thing to do? yes, for KOP, yes! For MJ morally / ethicaly? No. Now is his time!

Kaboom! Bring it!

Again, we don't know *really* what happened. But I hope to God upcoming vindication and justice is on the cards! (not that I subscribe to tarots, lol)
We love you MJ xx

You know I used to buy the insurance arguement--that they said settle so you can get on with it-- even MJ said so in the intervies with Sawyer.... but the lyrics to Money has me thinking that something more was behind it.......

Insurance?
Where do your loyalties lie?
Is that your alibi?
I don't think so
You don't care
You'd do her for the money
Say it's fair
You sue her for the money
Want your pot of gold

[wishingstar]

So......who all got this money anyways?  I have a feeling there were may hands on this very deep cookie jar of MJ's money : (
I have wondered about those lyrics as well....thanks for posting them here.....things really make you think at times.....
too bad the media didn't think!!!

Blessings! 

[hesouttamylife]

Speaking of that money, this shows that the whole family benefitted from it and possibly more; however the exact payouts are undisclosed.  :computer-losy-smiley:  It seems logical to me that if a payoff was the end result of this, then a gag order should also have been.  Gags are in place for everything else.  Why not this?   :animal0017: Somebody wanted to ruin Michael because advertising that he settled the case out of court for a specified amount is no different or in fact worse for his career than fighting it in court.  If it was going to be made public what was the reason to settle in private?  :ghsdf: How was that supposed to help Michael Jackson when it was publicized to the whole continent?  :Crash:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/16/michael.jackson/index.html?_s=PM:LAW
Jackson settlement from 1993 allegations topped $20 million
By Rochelle Steinhaus
Court TV
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 Posted: 9:58 AM EDT (1358 GMT)
RELATED
• Court TV:  Read the settlement
• Court TV:  Case coverage
(Court TV) -- Michael Jackson paid out approximately $25 million to settle a civil suit by a boy who accused him of molesting him in 1993, according to the confidential agreement which was exclusively obtained by Court TV's Diane Dimond.

The pop star, according to the agreement, maintained the settlement did not signify an admission of any wrongdoing against the boy or his parents.

Jackson "specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts," according to the 31-page document he signed on January 25, 1994.

The terms of the settlement have been kept tightly under wraps for a decade, but were exclusively uncovered by Court TV.

Jackson agreed to pay $15,331,250 to be held in a trust fund for the accuser, now 24, as well as $1.5 million to each of his parents. The accuser may have also received another seven-figure payment not specified in the agreement. Additionally, the plaintiff's lawyer was slated to receive $5 million.

In exchange, the accuser and his parents agreed to not pursue civil claims against Jackson.

The agreement could play a role in the current criminal charges Jackson faces stemming from allegations by another California boy who accused him of molestation.

In April, he was indicted on 10 criminal counts, alleging 28 acts involving child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

Evidence of the 1993 accusations could be admitted as evidence of prior criminal behavior against Jackson in his current case ? but only if the now-adult accuser is willing to testify.

In December 1993, the boy outlined his accusations in a sworn declaration, recounting his year-long friendship with the King of Pop.

According to the account, he met Jackson in May 1992 at the rental car business where his stepfather worked and where Jackson was renting a car.

The introduction led to several trips to Jackson's Neverland ranch, where the boy claimed he played video games, rode golf carts ? and slept in the same bed with Jackson.

He and his family also took trips with Jackson to Florida, New York, Las Vegas and Europe, according to the statement.

"During our relationship Michael Jackson had sexual contact with me on many occasions," the statement alleges.

He accused Jackson of open-mouth kissing, fondling and oral sex.

His contact with Jackson ended, he said, when he went to live with his father in July 1993.

Two months later, they filed a civil suit in Los Angeles Superior Court, asking for unspecified damages for sexual battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence.

The settlement agreement stipulated that the accuser and his parents were dropping all claims except that of negligence at the time of signing the document, with the caveat that once the money was received that claim would not be pursued.

Eight pages of the document addressing the payment arrangements were not disclosed. It is unknown whether Jackson paid the settlement from his own pocket or if it was funded by his insurance company.

[hesouttamylife]

Remember this: Jordy's supposed suicide note.  Jordy's father would have one believe that this note was a cry for help from Jordy due to molestation when in fact it is a plea to his father not to go forth with making these accusations public knowledge because he had promised he would keep things private so as not to cause undue embarrassment to Jordy.  It seems that Jordy was willing to go along with his father's plan so long as no one (especially his friends) knew about it.  Now, the world would know.  He was crushed.

BTW - the words above the drawing were placed there by Evan Chandler upon finding this drawing, not Jordy, to make it appear Jordy was afraid of being molested by Michael.  It actually changes the whole essence of the note because without it, it doesn't have near the same affect.  It could also be interpreted as that being Michael being crushed instead of Jordy.  With that in mind, it could be seen as Jordy begging his father to "please don't let this happen to Michael" if you ask me  :icon_evil:

[wishingstar]

Hesouttamylife = Amazing : )
Thank you for this.......my head is spinning......just wow!

I will re-read things here in a little ...... we are off to church tonight .....

Love and Hugs!!!
Blessings Always