By The Last Tear (Lou)
Welcome to Hollywood That’s what they told you 
But they robbed you of childhood Took your youth and sold it for gold
Elizabeth, I love you, Michael Jackson
On October first, we heard that Wade Robson’s civil case is at standoff. Robson has to provide more support for his complaint to be allowed to proceed. Apparently, Judge Beckloff has not been convinced by Robson and his lawyers which is not a surprised. Robson’s lawsuit is false. The lawyers of Michael Jackson’s Estate have also defended persistently their case. All the documents can be read here on Daily Michael.
Still, one wonders why Judge Beckloff did not reject Robson’s lawsuit. Is the judge anxious to be described as “too speedy” since the lawsuit is about child sex abuse? Or does he want to see if Robson and his lawyers are capable to come back with more lies and deceit? Whatever the reason may be, the logical course of action – as the lawyers of the Estate of MJ have repeatedly asked – should have been the rejection of the false lawsuit.
Let us now begin the second part of this series. But first, the conclusion of the first part: Evan Chandler, Leslie Robson (Wade’s father) and Janet Arvizo were/are mentally unstable people. Janet Arvizo has been described as a deranged person. Chandler and Robson suffered from the bi-polar disease which is a hereditary disorder. We do not know what has become of Jordan Chandler but Wade Robson might suffer from the bi-polar disease or another form of mental disorder. We have also added that Wade Robson might have been sexually molested at home and/or when he acted in a talent troupe called Johnny Young’s Talent school in Australia. Please read the first part to know all the details. There are several facts quoted in the blog post.
What about James Safechuck? What can we say about him?
It appears that Safechuck mostly duplicated Robson’s lawsuit. He has changed some dates to adapt the false story to his agenda. You can read all the documents here on Daily Michael.
Safechuck and Robson have the same lawyers and possibly the same psychiatrists and mental therapist. People, who are behind Robson & Safechuck’s show, had probably judged Robson to be as a weak player; they brought in Safechuck to secure the case because James seems to be an average guy. And that is exactly his weakness! Living in Van Nuys, California with his wife and two young children, Safechuck has a steady and successful career as a software engineer in an Encino-based digital agency called AvatarLabs.
Please read Safechuck and his brief bio:
Please give us a brief bio of yourselves.
James Safechuck: I am a Senior Engineering Lead at AvatarLabs. I have been working in the digital industry for over 9 years. I think of myself as a technical/creative person. I love spending time with my family and learning new things that I can apply to my work.
Or this one who has been written about him:
“James began his career in film, but after attending courses at Art Center College of Design, pursued a career in new media development. He has been working professionally in the field since 2003. Safechuck’s role at AvatarLabs initially focused on Motion Graphics — he now uses that experience to enhance his work as a Adobe Macromedia Flash Professional 8.0 Software for Mac and Windows Software Media Flash Developer. Regarding working for AvatarLabs, James says, “The environment has provided me a priceless opportunity to experience all aspects of the creative field.”
And about AvatarLabs, there are several sources. I’ll give you two articles:
AvatarLabs Enjoys Major Expansion & Growth, After Successful 2007
(January 18, 2008)
DMN Newswire–2008-1-18– On the heels of its success by providing high profile, online marketing campaigns for the top three 2007 Holiday feature films, National Treasure: Book of Secrets, I Am Legend, and Alvin and the Chipmunks, AvatarLabs has significantly expanded both its physical facilities and personnel. Additionally, the company is also presently involved in developing and producing online marketing campaigns promoting Step Up 2 (Disney,) Untraceable (Sony,) Doomsday, (Universal,) 10,000 BC, (Warner Bros.,) and Jumper (Fox.)
AvatarLabs is one of Hollywood’s most successful online marketing agencies, and specializes in the creation of online rich media and enriched websites, which are designed to offer Internet users additional information and interactive features while promoting major movie releases. Rex Cook, Executive Creative Director/Founder, AvatarLabs, made the announcements.
AvatarLabs has relocated and expanded into a new, 4,000 square foot creative studio space in Encino, CA, designed to allow for future expansion and growth. The new address is 5500 Balboa Blvd., Suite # 300, Encino, CA, 91316.
On behalf of National Treasure: Book of Secrets and client Disney, AvatarLabs designed, created and produced that films promotional MySpace site, which was heavily animated in Flash. AvatarLabs also developed a Yahoo!
Front Page, which was a rich media ad promoting the film, and — upon user interaction — became a full National Treasure site, while retaining its Yahoo! location.
To promote I Am Legend, AvatarLabs, for client Warner Bros. International, created and provided rich media online banner ads which appeared on such major international networking sites as Bebo, Yahoo! France, UK and Australia, and Joost, to name a few.
And, on behalf of client 20th Century Fox International, AvatarLabs also developed and produced an online ad campaign behind Alvin and the Chipmunks. This campaign was comprised of standard and rich media advertising appearing on many major international sites geared toward children, including Nickelodeon France, UK, Germany and Italy, Cartoon Network sites based in France, UK, Italy and Spain, and Neopets sites based in Taiwan and Korea, among many others.  
Founded in 2001 by Executive Creative Director Rex Cook, AvatarLabs is one of Hollywood’s most successful online design and production studios. Mr. Cook is the winner of a DGA IMAC (Internet Movie Advertising Creative Showcase) Award for Creative Excellence.
AvatarLabs was behind the online marketing for some of the most successful Hollywood films released during 2007. These include National Treasure: Book of Secrets, I Am Legend, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Simpsons Movie, Ratatouille, Oceans 13, and Fantastic Four 2. Other recent projects include August Rush, Walk Hard, Beowulf, and Water Horse.
Other high profile AvatarLabs projects have included creating online campaigns promoting Pirates of the Carribean: At Worlds End, 300, Borat, Night at the Museum, Happy Feet, and many others.
AvatarLabs new location is: 5500 Balboa Blvd., Suite # 300, Encino, CA, 91316. The phone is 818/784-2200. For more information, please visit www.avatarlabs.com
AvatarLabs Named Agency of the Year: Digital Creative by thinkLA
- by Tyler Loechner, Joe Mandese, June 21, 2012, 3:30 PM
AvatarLabs, an Encino-based digital agency, was named the 2012 Agency of the Year: Digital Creative by thinkLA. The second annual thinkLA Interactive Gala awards were held in Los Angeles earlier this month.
“To be named as the Agency of the Year: Digital Creative is a great honor,” stated Rex Cook, founder and executive creative director of AvatarLabs. The company was also a finalist in the “Best Use of Display Advertising” category.
AvatarLabs was most recently responsible for their development of the digital campaign for the blockbuster movie “The Hunger Games.” The company is also known for digital campaigns for high-profile Hollywood productions, including Fox’s “Avatar,” Warner Bros.’ “The Dark Knight,” and several of the “Harry Potter” films. AvatarLabs develops campaigns utilizing online ads, websites, social media, mobile apps, “viral” marketing, motion graphics, digital marketing strategies and content production.
Two words about Rex Cook, who has created AvatarLabs:
 Cook has worked in the motion graphics industry since 1992, pioneering the use of desktop machines to create professional film and television graphics, such as main title sequences, motion logos, and special effects. He spent five years at Intralink, during which time he designed and created motion logos for Warner Bros.’ 75th Anniversary, Island Pictures, and Imagine Entertainment, as well as main titles for “Batman 3,” “Batman 4,” “Broken Arrow,” “Dante’s Peak,” and many others. He also created the website for “Independence Day,” which instantly became one of the most heavily visited movie sites of its time.
From l997-99, Mr. Cook built and ran the motion graphics department of noted
trailer company Ant Farm. Among the projects he designed and produced during this time were those for “The Sixth Sense,” “Pitch Black,” and “The Perfect Storm
Regarding the philosophy behind AvatarLabs, Mr. Cook says, “Our new studio is a motion graphics and editorial design company that specializes in conceptual design, branding, and advertising for all aspects of the entertainment industry, across all media platforms. Whether we are creating a new film logo, a main title for a feature, online web banners, or DVD design, we are always ultimately telling a story. We pride ourselves on our ability to communicate our clients’ stories by synthesizing sketches, photos, typography, video, film and animation, along with our creative talents, to elicit an emotional response from any audience.” .
From the beginning of his career, Cook has worked for and with Warner Bros among others. In the beginning of 21th century, he had enough money, contacts and experience to launch AvatarLabs without any help from the banks or other investors. Safechuck was hired from the birth of AvatarLabs. To know a little about the big and the small companies in the film industry, please look at this article on Forbes. Warner Bros is the big one followed by Disney, Fox and Dreamworks. There are many small companies – like AvatarLabs – which work for the big ones.
Going back to Safechuck and his work at AvatarLabs, I have collected one or two interviews and the projects James has created. You can look at his portfolio here http://e8interactive.com/portfolio/about/.
I have managed to summarize most of the information on the Internet page.
- Batman Mattel Mini-site: Mini-site to display toys and videos for Batman Kid’s zone website.
- Everwood (a TV series)
- Defend Sparta (a game)
- THE HOBBIT: POSTCARD GENERATOR: A folding list of unique digital cards from the Hobbit. You can customize with a message and send to a friend. Makes use of HTML 5 css 3d animations.
- MAN OF STEEL: DSRW: Viral website to promote the trailer reveal for Man of Steel. 
RESULT:  Fan websites picked up on the project and we had we had many visitors working together. We used the same framework for another set of signals later on in the campaign.
- GODZILA : M.U.T.O.: 
Create a website for M.U.T.O. company. Users can hack into the site and discover hidden files and content. An encoded trailer automatically plays upon first entering. The user can then log into M.U.T.O. through the console and help decrypted the file to reveal decoded trailer. The user then gets a hacker profile they can share on social networks.There are lots of hidden commands for users to discover.
- PAN PACIFIC DEFENSE CORPS:
The Pan Pacific Defense Corps is a multi-platform content-rich HTML5 experience that recruits fans globally to master battle simulations within the elite futuristic military and explore the new universe.
Bedtime stories: Choose your own adventure side scroller game. Customize your own game play and make your way to save the Princess. (a game)
Wall-E (a game), Iphone app: Scrooge’s tip calculator.
SLASH official Site: Fanfire, Official site for artist Slash.
FOX: Jennifers body: INT, Official International EPK Website.
TBS: Designer and animator for opening titles for Poly Shore TBS show.
TWITTER MODERATOR: Web application that flags bad words in tweets. Supports many languages. Allows registred moderators to approve tweets for public view. Admin can manage moderators. Offered to clients as an additional feature.
An app called Poo Log, A game: party down …. Starz, An app for Sony, The app Jarvis for Marvel/Paramount, The app Meet Bob for DREAMWORKS, The app: Mad men cocktail culture for A&E.
DREAMWORKS: Real Steel: Official EPK Website.
CBS films: The last Vegas: Official EPK Website.
LIFETIME: I built the backend system which included: content uploading, voting system, and CMS. Online users can submit videos of their kids. Users can also publically vote on all videos. Official moderators then choose winner from list of finalist.
KLCS PROMO: Redesign of KLCS network graphics, included promo and lower thirds. I created the initial design that was choosen.
PLANTRONICS: RETAILER MOBILE SITE CMS
SONY: A site
RESIDENT EVIL 5: OFFICAL SITE: Scrolling EPK website with parallax effect. Part of a 360 campaign AvatarLabs did for movie.
ROB THOMAS: OPENING CREDITS: A design was choosen and I was tasked with coming up with scenes that told the story of each character. I then directed the live action shoots, working with the actors and directing the photography.
BLUE MOUNTAIN: PREMIUM STATIONERY
FX NETWORKS: FXM RETRO WEBSITE: Website for new network at FX. View schedule and search for upcoming programs. Some features are customizable through a CMS. Works on desktop, tablet and mobile.
And now an interesting interview where Safechuck and some of his co-workers share their thoughts. The team won the FWA award (I have only copied Safechuck’s answers. If you wish to read all the questions and the answers, please use the link.
Interviewed on August 27, 2013
What do you regard as being your biggest achievement?
James Safechuck: Besides my family, I think getting paid for something I find fun is a big achievement.  
How many hours do you work each week?
James Safechuck: It depends on the project I’m on. It can range from 40 to 60 hours. 
How do you relax or unwind?
James Safechuck: I like to see live bands, watch football or go to the movies.
If you weren’t working on the internet what would you be doing?
James Safechuck: Let’s not go there.
What’s your favourite part of your job? What’s the hardest part of your job? What do you do when you get stuck?
James Safechuck: I am usually having fun when I’m doing something new. The hardest part of the job can be when the timeline gets drastically cut and the amount of work stays the same. When I get stuck on a problem I try to relax and let my subconscious work it out. The solution or an idea will usually present itself in a few days, probably at 4am. Hopefully I have a few days to spare. 
What software could you not live without?
James Safechuck: A browser.
What area of web design lacks the most?
James Safechuck: Typography. I often see really cool designs with not much time spent on the type. Also, I love responsive web design, but I don’t like it when it just looks like a grid. 
Are there any websites that have shone through as being pioneering in the last 5 years or so?
James Safechuck: I like the re-design of USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/ It’s a step in the right direction.
Has winning FWA awards helped you in any way?
James Safechuck: We’ll see at my next annual review. It’s always been a personal goal, so that part feels good.
Are there things you do OUTSIDE of work to ensure that you are in the right mindset to be creative and/or successful in whatever you are doing?
James Safechuck: When you do something you enjoy it becomes part of your daily life. Outside of work I am usually either reading a programming book, looking through source code, or coding something. I also enjoy design and UX so I include that as part of my daily consumption. 
The web is getting out of the web. Do you find that thinking in digital solutions alone hinders you? Do you feel the urge to solve the problem using all mediums necessary?
James Safechuck: At AvatarLabs our first priority is a good idea, it doesn’t have to be in the digital medium. As long as it’s interesting and engaging we will pitch it to the client. 
Looking 10 years in to the future, how far can websites go?
James Safechuck: That’s a tough question. I’m really not sure where it’s going but what I do look forward to is the blending of great design with really useful applications… things that are visually and technically beautiful. 
Of all the websites you/your company have produced, which one are you most proud of?
James Safechuck: I am most proud of this FWA win – the Pacific Rim Pan Pacific Defense Corps website. Not just because the final product is great, but because of how the team worked together. It was a fun collaborative effort. 
Do you think Flash is here to stay?
James Safechuck: Is it still here? 
What are your views on design/graphic school. Do you think someone can get into the field without educational experience in a school environment?
James Safechuck: I think it depends on the person. 
How difficult do you find employing the right people in a world where everyone calls themselves a web designer?
James Safechuck: It’s really difficult to find good people on the creative and technical side. It’s hard to tell if someone is a good fit until you’ve worked with them for a bit. 
What would be your ultimate vehicle to travel in?
James Safechuck: The Super Star Destroyer Executor 
When your company was just getting started, what did you find was most effective for getting new clients?
James Safechuck: Doing the best work we could with the clients we currently had helped attract new clients and new work.
How do you keep your finger on the pulse of the latest web trends?
James Safecuck: Reading and co-workers. Cool things spread fast. 
What does the future hold for your company, or you as a person?
James Safechuck: Babies and work.
What is the most expensive thing you have bought in the last week?
James Safechuck: Dinner. 
We know that James Safechuck began his career in the film industry in the late 80’s when he was a young boy. He was probably hired and coached by a talent group. He appeared in Michael Jackson’s Pepsi commercial (1988). However he left the stage around 1991-92. The next time we read about him is in 2000 when he was the editorial assistant in the movie Dude, where’s my car? with the actor Ashton Kutcher. And after that in 2001 Safechuck joined AvatarLabs.
It is very easy to reconstruct what Safechuck did between 1992 and2000, is it not? He has said it himself: he went back to school, attended courses at Art Center College of Design and began to work for the film industry but behind the camera.
Now you have learned more about Safechuck from his own mouth, you know what he likes: babies, wife, home, programming, reading the source code, working between 40-60 hours/week, wanting higher income, ….
In his lawsuit he has claimed that he had “anxiety issues” in 2010 during his wife’s pregnancy and he was prescribed Xanax. As we read, Safechuck was and is successful at his job; in fact he works a lot and he enjoys his life. He does not talk about “breakdowns” and “depression” like Robson. If the “anxiety issues” in 2010 are not a lie, it could easily have been the result of Safechuck’s busy life! Obviously, the “anxiety issues” were resolved and Safechuck was and is as cheerful as ever! Please see Safechuck’s portfolio and his interview above. See the interview’s date August 27, 2013!
Safechuck does not claim to have repressed memories. In 2013, after he met Wade Robson and went to therapy on May 20, 2013 he understood “his molestation”! Compare again the two dates! The true Safechuck is the happy and smart man who was talking during the FWA award interview; but the one in the lawsuit is a coward and a liar!
Like Wade Robson, Safechuck has claimed that he became concerned about having “pedophilic urges when his son was born”. If Robson suffers from bi-polar or another mental disorder (please read part one of this series) then having “pedophilic urges” can be explained. However in Safechuck’s case, the “pedophilic urges” are undoubtedly a part of the lies!
Why a smart and successful man like James Safechuck does agree to lie and to fill a lawsuit – based solely on these lies – against the Estate of Michael Jackson and the star? To find a possible explanation, we have to look “outside” the case.
If you are familiar with the Jobete story (please read part 5 of the series Michael Jackson, Captain EO and the business of conquering the world) then you might see some similarities between Jobete and Safechuck cases. If Berry Gordy of Motown had sold his songs catalog Jobete to Jackson in the late 80’s, the tabloids would have ripped apart him and his life. Indeed, if Jackson, who already got the ATV catalog, could have bought Jobete, he would have owned almost the entire music industry. Gordy, who was probably under pressure and threat from Jackson’s enemies, did not dare to sell the catalog to MJ and saved himself from harm and destruction.
As we saw, AvatarLabs is mostly a product of the film industry. Without the “Mom”, the “child” will not survive! And if the “Mom” despises someone, will not the “child” do it too? In order to please the film industry and some of the moguls who disliked Jackson, Safechuck followed Robson and sued the Estate of MJ and the star. If Safechuck had refused to obey, what could have happened to him? And to AvatarLabs? Could he have lost his job? Would anyone else in the industry dare to rehire him?
If Jackson’s enemies inside the music industry continue to harm the star through Robson and his lawsuit, it is “Hollywood” (as the logo for the film industry) which probably operates behind Safechuck’s civil suit.
As we know, Michael Jackson always wanted to get inside the film industry. On April 1, 2002, Reuters published the following yellowish article:
Michael Jackson: To Forge New Beginning With DreamWorks
Deal includes film, music provisions
LOS ANGELES (VARIETY) — Don’t tell Michael Jackson or Dreamworks SKG executives that there’s a lull in the economy, or that the legendary superstar’s career is over.
Calling the often reclusive, sometimes eccentric Jackson “an entertainment legend and goldmine,” Dreamworks SKG released a statement last evening announcing they’ve secured Jackson for an exclusive music and film deal estimated to be worth $150 – $170 million USD.
Joining the Dreamworks team was a move several months in the making, according to one source, who added that the first album of the rumored four-record deal will be released as a dual project with Sony Music, Jackson’s music home for over two decades.
Dreamworks will also pay an unspecified sum to have Jackson released from the last two records remaining beneath his Sony contract.
The deal also calls for Jackson and his Neverland brand to be involved in the production of an unspecified amount of films.
Confronted outside a restaurant in Beverly Hills, Dreamworks partner David Geffen smiled when asked about Jackson, noting that “no entertainment corporation on Earth” wouldn’t want the international superstar on its roster.
“He’s a legend,” Geffen said, adding that his Dreamworks partner, film legend Steven Spielberg, has admired Jackson’s vision for years. “Michael is a superstar, and the best way to make a superstar shine is to put him in an environment of creativity. We can do that.”
Jackson publicists referred all calls to the Une Avrile public relations firm in Paris.
Jackson’s career has been under fire of late, despite selling nearly two million copies of his latest release, Invincible, since its release last October. Worldwide, the album has sold nearly 7 million copies, while a 2-hour CBS concert special in November was television’s highest draw of that week.
Jackson is no stranger to the film world. His videos have often been presented as small cinematic wonders, while Jackson himself had acted in films such as “The Wiz” and the George Lucas production “Captain EO,” a 1987 3-D film directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The film remained a popular attraction at Disney parks in the US and Paris before being retired in 1997.
But that never happened! Some months later, on July 19, 2002, another tabloid reporter, Roger Friedman, shared his view on Foxnews. This is about DreamWorks Records.
 What’s more, I am told that Jackson is talking to a number of big record companies, and there’s some hope of making a deal when all the Sony dust has settled. Certainly his manager, John McClain, who is also an executive at DreamWorks Records, would like to have him come aboard.
One hitch is that David Geffen, one of DreamWorks’ founders, is an ally of Tommy Mottola in the often brutal, warlike atmosphere of the record industry.
But that may not be a problem if Geffen decides to side with Jackson. He’s shrewd enough to see that Jackson would put DreamWorks on the map. Also, Jackson has a long friendship with another DreamWorks founder, Steven Spielberg. 
Jackson being close to John McClain and Steven Spielberg was not a secret; neither David Geffen being an ally of Tommy Mottola! It appears that MJ wished to become one of DreamWorks’partners (both the records and the film company) but he did not succeed it. Evidently, David Geffen did not “side with” Jackson. Perhaps none of them – Geffen and Spielberg – really cared about Jackson who lost the fight and was definitely banished from the movie industry.
By the end of the 80’s, Jackson was entangled between several people and a few fights: the Yetnikoff- Geffen-Azoff triangle (please read part 7 of Michael Jackson, Captain EO and the business of conquering the world). It seems that in 2002, Jackson was again involved in several fights, this time with some of the executives of DreamWorks. There is no doubt that the atmosphere in the film industry was and is as “brutal and warlike” as the record industry. In fact, everything began at least in 1996, as Leonard Rowe, the music promoter and one of Jackson’s colleagues, has written in his book “What really happened to Michael Jackson”:
He went into depth about how he felt that Steven Spielberg and David Geffen had mistreated him. I could tell he was very hurt about that. He told me he was supposed to be a partner in The DreamWorks Company, and that he wanted so badly to make a movie. Steven Spielberg told him to find a good script, and he would be cast in the starring role. Michael said that is what he did. He said when he found a great script he sent it over to Steven Spielberg, and a couple of days later, he received a call from him, “Michael, I have some good news, and I have some bad news. The good news is… the script you sent over was great. The bad news is that you will not be starring in the movie.” Michael said that was one of the most painful days of his life. Michael knew and felt that he was being “blackballed” by the entertainment industry.
And there was also the DreamWorks’ logo issue:
In 1996, David Geffen, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg founded Dreamworks Studios. The dreamworks logo had been at Neverland Ranch since 1988, six years prior to the founding of the Geffen/Spielberg/Katzenberg studio. Michael, Katherine and Jermaine have all been quoted as saying that the original idea for Dreamworks was Michael Jackson’s and that the idea and the logo were stolen by Geffen et al.
Saying that “Hollywood” or some of the moguls running the movie industry is/are not among Jackson’s friends is not empty words! In fact, my blog friend Emmy showed me some examples!
There is a TV series called Perception. The series is produced by Paperboy and ABC studios and distributed by Disney Media and ABC Domestic Television. It is the story of a schizophrenic neuroscientist, Dr. Daniel Pierce, who teaches at a university; he also works for the FBI. The neuroscientist has an Afro-American assistant, Max Lewicki, who watches over the doctor and brings him back to the reality. In one of the episodes in season 3, Pierce mentions in front of his class (and the camera) that he gets really annoyed when Lewicki sings high notes like Michael Jackson in the shower (laughter in the classroom which assume that the audience will also laugh at home). Making fun of MJ’s voice – or his skin color or his face – is wildly done during these last 20 years by Jackson’s haters.
The next example is about the TV series Hannibal which is produced by several companies like Living Dead Guy, Gaumont International Television and broadcasted by NBC. In one of the episodes in season 2, Hannibal’s patient says that he was dreaming about Michael Jackson. He wanted to”help” the star by “saving him from himself”! I know one person who would be very pleased to hear this, Conrad Murray!
And the third one, a British detective drama series called Endeavour. The two companies Mammoth Screen and Masterpiece produce the series for ITV. The young detective constable Morse works with the Oxfords City police. It is in the 60 and the 70’s. In this peculiar episode (in season 2), we see poor people, beaten children, orphans who were physically and sexually abused by the powerful people of the city, even a high police officer was among them, corrupted policemen, etc. The episode is called Neverland. During the film, one of the “victims” reads Peter Pan, J.M. Barrie’s book, to her child. Obviously, the filmmakers acknowledge J.M. Barrie and his book; however, the association between Neverland and all the misery staging in the film is confusing. And one wonders why!?
Since we mentioned Neverland, let us talk shortly about Jackson’s Neverland and Jackson’s thoughts about children. So many lies have been said about MJ and the children! Almost 30 years of lies! Jackson’s main belief is expressed in this phrase: the children are robbed of their childhood and therefore cannot build a better world when they become adults. To heal our world, we need to heal our children.
In 1994-95 when Jackson and his wife, Lisa Marie Presley, lived in Neverland, Michael launched an international project. In different countries, young people, educated about the human rights and the children’s rights would create committees to fight for the children. The committees had several duties; one of them was to educate adults and other children about the children’s rights: enough food to eat, clean water to drink, a decent home, medical helps and attentions and above all, rights to go to school and not work as slaves and prostitutes. The first gathering happened in Neverland in 1995. If this kind of projects had been materialized, then we would have seen hundreds like Malala Yousafi coming forth. Malala Yousafi is the 17 years old Pakistani girl who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014. Sadly, Jackson and his humanitarian projects were sabotaged by his enemies.
In this section, we will talk about Mr. Mesereau’s statements during the King Jordan’s talk show (August 30). To help you to remember what he said, I just copy and paste what I wrote in the first part of this series:
- Robson and Safechuck’s lawsuits are bogus.
- While we all hope that the judge rejects these bogus lawsuits, a change has occurred in the world. The law has become less rigid and allows the child abuse victims to come forward years after the time of the crime, for example the Catholic Church’s molestation cases. Consequently, Robson & Safechuck and their lawyers, who wish to take advantage of this change, have come forward with their bogus lawsuits.
- In case, the judge will not reject their lawsuits, the Estate of MJ should not settle and fight the accusers in the court of law. According to Mr. Mesereau, the Chandler case which was wrongly settled opened the pandora’s box. People who were after money – the Francias, the Neverland 5, the Arvizos, Robson and Safechuck came up with accusations and lawsuits in hopes of getting money.
- According to Mr. Mesereau, in 93 Jackson’s advisers, Messrs. Branca and Weitzman did what they thought to be right for MJ and his business. But they are business lawyers and perhaps they should consult with criminal and civil lawyers especially in Robson and Safechuck case. Mr. Mesereau fears that the disgusting details in R & S’s lawsuits which are consciously fabricated to pressure the Estate, force the executors to settle with R & S – in case the judge will not reject their bogus lawsuits. (Blog Talk Radio http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan-king/2014/08/30/mjbirthday-tribute-aug-29th-mesereau-kerry-andersonmike-garcia-aphrodite-jone)
While many fans would agree with several of these statements, there are some missing parts when it comes to the Chandlers’ case in 93.
What the fanbase has always known about this case is:
- When the Chandlers filed their civil suit against Michael Jackson, MJ’s lawyers asked the judge to postpone the civil case for an indefinite time until the criminal trial was over. The judge denied their request.
- Jackson’s lawyers then asked the judge to ban the prosecutor and his team from going to the civil trial. They were afraid that Sneddon and his team would use the civil case’s testimonies against their client in the criminal case which would follow the civil one. The judge denied this request too.
- Larry Feldman, Chandlers’ lawyer, filed a motion to get a speedy trial. The judge granted the motion and 120 days were set for both trials.
Because of these three events, Jackson’s lawyers came to the conclusion that their client could not get a fair trial(s) and suggested that a settlement with the accusers could be the best option.
Now a few questions: Are the points a, b and c above true? Would Mr. Mesereau agree that the events a, b and c happened in 1993? If they are true, what other option(s) did Jackson’s lawyers have in 93 besides a settlement? How could they defend their client?
Let us examine the best and the worst scenarios in 93 case. In the worst scenario MJ would have found guilty in the criminal trial and would be sent to prison. This is exactly the same worst scenario that could have happened in 2005.
In the best scenario, Jackson would have been acquitted especially in the criminal trial. This is what happened in 2005 in the Arvizos’ case but mostly inside the court room. In the eyes of the jury (2005 trial), Jackson was innocent but the media and the tabloids did not let the ordinary people know that. The general public did not know how the prosecutor’s “case” fell apart, how his accusers contradicted themselves and many other facts which never reached the ears and the eyes of the public.
We also remember that after the trial MJ was physically and emotionally weak; he was sick and had to go to the hospital. Above all, he had to leave the US. If I am not wrong this is what Mr. Mesereau advised him to do because he was not safe in his own country. What could have happened if Jackson did not leave the US after the trial in 2005? Could “Safechuck & Robson” have happened then?
Let us assume that in 93 the best scenario – Jackson acquitted in the criminal trial – had occurred. What would the media and the tabloids do? Would they manipulate the public by giving them half truths and lies? Would Jackson become ill? Had he have to leave the country in 93?
It is true to say that the other accusers came after the Chandlers and the settlement opened the pandora’s box. But it is also true to say that the other accusers came to do what the 93 case could not do: destroying and ruining Jackson for good.
So far, it appears that the settlement in 1993 saved Jackson from his enemies for a decade; unless new evidence contradicts this.
Please read the appendix where you find quotes from the posts written by Sanemjfan about “Frozen in Time: A Riveting Behind-the-Scenes View of the Michael Jackson Cases”.
Analysis of Larry Feldman’s comments:
Before I start, let me remind everyone to please read my article on MJ’s settlements because Feldman spent a lot of time discussing the settlement, and his legal strategy pertaining to the settlement, and if you already have a knowledge of the settlements, then you will understand my analysis of him more clearly. Here is part 1, and part 2.
- 1. “Both of these boys came from homes that their mothers allowed them to spend an inordinate amount of time with Michael Jackson, alone. Both of these mothers allowed their boys to sleepover at Michael Jackson’s house, in the bedroom, in the bed, that Michael Jackson slept in.” That statement by Feldman is only half true. Yes, MJ did spend an inordinate amount of time with Jordie and bought his mother June expensive gifts, but that is because he considered them friends, while his relationship with the Arvizos was strictly business. MJ initiated his relationship with the Chandlers by inviting them to Neverland upon his return from the Dangerous tour, while the Arvizos requested their meeting with MJ due to Gavin’s cancer, and if not for that cancer, they would not have met MJ. Period. MJ invited the Chandlers all over the world with him, while the Arvizos visited Neverland a few times beginning sometime after August 2000 (when MJ first started calling Gavin at the hospital), and didn’t return until September 2002. MJ spent time alone with Jordie on numerous occasions, but was NEVER alone with Gavin, as he was always with his brother, and more importantly MJ always had his security and servants within an arm’s reach at Neverland. The biggest error in this statement is the implication that “both” boys slept in bed with MJ. Although he didn’t explicitly say that Gavin slept in the bed with MJ, he certainly insinuated it by not denying it, so let’s make it clear right now: Michael Jackson did not sleep in the bed with Gavin! He and his bodyguard slept on the floor!
- “In this case, the young boy, just to refresh some of your recollection, was sent to Children’s Services through a psychiatrist, that he had reported this molestation. Children’s Services, as most of you probably know, this is a confidential report, when anybody reports molestation, psychiatrists are required under the law to report. And there was supposed to be remained totally, 100% confidential. Somebody got a hold of it and leaked it to the press, so the press had it by the time there was any lawyers involved in this.” The biggest misconception about the 1993 case is that people think that Evan Chandler called the police himself to report the molestation, when in reality he took Jordie to see psychiatrist Dr. Mathis Abrams so the he could notify authorities! Please read part 2 of my settlements article to see Evan’s exact quotes from the day that he lost custody of Jordie and decided to make the scandal go public instead of relinquishing custody back to June. Regarding the “confidential” Children’s Services report, it was allegedly leaked to Diane Dimond and cohort Steve Doran, a producer for Hard Copy. Here is her account of how she obtained the report (and of course we should take this with a grain of salt), from page 2 of “Be Careful Who You Love”:
So, why had the LAPD gone into Jackson’s Neverland Valley ranch and an apartment he owned in Los Angeles? What were thy looking for as they lugged out numerous boxes stamped with “evidence” labels?
Naturally, reporters all over the world wanted the answer to those questions but I alone was provided the first clue. The same day news of the raid hit a confidential source called my Hard Copy producer, Steve Doran, and suggested e meet so we could see some documents that promised to shed a bright light on the story. We agreed to meet immediately at a tiny Italian restaurant near the beach in Santa Monica.
Those documents revealed that Michael Jackson, an idol to millions of young people worldwide, was being accused f repeatedly molesting a young boy. It was almost too incredible to believe. Little did I realize that by being out front on the story then, I would remain in the forefront of the Jackson story for years to come.
- “The young by in that case, in the 93 case, had given an unbelievably detailed statement about his relationship with Michael Jackson, how that came about, how the sexual part came about. He detailed in great detail the start of the relationship, how it transgressed into a more physical activity with Michael Jackson, how it became fondling, how it became oral sex, how it became masturbation. And he gave this whole history in exquisite detail.” Well Larry, just because Jordie’s description was “unbelievably detailed”, it doesn’t meant it’s true! And just because it’s graphic, it doesn’t mean it’s true! The media usually describes it as “graphic” (as if that has any relevance to it validity!), and I’m surprised Feldman didn’t use that term here! I’m also surprised that he didn’t call his statement a deposition, as it is merely a declaration. Here is part 1 of a 3 part series attacks the legitimacy and admissibility of that document. (Parts 2 & 3 are coming soon!) As far as it being detailed, sure, I bet it was detailed. After all, Jordie already had experience in script writing from his work on “Robin Hood: Men in Tights”, for which he was nearly given a film credit by Mel Brooks, the executive producer! It was his idea to write the movie after being inspired by “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” (and Evan himself confirmed this in the video below).
And while we’re on the subject of Jordie’s testimony to the police, let’s remember that his description of MJ’s genitals did not match! For more info, read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this 3 part series.
- “that district attorney, at the time Gil Garcetti, was very content to see us take the lead in that case on the civil side, and he was happy to watch us go forward, take the lead, see what the case was about, he would have access to all of our discovery, and then decide whether he wanted to prosecute the case.” In part 1 of my article on MJ’s settlements I talked about the fact that Garcetti and Sneddon could have watched MJ’s civil trial like spectators at a football game, making notes of all of the exculpatory evidence, and finding ways to circumvent it. With Feldman’s admission that Garcetti was “content” so see him take the lead in the civil case so he would have access to all of their discovery, and only then would he decide if he wanted to prosecute the case criminally. (Discovery is “data or materials that a party in a legal proceeding must disclose to another party before or during the proceeding”, i.e. evidence.) What’s amazing to me is that with his access to all of Feldman’s discovery, that he and Sneddon STILL tried to prosecute MJ after the photos showed that Jordie’s description was the antithesis of MJ’s actual description! That is an indication of their vindictive nature, and they should have immediately dropped the case upon receipt of those photos. But instead, they stubbornly left the case “open but inactive”, even after two grand juries refused to indict MJ.
- “The district attorney in Santa Barbara………….insisted that the criminal case take place first, and that there be no civil case, and that the civil side of the case take a backseat,” and “How this case would play out was the district’s attorney’s choice in the second case, while in the first case I had total control of how it would play out.”: Sneddon was instrumental in passing a law in California that prevented a civil suit from going to court before a criminal case was resolved, either through a trial or otherwise), and this was specifically aimed at preventing another family from getting away with another “hit and run” on MJ. Janet Arvizo and her first attorney Bill Dickerman clearly had dollar signs in their heads when she met with Feldman in May 2003, with the hopes of snagging another multi-million dollar settlement. (Dickerman made a deal with Feldman that he would get a percentage of any settlement monies received as a “referral bonus”.) So due to the law, Janet Arvizo was forced to try to get a conviction through a criminal trial before having her shot at a big payday, and we all know how well that worked out for her! The irony is that Janet still could have filed a civil lawsuit after the trial, but what lawyer in their right mind would represent her?
- “There was a poll taken, I’ll never forget, the Gallup Poll did a poll about Michael Jackson, and how many people in their poll had heard about this case, and the allegations, and 98% of the people polled had heard about the case. Like 65%, 66% of those people believed Michael Jackson was factually innocent, and 12% believed that Michael Jackson did this to the boy.” Pay attention guys, because the media has very subtle ways of using statistics like this to make MJ appear to be guilty. Although in Feldman’s example the majority of respondents believed MJ was innocent, that poll was done BEFORE the settlement, and those stats immediately flip flopped after the settlement, and the media has used this “ad populum” argument on MJ ever since. An ad populum argument is a fallacious argument which concludes that “a proposition must be true because a majority of people believe it.”
Here’s a great example of an ad populum argument: just imagine if somebody told Christopher Columbus that because the majority of all people believe that the earth is flat, then it really is flat, so there’s no use in going on his little voyage! Obviously Columbus wanted to defy the general consensus and prove the world wrong, and he accomplished his goal! Here’s an example from Charles Thomson’s recent article which states how the media used ad populum statistics after MJ’s trial to try to undermine his acquittal:
“A poll conducted by Gallup in the hours after the verdict showed that 54% of White Americans and 48% of the overall population disagreed with the jury’s decision of ‘not guilty’. The poll also found that 62% of people felt Jackson’s celebrity status was instrumental in the verdicts. 34% said they were ‘saddened’ by the verdict and 24% said they were ‘outraged’. In a Fox News poll 37% of voters said the verdict was ‘wrong’ while an additional 25% said ‘celebrities buy justice’. A poll by People Weekly found that a staggering 88% of readers disagreed with the jury’s decision”.
Here is an example of Sneddon using an ad populum argument: during his November 18th, 2003 press conference, @ 19:52 he is asked by a reporter if he thinks that MJ “bought his way out” of the 1993 case, and he replies with “I think there’s a sense in the public that he did that!” By using the words “in the public”, he is implying that since the majority of the public believes that MJ “bought his way out”, that he truly did buy his way out. Way to go, Sneddon! That’s a nice way of ducking an easy question!
For additional examples of some of the tricks that the media uses to bash MJ, such as asking “loaded” questions or using “ad hominem” arguments, read this page here.
- “And how I would watch on television with my mouth open where people, real prominent lawyers, would be on television, on the Today Show, on ABC, talking about this Michael Jackson case, and they had no idea what the facts were, what they were talking about, except that they were talking, and they were very happy to be talking.” There’s not much that I need to say here, huh? We know how the media works: they hire pundits to get on TV and talk and entertain their viewers, and that’s exactly what they did with MJ. There is nothing we can do to stop them from airing their worthless opinions, but there is plenty that we can do to refute the! In fact, here is an article that repudiates the “analysis” of notorious MJ hater Nancy Grace, and her lesser known protégé Sunny Hostin. They both are alumni of Court TV, so you can’t expect anything more (or less!) from them!
- “He was someone who in these press conferences was conceding that Michael Jackson slept with children, with little boys, so from a plaintiff’s lawyer, like I was; generally, you know that’s a lot of ammunition that you have. And the question is “How do you use that effectively?” In this quote, Feldman is explaining how, as a plaintiff’s lawyer, he should use Pellicano’s admissions against MJ. Pellicano chose to volunteer the fact that MJ slept in the same bed with unrelated children and use it as a pre-emptive attack to so that Feldman couldn’t take that same info and twist it into something sexual or devious. But by doing so, Pellicano gave Feldman an opportunity to still convict MJ in the court of public opinion, because Feldman could have (and probably did) twist it anyway, and since the general public did not know at that time that MJ shared his bed, the general reaction was one of suspicion. This is one of the end results of having your lawyer reveal your defense strategy prematurely, as Geragos did in 2003 when he said that MJ had an “iron-clad” alibi, and as a result Sneddon re-arranged the dates that the alleged molestation took place to counter MJ’s alibi.
- “Geraldo, remember Geraldo? This is how old this is. When Geraldo did a mock trial, this was all at the time that I came into this case, in which they’re trying Michal Jackson, and lo and behold he won the case.” In the fall of 1993, Geraldo Rivera conducted a “mock trial” of MJ on his television program in which his studio audience was allowed to vote on MJ’s guilt or innocence. . A mother and her sick daughter were on the witness stand, and were “cross-examined” by the prosecutor. I don’t have the video of this episode, but Ian Halperin transcribed some of it in “Unmaksed”, on pages 109-112. I’m not going to type the entire segment, but I’ll point out some key points. The mother, Carol Nilwicki, and her sick daughter Carol, tried to buy tickets to an MJ concert in 1987, but they sold out. (What a surprise, huh?) So they made a videotape begging for MJ to send them tickets, and they sent the tape to Neverland, and a few days later MJ called them and offered tickets, and befriended the whole family! Carol made sure to emphasize that MJ asked for her and her husband’s permission before speaking to their daughter. Later on, the prosecutor asked the mother if she would let any other 35 year old man fraternize with her daughter, and she made a very valuable point, that I definitely need to emphasize here. She said the following: “You must realize something. We sought Michael Jackson out. He did not seek my daughter out.” Needless to say, the audience voted to acquit MJ that night!
On a side note, for those of you who haven’t seen it yet, here is the February 1993 episode of Geraldo that aired shortly after Oprah’s interview with MJ! It features J. Randy Taraborrelli, an editor of the National Enquirer, a dermatologist, and people who suffer from Vitiligo. Speaking of vitiligo, Geraldo show’s a clip of Latoya flatly denying that MJ really has it, which is totally consistent with the other lies she told (and would tell!) about MJ during that tumultuous time period!
- “whether it happened or it didn’t happened, their lives are in the balance about this, and it’s not just about money.” It’s not about the money, Feldman? BS!! If it’s not about the money, then why did both Evan Chandler and Janet Arvizo seek out your services? It certainly wasn’t about seeking justice, because if that’s what they wanted then they wouldn’t have contacted you or any other civil lawyer! Let’s hear it straight from the horse’s mouth to see what took precedence: money or justice. From page 167 of “All That Glitters”, here is Ray Chandler describing the agonizing decision that June, Evan, and Dave Schwartz had to make when choosing Feldman over Gloria Allred:
“By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman. The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement. Avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the entire family, especially Jordie, was a no-brainier.
Oh, one more thing Larry: since you say it’s “not about the money”, then why did you refuse to give Dave Schwartz the $4 million dollars from the settlement money that he requested? From page 167:
As the meeting came to a close, all that was left was to sign the retainer agreement with Larry. Anticipating a huge settlement, Dave assumed that Larry would take less than the standard 25 percent rather than pass up the opportunity, so he began negotiating for a smaller fee.
Larry politely explained that his fee was not out of the ordinary and tired to impart to Dave some idea of the amount of work involved should the case go to trial. But Dave was intractable. He became loud and pushy, demanding that Larry negotiate. Dave was also pissed off at all of the lawyers because they told him that if there was settlement he could not be included.
Larry remained calm. He informed Dave, once again, that because he was neither Jordie’s natural or adoptive father he had no legal claims that could be included in Jordie’s complaint. But Dave became increasing belligerent each time the lawyers explained why it was not possible. He didn’t give a damn about legalities and kept demanding money. Four million dollars, to be exact. The same amount, according to June, that he attempted to borrow from Michael.
How could you be so greedy, Larry? It’s not like you were going to spend that extra $4 million dollars at one time! (For more info on Dave Scwartz and Larry Feldman, read this blog post.)
And one last thing Larry: thanks for kinda, sorta providing some exculpatory analysis by stating “whether it happened or didn’t happen”, because I have to admit, you did more to defend MJ than Carl Douglas! We’ll get to him in the next part of this series.
- “you are going to have people who believe it to be true no matter what the verdict, and believe it to be untrue no matter what the verdict. And all you’re going to have at the end of the day on the civil side is perhaps money.” This is why I personally believe that settling the civil suit was the right thing to do, because even though MJ surely would have won the civil trial, the verdict would have been undermined for the very reason that Feldman just stated: people who pre-judged MJ as being guilty (who completely infest the media) would say his celebrity got him off, the prosecution bungled the case, etc. So of course the easy decision for the Chandlers was to get money through a civil trial, especially since they knew they couldn’t prove something that never happened!
- “whether they should ask for money from Michael Jackson, or do nothing except try to get a quick settlement.” In this quote, Feldman is discussing Janet Arvizo’s options when contemplating how to go about dealing with Gavin’s so-called molestation, and of course we all know what choice she made!
It should also be noted that in May 25th, 2004 Feldman and Janet decided to try to sue the Department of Children’s Services after their report that totally exonerated MJ was leaked shortly after his arrest. Why did they wait almost 6 months after the leak of that report to threaten legal action? MJ was indicted on April 21st, 2004, and at that point they knew that the criminal case would go to trial, and I’m sure they had such little faith in the their case that they decided to sue the DCFS as a “Plan B” (since losing the criminal case would destroy their chances of winning a civil trial.) Anything for money, right Larry?
- “if anything happened…..” Gee Larry, you don’t sound too confident in Jordie’s story, do you? But, once again, thanks for at least partially defending MJ, even if you didn’t do it intentionally. You did more for MJ than Carl Douglas!
- “then we filed a motion right away to get a speedy trial.” And “there was a criminal case behind the civil case, and they had to defend him worrying about his Fifth Amendment rights.” This is where Feldman literally won his extortion of MJ. By doing some fancy–smancy legal maneuvering, he was able to take the unprecedented step of getting Jordie’s civil trial to proceed before the disposition of the criminal case. And the reason that this is unprecedented is because how often do child molestation cases wind up in civil court BEFORE the criminal trial, or in civil court at all? I’m glad that Feldman once again defended MJ’s actions here by saying “with all due to respect to them” (MJ’s defense team), and then acknowledging that the criminal case was far more important than the civil case. And he confirms what I wrote about in my settlements article: nobody should be put in a position of having to give testimony in a civil case that can be used against them in a subsequent criminal case! From pages 160-161, here is attorney Robert Shapiro advising Evan Chandler on the benefits of suing MJ first:
“If there’s a hung jury, sure, it could be retried, but time goes on. The real risk is if there’s an acquittal. In that case, prevailing at a civil suit afterwards becomes a real uphill battle.
Now the alternative is for you to bring a civil suit first. And the first thing we would do is schedule a deposition of Michel Jackson, placing him in an extremely uncomfortable position because everything he says could be used against him in a criminal case. And if he takes the Fifth Amendment to avoid that, it can be used against him in your civil case. So immediately, he’s in a real bad spot.
But there’s a third alternative. If we went to the other side and said, ‘Listen, a trial for Michael Jackson is a disaster, he can’t win. Because even if he’s acquitted, when the public hears what this boy has to say, you will have no endorsements, you will have no contracts, you are virtually finished.’ If we say that, it is my belief we have control of the situation, we have power.
However, if this matter is pushed too far and somebody starts screaming there should be a grand jury or the DA is not handling this correctly, then we lose all control. Garcetti will have to go to the Grand Jury, even if he doesn’t want to. And if the Grand Jury returns and indictment on a case the DA can’t win, especially against a superstar, then you’re all screwed.”
And here is an article that includes startling comment from Feldman that shows how much “faith” he had in Jordie’s story being credible enough to obtain an indictment for MJ:
Jackson’s lawyer Bert Fields dropped a bombshell during the court hearing Tuesday, claiming a Santa Barbara County grand jury had been impaneled and was close to indicting his client.
“A grand jury convened already in Santa Barbara County and they are about to take evidence,” Fields said. “And that means we should have a charging decision very, very soon.”
But Fields later backpedaled outside the courthouse, saying the district attorney there had only issued subpoenas for two witnesses, and a grand jury had not been sworn in. A hostile exchange between Howard Weitzman, Jackson’s criminal attorney, and reporters ensued when Weitzman said Fields “misspoke” during the hearing.
Larry Feldman, attorney for the 13-year-old boy, told the court that it could delay the civil case if the criminal case went forward. “I don’t know if there is even going to be an indictment,” Feldman said. “It may be an open file for six years.“
Feldman said his client would be pleased with Tuesday’s courtroom developments. “This is the first good news he’s had,” he said.
So Larry, you mean to tell me that despite the fact that Jordie gave such a “graphic” testimony and an “accurate” description of MJ’s penis, that you don’t if there will be an indictment? You’ve got to be kidding me!!
- “And it almost didn’t matter whether we won or lost, the fact is we were getting even by all these types of things.” You’re right Larry, it doesn’t matter if you win or lose, because either way your clients Evan and Jordie Chandler don’t have to worry about going to jail. Jordie was a minor at the time, and was being used like a puppet to help his father pull of the world’s most infamous extortion, while Evan heeded Barry Rothman’s advice and had a shrink report the molestation to keep himself from being charged with filing a false police report!
- “Johnnie and I go back a long way. I had the distinct privilege of representing Johnnie a lot of times in his life, and we were able to trust one another along with the help of three judges who sat in on a very secretive settlement, and we were ultimately able to get the case settled, and work with all of the problems, and all of the details for their benefit. And they trusted me, and I trusted them, and it was able to get settled.” This is a very scary comment, because it makes you wonder how objective could Johhnie Cochran and Carl Douglas possibly be if they “go back a long way” with Feldman? And this quote brings to light a very crucial elemant of the settlement negotiations: the fact that those three judges (one of which was the Guardian Ad Litem for Jordie) played such a vital role in the suit. One of our co-admins will write a post on this subject in the near future, and it will explain the significance of the role that the Guardian Ad Litem played.
- “you have a district attorney who wasn’t really aggressively doing anything, it wasn’t that hard for him to make the decision that he had enough of it, and didn’t want to go forward anymore.” What the hell do you mean that the DA “wasn’t really aggressively doing anything?” What the hell do you call literally going in front of the California State Legislature and asking them to retroactively amend a law that would allow them to force Jordie to testify against MJ? (Read the “Officials Desperate to Nail Michael Jackson” article in this forum.) And security certainly wasn’t an issue, as Sneddon and Garcetti would have hired the Secret Service to protect the Chandlers if they wanted it! Feldman is playing the blame game here, just as the Chandlers did, by saying that it was their fault that Jordie wouldn’t testify, when they had no intention of testifying whatsoever!
Analysis of Carl Douglas’ Statements:
- “It was before what has now become known as “checkbook journalism”. The British press are relentless, and their relentlessness was no more greater demonstrated than with the zeal which they pursued the Michael Jackson matter.” You hit the nail on the head, Carl! This is probably the best thing that you said throughout the entire seminar, which is truly pathetic considering how much exculpatory information that you were privy to back then, and that you could have (and should have!) revealed to everyone.
For those of you who haven’t seen it yet, in 1994 Frontline (a documentary news program) dedicated an entire episode to the MJ scandal. The title was very oxymoronic! It was called “Tabloid Truth: The Michael Jackson Scandal”. (You can watch it here in its entirety.) The term “checkbook journalism” is pretty self-explanatory; it refers to the practice of paying exorbitant amounts of money for interviews or sources to a story, REGARDLESS of whether there is any truth to what they are being paid to say. (And here is the checkbook journalism’s “big brother”, yellow journalism, which is defined as “is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers”.)
Here is a perfect example of checkbook journalism: in 1993, the National Enquirer tracked down a former acquaintance of the Jackson family named Ronald Newt Sr. He and his twin sons Robert and Ronald Jr. stayed at the Hayvenhurst compound in 1985 for two weeks. Joe, Katherine, Michael, Janet, and Latoya Jackson were all residing there at that time.
After the scandal hit the airwaves, the National Enquirer essentially had a bounty on finding any other “victims” of MJ, and they actively sought any and everyone who had ever met MJ, hoping to be the first tabloid to break the “bombshell” news that there is another victim. So to make a long story short, they offered Ronald Newt Sr. a whopping $200k dollars to say that his boys were molested!! Coming from a poor background, he contemplated the offer (after all, he’s only human!), but then rejected it outright.
If you have any doubts as to the vicious, malicious, and heinous motives of the tabloids, then this quote will remove that doubt! From Robert Newt, who was 18 years old in December 1993 when he was offered the money to lie:
“He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,’” Newt said. “He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, ‘We take these people down. That’s what we do.’”
That comment should send chills down your spine, because it exposes the tabloids (and the people who plagiarize them, like Vanity Fair’s Maureen Orth) for the ruthless, lying, blood sucking, cold-hearted, demonic people that they are. Instead of offering that $200k to somebody to lie and put an innocent man in prison, why not donate that money to organizations that help survivors of child abuse? Oh, that’s right, it’s because they don’t have a heart, or a conscience, and they couldn’t care less about child abuse survivors!
The good thing that came out of this story, after nobody accepted their blood money, is when the editor of the Enquirer said “maybe there aren’t any other kids”. Gee, you think?
Another piece of good news that I’d like to report here is that the publisher of Enquirer has recently filed for bankruptcy! They claim that they will still continue to publish this trash rag, but let’s hope for its demise anyway.
- “And at that time, a few weeks from Christmas, Michael was basically afraid of returning back to the USA, because he feared if he did, he might be arrested, and that would have been the death knell to Michael Jackson and his entire world.” & “And when he told that he was not, there was then a celebrated return to Neverland, which was a fabulous place that I’ll tell you about later. “ What kind of a defense attorney are you, Carl? Why are you telling the world that your client was afraid of being arrested? (Due to the public relations nightmare that an arrest would cause.) Everyone in the world knows that MJ was afraid of being arrested, despite his innocence, so why do you need to blurt it out to everyone? MJ haters will pounce on this and try to say that “MJ was afraid of being arrested because he knew he was guilty!” And what the heck do you mean by a “celebrated return”? What was there for MJ to celebrate? Especially with the knowledge that he would be subjected to an embarrassing strip search?
Now of course, knowledgeable MJ fans can easily prove his innocence, but that’s not the point. It’s something that can be misconstrued as a sign of guilt on MJ’s part, and it shouldn’t have been said. Period.
Carl, next time you talk to an audience about MJ’s 1993 case, why don’t you follow David Nordahl’s advice, and provide a decent explanation of what happened, the way he did here in his recent interview with Debbie Kunesh of Reflections on the Dance website:
“I was working on sketches for his film production company, called “Lost Boys Productions”….Sony had given him (Michael) $40 million to start this production company and that little boy’s dad (Evan Chandler), who considered himself to be show business material, because he had written part of a script….after that he considered himself a Hollywood screenwriter, and being friends with Michael and his son being friends with Michael, this guy had assumed that Michael was going to make him a partner in this film production company and that’s where the $20 million figure came from. He wanted ½ of that Sony money. It was proven. It was an extortion. Michael listened to his business advisors and they all told him to keep his mouth shut and to go on to Korea, go on with your tour, you’re in the middle of a tour. We’ll take care of it….”
- “I remember initially there had not been any effort by any of his lawyers to contact the DA’s office to see if there were charges pending, or to see if they would arrest him. The first thing that Johnnie did that when he was retained was to have a conversation with Gil Garcetti.” I think that this is indicative of the incompetent services provided by the “Three Stooges”, AKA Bert Fields, Howard Weitzman, and (to a lesser extent) Anthony Pellicano. Fields and Weitzman should have been in constant contact with Garcetti and Sneddon about the status of the investigation, and MJ should have been notified immediately, instead of having to play a guessing game with his freedom. Notice how strongly worded Douglas was: he said that “initially there had not been any effort by any of his lawyers to contact the DA’s office to see if there were charges pending” There is no ambiguity there!
Thankfully, Johnnie Cochran brought some level of competence to the case, although his level of objectivity was highly compromised due to his “friendship” with Larry Feldman. One has to wonder if Douglas and Cochran came on the case BECAUSE they were friends with Feldman?
- 4. “I remember sitting in private negotiations with Larry and three judges trying to work out some resolution to this case. I remember the sage words of one of the judges “It’s not about how much this case is worth; it’s about what it’s worth to Michael Jackson!” The word “sage” (which was said in reference to the opinion of the judges) means “somebody who is regarded as knowledgeable, wise, and experienced, especially a man of advanced years revered for his wisdom and good judgment”. So what the heck was so “sage” about asking how much this case is worth to Michael Jackson? Once again, you have to question the objectivity of the people involved in the negotiations. He didn’t seem to be too concerned for MJ by making a statement like that, because this case was worth so much more than just money to MJ! It was worth something that is far more valuable, that cannot be bought, but only earned, and that is his reputation! Once that case hit the press, MJ’s reputation was forever tarnished, REGARDLESS of the outcome of the case!
- “He’s also correct that the decision that was hotly contested, in terms of having a trial in that case, set in 120 days was a devastating tactical loss for our team, and it was significantly powering efforts in trying to resolve the case.” This is where Evan Chandler won the case, and where Michael Jackson lost the case. It was Evan’s goal from the beginning to just get money, and if he truly wanted justice, then he never would have sued MJ in the first place. It’s amazing to me why nobody in the media has ever criticized the Chandlers for this move. At this point, there was nothing MJ could do. He rejected the Chandler’s extortion attempt in August 1993, his legal team fought and failed to have the civil trial delayed until after the criminal trial, and he voluntarily went through the strip search, so what more could he do?
- “we were driving in my car that I was able to buy after the Michael Jackson case, I had a little bit of money on the side” This comment was absolutely unprofessional and classless. Everybody knows that you earned hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, from “defending” MJ, so you don’t need to flaunt it to everyone.
Would Mesereau ever say anything like this? I don’t think so!
- “the settlement did both sides a great deal of good” & “if the lawyers can trust each other, and work together, it works out very much better for their clients. They come out with some sensible answers, they have less hassle, and that’s one way to get things done.” Yeah Seth, I’m sure when the opposing lawyers and judges are all friends with each other, then it’s really easy to trust each other, work together, and come out with sensible answers with less hassle! And even though the settlement did “both sides a great deal of good”, we all know it did a lot MORE good to the Chandlers than it did for MJ!
In closing, did you guys notice what Douglas did NOT say? He didn’t say anything to truly defend MJ, or debunk any of the false rumors (such as Jordie giving an accurate description, MJ “paying off” the Chandlers, etc.)