INFO about THE 1993 CIVIL LAWSUIT

[Moonwalker.Fan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) In civil trials the jury's verdict does not have to be unanimous. If at least 50% of the jurors find the Defendant liable, the Plaintiff will still get money.

4) The Defendant in a civil trial has fewer rights. In criminal law, police must obtain search warrants before searching or seizing items from a person's property. In civil law, a lawyer may demand information from the defense about any matter relevant to the case. This is known as the discovery process and it does not usually involve the court. Discovery may include: written questions to be answered under oath; oral deposition under oath; requests for pertinent documents; physical or mental examinations where injury is claimed; and requests to admit facts not in dispute. If Jackson had allowed the civil trial to proceed, Larry Feldman would have had access to Jackson's medical and financial records without obtaining a warrant.

5) The civil trial would have taken months to resolve. Michael Jackson would have been paying millions of dollars in legal fees while at the same time limiting his source of income by putting his career on hold. There was probably also a lot of pressure from his record company to settle the lawsuit because the case was affecting his career.

6) Such a long, drawn out process would have caused Michael Jackson and his family immeasurable amounts of stress. Even after the civil trial was resolved, he would still have the criminal proceedings to contend with. Why go through all of that twice?

7) According to Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit might have prompted Jackson's insurance company to force him to settle the case. "I have brought child molestation cases against Defendants and I always include a negligence allegation," Oxman explained. "That means that the homeowners' insurance policy takes over and a homeowners' insurance policy can settle right out from under the Defendant. The Defendant can scream, 'I will not settle that case,' and they have no choice because the insurance company settles it."

For the above reasons, Michael Jackson reluctantly settled the civil lawsuit that had been filed against him.



THE CIVIL SETTLEMENT

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

1) Michael Jackson denied any wrongdoing.

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

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

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

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

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

OTHER INTERESTING EXCEPRTS FROM THE DOCUMENT:

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

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

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

Sorry Diane.

THE PAYMENT:

The document states that $15,331,250 was put into a trust fund for Jordan Chandler. Both of his parents, as well as their attorney Larry Feldman, got a cut of the settlement. (Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz, two principle players in the case who were left out of the settlement, later filed their own individual lawsuits against Jackson). Eight pages detailing the payment were allegedly missing from Dimond's copy of the settlement but according to Jackson's current attorney, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit prompted Jackson's insurance company to step in and settle the case for him. This means that Jackson might not have paid the Chandlers anything. It also means that the insurance company most likely conducted their own investigation into the allegations and concluded that Jackson did not molest the boy; insurance companies generally do not settle if they believe the Defendant is liable. They will, however, settle for negligent behaviour.

DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION:

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

"Forthwith upon the signing of this Confidential Settlement by the Parties hereto, the Minor through his Guardian ad Litem shall dismiss, without prejudice, the first through sixth causes of action of the complaint on file in the Action, leaving only the seventh cause of action pending."

"Upon the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments... the Minor, through his Guardian ad Litem, shall dismiss the entire action with prejduice."

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

WAS IT HUSH MONEY?

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

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

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

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

The above paragraph makes it clear that the Chandlers were not prohibited from testifying against Jackson in a criminal trial, as long as they notified Jackson's attorneys beforehand. Contrary to popular belief, the settlement did NOT silence anybody. It was the family's own decision not to testify in the criminal case; they could have gotten money and justice but they only opted to take the money.

Ask yourself this: if your child was molested, would you not do everything in your power to put the person responsible behind bars? The Chandlers did not. Instead, they dropped the claims of child abuse against Jackson, signed a document where he basically called them liars, took his money and refused to talk to authorities. I have already pointed out the numerous reasons why Jackson settled the case; what reason did the Chandlers have to not testify?

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

For the past ten years, the media have been referring to the settlement as a "pay off" but here is my question: what exactly did Michael Jackson "buy" when he settled the civil lawsuit? How can anyone call it "hush money" when it did not prevent the accuser from testifying against him? How can anyone call it "hush money" when the entire world already knew about the allegations? How can anyone call it "hush money" when there was still an ongoing criminal investigation that was not affected by the civil suit?

Finally, Evan Chandler asked for $20 million before the allegations were reported to authorities. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested Jordan Chandler, why did he not take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid Evan Chandler and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he rejected Chandler's initial demand for money. If he was guilty, why did he do that?

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

A more logical explanation as to why Michael Jackson settled is that he was innocent and although he initially refused to be blackmailed by Evan Chandler, he had no choice in the end. Once the alleged abuse was brought to the attention of authorities, it suddenly became apparent to Jackson just how ugly things would get. The media went into overkill, the justice system was not working in his favor and the civil lawsuit filed by the Chandlers had backed Jackson into a corner. He could have either gone through with the civil trial and risked a weakened defense in the more important criminal trial or settled the civil lawsuit and risked people thinking he had something to hide. Obviously, Michael Jackson valued his life more than he valued the opinions of other people so he opted to settle the lawsuit.

Once the civil lawsuit was settled, Michael Jackson still had the criminal investigation to contend with.



Is it true that because of the out-of-court settlement of the civil case, Michael cannot proclaim his innocence?

Details of the civil case settlement are private, but statements made in a press conference by lawyers representing the plaintiff and the defendant shed some light.

VERBATUM Transcript from the Michael Jackson/Chandler settlement press conference as taped from satellite on 1-26-94, unedited.

Larry Feldman's statement-Attorney for Plaintiff:
"We wish to jointly announce a mutual resolution of this lawsuit. As you are aware the plaintiff has alleged certain acts of impropriety by Mr. Jackson and from the inception of those allegations Mr. Jackson has always maintained his innocence. However the emotional trauma and strain on the respective parties have caused both parties to reflect on the wisdom of continuing with the litigation. The plaintiff has agreed that the lawsuit should be resolved and it will be dismissed in the near future. Mr. Jackson continues to maintain his innocence and withdraws any previous allegations of extortion. This will allow the parties to get on with their lives in a more positive and productive manner. Much of the suffering these parties have been put through has been caused by the publicity surrounding this case. We jointly request that members of the press allow the parties to close this chapter in their lives with dignity so that the healing process may begin."

Johnnie Cochran's statement-Attorney for Defendant [Michael Jackson]:
"In the past ten days the rumors and speculation surrounding this case have reached a fever pitch and by-and-large have been false and outrageous. As Mr. Feldman has correctly indicated Michael Jackson has maintained his innocence from the beginning of this matter and now, as this matter will soon be concluded, he still maintains that innocence. The resolution of this case is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson. In short, he is an innocent man who does not intend to have his career and his life destroyed by rumor and innuendo. Throughout this ordeal he has been subjected to an unprecedented media feeding frenzy; especially by the tabloid press. The tabloid press has shown an insatiable thirst for anything negative and have paid huge sums of money to people who have little or no information and who barely knew Michael Jackson. So today the time has come for Michael Jackson to move on to new business, to get on with his life, to start the healing process and to move his career forward to even greater heights. This he intends to do. At the appropriate time Michael Jackson will speak out publicly as to the agony, torture, and pain he has had to suffer during the past six months. Thank you very much. "

 

[Moonwalker.Fan]

On November 18th, 2003, news broke that Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch was being searched by the Santa Barbara Police Department. Apparently, a 12-year-old boy had accused the singer of sexual abuse. To many, it appeared that Michael Jackson must be guilty; this was, after all, the second set of sexual abuse allegations made against him. It is also a widely known fact that Michael Jackson settled a civil lawsuit with his first accuser in 1993.

There are many facts, however, that have been widely ignored by the media when discussing these allegations. Read on to learn the truth about the Michael Jackson Case.
Frequently Asked Questions:
1. Hasn't this happened before?
2. If Michael was innocent, why did he "pay off" his accuser in 1993?
3. Why did Jordan Chandler make allegations against Michael?
4. Were charges ever brought against Michael in 1993?
5. Who is making the new allegations?
6. Weren't these allegations previously deemed unfounded in February?
7. Does the timeline for the new allegations make any sense?
8. Does the alleged victim's mother have a questionable background?
9. How is this an extortion attempt if the mother is not filing a civil lawsuit?
10. Who is Larry Feldman and how is he significant to both cases?
11. Did Michael know in advance that these allegations would be brought against him?
12. Who is Tom Sneddon and what does he have against Michael Jackson?
13. Has Tom Sneddon ever maliciously prosecuted anybody before?
14. Who is Diane Dimond and is she involved in this case?
15. Should a 45-year-old man be allowed to have children sleep over at his house?
16. Is it true that Jordan Chandler accurately described Michael's genitalia?
17. Has Michael written any songs about the 1993 allegations?
18. Did Evan Chandler try to sue Michael after 1993?
19. Although Chandler was only after money, isn't it possible that Michael was guilty?
20. Does Michael Jackson fit the profile of a pedophile?



1. Hasn't this happened before?
Yes. In 1993, a young boy made similar allegations against Michael Jackson but it was clearly an extortion attempt. Here's a short summary of what really happened in 1993.

- There is a taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler (the alleged victim's father) and Dave Schwartz (the allged victim's stepfather) where Chandler says, "Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine... and if I go through with this, I win big time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]... and Michael's career will be over." This tape was played all over news networks and also on the Prime Time Live interview with Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley in 1994. It seems, however, that the media has conveniently forgotten about it.

- Evan hired lawyer Barry Rothman who had recently handled a divorce case involving sexual molestation allegations. He found out from Rothman how to report child abuse without liability to the parent. Keep in mind that this was all taking place in the midst of a bitter custody battle between Chandler and his ex-wife June Chandler Schwartz.

- Taking Rothman's advice, Chandler phoned therapist Mathis Abrams and presented him with a hypothetical situation. Dr. Abrams wrote back saying that under the circumstances, "reasonable suspicion would exist that sexual abuse may have occurred." Abrams had never met Jackson or the boy; he was merely responding to Chandler's hypothetical situation (presumably the sleepovers).

- Using this report, Chandler tried to blackmail Jackson. He made a demand for $20 million but was turned away by the Jackson camp. Remember, if Michael Jackson had paid him at this point, the entire investigation would have been avoided.

- By this point, the boy had not actually made any allegations. That all changed when his father gave him a drug called sodium amytal. Under the influence of this drug, people are said to be extremely impressionable. Chandler claimed he only used the drug for dental purposes and while under its influence, the boy came out with the allegations. Most medical experts agree that this is unlikely.

- In August, the boy's mother threw Evan Chandler a curveball- she filed a court order demanding that the boy be returned to her. Coincidentally, on the same day that the judge ruled for the boy to be returned to his mother (which would have ruined Chandler's entire plan), Evan Chandler brought his son to see Dr. Abrams. While there, the boy came out with the sexual abuse allegations and Abrams reported the allegations to the police.

- The case fell apart after the boy refused to testify.

- For more info on the 1993 allegations, please read the book "Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations" by Geraldine Hughes. It will be available in January. To pre-order a copy please visit www.mjredemption.com.
2. If Michael was innocent, why did he "pay off" his accuser in 1993?
First of all, let's get one thing straight. There were two cases against Michael Jackson in 1993- the criminal case and the civil case. Michael settled the civil case, reportedly paying the Chandlers $20 million. Many people say that he "paid off" his accuser but this assumption does not make sense if you take into consideration the following facts:

1) The settlement did NOT prevent the boy from testifying in the criminal trial. It makes no sense to say that Michael bought his silence. It was Jordan's own decision not to testify.

2) If Michael wanted to pay off his accuser, why didn't he do it at the very beginning? Evan Chandler made a demand for $20 million before authorities knew about the alleged abuse. If Michael wanted to buy their silence, like many people claim he did, why didn't he do it right then? Before the police trashed his home, before he was publicly humiliated, before he was subjected to a dehumanizing search of his private parts? He could have bought their silence right from the get go and avoided the whole ordeal. Instead he rejected Evan Chandler's initial demand for money. Why would a guilty man do that?

3) Even if we illogically dismiss the first two points, it still doesn't make sense to say that Michael bought Jordan Chandler's silence. If Michael's plan was to settle the civil lawsuit in order to prevent the boy from cooperating with authorities in the criminal trial, wouldn't it have been beneficial to him if the civil trial occurred first? So why did Michael Jackson file a motion asking for the criminal trial to take place first if his whole plan was to pay the boy off? If the criminal trial was first, Michael wouldn't have had an opportunity to buy Jordan's silence. His actions (asking for the criminal trial to precede the civil trial) are contradictory of his alleged motives (settling the civil suit to prevent the boy from testifying against him).

So why did Michael Jackson settle, you ask?

It appeared that the judicial system was not on his side. When civil and criminal proceedings arise over the same allegation, the defendant is entitled to a stay of discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter is resolved. In Michael Jackson's case, the civil trial was scheduled to occur before the criminal trial, which would have been a violation of Jackson's constitutional right to not self-incriminate. Jackson's attorney, Johnnie Cochrane, tried to get the civil trial postponed until AFTER the criminal trial but was not granted his request. He also filed a motion blocking the District Attorney's office from obtaining evidence used in the civil proceedings; again, he was not granted his request. If the civil trial had occurred, the prosecution would have been privy to Michael's entire defense strategy. This would have given them time in between the civil and criminal trials to come up with a way to counter Michael's defense. By settling, Michael did not have to go to court in the civil case and reveal his defense strategy to the prosecution.
Other reasons include the fact that the civil trial could have taken 8-9 months, which would have cost Michael millions of dollars in legal fees. Add to that the possibility of losing in court and one can see that paying the Chandlers $20 million might have actually been the cheaper alternative. Keep in mind that civil trials are very different from criminal trials in that the jury's verdict does not have to be unanimous. Only 51% of the jury would have to rule against Michael and he would have lost the civil trial. This could have later been used against him in the criminal trial as well. When you look at the case from a legal standpoint, Michael's decision to settle makes a lot of sense. Once the civil trial was settled, the criminal trial continued and there was not enough evidence to charge Michael.

Perhaps a more telling question is why would you accept money from someone who allegedly molested your child instead of fighting to put them behind bars?

Click here to read a more detailed explanation of why Michael Jackson settled with his accuser.
3. Why did Jordan Chandler make allegations against Michael?
Jordan only made allegations after his father gave him a drug called sodium amytal. According to Dr. Resnick, a Cleveland psychiatrist, "It's a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact. People are very suggestible under it. People will say things under sodium amytal that are blatantly untrue." He goes on to say, "It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question. The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened."

Sodium amytal has been a factor in other child molestation cases, one of which occurred in Napa County, California. After undergoing many therapy sessions, and being administered the sodium amytal drug, a 20-year-old woman accused her father of molesting her as a child. Her father denied the charges and sued the therapist and the psychiatrist. The jury sided with the father, believing that the memory had been implanted in the woman's mind as a result of being given the drug. Sadly, it seems that Jordan Chandler was merely a pawn in his father's sick scam to extort money.
4. Were charges ever brought against Michael in 1993?
No. After Jordan refused to testify, the District Attorney's case fell apart. The authorities literally tried everything to find evidence that would corroborate Jordan's story. They contacted hundreds of children who had stayed at Neverland and could not find another "victim." Even though authorities used aggressive interrogation techniques, not one child said anything bad about Michael. They also searched his house from top to bottom and took photographs of Michael's naked body. The case was brought in front of TWO grand juries but no charges were ever filed due to lack of evidence. There might be the odd tabloid rumour about what investigators found but let's put it this way- if there was any evidence that even remotely supported Michael Jackson being a pedophile, charges would have been brought against him. As Michael Jackson said in his interview with Diane Sawyer, "They found nothing, nothing, nothing that could say Michael Jackson did this. Nothing! To this day, nothing. Still, nothing. Nothing, nothing, nothing." Amen.
5. Who is making the new allegations?
Out of the hundreds of kids who have stayed at Neverland, the new accuser just happens to be the one boy who was prominently featured in the infamous "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary. The 12 year old admitted to having sleepovers with Michael Jackson which led to a huge media shitstorm. He also credited Michael with helping him get through cancer.
6. Weren't these allegations previously deemed unfounded in February?
Yes. Prompted by what he or she saw on the "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary, a school official contacted the Department of Children and Family Services in February. From February 14th to February 27th, the DCFS investigated claims of sexual abuse on Michael Jackson's part and claims of neglect on the alleged victim's mother's part. These allegations were concluded to be unfounded. Investigators interviewed the mother and her three children, including the boy who is now making allegations against Jackson. They all stated that nothing inappropriate ever occurred. The mother also said that the children were never left alone with Jackson. To read the full report, click here

At a press conference on December 18th, 2003, District Attorney Tom Sneddon dismissed the DCFS report by saying, "L.A. is just a big place. And they have a lot of problems down there. And that particular department has a lot of problems. Anybody who lives in L.A. knows that."

NBC News correspondent Mike Taibbi, however, discovered that two weeks after "Living with Michael Jackson" aired, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department launched their own investigation into Michael Jackson's alleged activities. The investigation lasted from February until April 16th and was closed with "no further action required." So far, Mr. Sneddon has not made any statements regarding the competency of his own department.

The SBCSD report cites interviews that were conducted with the accusing family by three Los Angeles social workers. According to the alleged victim: "Michael is like a father to me, he's never done anything to me sexually." He added that he "never slept in bed with Michael," and that his mother is "always aware of what goes on in Neverland."

The mother said, "Michael is like a father to my children, he loves them and I trust my children with him." She added that her children were never left alone with Michael and that they'd never shared a bed with him. Of Michael, she said he had "never been anything but wonderful. My children have never felt uncomfortable in his presence. Michael has been a blessing." The boy's sister was teary eyed while being interviewed and defended Michael, saying "Michael is so kind and loving."

In June, after civil lawyer Larry Feldman (who won Michael's first accuser a reported $20 million in 1993) entered the picture, the entire family changed their story. The boy alleged to psychiatrist Dr. Stan Katz that while at Neverland he "drank alcohol every night and got buzzed." When he told Michael his head hurt, Michael allegedly said "keep drinking, it will make it feel better." (A 13-year-old boy believed that?) The boy's younger brother said that he and his brother "constantly sleep in Michael's room with Michael and (the alleged victim) in Michael's bed." He claims to have witnessed at least two incidents of inappropriate touching on Michael's part. (Right, so Michael molested this kid with a third party present?)The sister also claims to have seen questionable behaviour on Michael's part. Keep in mind that all three of these kids gave a drastically different story to social workers months before. It was only after getting involved with the civil lawyer from the 1993 case that the family made allegations of sexual abuse.
7. Does the timeline for the new allegations make any sense?
No. The charging documents filed on December 18th state that the alleged abuse took place from February 7th-March 10th. Let's travel back in time to when the alleged abuse supposedly began. The "Living With Michael Jackson" documentary had just aired on February 6th. There was a lot of controversy surrounding Michael's statements that he allowed children to sleep in his bedroom. The 1993 allegations were constantly being brought up and Jordan Chandler's script- sorry, I mean affidavit- was leaked onto the Internet.

Many people were also speculating about Michael's relationship with the boy featured on the documentary. We're expected to believe that Michael knew this boy for two years and only decided to molest him while in the midst of a huge controversy surrounding him and sexual abuse allegations? Either these allegations are false or Michael is the dumbest criminal alive.

Even if you assume the latter, the timeline still doesn't make sense. For two weeks of the five week abuse period, the Department of Children and Family Services were investigating claims of sexual abuse. A school official phoned them after viewing the "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary and expressed concern about what was shown. The Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department also conducted an investigation from February 18th to April 16th and also closed the case. It would be impossible for Michael to molest this boy while simultaneously being investigated for it by two separate departments.

Furthermore, Michael Jackson hired his attorney Mark Geragos in early February. Why would he hire a laywer and then commit the crime? It doesn't make any sense. There are also eyewitness accounts of the boy being back at Neverland on March 12th.
8. Does the alleged victim's mother have a questionable background?
Yes. In 2001, child welfare services were called to the mother's home following a familial disturbance. The mother was not home so the children were interviewed on their own. The children did not allude to any physical abuse on the father's part during the first investigation. The mother returned home after the social workers had left and she was angry that the children were interviewed without her there. She called investigators back and suddenly, the children changed their story. They said they had witnessed the father abusing their mother and the daughter also said that she too was abused by the father. Their stories drastically changed when they were in the presence of their mother.

In the same report, the mother admitted to having psychological problems in the past. She talked about her relationships with celebrities like Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson, saying she'd met them on the street. She said she'd found ways to get things for her kids. To read these reports click on the links below:

State of California Health and Welfare Agency Report

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services Report

In 1998, the mother also sued J.C Penney, claiming that her sons were beaten and that she was sexually assaulted by security guards while leaving the mall. The incident apparently happened after security guards confronted them about stolen clothing. The family settled out of court and it has been said that the children were given scripts written by the mother to help them with their testimony.
9. How is this an extortion attempt if the mother is not filing a civil lawsuit?
Everybody has been saying that because the family has not filed a civil suit, they do not want money. Of course nobody mentions the fact that if the family did file a civil lawsuit, nothing would be done with it until AFTER the criminal trial was complete. The law was changed after 1993 so that if there was a civil trial and a criminal trial dealing with the same allegation, the civil proceedings would remain inactive until after the criminal proceedings. It would make no sense for the family to file a civil lawsuit now. They were obviously considering it at one point seeing as how they went to Larry Feldman (the civil lawyer from the 1993 case) first. Let's keep in mind that there is nothing stopping the family from filing a civil suit later. They could also make a vast amount of money from TV appearances, books, interviews, etc.

In addition to that, if Michael is convicted, the family can seek restitution, which is money provided to the victims of physical or sexual assault, rape, incest, and other forms of abuse. For more information, visit the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards.
10. Who is Larry Feldman and how is he significant to both cases?
Larry Feldman is the civil lawyer who represented the Chandlers in the 1993 case and got them about $20 million. After denying abuse over and over again, Michael Jackson's new accuser changed his story when Mr. Feldman entered the picture. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about that...
11. Did Michael know in advance that these allegations would be brought against him?
Yes. His attorney Mark Geragos was hired at the beginning of February because somebody within his camp suspected there was something wrong with the family who is now making accusations.
12. Who is Tom Sneddon and what does he have against Michael Jackson?
Tom Sneddon was the prosecutor in the 1993 case and he is also the prosecutor involved with the current allegations. After spending millions of dollars on the Michael Jackson investigation in 1993, Sneddon came up empty handed. He brought his evidence (or lack thereof) in front of two grand juries and could not get an indictment. After that, he claims to have never given Michael Jackson another passing thought. On the contrary, over the past ten years Sneddon has spoken to the New York Times, Showbiz Today, The Chattanooga Times, The New York Beacon, The Advertiser, Daily News, Broadcast News, the Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph and Vanity Fair Magazine about the 1993 case.

In 1995, Michael Jackson wrote a song about Tom Sneddon called "D.S." In order to prevent a lawsuit, the lyrics say "Dom Sheldon is a cold man" but it is obvious who Michael is referring to. In the song he says, "He's out to shock in every single way/ He'll stop at nothing just to get his political fame/ He think he hot cause he BS DA/ I'll bet he never had a social life anyway/ You think he brotha with the KKK/ I bet his mother never taught him right anyway/ He want your vote just to remain DA/ He don't do half what he say."

The feud between Michael Jackson and Tom Sneddon intensified when Mr. Sneddon changed the law as a result of the 1993 investigation. The law was changed so that if a civil lawsuit was filed, Sneddon would be able to put it on hold until after the criminal trial. Sneddon has made numerous statements over the past decade referring to the Jackson case as "open but inactive." According to him, all they needed was a cooperative victim and the investigation would be re-opened.

Fast forward to February 2003. After "Living with Michael Jackson" aired, Sneddon was bombarded with media inquiries about the Michael Jackson case. In a press statement, Sneddon said, "After conversations with Sheriff Jim Anderson, it was agreed that the BBC broadcast would be taped by the Sheriff's Department. It is anticipated that it will be reviewed."

Regarding Jackson's comments that he shared a room with children, Sneddon replied by saying it was, "unusual at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking the matter seriously" but "Mental leaps of misbehavior are not acceptable as legal substitutes for credible, cooperative victims or percipient witnesses." Then, in typical Sneddon style, he urged any victims to come forward. Read the full press release here . A few days later, somebody within the District Attorney's office leaked Jordan Chandler's affidavit from 1993 onto the Internet. On February 13, Tom Sneddon gave an interview to trashy tabloid journalist Diane Dimond where he again stressed the fact that if another victim came forward, the case would be re-opened.

Basically, after being made a fool of in 1993, Sneddon changed the law so that if any more victims came forward, they would be more inclined to cooperate in a criminal trial. This behavior alone shows that Sneddon was eager to convict Michael Jackson. Isn't it a bit suspicious that the new victim just happens to be the one boy from a documentary that Sneddon admitted to watching? And that as soon as that boy appeared on television, the allegations from 10 years ago and the main players involved with them resurfaced?

Regardless of whether or not Sneddon had something to do with this boy coming forward, he was clearly happy about being able to reopen the Michael Jackson case. This was evident at a press conference held by the Santa Barbara Police Department on November 19th, 2003 where Mr. Sneddon laughed and made jokes.

Since arresting Michael Jackson, Sneddon's actions have been questionable at best. Here is a chronological list of the stupid things Sneddon has said and done:

- During the press conference, Sneddon acknowledged that Michael was investigated in February but said "don't assume it's the same family." He knew it was the same family, why did he make this statement?

- At the press conference, he invited more victims to come forward.

- He acknowledged that he knew about these allegations since June but didn't take action until November because of Halloween. Yes, we wouldn't want to upset anyone's trick-or-treating experience, so let's let an alleged pedophile run around for five months and finally raid his house on the day that his new CD comes out.

- Sneddon said that the law was changed so that child victims in a molestation case could be forced to testify. This was a lie; the law was changed so that if a civil suit was filed, it would remain inactive until the criminal matter was resolved.

- Sneddon swore that the family was after justice and not money even though it is a widely known fact that they went to a civil lawyer first.

- He gave yet another interview to Diane Dimond where he called Michael "***** *****."

- Dimond admitted to knowing about the allegations months in advance. Why was the DA leaking information to a tabloid journalist?

- He delayed filing charges until December so that the SBPD could set up a website for members of the press.

- He hired a PR firm to help him deal with media inquiries (and slander Michael's name in the press).

- He dismissed the Department of Children and Family Services investigation as an "interview" and accused the DCFS of being incompetent. It turns out that his own department also investigated Michael Jackson in February and came back with the same ruling as the DCFS.

- He said that if Michael Jackson's claims of police abuse turned out to be false, he would charge him with making a false complaint even though Michael did not actually make a formal complaint. The SBPD, however, said they considered what he said on "60 Minutes" to be a formal complaint. This is not in accordance with the law.

- The alleged victim's parents are currently in the midst of a custody battle. Sneddon wrote a letter to the judge in the custody proceedings requesting that the boy be kept from seeing his father. Why would the district attorney care if the boy saw his father? What does this have to do with the molestation case? Perhaps Sneddon does not want the boy to change his story once he's no longer under the influence of his mother.

- Sneddon requested a grand jury instead of a preliminary hearing. Keep in mind that grand juries are usually convened before charges are filed. It seems that Sneddon is worried about what might happen if Mark Geragos gets a chance to speak with the alleged victim during the prelims. Perhaps he also doesn't want any evidence pointing to Michael's inncoence to be made public, which explains why he wants a grand jury (where the proceedings would be kept private if there was no indictment).

And this is just the beginning...
13. Has Tom Sneddon ever maliciously prosecuted anybody before?
Yes. Lawyer Gary Dunlap filed a $10 million lawsuit against Tom Sneddon in November 2003. In June of that year, Dunlap was acquitted of 6 charges brought against him by Sneddon. In a 102 page complaint, Dunlap accuses Sneddon of racketeering, witness tampering, conspiring against him and maliciously prosecuting him. The complaint also alleges that Sneddon violated Dunlap's civil rights by conducting illegal searches of his property. In an interview with MJJForum Radio, Dunlap talks about Sneddon stacking charges in order to convict him on at least one count. He discusses Sneddon's frequent abuse of power and claims that there are other lawyers who have seen this. To listen to the full interview, click here . There is also a transcript available (NOTE: You have to be a registered member to read the interview).

Here are some interesting quotes from Mr. Dunlap regarding the SBPD:
"It’s a very bad situation here in the north county, and the general public is very unaware of it because Tom Sneddon and his assistant up here have pretty much dominated the justice system in Santa Barbara County for several years."

"His office is very powerful and public officials are intimidated by them, court personnel are intimidated by them, I mean, they just have had it their own way, and they pretty much do whatever they want. And the problem with it is, they do not take any kind of a leadership role with regard to law enforcement in the sense of protecting the public interests against excessive force. Rather, they promote excessive force by the various law enforcement agencies, by their attitude of protection and prosecution of cases that are clearly inappropriate."

"The very fact that [Michael Jackson is] being prosecuted by Sneddon’s office does not cause me to have any reason to believe that he’s guilty in that, because of what I know about the district attorney’s office, I know that they do vindictive prosecutions on a routine basis. And I know that Sneddon has been, you know, chafing at the bit because he wasn’t able to prosecute him ten years ago. And so I don’t think that there’s any question that he’s being over targeted."

Dunlap is not the only person who has taken legal action against Sneddon. In 2001, a man named Efren Cruz filed a federal suit against Santa Barbara prosecutors, accusing them of negligence and conspiracy to keep him in prison. The lawsuit accuses Tom Sneddon of malicious prosecution for withholding evidence favorable to the defense. Mr. Cruz spent four years in prison after being convicted of murder in 1997. According to the lawsuit, prosecutors had evidence favorable to Cruz but failed to hand it over to the defense before the trial. After Cruz was convicted, the real shooter was caught on tape confessing to the crime but Santa Barbara prosecutors stood by their conviction. To read a document about this case from January 2003, click here.

In 2002, Santa Barbara County law enforcement groups filed a lawsuit against Sneddon for threatining the police officers' right to privacy. The lawsuit stems from a policy which allows the District Attorney's office to give information about police misconduct to defense attorneys at its own discretion. According to Sgt. Mike McGrew, "It's confusing. He's an aggressive DA. There are actually no files right now on any officers in Santa Barbara. We really don't know why he did this." Future blackmail material perhaps?

Is Tom Sneddon a concerned government official seeking justice or is he merely a bully with a badge trying to get a celebrity conviction? For more insight into the answer to this question, let's take a look at another molestation case that Mr. Sneddon completely ignored. In 2002, David Bruce Danielson, a forensic investigator for the Santa Barbara Police Department, was accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl.

According to an article written by Santa Maria Times columnist Steve Corbett, "Danielson came home after a night of drinking and crawled into his wife's bed where the child, who was a guest in the home, was sleeping." HOLD UP! A child sleeping in an unrelated adult's bed? The outrage! Why didn't Sneddon release a press statement condemning this behaviour as "unusual at best?" Why didn't he vow to take the matter "very seriously?" Why didn't he beg victims to come forward? Ahem. Moving on...

Apparently thinking the girl was his wife, Danielson "accidentally" molested her. Basically, this man admitted to touching this girl inappropriately but Sneddon closed the investigation stating that "subsequent investigation into the girl's claims did not provide the required evidence necessary to file a formal charge and prepare for court." Right. When there was no corroborating evidence to support Jordan Chandler's story in 1993, did Sneddon close the investigation? Nope. He spent the next ten years of his life whining about not getting to prosecute that case. Well, Sneddon you had your chance to lock up an alleged sex offender and you let it slip. I guess it's okay to molest young girls in Santa Barbara. Hell, you can even admit to it as long as you use the "I molested her by accident" defense.

Sneddon has been accused of witness tampering, malicious prosecution, enforcing corrupt policies and negligence. He obviously has a vendetta against Michael Jackson so what makes people think he would not resort to his old dirty tricks to get a conviction? Why anybody trusts this guy to seek the truth is beyond me.
14. Who is Diane Dimond and is she involved in this case?
Diane Dimond is the former host of "Hard Copy" who has apparently declared herself the expert on the Michael Jackson Case. She's obviously VERY close with the District Attorney but she is far from accurate in her reporting. Here's a little history lesson on Diane Dimond:

- In 1993, Diane did a segment with two of Michael's former bodyguards. They claimed they were fired because they knew too much about Michael's relationships with young boys. Diane swore that the bodyguards were not paid for their story. A contract later revealed that they were given $100,000 to appear on her show. When taken to court, both bodyguards admitted they made the whole thing up.

- That same year, Michael's former maid Blanca Francia appeared on Hard Copy claiming she'd seen Michael naked in a Jacuzzi with young boys. A copy of Francia's testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000 to make this story up. Again, under oath, the disgruntled ex-employee admitted she was full of shit.

- A man named Victor Gutierrez appeared on Hard Copy claiming he'd seen a tape of Michael having sex with a young boy. Diane later repeated his comments on a Los Angeles TV station. When it was proven that Gutierrez made the entire thing up, Michael filed a lawsuit against him and Hard Copy. Although Diane was dismissed from the lawsuit because of some crap regarding journalistic integrity (which shouldn't even be used in the same sentence with the name "Diane Dimond"), Gutierrez was forced to pay Michael $2.7 million.

- In 1995, Diane found a random street kid from Toronto who told her that Michael Jackson had sexually abused him. Diane escorted the boy to the police where they questioned him for hours. Diane was ready to report the story on Hard Copy but the boy confessed that he made it all up. Since Diane had already signed on to the story, she was forced to report it. She tried to make it seem as if she was also a victim of the boy's lie but it's blatantly obvious that she was the one who sought him out. Why would a kid go to her of all people and make accusations against Michael Jackson? Wouldn't the police be a more logical alternative?

- Diane admitted that she knew about the new allegations in advance. She was also at Neverland when the police conducted their search of the grounds.

- In November, Diane reported that police found love letters addressed to the boy in Michael's home. It was later revealed that no such letters existed. Perhaps the DA realized it was an illogical story (why would Michael store incriminating evidence at his house, especially when he suspected in February that this would happen?) and that's why he denied it.

Do not be fooled by Diane's sudden emergence as a credible journalist. The only reason why the District Attorney is giving her confidential information (among other possible reasons) is because they both have a grudge against Michael Jackson stemming from the 1993 allegations. 90% of what she says is a lie. This will be revealed in due time. Until then, refer to the second verse in Michael Jackson's song "2Bad." It is not necessarily written about Diane Dimond, but it certainly applies to her.

Head all up in Hollywood
Saying that she got it good
Creepin' from a dusty hole
Tell 'em what somebody told
What do you want from me?
What do you want from me?
Tired of you hunting me yeah, yeah
You're aiming just for me
You are disgusting me
You got blood lust for me
But too bad, too bad
Look who got slapped in the face
It's dead and stuffy in the place
I'm right back where I wanna be
I'm standing though you're kickin' me
15. Should a 45-year-old man be allowed to have children sleep over at his house?
Michael Jackson has been widely criticized for his statements regarding children sharing his bedroom. It is not illegal for him to do this and it does not make him guilty of anything besides going against a societal norm.

Sexual abuse does not always occur at night or in a bed. If you argue that the sleepovers are wrong because they provide an opportunity for sexual abuse to occur, then I guess you could also argue that no adult should ever be alone with any child. Whether or not they're related is irrelevant because there's something called incest which people seem to have forgotten about.

So why are the sleepovers viewed as wrong? It's Michael's personal belief that there's nothing inappropriate about sharing his bed with a child and there's no logical reason that proves otherwise. If you disagree with his statements, that's your own opinion but ask yourself why you feel this way? Is it because you have logical reason to believe that it's morally wrong or it or is it because society says it's wrong? If you have reason to feel the way you do, please let me know because I'd be interested to hear it. If you don't, let me just remind you that society has been wrong about a lot of things.

Personally, if I had children, I wouldn't let them sleep with another adult. That's just my own belief. I don't have a reason to feel this way, I would just feel uncomfortable with it. If Michael feels differently, that's his business. It does not affect me personally. This is one of those issues that has to do with how you were raised and what you were brought up to believe. No amount of logical reasoning will change anyone's opinion on the matter so do not condemn Michael for having a different belief than you.

With that said, I'd like to point out that if anything inappropriate was going on at those sleepovers, why would Michael draw attention to them by talking about them so openly on national television? That right there is a sign of innocence if you ask me. Also, if he really wanted to molest kids, why wouldn't he do it somewhere that wouldn't look suspicious? Why do it at sleepovers where people would be more likely to scrutinize his behavior? Ask yourself these questions before you try to use Michael's honesty against him.
16. Is it true that Jordan Chandler accurately described Michael's genitalia?
No. In January 1994, USA Today printed an article confirming that, "photos of Michael Jackson's genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct." Some tabloid reports may indicate otherwise but keep in mind that the District Attorney brought his "evidence" in front of two grand juries and charges were not filed. If the photos matched the boy's description, the case would have probably gone to trial.
17. Has Michael written any songs about the 1993 allegations?
Yes, in fact, most of his 1995 album "HIStory" deals with what he went through during the first allegations. The songs Scream, They Don't Care About Us, Stranger in Moscow, This Time Around, D.S, Money, Childhood, Tabloid Junkie and 2Bad all seem to be written about the first allegations. Here are some lyrics from the album:

Scream
Tired of injustice
Tired of the schemes
Your lies are disgusting
But what does it mean, dirty
Kickin' me down
I've got to get up
As jacked as it sounds
The whole system sucks, dirty

They Don't Care About Us
Now tell me what has become of my rights
Am I invisible cause you ignore me
Your proclamation promised me free liberty
I'm tired of being the victim of shame
You're throwin' me in a class with a bad name
I can't believe this is the land from which I came

Stranger in Moscow
I was wanderin' in the rain
Cast of life feeling insane
Swift and sudden fall from grace
Happy days seem far away
Kremlin's shadow belittlin' me
Stalin's tomb won't let me be
On and on and on it came
Wish the rain would just let me be

This Time Around
Somebody's out
Somebody's out to use me
They really want to use me
And then falsely accuse me
But this time around
They'll take it like spit
No you really can't control me

D.S
They wanna get my ass dead or alive
You know he really tried to take me down by surprise
I'll bet he missioned with the CIA
He don't do half what he say
Cause Tom Sneddon is a cold man

Money
If you show me the cash then I will take it
If you ask me to cry then I will fake it
If you give me your hand then I will shake it
You'll do anything for money

Childhood
No one understands me
They view it as such strange eccentricities
Cause I keep kidding around
Like a child, but pardon me
People say I'm not okay
Cause I love such elementary things
It's been my fate to compensate
For the childhood I've never known

Tabloid Junkie
It's slander with the words you use
You're a parasite in black and white
Do anything for news
And you don't go and buy it
And they won't justify it
To read it sanctifies it
Then why do we keep fooling ourselves
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on a TV screen don't make it factual
But everybody wants to read all about it

2Bad
Told me that you're doing wrong
Word out shocking all alone
Cryin' wolf ain't like a man
Throwin' rocks to hide your hands
You ain't done enough for me
You ain't done enough for me
You are disgusting me, yeah, yeah
You're aiming just for me
You are disgusting me
Just want your cut from me but too bad, too bad
18. Did Evan Chandler try to sue Michael after 1993?
Yes. Evan Chandler tried to sue Michael Jackson in 1996, claiming that Michael violated the terms of their civil settlement by denying that he ever sexually abused the boy. In his lawsuit, Chandler cited Michael's 1995 album HIStory as well as an interview that Michael did with Diane Sawyer. In addition to the $60 million he demanded, Chandler also wanted a court order to allow him to produce and distribute his own album called EVANstory. That's right. Instead of getting justice for his son who was allegedly molested, Evan Chandler wanted to sing songs about it. The lawsuit was thrown out of court.
19. Although Chandler was only after money, isn't it possible that Michael was guilty?
No. Remember, before carrying out his plan, Evan Chandler went to Michael Jackson first and asked for money. Chandler had the letter from Dr. Abrams saying sexual abuse might have occured and if the boy admitted to it, he would be forced to report it to child welfare services. Chandler used this letter to try to blackmail Michael in the very beginning and was turned away. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested this boy, why didn't he take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid up right then and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he refused to pay the Chandlers. If he was guilty, please explain to me why he did that.

It's undeniable that Evan Chandler only wanted money; knowing this, why didn't Michael just buy his silence in the beginning? Imagine how different things would have been for him if the allegations had never been made public. His career would not have been jeopardized, his image would not have been tarnished and, again, assuming he was indeed a pedophile he could have carried on with his activities without people suspecting anything. The only logical reason to explain why he didn't pay off Evan Chandler is because he was INNOCENT and naively assumed that justice would be on his side.

Also, keep in mind that pedophiles have hundreds of victims. Out of the thousands of children who have stayed at Neverland, you expect me to believe that Michael only molests children whose parents are dishonest and greedy? Surely he would have other victims besides Jordan Chandler and the new accuser. Why haven't they come forward? Let me guess, he paid them all off? None of his victims have parents who are normal, honest people? None of them want justice for their poor molested children? Bullshit.
20. Does Michael Jackson fit the profile of a pedophile?
No. According to Michael Borak, a forensic psychiatrist who has evaluated many pedophiles, Michael's eccentric behavior is "not typical of most offenders. Most offenders are 'normal' people who could be your neighbors, not freaky or weird." In response to people who think Michael's image is typical of pedophiles, another psychiatrist, Dr. Ralph Underwager, who has treated pedophiles and victims of incest since 1953 says, "There's no such thing as a classic pedophile. They made a completely foolish and illogical error." He says Jackson is an easy target because "misconceptions like these have been allowed to parade as fact in an era of hysteria."

 

[Moonwalker.Fan]

- In 1992, Michael Jackson met and befriended the Chandler family, becoming particularly close to 12-year-old Jordan, his half-sister Lily and their mother June Schwartz. Jackson often travelled with the family and they were frequent guests at his Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara.

- According to June Schwartz's former divorce attorney Michael Freeman, the boy's father and June's ex-husband Evan Chandler "began to get jealous of their involvement [with Jackson] and felt left out."

- In June 1993, Evan Chandler hired attorney Barry Rothman to represent him in his custody case against June Schwartz. Rothman was not a family lawyer but he had recently handled a custody case that involved child molestation allegations.

- At Jordan's 8th grade graduation that month, Evan Chandler confronted his ex-wife with his alleged suspicions of sexual misconduct on Jackson's part. Freeman says that June Schwartz "thought the whole thing was baloney" and announced that she and her children still planned to accompany Jackson on his Dangerous world tour. According to Freeman, Chandler then threatened to go to the press with his suspicions.

- Chandler's behaviour prompted Jackson to hire lawyer Bert Fields and Private Investigator Anthony Pellicano. Taking Pellicano's advice, Jordan Chandler's stepfather Dave Schwartz recorded a telephone conversation that took place between him and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Chandler said:

"I had good communication with Michael. We were friends. I like him and I respect him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. I've been rehearsed about what to say and not to say."

"[Jackson] broke up the family. [Jordan] has been seduced by this guy's power and money."

"I am prepared to move against Michael Jackson. It's already set. There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I've paid them to do it. Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I've given him full authority to do that."

"And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son] and Michael's career will be over."

"[Jordan's welfare is] irrelevant to me. It's going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want."

"This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find. All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He's nasty, he's mean, he's very smart, and he's hungry for the publicity."

- Upon hearing the taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz, Pellicano immediately interviewed the boy in question. According to Pellicano, Jordan Chandler denied any wrongdoing on Jackson's part.

- In mid-July, Evan Chandler convinced his ex-wife to allow him a one-week visitation period with their son. From that point on, the boy was isolated from his friends and family members.

- According to Rothman's former legal secretary Geraldine Hughes, Chandler was receiving advice from Rothman on how to report child abuse without liability to the parent.

- Taking Rothman's advice, Chandler contacted psychiatrist Mathis Abrams and presented him with a hypothetical situation (i.e- my son spent time alone with an adult male- is it possible that sexual abuse might have occurred and if so, what are the various ways that it can be reported to authorities?). In a written response to Chandler's phone call, Abrams wrote that if a child were to come out with sexual abuse allegations during a therapy session, the therapist would be required by law to report it to the police.

- Chandler took this letter and, according to Pellicano, attempted to blackmail Jackson with it. In a meeting that took place in early August 1993, Chandler allegedly made a demand for a $20 million screenwriting deal in return for his not going forward with the child abuse allegations.

- Several days after the meeting, Pellicano tape recorded a conversation that took place between him, Barry Rothman and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Rothman and Chandler can be heard negotiating the amount of money it would take to keep Chandler from going forward with the child molestation allegations. Chandler restated his demand for $20 million and, according to Geraldine Hughes, was later told by Pellicano that Jackson would not pay him any money. Keep in mind that if Jackson had paid Chandler at that point, the entire criminal investigation would have been avoided.

- According to an investigative reporter from KCBS-TV, Evan Chandler then gave his son a controversial psychiatric drug known as sodium amytal. It has been widely documented that you can easily plant false memories into a person's mind when they are under the influence of this drug.

- Evan Chandler claimed that he only used sodium amytal to pull Jordan's tooth and that while under the drug's influence, the boy came out with the allegations. According to Mark Torbiner, the anaesthesiologist who administered the drug: "If I used it, it was for dental purposes." Numerous medical experts have agreed, however, that the use of sodium amytal to pull a tooth would be a highly questionable practice at best.

- During an interview with a psychiatrist, Jordan Chandler recalled the first time that he told his father about the alleged sexual abuse. His story corroborates the allegation that his father used sodium amytal to extract a confession from him: "[My father] had to pull my tooth out one time, like, while I was there. And I don't like pain, so I said could you put me to sleep? And he said sure. So his friend put me to sleep; he's an anesthesiologist. And um, when I woke up my tooth was out, and I was alright - a little out of it but conscious. And my Dad said - and his friend was gone, it was just him and me - and my dad said, 'I just want you to let me know, did anything happen between you and Michael?' And I said 'Yes,' and he gave me a big hug and that was it." [Note: The transcript of Jordan Chandler's interview with the psychiatrist was made public by the boy's uncle Ray Chandler]

- On August 16th, 1993, June Schwartz's attorney filed an ex-parte motion on her behalf to assist her in getting her son back. While in court the next day, Chandler never made any mention of child abuse allegations. If Chandler had told the judge about the supposed suspicions he'd had for the past three weeks, the judge would have immediately ordered for the boy to be taken away from his mother. But Chandler said nothing, presumably because his plan was to report the abuse using a third party (the psychiatrist). By filing the ex-parte motion, June Schwartz had thrown her ex-husband a curveball. The court ordered Evan Chandler to return Jordan to his mother immediately.

- On August 17th, 1993, the same day that Jordan Chandler was supposed to be returned to his mother, Evan Chandler took him to see Dr. Abrams. While there, the boy came out with the sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and so began the police investigation into alleged misconduct on Jackson's part.

 

[Moonwalker.Fan]

This motion filed by T-Mez during the trial last year should clear that info:

Hightlights: Memo in Support of Objection to Subpoena for Settlement Documents
The following are excerpts from the court document:

Pg3 The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.

…Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added).

…An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.

Pg2 Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury.

Pg3 The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.

Pg 4 It is unfair for an insurance company's settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson's prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could not control nor interfere with his insurance carrier's demand to settle the dispute.

Pg9-10 Permitting evidence of settlement agreements or amounts would be speculative because there is no evidence Michael Jackson made the settlement. Settlements in civil suits many times are dictated by insurance companies who settle claims regardless of an individual's wishes.

Although Jordan Chandler was interviewed "thereafter" by detectives seeking evidence to offer in a child molestation prosecution of Michael Jackson, "no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview."

This interview took place prior to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Stogner v California, 539 U.S. 607, 613 (2003), holding California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations to be unconstitutional.

In other words, Jordan Chandler's statements were not sufficient even at that earlier time, to support child molestation charges against Michael Jackson, and to now permit the suggestion of a settlement agreement for some improper act is not only irrelevant, but also a speculative violation of the statute of limitations

After this motion, the judge ruled that the prosecution were not allowed to allude to or include any information or suggested allegation that MJ paid the Chandlers because he didn't the insurance paid over MJ's and his lawyers objections...

Another thing to note... when Evan was filing suit he included "negligence course of distress" knowing full well the insurance would pay for that which would pave way for the Chandlers to avoid the criminal trial. MJ and his team were pushing for the criminal trial, they filed a motion to stop the civil trial, put in on hold to wait for the criminal trial but they were denied that chance.....

I have only 7 pages of the 2005 memo

 

[HIStory]

11. Did Michael know in advance that these allegations would be brought against him?
Yes. His attorney Mark Geragos was hired at the beginning of February because somebody within his camp suspected there was something wrong with the family who is now making accusations.

- In November, Diane reported that police found love letters addressed to the boy in Michael's home. It was later revealed that no such letters existed. Perhaps the DA realized it was an illogical story (why would Michael store incriminating evidence at his house, especially when he suspected in February that this would happen?) and that's why he denied it.

This is a really unfortunate argument and speculation and just gives more ammunition to haters. That Geragos was hired in February and the Arvizo family was considered shady doesn't mean Michael knew in advance that they would bring allegations against him. Haters often argue that there wasn't incriminating evidence against Michael found at NL, because Michael must have known in advance and destroyed anything that could be used as evidence against him. BS! He did not know in advance and certainly did not expect the search! Fact is that when he heard the news of the search and his arrest he trashed his hotel room in Las Vegas in anger! Does that sound like someone who expected this?

 

[Moonwalker.Fan]

Does that sound like someone who expected this?

Yes, that was obvious, because The Arvizos in March+ had to go away from NL, and some people from MJ camp informed MJ about their suspicious meetings with lawyers and individuals - investigators/prosecutors/doctors..., firstly it wasnt about allegations, but the fact is that NL was cleared of the family... and MJs camp wanted to get rid of everything connected with The Arvizos after Bashirs interview that had caused such worldwide damage ... and the ideas of possible allegations came up with the statements about the sleepovers with boys..., that was the clue of everything.

 

[HIStory]

Yes, that was obvious, because The Arvizos in March+ had to go away from NL, and some people from MJ camp informed MJ about their suspicious meetings with lawyers and individuals - investigators/prosecutors/doctors..., firstly it wasnt about allegations, but the fact is that NL was cleared of the family... and MJs camp wanted to get rid of everything connected with The Arvizos after Bashirs interview that had caused such worldwide damage ... and the ideas of possible allegations came up with the statements about the sleepovers with boys..., that was the clue of everything.

So you agree with the argument that MJ expected the search and that's why incriminating evidence wasn't found in his possession? Beacuse that's what this implicitly means:

Perhaps the DA realized it was an illogical story (why would Michael store incriminating evidence at his house, especially when he suspected in February that this would happen?) and that's why he denied it.

I know the intention of the author is not this, but it does give ammunition to haters to say that then all those love letters that Dimond referred to, child porn and other incriminating evidence wasn't found there because MJ expected the search. This argument, or rather just speculation on the author's part, does implicitly suggest that MJ would not have incriminating evidence against him because he would have got rid of it before the search because he expected it. Not the best argument to make, especially when it's not even true.

He did not expect the search and it's clear from his behavior when he heard the news of it. That story about him trashing his hotel room and being in total shock about it upon hearing the news is confirmed by several people who were with him in Vegas. No one who expects it reacts like that.

 

[Moonwalker.Fan]

So you agree with the argument that MJ expected the search and that's why incriminating evidence wasn't found in his possession? Beacuse that's what this implicitly means:



I know the intention of the author is not this, but it does give ammunition to haters to say that then all those love letters that Dimond referred to, child porn and other incriminating evidence wasn't found there because MJ expected the search. This argument, or rather just speculation on the author's part, does implicitly suggest that MJ would not have incriminating evidence against him because he would have got rid of it before the search because he expected it. Not the best argument to make, especially when it's not even true.

He did not expect the search and it's clear from his behavior when he heard the news of it. That story about him trashing his hotel room and being in total shock about it upon hearing the news is confirmed by several people who were with him in Vegas. No one who expects it reacts like that.

Its not about incriminating evidence, because the search warrant was released in December 2003 (I think 18.), so from March to December is a loooong time simply to make a bed..., and there was no chance for DA to find anything incriminating because the house was regularly cleared away....

And anybody could do anything during that period thats why the allegations were based on claims not the evidence and thats why there was only hetero porn... as alibi?
It depends on what you think of it. Because if nothing had ever happened and there was never any evidence of any wrongdoing, logically, no incrimidating evidence could have been found, from "nothing" you can not make something....

but everybody did know that the interview was the ultimate disaster and could be dangerous and risky, in fact it was..., because of the statements about the boys in bed..., well, it was completely MJs fault, he said that! Simple and plain....

 

[HIStory]

Its not about incriminating evidence, because the search warrant was released in December 2003 (I think 18.), so from March to December is a loooong time simply to make a bed..., and there was no chance for DA to find anything incriminating because the house was regularly cleared away....

And anybody could do anything during that period thats why the allegations were based on claims not the evidence and thats why there was only hetero porn... as alibi?
It depends on what you think of it. Because if nothing had ever happened and there was never any evidence of any wrongdoing, logically, no incrimidating evidence could have been found, from "nothing" you can not make something....

but everybody did know that the interview was the ultimate disaster and could be dangerous and risky, in fact it was..., because of the statements about the boys in bed..., well, it was completely MJs fault, he said that! Simple and plain....

The search was in November, 2003. And no, the hetero porn was not "alibi" (why do you even say that? alibi for what?) and there was no incriminating evidence to be cleared away, because MJ didn't do anything wrong.

Just because the Bashir interview was trouble and the Arvizos were trouble that doesn't mean he expected that the whole thing would escalate to arrest, search, new allegations and trial.

It's simply a bad argument, based on the personal speculations of the author, not facts. Fact is that upon hearing the news of the search MJ's behavior was consistent with someone being shocked about it, not someone expecting it.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Of course the arvizo allegations were a complete shock to mj. He had got them on record saying nothing inappropriate had ever happened to them and saying what a nice guy mj was in a video and on tape. 2 investigations from the child services dept and the sherriff's office had found no case to answer by mid 03. MJ just didn't count on the complete obsession of sneddon to make a case out of some scam artists, using a completely ridiculous and senseless timeline.

He did not expect the search and it's clear from his behavior when he heard the news of it. That story about him trashing his hotel room and being in total shock about it upon hearing the news is confirmed by several people who were with him in Vegas. No one who expects it reacts like that.

Of course. If he was expecting 70visitors with cameras to trawl through his stuff and have the contents of the search posted in public, i'm sure he wd have got rid of his copy of 'double d*cking caroline' at the very least.

 

[john13th]

This was written on BBC over 10 years ago during the uproar of the Bashir documentary where he also comments about the declaration of Jordan Chandler:

Wednesday, 12 February, 2003, 11:54 GMT

Michael Jackson's second statement
Michael Jackson's second statement in response to allegations made against him following his TV interview with Martin Bashir:

In response to a number of allegations made against Michael Jackson in the Sunday newspapers in the United Kingdom, Michael has authorised the following statement to be made.


Michael Jackson is authorising the release of excerpts from videotape taken while Bashir was interviewing Michael Jackson, in which Martin Bashir was recorded.
The film shows extraordinary scenes of Martin Bashir praising the way Michael treats children and commenting on how good a father he is.

These video excerpts were taken in the eighth - and last - month of Bashir's shooting with Michael and after the time Bashir and Michael were in Berlin.In his film, Bashir says that it was in Berlin that he began to change his mind about Michael's treatment of his children.
Yet, the Jackson footage clearly shows that Bashir was actually continuing to praise Michael's abilities as a father and Bashir making many statements about how he feels it is a pity that the world is so quick to criticise Michael.
On the face of it, either Martin Bashir was lying to Michael or was misleading his audience in his voice-overs on the film.
Bashir knew that Michael's personal cameraman was filming at various times during the course of his interviews.


In relation to the 1993 allegations made by Jordy Chandler which have again been recycled by certain newspapers, Michael has authorised the issue of the following:
Michael cannot understand why Jordy Chandler ever made these allegations over 10 years ago.
Michael Jackson then, and has ever since, vehemently denied that these events ever took place.

Michael does not know who manipulated Jordy Chandler to make these allegations at the time, nor has he ever understood why, other than the motives of some people to exploit both Jordy and Michael, for financial gain.The reason Michael chose to pay Jordy Chandler a considerable sum of money, rather than be publicly vindicated following a trial, was to avoid being subjected to a media circus.
Despite his profound hurt at the allegations made by Jordy, Michael did not, at the time, think it right or proper to subject a 14-year-old boy to prolonged litigation, the effects of which on Jordy appeared to be of little concern to those manipulating Chandler at the time.
Michael Jackson has respected the obligation of confidentiality imposed on all the parties to the prior proceedings, yet someone has chosen to violate that confidentiality and use Jordy's 1993 statements to further sully Michael's character.

It should be remembered that, at the time, the confidentiality obligation was a mutual one, designed as much to protect Jordy, who was then 14 years old, as much as Michael, since it has prevented Michael from fighting back and denying these allegations.Whoever is now leaking this material is showing as much disregard for Jordy as they are determination to attack Michael.
Michael is aware that certain former employees are, or are planning to, sell certain stories to the press.
As with all celebrities, he is vulnerable to being exploited and abused by anyone who chooses to betray his trust, in return for financial gain.


Michael Jackson said [on] Sunday: "I am bewildered at the length to which people will go to portray me so negatively.
"I will say again that I have never, and would never, harm a child. It sickens me that people have written things that portray me as a child abuser."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2744749.stm

 

[Bonnie Blue]

^Thanks for posting, john13th, so poignant that it's mj that was the only one who pointed out the need to protect jordie chandler in the leaking of the 93 documents.

 

[Sefra and Sue]

I read in these last days from people who claim that there is evidence that MJ was guilty that in search of police was found a photo of Jonathan Spence naked in the bathroom of Michael in 1993, What information we have about it?? I had never read about it before
and that Sneddon tried to use the photos of Michael's genitalia in the case of 03/05 alleging that the description coincided
what was the argument of defense to reject it and what was the argument of the court to reject it?

thanks alot for any answer
.
P.S please do not think I'm believing these allegations
I just want more information to refute them in the best way
and I know that here is the best place to ask

 

[HIStory]

Sneddon claimed that in a motion about the alleged Spence photo but that photo was never introduced to court. I'm sure if it was that incriminating it would have been introduced. One thing I realized about haters is that they like to refer to evidence a lot which weren't even introduced to court (and that they like to cherry-pick things). That's because there is always a muddy water around such evidence - you have the prosecutor's word for them and nothing else.

But you have to know about Sneddon's motions that there are a lot of falsehoods and embellishments in them, you cannot take them at face value. For example, the other day I was reading the motion in which he tried to introduce Blanca Francia's testimony. And in that motion Sneddon claims things like this:

“Ms. Francia also found Jackson and young Robson taking a shower together. As Jackson’s personal maid, Ms. Francia, had access to Jackson’s bedroom at any time. She was aware Jackson had installed an alarm bell in the outside hallway which would ring inside the bedroom as someone approached the bedroom’s entrance. On this particular day she went to the bedroom. She knocked on the door and received no response, so she entered the bedroom. She heard the shower running and was aware Jackson had a habit of leaving the water running.

As she approached the bathroom, she realized Jackson had not heard the alarm and she saw Jackson and young Robson nude together in the shower and Jackson was rubbing against Wade’s body. The shower was steaming so she could not see everything, but she could see Wade’s head pressed against Jackson’s stomach area. Jackson’s and Wade’s underwear were on the floor next to the shower. She immediately left and was uncertain if Jackson even saw her enter the bathroom.”

The things I bolded were never claimed by Blanca Francia in her testimony. They seem like Sneddon's own additions. He lied and embellished things a lot in his motions.

By the way, Jonathan Spence never accused MJ of anything. Since no one alleged anything about him he was not called to testify but Mez said he maintained that Michael never did anything inappropriate to him.

As for the description, here is an article about it: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...inst-Michael?p=3831201&viewfull=1#post3831201



<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <woNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>HU</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <wontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <wontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <wontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

 

[Sefra and Sue]

Thanks Respect77

these people have all the motions made ??by Sneddon as biblical verses don't even care about the reasons they were rejected in court or don't care about the logic...
they call the fans ignorant fanatics, but they don't look in the mirror

 

[Moonwalker.Fan]

Transcript of David Schwartz and Evan Chandler Taped Conversation

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DAVID SCHWARTZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, )
PLAINTIFF, ) CASE NO.
VS. ) SC
EVAN CHANDLER, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND )
DOES THROUGH , INCLUSIVE, )
DEFENDANTS. )
TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO CASSETTE MARKED
EXHIBIT NO.
D. SCHWARTZ AND E. CHANDLER
FILE NO. TPA.MK

CONVERSATION between Dave Schwartz and Evan Chandler:

MR. CHANDLER: — discuss why it might be harmful. Suppose I’m right? I mean if Michael loves [tape irregularity] Lisa at least want to hear my opinion about why what’s going on could be potentially harmful? If you love somebody, you don’t want them to get hurt.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you want to talk it in front of Jordy, about that?
MR. CHANDLER: Huh?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you want to talk about that in front of Jordy?
MR. CHANDLER: Oh, yeah, absolutely. He has to be there.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: He has to be there, and one of the reasons that he has to be there is because he’s always gonna remember it. Somebody has to be the — there’s gotta be some one person that later on in life he can look back on and kind of pattern himself after someone or have some structure for his own existence, based on — he’ll look at me, and he’ll say, “Yeah. He was honest, he had integrity, he had respect. I could trust him. He never lied to me,” all that kind of stuff. He may hate me now. He may not be able to articulate all of those things in his own head right now, but when he sees it, it’ll be in his head, and when he’s old enough there will be those things that will be important to him. Hopefully I’ll be able to portray those things to him, because I think they’re important.
I also think it’s incrediblimportant to have somebody else in your life that really loves you and you really love them because if you’re [tape irregularity] happy. I’ve never seen a single solo, isolated human being who was truly happy –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and that’s what’s going to happen to Jordy. I think that’s June’s situation.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: June has nobody. You tell me who June has. You tell me who June has who really loves her, who she really loves back, you can’t think of one person.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, I can.
MR. CHANDLER: Who?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Gloria.
MR. CHANDLER: Gloria.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Really.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible.)
MR. SCHWARTZ: Gloria, Nadine or Florence. She’s pretty close with her friends.
MR. CHANDLER: Nah, she’s –
MR. SCHWARTZ: She’s — wait.
MR. CHANDLER: She believes that –
MR. SCHWARTZ: She’s close with you.
MR. CHANDLER: — four or five cups of caffeine in the morning and gets on the phone and yaps (inaudible) all day, you commiserate about their miseries –
MR. SCHWARTZ: But, you know, here’s the whole thing. We can’t, you know, I can’t put her down that all she’s doing is hanging out. It’s not so horrible.
MR. CHANDLER: That what?
MR. SCHWARTZ: That, you know, I mean, she’s into hanging out.
MR. CHANDLER: Hanging out is okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I know. She’s –
MR. CHANDLER: Hanging out’s kind of a benign thing. She’s not hanging out anymore. When she stopped hanging out –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and became actively destructive in Jordy’s life is when I stepped in and when I decided I have to do something about it. I tried to talk to her about it, Dave, on several occasions.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, we know she’s hard to talk to.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, if you could — if you could — yes. I mean, that’s unquestionable. She is impossible to talk to. And I’ve never really — I mean, I’ve gotten angry with her many times and –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — [tape irregularity] long as you’ve stepped in –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. CHANDLER: — the issue has never involved potentially harming Jordy for the rest of his life –
MR. SCHWARTZ: [Tape irregularity.]
MR. CHANDLER: — issues over Jordy before that I’ve backed down –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — because you asked me to or whatever the reason was –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and I’ve never been — I’ve never been that set on pursuing it until now because I truly believe this will damage him for the rest of his life. And she will not — and I’ve told her that, and I’ve tried to talk to her about that –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and she’s not willing to talk to me about it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: She doesn’t even want to hear what might be harming him.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: She doesn’t want to even know — she doesn’t want to hear any words.
MR. SCHWARTZ: What if –
MR. CHANDLER: “Get out of my face. Don’t even mention that.” That’s not an issue for her. I mean, what kind of person is that? If — I stopped taking that personally.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, we all have different ways of coping.
MR. CHANDLER: You see, as an adult, coping’s no excuse. That’s like driving drunk and saying, “I’m sorry, but I didn’t realize there was a law against driving drunk” and you just ran on the sidewalk. The fact is you’re a responsible adult. You’re supposed to have some sense and judgment, and that’s how it’s going to go down.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. How about if you, June and I get together?
MR. CHANDLER: No. Why do you keep doing that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Because I don’t — I don’t want to subject Jordy to this until — I mean, I feel very uncomfortable –
MR. CHANDLER: Let me put it to you this way: I have a set routine of words that I’m going to go in there that have been rehearsed and I’m going to say.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay? Because I don’t want to say anything that could be used against me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: So I know exactly what I can say. That’s why I’m bringing the tape recorder.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I have some things on paper to show a few people –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and that’s it. My whole part is going to take two or three minutes, and I’m going to turn around [tape irregularity], and that’s it. There’s not going to be anything said, other than what I’ve been told to say –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and I’m going to turn around and leave, and they’re going to have a decision to make.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And based on that decision, I’ll decide whether or not we’re going to talk again or whether it’s going to go further.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I have to make a phone call. As soon as I leave the house, I get on the telephone.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I make a phone call.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Say “Go” or I say, “Don’t go yet,” and that’s –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — the way it’s gonna to be. I’ve been told what to do, and I have to do it. I’m not — I happen to know what’s going to be going on, see? They don’t have to say anything to me. [Tape irregularity] “you have refused to listen to me. Now you’re going to have to listen to me. This is my position. Give it a thought.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: “Think it over.” I’m not saying anything bad about anybody, okay? I’ve got it all on paper.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m going to hand out the paper so that I don’t inadvertently [tape irregularity], handing out the paper, “Michael, here’s your paper. June, here’s your paper.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: “Compare papers. Read this whole thing. This is my feelings about it. Do you want to talk further? We’ll talk again.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: “If you don’t” [tape irregularity] — but, see, all I’m trying to do now, they have forced me to go [tape irregularity] on paper and give it to them to read –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — because [tape irregularity]. I mean, isn’t that pitiful? Now, why would they want to cut me out, to go this far, spend this much money, spend so much time in my life crying, being away from my practice, not paying [tape irregularity] everybody else? Why would they want to put me through that? And I made it very clear to June that she was putting me through that because I didn’t want any misunderstandings. I’ve done everything I could to appeal to her. (Inaudible) is cold and heart- – absolutely cold and heartless. That’s all –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, maybe on the surface it appears like that, but I –
MR. CHANDLER: I know on the surface June is charming –
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, no. I think on the surface it might appear cold, but I don’t — I don’t agree with that.
MR. CHANDLER: Dave, “Go **** yourself” is not a surface reaction.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait. Have you ever — you mean you have never done that, right?
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) and they say “Go **** yourself,” that’s not a surface –
MR. SCHWARTZ: You’ve never done it?
MR. CHANDLER: — sorry.
MR. SCHWARTZ: You’ve never done it? I mean, have you ever got pissed at a friend and gotten in an argument for three weeks?
MR. CHANDLER: No, no, no.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Never, ever?
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) — like that, Dave, not consistently like that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) — so far as to go to say, “Okay. Forget about me. This is what’s going on with Jordan. This is my concern,” and have her say “Go **** yourself” again. So [tape irregularity] there I said, “This is not a human being I’m dealing with anymore.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, let me ask you this — I mean, did you give Jordy any ultimatums?
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Because, see, that’s how he feels trapped, I think.
MR. CHANDLER: Too bad.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, why — I mean –
MR. CHANDLER: All he has to do is talk to me about it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I know, but how can you — I mean, you know what you could do — I mean, couldn’t you approach it like saying, “Jordy, this is how I feel. This is why communications is important. We gotta discuss this.”
MR. CHANDLER: This is what I said to Jordy. I said, “What if I asked you not to do
something?” That’s how I put it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: He said, “I wouldn’t care.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: That’s what he said.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, what’s wrong with that?
MR. CHANDLER: What’s wrong?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. I mean, what is wrong with that?
MR. CHANDLER: Well, let me ask you this: Never in his life, ever, would he have — did he ever respond that way or would he have ever responded that way –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — which means that something has happened inside of him and in his life that is now making him respond to me in a totally different way. What has happened to him? His mother’s changed, and Michael’s in his life, and you weren’t there to balance it out. And that’s it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right, and I wasn’t there, and you’re right.
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I wasn’t there to discuss it with him.
MR. CHANDLER: So the whole thing happened.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. CHANDLER: And that’s it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: So blame me.
MR. CHANDLER: Oh, I’m not blaming you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But it is my fault.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible).
MR. SCHWARTZ: It’s my fault. I wasn’t there to –
MR. CHANDLER: No, no. You don’t understand. We’re gonna see whose fault it is. And I’m gonna tell you: It isn’t up to you to decide whose fault it is or up to me to decide whose fault it is. Other people who are trained to [tape irregularity] whose fault it is are going to make that decision, and I’ll bet you anything that they don’t decide that it’s your fault. You’re not going to get blamed, and you can go and say whatever you want. No one’s [tape irregularity] they may say, “That’s very nice. Get the **** out of here, and let’s get down to the real issues,” but that’s it. That’s what’s going to happen. I’m not getting blamed and you’re not getting blamed. And that’s — I mean –
MR. SCHWARTZ: But no one should get blamed. I mean –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) talking about bottom line because that’s what it’s really going to come down to –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — bottom line, no one’s gonna give a shit about you in this issue.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: So when you tell me that I should blame you, that’s not the bottom line. That’s not how it’s going to be seen (simultaneous, inaudible).
MR. SCHWARTZ: But does there have to be where someone’s at fault? Can’t it be where we just work it out?
MR. CHANDLER: Well, you see — yeah. That’s why I tried to get in touch with them, to (simultaneous, inaudible) work it out –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, well, but that’s — wait.
MR. CHANDLER: — but they don’t want to talk to me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait. Well, that’s not true. That is not true.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) till tomorrow –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Have you ever gone through a period where you just didn’t — wait. Of course you have. Of course you have.
MR. CHANDLER: Dave –
MR. SCHWARTZ: When I screamed at Monique to get you to call me.
MR. CHANDLER: So what? That was one day. Two days.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But it didn’t matter — it can’t count the days.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, I have to count the days because I can’t let it go on forever. By the way, they’re going on tour on August th. They’re going to be gone. They’re going to be out of the country –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — for four months.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Is that bad?
MR. CHANDLER: Well, I’m not going to be able to communicate with them about this when they’re gone, am I?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, but you think that –
MR. CHANDLER: By the way, they’re not going.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: They don’t know that yet, but they are not going.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: So, I mean, especially if they don’t show up tomorrow, they’re definitely not going. They’ll be lucky if Michael even –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Let me ask you — let me ask you this –
MR. CHANDLER: — tour (inaudible) get canceled.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, let me — let me ask you this: I mean, why can’t you meet — why can’t we meet after I get off work?
MR. CHANDLER: Because –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, why not? What’s the difference?
MR. CHANDLER: Seems to me it’s not important enough for you to take off work to be –
MR. SCHWARTZ: It is important enough, but I still –
MR. CHANDLER: **** your job.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait, wait.
MR. CHANDLER: It’s still going to be there at :. This whole thing’s going to take five minutes.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I’ve already told you I have — I’m not allowed to say anything more –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — than I’ve already prepared. It’s on paper.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Is it your –
MR. CHANDLER: I’m not going in to –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Is it because of your attorney?
MR. CHANDLER: What?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Because of your attorney?
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why don’t we meet at your attorney’s office?
MR. CHANDLER: Well, that’s something we can do if we get past tomorrow.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: He’s willing to meet with them. Right now he’d like to kill them all. I picked the nastiest mother-****er I could find.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: The only reason that I’m meeting with them tomorrow is, the real fact of the matter is –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — because of Monique.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Monique begged me to do it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: She said, “You’re out of control” –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Can Monique be there?
MR. CHANDLER: Tomorrow?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: She wanted to be there, but –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I want her to be there.
MR. CHANDLER: I wouldn’t let her.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why? Why not?
MR. CHANDLER: Because June hates Monique.
MR. SCHWARTZ: That’s not true.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, you know something?
MR. SCHWARTZ: That is not true –
MR. CHANDLER: Now –
MR. SCHWARTZ: — at all.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, really! Well, then that makes Jordy a liar, and that makes Michael a liar.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?
MR. CHANDLER: They both told me that Monique — that June –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait. You can’t see that whole thing?
MR. CHANDLER: What?
MR. SCHWARTZ: That’s woman jealousy.
MR. CHANDLER: I don’t care what –
MR. SCHWARTZ: It doesn’t matter –
MR. CHANDLER: The problem is you’re in love with her so you keep on making excuses.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait, wait.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m not in love with her anymore. I don’t even like her anymore.
MR. SCHWARTZ: You don’t know about female jealousy?
MR. CHANDLER: I don’t care about that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: That has nothing –
MR. CHANDLER: (Inaudible) Dave. That’s pathologic. I don’t want that affecting –
MR. SCHWARTZ: That’s not pathologic. That is the bottom line.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) pathologic. I don’t care what the reason is. I don’t care. I’m not playing psychiatrist and analyzing.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But why wouldn’t you want Monique there? I would feel much more comfortable.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible), that’s why.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Pardon me?
MR. CHANDLER: Because June hates her, so I don’t want to –
MR. SCHWARTZ: She does not hate her.
MR. CHANDLER: Of course she hates her.
MR. SCHWARTZ: She totally respects her and doesn’t hate her.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, then, Jordy is a liar and Michael (inaudible) –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait, wait.
MR. CHANDLER: — because they told me verbatim, together –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah?
MR. CHANDLER: — that June hates Monique. In fact, they went even further and told me several of the things that June said about Monique.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay? Now, maybe they went back and told June that Monique said things about her and –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — (inaudible) lied. Maybe they’re lying. I don’t know. But knowing June, I don’t think that they lied. I think they’re telling me the truth.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And I want Monique out of this completely.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Because all that will happen is that June will convince Jordy that Monique’s a bad person and by her presence there she must have put me up to this whole thing –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and June will fabricate some great lie –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Ahhh.
MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous, inaudible) I’m only going there because of Monique, because, to tell you the truth, Dave, it would be a lot easier for me and a lot more satisfying –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — to see everybody get destroyed –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — like they’ve destroyed me, but it would be a lot easier. And Monique just kept telling me, “You don’t want to really do this,” and she finally [tape irregularity] for the sake of everything that we’ve all had in the past –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — to give it one more try, and that’s the only reason, because this attorney I found — I mean, I interviewed several, and I picked the nastiest son of a bitch
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — I could find, and all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and humiliate as many people as he can, and he’s got a bad [tape irregularity] –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that’s good?
MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous, inaudible) he’s costing me a lot of money.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that’s good?
MR. CHANDLER: I think that’s great. I think it’s terrific. The best. Because when somebody — when somebody tells you that they don’t want to talk to you –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — you have to talk to them –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — you have to get their attention. It’s a matter of life and death. That’s how I’m taking it. I have to talk to them.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: This is life and death for my son. I have to get their attention. If I don’t get it, if I haven’t gotten it on the phone and I don’t get it tomorrow –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — this guy will certainly get it. That’s the next step. And you want to know something? I even have somebody after him if he doesn’t [tape irregularity]. But I don’t want [tape malfunctioned]. I’m not kidding. I mean what I told you before.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: It’s true. I mean, it could be a massacre if I don’t get what I want. But I do believe this person will get what he wants.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: So he would just really love [tape irregularity] nothing better than to have this go forward. He is nasty, he is mean –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — he is very smart [tape irregularity], and he’s hungry for the publicity [tape irregularity] better for him.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And that’s where it’ll go –
MR. SCHWARTZ: You don’t think everyone loses?
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) totally humiliate him in every way –
MR. SCHWARTZ: That — everyone doesn’t lose in that?
MR. CHANDLER: That’s not the issue. See, the issue is that if I have to go that far –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — I can’t stop and think “Who wins and who loses?”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: All I can think about is I only have one goal, and the goal is to get their attention –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — so that [tape irregularity] concerns are, and as long as they don’t want to talk to me, I can’t tell them what my concerns are, so I have to go step by step, each time escalating the attention-getting mechanism, and that’s all I regard him as, as an attention-getting mechanism. Unfortunately, after that, it’s totally out of [tape irregularity]. It’ll take on so much momentum of its own that it’s going to be out of all our control. It’s going to be monumentally huge, and I’m not going to have any way to stop it. No one else is either at that point. I mean, once I make that phone call, this guy’s just going to destroy everybody in site in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I’ve given him full authority to do that. To go beyond tomorrow, that would mean I have done every possible thing in my individual power to tell them to sit down and talk to me; and if they still [tape irregularity], I got to escalate the attention-getting chanism. He’s the next one. I can’t go to somebody nice [tape irregularity]. It doesn’t work with them. I already found that out. Get some niceness and just go **** yourself.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Basically, what they have to know, ultimately, is that their lives are over, if they don’t sit down. One way or the other, it’ll either go to the next step or the [tape irregularity]. I’m not stopping until I get their attention. Do I [tape irregularity] the only goal is right now I have to do what I think is best for Jordy –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and I think what’s going on now is bad for Jordy, and therefore any alternative is better. If I’m wrong, they should sit down, and they should tell me why I’m wrong.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: But –
MR. SCHWARTZ: So wouldn’t you sit down with me, and we could discuss it first?
MR. CHANDLER: No, because you don’t know the issues.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but you could tell me.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) totally ignorant of all the issues. No. There’s really no way you could relate these to somebody, you know.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah? Well, sure you could.
MR. CHANDLER: Like it’ll get related. It’ll get related, you know. You’ll see it. You’ll see it, and it’s not going to be up for me or you to decide.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Can you meet him here at work?
MR. CHANDLER: Oh, no. I’m going to meet at the house.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why can’t you meet here?
MR. CHANDLER: Well, for one thing, ichael has to be there.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Michael will come.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) won’t be at Rent a Wreck.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Michael would come here.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, how do you know that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I’ll see. I mean, if he’ll come here, will you do it here?
MR. CHANDLER: No. Why?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Because it’s easier for me.
MR. CHANDLER: So you could be at work?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No. So I don’t have to leave.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) signals.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Pardon me?
MR. CHANDLER: You keep giving me these –
MR. SCHWARTZ: It’s not crossed signals. I’m telling you it’s — I’m here every second. It’s difficult to get away.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, you have to get your priorities –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, but my priority is this, but, I mean, you can compromise for me.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) tell me this is very difficult choice, you know, your children or your work.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Hey, it’s not a difficult choice.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, then –
MR. SCHWARTZ: But it’s just –
MR. CHANDLER: — the issue, then. Be it –
MR. SCHWARTZ: It makes it — wait. What’s the difference –
MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous, inaudible) work by : o’clock.
MR. SCHWARTZ: What is the difference for you? I mean, it makes it easier for me. Is it different for you?
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. Why is it different?
MR. CHANDLER: What if I told you their house was wired?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Does that make a difference?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m not saying it is.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m just saying, “What if it was?”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, well –
MR. CHANDLER: Would that — would you — could you see the [tape irregularity].
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Then you want to record it.
MR. CHANDLER: Let’s just say that it is.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Let’s just say that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m not saying it is.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: But let’s just say that it was. Okay? That would make a difference. (Inaudible)?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. You got to do me one favor.
MR. CHANDLER: What?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. The way we’ve just talked is completely — the way you’ve sounded is completely different than when I talked to you the first time. I mean, you gotta be –
MR. CHANDLER: Well, (inaudible) talking tomorrow, Dave.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Pardon me?
MR. CHANDLER: I told you, it’s all on paper.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: That’s why I’m bringing a tape recorder.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, but are you going to be calm like this?
MR. CHANDLER: I have nothing to say.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m not going to be calm. I’m not going to be anything. I’m not going to be — I’m going to be totally void of anything.
I’m just going to say, “Look. Here’s something for you guys to read. You read it. You think it over.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: “If you want to sit down and talk, we can all meet in my attorney’s office.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: “If you want to tell me to go **** myself, then just let me know that” –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — “and I’ll let him know that’s what your feelings are.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, why do you –
MR. CHANDLER: — and that has to — that has to happen before : o’clock tomorrow. They have to make that decision –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And let me ask you this –
MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous, inaudible) don’t hear from them about it, then the wheels start –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why do you have to have Jordy there, if all we’re going to do is read it?
MR. CHANDLER: I tried to explain that to you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: No. If we have to read something.
MR. CHANDLER: Because I explained that to you. I want him to see how I’m behaving.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I want him to see how I’m acting.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And why do you have to have Michael there?
MR. CHANDLER: What’s that beeping going on? Do you hear that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Are you recording this?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
MR. CHANDLER: Do you hear the beeping?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, let’s hang up.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Bye.

Tape , Side B begins
CONVERSATION between Dave Schwartz and Evan Chandler:

(Dial tone.)
MR. SCHWARTZ: Hey, Ev.
MR. CHANDLER: Hi, Dave.
MR. SCHWARTZ: How you doing? Thanks for calling me back.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay. I’m in the car. I’m on the way home.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: Where are you?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I’m at work.
MR. CHANDLER: You’re at [tape irregularity].
MR. SCHWARTZ: You want to come by here?
MR. CHANDLER: No. I’m wasted, Man.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but I’m — we gotta talk this out.
MR. CHANDLER: Nothing to talk about.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Of course we can talk it out.
MR. CHANDLER: Just be there tomorrow if you want to hear what I want to say. That’s all. And if they’re not there, then there’s nothing that anybody has to say, and that’s the end of it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, let me ask you this:
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah.
MR. SCHWARTZ: What if like, say, June and I are there?
MR. CHANDLER: No good.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?
MR. CHANDLER: They all have to be there.
MR. SCHWARTZ: They all have to be there. In fact, if anybody were missing, it would be June that I wouldn’t care the most.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Who?
MR. CHANDLER: June. The one that I care the most about –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. How about if Jordy and I go?
MR. CHANDLER: No. Jordy and you?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And me?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: No.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?
MR. CHANDLER: That’s silly. No. Michael has to be there. Michael has to be there. He’s the main one. He’s the one I want.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think he’s a bad guy?
MR. CHANDLER: Michael?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: He’s an evil guy. He’s worse than bad.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And why do you believe that?
MR. CHANDLER: Huh?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why do you believe that?
MR. CHANDLER: I have the evidence to prove it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: You’ll believe it, too, when you hear –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait. Let me ask you something. I mean, you trust me, right?
MR. CHANDLER: Let me put it to you this way, Dave. Nobody in this world was allowed to come between this family of June, me and Jordy. That was the hard [tape irregularity] be the opposite. That’s evil. That’s one reason why he’s evil. I spoke to him about it, Dave. I even told him that [tape irregularity] the family.
MR. SCHWARTZ: When did you talk to him?
MR. CHANDLER: About that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Months ago. When I first met him I told him that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: That’s the law. That’s the first thing he knew. Nobody’s allowed to do that. Now there’s no family anymore.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I mean Jordy’s — Jordy’s my life. Period.
MR. SCHWARTZ: How does this help it.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) my life. What?
MR. SCHWARTZ: How does this help it?
MR. CHANDLER: It doesn’t. It doesn’t.I don’t know how it’ll help it. It can’t hurt it anymore. It’s — I have — that’s why I have nothing to lose. I made this really clear to them. If they’re all there, we could all sit and talk. If they’re not there –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, let me ask – okay.
MR. CHANDLER: — taking it out of my hands, and there won’t be any talking anymore. They have a chance. They have a chance to talk it out.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: If they’re not in a calm, peaceful manner –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — even said you can be there. You could be there. I’m not going to do anything with you there. Michael can come with bodyguards and all with guns if he wants to. He can even come there with his [tape irregularity]. I don’t care. All I’m saying is everybody who’s a party to this (inaudible) sit down and talk about it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I don’t disagree with that.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, we’re not. See, now –
MR. CHANDLER: — don’t want to be there, then they have made it to the point where I can’t talk to them about it –
MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
MR. CHANDLER: — so I have to force them to the table –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, no. I don’t disagree with everyone sits down and talks about it.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, that’s what I’m calling — that’s what I called him about. Hello?
MR. SCHWARTZ: You mean, that was the message on the machine?
MR. CHANDLER: No. The man — yeah. That was the message on the machine. It said they’d better be there, because on the other times they tried — hello?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: The other times I tried to tell them that I needed to talk to them, all I
got was, “Go **** yourself. We’re not talking to you.” So now I had to let them know and make sure that they know they’d [tape irregularity] they’re gonna get hurt by it, so (inaudible) — I had to make [tape irregularity] if they don’t sit down and talk to me they’re gonna get hurt. They can’t keep telling me to go **** myself anymore. They have to talk. I want to talk to them. I don’t want to hurt anybody. They’re forcing me to do it. They’re forcing me to do it by refusing to sit down and talk to me. That’s all I ask for. “You sit down and you talk to me [tape irregularity] side of the story, I’ll listen to yours, we all sit down and see how it could be resolved.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. So that’s there –
MR. CHANDLER: That’s all I ask for.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but –
MR. CHANDLER: Michael can come with all his bodyguards and his lawyer if he wants to. I don’t really care, as long as everything gets aired out. That’s it. And if I walk away dissatisfied, then I’ll take it to the next step. That’s all. If they walk away dissatisfied, they have the right to do that, too. At least [tape irregularity] nothing will get resolved except for the fact that we’ll agree to meet again and talk about it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I don’t know where it’ll go, but I’m saying is that when people — when you — when people cut off communication totally, you only have two choices: To forget about them, or you get frustrated by their action. I can’t forget about them. I love them. That’s it. I don’t like them. I still love Jordy, but I do not like them because I do not like the people that they’ve become, but I do love them, and because I love them I don’t want to see them [tape irregularity]. That’s why I was willing to talk. I have nothing to gain by talking. If I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But when you say “winning,” what are you talking about, “winning”?
MR. CHANDLER: I will get everything I want, and they will be totally — they will be destroyed forever. They will be destroyed. June is gonna lose Jordy. She will have no right to ever see him again.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: That’s a fact, Dave.That’s what –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Does that help –
MR. CHANDLER: — Michael the career will be over.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Does that help Jordy?
MR. CHANDLER: Michael’s career will be over.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And does that help Jordy?
MR. CHANDLER: It’s irrelevant to me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but I mean the bottom line is –
MR. CHANDLER: The bottom line to me is, yes, June is harming him, and Michael is harming him. I can prove that, and I will prove that
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and if they force me to go to court about it, I will [tape irregularity], and I will be granted custody. She will have no rights whatsoever.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Now, I’m willing to sitdown and talk to her. If she wants to tell me to go **** myself after that, she’s welcome to do it, and then she’ll either be right or wrong. [tape irregularity] I’ll win, maybe I’ll lose. I have the [tape irregularity]
MR. SCHWARTZ: [tape irregularity] for custody?
MR. CHANDLER: Forget the custody thing. It’s gonna go further than that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But what’s the bottom — I mean, what is the bottom line, though?
MR. CHANDLER: What do you mean?
MR. SCHWARTZ: The bottom line is, I mean, your responsibility and my responsibility –
MR. CHANDLER: The bottom line (simultaneous, inaudible) what I want?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No –
MR. CHANDLER: Is that what you’re saying?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. I mean –
MR. CHANDLER: — what I want?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, what’s our responsibility in life, really?
MR. CHANDLER: Well, you don’t have any right –
MR. SCHWARTZ: The kids is the number one –
MR. CHANDLER: — to discuss that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: What?
MR. CHANDLER: You don’t have any right to discuss that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?
MR. CHANDLER: You’re a negligent father. You don’t have a right, by your own admission before. You told me that you were negligent.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: You were negligent to Jordy, and you’ve been negligent to Kelly.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: In a court — in a court of law, June could prove you negligent in one flat ****ing second.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. So?
MR. CHANDLER: You don’t have any right to all of a sudden decide that you’re going to be a good father or have a conversation about what’s right to do. I’ve never condemned you for it. I know what you’re going through [tape irregularity] that. I understand you have to stay away in order to be a normal human being. I understand that, but no one’s gonna give a shit about that in court. You and I live [tape irregularity] but I’m still living through it every day at my office, and it’s just bad for me too, believe me, and I understand you really well, and I know why [tape irregularity] she’ll make you look bad in one second.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. I don’t disagree with that.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay. Well, this time it’s gonna be the other way around because she — you see, I love him so much that I’m willing to destroy my own life to protect him –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — to do what I think is the best thing to do, not just — it’s not what I think. I’ve gotten professional [tape irregularity] everybody agrees that the only thing that was insane is that I didn’t step in a long –
MR. SCHWARTZ: This is –
MR. CHANDLER: This is –
MR. SCHWARTZ: — detrimental to him?
MR. CHANDLER: Extremely harmful to him.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Everybody agrees with that. I mean, they — it’s their opinions that have convinced me to not stay away. You know, I’m not confrontational. I’ve got an [tape irregularity] inclination to do what you do, say, “Okay. Go **** yourself. Go do what you want to do, and, you know, call me some day. I’ll see you then. I got a [tape irregularity],” but I’ve been so convinced by professional opinions that I have been negligent in not stepping in sooner that now it’s made me insane. Now I actually feel [tape irregularity] –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Oh, I do, and I –
MR. CHANDLER: — [tape irregularity] more important than the money, if the kid’s more important that you are, and they’re more important than I am –
MR. SCHWARTZ: And they are.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay. Then –
MR. SCHWARTZ: But let me ask –
MR. CHANDLER: — by action, Dave.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay, but –
MR. CHANDLER: Staying away from the family is not a good way of indicating that you care about your family. It’s a copout, and you –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I don’t know if it’s a copout. It might be the –
MR. CHANDLER: My feeling is, Dave, my feeling is that when you have really good communication with somebody, you don’t have to stay away from them.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, what happens when you –
MR. CHANDLER: — agree, but at least you could talk. You know, as long as you’re talking, nobody’s gonna get hurt. When the talking stops, that’s when people get hurt.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And that’s what happened with you?
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah, that’s what happened with me. They won’t return my phone calls. June called me once last week.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: She told me to go **** myself. Not in those words.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: But you don’t have to say it in those words.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But you know June.
MR. CHANDLER: I –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, you know her thing is that she has to get the last word in.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, she isn’t this time, Dave, and you want to know something –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but you put her down for that?
MR. CHANDLER: Do I put her down?
MR. SCHWARTZ: For that?
MR. CHANDLER: I never did before, but when her getting her last word is now going to be harmful to Jordy, yes, I am going to step in, and, again, I’m not telling you this is my — my opinion was formed by –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — but this is my perception of [tape irregularity] professional opinions to make sure I wasn’t going off the deep end here.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And all I’m telling you is — I’ve always said this to June, and I’ve said this to Monique also, and I’ll say this to anybody I can. No matter what I do, you’re wrong automatically if you don’t sit down and talk about it, because my feeling is [tape irregularity] and you [tape irregularity] talk anything will be worked out. But as soon as you cut off communication you only frustrate the other person. And that makes — and that makes you wrong [tape irregularity] worse that way. You say to them, “I don’t care enough about you to sit down and talk.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: I don’t disagree with that.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, that’s all I was asking. I’ve asked them for a month to sit down and talk to me, and I’m very disturbed and very concerned. I want them to hear my concerns.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Let them just tell me why I’m wrong. Let them just tell me that [tape irregularity] detrimental, etcetera. Let them just tell me that. And maybe I’ll disagree with them, and then we’ll take it from there.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But at least you can talk about it.
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. I mean, they will not talk.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) forced me –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well –
MR. CHANDLER: What do I do? I mean, in the opinion of these experts, I would be a negligent father if I did not do what I am now doing.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: In fact, in their opinion I have been negligent not to put a stop to [tape irregularity] opinion. I happen to agree with them now. I didn’t agree with them at first. Michael [tape irregularity] nice [tape irregularity] –
MR. SCHWARTZ: So why do you think he’s not nice?
MR. CHANDLER: Why? Because he broke up the family, that’s why.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And he was put on notice from the first sentence out of my mouth was, “Michael, I think you’re really a great guy. You’re welcome into the family, as long as you are who you seem to be, but don’t take anything [tape irregularity].” I mean, that to me was the worst thing anybody could do to me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And you think he did it?
MR. CHANDLER: Well, Dave, if he wasn’t in the picture, everything would be as it was. I’m not –
MR. SCHWARTZ: But that’s sort of –
MR. CHANDLER: — saying that he did it premeditative, and I’m not saying he did it on his own.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m saying that he might have — it might have just evolved that way, and it might have evolved that [tape irregularity] desire, so I’m blaming all three of them, but when I come to that [tape irregularity], it really makes me hate June because the family was inviolate, [tape irregularity] felt about it. There was nothing I had. I mean, you came in this family and made it better. It was great. Someone else comes along and breaks it up. You know how [tape irregularity]. Okay. So do I [tape irregularity] coming into the family who’s going to do good things for the family.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But, I mean –
MR. CHANDLER: Michael divided and conquered, Dave.
MR. SCHWARTZ: He what?
MR. CHANDLER: He divided and conquered.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well –
MR. CHANDLER: He did, Dave. He did.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Oh –
MR. CHANDLER: June and I agreed on the issue, whether it was her side or my side. If we both thought the same way [tape irregularity] any frustration. The fact is we both do not think the same way, and he — and I sincerely believe that he either consciously [tape irregularity] manipulated that. I think he consciously manipulated that because Michael Jackson [tape irregularity] the smartest streetwise people –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — that I’ve ever met, and if you sit down and have any long conversations with him, [tape irregularity] that guy is extremely bright.
MR. SCHWARTZ: So is that good or bad?
MR. CHANDLER: That he’s bright?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I think that if you use it for bad then you’re evil.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, do you think he’s sensitive?
MR. CHANDLER: Do I what?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, you know him a lot better than I know him. I don’t know him. I mean, I’ve talked to him a couple times, but –
MR. CHANDLER: I thought I knew him.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think he’s sensitive?
MR. CHANDLER: I think he’s totally insensitive. I think he’s sensitive — I think he’s an extremely selfish person.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that he knows what was going on?
MR. CHANDLER: Of course he knows that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, this is the bottom line. The bottom line is I abandoned the family.
MR. CHANDLER: What?
MR. SCHWARTZ: The bottom line is I abandoned the family. That’s the bottom line.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) line –
MR. SCHWARTZ: — so this is –
MR. CHANDLER: The bottom line is — the bottom line is he took Jordy out of the family with June’s help.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, yes and no, but, I mean, there’s a lot of things, and I — I mean, you’re bright, you’re sensitive –
MR. CHANDLER: Why don’t I put it this way, Dave. If you were there all the time, living in that house –
MR. SCHWARTZ: It wouldn’t have happened.
MR. CHANDLER: That’s right. It wouldn’t have even had a chance to happen.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It wouldn’t have happened, and I — it’s all my fault.
MR. CHANDLER: No, it isn’t all your fault.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It is definitely a hundred percent my fault.
MR. CHANDLER: I’ll tell you what. Whenever you have an argument with somebody, when I have an argument with Monique, when you have an argument with June, if I have an argument with you, it’s rarely one sided. There’s almost — you know, there’s always two sides to every –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. There’s ten sides to every –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) you can’t tell me, realistically, that June didn’t frustrate the hell out of you so many times that you finally left the house just to be sane, just to be alone and come back to your own sanity to get anyplace with her.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, you know, I agree with that completely, but the only thing is what — see, I haven’t only done it with June. I do it in every other relationship and in my work relationships.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, then –
MR. SCHWARTZ: So it’s my hang-up.
MR. CHANDLER: — problem with that, then that problem has ultimately ended up bringing the family to this point. But you’re not solely to blame for it. It doesn’t mean that June was still — I didn’t do anything that — they didn’t have the right to take my kid away from me, to break up the family.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well – I’m in my garage. Can I call you back from the house?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: At the same number?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: If I don’t call you back in five minutes it means it’s off my pager. Call me at the house.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m in the garage right now.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: Bye.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Bye.
CONVERSATION between Dave Schwartz and Evan Chandler:
MR. SCHWARTZ: Hi.
MR. CHANDLER: Hi. I’m on a cordless phone, so let’s not use –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Don’t you have a regular phone?
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah, but it’s in the kitchen, and I don’t want to go upstairs.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m still wasted, Man.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Not as tired as me. Oh, you’re probably as tired as me.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, I mean, we just don’t — we don’t have to mention any names.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. If we could do this: If — I’m telling you, and you know I — just talking it out, I mean, I have a definite communication problem in my — I mean, what happens is when I get frustrated or I — I mean, I just withdraw. I’ve been doing it forever. I mean, I’ve done it forever with everything, and it works, you know, for — it works for me. I mean because I get through it and it just works and then I’m back and it’s no –
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah, except do you want to know something? That can also be — you think that that’s the best way to do something, but if you look at it closely, I mean, I’ve always been that way too. Nothing’s really worked (inaudible) confrontation, and nothing’s as big a deal as it seems [tape irregularity] –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Oh, yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — except — and so you back off, and everything sort of takes care of itself –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right, in time.
MR. CHANDLER: — except in this time my looking the other way and my failing to deal with the issues have harmed my son greatly. I believe that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, are you talking about harmed him in the relationship with you?
MR. CHANDLER: Well, that’s for sure.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But –
MR. CHANDLER: — (inaudible) forever.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, you know, I think he’s frustrated about me and maybe taking it out on you.
MR. CHANDLER: No.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Because — no. He has said a few things in the past. You know, I’ve disappeared for, you know, long periods of time.
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah, you have.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right. And he has mentioned — you know, he’s a real sensitive kid –
MR. SCHWARTZ: But why do you take total blame for it? It’s never one person’s fault.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Now I’m telling you it’s my fault. I know it’s my fault, and –
MR. CHANDLER: You see –
MR. SCHWARTZ: — whatever –
MR. CHANDLER: — you think by doing that you might be — you might be doing a lot of harm.
How many times can an [tape irregularity] — when there’s two human beings involved, there’s two sides to the story. I mean, it’s automatic. Two people could witness the same story in two different ways. What I’m saying is that I was married to June. I’ve known June since –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. For a long time.
MR. CHANDLER: — ‘ or something like that, so what I’m saying is that I know her really well. I think I do. Maybe I don’t. I guess I don’t because I suddenly saw a part of her — a side of her which I really hate.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but they’re into survival.
MR. CHANDLER: What do you mean?
MR. SCHWARTZ: They’re into survival –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) are you talking about? What do you mean “survival”? Because why? What makes it — what do you mean?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I mean, they don’t know what’s going on. I have made them — June’s real macho –
MR. CHANDLER: That’s exactly right.
MR. SCHWARTZ: — on the surface, and underneath she’s just insecure like all of us. Everyone is.
MR. CHANDLER: Dave –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Everyone’s insecure. JFK was insecure. Everyone is.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: That’s the bottom line.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay. Let’s say they are.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. Now, I haven’t really analyzed this until we’re just talking right now.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I put the blame on me a hundred percent.
MR. CHANDLER: You put the blame on you –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Completely a hundred percent.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m sorry. I –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Completely.
MR. CHANDLER: Let me put it to you this way, okay? You put all of — you put the three of them on the stand (simultaneous, inaudible) –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — any questions, and they will all be asked questions, and they will all have psychological examinations –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous, inaudible) given lie detector tests.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m going to tell you what. There is no excuse in law for June having done what she does. Despite the fact that you might say it’s your fault –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — whatever you say is going to [tape irregularity] capable of making her own decisions –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and she made those decisions to the harm of her son, despite the fact that, yeah, maybe she’s insecure, maybe she’s macho on the surface, and maybe you ****ed her over. Maybe you did. Maybe you didn’t.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Nobody’s gonna give a shit about that. I know what you’re saying.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. CHANDLER: And I agree with you, and I think that had you two had a really good [tape irregularity], maybe she wouldn’t have had to do what she did.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. CHANDLER: And I know what you’re saying, and it breaks my heart, but I truly believe my son is being harmed greatly and that his life — he could be ****ed up for the rest of his life [tape irregularity].
MR. SCHWARTZ: You gotta tell me why you think he’s being screwed up.
MR. CHANDLER: I have the evidence.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I know, but what — I don’t know what evidence. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, you’ll see.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But why can’t you tell me? I swear –
MR. CHANDLER: You show up in court and you’ll see it on the big ****ing screen –
MR. SCHWARTZ: But what –
MR. CHANDLER: — and then you’ll know what I’m talking about.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And you’ll hear in on tape recordings.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: You’ll hear it all. You’ll see it all, just like I have.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: It cost me thousands, tens of thousands of dollars –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — to get the information I got, and I — you know I don’t have that kind of money –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and I spent it, and I’m willing to spend more, and I’m willing –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — to go down financially to –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that’s going to help Jordy?
MR. CHANDLER: Dave, Jordy’s — I believe that Jordy’s already irreparably harmed.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: That’s my true belief.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think that he’s ****ing him?
MR. CHANDLER: I don’t know. I have no idea.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But harmed in — in just been spoiled?
MR. CHANDLER: No.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Just tell me –
MR. CHANDLER: You know, you gotta forgive me for one thing, but I have been told by my lawyer that if I say one thing to anybody –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: — don’t bother calling him again. He said this case is so open [tape irregularity] “You open your mouth and you blow it,” he said, “just don’t come back to me.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. I respect that. Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: Not that I don’t trust you or anything –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I know. I respect it.
MR. CHANDLER: You have a vested interest in it –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: And let me tell you this, by the way: What harm would it be to you, what harm would it be to your relationship to June, if Michael wasn’t around anymore? You say that you [tape irregularity] your fault. You say that you made her insecure.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait.
MR. CHANDLER: So if he wasn’t around anymore –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah?
MR. CHANDLER: — what do you think she’s going to do? She’s going to come back to you. She doesn’t need you anymore. She doesn’t even want you around anymore. She’s told me and she’s told you — I’m sure she’s told you that if [tape irregularity] Michael she’ll get rid of you. She’s told me that. She means it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well –
MR. CHANDLER: She means –
MR. SCHWARTZ: The only thing I told you before is I told her I didn’t want him buying her things in Europe. I gave her some money. And then when he did buy her things and she told me, I got pissed off at her. And that’s it, and that’s really the whole thing. That’s all we ever talked about.
MR. CHANDLER: How do you feel about her going off on tour with him? You told me when you were there the other day that everybody’s been calling you saying “Your wife’s been [tape irregularity]” –
MR. SCHWARTZ: It does [tape irregularity] –
MR. CHANDLER: And let me tell you something, by the way. That’s the best thing that could happen to him, is that people think he’s interested in June.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: The fact is, he has no interest in her whatsoever. The fact is he doesn’t even care about her. He doesn’t even like her. He’s [tape irregularity] –
MR. SCHWARTZ: You don’t think he likes her?
MR. CHANDLER: I know he doesn’t. He told me he doesn’t. He can’t stand her. He told me that when –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Huh! He can’t stand her?
MR. CHANDLER: No. He told me that when he was in my house.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. At that point he liked us better than — Jordy too. Jordy’s the same as Michael. It was a simple divide and conquer. They felt us both out.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: They saw who was going to let them do what they wanted to do, and then they made their choice.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And until I had a talk with Jordy one day at [tape irregularity] –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — they were gonna come live with me. They were gonna pack up, leave June’s house, and come here.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: That’s what they were going to do, because they were getting more resistance from her than they were getting from me. You cannot tell this stuff — you cannot — I’m confiding in you, okay, Dave?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: Right? That’s –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Absolutely.
MR. CHANDLER: Nobody’s to know this conversation –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous, inaudible) except you and me; is that right?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: You promise me?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I promise you.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay. What I’m telling you is that Jordy and Michael are users.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: They had — they were gonna — they had their own relationship.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: They want to carry it out the way they want to carry it out. They don’t want anybody getting in the way [tape irregularity] — least resistance, and that’s the way they’re going. They simply divided and conquered, and June went along with it. And she was wrong because she did it to the detriment of Jordy.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Jordy is not old enough to make these kind of [tape irregularity] that he’s making.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But is that a huge life decision?
MR. CHANDLER: Oh, you bet it is.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you — were you — let me ask you this: Did you ever pull away from your parents when you were a teenager?
MR. CHANDLER: I hated my parents.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think Jordy hates you?
MR. CHANDLER: If he doesn’t, he’s gonna hate me tomorrow.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But why do you –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) to –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you want that?
MR. CHANDLER: It doesn’t matter what I want.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But why would you want him to hate you, and why would you want to put him through that –
MR. CHANDLER: Because all I care about is what happens to him in the long run.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, the long run, is that going to be healthy in the long run?
MR. CHANDLER: According to the experts?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Absolutely.
According to the experts, if it goes on the way it is, he’s doomed. He has no chance of ever being a happy, healthy, normal human being, no
MR. SCHWARTZ: So what happens if you force him not to see him?
MR. CHANDLER: Not to see Michael?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Nobody’s saying for sure what will happen. Most people’s feeling is that he’s gonna go on and hate me for a long time and then some day when he gets older he’ll thank me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And why do you think he hates you now?
MR. CHANDLER: I said I think he’ll — I said he may or may not hate me now –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — but he’ll definitely hate me tomorrow. He’ll hate me, why? Because I’m taking Michael away from him. That’s why.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And that’s a –
MR. SCHWARTZ: So you really think Michael’s bad for him?
MR. CHANDLER: I know Michael’s bad for him.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: You know how I know that? Why would somebody, Dave — if you tell me this, think of this logically. What reason would he want us split up — [tape irregularity] would he want me out of the way? What would be the reason, unless he has something to hide?
MR. SCHWARTZ: But –
MR. CHANDLER: I know what he has to hide. I happen to know what it is.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: But I can’t tell you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m just asking you in terms of logic. You know me. I’m not — I’m a pretty liberal guy.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I don’t get in anybody’s way, okay? So, I mean, what reason would he want me out of the way to such an extent that neither one of them will take my phone calls, neither one of them will talk to me?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I think Jordy’s taken my route of just withdrawing.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, one of the lessons he’s gonna learn is that that route doesn’t work. See, you just learned that lesson yourself. By you withdrawing, as you said in your own words, you’re the cause of this whole problem.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, I think I am.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay. So that’s what withdrawal does for you. My approach to the whole thing is that the one person — the person who doesn’t talk is the one who’s wrong, period –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — no matter what the action was, I believe everything is preventable, every bad action that anybody takes is — unless you’re truly pathologic –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — is probably preventable if you just found somebody who would sit [tape irregularity] you know what? They don’t even have to talk back and give you [tape irregularity] if you get it out, everything will be okay, you know, but that’s my approach. My approach is that the people who don’t talk are the ones who are wrong.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And I agree with that, totally.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, then you’re wrong.
MR. SCHWARTZ: No. I –
MR. CHANDLER: You (inaudible) –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I just said I am wrong, but here is the other — I mean, the thing is Jordy’s years old. I’m talking about adults. I mean, I don’t know if he — I mean, you’re his dad. You’re his role model.
MR. CHANDLER: No, I’m not his role model.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, you are, definitely –
MR. CHANDLER: Not anymore.
MR. SCHWARTZ: You are, positively, in the long run, you’re his role model.
MR. CHANDLER: There is no — there isn’t gonna be a long run if things went on like this. Don’t you see? As long as I go along with whatever they want to do –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — everything’s okay. As soon as I say you can’t [tape irregularity] anybody –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Did you go through that?
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah, I went through that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And how old were you?
MR. CHANDLER: Why do you — oh, with my parents?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: No, I didn’t go through that with my parents. I never had any outside influence on me –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — was more powerful than my parents were.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I mean, Michael is very seductive, without even trying.
MR. CHANDLER: Oh, he’s trying, believe me. He just looks like he’s not trying because he’s so damn good at it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I mean, it’s –
MR. CHANDLER: Dave, he fooled me –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — I’ll tell you that. He fooled me, for a while.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think this is –
MR. CHANDLER: There’s no reason why they would have to cut me out unless they — unless they need me to be away so they can do certain things which I don’t think are good to be doing.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And I — and not only that, but I don’t even have anything to say about it, okay? [tape irregularity] I think what they’re doing and it isn’t bad, and so maybe I’m wrong –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — but I’m not even getting a chance to express that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I think that’s all — I think it’s all fair because –
MR. CHANDLER: I had a good communication with Michael.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: We were friends, you know. I liked him.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I respected him and everything else for what he is, you know. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. He could have called me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: In fact, Dave, I — you ask Jordy. I sat in the room one day, and I talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship, what I want [tape irregularity], okay, so he wouldn’t have to figure me out.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And one of things I said is we always have to be able to talk to each other.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: That’s the rule, okay, because I know that as soon as you stop talking weird things start going on and people [tape irregularity] –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Imaginations take over.
MR. CHANDLER: Imagination will just kill you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. CHANDLER: It causes all kinds of problems, and so, I mean –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, can you do this –
MR. CHANDLER: Do you think you — look. Do you know what it’s like? You go out with — listen. I — just that old expression, you know. It came from some movie. How does it go? “Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean somebody isn’t [tape irregularity].” You know that expression?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay. What it really means is that you may think I’m crazy –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous, inaudible) I’m thinking is actually right, but what I’m saying to you is that I’ve had every single girl — and I am not kidding you — every [tape irregularity] ever gone out with, from the very first girl to the very last, has heated on me, and I have never cheated on anybody.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I would never. Now, if I wanted to, based on that history, I could be so ****ing paranoid about girls, I would never –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — be able to [tape irregularity] relationship. I wouldn’t be able to [tape irregularity] was like, I couldn’t have a family. I’d be a ****ing raving lunatic. Okay?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: But what’s my point? My point is that the only thing that keeps me from getting that way is that I can talk about it and be reassured [tape irregularity] on it in my imagination — I mean, my wife’s not home tonight.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: She’s gonna be at a meeting until : o’clock in the morning.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. CHANDLER: Right? This has happened many times.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: She’s going to go away to Cannes Film Festival next year –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — right? Do you know what that’s like?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: That Film Festival’s a ****ing sex party.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Next year, without me, okay? Now, if I didn’t have a chance to talk to her about my fears, my [tape irregularity], probably shoot her, or I’d divorce her.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And I’m not saying her as an individual. Wouldn’t matter who — I could be married to Mother Teresa and I’d have the same feeling. It’s just because of what [tape irregularity] that I’ve been — my finger’s been stuck in the electric socket so much that I don’t want to get stuck in there again, so I keep — and girls do that to me, you know? They keep ****ing me up, so –
MR. SCHWARTZ: So what was –
MR. CHANDLER: — bothers me. I might be totally irrational –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — but you want to know why I’m not crazy about it at all and I have a great relationship and I trust her and everything is fine?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Because she’ll sit down and she’ll talk to me about it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And she’s wildly in love with you.
MR. CHANDLER: She tells me she is.
MR. SCHWARTZ: She is.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, it’s very obvious.
MR. CHANDLER: And you want to know what I told her? I told her this. I said June — “Monique,” I said, “if you ever want to sleep with somebody else or if you don’t love me anymore, if you come to me and you tell me that [tape irregularity] out of the house and **** his brains out, I’ll love you forever, I’ll support you and wish you well. But if it’s the other way around, you **** him first and then you [tape irregularity], I’ll kill you, period.” I said, “Those are the rules. If you want to stay with me, you gotta understand that’s the only way I can survive. That’s how I live.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: It’s all comes — that’s what really relationships –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, trust is real important.
MR. CHANDLER: When you get down to relationships like we — like really intimate ones, okay?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Like you and I. I trust you with my life.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. CHANDLER: And I know you trust me too.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay? And with Monique, I said, “That’s all I’m after.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: What does she say?
MR. CHANDLER: She said, “I understand. That’s fine.” She said, “It’ll never happen. I don’t know why you’re bringing it up, but if you’re bringing it up, I won’t do it. Trust me. It won’t happen.” I said, “Okay. I’m just — I’m telling you now ahead of time” –
MR. SCHWARTZ: That’s good communication.
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. I mean, I’m not being embarrassed by it –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. CHANDLER: — I’m not keeping it inside. I want to have a good marriage and a good relationship
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and I know this is one issue that bothers me, no matter who that girl would be.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay? I’m not –
MR. SCHWARTZ: In any –
MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous, inaudible) personal against her.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. CHANDLER: It’s just with me. It’s my problem, and so I’m letting her know that I have a problem. I’m not hiding anything. I’d not trying to be macho cool dude about it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. CHANDLER: And so if I wasn’t able to talk to her, this marriage would have been over a long time ago.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Because [tape irregularity] –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Don’t we learn like that?
MR. CHANDLER: Because of my imagination, Dave.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but don’t we learn through experiences –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) want to know what I really think? I really think most people don’t learn. I think at some point in our lives we develop behavior patterns, and even if we know that they’re wrong we just can’t break them.
MR. SCHWARTZ: You know –
MR. CHANDLER: Most people can’t change their behaviors.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) they are at a certain –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes and no, but I think you get –
MR. CHANDLER: Look at you. Are you going to change now because of what happened here?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, interesting –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) be different? Is your marriage going to be better? Are you going to — you know, you guys have no right to be married. I told June that myself many times. She would call me all the time and say, “Did Dave call Kelly? Did Dave call Jordy?” No. What kind of ****ing marriage do you guys have? Why don’t you guys just split up so he could see his kids, at least –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: You know, if he doesn’t want to come over to the house because of you, then get divorced so he could see his kids. There’s nothing wrong with that. You know, you might be better friends. She and I were better friends when we [tape irregularity], and what I’m saying to her is that if there’s no — if there’s no communication, there’s no sense in being together with anybody, whether it’s a marriage or a friendship or a business relationship. If you cannot sit down and talk [tape irregularity] ultimately gonna destruct, and that’s what happened here. They shut me out from the most important thing in my life. In fact, I don’t have a life. I don’t want to have a life [tape irregularity].
MR. SCHWARTZ: I understand it, too, but I gotta tell you, in just talking to you this
time, see, Jordy’s copying me.
MR. CHANDLER: Well –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, he’s positively copying me. I mean, he’s been with both of us since — I mean, I’ve had him since he’s — almost as long as you have.
MR. CHANDLER: That’s right.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And he’s –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) had him as long as he’s been cognizant of the fact of who’s around him –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right, so –
MR. CHANDLER: — learned a lot from you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, and one of the things he learned, probably, was just to withdraw, because I do it, but, you know, I’m not chastising myself for it. I’m just looking at it objectively. I mean, realistically. I mean, I would say –
MR. CHANDLER: You haven’t (inaudible) and in some way it’s resonated throughout the family –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and partly been the cause of all this happening.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right, but I mean he’s, you know, he’s learned a lot of good things from me.
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah, I’m sure he –
MR. SCHWARTZ: But, you know, I mean, everyone’s not perfect.
MR. CHANDLER: No. Everyone’s not.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But I think –
MR. CHANDLER: (Inaudible) expect everyone to be, but you gotta expect people that claim to love you to communicate with you because if there’s communication there’s nothing. What’s the sense of having your relationship? People don’t even care enough about you to — you tell them — I actually told June how much I was hurting. I said –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — “I’m hurting, June. I’m crying every day. I’m dying.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but they’re going through every –
MR. CHANDLER: Do you know what she said to me?
MR. SCHWARTZ: What?
MR. CHANDLER: Well, that’s just too bad. **** that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, but you can’t — I mean, you know June.
MR. CHANDLER: I can’t make excuses for June.
MR. SCHWARTZ: There’s no way to make — there’s nothing to make an excuse. I mean, we all have our good points and our bad points, and we all have things that –
MR. CHANDLER: I think, you know, her bad points [tape irregularity] gone too far. I really do.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I think you gotta look at the overall picture. I mean, now we’re talking –
MR. CHANDLER: I am looking at — I’m looking at Jordy’s picture. That’s the only picture I’m looking at. I — June’s not part of it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But do you think that –
MR. CHANDLER: I know that after tomorrow — in fact, not even after tomorrow. It’s already happened. I don’t ever want anything to do with June anymore because June is not part of my family. In my mind, she’s died. I don’t ever want to talk to her again. [tape irregularity] sitting on the stand being totally humiliated or at the end of a shotgun. That’s the only way I want to see June now. She’s gotta [tape irregularity] do this to kid. Again, it’s not right. Can do it to me. Can’t do it to my kid. It’s not right.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think that whatever’s happening, if you think it’s bad for him, she’s done, you know, out of malice?
MR. CHANDLER: You want to know something? You don’t even have to ask me. You could — as you said before, you want to sit down and talk to the people I spoke to –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — you’re going to have a chance to do that if you want to. You go and ask the experts –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and you won’t have to ask. They will be there anyway. There’s not one person in this world [tape irregularity] can’t find a person –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — disagree with me. I’m the one that disagreed with — I didn’t even want to know about it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I kept saying, “No, this is okay. There’s nothing wrong. This is great.” It took experts to convince me [tape irregularity] that by not taking action –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — my son was going to be irreparably damaged for the rest of his life [tape irregularity]. That was what I heard.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Because his friend is older, or because of all the seduction?
MR. CHANDLER: Well, you know, age in and of itself is not a harmful thing.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: But it could have been used to advantage, and in some ways Michael is using his age and experience and his money and his power to great advantage to Jordy. The problem is he’s also harming him, greatly harming him, for his own selfish reasons. He’s not the altruistic, kind human being that he appears to be.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) selfish motives here.
MR. SCHWARTZ: You mean, harming Jordy because it’s taken him out of reality?
MR. CHANDLER: It’s not so much really what he’s taken him out of. It’s what he’s brought him into.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I mean, I don’t mean to be devious. I just can’t be –
MR. SCHWARTZ: You can’t tell me.
MR. CHANDLER: — specific about it, but I tell you that, again, it all comes down to one thing. They don’t want to talk to me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Jordy — yeah, he’s 13 years old. He’s only [tape irregularity], hoping that the problem will go away by itself, but June’s old enough to know better. June’s the one that’s frustrated me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, you know, this is the deal: I talked to Jordy about it today, about, you know, his not contacting you and not calling you on Father’s Day and not sending you anything. He’s confused June — and this is the truth and from him. June did everything to get him to send you a card, to call and everything. He’s just frustrated, you know, and I don’t know about what or — you know, it’s just like he’s scared or doesn’t know what to do or –
MR. CHANDLER: (Inaudible).
MR. SCHWARTZ: Pardon me?
MR. CHANDLER: June didn’t do a thing to have him call me or send me a card by her own admission to me last time. She didn’t give a shit, is what she told me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, but I don’t believe that because, I mean –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) told me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Because, I mean –
MR. CHANDLER: I –
MR. SCHWARTZ: With June and — I talked to them today.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, then, she’s lying to you, Dave.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, but would Jordy lie?
MR. CHANDLER: Now they’re scared shit.
MR. SCHWARTZ: No. Would Jordy — no, because they don’t know anything about it. I didn’t even tell them that I had talked to you this morning, okay?
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) them know you heard the message.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And what are you going there all of a sudden? You haven’t been there –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Last night’s the first night I’ve been there.
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. By accident?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, it’s Kelly’s birthday. I mean, you know, I got — it’s tough for me too. It’s not easy. I mean, you don’t really know what’s going on with me, but, I mean, it’s very, very, very difficult times for me.
MR. CHANDLER: So what?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Very.
MR. CHANDLER: So what you’re saying is that because of your problem you sacrifice the kids.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I did it –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) money all during –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. I just — I ****ed up, but –
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah, you ****ed up.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) I’m not ****ing up –
MR. SCHWARTZ: — when you’re trying to survive –
MR. CHANDLER: Hey, Dave, it doesn’t matter. You want to know something? When my father was dying of cancer –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and he had — and he got in a car crash that crushed his leg and his spinal cord –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — at the same time and he was in incredible pain –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — I used to talk to him about it –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and he would say, “You know what?” I’d say, “Why don’t you — you never talk — you never talk about it, you never complain to anybody.” He said, “You know what? Because everybody’s got their own problems, and nobody’s gonna think that my problem’s any worse than their problem.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And so as bad as your problem is [tape irregularity] it may not be on the same scale, but emotionally, financially, psychologically, it’s devastating me as much as [tape irregularity].
MR. SCHWARTZ: And I accept that.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But I — let me –
MR. CHANDLER: I’m telling you this: That as bad as my life is, I’m willing to let it get a lot worse –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and sacrifice whatever it is — and I don’t even consider it a sacrifice — give up whatever it is so that my son won’t be damaged. You’re not willing to do that. You fall apart just to save one of your kids [tape irregularity] away from my practice, from my family, from my wife, from Cody, from everybody else, do whatever I have to do –
MR. SCHWARTZ: And you think that’ll save Jordy? I mean, don’t you think there’s a happy medium?
MR. CHANDLER: No. We’re not gonna save him. June’s not gonna save him. Who’s gonna save him? Gotta be me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you really think he has –
MR. CHANDLER: — one.
MR. SCHWARTZ: You don’t think it’s just gonna run its course?
MR. CHANDLER: Dave . . .
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, you know more than I know, so I’m at a disadvantage.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, then, I will tell you without question. It’s gone way too far.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Jordy is never going to be the same person he was.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: It’s never — by the time it runs its course –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — if it does, he will be so damaged he’ll never recover –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and that’s not my opinion. I mean, I happen to be believe it now because my eyes have been opened –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — but I’m not the one that first [tape irregularity], so what I’m saying to you is that I’m acting because [tape irregularity] I’m going to cause him great harm, and you tell me if maybe it’s gonna cause him harm right now. I think he’ll be harmed much greater if I do nothing, and besides now I’m convinced that if I do nothing I’m going to be, from doing nothing, causing him harm, and I couldn’t –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Did you discuss that with Monique?
MR. CHANDLER: Not really.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I mean, I don’t want her involved. I mean, she would just like the whole thing to go away.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: But we’ve had a nice little relationship and a great new marriage and a nice little family –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and everything’s terrific over here.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And, you know, I’ve tried to explain to Cody why his brother doesn’t call him and he doesn’t come over here. You know [tape irregularity] whole world, and I’m not exaggerating.
MR. SCHWARTZ: (Inaudible) Jordy.
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. You ask Monique when you speak to her if he doesn’t bring it up every conversation –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous, inaudible) out during the day. Cody spent about two weeks crying his eyes out. He’d have nightmares about Jordy. He’d get up in the middle of the night and come crying into our bed. I’d listen to him talk, and I would break down –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and I couldn’t even — I mean, I couldn’t even — I couldn’t — I didn’t know what to say to him, you know? What can you say?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: It was the saddest thing I [tape irregularity]. I mean, how do you do that? years old. There’s no — you know, and a [tape irregularity] just come into it? I ask you this: If Michael Jackson were just some -year-old person, would this be happening? No. He’s got power, he’s got money, he’s got seduction. [tape irregularity] happening [tape irregularity] they’ve been seduced away from the family by power and by money.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And by this guy’s image.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: He could be the same person without the power and the money, and they wouldn’t even be talking to him. You know it and I know it. So for power and money and his image, June and Jordy have broken up the family, and even though [tape irregularity] a lot better, because I’ve sat down and talked to him, and I’ve told him long before it came down to going this far –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — that Cody was really hysterical about him.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And what does he say?
MR. CHANDLER: He said that he would, you know, he would call him and he’d talk to him and stuff, and he tried, you know.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: As time went on, the times between when he did call or see Cody got longer and longer and longer and longer until [tape irregularity] anymore. And you know what? He would do the same thing to Kelly. Kelly just happens to have to come along because June has to happen to come along –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — but if [tape irregularity] now, June wouldn’t be in the picture and neither would Kelly, any more than I am.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: They would have dumped her a long time ago. They even told me [tape irregularity]. They can’t stand her.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait. Jordy can’t stand June?
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. Neither one of them like her. They don’t like anybody but each other.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: They don’t like you, and they don’t like me and they don’t like her. They don’t want anybody coming between them. [tape irregularity] got to be liminated. You go ahead and you see — you tell June. You tell June to start saying “No” to everything they want –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and see what happens. The only reason she’s there is because she says “Yes” [tape irregularity] favorite as long as I was saying “Yes.” Trust me. I don’t know what’s happened to Jordy except he doesn’t care, literally does not care, if he would ever see him again. He hopes I would go away and not bother him. That’s [tape irregularity].
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I know that’s not true.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) Michael.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I know that’s not true.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m telling you. But that doesn’t matter, you know. I’m not taking it personally. I’m just trying to do what I have been led to believe is the right action to take so that he’s not harmed. I mean, Unfortunately, June and [tape irregularity] because in order to protect Jordy certain things are gonna have to come out, and those two are not going to have any defense against it whatsoever. They’re just going to be [tape irregularity] violently destroyed.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that it helps Jordy?
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah, it’ll help Jordy because he won’t — he’ll never see Michael again. That’s –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think that –
MR. CHANDLER: And he’s probably never gonna see June again if I have to go through with this.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think –
MR. CHANDLER: Unless I’d let him.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that would affect him?
MR. CHANDLER: What?
MR. SCHWARTZ: That he was — that this was done by force?
MR. CHANDLER: You mean that Michael did this to him?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, that you, like, are forcing him not to see someone or take him away from his mom?
MR. CHANDLER: Well, I am gonna force him not to see –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but do you think that’s the right way to do it?
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. I’ve been led to believe that it’s the right thing to do. In fact, it’s the right thing to do because how do you know? You don’t know what –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I don’t have a clue.
MR. CHANDLER: Suppose you were to find out what they’re doing and you were to agree with me that these things that they’re doing are harmful to Jordy or –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I’d like to know.
MR. CHANDLER: — be harmful.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, in my wildest imagination I can’t figure out what it is.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay. But suppose –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Unless it’s sex, and I don’t know, you know.
MR. CHANDLER: Suppose that you were to find out that there were things going on that you believed were harmful to him? Would you say to me, “Hey, look. You know, I got things to do here [tape irregularity], but, you know, time will go by and everything will be okay”? I mean, that’s –
MR. SCHWARTZ: No. What I would do — I’m not disagreeing with you.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay. Well, they won’t talk to me about those things. They won’t talk to me about anything.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Even about what you think they’re doing or about what you know they’re doing?
MR. CHANDLER: What I know they’re doing.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I mean, I’ve tried to talk to Jordy. Jordy — Jordy does not talk to me. This stopped long before I told him he couldn’t [tape irregularity]. He just does not talk to me anymore. In fact, when he talks to Michael on the telephone, he goes in another room because I’m not allowed to hear what they’re talking about except I taped [tape irregularity] they’re talking about. Ha ha ha. Anyway, all I’m saying is that [tape irregularity] that I would be negligent to continue to do nothing [tape irregularity] gonna be because nobody really knows how Jordy will be affected one way or the other. I know for a fact that he’s going to be affected adversely if I do nothing.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: So I have nothing to lose.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Would you do me a big favor?
MR. CHANDLER: What?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Could you and I go to one of these shrinks and talk it over?
MR. CHANDLER: No.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why not?
MR. CHANDLER: Because it’s too late, after : tomorrow.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But why not? Why couldn’t we go talk it over –
MR. CHANDLER: Because the thing’s already — the thing has already been set in motion.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: It’s happening at :. : tomorrow –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — it’s out of my hands. I do nothing else again –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — after : tomorrow.
It’s all been automatically set in motion.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m not even in contact anymore –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — with this person. This thing is –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Let me ask you this, then.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) :, unless I call in –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and tell him not to do it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: So why don’t you call and say not to do it?
MR. CHANDLER: Because I’m not going to.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why? Why wouldn’t you go with me? I mean, we trust each other. We respect each other. Why couldn’t you go with me and we’d decide together?
MR. CHANDLER: Because I don’t want to talk to you about it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?
MR. CHANDLER: I want to talk to June and Jordy and Michael –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but why can’t you talk to me? I mean, I’m — I could be very –
MR. CHANDLER: — be there tomorrow and –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Pardon me?
MR. CHANDLER: You can be there at the meeting tomorrow, and you can get a chance to talk to him –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — if you want to, but if they don’t say, “Well, there’s not going to be a meeting” –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MR. CHANDLER: — I want to talk to them. I don’t want to talk to you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Because you have had your head buried in Rent A Wreck, and you have no idea what’s going on –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and just because you all of a sudden decide to have some interest in [tape irregularity] I don’t [tape irregularity] going on. It will take you weeks to catch up –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — you’ll never know what’s going on by explanation.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: You’d have to have lived it. You’d have to have witnessed it. Myself would never have believed it –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — if I didn’t live through it, see it and hear it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I would not have believed it. And that’s all. I cannot take this [tape irregularity] over to you because that’s the only way you’re gonna know it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: The evidence is already locked up in a safe place –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and it’s gonna come out only [tape irregularity] let it come out, and that’s it. If they don’t talk to me tomorrow, out it comes.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. Well, but let me ask you this- -
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) Michael Jackson — Michael Jackson’s career, Dave. This man is gonna be humiliated beyond belief. You’ll not believe it. He will not believe what’s going to happen to him.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Beyond his worst nightmares. [tape irregularity] not sell one more record.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: That’s for sure. And I mean I’m [tape irregularity] it just has to happen in order to get — to keep [tape irregularity] and it doesn’t have to happen if they show up tomorrow.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: But if they don’t show up — and I’ve made it very clear — I’ve tried to make it really clear on that answering machine, “This is the last chance to talk. If you talk, we have a chance. If we don’t talk, it’s all over.” It’s out of my hands. I mean, what else can I do?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I don’t — you know, I don’t –
MR. CHANDLER: What’s the disadvantage to you if Michael Jackson’s destroyed and out of the family? What good is he doing you?
MR. SCHWARTZ: What harms it — well, it has nothing to — I’m only thinking of Jordy.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) come over to talk to you, you seemed pretty damned upset that everybody was telling you that Michael Jackson has taken your family away from you. You even went so far as to tell me you couldn’t get bank loans because of that [tape irregularity] turn around completely degrees.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It’s not turning around .
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) for Michael Jackson.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I’ll tell you what I’m concerned about.
MR. CHANDLER: What?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I’m concerned about Jordy.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, if you were concerned about Jordy, you should have been around a long time ago, because I have been.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Where have you been?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I’ve been there plenty for him. I mean, in the years I’ve been there a lot.
MR. CHANDLER: I agree –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I would say –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) day –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I would say this: So I made a few mistakes, but –
MR. CHANDLER: Why –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I can’t condemn myself for it.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, why all of a sudden do you not want to be there?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Did I not want to be there?
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Because I’ve been in a survival mode.
MR. CHANDLER: Oh, okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And, you know –
MR. CHANDLER: The fact of the matter is –
MR. SCHWARTZ: You know, you do what you have to do, and sometimes you make the wrong move, and sometimes your emotions make you do it, and sometimes it’s just — it’s the way that you face it. Sometimes you –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) survival mode, and so you’re doing what you’re doing, and I’m not in a survival mode. I’m trying for him to survive –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, what I –
MR. CHANDLER: — doing what I think –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I’ll tell you what. I would die for that kid. I mean, I have — you don’t know what I’ve done for that kid.
MR. CHANDLER: Easy to say that, Dave, but when you tell me you’re in a survival mode so you can’t pay attention to your children, it doesn’t jive with “I would die for that kid.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait. I’m ashamed of that. I’m not proud of that, but when you –
MR. CHANDLER: I mean, how do you — I mean, which of those two statements should I choose to believe, because they’re both entirely opposite each other?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well –
MR. CHANDLER: “I would die for that kid” or “I’m” –
MR. SCHWARTZ: If I had –
MR. CHANDLER: — “in a survival mode and I” –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I would do anything for Jordy. I would lose everything. I would die for Jordy. That’s the bottom line.
MR. CHANDLER: Then why don’t you just back me up right now and let’s get rid of Michael Jackson.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Because I don’t know the facts.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay. Well, when you know –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, I don’t –
MR. CHANDLER: Okay. When you know the facts, when you see the facts come out, then you’ll make a decision at that point.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right. That’s fair.
MR. CHANDLER: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, that’s more than fair, but this — let me –
MR. CHANDLER: It’s unfortunately gonna be too late, then, and nothing’s gonna matter at that point.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?
MR. CHANDLER: Because the fact is so ****ing overwhelming –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah?
MR. CHANDLER: — that everybody’s going to be destroyed in the process. The facts themselves are gonna — once this thing starts rolling –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — the facts themselves are gonna overwhelm. It’s gonna be bigger than all of us put together, and the whole thing’s just gonna crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in its sight. That’s [tape irregularity] humiliating, believe me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And is that good?
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. It’s great.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?
MR. CHANDLER: Great, because –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, is that how you’re –
MR. CHANDLER: Because June and Jordy and Michael –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — have forced me to take it to the extreme –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — to get their attention. How pitiful, piti****ingful they are to have done that. I’ve tried to get their attention –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — I’ve cried on the phone, I’ve talked on the phone –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — I have begged on the phone, and all I get back is, “Go **** yourself” on the phone, and so now I’m still trying to get their attention until : tomorrow for their [tape irregularity], and I will know that even having gone this far they won’t talk to me, then I know that I’m absolutely right in doing what I’m doing because they have left me no other [tape irregularity]. I am not allowed to talk to [tape irregularity], and so since they’re sending me that message and telling me that –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — they leave me no choice. They will not let me say to them, “This is what’s bothering me, and this is what I’d like to do about it. What do you think?” They’re saying, “We don’t care what you have to think — say about [tape irregularity].”
MR. SCHWARTZ: You mean by no communication?
MR. CHANDLER: Am I supposed to just bury my head? No. Not when my kid’s involved.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I can’t. So it’s their fault. Everything’s their fault, one hundred percent, and the reason it’s their fault [tape irregularity] try to communicate, and they have time after time frustrated my attempts to talk by telling me, “Go **** yourself.” And when you do that to somebody, consistently, you drive them to do something [tape irregularity]. I’m not an evil person. I don’t want to do this.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: It’s their fault because they won’t talk. They have one more chance. I’ve told them this. That’s why I left that message. The message was very harsh [tape irregularity] and it was very true, and it was to let them know that I am not kidding around.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m begging them. That message was begging, one more time –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — to sit down and talk and saying basically, “I don’t want to hurt you, but you’re not leaving me any choice.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And, you know, if they choose to ignore it, for whatever their motives — June doesn’t ignore things for the same — she doesn’t bury her head in the sand and make believe it’s gonna go away.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: June usually will call you up and say, “Go **** yourself and drop dead” –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and she’ll get violent and all that, maybe even punch you in the face.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, that’s not so bad.
MR. CHANDLER: That’s right, and yet she’s not calling me –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — she’s not doing anything. She’s not talking either. So Michael’s not talking either. The three of them, completely different personalities –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — handle situations in three completely different ways, and yet none of the three of them is calling me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: You can tell me that Jordy’s burying his head in the sand and that’s his reaction [tape irregularity]. What’s the other two excuses? I don’t know. They won’t even tell me what their excuse for not talking to me is. I don’t even — I can’t make an excuse for –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Michael, I can’t tell you. June, she doesn’t know what’s going on.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, of course she doesn’t know what’s going on. She wouldn’t let me tell her.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But she doesn’t going on — know what’s going on –
MR. CHANDLER: I did tell her once.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I did tell her once what my thoughts were about it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And she said, “Go **** yourself,” basically.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Does this –
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) she said — I do remember ’cause I wrote it on a piece of paper.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: It shocked me so much coming from her mouth that I actually wrote it down, verbatim, in quotes.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: That this human being would say something like that about her own kid, and so now that I know that she feels that way about [tape irregularity] no reason why I should assume that she gives a shit about me, so –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, you know she cares about you.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, you know, that doesn’t matter anymore. June is nonexistent. If — I have no — I have nothing for her anymore. I will never talk to her again, ever. Never. She’s a horrible human being, and it’s all gonna come out, and I don’t even have to say that [tape irregularity]. I’ll let everybody make their own decision.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: June is a horrible, selfish human being. [tape irregularity], and now I find this out about how [tape irregularity] — it’s all over. And if they’re stupid enough not to talk to me tomorrow, well, they’re going to have –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I think they want to talk to you, and I want to talk to you.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, then they should –
MR. SCHWARTZ: But when it comes with a threat, I mean, that’s what’s upsetting to me.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, that’s too bad.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, why?
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) supposed to do to get someone’s attention? I say, “I am begging you to talk to me.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: That doesn’t work. So then you cry hysterically on the phone, “I’m in so much pain because I’m losing” –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Who did you say that — who was that to?
MR. CHANDLER: To June.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, and how long ago was that?
MR. CHANDLER: Oh, three weeks, maybe.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And then you call up and you say, “I demand to talk to him.”
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: None of that works.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) get the same response. I mean, no emotion from the other side whatsoever.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Uh-huh.
MR. CHANDLER: Nothing.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Except the coldest response you can possibly imagine, okay?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And maybe it’s because she’s insecure. I don’t care anymore –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I cared at the time. I mean, I was totally shocked that she would respond that way to me. I couldn’t believe it. Okay? So I know that I have tried in every way. I’ve appealed to her in every way I know how. I’ve appealed to her intelligence, I’ve appealed to her emotions, and so I’ve done every — I’ve gotten on the ground and I’ve groveled in front of her. I’ve gone so far as to tell her that her son is in danger.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: None of it made a difference, none of it, and so what else am I supposed to do to get their attention?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I –
MR. CHANDLER: If I didn’t care, Dave, I wouldn’t have left that message.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. CHANDLER: I just would have gone and done whatever I wanted to do –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and they’d have gotten the shock of their life –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — that all of a sudden would have appeared out of nowhere, and then their whole lives would be forever different and forever bad.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I have nothing to gain by talking to them tomorrow. All that can happen tomorrow is that I’m gonna look at their faces and I’m gonna feel bad –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and I’m gonna mitigate my position. I’m gonna give in somewhat [tape irregularity] I just went ahead and did what I was gonna do, I don’t ever have to see them again –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — they’re automatically gonna be destroyed and I’m gonna get what I want. That’s a given [tape irregularity], so –
MR. SCHWARTZ: But, I mean, is that the way to get Jordy?
MR. CHANDLER: — talk to them — I’m talking to them for their sake –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — mine. This is my fourth, fifth and last attempt to communicate.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: So when I leave a threatening message, I am threatening them –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — because nothing else works. Crying didn’t work. Begging didn’t work. Intelligence didn’t work.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Appealing to the motherly [tape irregularity] nothing worked. So what else is left? You threaten. If that doesn’t work, you’ve basically tried everything there is that you could possibly try.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I didn’t threaten him physically. I didn’t say I was going to kill them. Michael can show up with all his bodyguards with guns and surround me if he wants to.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I’m not killing anybody tomorrow. It’s not the next step. His death is not the next (inaudible), so I mean I will talk to them tomorrow, but that’s for their — they can’t possibly feel threatened.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: That’s bullshit. I didn’t threaten them physically in any way, and certainly Michael’s got enough [tape irregularity] lawyers (inaudible). He has Burt Fields, who’s a big hotshot, if he wants to, sit right there. I don’t give a shit.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Whatever, you know, is going to make them protected from my great threat. I’m showing up all by my little self, and they can show up with an entire army if they need to protect themselves from me, but there’s nothing that they can do to convince me that they’re not showing up because they’re afraid for their lives.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: They could show up [tape irregularity] surrounded by bodyguards. He could certainly have them come over to June’s house, so [tape irregularity] threat was obviously the last (inaudible). I’ve never punched anybody. I’ve never shot anybody. I’ve never done anything violent in my life. There’s no reason why they should feel physically threatened. Never ever given them any indication that I [tape irregularity] Jordy, so, you know, they know that that threat’s [tape irregularity] to be fearful of that. They know that that [tape irregularity] and they know that I left it because there’s no other way to get ahold of them.
MR. SCHWARTZ: That’s fair.
MR. CHANDLER: I mean, I think it’s fair.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Let me ask you this question. I mean, I definitely want to be there.
MR. CHANDLER: That’s fine.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Can we do it at night?
MR. CHANDLER: No. Has to be –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why not? Why does it have to be in the morning?
MR. CHANDLER: Because it’s too late at night.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It doesn’t have to be late –
MR. CHANDLER: I have to have the regular business hours. I need as many business hours –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — if it doesn’t go my way to get the wheels going.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But what time are you ready to — what time are you through work tomorrow –
MR. CHANDLER: The wheels roll at : if they’re not there.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but can you do that for me, make it later?
MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) do it. I can’t. You don’t have to be there.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But I want to –
MR. CHANDLER: — tape record it. You can hear it all.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But I want to be there.
MR. CHANDLER: Well, then you have to be there at :. It’s already set.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are intentionally going to be in certain positions –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — [tape irregularity].
I paid them to do it. They’re doing their job. I gotta just go ahead and follow through on the time zone.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Um-hmm.
MR. CHANDLER: I mean the time set out. Everything is going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. There’s other people involved –
MR. SCHWARTZ: How about : ?
MR. CHANDLER: Nope. : is not even going to work. I mean, they’re going to have — they’re going to have to be there or not be there. It’s up to them what happens now. I mean, it’s not going to be [tape irregularity] whether they’re there or not.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: But if they are there, it’s going to be far better than if they’re not — I mean, they’re going to have a chance to make things a lot better if they’re there. My instructions were to kill and destroy [tape irregularity], I’m telling you. mean, and by killing and destroying, I’m going to torture them, Dave.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Because that’s what June has done to me. She has tortured me –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — and she’s gonna know that you can’t [tape irregularity]. I’ll tell you one thing that Jordy has no idea about, and that’s what love means. He doesn’t even have the remotest idea. He can’t learn it from June. She doesn’t know what it means. She has no conception of what it means.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: So maybe, you know, I can get (inaudible) teach him that. I don’t know.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah [tape irregularity].
MR. CHANDLER: Part of it [tape irregularity] other people and communicating, and those are three things that must be in place in order for a loving relationship to exist, because all of those things show that you care about that other person. Not one thing [tape irregularity].
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but it was there.
MR. CHANDLER: No, I don’t think it ever was, now that I –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — look at her behavior, I’m just saying that June is a brilliant and pathologic personality.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: What you see on the surface ain’t even remotely related to what’s really going on underneath.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: And I believe that that will come out in lie detector [tape irregularity] psychological evaluations –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — which they’re all gonna have to do.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: So –
MR. SCHWARTZ: And you think that’s good for Jordy?
MR. CHANDLER: I think that in the long run would — of course it’s not the best thing for Jordy.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: The best thing for Jordy would be for everybody to sit there and peaceably resolve amongst themselves [tape irregularity], but because they’re not willing to do that, I’m not allowed to have a say in what the best [tape irregularity]. I’m not even allowed to [tape irregularity] Jordy is. I’m not allowed to have a say in anything about Jordy. So when you ask me that question [tape irregularity] I would welcome them to do that, but they don’t care. They don’t care about what I think, so they don’t ask me that question. Do I think — I mean, just to answer your question, I think that [tape irregularity] for Jordy either way in the short [tape irregularity], in the short term.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: I think in the long term he’s got a [tape irregularity] a chance of being a happy human being if I do what I have to do than if I let things go the way they are. Could a compromise be worked out? Possibly.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. Let them convince me as to why [tape irregularity] tell me I’m wrong. Let them show me how Jordy’s benefitting and not being harmed. They got their chance.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: If they don’t want it, they haven’t wanted to take it before.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: They’ve had four or five times that I’ve called them [tape irregularity] haven’t wanted to get in a conversation with me about it, and I believe they don’t want to get in a conversation with me about it is because they know they can’t defend their position.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: [tape irregularity] to cut — I mean, I’m young, I’m really liberal. As far as I’m concerned, anybody could do anything they want. That’s my philosophy. You guys can do whatever you want. Just be happy. Don’t get hurt. So . . .
(End of Tape , Side B.)




http://mjtruthnow.com/2011/02/transcript-of-david-schwartz-and-evan-chandler-taped-conversation/