Latest on MJJC

Did Jordan Chandler Admit That MJ Did Not Molest Him?

The FBI never found any child pornography on any of Michael's computer's. And yet Pete Townshend of the Who did have child pornography on his.

Here's the story-

February 11, 2009 8:52 PM

(AP) Rock guitarist Pete Townshend, co-founder of The Who, was cleared Wednesday of possessing pornographic images of children but still was placed on a national register of sex offenders.

That registration was part of a formal police caution Townshend received for accessing a Web site containing images of child abuse.

Townshend was arrested in January on suspicion of making and possessing indecent images of children. The arrest was part of Operation Ore, an FBI-led crackdown on Internet child pornography.

After a four-month investigation, London's Metropolitan Police said Wednesday the rocker "was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images" but had accessed a site containing such images in 1999.

The musician acknowledged using his credit card to enter a Web site advertising child pornography but said he was doing research for his autobiography.

"I am not a pedophile," Townshend said at the time of his arrest.

The title character in Townshend's rock opera "Tommy" — a deaf, dumb and blind pinball wizard — is sexually abused by an uncle, and Townshend said he believed he was sexually abused as a young boy while in the care of his mentally ill grandmother.

Police said it was not a defense "to access these images for research or out of curiosity."

As part of the cautioning procedure, Townshend's fingerprints, photograph and a DNA sample will be taken by police and he will be placed on a national sex offender registry for five years.

Townshend was one of The Who's four founding members, along with bassist John Entwistle, singer Roger Daltrey and drummer Keith Moon. Moon died in 1978 and Entwistle died last year, but surviving band members continued touring.

The group, founded in London in the early 1960s, was part of the first British rock invasion with the Rolling Stones and The Beatles. Their hits included "My Generation," "I Can See for Miles," "Pinball Wizard" and "Won't Get Fooled Again."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/13/entertainment/main536249.shtml

---There's justice for ya!!!
 
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

^^^ Wow, I guess since Pete Townshend is not Michael Jackson this is not newsworthy? Ridiculous the media bias against everything Michael.
 
Jordan Chandler never had an Affidavit he did a Declaration!

Summary:
1. An affidavit is a sworn written statement of fact whereas a statutory declaration is a statement of fact but not sworn.
2. An affidavit is often signed in front of a notary public whereas a statutory declaration is often signed in front of an attorney or a Justice of the Peace.
3. Affidavits are used if one needs to get some legal documents like the voter’s registration. Statutory declarations are used for name changes, patent requests and also serve as evidences in the event that more concrete evidences are not available.

Read more: Difference Between Affidavit and Statutory Declaration | Difference Between | Affidavit vs Statutory Declaration http://www.differencebetween.net/bu...avit-and-statutory-declaration/#ixzz1njubkUg6

Jordan Chandler never sworn under oath and MJ lawyers never questioned Jordan. Which is required in an affidavit, both sides get to ask questions. If I'm not mistaken affidavits look like court Transcripts where u see Q and A's happening between the lawyer(s) on both sides with the alleged victim. Jordan declaration was in paragraphs about what allegedly happenend only.

Also Jordan said MJ was circumcised and he wasn't! He also describe MJ having a white spot on his penis. But, Sneedon in his decription of MJ's penis (so he can get the 1108 past bad acts law into the 05 trial) said that MJ penis had a dark spot. So as u can see they contradict eachother. Sneedon discredicts Jordan and I don't think the old fool even noticed it! LOL Jordan saying MJ had a white spot on his penis pretty much is saying that MJ penis was dark. And Sneddon saying MJ having a dark spot means that MJ Penis was infact light during 93! Because how else would you be able to tell the difference in either ones descriptions!

Anyways, It's easy to see that the 93 allegations were bogus!

To read more about ALL I mentioned please read: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/20...story-or-michael-jacksons-unpredictable-past/
 
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

la_cienega said:
And what's the point of this opinion having been added?
Click to expand...

SMH at that quote from Shmuley. What a "friend"! He's such a flip-flopper. Goes whichever way the wind blows. Once he says he never believed the allegations, then he says he was convinced by June's testimony that Michael was "erotically obsessed" with her son? Why didn't he also point out the cross examination of June, where she crumbled as yet another liar? Though I don't know what it was in June's testimony from that Shmuley drew the conclusion that Michael was erotically obsessed with Jordan, since she said she never witnessed molestation.

And I agree with you: since Shmuley himself admits in this quote that what he says is uncorroborated speculation I can't see the reason of its inclusion in a Wikipedia article, unless they want to quote all kinds of other uncorroborated speculations as well in their articles...
 
Last edited:
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

AliCat said:
The FBI never found any child pornography on any of Michael's computer's. And yet Pete Townshend of the Who did have child pornography on his.

Here's the story-
Click to expand...

I don't want to jump to conclusions and judge Townsend because what he said for his defense could as well as be true. However I want to note that Michael's house was searched several times in 1993 and in 2003, the FBI examined all his computers with computer experts and they found NOTHING, simply NOTHING that was illegal! They checked both the content of the hard drives of his 14 computers as well as their Internet browsing history and they came back with NOTHING! Just legal, heterosexual erotic images. No access to child porn websites, not even for "curiousity" or "research" reasons. Nothing like that! And his computers cached websites and pics since 1998. But there was nothing illegal on them. How many pedophiles would have such clean browsing histories and hard drives?
 
This article from 1994 is another proof that Jordan's description (contrary to later developed media myth) didn't match. It's about the Grand Jury hearings and Katherine's testimony:

Grand Jury Calls Michael Jackson’s Mother to Testify
March 16, 1994|JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITER

Michael Jackson’s mother, who has steadfastly proclaimed her son’s innocence in the face of allegations that he sexually molested a 13-year-old boy, has been ordered to testify before a Los Angeles County Grand Jury on Thursday afternoon, one of Jackson’s lawyers said Tuesday.
“In all the years of my experience, I’ve never before seen the mother of the target of an investigation called before the grand jury,” said Howard Weitzman, one of two lawyers representing Jackson, who has been under investigation since last summer. “It’s just done in real poor taste. It borders on harassment.”
Jackson’s mother has frequently given interviews and made public appearances to defend her son, but a source close to the investigation said she may be questioned about Jackson’s physical appearance. Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.
Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said Tuesday he expects to wrap up the Jackson investigation within the next month or so. Although grand juries are meeting in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties, Jackson’s attorneys say they have been told that neither grand jury is considering an indictment, at least for the time being.
Because they can issue subpoenas, grand juries often are used to elicit statements from witnesses who otherwise are reluctant to speak to investigators.
Weitzman said Jackson was “very, very upset” to learn that his mother had been called to testify. Officials from the district attorney’s office declined to comment.
Click to expand...

My simple question is: if Jordan's description matched why did the prosecution ask Katherine questions about whether Michael altered the appearance of his genitalia? The fact the prosecution asked Katherine these desperate questions clearly proves it was NOT a match!

But Sneddon, the media and haters are trying to rewrite history in the hindsight.

Also if it was such a match why did Sneddon only try to introduce it at the end of the trial? Why not as the crown evidence of his 1108 case? He only tried to introduce it as a desperate act of trying to prejudice the jury towards the very and as he saw his case crumble altogether. I think he also probably knew the pics would not be admissable without Jordan testifying and being subjected to cross-examination, so it was probably just some kind of game on his part to bring up those pics.

Like Bonnie Blue said the wording of Sneddon's statement is very odd, saying the splotch was on the same relative spot as how Jordan described. Relative? WTF? So was it there or was it not there? Also as I remember he said he "believes" that the description matched. Again, what kind of vague thing is that to say? He saw it both and he just "believes", doesn't know? The term "believe" actually was a way of protecting himself from perjury that he would have committed if he had just flat out stated it was a match...

I also remember the doctor who was there at the strip search on the part of the prosecution said in an interview he was "told" that the description matched. Told? Again WTF? I mean it seems like no one (maybe no one other than Sneddon and Zonen) saw BOTH the pictures and Jordan's description. Everybody was just "told" something! Bonnie Blue makes a good point why is all this secrecy if it was a match, like they claim? Had it been a match, Jordan's description would indeed be shouted from the rooftops, just like many other things they claimed were leaked.
 
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

respect77 said:
My simple question is: if Jordan's description matched why did the prosecution ask Katherine questions about whether Michael altered the appearance of his genitalia? The fact the prosecution asked Katherine these desperate questions clearly proves it was NOT a match!

But Sneddon, the media and haters are trying to rewrite history in the hindsight.

Also if it was such a match why did Sneddon only try to introduce it at the end of the trial? Why not as the crown evidence of his 1108 case? He only tried to introduce it as a desperate act of trying to prejudice the jury towards the very and as he saw his case crumble altogether. I think he also probably knew the pics would not be admissable without Jordan testifying and being subjected to cross-examination, so it was probably just some kind of game on his part to bring up those pics.

Like Bonnie Blue said the wording of Sneddon's statement is very odd, saying the splotch was on the same relative spot as how Jordan described. Relative? WTF? So was it there or was it not there? Also as I remember he said he "believes" that the description matched. Again, what kind of vague thing is that to say? He saw it both and he just "believes", doesn't know? The term "believe" actually was a way of protecting himself from perjury that he would have committed if he had just flat out stated it was a match...

I also remember the doctor who was there at the strip search on the part of the prosecution said in an interview he was "told" that the description matched. Told? Again WTF? I mean it seems like no one (maybe no one other than Sneddon and Zonen) saw BOTH the pictures and Jordan's description. Everybody was just "told" something! Bonnie Blue makes a good point why is all this secrecy if it was a match, like they claim? Had it been a match, Jordan's description would indeed be shouted from the rooftops, just like many other things they claimed were leaked.
Click to expand...

that's why I started to doubt Jordan ever made a description at all, or even if he ever really talked to the police and what he told them exactly.

I remember seing signed declarations by Jordan, on the Smoking Gun. They were typed and signed, and if I remember well, they came from the lawyers office. I mean anybody could have done that.

Let's be logical :

what grand jury would NOT charge if the description matched the pictures ? At least they would have filed charges IMO. And 2 different grand juries let Michael go, without even charging him ? To me that really says a lot about 93.

In 2005, one of the reasons why Judge Melville rejected the photos was that he didn't want to shock the jury with that type of pictures. Then why didn't Sneddon produce an expert, a doctor, or a police officer, or anyone that would have seen both the pictures and the description, or Lisa Marie, anyone who could have said "yes, the description I have seen matches the pictures / reality".

OK, Jordan didn't want to testify. It happens with a lot of victims. Does anyone know if someone else could have testified, someone Jordan would have talked to, like a police officer ? Does anyone know if Jordan could have been subpoeaed in 2005 ? I know he couldn't back in 93, because he was too young, but what was the law in 2005 , he was 25 then ?. We know from the FBI files that Sneddon asked him, but Jordan said no again, and even threatened Sneddon if he forced him to testify. Then what does it mean ? He could have been made to testify ? I never found the answer to that, but I think it could be important. If the answer is yes, it could mean that Sneddon knew from the start that Jordan's testimony was weak.

And what about Evan ? Why didn't he testify ? After all, he is the one that started all this, that would have been very interesting to hear him explain why. What did he see or hear that made him suspicious ? I have the same question, could he have been made to testify ? If the answer is yes, then the fact that he wasn't there speaks volumes.
 
Last edited:
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

respect77 said:
I don't want to jump to conclusions and judge Townsend because what he said for his defense could as well as be true. However I want to note that Michael's house was searched several times in 1993 and in 2003, the FBI examined all his computers with computer experts and they found NOTHING, simply NOTHING that was illegal! They checked both the content of the hard drives of his 14 computers as well as their Internet browsing history and they came back with NOTHING! Just legal, heterosexual erotic images. No access to child porn websites, not even for "curiousity" or "research" reasons. Nothing like that! And his computers cached websites and pics since 1998. But there was nothing illegal on them. How many pedophiles would have such clean browsing histories and hard drives?
Click to expand...

Imagine what would have happened if Michael had used his credit card on an internet portal that offers child porn????????
The laws in California would have changed yet again.

And actually, I cannot fathom that Townsend who says he was abused- being a musician KNOWING how financial support of a product works!!!- manages to get out his credit card. (granted, in this day and age it would be no problem with stolen cards etc, but that's not the issue if Townsend admits to it)

That is almost inexcusable, you do not support child porn financially, for research or anything else. Not saying that makes you a pedophile, but my mouth just hangs open.

I'm surprised stuff like that wasn't manufactured against Michael, as Sneddon didn't exactly seem opposed to toying around with evidence.

Btw, anybody remember Sneddon's nonsense claim during that press conference that as a DA he 'cannot chose my victims'??
BIG BIG BS. Every day across the country, DAs offices are being lambasted by people calling, writing, etc how somebody has wronged them, asking for help. OF COURSE DAs offices chose whom they persecute- that he cannot 'chose' whom to persecute is utter nonsense and NOT TRUE.
 
Last edited:
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Bouee - Jordan's insistance that he would fight any attempt to get him to testify i think must have been enough to scare sneddon off - it would have been a big pr fail to have to drag one of mj's 'victims' to court. With all their other witnesses backfiring on them in the witness box, the last thing they needed was a hostile witness and it does suggest they weren't totally confident of his answers. The pros used the excuse that he was out of the country so he couldn't be reached (like karen faye!) when he was actually skiing in colarado.

Yes, much is made of jc not appearing but nothing about evan. I think the excuse ddimond used was that he was gravely ill. Ray chandler fought against his subpeona - he was content to do the chatshow circuit. Ironic that the only chandler to turn up was june who had never claimed to have seen any molestation. And why her testimony is used to suggest anything is beyond me (re wiki's rabbi's quote).
 
Last edited:
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

respect77 said:
Like Bonnie Blue said the wording of Sneddon's statement is very odd, saying the splotch was on the same relative spot as how Jordan described. Relative? WTF? So was it there or was it not there? Also as I remember he said he "believes" that the description matched. Again, what kind of vague thing is that to say? He saw it both and he just "believes", doesn't know? The term "believe" actually was a way of protecting himself from perjury that he would have committed if he had just flat out stated it was a match...

I also remember the doctor who was there at the strip search on the part of the prosecution said in an interview he was "told" that the description matched. Told? Again WTF? I mean it seems like no one (maybe no one other than Sneddon and Zonen) saw BOTH the pictures and Jordan's description. Everybody was just "told" something! Bonnie Blue makes a good point why is all this secrecy if it was a match, like they claim? Had it been a match, Jordan's description would indeed be shouted from the rooftops, just like many other things they claimed were leaked.
Click to expand...

Who in their right minds would accept someone as prejudiced and an invested in this case as sneddon to make this 'match'? The doctor at the strip search would have been a better neutral judge of this.

Re the splotches and their positions, jc's desc was of the splotch on an erect penis wasn't it whereas the photos er.. wouldn't show that. So it be kinda hard to judge where this blotch wd end up i imagine.

I'm convinced that the matching of blotches was totally inconclusive and the real killer for the da's office was the cirumcision mistake. There's just no way round the circumcision discrepency which is why it's never referred to, and they just have vague talk about blotches and positions. Even among african americans who tend to be from poorer economic groups, circumcison is more common than not, so jc was making an educated guess.
 
Last edited:
Pace said:
Btw, anybody remember Sneddon's nonsense claim during that press conference that as a DA he 'cannot chose my victims'??
BIG BIG BS. Every day across the country, DAs offices are being lambasted by people calling, writing, etc how somebody has wronged them, asking for help. OF COURSE DAs offices chose whom they persecute- that he cannot 'chose' whom to persecute is utter nonsense and NOT TRUE.
Click to expand...

You are right:

GOLETA, Calif. — For more than two decades, Roman Catholic priests sexually abused boys aged 7 -to 16 at a boarding school in a Santa Barbara seminary, a panel organized by a Franciscan order concluded.* A board of inquiry for the St. Barbara Province of the Francis*can Order said Monday that 12 priests engaged in nude games, fondling and other sex acts with students at St. Anthony's Semi*nary from 1964 to 1987, when it closed because of financial prob*lems. So far, 34 boys, mostly teenag*ers, have been identified as vic*tims.

"The abuse perpetrated by our own brothers on the victims and their families is truly horrific," said the Rev. Joseph Chinnici, minister of the Oakland-based Province of St. Barbara and leader of Franciscans in seven Western states.* "We totally abhor what has occurred," Chinnici said.
At a news conference Monday night, the chairman of the order's panel said they were stunned by the results of their investigation. "We found that in the years in question, a serious problem of sexual abuse of minors by friars existed at the seminary," Geoffrey Stearns said. He said the investigation would continue and that the panel ex*pects other alleged victims to come forward.

A message left after business hours Monday at District Attorney Thomas Sneddon's office was not immediately returned. Lt. John Thayer, a police spokesman, said prosecutions of the priests were unlikely because of the statute of limitations, which is six years on child molestation cases in Califor*nia.*
Click to expand...

http://www.skeptically.org/onreligion/id10.html

The article is from November 1993. I guess Sneddon was too busy persecuting Michael...

Technically they may be right about the statue of limitations, however in Michael's case Sneddon managed to get this law changed and he actually extended the statue of limitations from 6 years to 8 years. In this case, which involved most probably real pedophiles he and his office seem to be a lot more passive.
 
Bonnie Blue;3604829 said:
I'm convinced that the matching of blotches was totally inconclusive and the real killer for the da's office was the cirumcision mistake. There's just no way round the circumcision discrepency which is why it's never referred to, and they just have vague talk about blotches and positions. Even among african americans who tend to be from poorer economic groups, circumcison is more common than not, so jc was making an educated guess.
Click to expand...

The splotches hardly matter at all. Michael was strip searched in December 1993. The alleged molestation happened half a year earlier. Vitiligo splotches constantly change their positions. The Chandlers knew that too. This is right from Ray Chandler's book:

“… Tell me something, Evan. Is Jordie happy? Is he aware of where we are right now?”

“Everybody asks me that question, Larry. He was a lot happier a couple of weeks ago than he is now. I’m beginning to see

the effects of time draggin’ on.”

“I’m sure of that….Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that’s it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.”
“Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”

“No, that’s good for us!”

“Why?”
“Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!“

“Ha!”

“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”
Click to expand...

All they had to know was that Michael had splotches, which was a no-brainer since he talked about his vitiligo earlier that year and if you read up about vitiligo any article will tell you that one of the places where the splotches will typically show up the most will be genitalia. What they couldn't know however if Michael was circumcised. And they got that one wrong.
 
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

^True! But, it's still important to point out that Jordan pretty much said the spot was white (on a dark penis) and Sneddon said it was a dark spot (on a light penis) that is a HUGE difference then just some spot(s) changing around!
 
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Pete Townshend was placed on a national register of sex offenders.

That registration was part of a formal police caution Townshend received for accessing a Web site containing images of child abuse.

Michael Jackson has never been placed on a national register of sex offenders.

Tom Sneddon is a cold man!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=026_wXsJFWc
 
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Bonnie Blue said:
Ray chandler fought against his subpeona - he was content to do the chatshow circuit.
Click to expand...

That's something that I've been wondering about. How did he get out of coming to court and testifying?
 
Last edited:
Kingofpop4ever3000;3607292 said:
That something that I've been wondering about. How did he get out of coming to court and testifying?
Click to expand...

From VindicateMJ

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/ray-chandlers-subpoena-scared-to-death/

3) Jordan’s uncle Ray Chandler is a complete opposite of the rest of the Chandlers. He has always been exceptionally talkative about his nephew’s alleged molestation and spoke about it on numerous TV shows – which was exactly the period when the criminal investigation against Jackson was in full swing (2004-2005).

4) Despite the exact clauses of the agreement saying otherwise Ray Chandler didn’t consider himself covered by the confidentiality agreement and wrote a tell-all book about the case when the ink was not yet dry on said agreement.

5) Ray Chandler claimed that the book told nothing but the truth as it was based on ‘authentic’ documents (legal documents signed by the Chandlers’ lawyer Rothman, various recordings, etc.)

6) His book “All That Glitters: The Crime And The Cover-up” was published on September 12, 2004.

7) A week later, on September 19, 2004 Michael Jackson’s defense team subpoenaed Ray Chandler as a “custodian of documents” on the basis of which the book was written with the idea to examine them in court. The subpoena was called “Duces Tecum” which means that the subpoena requests “the evidence (documents) be brought with the person”.

8) Everyone would expect Ray Chandler to jump at the chance to present his documents to the jury to finally nail down the “predator” and have him imprisoned for the rest of his life, but….

9) … but then a strange thing happened. Instead of collecting his documents and rushing with them to court Ray Chandler first asked for a 20 days extension of the period within which he was obliged to respond to the subpoena. In the meantime he (a lawyer himself) turned to a law firm which subsequently made an objection to the subpoena, supporting their case by a whole set of arguments totaling some 70 pages – all of them to the effect that it was absolutely impossible and totally unnecessary for Ray Chandler to go to court and submit his priceless documents there.

10) This was followed by a good deal of motions (requests) between Michael Jackson’s defense team and Ray Chandler’s lawyers on the subject of why it was impossible and unnecessary for Ray Chandler to appear in court.

11) In the end it was Ray Chandler who won. Not only was his subpoena quashed (declared invalid) but his request for putting his subpoena under seal was also met, so that the People were never to know that Ray Chandler had ever been summoned to testify in court.

12) So now Ray Chandler was free again to make his rounds of the TV shows, promoting his book based on ‘serious research’ and ‘genuine documents’ and dwelling on ‘unspeakable crimes’ committed by Michael Jackson. There was absolutely no need to prove either of the points now – the public didn’t know about the hushed-up subpoena and kept applauding dear old Ray for the ‘truth told’ about that awful ‘predator’. Happy end for Ray Chandler.

One of his objections:

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.5:

Raymond Chandler object to producing these documents on the grounds that they are not relevant to the subject matter at hand in that none of these documentation contain any information regarding any claims of child molestation or defenses of such claims.

And another post on it:

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/ray-chandler-subpoena-happy-end-for-the-dear-old-uncle/



Speaks volumes that it was Michael's people who demanded Ray produce these documents which apparently confirm MJ is a pedophile and yet Ray refused and claimed they didn't show he was a pedophile.
 
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Ray is a ugly low life fool. A typical member of the Chandler family trying to ruin someones life by lying for cash! He couldn't get money from the 94 settlement but, he clearly feels entitled to something for bein a Chandler! SMH Amazing how he feels the info in his book that he claims is all true is now irrelevant to the arviso case or any info of Mj being a pedo. But, when u read the book and watch his interviews he is saying the opposite! WHAT A MORON!

Not right that he wasn't called and got away with such B.S! The 1108 past bad acts law was allowed in the Arviso case leaving the door wide open for any Chandler to be called. Yet, Ray fights this tooth and nail to not be called to testify and Jordan also refuses to testify! SPEAKS VOLUMES indeed!
 
Last edited:
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Is there any mention in the motions or by the prosecution or defense of Evan Chandler's name?
 
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Raymond Chandler, Jordy's Uncle, has a law office in Santa Barbara, CA.

Law Office of Raymond Chandler
15 W. Carrillo St., Suite 211
Santa Barbara, CA 93101

805 965-1999

It's located right by the Greyhound Bus Station.

Raymond David Chandler is a California licensed lawyer in Santa Barbara, California, 93101 area.

Raymond David Chandler graduated from law school at Santa Barbara College of Law and has an undergraduate degree from SUNY Ctr at Stony Brook. He/she was admitted to The State Bar of California on 12/11/2001.

http://www.caldir.com/lawyers/California/Santa-Barbara/93101/uvm2/Raymond-David-Chandler.html
 
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

^^ Yes, and at the Santa Barbara College of Law his mentor was a certain Tom Sneddon, so I have heard...
 
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Ray is a lawyer who can't even argue a believable case in the public and more importantly in court room for his own nephew. Yep, sure does sound like a student of Sneedon. The devil make em and keeps em together!
 
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

The uncle of one of Michael Jackson's alleged molestation victims spoke to RadarOnline.com about the King of Pop's death.
"May he rest in peace," Raymond Chandler said from his office in Santa Barbara, CA.
Chandler's nephew was the first boy to accuse Michael Jackson of molesting him in a civil [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]lawsuit[/COLOR][/COLOR], which was settled in 1993 for an undisclosed sum. Reports estimate between $2 and $50 million dollars.
"Michael was a person who had a troubled life," Chandler said. "I hope that he is happy where he is now." Whatever you piece of s--t


http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...ged-molestation-victim-responds-jackson-death
 
^^ Isn't that an odd reaction to someone's death who allegedly molested your nephew? This family never reacted to anything in a way a normal family would who had a molested kid. Yet, hardly anyone of the media wanted to see these red flags.

- Instead of going right to the authorities Evan took Jordan to a psyhologist whose obligation is to report such cases to authorities, no matter what he thinks of the allegations. This way Evan was covered from possible counter-lawsuits for false accusations. (For the record, the psychologist who reported the allegation, Dr. Mathis Abrams, said in 2003 that he could never find out for sure whether Jordan really was molested or he was trained, because they only took him to his office on that one occasion. Just to make him report the case.)
If your kid was molested, would your first reaction be to go to the police and report it, or would it be some kind of legal trickery?

- Instead of going to authorities right away, first they tried to extort money out of Michael. In August they demanded he would pay them 20 million dollars or else they will accuse him of child molestation. Right from Ray Chandler's book:

“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”
Click to expand...

Is that what you do when your kid was molested?

- Instead of pushing for a criminal trial they pushed for a civil trial (ie. money!) and tried to hinder the criminal trial. Their goal was to make the civil trial precede the criminal one. Again from Ray Chandler's book:

“Late in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called Evan with news they could all be thankful for.

Larry: “Hey, Evan, you gotta hear this one. Howard Weitzman demoted Fields again. They definitely don’t want your deposition, or June’s deposition. They don’t want to preserve anything. (not necessarily true) If they’re gonna make a deal they don’t want anything on the record about Jackson.”

Evan: “No shit! Larry, these guys are in a real mess.”

Larry: “Yeah, they fucked this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I’m going forward. We’re going to push on. So far there ain’t a button I’ve missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don’t want them going first.

Larry had said it before, but it hadn’t registered in Evan’s brain until now.

Evan: “You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?”

Larry: “Yeah.”

Evan: “Jesus Christ!”

Larry: “Right! So we don’t want that.”
Click to expand...

Is that what you do when your kid was molested?

- And the settlement. All the media questioned Michael's motives to settle, but none of them questioned the Chandlers' motives to settle. If your kid gets molested do you want money or do you want justice and do you want the molester to get locked up in jail so that he wouldn't harm any more kids?

- In 1996 Evan filed yet another lawsuit against Michael wanting more money. This time he sued for 60 million dollars accusing Michael of violating the settlement in the Diane Sawyer interview. Evan also sued Lisa Marie, Sawyer, ABC and everybody in sight. Here is that lawsuit: http://web.archive.org/web/20070916...com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/jackson.html

Eventually the lawsuit got thrown out by the court, however it's worth reading, especially this part, where Evan demands a record deal so that he can release a record with songs about the alleged molestation of his son:

43. As an additional direct and proximate result of Defendant Jackson's and
others' material breach of the agreement as herein alleged, and because of the
need to repair the reputation of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks the equitable remedy
of an order to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for
sale a certain musical composition entitled "EVANstory." This album will
include such songs as: "D.A. Reprised": "You Have No Defense (For My
Love)"; "Duck Butter Blues"; "Truth"; and other songs.
Click to expand...

WHAT PARENT OF A TRULY MOLESTED CHILD DOES THIS?


- Then Jordan's and Ray's reluctance to testify in 2005. Yet, Ray had no problem with shooting his mouth in the media. But when it came to repeating his claims in court and under oath, he was running scared.

How come none of this has ever raised a red flag for most of the media?
 
Joyce Dudley, the current District Attorney of Santa Barbara County, http://www.countyofsb.org/da/da_management.html taught at the Santa Barbara College of Law for several years. (Additionally she is a professor at Santa Barbara College of Law and has also served on the faculty of Santa Barbara City College.) I never found anything about Tom Sneddon teaching there. So I'm not sure if there is a connection between Ray Chandler and Tom Sneddon. Tom Sneddon did not endorse Candidate Joyce Dudley when she was running for election in 2009.

I did think it was sleazy that Ray Chandler moved there and got a law degree in Santa Barbara. It all seems good on the surface, but is sleazy under the surface. Kind of the way the whole family operates. Trumping up false charges against Superstar, Michael Jackson!
***********************

The new way to law school. A unique part-time evening program, at half the cost of traditional law schools. Our affordable, part-time program puts law school within your reach. Our faculty members are also local judges and practicing attorneys.

Financial Information
At the Colleges of Law, our staff are committed to making law school an affordable option for you—one that will allow you to graduate with a fraction of the debt that traditional law school students incur. In addition to offering comparably low tuition and fees, we will work with you to identify scholarships, loan programs and student employment opportunities that can minimize the financial impact of returning to school—and we will help develop payment plans that fit your budget.

Awards & Scholarships

Tuition & Fees

Financial Aid

Payment Plans

http://www.collegesoflaw.edu/Home
 
maral;3609396 said:
do we have any reliable source? i think this is something that people should know
Click to expand...

I read this in the Veritas Project but I don't know what's the source of their information for this:

However, considering that Chandler got his “law” degree from the very college where Tom Sneddon “teaches” law students every unethical thing he knows, one has to assume that Chandler took notes well from his master.
Click to expand...

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/veritas-project/
 
Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Rest in Peace Michael Jackson..! We will always love you...!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top