So I gave ChatGPT the clause of the settlement and asked if it would be possible for the movie to somehow include Evan's phone call and the fact that the photos didn't match because Michael was uncircumcised. Keep in mind that ChatGPT is not a lawyer, so the information given might not be correct, but still, this was interesting, especially that ChatGPT also suggested using Geraldine Hughes. Here are the interesting parts:
1) Evan Chandler’s Phone Call:
As long as they do not name Evan Chandler, do not show his image, and do not create a character clearly meant to be him, this is legally permissible. They could use the publicly leaked transcript or audio from Evan Chandler’s 1993 call with Dave Schwartz, as long as:
- Evan Chandler’s name is not used, and
- The context does not make it obviously traceable to him by the general audience.
- Use the call without naming Jordan or directly referencing the settlement case.
- Portray it as part of Michael’s broader media persecution or emotional toll — avoid tying it explicitly to “the 1993 case” or “the Chandlers.”
- Contextualize the call as an example of extortion attempts Michael faced from “certain families.”
The settlement restricts "commercial exploitation related to the Minor or [...]", but this call was not part of discovery, and it has been:
- Widely reported on,
- Used in documentaries,
- Discussed in the press for decades.
What They Could Do:
- Show Michael Jackson (or his legal team) listening to a cassette of the call with a voice actor playing an unnamed, clearly manipulative father, delivering the lines from the leaked tape.
- Use lines like: “If I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way I lose.”
- They could portray Michael’s shock and the realization that he may be the target of a setup — without connecting it directly to the Chandlers by name.
- Keep the character on the other end visually unseen (or only shown in silhouette, from behind, etc.).
Legal Precaution:
- Keep it ambiguous enough that it doesn’t clearly identify Evan Chandler as the person. Don’t show identifying details like a dental office, lawyer’s office, or specific family relationships.
If some fans or people familiar with the history recognize the voice or transcript, that’s not automatically a breach. Indirect identification that relies on outside knowledge (like fan awareness) is usually permitted.
What matters legally is whether the film itself explicitly identifies Evan Chandler or the Chandlers, or makes it so clear that the general public would unmistakably identify them.
Legal strategy:
- Use a fictional character who makes a similar call, but change context and language enough to avoid copying the transcript word-for-word.
- Change the character’s name, race, profession (e.g., make him a talent agent, not a dentist).
- Shift the setting (e.g., from Los Angeles in 1993 to another city or decade).
- Use the spirit and structure of the call — the manipulation, threats, and motive — rather than verbatim text.
Can the filmmakers use the direct transcript from Evan Chandler’s phone call?
The settlement agreement prohibits any commercial use of materials:
“...related to the Minor... the allegations... or any information revealed through discovery in the Action.”
So, the crucial legal question is:
Was Evan’s phone call considered part of the legal action or its discovery process?
If the transcript was part of discovery in the 1993 civil case, then it would be covered by the confidentiality clause, and using the exact transcript would be a violation — even though Evan is dead — because the agreement bars any commercial exploitation of:
“...any information revealed through discovery in the Action.”
In this case, using the transcript verbatim is legally risky.
If the transcript was never part of official discovery:
Some argue that because the phone call happened privately (between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz) and was leaked to the public before the civil suit was filed, it may not be considered part of discovery.
In this interpretation, it might not be covered by the confidentiality clause, especially since:
- It was already released publicly (via radio and press),
- It was not marked confidential by a court,
- And Evan is deceased, so there’s no defamation risk.
But even under this interpretation, it’s still legally safer to paraphrase or fictionalize the content, rather than quote it word-for-word — especially if the character is clearly modeled after Evan Chandler.
2) Circumcision:
If the movie uses a fictionalized accuser (not Jordan Chandler), the character can make the claim about circumcision. Then, another character (lawyer, doctor, or Michael himself) can respond, citing medical evidence contradicting that claim.
Strategic, Legally Safe Ways to Include the “Circumcision Proof” in the Movie:
Have a Lawyer or Investigator Read a Redacted Report
Scene Idea: A legal team is going over the details of the case. A report is shown on the table or screen — parts of it are redacted or blurred (to obscure names), but one clear part reads:
“...claim includes subject being circumcised. Physical examination contradicts this.” No names. No dates. Just the facts. Legally safer because it does not explicitly tie the statement to Jordan Chandler.
Doctor (in deposition-style scene):
“We were asked to compare a description to photographs. The subject was not circumcised. That was not in dispute.”
What if they use a fictional name, like “John”?
Saying, “John said he was circumcised, but he isn’t,” might not be legally safe if the following are true:
- The film uses only one fictional accuser, who clearly mirrors Jordan Chandler in timing, context, and storyline.
- The viewer can reasonably deduce that “John” = Jordan Chandler based on other cues (e.g., setting in 1993, similar family background, etc.).
In that case, even though you’ve changed the name, the character is considered a thinly veiled depiction of a real person — and courts have previously ruled that even renamed or fictionalized portrayals can count as commercial exploitation if they’re obviously about a real person under a protective agreement.
How can it be done safely, then?
You need plausible deniability — a composite or fictional accuser who is not clearly identifiable as Jordan Chandler.
That means:
- No direct matching timeline (e.g., set it in a different year).
- Change key contextual elements (family structure, setting, profession, age).
- Include other fictionalized elements or multiple composite accusers.
- Avoid showing a clear parallel to Evan Chandler or the dental settlement story.
Then, within this fictional context, you can include a contradiction like: “He said the man was circumcised. Medical evidence proved otherwise.”
Because now:
- It’s no longer clearly tied to a specific real-world case.
- It becomes a generic false allegation used to clear the fictionalized Michael character.
Summary:
Very high legal risk: "The boy said he was circumcised..." (unnamed, but clearly about Jordan)
High legal risk: "John said he was circumcised..." (but it’s clearly a Jordan stand-in)
Low to moderate legal risk: "John said he was circumcised..." (in a clearly fictionalized or composite storyline)
Very low legal risk: Vague implication (“The details didn’t match the body”)
Legal Principle: Fictionalization with Sufficient Distancing
The law (and settlement clause) doesn’t forbid portraying themes or events inspired by real life — it forbids the commercial exploitation of a specific, identifiable story (the Chandler case). So the question becomes:
Would the average viewer recognize this family as the Chandlers?
If the answer is “not necessarily,” or “only if they already know everything about the case,” then it’s usually considered fictionalized enough to avoid violating the agreement.
3) Include Legal Figures & Advocates Who Publicly Defended Michael
People like Tom Mesereau (2005 trial lawyer), Geraldine Hughes (legal secretary for Barry Rothman), and others have publicly said the case was an extortion attempt. The estate can include dramatized or documentary-style quotes or characters based on public figures who defended Michael — again, without referencing the 1993 civil suit by name. Portray them speaking about false allegations or patterned extortion attempts, never using the word “Chandler.”
The estate could include a character based on Geraldine Hughes. She is:
- A public figure
- Author of the book Redemption, which is publicly available
- And she has spoken openly and repeatedly on record about her time working for Barry Rothman (Evan Chandler's attorney).
What They Could Show:
- Geraldine Hughes (either directly or a fictionalized version) noticing suspicious conversations in the law office.
- Her expressing concern to a coworker about unethical behavior.
- A scene showing her resigning or reflecting on what she witnessed.
Key Legal Precautions:
- Avoid using Rothman or Chandler’s real names.
- Do not quote any confidential discovery materials she may have seen unless they're public domain.
This is safe, powerful, and legally doable if executed carefully.
Legal strategy:
- Change her name and make her a paralegal, assistant, or even a journalist.
- Change the setting (different law firm, city, etc.).
- Make the lawyer character not named Rothman and perhaps give him a different motive (e.g., greed, politics).
- Show her character discovering manipulation or a legal scheme that resembles Hughes’s real-life account.
rather than release the movie and get the truth out to the public before the sham trial starts.
