Latest on MJJC

Ray Chandler scared to death to testify in 2005

258050.gif
 
dancemasterman....I told the truth!

And OFFICIAL LEGAL DOCUMENTS BACK ME UP! Thank u very much! LOL

So, if u want to tap dance around it then that's your problem!

The most important thing here is that others on this thread got it and understand what me and others where saying and proved!

So I'm not gonna repeat myself to you anymore! I stand by everything I have posted on here! So we gonna have to agree to dis agree! Because I'm getting bored!

But, if anyone else have important questions to ask and understand what OFFICIAL LEGAL DOCUMENTS ARE AND WHAT THAT MEANS!!! Then I'll be back! ;) Till then PEACE OUT! :D

So... NEXT!
 
Last edited:
bluetopez said:
dancemasterman....I told the truth!

And OFFICIAL LEGAL DOCUMENTS BACK ME UP! Thank u very much! LOL

So, if u want to tap dance around it then that's your problem!

The most important thing here is that others on this thread got it and understand what me and others where saying and proved!

So I'm not gonna repeat myself to you anymore! I stand by everything I have posted on here! So we gonna have to agree to dis agree! Because I'm getting bored!

But, if anyone else have important questions to ask and understand what OFFICIAL LEGAL DOCUMENTS ARE AND WHAT THAT MEANS!!! Then I'll be back! ;) Till then PEACE OUT! :D

So... NEXT!
Click to expand...


You mean a legal agreement between MICHAEL JACKSON AND THE CHANDLERS? Not a legal agreement between MJ's insurance company and the Chandler's? Because there is no document or contract between the insurance company and the Chandlers. There is only the settlement between MJ and the Chandlers. The only documents that exist prove what I am saying, what MIchael Jackson is saying, what everybody knows is true.

Yes everybody here does get it. I'm not pretending you guy's don't understand it. I'm saying you guy's are lying. There is no agree to disagree. You agree with me, but you wont admit it. It's not like I think you can't understand me. It's that you prefer to spread rumours like some tabloid journalist.
 
dancemasterman said:
You mean a legal agreement between MICHAEL JACKSON AND THE CHANDLERS? Not a legal agreement between MJ's insurance company and the Chandler's? Because there is no document or contract between the insurance company and the Chandlers. There is only the settlement between MJ and the Chandlers. The only documents that exist prove what I am saying, what MIchael Jackson is saying, what everybody knows is true.

Yes everybody here does get it. I'm not pretending you guy's don't understand it. I'm saying you guy's are lying. There is no agree to disagree. You agree with me, but you wont admit it. It's not like I think you can't understand me. It's that you prefer to spread rumours like some tabloid journalist.
Click to expand...

I wasn't gonna reply back but, now you wanna call me a LIAR? Well THAT IS B.S! And you know it!

I already said MJ settled so I agree with you with that part ONLY! But he did it under protest is what you don't get! There is proof of that on this thread already as well as his insurance company paying the settlement! That's the part where your pist off about and calling people liars! Well get over yourself!

And of course the agreement is with the chandlers because they were the ones suing MJ not his insurance company! Which was also explained on this very thread as well and how the law works! lol And your wrong there is documents showing his insurance company paid the settlement! T-Mez proved it in the the 05 trial and the their is even proof of it in the 94 settlement that an insurance company will be the one to handle it! So keep on tap dancing around the situation!

The only tabloid spin here is you! Trying to make it out to be so simple without taking in to consideration all the legal battles MJ faced before the settlement with the civil case going first before the criminal case that eventually led to the out of court settlement! There is proof of that too! Motions were filed by MJ lawyers to try and stop the civil case! As well as the chandlers changing their lawsuit to negligence ONLY because that's where they knew an insurance company would step in! So, at the end of they day while you want to make a big fuss about it, the damn settlement was not even for molestation! And MJ stated his innocence in the settlement which means under protest! And the chandlers agreed! LOL

So, all that have to be said not bit and pieces to fit your agenda or your belief! Explain it all! I do and and others have yet u don't care or can't admit to it!

So, there for yes we have to agree to dis agree or take it to PM buddy!

Cause there is nothing really left to say! People here can see for them selves what I and other have been saying and proving! Even using the 94 settlement as My proof too something that you tried to use against him! lol :)
 
Last edited:
MJ didn't pay money out of his own pocket! It was His insurance carrier that was brought in and his Trans America insurance company who payed the settlement to the chandlers! Despite MJ protesting! But, a notice of protestation from MJ was included in the settlement! The judge stated it implied no guilt and the Chandlers agreed with allowing MJ to re-state his innocence in the settlement itself. It's there in the settlement for you and anyone to read! :D

Go to this webpage-
http://mjtruthnow.com/extortion/why-...mand-was-paid/

An excerpt-
“Plaintiff cannot establish the source of the funds utilized
to settle the claims involved, and
because insurance policies permitting
the insurer to settle
over the wishes of the insured were involved,
introduction of settlement agreements
will deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.”

True copy of “Mr. Jackson’s Memorandum in Support of Objection to Subpoena to Larry Feldman for Settlement Documents” filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara
The settlement agreement between Evan Chandler (not Jordan Chandler, who was a minor at the time) and Michael Jackson was for global claims of negligence—which Jackson firmly denied—and the lawsuit was defended by Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Jackson and his personal legal counsel.
Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, it is general practice for the insurer to be entitled to absolute control of the defense of the matter and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings. 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.

Nothing was stopping the chandlers from co-operating with the the LAPD/SBPD after the settlement! It's illegal to enter a clause like that in a settlement anyways and MJ didn't do that either! :)
 
Last edited:
bluetopez said:
MJ didn't pay money out of his own pocket! It was His insurance carrier that was brought in and his Trans America insurance company who payed the settlement to the chandlers! Despite MJ protesting! But, a notice of protestation from MJ was included in the settlement! The judge stated it implied no guilt and the Chandlers agreed with allowing MJ to re-state his innocence in the settlement itself. It's there in the settlement for you and anyone to read! :D

Go to this webpage-
http://mjtruthnow.com/extortion/why-...mand-was-paid/

An excerpt-
“Plaintiff cannot establish the source of the funds utilized
to settle the claims involved, and
because insurance policies permitting
the insurer to settle
over the wishes of the insured were involved,
introduction of settlement agreements
will deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.”

True copy of “Mr. Jackson’s Memorandum in Support of Objection to Subpoena to Larry Feldman for Settlement Documents” filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara
The settlement agreement between Evan Chandler (not Jordan Chandler, who was a minor at the time) and Michael Jackson was for global claims of negligence—which Jackson firmly denied—and the lawsuit was defended by Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Jackson and his personal legal counsel.
Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, it is general practice for the insurer to be entitled to absolute control of the defense of the matter and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings. 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.

Nothing was stopping the chandlers from co-operating with the the LAPD/SBPD after the settlement! It's illegal to enter a clause like that in a settlement anyways and MJ didn't do that either! :)
Click to expand...

And there you have it, and hopefully that will be the end of it? :agree:

There are also behind-the-scenes factors that wouldn't necessarily be listed in the legal documents filed about the settlement. For example, it's possible that the insurance company refused to bear the expense of a trial -- which could have cost more, but would pay a settlement up to a certain amount. The insurance company has the ball in its court, just as health-insurance pays for some things, and not others, and the company often wrangles with the insured about what is and is not covered. Michael's INSURANCE company settled, and hopefully that is clear now? Based on the legal document above?
 
The simple truth is that non-MJ fans simply don't care. Some of them will continue thinking what they want to think and cracking those horrible jokes simply because they want to. Reason and truth are thoroughly irrelevant to them so long as they have someone to laugh at and make fun of. Sad, but true.

A lot of MJ fans are very idealistic and like to see the best in people, blaming the media for everything others CHOOSE to think. What kind of person believes everything the tabloids say, anyway? There has to be something wrong with that person to begin with. Whatever their problem is predisposes them to be so succeptible to what clearly are a bunch of lies.

The simple truth is that the media can only do so much to influence the average person. Anyone who, as some put it, lets the media "think" for them obviously has some cognitive issues going on. Anyone who chooses to let the media think for them (yes, there is a difference) is clearly too lazy to have an original opinion and thus their part of the equation does not matter. The latter compose the majority of MJ haters. Even when presented with evidence which completely shatters the rationality of their thoughts on him, they'll get defensive about it with utter bullshit such as "well the trial only meant they COULDN'T find any evidence, not that he didn't do it." While it is true that, in some cases, the innocent verdict comes out that way, those defendants didn't have an FBI team fit to raid an Al-Quaeda base go through their personal belongings in search of evidence. If, after everything they put Michael through, there was not even a slightly credible claim or piece of evidence to examine, it is FAR more likely that the alleged crime never took place to begin with and the whole circus was a complete waste of taxpayer money and government resources. Most of the people who present such weak defence points have obviously never even looked at the case (from any pov other than Nancy Grace or another similar failure.) They don't know the gross violations of theoretical law Tom Sneddon committed in order to ensure his flimsy, laughable case could stand in court (like the "MJ law" he made.)

Then there's the people who say he "got away with it" because he's a celebrity. With a jury full of mostly middle aged +, white (presumably, given Santa Barbara's background) consevatives, I doubt there were any starstruck parties on board. Even if there were, it is their responsibility as jurors to leave all such impressions at the door and treat MJ as a fellow citizen, not a celebrity, in order to ensure he received a fair trial. The fairest trial, of course, would have been none at all, but I think that's clear. In any case, popular opinion was clearly against Michael, despite the fact that none of the allegations had as of yet been proven or challenged in court. When you examine it from that perspective, it is clear that the trial was actually set up to be against MJ's favour, and that his being a celebrity would not help him in the least. Yet, against all odds which were stacked against it, truth ultimately persevered and those who manufactured those stories for financial gain were exposed for what they were. (Evan and Ray Chandler included.)

But as I said, nothing would ever suffice for those who choose to irrationally stick to their misconceptions about Michael. Proof means nothing to them. They're far too dull to understand the meaning of Michael Jackson, and they will forever stick to their inferior thoughts. I pity them because their minds are so poor, but I refuse to blame the media for what THEY choose to think.
 
Last edited:
bluetopez said:
MJ didn't pay money out of his own pocket! It was His insurance carrier that was brought in and his Trans America insurance company who payed the settlement to the chandlers! Despite MJ protesting! But, a notice of protestation from MJ was included in the settlement! The judge stated it implied no guilt and the Chandlers agreed with allowing MJ to re-state his innocence in the settlement itself. It's there in the settlement for you and anyone to read! :D

Go to this webpage-
http://mjtruthnow.com/extortion/why-...mand-was-paid/

An excerpt-
“Plaintiff cannot establish the source of the funds utilized
to settle the claims involved, and
because insurance policies permitting
the insurer to settle
over the wishes of the insured were involved,
introduction of settlement agreements
will deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.”

True copy of “Mr. Jackson’s Memorandum in Support of Objection to Subpoena to Larry Feldman for Settlement Documents” filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara
The settlement agreement between Evan Chandler (not Jordan Chandler, who was a minor at the time) and Michael Jackson was for global claims of negligence—which Jackson firmly denied—and the lawsuit was defended by Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Jackson and his personal legal counsel.
Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, it is general practice for the insurer to be entitled to absolute control of the defense of the matter and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings. 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.

Nothing was stopping the chandlers from co-operating with the the LAPD/SBPD after the settlement! It's illegal to enter a clause like that in a settlement anyways and MJ didn't do that either! :)
Click to expand...

great info :)
 
xsmooth_criminalx said:
The simple truth is that non-MJ fans simply don't care. Some of them will continue thinking what they want to think and cracking those horrible jokes simply because they want to. Reason and truth are thoroughly irrelevant to them so long as they have someone to laugh at and make fun of. Sad, but true.

A lot of MJ fans are very idealistic and like to see the best in people, blaming the media for everything others CHOOSE to think. What kind of person believes everything the tabloids say, anyway? There has to be something wrong with that person to begin with. Whatever their problem is predisposes them to be so succeptible to what clearly are a bunch of lies.

The simple truth is that the media can only do so much to influence the average person. Anyone who, as some put it, lets the media "think" for them obviously has some cognitive issues going on. Anyone who chooses to let the media think for them (yes, there is a difference) is clearly too lazy to have an original opinion and thus their part of the equation does not matter. The latter compose the majority of MJ haters. Even when presented with evidence which completely shatters the rationality of their thoughts on him, they'll get defensive about it with utter bullshit such as "well the trial only meant they COULDN'T find any evidence, not that he didn't do it." While it is true that, in some cases, the innocent verdict comes out that way, those defendants didn't have an FBI team fit to raid an Al-Quaeda base go through their personal belongings in search of evidence. If, after everything they put Michael through, there was not even a slightly credible claim or piece of evidence to examine, it is FAR more likely that the alleged crime never took place to begin with and the whole circus was a complete waste of taxpayer money and government resources. Most of the people who present such weak defence points have obviously never even looked at the case (from any pov other than Nancy Grace or another similar failure.) They don't know the gross violations of theoretical law Tom Sneddon committed in order to ensure his flimsy, laughable case could stand in court (like the "MJ law" he made.)

Then there's the people who say he "got away with it" because he's a celebrity. With a jury full of mostly middle aged +, white (presumably, given Santa Barbara's background) consevatives, I doubt there were any starstruck parties on board. Even if there were, it is their responsibility as jurors to leave all such impressions at the door and treat MJ as a fellow citizen, not a celebrity, in order to ensure he received a fair trial. The fairest trial, of course, would have been none at all, but I think that's clear. In any case, popular opinion was clearly against Michael, despite the fact that none of the allegations had as of yet been proven or challenged in court. When you examine it from that perspective, it is clear that the trial was actually set up to be against MJ's favour, and that his being a celebrity would not help him in the least. Yet, against all odds which were stacked against it, truth ultimately persevered and those who manufactured those stories for financial gain were exposed for what they were. (Evan and Ray Chandler included.)

But as I said, nothing would ever suffice for those who choose to irrationally stick to their misconceptions about Michael. Proof means nothing to them. They're far too dull to understand the meaning of Michael Jackson, and they will forever stick to their inferior thoughts. I pity them because their minds are so poor, but I refuse to blame the media for what THEY choose to think.
Click to expand...

I agree with you! At some point it's up to the people themselves to find the truth! They all don't just rely on the media even if that is where some of them got it initially!? I know someone that knows how phony some media can be yet, they still think the worst of MJ. Even when I gave them the facts!
 
Last edited:
xsmooth_criminalx said:
The simple truth is that non-MJ fans simply don't care. Some of them will continue thinking what they want to think and cracking those horrible jokes simply because they want to. Reason and truth are thoroughly irrelevant to them so long as they have someone to laugh at and make fun of. Sad, but true.

A lot of MJ fans are very idealistic and like to see the best in people, blaming the media for everything others CHOOSE to think. What kind of person believes everything the tabloids say, anyway? There has to be something wrong with that person to begin with. Whatever their problem is predisposes them to be so succeptible to what clearly are a bunch of lies.

The simple truth is that the media can only do so much to influence the average person. Anyone who, as some put it, lets the media "think" for them obviously has some cognitive issues going on. Anyone who chooses to let the media think for them (yes, there is a difference) is clearly too lazy to have an original opinion and thus their part of the equation does not matter. The latter compose the majority of MJ haters. Even when presented with evidence which completely shatters the rationality of their thoughts on him, they'll get defensive about it with utter bullshit such as "well the trial only meant they COULDN'T find any evidence, not that he didn't do it." While it is true that, in some cases, the innocent verdict comes out that way, those defendants didn't have an FBI team fit to raid an Al-Quaeda base go through their personal belongings in search of evidence. If, after everything they put Michael through, there was not even a slightly credible claim or piece of evidence to examine, it is FAR more likely that the alleged crime never took place to begin with and the whole circus was a complete waste of taxpayer money and government resources. Most of the people who present such weak defence points have obviously never even looked at the case (from any pov other than Nancy Grace or another similar failure.) They don't know the gross violations of theoretical law Tom Sneddon committed in order to ensure his flimsy, laughable case could stand in court (like the "MJ law" he made.)

Then there's the people who say he "got away with it" because he's a celebrity. With a jury full of mostly middle aged +, white (presumably, given Santa Barbara's background) consevatives, I doubt there were any starstruck parties on board. Even if there were, it is their responsibility as jurors to leave all such impressions at the door and treat MJ as a fellow citizen, not a celebrity, in order to ensure he received a fair trial. The fairest trial, of course, would have been none at all, but I think that's clear. In any case, popular opinion was clearly against Michael, despite the fact that none of the allegations had as of yet been proven or challenged in court. When you examine it from that perspective, it is clear that the trial was actually set up to be against MJ's favour, and that his being a celebrity would not help him in the least. Yet, against all odds which were stacked against it, truth ultimately persevered and those who manufactured those stories for financial gain were exposed for what they were. (Evan and Ray Chandler included.)

But as I said, nothing would ever suffice for those who choose to irrationally stick to their misconceptions about Michael. Proof means nothing to them. They're far too dull to understand the meaning of Michael Jackson, and they will forever stick to their inferior thoughts. I pity them because their minds are so poor, but I refuse to blame the media for what THEY choose to think.
Click to expand...

That's true but that doesn't mean we should give up spreading the truth. Even if it's just one person willing to listen it's still worth. The Truth is always important!

You know, I don't think everybody should be interested in MJ and what happened to him during these allegations. People have other business to do, other interests, that's natural. However if you say you are not interested in MJ, then don't say he was a child molester, either! Then the fair thing would be just to say: I'm not familiar with the case so much to form a fair opinion either way. But the problem is that people say they don't care and they really don't because they are too lazy to look up the facts for themselves but they STILL feel entitled to form an opinion and often that is a rather aggressive opinion! There lies the problem!
 
respect77 said:
You know, I don't think everybody should be interested in MJ and what happened to him during these allegations. People have other business to do, other interests, that's natural. However if you say you are not interested in MJ, then don't say he was a child molester, either! Then the fair thing would be just to say: I'm not familiar with the case so much to form a fair opinion either way. But the problem is that people say they don't care and they really don't because they are too lazy to look up the facts for themselves but they STILL feel entitled to form an opinion and often that is a rather aggressive opinion! There lies the problem!
Click to expand...

Wow! Yea, that's exactly how I feel!

I had that problem with a certain family members recently! :C They act like they don't care!*rolleseyes* Yet, at every chance they get they attack! It's B.S! But, I put them in their place! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top