Jordy Chandler

MJ really did touch me and so did his father when both MJ and I were kids in Indiana. However, its all irelavant to anything happening today. How much could I get though I wonder? Probably something from the rags at least, huh?

Sorry mikey, but the law of diminishing returns comes into play here. The more people who claim to have been 'touched' by Mad Michael the less the story is worth. Currently your yarn is valued at about $1.50 (plus tax).

According to the BBC correspondent, Jordy Chandler is extremely reluctant to talk and may have even left the country to avoid being made to testify in court. Maybe he's worried he'd have to give the millions back!!

So, on the subject of libel, if I were to, just for instance, talking hypothetically here, mention in, say, every one of Michael Casey's threads that The Church of Scientology are a bunch of money grabbing fraudsters, and that Tom Cruise is gay, would those threads have to be removed?

Let's not get into a discussion of libel - I know the law very well and it is not an exact science. Any public discussion of it will lead to libels being committed. I'll happily talk with you in a pub or wherever about it but it's not such a smart thing to do on the forums!

in answer to missi's original question. i should imagine that a subpoena by a state court supercedes any civil agreement. and it would be down to michael jackson and his associates to take a civil action in this matter. the chances of a civil action succeeding would be tiny, given that the material facts regarding the circumstances surrounding the failure of jordy chandler to honour the agreement would favour the plaintiff. this is opinion.

You can't ever enter into a binding contract to break the law. Technically, any witness can be summoned to give evidence and be imprisoned if they refuse to attend or answer questions. (of course, Jordy could say 'don't remember' to every question). What Jackson's lawyers should have done is put a clause in the contract to say that in the event of Jordy giving evidence against Jackson in any later trial that he would forfeit the money; but I guess they either didn't, or Jordy's folks were smart enough to move the money or spend it. I have to say, on the criminal standard of proof (and although I have a contrary view of the 'truth' of the matter), I think Jackson is doing much better at trial than I expected and is far further along the line of the prosecution not making their case than say, O J Simpson, who got off. I remain curious that if the main complainant and his family were viewed as the most credible witnesses, what the other complainants who were dispensed with must have been like...

Interesting conundrum Andrew. If you can't enter into a binding contract to break the law, can you enter into a binding contract to not talk about having possibly broken the law? Is extorsion and blackmail a binding contract? If so, under what circumstances? If not, how can anyone ever file a civil suit?

Very good point Gary - at least one of the parties to the original agreement had broken the law and that was the subject matter of the agreement. Either Jackson had abused the boy and the boy agreed not to press charges or the boy had made false allegations in order to blackmail Jackson into paying money. On that basis, I don't see how this contract was ever enforceable in law - it certainly wouldn't be in England. However, this payment to victims so that they don't press criminal charges seems to be fairly commonplace in America, and I guess the contracts have to be enforceable, otherwise the payer could get stung twice. I suppose in this case it is as simple as - Jordy agreed not to discuss the alleged abuse (and he hasn't ever done this) but did not agree to resist giving evidence if he was called as a material witness in relation to other allegations. I was always surprised that Jackson allowed it to be known that he had actually paid off Jordy - I'd have been expecting as part of the deal a written retraction of the allegations and that they were fabricated, then he'd have been covered against them resurfacing. Having been utterly convinced he was going to be convicted, I know think he may well get off and rightly so (if you are talking about the Prosecution proving their case, rather than suspecting whether he did what he is accused of).

You and I both know that he can be guilty and not be found guilty, vice-versa. I'm not following the case, but the news can't be avoided (working for a newspaper doesn't help matters.) Trying to put myself in a position of juror, my thinking may very well be... If they made an agreement earlier, ie if Jackson paid them to shut up, and he's now talking, he has no credibility. They've already admitted to being liars, and this is further evidence of that flaw. I'm also thinking that since he let them have the run of Neverland, he may want to find out what they may have stolen from him. I can't see a jury finding Jackson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I could never convict somebody from the testimony of an admitted and proven liar.

radiodenver. who has admitted to being liars? if you mean those who might testify on matters that had previously been settled out of court, there is no admission or accusation in place. the financial settlement is merely an instrument to prevent court action, not a judgement in itself. if, following an out-of-court settlement to not discuss the relevant matters, the complainant is then forced by state law to appear before a court, there is no loss of credibility even if the complainant then details the original complaint in full

mike touched me too, but Im 32. can I get paid too? BIG MONEY! NO WAMMIES!

You're right. The financial settlement is merely an instrument to prevent court action. The amount seems very steep to me, but it still doesn't point to anyone's guilt or innocence. I believe MJ understood this before he paid out this sum. There's no guarentee that JC won't be called befor the court. MJ should not get a refund. [%sig%]

I disagree Miss, at BEST he's nuts.

Michael jackson was brought up in an enviroment so far removed from our own that to exclaim him as "nuts" is nuts in itself. One of MJ's long standing interests is the joy of childhood and the pure wisdom that children emanate. Similar to "the uncarved block" in taoism. Something of which is unlearned during our education. Michael Jackson is an extraordinary showman, quite exceptional also in the fact that the life he lives is experienced by so few on this earth. I don't like his music.

Yes, yes Denver, but is he entitled to a refund?

"Michael Jackson is an extraordinary showman, quite exceptional also in the fact that the life he lives is experienced by so few on this earth." Just as well, I say - but I see the shadow of ABCtales' libel-watcher looming over this thread, so I won't elaborate.

As the case and the trial is an American issue I assume it is not sub judice here. If I am wrong no doubt someone who knows will say so.

In anycase, the question I asked is a technical/legal one, and has no real bearing on Jackson's personal trial, guilt or innocence per se.

No, he's not entitled to anything. Like everybody else he needs to litigate the issue.

It is viewable in the USA and we have US members - our server is also in the USA - I will therefore apply standard libel criteria to this thread - beware. So far, so good but just be sensible!

No problem, Tony. I was questioning the ethics of taking cash for something, then reneging on the agreement at a later date. Nothing to do with the case at all really.

Are we advocating "prior restraint" here?

Denver, British libel laws are much stricter than the American counterpart and they sue each routinely--unilke in the US where libel suits are virtually unknown and almost impossible to win.

I fail to see a potential Libel in an exchange of opinions regarding news accounts of public figures. To be Libel, it must be FASLE, DEFAMATORY and not hyperbole. Opinions do not count either. There must be malice as well.

I hardly think it likely that the lawyers of the (allegedly) almost bankrupt Michael Jackson spend rafts of time at the moment trawling the net looking for forums which might suggest their client is guilty, but I guess you never know. I'd suspect they have bigger fish to fry than ABC.