<blockquote>\u201cIt is, of course, impossible to prove a negative \u2014 that is, prove that something didn\u2019t happen. But it is possible to take an in-depth look at the people who made the allegations against Jackson and thus gain insight into their character and motives. What emerges from such an examination, based on court documents, business records and scores of interviews, is a persuasive argument that Jackson molested no one and that he himself may have been the victim of a well-conceived plan to extract money from him.\u201d ~Mary Fisher<\/blockquote>\r\nTo this day there is still a lot of misconception about the settlement between Michael Jackson and the Chandlers, even among fans. The settlement was again subject of discussion in "Leaving Neverland" making it look like Michael bought the silence of his alleged victims. This is why it is important to know the details about this settlement which will be laid out in this video.\r\n\r\nOn January 25, 1994, Michael Jackson settled a civil lawsuit filed against him by Evan and June Chandler. The Chandlers alleged Jackson had sexually molested their underage son Jordan.\r\n\r\nThe details of the settlement were leaked by Diane Dimond back in 2003 and although Dimond made it look like Jackson admitted to molestation because he settled over the negligence allegation, the settlement document revealed that:\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li>Michael Jackson denied any wrongdoing.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Jordan and his parents could have still testified against Jackson in the criminal trial.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Jackson only settled over claims of negligence and not over claims of child molestation.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nThe "negligence" allegation was redefined in the document.\r\n<blockquote>"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."<\/blockquote>\r\nNegligence 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.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, if the negligence allegation was directly related to the child molestation allegations, why did Evan Chandler also claim to be the victim of negligence?\r\n\r\nThe document also states:\r\n<blockquote>"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."<\/blockquote>\r\nJackson repeatedly asserts his innocence while the Chandlers do not once maintain that the allegations are indeed true.\r\n<blockquote>"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 <strong>not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation<\/strong>."<\/blockquote>\r\nThe document states that a little under fifteen and a half million dollars 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.\r\n\r\nEight pages detailing the payment were allegedly missing from Dimond's copy of the settlement but according to one of Jackson's attorneys, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit prompted Jackson's insurance company to step in and settle the case for him. If true, it means that Jackson might not have paid the Chandlers a cent.\r\n\r\nMost of the claims filed against Michael were intentional in nature and intentional claims would not have been covered under an insurance policy. But by including an unintentional claim, a negligence claim, it was guaranteed that Michael\u2019s insurance company would be involved to fund a settlement.\r\n\r\nThere was both a pending civil suit by the Chandlers and a counterclaim where Jackson claimed extortion by them. A conservative estimate of how long this could drag on would be 3-5 years. Plus there was an ongoing criminal investigation that could have started criminal proceedings. Looking at the diversity of the cases, two legal teams would have been necessary.\r\n\r\nA legal team of six attorneys at eight hours a day would have cost the insurance company over ten million dollars a year to defend Jackson. No insurance company is going to pay twenty million dollars a year for defense when it can settle and get it over with.\r\n\r\nTom Mesereau said that his understanding was that the settlement agreement was written to permit the possibility that an insurance company would step in and pay, but that he was told that the insurance company did not pay. He did stress that it was his mere opinion because he was not involved in the settlement and didn\u2019t meet Jackson until eleven years later.\r\n\r\nEven if the insurance company did not pay, for any reason unbeknownst to the public, just realizing that the settlement agreement was written in a way that Jackson\u2019s insurance company <u>could<\/u> have stepped in and settled on his behalf, shows that the settlement was never made over an intentional claim such as sexual abuse because this would not have been covered under the insurance policy. Insurance companies will, however, settle for negligent behavior.\r\n\r\nThe settlement shows that the Chandlers dropped the child molestation allegations from their complaint.\r\n<blockquote><em>"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."\r\n\r\n"Upon the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments... the Minor, through his Guardian ad Litem, shall dismiss the entire action with prejudice." <\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nThe first through sixth causes of action were the sexual abuse allegations; the seventh cause of action was negligence. Jackson settled only over the family\u2019s claims of negligence and not over their claims of child molestation.\r\n\r\nIt is of importance to mention that the settlement agreement dismissed the first six causes of action <u>without<\/u> prejudice. With actions that are settled <u>with<\/u> prejudice, all claims asserted in the action are forever barred from being brought again. When actions are settled <u>without<\/u> prejudice, it allows the plaintiff to revive those claims at a later time, should they want to. Had Jordie decided to pursue claims against Michael at a later time, he would have been able to do so up until the statute of limitations expired.\r\n\r\nFinally, the document also makes it clear that the Chandlers could have still testified against Jackson in a criminal trial.\r\n<blockquote><em>"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 <u>civil<\/u> 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."<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nThe only stipulation in the settlement is that the parties could not 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. In other words, if anyone else would want to try and extort Jackson, they could not count on the Chandlers to testify.\r\n\r\nThe Chandlers were not prohibited from testifying against Jackson in a criminal trial, as long as they notified Jackson's attorneys beforehand.\r\n<blockquote><em>"In the event the Minor, the Minor\u2019s Legal Guardians, the Minor\u2019s Guardian ad Litem, the Minor\u2019s 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\u2019s 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."<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nThe attorney for the Chandlers himself, Larry Feldman, stated when referring to the settlement that \u201cnobody\u2019s bought anybody\u2019s silence.\u201d Furthermore, under the terms of the agreement, the parties were to seek Court approval of the document. In fact, the settlement was not binding until the Court approved of the document. Since it is unlawful to obstruct justice by requiring another\u2019s silence of a crime, the Court could not have permitted a settlement that required Jordan Chandler to refuse to testify or in essence, obstruct justice.\r\n\r\nThe settlement was made because the civil trial was likely to be scheduled sooner than any criminal trial that may have taken place, and with a lower burden of proof. It had the potential to taint the jury pool for a criminal trial, generating a torrent of negative news reports in the same way we saw between 2003 and 2005.\r\n\r\nTo defend a civil trial Jackson's lawyers would expose much of the same defense tactic, witnesses, testimony, evidence etc. that they would need to use in a later criminal trial. So the settlement was a tactical move to protect himself in a potential criminal trial. A difficult choice and one that Jackson supposedly wasn\u2019t happy with.\r\n\r\nJackson\u2019s people leaked the recording of Evan to the media in an attempt to expose his motives. In the end there was no civil trial because of the settlement and there was no criminal trial because <strong>two<\/strong> grand juries <strong>rejected<\/strong> the case against Jackson due to lack of evidence.\r\n\r\nSo the settlement did not silence anybody. The settlement specifically DID NOT prevent the Chandlers cooperating with any criminal trial or investigation.\r\n\r\nIt was NOT a "Pay off". It was NOT "hush money" - The Chandlers approached Jackson for money long before the settlement and he refused to pay.\r\n\r\nThe settlement also did not prevent a criminal trial. It did not buy Jackson's freedom and it did not guarantee Jackson would not go to jail.\r\n\r\nIt was the family's own decision not to testify in the criminal case; they could have gotten money <strong>and <\/strong>justice but they only opted to take the money.\r\n\r\nAsk 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 <strong>dropped<\/strong> the claims of child abuse against Jackson, signed a document where Jackson basically called them liars, they took his money and refused to talk to authorities.\r\n\r\nOne 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 but rather of a family willing to do whatever it takes to extort as much money from Jackson as possible.\r\n\r\nFor the past 25 years, the media have been referring to the settlement as a "pay off" but 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?\r\n\r\nFinally, Evan Chandler asked for $20 million before the allegations were reported to authorities. Assuming 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 <strong>rejected<\/strong> Chandler's initial demand for money. If he was guilty, why did he do that?\r\n\r\nIf it is still your belief 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 why Michael Jackson asked for the civil trial to be postponed? He wanted the civil trial to take place <strong>after<\/strong> 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 Chandler's silence.\r\n\r\nA 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.\r\n\r\nOnce 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.\r\n\r\nOnce the civil lawsuit was settled, Jackson still had the criminal investigation to deal with.\r\n\r\nIn 1996, Evan Chandler sued Michael Jackson, seeking sixty million dollars, claiming that Michael had violated the terms of the confidential settlement agreement by denying the molestation claims. The claims arose from Michael Jackson\u2019s appearance on ABC\u2019s Prime Time Live when Michael and Lisa Marie Presley told Diane Sawyer the molestation charges were \u201clies, lies, lies, lies.\u201d Evan Chandler claimed that Michael\u2019s statement violated the terms of the settlement agreement and, as if it were possible, damaged his family\u2019s reputation.\r\n\r\nThe May 7, 1996, complaint alleged 16 causes of action including breach of contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander-libel and conspiracy. Evan Chandler\u2019s suit claimed that when Michael wrote \u201cThey Don\u2019t Care About Us,\u201d the song portrayed him in a bad light because the lines \u201cJew me, sue me\u201d and \u201cKick me, kike me\u201d referred to him; since he was Jewish, the statements were derogatory. The matter was submitted to arbitration.\r\n\r\nOn July 26, 1999, the arbitrator ruled that the confidentiality agreement <strong>specifically provided that neither party was guilty of any crime or had committed any wrongdoing<\/strong>. Therefore, Michael did not damage the Chandler\u2019s reputation by declaring his innocence.\r\n\r\nThe Supreme Court in California confirmed the arbitrator\u2019s decision in October 2000. The matter was disposed in June 2001, when the arbitrator ordered Evan Chandler to pay Michael Jackson\u2019s attorneys\u2019 fees, further proving that the settlement agreement never included any admission of guilt on Jackson\u2019s part but rather confirmed his innocence.