Ray Chandler’s SUBPOENA. Scared to death by the need to prove his lies in court

July 21, 2010

Guys, we are starting really serious business which will require our full attention now. The matter I’m referring to is Ray Chandler’s subpoena by Michael Jackson’s defense team and his refusal to testify at the 2005 trial.

Since some people are new here I see that this announcement does not ring a bell with them – so let me point out the main reasons why this discovery is so crucial to us:

1) Neither Jordan nor his father Evan Chandler ever gave their testimony in court – both in 1993 and in 2004/05 when they had a second (and perfect) chance to do it. This fact immediately raises questions about the veracity of their allegations against Michael Jackson. Their unwillingness to testify was so strong that when approached by the police in 2004 Jordan Chandler said somewhat mysteriously that ‘he had done his part’ and would sue them if they insisted on his testimony.

2) The only person who did testify in 2005 was June Chandler. She had never seen any molestation though and could not say anything definite about her son’s alleged abuse. She was so also secretive about her part in that story that she even claimed she had “never sued Jackson” though her signature is found under the confidentiality agreement settling the case in 1994. Following that agreement the parties were not supposed to speak to the media, though they could very well speak in court (which she did, while her son and former husband Evan Chandler didn’t).

3) Jordan’s uncle Ray Chandler seems to be the 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) 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 published 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 opportunity to present his documents in court to finally nail down the “predator” and have him imprisoned for the rest of his life, but….

9) But then a strange thing happened. First, Ray Chandler (who is a lawyer) asked for a 20 days extension of the period within which he was obliged to answer the subpoena. In the meantime he turned to a law firm which made an objection to the subpoena, supporting their case by a whole set of documents 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 why it was impossible and unnecessary for Ray Chandler to appear in court.

11) In the end Ray Chandler 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 (the jury) would never know that Ray Chandler had ever been subpoenaed to testify in court.

12) So now Ray Chandler is free again to make his rounds of the TV shows and dwell there on ‘unspeakable crimes’ committed by Michael Jackson and promote his book based on ‘serious research’ and ‘genuine documents’. There is absolutely no need to prove either of the points in court now (as there is a court order about it). The public doesn’t know about the hushed-up subpoena and goes on applauding dear old Ray for the ‘truth told’ about that awful ‘predator’. Happy end for the guy.

Here are the samples of the applause taken from the Amazon readers’ comments on the book “All that Glitters” (please note the admiration these people have for the factual side of the story):

Reader C.Kelly:

“Finally the facts behind the original molestation charges against Michael Jackson come out in a book written by lawyer, Raymond Chandler, who is also the boy’s uncle. Written by one who observed it all, Chandler gives a fascinating but fact driven narrative of how the events played out in 1993. The facts: from the sleepovers, the Jesus juice, the almost near possession of the boy by M.J. to the powerful negative media blitz by the Jackson PR team against the family. This sounds all too familiar 12 years later. Great page turner with the facts to back it up”.
Reader Raimond Baine:

“This book will probably be better known as “The Book MJ never wanted you to read.” The truth hurts and there seems to be a lot of truths in this book. I visited the website atgbook and read some of the documents that back-up Mr. Chandler’s claims, very strong stuff. I only wish his nephew would testify. Why is it when someone writes a book so strong the opposition always comes out with the same tired stuff…”You only wrote it for money”, think of something new to say that has some meaning”.

Think of something NEW to say that has some MEANING at last? Okay, if you are asking for it – here is a documentary saga which shows the way RAY CHANDLER fought tooth and nail for the right to NEVER HAVE TO PROVE HIS LIES IN COURT.

The first document is his response to the Defendant Michael Jackson’s subpoena which is explaining what exactly Ray Chandler is asked to submit:

DOCUMENT 1:
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/102504verobjsnonpty.pdf

October 25, 2004

The people of the State of California (Plaintiff) vs. Michael Jackson (Defendant)

Verified Objections by Non party Raymond Chandler to Defendant’s Subpoena Duces Tecum

Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Rodney S. Melville

Hearing Date: November 4, 2004

REQUEST NO.1:

ALL DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, concerning, discussion or mentioning Jordan Chandler’s relationship with Michael Jackson since January 1, 1992 (though they met only in May 1992).

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.1:

Raymond Chandler objects to producing these documents on the grounds that: (a) the request is overboard and burdensome in that the majority of these documents – numbering in the hundreds of pages – are newspaper and magazine articles and court pleadings; (b) these documents are public documents readily available to the defendant; (c) to the extent that any of these documents are unpublished they are protected from compelled production by the journalists shield law.

(“A shield law” is a law that gives reporters some means of protection against being forced to disclose confidential information or sources in state court. There is no federal shield law and state shield laws vary in scope. In general, however, a shield law aims to provide the classic protection of, “a reporter cannot be forced to reveal his or her source” law. Depending on the jurisdiction, the privilege may be total or qualified, and it may also apply to other persons involved in the news-gathering and dissemination process as well, such as an editor or a publisher).

To the extent that these documents are not newspaper or magazine articles or court pleadings readily available to the defendant, and are not protected from compelled production by the journalists shield law, production will be allowed subject to this Courts ruling on the Motion to Quash filed concurrently with these Objections and this Court’s in camera review of the documents.

(“In camera”: In camera is a Latin term meaning “in chambers”. It refers to a hearing or discussions with the judge in the privacy of his chambers (office rooms) or when spectators and jurors have been excluded from the courtroom. An in camera examination may be made of confidential or sensitive information to determine whether to introduce it to the jury and make it part of public record).

REQUEST NO.2

ALL DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, concerning, discussing or mentioning any contract, consulting agreement, joint venture agreement, employment relationship, or services arrangement between you and Tellem Worldwide.

(Tellem Worldwide is a Century City-based publicity and public relations agency founded in 1994, Los Angeles, USA. The company provides media relations, event planning, and video/multimedia production to the health care, biotechnology, and consumer products industries, as well as to entertainment firms, restaurants, and non-profit organizations. It also offers crisis management advice to such clients as the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office in the Michael Jackson case. Other clients have included Clear Channel Communications, UCLA Medical Center, and Marriott. The agency is owned by MTA Films Entertainment, which gives Tellem access to a video editing facility complete with cameras, lighting gear, and other audio-visual equipment)

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.2:

Raymond Chandler objects to producing these documents on the grounds that the documents requested are irrelevant to the issues in this case.

Notwithstanding said objections, Raymond Chandler is unable to comply with Request No.2 because no such documents have ever existed. A diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with this demand.

REQUEST NO.3:

ALL DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, concerning, discussing or mentioning any communication, correspondence, notes, letters, memoranda, or discussion between you and Tellem Worldwide since January 1, 1992, or any of their representatives.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.3:

Raymond Chandler object to producing these documents on the grounds that (a) the documents requested are irrelevant to the issues in this case and (b) will not reasonable lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

(“Admissible evidence” is evidence which can be brought forward in a court of law to support or undermine a legal case. In order to be considered admissible, evidence must meet certain standards, with the standards being especially high in criminal cases. Concerns about admissible evidence are very important to the people who investigate crimes. They want to make sure that the evidence they handle is carefully documented and secured so that it can be used in court. For evidence to be reliable enough to be admitted, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that the source of the evidence makes it so).

Notwithstanding said objections, Raymond Chandler is unable to comply with Request No.3 because no such documents have ever existed. A diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with this demand.

REQUEST NO.4:

ALL DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, concerning, discussing or mentioning any communication, correspondence, notes, letters, memoranda, or discussion between you and any person, business, or other entity since January 1, 1992, where Michael Jackson has been mentioned or discussed.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.4:

Raymond Chandler object to producing these documents on the grounds that (a) the request is overbroad and burdensome; (b) are an invasion of privacy; (c) to the extent that any of these documents are unpublished they are protected from compelled production by the journalists shield law; and (d) will not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST NO.5:

ALL DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, concerning, discussing or mentioning any communication, correspondence, notes, letters, memoranda, or discussion between you and enforcement agency, governmental entity, police personnel, sheriff’s personnel, child protective services personnel or any of their representatives, whether federal, state, or local, since Januray 1, 1992, where Michael Jackson or Jordan Chandler has been mentioned or discussed.

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.

REQUEST NO.6:

ALL DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, concerning, discussing or mentioning any compensation, payment, expense reimbursement, cancelled checks or other evidence of payment, for any speech, writing, manuscript, book, performance, consultation service, work, labor, or other assistance you have provided to any person where the subject matter of Michael Jackson or Jordan Chandler was discussed, mentioned, or involved.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.6:

Raymond Chandler object to producing these documents on the grounds that (a) the request is overbroad and burdensome; (b) are an invasion of privacy; (c) are irrelevant to the issues in this case; and (d) will not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Raymond Chandler is unable to comply with Request No.6 because no such documents have ever existed. A diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with this demand.

REQUEST NO.7:

ALL DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, concerning, discussing or mentioning any discussions, letters, notes, communications, contracts, agreements, or correspondence between you and Jordan Chandler, or any of his representatives, where the subject of Michael Jackson was discussed or mentioned since January 1, 1992.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.7:

Raymond Chandler objects to producing these documents on the grounds that (a) the request is overbroad and burdensome; (b) are an invasion of privacy; (c) to the extent that any of these documents are unpublished they are protected from compelled production by the journalists shield law; and (d) will not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Raymond Chandler is unable to comply with Request No.6 because no such documents have ever existed. A diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with this demand.

REQUEST NO.8:

ALL DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, concerning, discussing or mentioning any discussions, letters, notes, communications, contracts, agreements, or correspondence between you and Evan Chandler, or any of his representatives, where the subject of Michael Jackson or Jordan Chandler was discussed or mentioned since January 1, 1992.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.8:

Raymond Chandler objects to producing these documents on the grounds that (a) the request is overbroad and burdensome; (b) are an invasion of privacy; (c) to the extent that any of these documents are unpublished they are protected from compelled production by the journalists shield law; and (d) will not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST NO.9:

ALL DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, concerning, discussing or mentioning any manuscripts, manuscript, drafts, research notes, interview notes, interview audio and video recordings, correspondence with witnesses, and discussions with witnesses concerning or relating to the book “All that Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-up” by Raymond Chandler.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.9:

Raymond Chandler objects to producing these documents on the grounds that (a) the request is overbroad and burdensome; (b) are an invasion of privacy; (c) to the extent that any of these documents are unpublished they are protected from compelled production by the journalists shield law; and (d) will not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST NO.10:

ALL DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, concerning, discussing or mentioning any contract, agreement, or arrangement for the printing, distribution, promotion, or sale of the book “All that Glitters: The Crime and the Cover up” by Raymond Chandler.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.10:

Raymond Chandler object to producing these documents on the grounds that: (1) they are not relevant to the subject matter at hand in that none of these documentation contain any information regarding any claims or defenses to the action; (b) production of these documents is an invasion of privacy in that they reveal personal financial information.

Dated 10/25/2004

Law office of Herb Fox,

Herb Fox, Attorney for Non-Party Raymond Chandler

(Raymond Chandler declared in the “Verification” document that under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.)

* * *

A couple of notes on the above documents:

Let me remind you that it is the DEFENSE team which is summoning Ray Chandler to submit all those documents in court. If Michael Jackson felt ‘guilty’ in any way submission of the documents testifying to his alleged guilt would be the last thing his party would be interested in. If THEY insist on these documents it means they are sure of their case and expect them to fully exonerate Michael Jackson.
In his TV appearances Ray Chandler always spoke about some offical documents proving his case, however here he refers to “hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles or public documents readily available to the Defendant”. Does it mean that he has nothing else than newspaper cuts from the tabloid press?
The unpublished material is “protected by the journalists shield law”. Is Ray Chandler a journalist and is he protected by the shield law from disclosing his sources of information?
Everything else he has will be submitted only for “in-camera” discussion to be done in the privacy of the judge’s office rooms and where spectators and jurors will not be present. Interesting point… Especially if you consider that all the documents laying the basis for his book are displayed in a supplement to it in full view of the general public. Why all this discrimination for the jury? Why can’t they see the documents too?
No wonder the Defense asked Ray Chandler about Tellem Worldwide. Michael Jackson’s team evidently had reasons to believe that our author was connected with this public relations agency (incidentally founded in 1994). The agency admit it in their official statement that they “offered crisis management advice to such clients as the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office in the Michael Jackson case” (which was probably exactly the year 1994). Ray Chandler naturally denied any connection…
As to law enforcement bodies Ray Chandler does not say he hasn’t had any communication with them – no, he only objects to producing the documents as they are not relevant to the case because “none of these documents contain any information regarding any claims of child molestation”. None of them are relevant? And none of them contain claims of child molestation? This is something new…So the Chandlers never made any official claims that Jordan Chandler had ever been molested?
When asked by the Defense about his communication with Jordan and Evan Chandler and all the video and interview materials for the book “All that Glitters” Ray Chandler replies with a full cannonade of legal terminology – the request is “overbroad” (vague and not specific), invades privacy, is protected by the journalists shield law and will not lead to “the discovery of admissible evidence”.
The last was not clear to me, so I looked up “admissible evidence” in Law encyclopedia. To tell you frankly, the term seemed to me an admirable way to say that you are not sure of your evidence at all.

The encyclopedia says that “admissible evidence” should meet two conditions – be relevant to the case and be reliable. As to it being relevant I have no doubts about it but as to its reliability… Well, doesn’t Ray Chandler admit that even if he presents his documents they will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? Which – in plain language – means that the ‘reliability’ of his documents is such that it will not allow them to be admitted for court examination?

Yes, all these maneuvers show that Ray Chandler was terribly unwilling to testify in court . The effort he is taking to avoid this difficulty is simply unprecedented.

A mere annulment of the subpoena is no good for him either – it is necessary that the “People” should not even know that he had ever been subpoenaed at all, so to reach this goal he resorts to an extreme measure – he seeks protection from his opponent, Michael Jackson and his defense team.

The thing is that there was a certain Protective Order for the people who were subpoenaed by the Defense. I don’t know the reason for that Order (my guess is that many people were evidently hesitant as to taking part in that nightmare, and this was a sort of a protection for their privacy).

Whatever the case the Protective Order said,

“Persons or entities subpoenaed by the Defendant shall not disclose directly or indirectly to the People the fact that they have been subpoenaed or the nature of the subpoena. Any appearance, objection, compliance, or other communication by a party subpoenaed by the Defendant shall be filed under seal” (not disclosed).
And our big lawyer Raymond Chandler was quick enough to find shelter under this very Protective order – which naturally included him too as he was also subpoenaed by the Defense. If only he had been subpoenaed by the Prosecution…No, he wasn’t … Clever boys…

The above paradox is stated in the document provided below (don’t be afraid – this will be all for today).

DOCUMENT 2
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/102504appsealwonotpeop.pdf

October 25, 2004

The people of the State of California (Plaintiff) vs. Michael Jackson (Defendant)

Application to File Under Seal and Without Notice to the People;

Hearing Date: November 4, 2004

Judge: Honorable Rodney S. Melville

Raymond Chandler, a non-party to this proceeding, hereby submits this application for an order allowing him to file under seal a Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum served on him by the Defendant Michael Jackson, and allowing him to file that Application without notice to the People.

On or about September 19, 20004 Raymolnd Chandler was served, in his capacity as a custodian of records, with a Supoena Duces Tecum and related documents. The response to the Subpoena is due on October 25, 2004 at 9:00 a.m., in Dept. SM-2.

On July 9, 2004 the Superior Court, the Hon. Judge Rodney Melville presiding, issued a Protective Order Regarding Defendant’s Subpoenas Duces Tecum, a copy of which was attached to the subpoena identified herein as Exhibit 1. That Protective Order states, in part:

“3. Persons or entities subpoenaed by the Defendant shall not disclose directly or indirectly to the People the fact that they have been subpoenaed or the nature of the subpoena.

4. Any appearance, objection, compliance, or other communication by a party subpoenaed by the Defendant shall be filed under seal”.

Attached to this Application is a proposed Order.

Date 10/25/2004

LAW OFFICE OF HERB FOX,

Herb Fox,

Attorney for Raymond Chandler

* * *

If you haven’t read any of the above here is the gist in a couple of sentences:

Michael Jackson requested Ray Chandler to prove his lies in court.

Ray Chandler refused to do it under various pretexts and sought refuge from Michael Jackson’s subpoena under the rules protecting Michael’s own witnesses.

The way Ray Chandler avoided testifying in court is not important to us. What is really crucial is that he NEVER wanted to go to court and present his ‘documents’ there.

So is there anyone here who is still thinking that Ray Chandler’s masterpiece ‘All that Glitters” is based on FACTS? Show me these dinosaurs, please …

Source: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/

About emma71

mjj fan
%d bloggers like this: