Myth: The Settlement Was For Negligence, Not Sexual Abuse

April 7, 2020

The statement is partly true, but it overlooks an important detail: in the settlement, the Chandlers agreed to drop the sexual abuse claims and keep only the negligence claim active. This negligence claim is closely tied to the sexual abuse allegations, as negligence implies a failure that can lead to a wrongful act.

To summarize, in September 1993, a civil lawsuit was filed for Jordan Chandler against Michael Jackson, consisting of seven claims: sexual battery, battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and negligence. You can find the complete details in Jordan's original civil complaint.

43. Defendant Michael Jackson owed a duty to use ordinary care in his relationship with plaintiff and not to take advantage of plaintiff's age or of plaintiff's trust in defendant Michael Jackson. Further, defendant Michael Jackson was at all times obligated to comply with all provisions of the Penal Code of the State of California and other jurisdictions and to specifically comply with the Penal Code Sections alleged in paragraph 24, above.

44. Defendant Michael Jackson negligently had offensive contacts with plaintiff which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise.

As we know, the civil lawsuit resulted in an out-of-court settlement, with Michael Jackson paying a reported $15+ million to the child.

So why is it claimed that he only paid for the negligence charge?

In the fifth paragraph of the settlement, Jordan Chandler and his parents agreed to drop all claims that directly accused MJ of sexually abusing the child. Essentially, MJ required them to withdraw their allegations to make the payment for a reason that appeared less incriminating. It’s clear he paid to resolve the issue, not to admit guilt.

5. Dismissal of the Action

The Action shall be dismissed, with prejudice, accordance with the following schedule:

a. Forthwith upon the signing of this Confidential Settlement by the Parties hereto, the Minor, through his Guardians ad Litem in the Action and attorneys, 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.

b. Upon (1) the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments provided in paragraph 3.a. (6) (a); (2) the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments provided in paragraph 3.b. (1); the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments provided in paragraph 3.c.(1); the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments provided in paragraph 3.d. (1); and (4) the earlier of (i) the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments provided in paragraph 3.a. (1)-(4) above or (ii) agreement by Jackson to Qualified Assignments, accompanied by receipt by each assignee from Jackson of the Qualified Funding Asset Premiums by the QFAP Funding Dates, the Minor, through his Guardian ad Litem, shall dismiss the entire action with prejudice..

Counts one through six were dismissed without prejudice, allowing the Chandlers the option to refile if they chose. However, this was unlikely since Evan and June Chandler agreed in paragraph 12.c. that signing the settlement and avoiding a trial was in the child's best interest.

As mentioned in a previous post, Jordie's therapist expressed concern in November 1993 about the "extremely harmful" effects of a prolonged legal court case. Jordie even drew a picture of himself committing suicide and showed it to his father. A year after the settlement, Larry Feldman noted that Jordie was still struggling to adjust. The family requested protection through the witness protection program, but their request was denied. Thus, their decision not to go to trial was understandable.

The agreement explicitly prohibited the Chandlers from discussing the charges with anyone except the authorities. MJ fans often note that the agreement did not prevent the Chandlers from speaking to the police about the criminal investigation, which is accurate, as that would have been illegal. The Chandlers could cooperate with the police, but we need to consider the highlighted parts of paragraph 11.g:

g. In the event the Minor, the Minor's Legal Guardians, the Minor's Guardian ad Litem, the Minor's attorneys, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any of them individually or on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, receive any subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted, or is investigating, any claim against Jackson or the Jackson Releasees or the Action or the Claims, they agree to give notice in writing to Jackson's 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 in any manner other than objections or a refusal to respond and shall be given no later than five days following the receipt of the request.

While MJ couldn't stop them from cooperating with the police, he would be informed if anyone involved decided to discuss the allegations with authorities. This provided him an opportunity to plan his defence before being questioned.

As a result of this agreement, the LA District Attorney's office and various child welfare organizations pushed for changes in California law, allowing prosecutors to intervene in civil cases to prevent agreements that might discourage victims from cooperating in criminal trials. Consequently, contracts that specify payments to be made more than one year after the contract is signed are no longer legally enforceable. This change is outlined in California Civil Code 1669.5, which is explained here: findlaw.com

Additionally, MJ and his lawyers aimed to limit the Chandlers' opportunity to file a lawsuit later on, as the settlement agreement included a clause stating that the suit would be dismissed with prejudice once all instalment payments were completed. This meant that if the Chandlers decided to pursue legal action against MJ for the molestation charges in the future, they wouldn't be able to, since the payments were structured to extend through the entire criminal statute of limitations. At that time, the statute of limitations for Jordan was six years.

This was clearly outlined in paragraph 11.f.

.f. The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, and Evan Chandler and June Chandler, and each of them individually and оп 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 civil claim or action which relates in any manner to the subject matter of the Action against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releasees, except as may be required by law.

If the agreement among all parties still doesn't seem like an obvious attempt to "silence" the Chandlers (as explicitly mentioned by Carl Douglas), we should consider paragraph 12.e. near the end of the document:

e. The attorneys of record for all the Parties represent and warrant that they will use their best efforts to safeguard, secure and protect the discovery obtained in the Action from disclosure.

The “discovery” process is a pre-trial procedure where each party can obtain evidence from the other through methods like interrogatories, requests for document production, requests for admissions, and depositions. It’s notable that MJ sought to keep all discovery related to the Chandlers' lawsuit completely sealed and hidden. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, MJ's attorneys also aimed to prevent any discovery, including evidence gathering and witness depositions, for seven years, effectively delaying the civil lawsuit's progress.

It's important to clarify that "hiding" the discovery process is not illegal and does not constitute obstruction of justice; however, it limits the ability of any party—whether media, civil, or criminal—to gather information about Jordie's claims or to direct them on where to look. Additionally, the sharing of evidence between the Chandlers' civil attorneys and prosecutors became a significant obstacle for Jackson’s defence.

According to this 1993 LA Times article:

Cochran and Howard Weitzman, two of Jackson’s lawyers, fought vigorously to prevent information obtained during the discovery process in the boy’s lawsuit from being turned over to prosecutors. They argued that investigators were trying to use the suit to advance their criminal investigation, a technique that Jackson’s lawyers said should not be allowed.

But Lauren Weis, who heads the sex crimes unit of the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, said investigators should be able to review that material to assist them in deciding whether criminal charges are warranted against Jackson. Although law enforcement sources previously said a decision about whether to file charges could be reached by January, Cochran said he was recently notified that it will not be concluded before February.

"We have a right to know if these witnesses made contrary statements at other times,” Weis said, in arguing for access to the civil discovery material, which includes sworn statements by possible witnesses."

Why were they so keen to hide discovery if MJ had nothing to conceal and was truly innocent? 

Perhaps it was because the discovery process, which supported Jordie Chandler's lawsuit, created a need for a settlement that would eliminate fears of criminal prosecution and could potentially strengthen the prosecutors' case, something MJ's lawyers surely understood.

Settlements are often crafted with the hidden goal of stalling legal progress or keeping damaging information from becoming public. It's not unreasonable to suggest that MJ's choice to settle implies guilt. If the Chandlers' claims were trivial and didn’t challenge his innocence, he wouldn’t have needed to settle.

To summarize, the agreement clearly states on page 4 that Michael Jackson does not admit to any guilt. However, the "no admission of guilt" clause is standard legal terminology.

Harvey Weinstein used similar language in the NDAs he signed with his victims (page 142). Furthermore, in a specific case involving two sheriff's deputies accused of beating a man during an arrest, the county also denied any wrongdoing despite a video of the incident. If this clause were taken to mean total innocence, we would have to assume that everyone who signs such an agreement—including the Catholic Church with its numerous NDAs —must never have committed a crime, as they all state in their documents that they do not admit to any wrongdoing. The notion that "no admission of any crime" serves as a compelling argument is absurd.