On a quiet day, a doorbell rang of the residence that had recently been the scene of a chilling event: an attempted shooting involving April Chandler. The visitor was “R”, an elderly man with a heavy heart and a story to share. He had come seeking answers and perhaps some closure after his own distressing encounter with the same woman. R had learned from his realtor about the harrowing incident where April had tried to shoot the homeowner. “My realtor sent me information on how she tried to shoot you,” R shared, his voice tinged with disbelief and concern. “I said, ‘Oh, my God.’”

“I got scammed by April,” R began, his voice laden with the weight of betrayal. Behind this simple statement lay a tale of deception, dashed hopes, and financial ruin. R had a straightforward dream: to sell his house in New York and start afresh in Florida. But that dream quickly turned into a financial quagmire when he crossed paths with April Chandler.

According to R, April had shown interest in his house, and everything seemed to be falling into place. However, the first sign of trouble appeared when R’s realtor, perhaps naively or misinformed, suggested that it was customary in New York to accept only $1,000 as a down payment. Trusting this advice, R agreed, not realizing that this decision would set off a chain of events that would jeopardize his financial stability.

With the agreement seemingly secured, R said he and his wife took the significant step of moving all their furniture and belongings to Florida, anticipating a new chapter in their lives. But as the days turned into weeks, April’s assurances of completing the payment allegedly became a repetitive chorus of delays. “Next week, next week,” she would often say, stringing R along with promises that never materialized.

R’s financial situation became increasingly dire. The costs of maintaining the unsold property in New York, combined with the expenses of their relocation and the absence of the expected funds from the house sale, began to drain their savings rapidly. They had banked on the sale proceeds to support their new life in Florida, but with each passing day, their financial cushion grew thinner. “We’re probably going to go bankrupt,” R lamented.

The gravity of their predicament hit its lowest point when R said he and his wife, both nearing their 80s, found themselves without a proper home in Florida. He says they resorted to sleeping in their car, a situation no one could have foreseen for them. The discomfort of the cramped space, combined with the sweltering Florida nights, was a daily ordeal. Their health issues, especially R’s wife’s mobility challenges, made their circumstances even more distressing.

Their daughter, seeing their plight, offered them refuge in her home in New Jersey. But even there, the financial strain was evident. They slept on a water bed she bought for them, a far cry from the comfort of their own home. R’s weekly trips back to New York to maintain the unsold property were a constant reminder of their financial troubles. Each trip meant sleeping on an air mattress, alone, in an empty house filled with memories.

R’s story paints a vivid picture of the devastating impact of financial deception. Beneath the legalities and email exchanges lies a tale of an elderly couple, once hopeful for their golden years, now grappling with financial instability and the emotional toll of betrayal. The house in New York, which should have been a symbol of their life’s work and cherished memories, now stood as a haunting reminder of their encounter with April Chandler.

In 1995, a daring theft from the British Navy’s HMS Dolphin wardroom made headlines. At the heart of this audacious art heist was a young Steward First Class named April Chandler. The stolen piece, a painting by Whyllie depicting a submarine, had been a prized possession of the Navy, with its value estimated to range between £20,000 and £100,000.

Chandler, then just 21 and hailing from Dundee, along with two other stewards, meticulously planned and executed the theft. The artwork, titled “C33 Entering The Creek,” was removed from its prominent position above the bar, where Chandler worked. Apparently using a lavatory window as her escape route, she managed to smuggle the painting out without detection. Security footage reportedly later revealed Chandler leaving the premises with a suspicious package.

According to newspapers the plot thickened when Chandler, Leading Steward Philip Edgeworth, and Steward Roy Baker attempted to sell the stolen masterpiece. Their chosen buyer? Art dealer Richard Martin, who had recently restored the very same painting. Offering the artwork for a staggering £500,000, their plan quickly unraveled. Martin, suspicious of the sale, contacted the police after arranging a meeting with the culprits at the Gosport branch of Safeways. Surveillance footage from the supermarket captured Edgeworth and Chandler arriving for the rendezvous, but the duo failed to keep their appointment.

As the court martial proceedings unfolded, Chandler maintained her innocence, pleading not guilty to charges of theft and handling stolen property. Edgeworth, from Gloucester, also denied charges of receiving stolen goods. In a twist, Baker of Luton admitted guilt, pleading guilty to handling the stolen artwork and was set to testify against his co-defendants.

Documentation

April Chandler, a name that once echoed with the promise of empowerment and resilience, now resonates with the echoes of duplicity and contradiction. In the public eye, Chandler is a self-made author, a woman of words weaving narratives of self-help and empowerment. Her book, “Orgasm Your Way Back to Health,” marked the beginning of her journey as a self-publisher, a journey painted with the hues of women-power and the indomitable spirit of motherhood.

​Yet, behind the curtains of public adulation and self-proclamation, Chandler’s life was a theatre of contradictions. The woman who publicly endorsed the narrative of “mothers can do everything” was the same woman who left her children in the care of a convicted child sex offender – their father.

​On June 8, 2017, Chandler’s public praise for her ex-husband was a performance of gratitude. She lauded him for stepping up to the responsibility of watching the kids while she trotted the globe. Yet, in the private corridors of conversations, Chandler painted a different picture. Allegedly, to her close confidantes, her ex-husband was a man marked by physical abuse and moral decay.

​The dichotomy of Chandler’s narrative was as stark as it was unsettling. Public records and court documents unveiled the truth – her ex-husband was a convicted child sex offender, his victim, a child of merely five years. Yet, Chandler’s children were left under his watch, a decision that stood in stark contradiction to the public persona she so meticulously crafted.

​The unraveling of Chandler’s double life didn’t stop there. Her ex-husband was arrested for failing to register as a sex offender. In the court documents, Chandler listed his address as the El Paso County Detention Center. The woman who once stood as a symbol of empowerment was now entangled in a narrative of contradiction and questionable decisions.

​As the chapters of Chandler’s life unfold, each page reveals a complex narrative. A woman of empowerment or a mother marked by questionable decisions? A self-help guru or a character of contradiction? In the intricate dance of public personas and private lives, April Chandler remains an enigmatic figure, a character study in the complex narrative of human contradictions.

Documentation

In the glitzy world of film production, where dreams are spun into reality, not all tales have happy endings. The year 2015 saw the birth of an ambitious motion picture project titled “Forever Young.” The brainchild of a collaboration between Wealth Mentors Pte Ltd, a Singaporean entity, and Phoenixmoonfilm Pty Ltd, an Australian corporation led by Leonardo Michael, the project promised to be a cinematic masterpiece. However, as fate would have it, the film remained incomplete despite the best efforts of all parties involved.

​Enter April Chandler. In late 2017, with the allure of her claims and promises, she allegedly convinced Mr. Skipper to invest £60,000 in the production, handing her not only the funds but also invaluable motion picture content. This content, some original and some licensed from Wealth Mentors at a staggering cost of £150,000, was the very soul of “Forever Young.”

​But as the curtains rose, the plot took a dark turn. By early 2018, Chandler, operating under the guise of ‘Blue River Production,’ seemed to show her true colors. According to court allegations, despite receiving the funds and content, she demanded more money and embarked on a malicious campaign against Mr. Skipper. From discrediting him professionally, leading to the cancellation of his book promotions and speaking events, to making baseless threats about his arrest, Chandler’s actions were nothing short of vindictive.

Her audacity seems to know no bounds. She allegedly reached out to potential investors, attempting to divert funds for her own ventures. In a move that shocked many, Chandler even contacted Phoenixmoonfilm and its principal, Leonardo Michael, managing to obtain crucial documents that would allow her to present herself as the rightful owner of “Forever Young.”

​By mid-2018, a disillusioned Mr. Skipper sought to sever ties and cancel their agreement. But Chandler, who appears to be ever the manipulator, only then provided a countersigned agreement. To this day, she continues her charade, parading as the film’s producer and refusing to return the invaluable footage, documents, and funds.

April Chandler’s modus operandi appears to be masterclass in evasion, challenge, and counter-accusation. She seems adept at navigating the legal landscape, using every tool at her disposal to deflect and delay.​

​In Santa Monica’s legal corridors, the challenge of serving Chandler became evident. Mark Skipper, having been deceived by Chandler in the “Forever Young” project, sought legal redress. According to documents every step towards justice was met with Chandler’s apparent evasiveness. Despite Skipper’s diligent efforts, serving her became a complex legal challenge. Digital trails, from personal websites to email addresses, led to dead ends or defiant responses.

​A revealing email exchange in February 2019 between Skipper’s legal council and Chandler showcased this complexity. The lawyer’s warnings of an impending lawsuit if Chandler did not comply with specific demands were met with Chandler’s confrontational stance. She not only challenged the jurisdiction of the lawsuit, citing her Texas residency, but also counter-accused Skipper of deceit. She claimed to possess substantial evidence against him and even offered details of Skipper’s previous lawyer, suggesting he had dropped him after reviewing her evidence.​

​This underscores Chandler’s apparent tactics: not just evading legal responsibilities but also manipulating narratives, challenging legal jurisdictions, and sowing doubt. Those seeking to hold her accountable faced not just the challenge of locating her but also the intricate web of her counter-narratives and challenges.

Documentation

In the bustling world of 2019’s independent film scene, a financial scandal emerged. Central to this unfolding drama, of course, was April Chandler. This time, the controversy revolved around a £100,000 loan, earmarked for the production of an indie film, “The Trade.”

According to court allegations, Chandler, was operating under Blue River Productions, LLC. The production company sought funding for their movie. Min Jiang, a keen investor, was lured into the venture, entrusting a significant sum with the promise that it would be channeled exclusively into the film’s production.

However, as the curtains were drawn back, a different story began to emerge. The funds, rather than fueling the creative process, seemed to have taken a detour. Instead of being invested in “The Trade,” the money allegedly found its way into Chandler’s personal coffers.

By 2023, the drama had reached the Superior Court of California, with Min Jiang taking legal action against Chandler and Blue River Productions. Yet, Chandler’s seeming elusive nature allegedly persisted. Despite the court’s involvement, the plaintiff faced significant challenges in serving Chandler, leading to delays and legal complications.

On June 13, 2023, the court convened to address the plaintiff’s failure to provide Proof of Service. The plaintiff’s attorney, Anthony M. Horaites, faced the court’s scrutiny and was ordered to pay sanctions for failing to timely file the required Proof of Service. The court set a stern tone, warning of further sanctions and the potential dismissal of the entire action if the necessary documents weren’t filed promptly.

Chandler, with her history of allegedly evading responsibility, seemed to be continuing her masterful game of cat and mouse in the face of legal proceedings.

Documentation

In the scenic town of Squamish, British Columbia, a property dispute was unfolding that would once again cast a shadow over April Chandler’s business dealings. Squamish Blue Pacific Developments LTD, a reputable real estate company, owned a mixed-use building on Loggers Lane, a blend of commercial and residential units.

According to court documents, in August 2020, Squamish Blue Pacific Developments LTD entered into a lease agreement with April Chandler. The unit, believed to be the operational hub for an entertainment production company, was leased under clear terms. However, Chandler’s commitment to these terms allegedly began to waver.

​According to document allegations, by March 2021, Chandler reached out to the Petitioner, seeking a deferral for the March and April rent payments. Recognizing the challenges faced by many during these times, the Petitioner proposed a rent payment plan, which was formalized in an Addendum of Lease by March 12, 2021. This plan was designed to assist Chandler with payments from March through July 2021.

​However, by June 29, Chandler was allegedly once again seeking a delay in rent payment. She cited reasons such as expansion, a land deposit in Squamish, and an awaited “transfer.” The Petitioner, showing leniency, agreed to a revised payment date of July 12. Yet, on the very day, Chandler communicated her inability to honor the payment.

​The pattern seemed to continued. In December 2021, Chandler allegedly requested multiple delays for the month’s rent, pushing the deposit date from December 1 to December 10. The Petitioner, growing wary, firmly communicated that no further extensions would be granted beyond this date. Yet, in a turn of events, the check Chandler provided for the December rent allegedly bounced due to “non-sufficient funds.” The Petitioner, now grappling with the added inconvenience, sought immediate payment and an additional $25 to cover the associated costs.

​As 2022 dawned, Chandler’s explanations seemingly grew more elaborate. Court documents allege she cited ongoing issues with work permits, fund transfers, and even mentioned new partners and a potential work visa. The narrative was clear: a series of broken promises, delayed payments, and a trail of excuses.

​By April 2022, the situation had reached a boiling point. After allegedly having stated the Canadian government had frozen her bank accounts for supporting the “Freedom Convoy,” Chandler’s repeated promises to pay by the end of the month were met with skepticism by the Petitioner. When the Petitioner finally issued a Termination Notice, Chandler allegedly responded with defiance, threatening legal action and stating, “expect a fight because that’s what you will get.”

​The Petitioner’s patience was apparently wearing thin. On April 7, they dispatched a Notice of Default to the Respondent’s address as per the Lease. However, it was promptly returned with a “return to sender” stamp. Seeking clarity, the Petitioner reached out to the Respondent on April 11, inquiring about her current mailing address.

​Determined to ensure the Respondent received the notice, the Petitioner sent a second Notice of Default on April 13. This time, it was directed to the ‘Registered Office, Records Office, and Director’s Information’ as listed in the BC Company Summary. Yet, much to the Petitioner’s frustration, this too was returned.

​On April 15, documents allege the Respondent finally communicated with the Petitioner, promising to remit the Rent funds by the end of April. She also mentioned a significant change in her professional landscape: she was in the process of selling the majority of her business to a prominent Canadian producer. This would relegate her to a non-executive board member role, distancing her from daily operations. She also provided a new mailing address, linking her to Mephobia Media in Manhattan Beach, Los Angeles.

​However, by April 21, the deadline for the Second Notice of Breach had come and gone. The Petitioner, in a bid to resolve the matter, allegedly sent an email to the Respondent, attaching the previously sent Notice of Default and emphasizing the April 28 deadline to remedy the Lease breach. The Respondent’s reply on April 22 was seemingly less than reassuring. She allegedly questioned the Petitioner’s failure to update her address and reiterated her move back to Los Angeles. She also queried the non-availability of PayPal for payments. Notably absent from her alleged response was any commitment to settle the outstanding Rent and Additional Rent.

​As April drew to a close, the Respondent’s alleged promises remained unfulfilled. By April 28, she had not addressed the Lease breach as per the Second Notice of Breach. Furthermore, by April 30, the payment deadline she herself had allegedly set in her April 15 email had also passed without any resolution. The situation was rapidly deteriorating, with trust between the two parties at an all-time low.

​Despite her threats, Chandler’s actions seemed to speak louder than her words. By June 3, a representative of the Petitioner re-entered the premises and allegedly found that a significant portion of Chandler’s belongings had been removed. Yet, she still hadn’t vacated the property.

​By June 10, Chandler provided a new address for service, which upon investigation, turned out to be a UPS Store in Manhattan Beach, California. This move further cast doubt on her credibility.

​A hearing was scheduled for August 12, 2022. Despite apparently having been duly served, Chandler, as is her routine, failed to appear. Chandler allegedly owes a staggering $19,322.26 in unpaid rent and additional rent. Despite the mounting evidence against her, Chandler remained in possession of the Demised Premises, leaving the Petitioner in a challenging position.

​The Squamish property, once a beacon of growth and opportunity, had become a stage for Chandler’s ongoing saga of controversial business practices. The question remained: How many more would be ensnared in her seeming web of deceit?

Documentation

Still in the city of Squamish, British Columbia, yet another financial drama was unfolding. At its center was April Chandler who found herself entangled in a complex loan agreement with the Alberta-based corporation.

According to document allegations, back in 2020, Chandler was enjoying the luxury of a 2020 Ram 1500 Sport Hydro, leased from the local Foundation Chrysler dealership. As the year drew to a close, she sought to clear her outstanding lease balance, which stood at a hefty $66,864.40. To achieve this, Chandler allegedly approached The Plaintiff for a loan, leading to an agreement that was partly oral and partly based on conduct.

​The terms seemed straightforward: The Plaintiff would cover Chandler’s payout price, directly settling the amount with the dealership. Chandler would retain the vehicle and, in return, starting January 31, 2021, she committed to repaying The Plaintiff in monthly installments of $1,000. Once she returned to the U.S., she would settle any remaining balance in full.

​However, as time progressed, Chandler’s commitment seemed to wavered. Despite The Plaintiff supposedly holding up their end of the bargain, Chandler allegedly failed to make any of the promised monthly payments. By February 2022, when she returned to the U.S., the entire debt became due. Even after allegedly acknowledging the debt in a text communication, Chandler’s promises remained unfulfilled.

​By January 16, 2023, the entire debt remained outstanding. The Plaintiff’s patience, once supposedly extended in good faith, seemed to have been tested to its limits. A question lingers in the air, begging for an answer: what happened to the vehicle?

Documentation

In the quiet town of Endicott, New York, nestled amidst picturesque neighborhoods, the story of April Chandler’s fiscal indiscretions was set to take another dramatic turn. The case, a stark reminder of Chandler’s continual dance with financial obligations, revolved around non-payment of rent—a recurring theme in Chandler’s checkered past.

As autumn leaves began to adorn the streets of Endicott in September 2023, the legal proceedings against Chandler were reaching a critical juncture. A Notice of Petition, coupled with a demand for judgment for unpaid rent, was formally filed at the court’s clerk office. This document, a testament to Chandler’s financial neglect, was a clarion call for judicial intervention.

As the court date approached, whispers of Chandler’s impending legal battle echoed through the corridors of Endicott’s legal community. The Notice of Petition was slated for a hearing on September 21, 2023, at 9:00 a.m.—a time that would soon become a pivotal moment in this ongoing saga.

However, in a turn of events seemingly characteristic of Chandler’s modus operandi, she was conspicuously absent at the designated time and place. Her failure to appear, while not entirely unexpected, added another layer of intrigue to the proceedings.

The courtroom, brimming with anticipation, awaited the judgment. On motion of Chandler’s legal adversaries, the judge’s gavel fell with a resounding finality. Possession of the premises, the crux of this legal battle, was awarded to the Petitioner, Mary D’Angelo. The victory was not just a mere transfer of property rights, but a symbolic triumph over Chandler’s pattern of evasion.

Further, the judgment mandated that April Chandler was to relinquish a staggering sum of $25,000. This amount, determined to be the overdue rent, along with additional costs, disbursements, and interest, was a financial blow to Chandler. It was a decree that not only sought to rectify the monetary imbalance but also to serve as a stark reminder of the consequences of financial irresponsibility.

As the leaves continued to fall in Endicott, marking the passage of another season, Chandler’s tale of fiscal misadventures left a lingering question: How many more chapters would be added to this saga of broken promises and legal battles? Only time would tell, but for now, the courts of Endicott had spoken, and their verdict was clear.

Documentation