Reading some tweets and just want to clarify that the decision on the #MJEstatevHBO case will not be made tomorrow. Final oral arguments (15 minutes for each side) and then judges will make decision most likely in early 2021.
BREAKING: The demurrer in Safechuck’s case has been SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND on ALL CAUSES OF ACTION. MJ’s side has won in their court pleadings.
JAMES SAFECHUCK’S CASE, pending any further appeals, is OFFICIALLY DISMISSED FROM THE COURT.
Here you are the court document thanks to mjjr.net:
James Safechuck’s demurrer ruling on Friday October 16th
Thanks to karmousaG @karmousaG (source)
So court was interesting on Friday. As James and his wife were there. Larry Nimmer was also filming. Dan Reed was also present in the court filming.
Judge asked everyone if they have read his tentative. Estate goes first and agrees with the judges tentative. They talk about special relationships and fiduciary duty. he sites some cases.
Judge asks John S. If he feels these issues have been combined when should be looked at separate. John S says Yes . Judge asks there’s an allegation that the companies were created for mentoring youth does the court take it as truth?
Jonathon Steainsapir says no. Cause there are no facts to allege that MJ could and should have fired himself. Judge asks if they should take the allegation that companies were thee to mentor youth in entertainment as true.
John S says no because no facts support it. The idea that Mj could retain himself and supervise himself is not negligence law. We are only here cause Mj is dead. They would be going after him and if they win a judgment then will go after him and his companies.
Finaldi adds nothing new to argument saying Companies should have protected kids and MJ can fire himself. Judge says but MJ Ventures wasn’t created till 93 and plaintiff (James )alleged abuse ended in 92 so even if I side with you would t the companies have had to be created?
Finaldi says No because as long as the abuse occurred during that time of engaging in activities involving kids that is our position. Judge says he won’t rule today. And the court will take it under submission.
Next up Wade Ve Doe Finaldi rehashes the same claims he argued last time. He is mad that the court has ordered him to pay. Talks again about McIsaac and how he felt she was coaching Leroy and how he called him a docubbag and an ambulance chaser. I want court to see my evidence.
Judge tell him he understands Finaldi”s position but he calls it like he sees it and has an obligation to bring it up to holding lawyers accountable for their actions and when he sees unprofessional conduct.and says make no apology even if you are mad. You didn’t meet and confer properly and brought an unsuccessful motion and that’s why the court imposed a fine. Judge continued your party conduct will not be tolerated and that doesn’t violate your right for due process.
Finaldi says it’s important cause the daily journal wrote about me and it’s affecting my business. I suspended the deposition but he called me a Douchebag. Judge says you were off the record. Finaldi then says well if I was wrong why would they allow Branca to sit for a deposition. Judge says I’m gonna Impose you pay 9200 dollars and you have 30 days to pay it.
Sitting in that court room seeing James there and thinking how lucky he was that he got to hang out with Mj yet here we are 11 years after his death and your suing him for money. Disgusting. When he noticed the cameras rolled he looked like a sad puppy.
We need to see what happens next and how the judge will rule.When court ended Dan Reed ran out of the court room so fast. Him and his assistant hightailed it out of there. Maybe something to do with their subpoena last time. Which I witnessed and had no idea and thought he was getting Transcripts early and thought to myself hey No fair I want them to why does he get them. Only after this week did I realize what a historical moment t I witnessed that saw Dan Reed getting a subpoena.
Again from here it’s a waiting game. I did get to chat with Larry and tell him how much I enjoyed his film and how that inspired me to look further into the MJ case. I’ll try and answer any questions you have about that day.
Q-Thank you for the information. So bottom line is, Finaldi made no new argument.
A-No new argument. The judge gave him a few opportunities to give him new information he kept saying how their facts are all there and that Micheal could fire himself.
Q- Does that means James lost?
A-No it’s still a long road. We need to see how the judge will rule this week in regards to the demurrer.
¨ ¨ ¨
In short, James Safechuck has 6 causes of action. Out of these 6 causes, 2 of them were sustained on demurrer. These 2 were considered by the judge to either be irrelevant or invalid. Then there are 4 left. In the tentative (not final) ruling, the judge said that the other 4 cases were not strong enough to go ahead. Judge said that Finaldi could argue why they should go ahead. But Finaldi added nothing new. This week, the judge will definitely rule.
Here you are the court document, thanks to mjjr.net.
In karmousaG ‘s notes, sanctions against Vince Finaldi were mentioned. Here you are more information about this matter.
Hearing on October 16, 2020 Re sanctions against Vince Finaldi
Because of his abusive and wildly inappropriate conduct during the depositions especially during Leroy Wahly deposition that you find here, Vince Finaldi the lawyer of Robson and Safechuck was sanctioned with $9200 payable to MJ Estate within 30 days. Please, read the ruling below. Thanks to mjjr.net
As we read above, in karmousaG ‘s notes, Larry Nimmer was at the court and filmed the session. In fact, Larry Nimmer, the producer of The Untold Story of Neverland, has applied for and received permission to film the court proceedings in the same manner that Dan Reed has. If you do not know who Larry Nimmer is, watch this video.
Again, as we read in karmousaG ‘s notes, Dan Reed got a subpoena!
MJ Estate Brief re Dan Reed and the recording in the courtroom
On Sept. 21, 2020, Michael Jackson Estate served subpoenas on Dan Reed and Amos Pictures to “personally appear for deposition and produce documents related to ‘Leaving Neverland’ and to the follow-up film currently in production.”
You find the brief here, thanks to mjjr.net
The MJ Estate has requested through subpoena: 1- All raw footage of Wade, Joy, Chantal, Amanda, Shane, Lorraine (inc. outtakes) 2- All contracts and releases signed by parties – All documents evidencing payments to any parties directly or indirectly including to attorneys) 3- All communications (or documents evidencing communications) with Wade or his family or any others and/or their representatives. 4- All communications between Dan Reed and anyone he ever requested or sought interviews for. 5- All communications explaining “photos, audio clips, video clips, letters, faxes, gifts, mementos, memorabilia” supplied. 6- All communications that “relate to the need to re-shoot, re-create, re-stage” any interview.
The MJ Estate is simultaneously filing international subpoenas that make similar requests via Hague Convention procedures.
On the other hand, Dan Reed’s lawyer, Jeffery Holmes, has filled a motion to quash the subpoenas (you find it here). He argues that Dan Reed is not a resident of the USA and therefore these US-based subpoena requests should be quashed. Also, Reed himself did a declaration in support of his lawyer’s motion to quash MJ Estate two subpoenas. You find the document here.
After two meetings between the Estate’s lawyer and Dan Reed’s lawyer , the Estate offered to (at least with respect to the US-based subpoenas) limit the subpoenas to all of the UNPUBLISHED footage of the plaintiffs and to depose Reed and Amos Pictures only about that footage. We will know more soon.
Here you are several excerpts from the Estate’s brief, thanks to mjjr.net:
In the matter of MJ Estate vs HBO
The oral arguments for the case will be heard on 11/19/20 in Pasadena. This is the final step before a decision will be made about HBO’s appeal. Decision should be made by early 2021. (source)
The transcripts from the hearing between the MJ Estate and HBO on September 19, 2019 here.
Estate’s Renewed Demurrer Motion in Safechuck’s Case (Source)
THREAD: Estate’s Renewed Demurrer Motion in Safechuck’s Case
This week, MJ’s team has filed the anticipated demurrer motion in Safechuck’s case, refreshing claims that the prior judge & appellate never ruled on.
A tentative in-person hearing on this demurer will be Oct 16 2020.
The estate argues JS’ claims are fatally defective—”No amendment can cure these defects.”
1. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
3. Negligent Supervision
4. Negligent Retention/Hiring
5. Negligent Failure to Train, Warn, Educate
6. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
The estate summarizes how James never bothered appealing the original dismissal against the estate.
Instead, James (like Wade) shifted their financially motivated claims by “artfully attempting to recharacterize the alleged misconduct as ‘negligence’ of the two corporations.”
The estate rightfully points out how the companies cannot be directly liable for any alleged molestation.
Therefore, Wade/James (after Finaldi took over) withdrew the molestation claims in favor of “failure to protect” as a way to shoe-in a hopeful payout from the companies.
Another argument from Safechuck (and one attempted by Finaldi in almost every failed depo) is that the companies were supposed to be “mandatory reporters.”
Safechuck provided no supporting facts that the corporations or staff were child care custodians or directly supervised MJ.
Continuing, the estate argues that the “negligent supervision & negligent hiring” is also without merit.
The corporations obviously “did not hire, retain, or supervise MJ—their owner, president, sole shareholder, and sole reason for existence.”
Another preposterous claim by JS.
Regarding “Negligent Failure to Train, Warn, or Educate,” the estate again explains that it lacks any legal basis or foundation, even using Finaldi’s own filings to sell the point.
The companies were established to conduct MJ’s music business, not to train or educate families.
Another claim is for “Intentional Infliction of emotional distress.” (Finaldi originally hinted at removing this when he removed the molestation claims.)
James fails to support any of this, especially how the companies supposedly conducted “extreme & outrageous conduct.”
Finally, the estate contends that Safechuck has no grounds to allege that the corporations now being sued were his fiduciaries.
Even stretching it to an “employer” relationship would fall flat, since James has no evidence of any employment in 1988-1992 with MJ or his companies.
In the footnotes the estate includes:
– Reference to James’ 2nd amended complaint where negligent supervision was dismissed. JS admits in 3rd complaint the corporations were “incapable of supervising” him.
– Why Pamela L. v. Farmer is misplaced—very different circumstances.
WADE ROBSON CASE UPDATE (September 24th hearing)
FINALDI LOST across the board and in a scathing fashion from judge—ordered to PAY SANCTIONS to Fox & Spence to the tune of $6270!
karmousaG tweets on September 24th hearing (Source)
I looked for you in hill and dale
I sought for you beyond the pale
I searched for you in every nook and cranny
My probing was at times uncanny
But everywhere I looked I found I was just going round and round
In every storm, in every gale
I could hear your silent tale
You appeared wherever I went
In every taste, in every scent I thought I was in a trance
In every quiver I felt your dance
In every sight I saw your glance
You were there, as if by chance
Even so, I have faltered
Despite the fact, my life has altered
All my doubts were struggles in vain
Of judgments made in memories of pain
Only now, by letting goI can bask in your glow
No matter where I stray or flow
I see the splendor of your show
In every drama I am the actor
In every experience the timeless factor
In every dealing, every deed
You are there, as the seed I know now, for I have seen
What could have happened could have been
There is no need to try so hard
For in your sleeve you hold the card
For every fortune, every fame
The Kingdom’s here for us to claim
In every fire, every hearth
There’s a spark gives new birth
To all those songs never sung
All those longings in hearts still young
Beyond all hearing, beyond all seeing
In the core of your Being Is a field that spans infinity
Unbounded pure is the embryo of divinity
If we could for one moment BE
In an instant we would see
A world where no one has suffered or toiled
Of pristine beauty never soiled
Of sparkling waters, singing skies
Of hills and valleys where no one dies
That enchanted garden, that wondrous place
Where we once frolicked in times of grace
In ourselves a little deep
In that junkyard in that heap
Beneath that mound of guilt and sorrow
Is the splendor of another tomorrow
If you still have promises to keep
Just take that plunge, take that leap.
Dancing the Dream, Michael Jackson
They Don’t Care About Us (2020)
By The Last tear (Lou)
That one may smile and smile and be a villain
Hamlet, act 1 scene 5
In a world stricken by a pandemic disease, the powerful and just Black Lives Matter movement that was relaunched worldwide after George Floyd’s death on May 25 in Minneapolis reminds us that we cannot tolerate racism anymore.
George Floyd, Jamar Clark, Philando Castile, Dreasjon “Sean” Reed, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Botham Jean, Trayvon Martin, Ezell Ford, Michael Brown, Michelle Shirley, Redel Jones, Kenney Watkins, Stephon Clark, Laquan McDonald, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, … – and the list is sadly very long – these African-Americans who made the national / international news, were killed mostly by the police (or armed people playing police) between 2012 and May 2020 in different places in the US.
If these people are now recognized as victims of racism in the US, the ruination of Michael Jackson by his haters should also be recognized as a racist act. Indeed, if Jackson was a white celebrity, his enemies would not dare to treat him like they did and still do! In fact, Jackson’s downfall has had several uses for his haters. One of them was and still is to divert people’s attention from the real predators to Jackson and all the lies and nonsense about him.
As we know, Neverland a home that MJ built for his children and himself and allowed unpriviledged and critically ill kids and their families – several African-Americans among them – enjoy themselves there, was turned to a “crime house” by Sneddon and Co., the media and the rest of the haters. Actually, Robson & Safechuk, their families and Dan Reed needed also this made up “crime house” to tell their lies and false narratives.
But Jeffrey Epstein did easily build a pedophile paradise in the island Little St. James that he bought in 1998 and brought young girls from all of the places to his clients and no one said anything against it until it was impossible to be ignored – see the differences on how the police and the lawmen treated en innocent black man but did nothing against a real predator:
Locals say Epstein was flying in underage girls long after his conviction for sex crimes—and authorities did nothing to stop him. “It was like he was flaunting it,” says an employee at the airstrip on St. Thomas. “But it was said that he always tipped really well, so everyone overlooked it.”
 According to Fox News, Epstein had a dedicated team of workers on the island who trafficked girls as young as 12 to his clients. To get there, Epstein would fly the underage girls into St. Thomas, and then he would ferry them over to his private island via a boat named Lady Ghislaine, one former employee told Bloomberg.
According to permit records obtained by NBC News, while Epstein’s legal team was busy negotiating a notoriously lenient plea deal for their client in the fall of 2007, Epstein was preoccupied with orchestrating major renovations on the island. (He would eventually plead guilty to two counts of soliciting prostitution from a minor, thus dodging federal sex-trafficking charges, and serve just 13 months in jail.) During this time, Epstein reportedly ordered the construction of a spa, a living room that would connect to a ground theater, a new kitchen, and two new guest rooms. Altogether, he sought to expand his residence by nearly 20,000 square feet — a transformation that turned his main house into a mansion. 
 According to New York Magazine, Epstein planned to build a compound on Great St. James but was issued a stop-work order in December for not obeying environmental regulations.
On August 12, 2019, just days after Epstein died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell – where he was being held on charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking – the FBI raided Little St. James to search for evidence pertaining to the case against him.
Then, on January 15, 2020, Virgin Islands Attorney General Denise George filed a lawsuit alleging that Epstein and his associates lured girls and young women to the island, where they were forced into sexual servitude and prevented from leaving. 
If you haven’t read this article about how Epstein lived in prison, please do!
For ‘client’ Jeffrey Epstein, an unlocked cell in a Florida jail
By Lori Rozsa
July 20, 2019 at 12:23 a.m. GMT+2
PALM BEACH, Fla. — In 2008, a supervisor at the county jail here alerted staff members to the needs of an inmate serving an 18-month sentence for sex crimes involving a minor. Jeffrey Epstein, he wrote in a memo, was a first-time offender “poorly versed in jail routine,” and “his adjustment to incarceration will most likely be atypical.”
“For the time being, I am authorizing that his cell door be left unlocked and he be given liberal access to the attorney room where a TV will be installed,” Capt. Mark Chamberlain wrote in August of that year.
The memo does not indicate how long the cell door was to be left unlocked, but it and other documents obtained through public-records requests shed new light on the apparent deference granted to the wealthy financier while in the custody of Palm Beach County, as well as on the conditions of his confinement. 
Epstein’s time in jail has come under scrutiny in recent months amid criticism that his sentence did not match his alleged crimes: He was suspected of molesting dozens of girls, some as young as 14. A fresh wave of scrutiny followed his arrest this month by federal authorities in New York on charges similar to those he faced in Florida more than a decade ago.
In Florida, Epstein and his attorneys struck a deal with federal prosecutors that allowed him to plead guilty in state court to two felony offenses, including procuring a person under 18 for prostitution. Under an arrangement with state prosecutors, Epstein served his sentence in the custody of county authorities rather than in a state prison.
Epstein was soon transferred to the lower-security Palm Beach County Stockade, records show. At the request of his attorneys, he was housed in the “T-dorm,” an area reserved for inmates who must be separated from other inmates. In February of the following year, he was moved again. “It has been agreed upon by his legal staff that Inmate Epstein will pay for the security staff to supervise him in this previously unstaffed housing unit, the infirmary at the Stockade,” an official from the sheriff’s office wrote in an email.
The case was brought back to public attention by a Miami Herald investigation last year. Epstein, 66, was arrested July 6 in New York. Federal prosecutors called him a “serial sexual predator” and alleged that he sexually abused dozens of children there and in Florida from 2002 to 2005.
Epstein has pleaded not guilty. His attorneys have argued in court that the new charges are an unwarranted “redo” of a case he settled years ago. 
Gauger told the documentary crew that Epstein’s sentence was ultimately shortened by five months. He “was given gain time because of his good behavior, just like any other inmate,” he said.
Epstein was placed on house arrest, at his Palm Beach waterfront estate. He reported to a parole officer for the next year, records show.
After his sentence was completed in July 2010 — 18 months, with the time in the stockade, on work release and on parole — Epstein left Florida. He did not return until January.
He checked in regularly as a sex offender with the Palm Beach sheriff’s office, as he was required to do, and his attorneys notified the office when Epstein was shopping for a helicopter.
Epstein had friendly email exchanges with sheriff’s officers. At one point, he emailed to let them know he was coming to town. He asked a captain, Lawrence Wood, how he was doing.
“I’m good,” Wood replied in January 2011. “I hope you had a good holiday, if you need something when you fly in you can always call. Have a good day.”
Wood was not available for comment, Barbera said, citing the internal investigation.
On July 3, 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell was charged in the US. Prosecutors allege that between 1994 and 1997 Ms Maxwell helped Epstein groom girls as young as 14. very interesting dates in her case: 1994-1997 and in Epstein case 2002 -2005. We will of course follow theses cases.
We know now for fact that Martin Bashir never intended to do a fair and truthful documentary (Living With Michael Jackson, LWMJ) about MJ in 2002. We know for fact that the scene in LWMJ when Gavin Arvizo was sitting next to MJ holding his hand and leaning on him was orchestrated and staged by Martin Bashir. The Arvizos had left Neverland long before that day and that scene. They came in because Bashir wanted it. The source of this information is Aphrodite Jones.
She revealed that Martin Bashir instructed Gavin Arvizo to place his head on MJ’s shoulder, and hold his hand, just before shooting what would be the most controversial scene of the entire documentary.
“A journalist, British journalist, named Bashir, Martin Bashir, wanted to do a documentary on Michael Jackson. He wanted it to be scandalous, and he wanted to get rich. And that’s what he did. But he knew that getting close to Michael Jackson may not be easy. After all, so many people around the world want to get near him. They want opportunities they believe he carries with him.  So Martin Bashir decided the best way to get to Michael Jackson is a form of flattery. “I will misrepresent to him my true intentions, and I will find that little point of vulnerability that will get him to me so I can work with him and get this project that’s going to make me wealthy.” Bashir had interviewed Princess Diana of England sometime previously. He knew Michael Jackson was a great fan and friend of Princess Diana.  She and Mr. Jackson had a friendship and a camaraderie, because he saw that he had pursued a similar life. Bashir concluded that, “I’ll get to him through his love and affection for Princess Diana.” Bashir knew that a psychic in England named Uri Geller, who’s been on T.V. doing things, he thought Uri Geller could get to Michael Jackson. And it turns out he could. He called up Uri Geller and he was gushing with flattery. He said he admired what Michael had done for children around the world. He specifically referred to Michael’s visits to sick children in hospitals around the world. He said, “I so admire this. We need to promote it better. We need to do a documentary that will show the world what kind of a person Michael is, and we will focus on children.”
And he had some specific ideas. He told Uri Geller that Michael Jackson has always wanted an International Children’s Day, much like Mother’s Day or Father’s Day. And he told Uri Geller that he wanted to bring Michael Jackson to meet Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and he was hoping by doing so, that Michael would visit Africa and help children with AIDS. He told Uri Geller, “I can accomplish that,” and Geller was very interested.
Geller arranged a meeting between Michael Jackson and Martin Bashir in London. And Bashir gave the same routine that I just described: “You are misunderstood. What you’ve done is so phenomenal. The world needs to know. I’m the one best positioned to do this project so the world really will understand who you are and what you’ve accomplished.” And he showed him a letter, somewhat crumbled up letter, from Princess Diana commending him for the way he had conducted her interview. Everything was sugar and spice and everything nice. Unfortunately, it was false. It was deception par excellance. The meeting was arranged. Michael met with Mr. Bashir. He agreed to do the documentary because he believed what I just told you. 
Michael asked him if he could see the footage before it was broadcast, because Michael has been in this business his whole life. He has seen what the media can do to anybody. They can take footage and remove it. They can take footage and connect it. They can take words and replace them. They can do whatever they want and make you look terrible if they want, and it had been done to him often throughout his career. He didn’t want that to happen in this documentary. Martin Bashir assured him he would have full editorial control, and that was a falsehood. Michael wanted any money he received to go to charity. Bashir assured him it would. Uri Geller also wanted money to go to charity, but he also wanted a personal service fee. He wanted a percentage of the net proceeds, and he worked that out with Bashir, not with Michael. 
Just showing some events in time and space:
- June 11, 2002 at a dinner in London, Uri Geller introduced Martin Bashir to MJ.
- From May 2002 to January 2003: Martin Bashir stayed with MJ and interviewed and filmed him during eight months.
- LWMJ was shown first in the United Kingdom on ITV (as a Tonight special) on February 3, 2003, and in the United States 3 days later on ABC, introduced by Barbara Walters.
- February 26, 2004 Martin Bashir was approached by a US broadcaster in a deal worth $1m (£530,000) a year. Bashir and James Goldston his co-worker in LWMJ joined ABC news in 2004 (in summer) in effort to remake
- In 2004, Victor Gutierrez was hired by NBC to work on Arvizo case with a monthly salary $ 25 000. In December 2004, ABC asked him to work with Martin Bashir as his advisor.
We have now gathered several articles about Martin Bashir in a page in the blog. You find them here.
Martin Bashir is a false and manipulative person who before meeting Michael Jackson, had already planned to destroy him; he lived several months with Jackson and lied to him every single day, he and his LWMJ helped Tom Sneddon, the DA, to re-open the investigation against MJ. Why such a “competent” and “capable” person would need Victor Gutierrez’ help to cover the Arvizos’ case? Why Gutierrez? I guess that ABC gave free hands to Bashir to choose his assistants and it was him who chose Gutierrez. Could the reason of this choice was that they were in this together since at least 1998-99?
In part 2 of this blog, I suggested that Gutierrez and Bashir knew each other in the 80’s when the former was a sport photographer and the latter a sport reporter – I referred to a fan who had done research about these two. Since I do not have a proof to turn my suggestion to a fact, I just say that: during 1993-96, Gutierrez and Bashir could not fail to discover each other because of Princess D’s interview and the Chandlers’ case and the pair of Dimond and Gutierrez.
I will now share some excerpts from several interviews that Victor Gutierrez have done. Please, do not forget that Victor Gutierrez is a big liar and he has said and written a lot of disgusting lies about Michael Jackson. When we read his interviews or writings, we have to separate the lies from the course of events.
In an interview with El Mercurio (February 28, 1999), Gutierrez said this:
– What’s been your most interesting journey in your, uh, profession?
-One for England. When I wrote about Jackson, I was on the front page of the papers for four days in a row, even at the Daily Mirror. I was invited to be a guest star on BBC Channel 4 and I was very struck by a studio full of people applauding me for my journalistic achievement. I was also applauded at Oxford University, where I gave a speech to journalism students. It bothers me that in Chile they say “this guy is crazy” or “this is not journalism”, because the truth is that I have my limits.
Right, the Oxford University!!! And yes, of course, people in Chile are right to question Gutierrez! But what is important to keep from this part is that after Chandlers’ case in 93, Gutierrez was in touch with the English tabloids also the English mainstream media such as BBC Channel 4. He was very pleased with his “journey” in England.
In the same interview we see also a picture of Gutierrez who has spread many dollar bills around himself. He also said that National Enquirer gave him 50 000 dollars to help them with the Chandlers’ case. Hard Copy offered him 10 000 dollars. He said that he cashed $ 300 000 by lying about MJ. Later, in the interview he said that he lost most of the money because MJ sued him and that he had to pay a lawyer.
In another newspaper – we don’t see the name of the paper or the date but it is in late 1997- beginning of 98 because Gutierrez had fled to Chile and was waiting for the jury’s verdict in MJ’s lawsuit against him. In this short piece, we discover another aspect of Gutierrez life, something that was totally unknown: Gutierrez a magician!
VG will reveal famous tricks: I don’t care about Chilean magicians at all
The journalist, who is currently facing a lawsuit filed by Michael Jackson for assault / insults for a book he wrote, will appear this Sunday on Julio Videla’s program Juntémonos.
Controversial and fast-paced, the journalist Victor Gutierrez is in the country to reveal some of the secrets behind the tricks of the great magicians, such as the levitation of people.
Victor Gutierrez achieved fame a couple of years ago thanks to his book with an unauthorized biography of Michael Jackson, where he revealed the intimate details of a minor who was allegedly sexually abused by the black / colored singer. The controversy led him in the United States to a scandal that has him on trial, which began last March 23, and for which he could have to pay $110 million.
But now he’s off to other work: a book about the sexuality of the first lady of the United States, Hilary Clinton, and what brought him to our country: unmasking magic tricks, which he will narrate this Sunday on Megavision’s Juntémonos program. “I’m not here to spoil the children’s enthusiasm, because they are in another country, more concerned about more violent things.
Wouldn’t you like to demonstrate some great trick in Chile?
What we want to do is to make the Virgin of St. Christopher disappear here, invite people, charge admission and then against how we made her disappear.
What motivated you to investigate magic tricks?
What I want is for these magicians to renew themselves and do something different. I’m tired of the levitation, the boxes and the explosions.
And you’re not afraid that Chilean magicians will be angry with you for revealing their secrets?
I don’t care about Chilean magicians at all because they are not important magicians, nobody knows them. No Chilean magician has ever been to Las Vegas, and when they go there, they play their little games and admire and copy things there. All Chilean magicians are experts at comparing tricks there and here they resell them to the channels for ten times more.
Gutierrez referring to LWMJ and how it saved his “credibility” and how it was a ”vindication”: In elmercurio.com on February 5, 2003 (two days after the broadcast of LWMJ in the UK):
The one who breathes with relief is Víctor Gutierrez. “It was a very big wound for me, this whole case, because they took my crest” (Jackson sued him for US $ 2.7 million). “But I am happy for my credibility and that of the children who spoke for my book”, he says, satisfied by the late recognition he will receive now.
In elsalvador.com on February 6, 2003 (the day that LWMJ was broadcasted in the US):
The journalist commented that the making of the documentary plays in his favor, since it increases his credibility -because it was a “serious work” – and that of the children who spoke for his book.
In elmercurio.com on November 20, 2003:
In Chile, the journalist Víctor Gutiérrez, who lost a litigation with the singer for the book Michael Jackson was my lover, says: I’ve been trying to explain this story for 10 years, which among journalists, police and prosecutors (in the US) is something that is known. It is time for the truth to be known. And it is also a vindication to my work. The publication, which is discontinued, yesterday was transacted on the Amazon.com site to US $ 2,475. Beyond the data, Gutiérrez believes that justice is finally done.
Gutierrez about the 2005 trial and the Arvizos: In elmercurio.com on February 5, 2003:
In addition, the Chilean is willing to cooperate if the US justice resumes the investigations against Jackson. Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney after the case denounced by the boy Jordan Chandler in 1993 (and registered by Gutierrez), declared that he would watch the documentary with great interest. Living with Michael Jackson will be broadcast this Friday in the US and Sneddon hopes that after him, new allegations will occur.
In elmercurio.com on March 31, 2005:
A month ago Chilean journalist Víctor Gutierrez began his mornings attending the court where Michael Jackson is sitting in the dock. Go to the star every day. Presence the case lives and direct in Santa María, California. The musician’s lawyer knows him: he has it between his eyes. Also the prosecutor, who has been told that much of his research is based on Chilean publications.
In elmercurio.com on November 20, 2003:
In Chile, journalist Víctor Gutierrez says that a Latino child would be the victim of the singer… The journalist from Chilevisión and Plan B, the first to link politicians with the Spiniak network in Chile, said: the minor who denounced the singer is a Latino boy who appears in the documentary Living with Michael Jackson, who caused a commotion in February.
In lacuarta.cl on April 12, 2005:
– How is the Arvizo case currently?
– There were private investigators who persecuted Arvizos in the school. All these children are intimidated, even parents are scared; they are reminded that they have been paid money to not speak, they have also been threatened.
NBC and Victor Gutierrez (source: mjjr.net http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/players.html)
NBC produced two salacious Dateline NBC specials about the Jackson case. The most recent one featured interviews with Jim Thomas and Ray Chandler and was heavily slanted in favour of the prosecution’s version of events.
The special was produced by none other than Victor Gutierrez, who was hired by NBC to cover the Jackson case even though he still owes Jackson $2.7 million dollars from a defamation of character lawsuit that Jackson filed and won against him. Conflict of interest anyone?
Biography – thoughts – part 1
The young Victor Gutierrez with a penchant for man-boy love life dreamed of living in the US where pedophiles had an organization (NAMBLA founded in December 1978) and they had also the right of marching in the streets. In a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles, Harry Hay, gay rights activist, wore a sign proclaiming “NAMBLA walks with me”. At that time, NAMBLA and pedophiles proclaimed to be a part of the gay and lesbian community in the US. However, several gay and lesbian organizations demanded their exclusion. There were a few lawsuits and several internal and external fights. Finally, in 1994 they were excluded. In next part of Words, facts and thoughts, we will explore more this matter.
In 1984, Gutierrez worked as photographer for the newspaper “La Tercera”. He went to Los Angeles to report the Olympics games. After the games, he went back to Santiago to collect his salary and to move to LA.
After a short and intensive course at a school, he became “journalist”. He found a job at a Hispanic tabloid in LA. In 1987, he did an interview with a future teller that predicted that on October 12 at 13.30 another earthquake would happen in Los Angeles. On October first, a powerful earthquake had already shaken the city. The “news” appeared on the front page of the Spanish tabloid. On October 12, many Latin Americans left the city to save their lives but no earthquake happened. People who believed him, were angry but the tabloid hired Gutierrez because 150 000 copies of the paper were sold.
Sooner than later, Gutierrez was in touch with NAMBLA. In several occasions, he has told that in 1986 he participated in a NAMBLA conference in LA. Since the organized pedophilia had already targeted Michael Jackson, Gutierrez realized that this was a golden opportunity to get rich and famous.
Gutierrez worked hard to intrude inside Jackson’s entourage and to find accomplices. He talked among others to Blanca Francia, Adrian MacManus, Kassim Abdul, Melanie Bagnall, Ralph Chacon, Estela Rodriguez, Jonathan Spence, Wayne Safechuck, Joy Robson, Wade Robson, Evan and Ray Chandler, June and Dave Schwartz, Margaret Maldonado.
Some of these people collaborated closely with Gutierrez like Blanca Francia and the Chandlers. As to the Robsons and the Safechucks – as we know – this collaboration has materialized years later.
Gutierrez has always implied that the Latin Americans – “Latinos” as he called them – were his “natural allies”. In fact, he has had a strong connection with the Latin American community in the US.
Besides all the people mentioned above, Gutierrez also approached several tabloids and mainstream media – not only in the US but also in other countries – above all Diane Dimond with whom he collaborated closely. Together, they faked a “videotape story” in 1995. Jackson sued them all, Paramount Pictures, Diane Dimond, the radio station KABC-AM and his employees and Victor Gutierrez. You will finds several documents here and here at Turning the table on the chandler allegations , especially this one and this one.
Meanwhile, Gutierrez wrote his pro NAMBLA book Michael Jackson Was My Lover in 1996 and published it in both English and Spanish. Finally, only Gutierrez was convicted by the jury and the judge in April 1998 and was ordered to pay 2.7 million to Jackson. Gutierrez who had declared himself bankrupt in 97, fled to Mexico and then to Chile. In 1998 in Chile, he was pondering if he should go back to LA before the verdict. It is not clear if he had done that.
Far from beloved LA, “wounded” and without his “crest” as Gutierrez described himself in 1998 after losing the battle to MJ – “It was a very big wound for me, this whole case, because they took my crest” – he wondered how he could take revenge on MJ. As he had to leave the US, he turned his face to the British tabloid allies and above all to Martin Bashir.
Their unison seemed perfect as they were one evil soul but into two bodies. They had the chance to be one! Their first issue was to find a link to Jackson. Who could be this link? Soon they found the answer: Uri Geller.
According to Mr. Mesereau, Bashir approached Geller and could convince him to arrange a meeting with Jackson. Had Bashir failed with Geller, my guess is that Gutierrez – the magician, expert in levitation and so on – would have jumped in to establish a connection with Geller.
But there was another issue: they needed a “victim” too. Who would play this part? The answer was tricky. Since 93 and the Chandler case, Jackson who wanted to protect himself, would not let in easily. The only way to get close to him was through the charities that helped sick and destitute children and their families. In fact, MJ helped and supported several of these charity organizations. Who would use a sick child to hurt and to strike another person?!
The “victim”: “I need money, I want money”
We know that Janet Arvizo lived with her parents in El Monte (in LA) in a majority Hispanic community until she married David Arvizo. She moved with him but she never forgot her community. In fact, in 2000, Janet Arvizo approached the Mid Valley News, an El Monte newspaper. She said she couldn’t pay her son’s medical bills. She told them it was $12,000 per chemo treatment. That was a lie because Gavin’s treatments were being paid by the insurance company. David Arvizo was Teamster at Von and he and his family had all the medical benefits. She asked them to help her raise money. She wanted an ad in the newspaper Mid Valley News. They did put an ad in the newspaper. That was sometimes in October 2000.
Arvizos timeline (source Mr. Mesereau opening statement and closing argument)
In the 1990s
Gavin Arvizo, at a very young age, made a false claim of abuse against his mother in the 1990s to the Department of Children & Family Services. He then withdrew the claim. He was very young. He was very street smart. He’d been schooled by his parents, David and Janet.
In July 1999, Janet Arvizo sued J.C. Penney in West Covina in Los Angeles County. .. She claimed that she was the victim and her children were the victim of battery, false imprisonment and infliction of emotional distress. Almost a year later, she amended that complaint to add sexual assault by a security officer. What did she say the security officer had done in the J.C. Penney public parking lot. She said her breasts were fondled, her nipple was squeezed 10 to 20 times, she was punched with a closed fist by a J.C. Penney security guard, she was molested in her vaginal area, and she was called racial slurs. That is the case where she was testifying under oath. That is the case where the prosecutor says she lied. She has admitted lying in that case. Her son was ill. The lawsuit was settled. The family got a total of $152,500.
On July 19th, 2000, Gavin requested to meet Michael Jackson. MJ learned about this child’s illness and was very upset and very concerned. He arranged for a gift basket, toys, to be sent to the hospital.
On August 27th, 2000, the Arvizo family first came to Neverland and met MJ for the first time.
On September 21st, 2000, the Arvizos visited Neverland. They enjoyed the rides. They stayed over. It was the whole family.
In October of 2000, Janet, through Gavin, approached Michael Jackson, and said, “We have no means of transportation. We’re poor. We can’t do it.” And Michael gave them an SUV.
In mid 2000, Fritz Coleman, a newscaster, was approached by Janet and Gavin Arvizo. Janet told him her son was seriously ill with cancer. He arranged a fund-raiser at The Laugh Factor around the end of the year. When questioned about where the money went, Mr. Masada first said, “Well, we delivered it to the hospital.” But the hospital has no record of cash being paid, because you didn’t need to pay anything. The Teamsters insurance policy paid every medical expense. Fritz Coleman doesn’t know where the money went either. It has disappeared in thin air.
On December 18th, in the year 2000, the deposition in the J.C. Penney case.
December 22nd, 2000, the Arvizos obtained $2,000 from actor and comedian Chris Tucker, claiming they were destitute and needed the money for medical bills.
In May 2001, Gavin’s father, David and mother, Janet Arvizo separated – according to Janet Arvizo’s 2005 testimony – because David physically abused her and the children.
On September 24th, 2001, the Arvizo family reached an out of court settlement with the J. C. Penney department store.
On October 1st, 2001, Janet Arvizo reported her husband to the police claiming assault, terrorist threats, et cetera. She told the police in Los Angeles that Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant and Fritz Coleman will help her in her suit against her ex-husband.
On October 4th, 2001, Janet Arvizo brought a video and photos of celebrities she knew to show the police. The police then tried to raise money for her and her family.
On October 31st, 2001, Chris Tucker took the Arvizos to Knott’s Berry Farm. They had asked him for help because of Gavin and their being destitute.
On October 31st, 2001, Janet Arvizo went on disability so she could receive $104 per week, didn’t disclose the money she had raised, didn’t disclose the J.C. Penney settlement.
November 9th, 2001, Janet Arvizo buys a new car for $23,000.
November 15th, 2001, Janet Arvizo applies for welfare and food stamps. She reports no assets. She omits her disability income. She never mentioned her Washington Mutual Bank account, her City National Bank account or the $152,000 J.C. Penney settlement.
On November 20th, 2001, five days after she applied for welfare and food stamps, she filed her arrest report on her husband with L.A. welfare to help her get expedited public assistance.
In December 2001, the LAPD, the Los Angeles Police Department, had a drive to get Christmas presents for the Arvizos because they were destitute and can’t pay their medical bills.
From January until September, Janet Arvizo received a monthly welfare check.
In October of 2002, Janet Arvizo reapplies for welfare, falsely claimed she has not received any assistance in the prior three years and has no assets.
On December 2nd, 2002, the Arvizos moved into a new home on St. Andrews Place in Los Angeles with Mrs. Arvizo’s fiance, who she has since married. His name is Jay Jackson. He is in the Army. He has paid her rent, she has not disclosed the rent, and she was taking her welfare checks and depositing them into his account to hide them.
On December 22nd, 2002,moving along that year, Janet Arvizo signed an income and expense statement under penalty of perjury in her divorce action, and she omitted any assistance her boyfriend/fiancé was giving her from that declaration, which was under penalty of perjury.
In spring 2002, the Arvizos spent a few days at Neverland with the actor Chris Tucker to celebrate the birthday of latter’s infant son. Michael Jackson was not present.
In autumn 2002, the Arvizos were called back for the Bashir documentary. They were allowed to go to Neverland and they did at least 7-10 times during that period.
On January 3rd, Janet’s boyfriend paid her back rent at the Soto Street address, which is the studio apartment she brought people to show them how poor they were living. She kept it for that purpose. The family wasn’t living there at all.
On January 10th, 2003, she signed a welfare eligibility report under penalty of perjury. She falsely claimed she had not received cash or other benefits.
On February 3th, 2003, LWMJ was shown first in the United Kingdom on ITV (as a Tonight special) and on February 6th, 2003, in the United States on ABC. The prosecutor Tom Sneddon began an investigation. There was media frenzy.
The Arvizos were trying to get away from the media and trying to find Michael Jackson. They called the actor Chris Tucker who was just planning to visit his brother in Miami, and he offered the Arvizo family to charter an airplane and take them with him to Miami to meet Jackson. MJ and the Arvizos returned to Neverland together on February 7-8 by Jackson’s chartered airplane.
Janet Arvizo’s main complaint was she didn’t profit from the Bashir documentary that became world famous. She had joined Michael Jackson in a suit in England with Michael Jackson paying the fees and it was done through MJ’s attorney David LeGrand, who had obtained legal counsel in England.
A broadcaster approached the Arvizos at their home, and Jay Jackson wanted $15,000 for a photo and article (on February 4, 2003). Jay Jackson made this statement, “Michael Jackson can give us a house. Michael Jackson can pay for college. Michael Jackson can pay for benefits. That’s not enough. We want big money.”
Rebuttal video as an aswer to Bashir’s video: on February 8th, 2003, Ed Bradley at 60 Minutes arrived at Neverland with his film crew. Janet and her children want to be in the rebuttal video. She is happy. She wants a piece of this production.
On February 13th, 2003, Janet Arvizo has a phone conversation with Frank Cascio that is recorded, without her knowledge. She said in that phone conversation that She didn’t like those German people, she was referring to Dieter and Konitzer. She said to Frank Cascio, “I love you so much. You don’t know how much I love you, your little sister and your little brother.”
On February 16th, 2003, Janet Arvizo and her family were taped by Investigator Brad Miller saying, “Michael’s wonderful. He never did anything improper.”
On February 20th, 2003, Janet Arvizo and her kids did a video, freely, voluntarily (the rebuttal); they wanted it. The kids wanted to be on camera. They wanted to be actors. The mother wanted to be on camera. The hitch was they wanted lots of money. They arrived at the home of the videographer in Los Angeles. Janet seemed happy as a lark, excited, and interested; but delayed it so she could talk to someone whom she thought was an attorney. She didn’t want to sign a document releasing rights. She wanted rights. She wanted money if they were going to be filmed. So they went through a lot of discussion like that.
On February 21th, 2003, Janet Arvizo interview with the Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services. She meets Bill Dickerman for the first time.
In March 2003, Janet Arvizo meets her lawyer Dickerman who wants that she talks to lawyer Larry Feldman, Chandlers’ lawyer in 1993.
In April of 2003, Janet Arvizo goes to Lawyer Larry Feldman. She hires him.
On April 16th of 2003, the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department closes their case investigating Michael Jackson. They conclude no criminal activity has gone on.
In May 15th of 2003, Larry Feldman gets Janet and the children to talk to a psychologist that he uses as an expert witness in other cases. In other words, lawyers often will have experts they want to use and the experts get paid, and they’re kind of in bed together.
Not until May 29th, 2003, does this psychologist suddenly claim he has a reasonable suspicion there was molestation. It’s not till the very end of May that they come up with these false claims.
On June 5th, 2003, the psychologist meets with Lawyer Feldman and Lawyer Dickerman. They’re all collaborating. Nobody goes to the police. Janet doesn’t go to the police. The kids don’t go to the police. Psychologist Katz and Lawyer Feldman go to the Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services on June 13th to report this.
After the broadcast of LWMJ in the US on February 2003, Tom Sneddon began again his investigations against Michael Jackson but he could not charge him of any crime because there was not an accuser. Sneddon and his men in the district attorney office depended desperately on Janet Arvizo and her decisions.
On the other hand, Janet Arvizo would like check all her options. She would choose an alternative that would give her a lot of money. She still hoped on MJ until March 2003 but she lost her hopes when the rebuttal video did not give her a dime. Also, the “Germans”, Dieter and Konitzer, who had taken the management of MJ’s businesses, did not want to include the Arvizos. At that moment, Janet Arvizo met Larry Feldman who showed her what to do. Janet wanted money and the Chandlers case outcome were ideal but the civil case could not go before the criminal one since Tom Sneddon had changed the law after 1993.
The Arvizos claimed that the alleged molestation happened between February 7th and March 12th of 2003 but the Arvizos and the DA Sneddon had to change these dates to after February 20th because Michael Jackson was not even at Neverland and had alibi for the period of February 7th and March 12th. Changing the dates did not help the DA and Arvizos since at that time almost the whole world watched Jackson, the Arvizos and Neverland.
The Arvizos claimed that they were « imprisoned » from February 14th, 2003 to March 10th in Neverland but the evidence showed the contrary. In fact, Janet Arvizo visited many shops and boutiques and spent hundreds of dollars at MJ’s cost.
An excerpt from Mr. Mesereau’s opening statement:
“… when she allegedly learned of these molestation claims, she didn’t go to the police, she went to a lawyer. And I just mentioned to you that she was in touch with various members of the Los Angeles Police Department during this period of so-called false imprisonment, this period of a so-called conspiracy by Michael Jackson and his associates. One of those police officers will testify that Janet said to him, “Something big is happening, and I got a lawyer.” That’s number one. Number two, as I said to you yesterday, she realized at some point that going to a lawyer first doesn’t look too good. And that’s when she began to claim that she learned about it from the police, not the lawyers. The problem is, that the lawyers are the ones who eventually went to the police. So you’ll have to figure that one out.
Janet Arvizo told the Santa Barbara Sheriffs in one of her interviews, “You know, my kids have till the age of 18 to file civil suits.” And she was correct, because someone underage who has a claim is not held to what is called a statute of limitations the way adults are….And she told that to the police, just as she told the police that she had hired lawyers. Why did she tell that to the police. And why in her police interviews, as we will prove, did she repeatedly say, “I need money, I want money,” or words to that effect…. Ladies and gentlemen, we will prove that Janet and her children are using this case to win a civil case… We will also prove that her lawyer, Larry Feldman, who the prosecutor acknowledged had sued Mr. Jackson a long time ago, a lawyer very well known in Beverly Hills, California, we will prove to you that this lawyer was having lunch with CNN talk show host Larry King and told him, “She wants money.””
Janet Arvizo and lawyers:
- Michael Manning in Janet Arvizo’s civil divorce action and criminal proceedings with David Arvizo.
- Lawyers represent her in the J.C. Penney case against J.C. Penney and Tower Records.
- Bill Dickerman had a first meeting with Janet Arvizo on the 21st of February, 2003. He introduced her to Larry Feldman.
- Larry Feldman
“There’s going to be great celebration in Los Angeles among this group if he is convicted of one single count in this case. You heard Mr. Feldman testify. He spent an enormous amount of money in the early ’90s litigating and getting a settlement against Mr. Jackson. He didn’t want to do it again. He told the grand jury in Santa Barbara he didn’t want to spend that money again. He grudgingly admitted that if Mr. Jackson is convicted in this courtroom, he will not have to spend huge sums of money establishing liability in a civil courtroom. It will be established.” (Mr. Mesereau – opening statement)
Biography – thoughts – part 2
Victor Gutierrez knew for sure that in hour of need he could always rely on his friends in the Latin-American community. That was “his community” and he knew that it would not fail him. Far from LA as he lived in Chile at that time, he wanted to find a new “victim”. We said in the part 1 of this biography – scenario, the new “victim” had to be able to get close to MJ.
Did Gutierrez’ friends in El Monte saw the ad in the newspaper Mid Valley News About Gavin and his family in October 2000 and sent a word to Victor? Did Gutierrez find the family being a perfect candidate? Their history with J.C. Penney, the fact that they were celebrity stalkers and the child was very sick, all these “qualifications” were probably enough for Gutierrez. Also, Gavin had already asked to meet MJ in July 19, 2000. The family met Jackson in August 27, 2000.
The hitch was that Gutierrez lived far from LA and could not “advise” the Arvizos like he did with Evan Chandler in 92-93. He had to depend on Tom Sneddon and his office and his friends and allies.
The other issue was that the criminal case had to go first because Sneddon himself had changed the law. The Arvizos who first and foremost wanted money, had to understand this procedure. They had to be patient and help the DA to convict Jackson. Once the criminal case was over, the Arvizos could have a civil one and certainly a settlement with several millions of dollars! To convince Janet Arvizo and her kids was probably difficult since we know that in her police interviews, she repeatedly said, “I need money, I want money,” or words similar to these. We also know that after LWMJ broadcast in UK and US, Sneddon could not prosecute MJ because the Arvizos did not accuse Jackson. Sneddon had to wait until the Arvizos made up their mind. In fact, Janet Arvizo discussed her options with regard to a civil settlement with his lawyer Bill Dickerman. Since Dickerman had not enough experience, he sent her to Larry Feldman.
In an interview, Aphrodite Jones talks about how Martin Bashir suggested that a kid should come to Neverland while he would shoot him and MJ together. Jackson wanted to choose between David, a child who was burn by his father and Gavin Arvizo. Martin Bashir chose Gavin! And we know how he choreographed the scene.
Why did Martin Bashir choose Gavin Arvizo? Probably, for the same reason that he chose Victor Gutierrez as his assistant in 2004 when he covered the trial for ABC!
Please watch the video and listen to Mrs. Jones:
Did Janet Arvizo and her children get their big money? Probably not; they got a home, education and job perhaps. But their fate and future will be banded to that DA and his men until their last breath. As to Jordan Chandler, he emancipated from his parents, took his money, shaded and joined the world of shadows. In the end, it was all about money and nothing else.
By The Last Tear (Lou)
Tired of injustice
Tired of the schemes
The lies are disgusting
So what does it mean?
Kicking me down
I got to get up
As jacked as it sounds
The whole system sucks
Peek in the shadow
Come into the light
You tell me I’m wrong
Then you better prove you’re right
You’re sellin’ out souls,
But I care about mine
I’ve got to get stronger
And I won’t give up the fight
With such confusions don’t it make you wanna scream?
Make you wanna scream 
(Scream, Michael and Janet, HIStory, 95)
 Tell me what has become of my life
I have a wife and two children who love me
I am the victim of police brutality, no
I’m tired of being the victim of hate
You’re raping me of my pride
Oh, for God’s sake
I look to heaven to fulfill its prophecy…
Set me free
Skin head, dead head
Everybody gone bad
In the suite, on the news
Everybody dog food
Black man, blackmail
Throw the brother in jail
All I wanna say is that
They don’t really care about us
All I wanna say is that
They don’t really care about us 
(They Don’t Care About Us, HIStory, 95)
This time around I’ll never get bit
Though you really wanna fix me
This time around you’re making me sick
Though you really wanna get me
Somebody’s out, somebody’s out to get me
You really wanna fix me, hit me
But this time around I’m taking no shit
Though you really wanna get me
You really wanna get me
He really thought he really had
Had a hold of me
He really thought he really had
They thought they really had control of me 
Somebody’s out, somebody’s out to use me
You really want to use me
And then falsely accuse me
This time around don’t treat me like spit
Though you really can’t control me
You really can’t control me 
This time around
I changed up my flow
Got rid of the rotts
Got pits by the door
A real set of peoples to watch my back
Stay away from strangers
So I won’t slack
And I know my nigga Mike like that, baby
This time around yeah
He really thought he really had
Had a hold of me
He really thought he really had
They thought they really had control of me 
(This Time Around, HIStory, 95)
 Don’t let no one get you down
Keep movin’ on higher ground
Keep flying until
You are the king of the hill
No force of nature can break
Your will to self motivate
She say this face that you see
Is destined for history
How many people have to cry
The song of pain and grief across the land
And how many children have to die
Before we stand to lend a healing hand
Every day create your history
Every path you take you’re leaving your legacy
Every soldier dies in his glory
Every legend tells of conquest and liberty
Every day create your history
Every page you turn you’re writing your legacy
Every hero dreams of chivalry
Every child should sing together in harmony
All nations sing
Let’s harmonize all around the world 
(HIStory, HIStory, 95)
What about sunrise?
What about rain?
What about all the things
That you said we were to gain?
What about killing fields?
Is there a time?
What about all the things
That you said was yours and mine?
Did you ever stop to notice
All the blood we’ve shed before?
Did you ever stop to notice
This crying Earth, this weeping shore?
What have we done to the world?
Look what we’ve done
What about all the peace
That you pledge your only son?
What about flowering fields?
Is there a time?
What about all the dreams
That you said was yours and mine?
Did you ever stop to notice
All the children dead from war?
Did you ever stop to notice
This crying Earth, this weeping shore?
I used to dream
I used to glance beyond the stars
Now I don’t know where we are
Although I know we’ve drifted far 
(Earth Song, HIStory, 95)
By The Last Tear (Lou)
#MichaelJacksonVindicated #HealTheWorld #BlackLivesMatter
I will defend Michael Jackson to my last breath. I know he was innocent, I know he was targeted because he was wealthy and famous and perceived as very vulnerable and that made him a target for all kinds of people, Tom Mesereau
What a year, this year! This indelible year! Besides the Corona pandemic that has devastated the whole planet and caused all sorts of suffering, torment and misery, we have now almost the entire planet against the police brutality and racism that killed George Floyd on May 25 in Minneapolis.
Michael Jackson music was and is a remedy during the pandemic crisis also a social and political banner through which people express their anger against the police brutality and racism.
Every year, on June 13th, we celebrate the Vindication Day, the day that Michael Jackson was exonerated of all charges in the Arvizo case but also in the Chandler case.
Last year, we gave you Mr. Mesereau’s closing argument at the court, this year, let me share with you his opening statement. A mine of information about the bogus case in 2003-2005. You find the court transcripts at this blog here and here (February 28, 2005 and March 1, 2005). Please, take your time and read the following excerpts:
MR. MESEREAU:  Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, my name is Tom Mesereau. And it is my honor and privilege to speak to you on behalf of Mr. Jackson. The prosecutor has outlined some very serious charges and made some very serious allegations, as you well know. If he is to be believed, Mr. Jackson conspired to imprison a family, abduct children and extort. If he is to be believed, Mr. Jackson molested children, and gave a cancer-patient child alcohol to reduce his inhibitions and molest him. And I’m here to tell you that these charges are fictitious, they’re bogus, and they never happened.
I want to take it a step further, and I want to let all of you know that I think an opening
statement is a contract. You make promises in an opening statement, you better fulfill them. Because at the end of the trial, the jury’s going to know whether you did or didn’t. And I say to you right now, I am going to make some promises in this case, I am going to fulfill them, and I want you to judge me accordingly at the end. These charges are fake,
10 silly, ridiculous —
MR. MESEREAU: Ladies and gentlemen, I have an organized opening statement for you. I’m going to take you through various topics.  First of all, the Arvizo family is from Los
Angeles. We are going to bring in witnesses to tell you about their behavior. For example, Janet and Gavin called Comedian Jay Leno and tried to get money from Mr. Leno. Mr. Leno has told the Santa Barbara police, “Something was wrong. They were looking for a mark. It sounded scripted. The mother was in the background, and I terminated the
conversation.” Comedian George Lopez was approached by Gavin and Janet. He was asked for money. He didn’t want to give money, and then they accused him of stealing $300 from Gavin’s wallet.
MR. MESEREAU: An actress named Vernee Watson, who has appeared on Fresh Prince of Bel Air and the movie Antoine Fisher, met this family at a dance school. As soon as she met Janet and Gavin, they wanted to move into her house and wanted money. She refused.
A comedian named Louise Palanker was approached by Janet, told they needed money for
medical bills and living expenses. She was not told that insurance was covering all the medical bills. She gave them $20,000, two $10,000 checks. She then went to the home to check out the room she thought she was contributing to, to redo for Gavin when he came home to heal. She knew of a builder who had gone to the home and redid the room.
She found out the builder had been stiffed, not paid, and the money had been used for a huge T.V. and DVD player. And she was upset. This kind of behavior, we will prove to you,
went on and on and on. Michael Tyson was approached. Efforts were made to reach Adam Sandler. Jim Carey. A number of celebrities. And we will prove to you that the best-known
celebrity and the most vulnerable celebrity became the mark: Michael Jackson.
The prosecutor presented a picture of Neverland being some haven for crime, some lure for despicable conduct. It is not. Neverland was created by Michael Jackson for a number of reasons.  And as I think you already know, children come there all the time. Most of them inner city children from poverty, drugs, violence, problems. They go there for recreation. It is an invitation for them. 
Michael Jackson met the Arvizo family because he was contacted and told a young boy had cancer and wanted to meet him and needed his help. And unlike others who spelled the ruse, he didn’t. He contacted the child. They talked on the phone. He sent toys and favors to the family. The mother was extremely eager to meet Michael Jackson. Because we will prove to you, the mother, with her children as tools, was trying to find a celebrity to latch on to. They were trying to find a celebrity to create their life and give them advantages they didn’t have. And they were looking far and wide for that celebrity. And unfortunately, for Michael Jackson, he fell for it. And Neverland, we will prove to you, is not a haven for criminal activity, a lure for molestation, a magnet for crime. It is none of the things the prosecutor tried to tell you it is. We will prove that in this case. 
First of all, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to prove to you in this case that there is a pattern by Janet and her children of ensnaring people for money. First of all, the prosecutor alluded to a deposition where he said she admittedly lied. He didn’t tell you the details. Let me tell you some of them.
Janet Arvizo sued J.C. Penney in West Covina in Los Angeles County. She was living in Los Angeles with her family at various locations, which will become important, and I will tell you why. She claimed that she was the victim and her children were the victim of battery, false imprisonment and infliction of emotional distress. This was in July of 1999. Almost a year later, she amended that complaint to add sexual assault by a security officer. What did she say the security officer had done in the J.C. Penney public parking lot. She said her breasts were fondled, her nipple was squeezed 10 to 20 times, she was punched with a closed fist by a J.C. Penney security guard, she was molested in her vaginal area, and she was called racial slurs. That is the case where she was testifying under oath. That is the case where the prosecutor says she lied. She has admitted lying in that case.
Her son was ill. The lawsuit was settled. The family got a total of $152,500. That’s the Arvizo family. Janet Arvizo’s ex-husband, David, says Janet coached her children in that case what to say. A witness named Mary Holzer, an employee for a law firm that represented Janet Arvizo, Gavin Arvizo, Star Arvizo, and David Arvizo in the J.C. Penney case, has come forward to testify that Janet admitted she lied.
Let me take this a step further: Miss Holzer says that Janet said her husband had a cousin in the Mexican mafia and this woman says she never came forward because she feared harm. This is the first pattern I want to identify for you with respect to this family. Let’s go to the second example of this pattern. On December 18th, in the year 2000, in the deposition in the J.C. Penney case, Janet Arvizo said her husband David never assaulted her. She now says she was assaulted for 17 years, every year of their marriage. On September 29th, 2001, Janet Arvizo told the Los Angeles Police Department she was assaulted by David Arvizo, her husband. Less than a month later, she filed for divorce. Exactly a month after she filed for divorce, she filed a welfare application that said her husband had assaulted her. And incidentally, we will prove the 152,000 I just talked about never appeared on her welfare application, and that application was under penalty of perjury.
On November 26th, 2001, Janet Arvizo told the LAPD, the Los Angeles Police Department, for the first time that David Arvizo, her soon-to-be ex-husband, molested her daughter 12 years earlier. She had never raised that allegation before. Again, she claimed false imprisonment. She said she was the victim of terrorist threats. And she claimed that her ex-husband had willfully harmed her children. The allegations against Michael Jackson are the third claim of false imprisonment she has made. They are, by our count, approximately the fourth claim for sexual assault she has made.
On November 26th, 2001, Davallin Arvizo, parroting her mother, claims her father physically abused her brothers and threatened to kill her mother. Ladies and gentlemen, we will call witnesses who will tell you that Mrs. Arvizo in the past often says people are trying to kill her. On November 26th, 2001, Janet Arvizo filed a copy of an arrest report on her husband with the Social Services agency in Los Angeles to expedite the aid, the public assistance she wanted. That’s the public assistance that she applied for without disclosing assets, bank accounts, the J.C. Penney settlement, and other things she had, and other things she was required to disclose. And I repeat, those forms are under penalty of perjury. In the current case, she claims that her former husband, David, struck her and the children for many, many years.
As the prosecutor suggested to you, she’s claiming that she’s the victim of a whole lifetime of abuse. What he didn’t tell you was that she also claims other relatives are in the drug business and abused she and her kids as well. Let me tell you a little bit about the evidence that we’re going to present to you about her efforts to get money from celebrities by claiming she’s destitute, when she’s not. You have heard a description from the prosecutor about that little apartment in East Los Angeles, where that furniture allegedly came from, that he says Michael Jackson somehow wanted to arrange to steal through others. I guess the implication is that Michael Jackson needed her furniture.
That was a studio apartment in East Los Angeles where her family had lived from time to time, but generally not often. That was a studio apartment which had a few furnishings, was sparsely decorated, looked like it really hadn’t been used because, for the most part, it wasn’t. For the most part, she lived with her parents in El Monte. And when she became engaged to her current husband, she moved in with him and the family. But when she wanted celebrities to contribute money to her, after she told them her son had cancer, and they were destitute, and they needed money for medical bills, guess where she took them. The studio apartment in East Los Angeles. She kept it even when she was living in other locations. Her husband worked at Von’s. He was a Teamster. And he had all the medical benefits the Teamsters provide, including full medical coverage. Gavin was treated at Kaiser Hospital on Sunset in Los Angeles. There were no co-payments. There were no deductibles. His medical expenses were paid in full. But Janet Arvizo put into effect a program to take her son and try and use him to obtain money.
She approached the Mid Valley News, an El Monte newspaper. She said she couldn’t pay her son’s medical bills. She told them it was $12,000 per chemo treatment. Those treatments were being paid by the insurance company. She asked them to help her raise money. She wanted an ad in the newspaper. They did put an ad in the newspaper. But she was kind of squirrelly about the account, because the people at the newspaper said, “If it’s for your son, and we are raising money for your son, you have to have an account in your son’s name.” And she said Number We will prove that she went to one woman to help her set up the account. This woman’s sister was an attorney and offered to help. This woman wanted Gavin’s Social Security number. Janet said Number she wanted an account with her name on it, and we will prove to you eventually she found a clever mechanism for doing this. She set up an account in her name, with she being the signatory, and she said it was for Gavin’s benefit, and she put money in the account and she withdrew money from the account.
The people at the newspaper will tell you that they were so moved by the story of Janet and Gavin, that they brought her a turkey on Thanksgiving day, thinking they were engaging in an act of goodwill, good fortune. They knocked on the door. Janet answered, and was upset. She didn’t want a turkey; she wanted money.
On June 15th, the year 2000, Janet received $10,000 from Mrs. Louise Palanker. I mentioned her. She’s a comedian and an actress who used to hang out at a place called The Laugh Factory in Los Angeles. Janet Arvizo wanted her children to be actors. She made no secret about that. And she took them to acting school in Los Angeles. They performed at The Laugh Factory. The check that they — that Mrs. Arvizo received from Louise Palanker was then deposited into Janet’s mother’s account, so she didn’t have to disclose it to welfare authorities and didn’t have a paper trail that they actually had money as she made and pursued her efforts to con people out of funds.
On June 10th, 2000, David Arvizo, her husband, received $10,000 from Mrs. Palanker again. Mrs. Palanker will testify that she was told they were destitute. They needed it for medical bills and living expenses On July 19th, 2000, almost a week after she hid this money, Gavin requested to meet Michael Jackson. Now, there’s a bit of a dispute over exactly who contacted Michael Jackson first, because a hairdresser friend of his, Carol Lamir, has indicated that she arranged the contact through Mr. Jackson’s assistant when she heard about Gavin. And she learned about Gavin because her son was at the same dancing school that Gavin was at, a dancing school at Olympic and Fairfax in Los Angeles. That is the dancing school where Janet approached Actress Vernee Watson and asked for money and wanted to move in. 
Now, keep in mind Ms. Arvizo and her children are claiming that they were falsely imprisoned, that Mr. Jackson masterminded a conspiracy to falsely imprison the entire family at Neverland, where he lives and where he has approximately 40 or 50 employees, many of them ex-police officers, others licensed in day care and things of that sort. She says she was falsely imprisoned on a flight to Florida with Chris Tucker, not with Michael Jackson. She says she was falsely imprisoned at the Turnberry Resort in Florida, a luxury hotel where Michael Jackson was staying. She says she was falsely imprisoned at the Calabasas Inn, a very nice hotel in Calabasas, and she says that she was falsely imprisoned three times at Neverland and went back every time. She has said that under penalty of perjury.
Let’s go through what she was buying and 147 what was ultimately billed to Michael Jackson during this terrible period of false imprisonment: February 14th, 2003: Full leg wax at Bare Skin Salon for $50; a lip wax; a bikini wax. Has her face done at Aromatherapy Day Spa. The total is $140. February 21st, Lisa’s Beauty, hair products for Janet Arvizo are purchased for $28.91. The same day, she buys bras and Jockey bikinis at Robinson-May, a total of $92.24, all billed to Michael. On February 25th at Anchor Blue, she buys clothing for $448.04 for she and her children. She also goes to Robinson’s-May, buys bras, thongs and bikinis for $115.83 in care of Michael Jackson. She buys cosmetics at Lisa’s Beauty for $34.29.
On February 26th, during this period of alleged false imprisonment, she buys clothing at Pacific Sunwear for $26.80. She buys socks, bras, and underwear at the Jockey store for $454.64. At Banana Republic, she buys shirts and boxers for a total of $416.18. She spends $64.32 on clothing at Gap. She spends $436.77 at the Levi’s outlet, same day, during this period of alleged false imprisonment. She spends $74.69 at Abercrombie & Fitch; $88.06 at Robinson’s-May for junior clothes; $160.58 at Robinson’s-May, again for bras and shorts; and 148 she goes to Foot Locker and spends $91.44 for shoes for her son Star. The next day, February 27th, another day of alleged false imprisonment by this grand conspirator called Michael Jackson, Robinson’s-May cosmetics, day-wear treatment, $129.36; cosmetics, facial soap and lotion for Janet, $30.85; slippers, $28.12. Spends over $63, care of Michael Jackson. She goes to Rite-Aid during this period of false imprisonment. She buys a mechanical pencil, body spray, feminine hygiene products, Chap Stick and gum for $62.09. She goes to Anchor Blue and spends $92.01. Gavin gets a haircut the next day at Hsong’s Barber Shop for $20. She gets a manicure and a pedicure for $51. March 3rd, Anchor Blue, more clothing for Janet, $29.23. Then we go to Robinson’s-May, cosmetics for Janet, $71.86. And finally on March 10th, Lovely Nails, a manicure and pedicure for Janet Arvizo, $115. The total of what I just read to you is $3,312.05 for Janet Arvizo while she’s falsely imprisoned at luxury hotels and Neverland.
Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to address the issue of the Bashir documentary, which the
prosecutor has dramatically suggested to you led to incredibly bizarre criminal and frantic behavior by Michael Jackson and others. Before I do that, however, I’d like to put this in perspective a little bit. You heard the prosecutor tell you that when the Bashir documentary aired, there was panic, a frantic reaction. The media was everywhere. And they were.
The Department of Children & Family Services in Los Angeles was investigating what happened. I will represent to you that we’ll prove the District Attorney’s Office in Santa Barbara was investigating what went on, and Michael Jackson knew about it. It all starts really getting going in February, January and February 2003. You have, from all sides, the following: Media everywhere; the D.A’s Office looking into what all this means; the Department of Children & Family Services looking at what all this means; the people around Michael Jackson allegedly panicked and concerned. And there was concern, but I’ll tell you what it was all about.
The networks start negotiating to have a responsive show to the Bashir documentary, which ultimately happens. So they’re converging on Neverland. They’re converging on Michael’s people and his advisors and himself to try and do something to respond to the Bashir documentary. And guess what happens, they say, in the middle of all of this. That’s when they say the child molestation begins. I submit to you we will prove it never, ever happened. Can you imagine a more absurd time for it to ever happen. Because what the prosecutor said to you about the media was true. They were everywhere. They were following the Arvizos to their home. They were trying to get interviews. And the Arvizos were asking for money from the media, just like they wanted money to do a production with Michael Jackson.
We will bring in witnesses who will tell you Janet Arvizo wanted distribution rights. She was on the phone with attorneys trying to get distribution rights. Her fiance wanted millions of dollars. He said, “A house, a son’s education, none of this is enough. We want a piece of this action.” And when they weren’t going to get it, the molestation allegations started to form, just like the pattern I outlined to you before at J.C. Penney and with the ex-husband David. They don’t start right away. They end up developing over a period of time, just when they think they’re not going to live at Neverland forever, Michael’s not going to be a father as she always referred to him everywhere, just as they realized they’re probably not going to get rich off a production involving Michael Jackson, just as they realized documents were not going to be executed because Gavin had been in the Bashir documentary that would give them some piece of the net or gross profits. Just as they realize all of this free ride, this party was ending, did they go to the police with the molestation allegation. Number they went to a lawyer. And then they went to another lawyer, never to the police, until they had worked out all their legal rights and opportunities.
And I will get into that a little more deeply in my opening statement. And by the way, we will prove to you that down the line, when Janet Arvizo realized it didn’t look too good, if there really was a molestation that went on, that you would go to a lawyer and not the police, guess what she started to say. “I learned it from the police.” This was after her lawyer went to the police to report the alleged molestation. We will prove this to you.
Let me tell you how the Bashir documentary happened. It didn’t happen exactly as the prosecutor told you. A journalist, British journalist, named Bashir, Martin Bashir, wanted to do a documentary on Michael Jackson. He wanted it to be scandalous, and he wanted to get rich. And that’s what he did. But he knew that getting close to Michael Jackson may not be easy. After all, so many people around the world want to get near him. They want opportunities they believe he carries with him.
This has been an ongoing issue with Michael Jackson his whole life. Because he’s a musical genius, because he’s so well known, because he’s perceived as being so successful, people are always buzzing around him trying to get a hook into his business, trying to just grab something that will give them fame and fortune. It’s an ongoing reality. It’s an ongoing problem. And as Michael Jackson has said many times, “I am very lonely because of it.” He has written that in his autobiography and he has said it; “Everybody wants a piece of me.” Martin Bashir was no exception, just like the Arvizos were no exception.
So Martin Bashir decided the best way to get to Michael Jackson is a form of flattery. “I will misrepresent to him my true intentions, and I will find that little point of vulnerability that will get him to me so I can work with him and get this project that’s going to make me wealthy.” Bashir had interviewed Princess Diana of England sometime previously. He knew Michael Jackson was a great fan and friend of Princess Diana. To any of you who know anything about Princess Diana, you can understand why. She had the opportunity to simply live in wealth, pomposity, a rigidity in the social structure in England, and she didn’t want it, she wasn’t happy with it, and she branched out on her own and offended people. And she went to Africa and she worked with children with AIDS, and she made a crusade out of trying to stop land mines around the world which explode and hurt children, mines for civil war. And she decided she was going to live her life the way she chose. She and Mr. Jackson had a friendship and a camaraderie, because he saw that he had pursued a similar life.
Bashir concluded that, “I’ll get to him through his love and affection for Princess Diana.” Bashir knew that a psychic in England named Uri Geller, who’s been on T.V. doing things, he thought Uri Geller could get to Michael Jackson. And it turns out he could. He called up Uri Geller and he was gushing with flattery. He said he admired what Michael had done for children around the world. He specifically referred to Michael’s visits to sick children in hospitals around the world. He said, “I so admire this. We need to promote it better. We need to do a documentary that will show the world what kind of a person Michael is, and we will focus on children.”
And he had some specific ideas. He told Uri Geller that Michael Jackson has always wanted an International Children’s Day, much like Mother’s Day or Father’s Day. And he told Uri Geller that he wanted to bring Michael Jackson to meet Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and he was hoping by doing so, that Michael would visit Africa and help children with AIDS. He told Uri Geller, “I can accomplish that,” and Geller was very interested.
Geller arranged a meeting between Michael Jackson and Martin Bashir in London. And Bashir gave the same routine that I just described: “You are misunderstood. What you’ve done is so phenomenal. The world needs to know. I’m the one best positioned to do this project so the world really will understand who you are and what you’ve accomplished.” And he showed him a letter, somewhat crumbled up letter, from Princess Diana commending him for the way he had conducted her interview. Everything was sugar and spice and everything nice. Unfortunately, it was false. It was deception par excellance. The meeting was arranged. Michael met with Mr. Bashir. He agreed to do the documentary because he believed what I just told you. Michael had some conditions. He didn’t want his children’s faces to appear on the documentary. Michael loves his children. They’re beautiful little kids. They live with him at Neverland, and they were living there throughout these alleged events, these so-called crimes that didn’t happen. But nevertheless, Bashir wanted to follow him around, and he did follow him to various cities, Berlin, et cetera. Michael was terrified that his children’s faces would be on that documentary. He is perpetually terrified that something will happen to his children. They’ll be kidnapped; there will be extortion; there will be a ransom request; they’ll be injured, or worse. Bashir agreed. “Their faces will never appear. They will not be recognizable on that documentary.” And that was false.
Michael asked him if he could see the footage before it was broadcast, because Michael has been in this business his whole life. He has seen what the media can do to anybody. They can take footage and remove it. They can take footage and connect it. They can take words and replace them. They can do whatever they want and make you look terrible if they want, and it had been done to him often throughout his career. He didn’t want that to happen in this documentary. Martin Bashir assured him he would have full editorial control, and that was a falsehood. Michael wanted any money he received to go to charity. Bashir assured him it would. Uri Geller also wanted money to go to charity, but he also wanted a personal service fee. He wanted a percentage of the net proceeds, and he worked that out with Bashir, not with Michael.
Let me give you a flavor for what Bashir said to Michael Jackson to induce him to do this project: On July 23rd, 2002, he sent a letter to Michael’s assistant. He had a plan of action for filming at Neverland. He said on July 29th, they wanted to feature Michael with a large group of children, around 50, welcoming them and sharing with them his extraordinary home so that, for one day, their lives can be enriched seeing Michael with the children on the rides and then taking them into his movie theater to watch a film.
The next day, Tuesday, July 30th, “I was hoping that Mac Culkin will be available to visit.” He is an extremely close friend of Michael’s and has provided support throughout the years. That’s Macauley Culkin, the actor. Wednesday, July 31st, this would be a day spent working with Michael, the musical genius, listening to the song he has written for the international children’s holiday, and also viewing some tapes from his extraordinary career, reflecting upon 30 years of success.
Thursday, August 1st, a walk around Neverland, the zoo and all the other attractions that have been built both for Michael and the benefit of others. The beautiful landscape encouraging all of us to become “as little children again,” quote, unquote. Friday, August 2nd, late-night drive through L.A, how Michael still connects with the inner city, and how he has drawn inspiration for his dance scenes from the ghetto kids.
“I shall give you a call tomorrow to check through this, but hope that it will be possible Obviously, the trip to Africa, plus the U.N. visit are in the early stages of planning, but I shall certainly give you full details as soon as matters are confirmed.” You will learn, ladies and gentlemen, what Bashir said to Michael face to face, as he did this project, a project designed to humiliate, degrade and deceive, he said to him at one point with respect to Michael and children, “I saw yesterday, just to explain, a very special interaction between you, and it was a privilege to see it. I’ve got three children, and to be honest, it was a bit of an education to watch,” referring to Michael and children. He said to Michael, “You know, nobody ever asks you these questions about how you approach children, how you love children, what you do for children, and how you raise your own.” He said, “Nobody ever asks Michael any of these questions.
They all ask these ignorant things,” and he called those people “scum.” He told Michael, “Neverland is an extraordinary, a breath-taking, a stupendous, an exhilarating, an amazing place. I can’t put together words to describe Neverland,” flattering Michael, trying to lead him to his destruction. He said, “One of the things that puzzles me, that I find difficult to understand, is why an artist like yourself, who has brought such beautiful music to the world, who has written the melody of most of our lives, my life – my romantic development was partially shaped by your records – why I find it so difficult to understand is why is it that, having brought this to the world, people are quick to criticize.”
He said being with Michael and children was like a beautiful journey. He said to Michael Jackson, “One of the things I noticed about you over the last year is your relationship with your children. Your relationship with your — and I have to say to you that I didn’t know you before, but your relationship with your children is spectacular. It almost makes me weep when I see you with them, because your interaction is so natural, loving, so caring, and everyone who comes in contact with you knows that.”As the prosecutor has told you, he will show you that documentary. Keep in mind, if you will, what I just told you when you see it.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Bashir traveled with Michael through Europe and the United States, spent time at Neverland. Took about eight months to put it together. And on that documentary, Michael Jackson makes very clear, “I don’t do anything sexual with children. I don’t commit crimes.”
Gavin Arvizo is on that documentary. But ladies and gentlemen, Janet wanted her children in films. She always said that. We have witnesses who will confirm that, and the children all went to acting schools. They wanted to be actors. In fact, while they were visiting Neverland, Michael tried to assist them. He let Star do his own video, called it “The Neverland Channel.” They were trying to get him to help them break in. And he did help them. She knew exactly what was happening when her children went to Neverland and when Gavin was in that documentary.
But she had one problem: She wanted money, and she didn’t see it coming. We will prove to you, throughout this trial, that her reaction to this film was primarily, “How do I profit. How do I get distribution rights. What documents should I sign. How do I negotiate the documents.” In fact, one witness will tell you that before the family filmed what has been called the rebuttal show that the prosecutor talked to you about, she not only appeared happy as can be about filming it, but she delayed it because she was on the phone with a lawyer trying to figure out what her rights were. And when presented with what is called a model document to deal with distribution rights, she complained, didn’t want to sign it, wanted to get advice. Her main complaint was she didn’t profit from the Bashir documentary that became world famous. She did have media following her around. There is no question about that. They did follow her to her house. They followed her everywhere. There also is no question that we will prove she wanted security with her because she said the media were hounding them so badly. And this stuff about security from Michael Jackson somehow being there to imprison her we will prove is false. She wanted security. She didn’t want the media just hounding them, but she did want money from the media. That we will prove also.
Her fiance, now her husband, has testified that they didn’t want money, but we have a witness who will tell you that he approached them at their 161 home, and Jay Jackson wanted $15,000 for a photo and article. We will also prove to you that he made the statement, “Michael Jackson can give us a house. Michael Jackson can pay for college. Michael Jackson can pay for benefits. That’s not enough. We want big money.”
Davallin told a friend of Michael Jackson, “We’re getting a home in the Hollywood Hills.” The statements designed to get something of a financial benefit are endless, and we will prove them in this trial. July of 2000 was the first contact between Gavin Arvizo and Michael Jackson, as I said before. And in August, the Arvizos visited Neverland for the first time. They then came with their father David, they stayed a number of nights, and in October Michael gave them an SUV. In June — in the year 2000 — excuse me, the year 2001, there was very little contact.
Now, I’ve told you about some of the financial stuff that was going on during the year 2001, but Michael Jackson didn’t really see these people in the year 2001. They surfaced again in 2002, but I have already explained to you all the efforts to latch on to other celebrities that they tried, and it didn’t completely work.Michael Jackson, as I said before, did everything he could to help this family overcome cancer, and they repeatedly commended him for doing so. They repeatedly make public statements that Michael had helped save Gavin’s life; that the friendship, the warmth, the encouragement, what went on at Neverland helped save him from cancer. I will read from transcripts to you words to that effect.
The accolades were endless until they realized he wasn’t going to support them forever, and that’s when everything changed and this nightmare of false allegations started. Bashir arrived at Neverland and he did film Michael Jackson and he filmed Gavin, and he took statements from both. Nobody expected any of this to be secret or quiet. Everyone knew it was for worldwide distribution. What Michael said on that documentary he expected to be publicized throughout the world. It wasn’t meant to be a private thing. It was meant to be a public thing, and that needs to be understood as you watch it and hear his words. And I repeat, he repeatedly says, “Nothing sexual happens with me and children, ever.”He does display some idealism on the film. He talks about children coming to school with guns and why they need love, why they need caring, that there’s got to be a way to change this. He talks about children who need attention and affection, and something must be wrong with all the violence in the world. Yes, that’s Michael Jackson’s idealism, some might say, to some extent, naivete. Certainly naivete when it comes to making yourself vulnerable to false claims.
At this point, I would like to go through some of what was said in Bashir. Much of what was said did not appear on Bashir. Fortunately, Mr. Jackson had his own videographer filming while Bashir filmed, and as you can imagine, and this is not unusual with eight months of work, it had to be condensed down into a show. Much of what Michael said about his view of the world, his view of the need for peace and love, his desire to see more creativity in the world and his great belief in children as a cause was left out, and in its place what you will see is commentary by Bashir designed to create a scandal, and he did. In September of 2002, ladies and gentlemen, the Arvizo family made numerous visits to Neverland, one of them with Actor Chris Tucker. As Gavin says on the Bashir documentary, on one occasion he slept on Michael’s bed and Michael slept on the floor. Nowhere in that documentary does he say, “I had sex with Michael Jackson.” In fact, months afterward, he was saying in various recorded statements, “He saved my family. He saved me from cancer. He’s never done anything wrong.” Now Janet’s spin was, “That was because we were falsely imprisoned.” I’m going to go through those statements also.
The next — two days later, February 8th, 2003, Ed Bradley of the T.V. show 60 Minutes arrived with a film crew to Neverland. Also present were Jack Sussman, the president of CBS Entertainment, and attorneys David LeGrand and Mark Geragos. Various networks were trying to compete for the right to do the rebuttal show, the show that was supposed to be a response to Bashir’s scandal show. And there was a lot of activity going on at Neverland and among people associated with Mr. Jackson because, yes, there was great dislike for what Bashir had done and the way he tried to hurt Michael’s reputation. But there also were, to a lot of people around Michael, a great business opportunity, because they saw the opportunity to make millions of dollars in a production that never could have happened if Bashir hadn’t aired. It was called by everybody a rebuttal piece. So, yes, there was concern, and, yes, there was elation by certain people around Michael because they thought they could make money. And networks were approaching Michael and people around him to try and benefit from that opportunity.
And ladies and gentlemen, millions were made by certain people on the rebuttal film. On February 16th, 2003, Janet Arvizo and her family were taped by Investigator Brad Miller saying, “Michael’s wonderful. He never did anything improper.” Now, that’s supposed to be part of this, I guess, false imprisonment thing, that apparently they’re being forced to do that. They’re living at Jay Jackson’s apartment. Jay Jackson is in the United States Army. Excuse me. Nobody calls the police, calls the United States Army, complains that, “We’re falsely imprisoned. They’ve got — they’re forcing us to make statements. They’re forcing us to testify. They’re forcing us to say certain things complimentary to Michael Jackson.” Nobody does because there was no reason to. And the security people were requested by Janet because of all the media frenzy. This may be a good place to end, Your Honor. Thank you  
Letter from Mr. Tom Mesereau to Michael Jackson fans, asking for your personal stories of Michael’s acts of kindness.
Use this email to send your stories: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please Support the #MichaelJackson Global family endeavor to gift Michael ONE BILLION Views on Billie Jean Youtube by Aug 29th 2020, his Birthday !
“We were recently approached on Twitter by a Michael Jackson fan Tudo Pelo Michael a Brazilian fan, who had a great idea for a World-Wide campaign to celebrate Michael’s birthday this year with a wonderful gift to our beloved .
Square One is available on Amazon prime video. Please watch it here.
MJ Estate vs Quincy Jones
This week, an appellate court ruled that the Estate of Michael Jackson does not have to pay 7 million dollars in royalties and fees to music producer Quincy Jones. The three-judge panel of the 2nd Appellate District overturned the majority of the original 2017 jury verdict, stating that the trial judge had allowed the jury to misinterpret Jones’ contract.
The lawyers for Jones had argued that the producer was entitled to about $30 million in royalties and other income derived from the This Is It concert film, two Cirque du Soleil shows, and other revenue streams that took place after the death of Jackson back in 2009. After a two-week trial, the jurors awarded Jones $9.4 million.
The appeals court took the majority of the original award back saying that Judge Michael L. Stern had erred by not interpreting the contract himself, and instead leaving it up to the jurors. “The only compensation Jones was entitled to receive was royalties from record sales on remixes, and the evidence indicates he received them,” Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst wrote. “If he wanted remixing fees, he had to negotiate them in separate agreements.”
Howard Weitzman, who represented the Jackson estate, issued a written statement:
“Quincy Jones was the last person we thought would try to take advantage of Michael Jackson by filing a lawsuit three years after he died asking for tens of millions of dollars he wasn’t entitled to,” Weitzman said. “We knew the verdict was wrong when we heard it, and the court of appeal has completely vindicated us. From the beginning, this was an attempt to take advantage of Michael knowing he wasn’t here to defend himself.”
John Branca, co-executor of the estate, also commented: “So many people have tried to take advantage of Michael and mischaracterize him since his death. It’s gratifying that in this case the court in an overwhelmingly favorable and just decision, recognizes that Michael Jackson was both an enormous talent and an extremely fair business executive.”
MJ Estate vs Robson & Safechuck
Due to COVID-19 and governor’s state of emergency, the status conference originally scheduled for June 11 has been postponed until June 25 at 9:30 a.m. PDT.
Kew Media and Dan Reed
Kew Media Distribution’s collapse has left more than 250 of its clients £10.8M ($13.4M) out of pocket, according to a report that lays bare the financial damage of the TV and film sales house’s demise.
Kew Media Distribution’s parent company Kew Media Group went bust in February, but warning lights were flashing well before the crash, as the distribution arm’s clients complained about being owed royalties.
Now, a report by Kew Media Distribution’s administrator FTI Consulting has revealed that the company owed nearly £11M to producers and other clients all over the world, including Netflix and CNN.
The figure is a combination of claims made by partners and Kew Media Distribution records, but FTI said the final total is likely to be higher, given the distributor did not share complete sales reports with all clients.
FTI added that it does not expect producers to recover this money in any meaningful way — even after it has completed a sale of Kew Media Distribution’s library.
The report reveals that Leaving Neverland producer Amos Pictures is among Kew Media Distribution’s biggest creditors. The company is owed nearly £523,000 in royalties after Kew Media Distribution sold its HBO/Channel 4 film on Michael Jackson internationally.
Amos founder Dan Reed terminated his Leaving Neverland distribution deal with Kew Media Distribution, but FTI is not acknowledging the termination and is including the title in its sale of the library. Reed told Deadline he is prepared to take legal action to protect his rights. 
#Covid-19 #Michael Jackson #Heal The World #Heal The World 2020
In this horrible time, the sound of Michael Jackson music and words is like a remedy; it is a light in the darkness.
Like father, like son
Prince Jackson and The Heal Los Angeles Foundation will be handing out fresh meals on April 1.
The Michael Jackson Estate donates $300,000 to coronavirus relief efforts
“This virus strikes at the heart of the communities we are close to,” said John Branca and John McClain, co-executors of the Estate of Michael Jackson. “We learned today that the legendary Manu Dibango [a key influence on Jackson’s hit ‘Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’) passed away from the virus. Other performers and support staff in music and on Broadway are sick or have been left without work and are facing an uncertain future. And in Las Vegas, which has been so welcoming to Michael Jackson, the entire city has been shut down leaving thousands of workers and their families devastated and without an income.
“Michael’s spirit of generosity and helping others during his lifetime is legendary. These donations are inspired by him,” they concluded.
In New York, the Estate is answering the challenge made by more than 20 Broadway producers who are matching up to $1 million in donations, doubling the impact of contributions to Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS’ COVID-19 Emergency Assistance Fund. Jackson loved attending Broadway performances and the Estate and its partner, Lia Vollack Productions, continue to look forward to welcoming audiences to MJ the Musical later this year.
“With every passing day that theaters remain dark, entertainment and performing arts professionals face unprecedented and immediate challenges,” said Tom Viola, executive director Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS. “This incredibly generous donation from the Michael Jackson Estate will help ensure those onstage, backstage and behind the scenes get lifesaving health care, emergency financial assistance and counseling during and after this crisis.”
In Las Vegas, the Estate’s donation will provide 300,000 meals to the needy, and help to maintain Three Square Food Bank’s supplies, the largest foodbank in Southern Nevada. Since opening in February 2013, Michael Jackson ONE, produced by Cirque du Soleil and the Estate of Michael Jackson, has been one of the most popular shows in Vegas. “Before the pandemic, 1 in 8 Southern Nevadans lived in a food-insecure household and that number will increase exponentially with the displacement of thousands of workers in our community. Thank you to the Estate of Michael Jackson for stepping up to help children, families, veterans and senior citizens who may need help now more than ever,” Michelle Beck, Chief Development Officer.
The Recording Academy and MusiCares will support the music makers who Michael Jackson worked with and loved in a time where the industry is being challenged at every level from the virus. (source)
Where are the billionaires and the moguls who can help the planet and the people suffering from the pandemic disease? Apparently, they are hiding, like David Geffen:
David Geffen shared with his 87,000 Instagram followers his escape to the Grenadines on his reported $590 million yacht to avoid the coronavirus pandemic — posts that created enough backlash among shocked onlookers that he has made his account private.
Though the philanthropist and entertainment mogul regularly shares photos of his yacht, Rising Sun, on his social media accounts, many found Saturday’s posts particularly tone-deaf, as Americans are struggling with unemployment, healthcare workers are begging for support and small businesses are faced with the possibility of shutting down as they may face months of no customers and revenue.
One of the captions included, “Sunset last night…isolated in the Grenadines avoiding the virus. I’m hoping everybody is staying safe.”
Shortly after, several Twitter users expressed their discontent with the magnate’s photos, with some questioning why he wouldn’t offer to use his 138-meter yacht to help house patients 
By The Last Tear (Lou)
God will give me justice
The Comte Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas
Dr. Boyce Watkins on Oprah!
Do you remember that David Geffen showed Leaving Neverland before its release to Oprah Winfrey and Gayle King in a private session on his yacht on Oprah’s birthday (by the end of January 2019)? Was LN a kind of birthday present from Geffen to his loyal friend Oprah?
We know that filmmakers, movie producers, artists and alike who produce or play in a movie have the privilege to show their creation to whom they wish before the public release.
For example we have read in Joy Robson’s deposition that Michael Jackson showed Smooth Criminal to her and her children before the movie was released.
Well, we know that Smooth Criminal video belonged to MJ but we cannot say the same thing about LN and Mr. Geffen because we do not know if he owns it or he has sponsored it. The only thing that we can say is that he entertained his guests by showing this movie. But why did he choose this movie? It was a birthday party after all, why not choosing an unreleased comedy for example? Does Mr. Geffen believe – like Oprah and King – in Robson and Safechuck? Does he believe that their lies and false accusations are true? If so then we must ask why? We know that Jackson and Geffen were friends back in the 80’s. What did happen to their friendship? Let’s explore this matter in the part 4 of this series.
More on Victor Gutierrez
In the first part of this series, we talked about Victor Gutierrez, how he was sued by Michael Jackson for defamation in 1995, how he lost the case and had to run back to Chile in 1998. We added that in 2004, Gutierrez was hired by ABC as Martin Bashir’s assistant. In 2005, they made together a slanderous movie about MJ that was broadcasted during the jury’s deliberations’ days, before the verdict on June 13, 2005.
I also mentioned that the pair of Gutierrez-Bashir might have known each other before 2004. About the Arvizos, I suggested that Gutierrez have probably played a crucial part on the backstage of this case.
A while ago, MJ Repository shared on Twitter three pictures from Gutierrez’s homepage where he sold his book on the Internet:
Amusing excerpt from Roger Friedman on one of the pictures!
What’s really interesting is that every boy [district attorney Tom] Sneddon would like to paint as a victim of Michael Jackson comes from the book written by Victor Gutierrez.
I would like to share an article in Spanish published in La Tercera on April 11, 1998- You find it in Spanish here. This is a paragraph translated in English that tells us about Gutierrez plans to make a movie based on his book MJ WML with HBO Olé and to write Hillary Clinton’s biography. Even none of these “plans” happened, it is an interesting read:
The reporter: Could it create work complications? (The reporter wonders if Gutierrez could have issues in the US after Jackson winning his defamations lawsuit.)
Gutierrez: No, because I’m a legal resident.
Victor Gutierrez plans are to continue selling the book in England and to make a film for HBO Olé, to be released later this year. He’s also working on the biography of the first lady of the U.S., Hillary Clinton “which I think will also cause me problems”. While continuing his work producing magic numbers for Julio Videla’s program Juntémonos on Megavision, he analyzes Hard Copy’s offerings. “But I’ve got to see the silver.” “I’m going to keep writing and the only way for me to stop doing it, is to be shot in the head 
About HBO Olé:
HBO Latin America (originally known as HBO OLÉ) originated in 1991 as a partnership between Venezuelan broadcaster Omnivisión and HBO. The channel was initially available to cable and satellite providers across Central and South America, and the Caribbean. HBO OLÉ reached a break-even profit by 1993, and had about 500,000 subscribers by 1994; that year, a secondary channel was launched, along with a Portuguese feed for Brazil. Sony, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Pictures later joined the partnership. Omnivisión eventually sold its share in the channel to Time Warner.
HBO Latin America is a company which owns several pay television networks in the region of Latin America. It is a joint venture between WarnerMedia and Ole Communications.
In Latin America, the channels owned by WarnerMedia Entertainment who broadcasts TNT, CNN International, CNN en Español, truTV, Cartoon Network, Chilevisión and other sister channels and HBO Latin America Group, which broadcasts other related channels.
In October 2019, WarnerMedia announced an agreement with Ole to acquire the latter’s minority interest in the Spanish-language HBO, Max, and Cinemax channels in Latin America, in order to facilitate the future launch of the HBO Max streaming service in the region. HBO Brasil, and the companies’ distribution partnership for Warner Channel and channels owned by other companies, are not affected at this time.
Going back to the Arvizos case and the 2005 trial, apart from Bashir, Sneddon and his crow fed off of Gutierrez sick person and fantasy book. The times that “lions and monkeys and some other animals entered the court room” during the trial in 2005 were a few examples of that; also “faeces “, “diarrhea” “Vaseline”, … were also other examples.
More on Arvizos and Gutierrez in the next part!
A last addition, a letter has been shared on Twitter by Megyn Kelly telling us that James Goldston the president of ABS News has covered up crimes of Epstein but he produced Bashir’s “Living with Michael Jackson”.
In 2014, Wade Robson and James Safechuck advised by their lawyers filed their lawsuits against Michael Jackson and his estate because they believed that the conditions for their success had been met.
In fact, Jackson being dead, no one could sue them; also the social movement #MeToo that has no rules or boundaries tolerates both true and false accusers and provides them a forum to share their stories true or false. A unique opportunity for money hungry people like Safechuck and Robson!
Actually, both Wade and James and their families have struggled years after years with poor economy, debts and lawsuits. See MJJ Repository tweets here:
In 2003, Joy and Wade collaboratively borrowed a $440,000 30-year mortgage at 5% adjustable interest to purchase a home together. Joy secured a second mortgage against the property in 2004 for $145,000. Wade eventually moved on and was removed as co-borrower, leaving Joy alone.
In ’07, Joy took out a $595k 30 yr. loan to consolidate prior loans & moved again in 2009 (to apartments). In the same vein, Wade wound up selling his home in 2013 and downsizing with Amanda back to Hawaii, after years of repeated financial failures and self-imposed job refusal.
This year, Joy was pursued by bill collectors after repeatedly failing to pay minimum balances on credit card debt. This culminated in a lawsuit in August, with American Express seeking more than $4,250 in unpaid dues. Note that Joy still uses Wade’s business as her own on card.
See James Safechuck’s dad lawsuit here.
In contrast to other people like Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin, Omar Bathi … who have achieved success in life, Wade and James and their family were more like losers; they decided to jump to the other side and to rob the estate of Jackson. And of course they were very welcomed by Jackson haters who have supervised every single person around Michael since the 90’s in hopes that one day he or she would turn side and accuse falsely MJ.
We also know that Michael Jackson has been used as a shield to protect real predators. Robson and Safechuck were a solace for these people and their protectors who by attacking MJ covered the real wrongdoers; the kind of Oprah Winfrey who have covered for people like Harvey Weinstein (see here for example); but also others, like this one, Jude Aptow. See here for more details.
Another reminder and a must read: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/05/us/harvey-weinstein-complicity.html
 Collecting a monthly retainer, Mr. Benza said, he reported items on Roger Clemens, Michael Jackson and others and sent them to Mr. Weinstein’s communications team, though he didn’t know whether they were used to trade away stories about the producer. Mr. Weinstein’s spokeswoman said the payments to Mr. Benza were for public relations work during Miramax’s dispute with Disney 
American Media has acknowledged that it sometimes worked to gather information to help Mr. Weinstein because of mutual business interests. “To the extent AMI provided ‘off the record’ information to Mr. Weinstein about his accusers,” the company said in a statement, it did so “at a time when Mr. Weinstein was denying any harassment.” The statement said Mr. Howard would not have allowed the information to be published
By fall last year, Mr. Weinstein was trying to stop what he feared would be a story about the allegations against him by New York magazine. Once again, he called on Mr. Benza, meeting him at the Peninsula Beverly Hills that October. Saying the magazine was “doing a Bill Cosby on me,” Mr. Weinstein asked for help, Mr. Benza recalled 
Having said all these facets in this matter, there is another angle that has not been discussed much. The only person, as far as I know, who has noticed it, is Mr. Zack O’Malley Greenburg in his article What ‘Leaving Neverland’ Means For Michael Jackson’s Business Empire.
Here is an excerpt:
Like Sony itself, Sony/ATV recently signed a long-term deal with Jackson. The idea of the company disentangling itself from the singer—who paid $47.5 million for the original ATV catalog, which included some of the Beatles’ biggest hits, in the 1980s before merging it with Sony’s a decade later—seems complicated at best. Any theoretical unwinding of Jackson’s publishing would likely drag along other music contained within his Mijac publishing entity, including the catalog of Sly and the Family Stone, as well as hits popularized by Aretha Franklin and Jackson’s late father-in-law, Elvis Presley.
As we know it, Sony bought Jackson’s part in ATV catalog in 2016 for $750 million. But Jackson’s own works and a few others mentioned in the excerpt above are still in possession of the MJ estate.
This is a common knowledge in the music industry that artists who own their works and even others, belong to an especial part in this industry. They are their own masters; but they can also drag up or down the music of the artists they own.
On the other hand, Mr. Branca has already explained in this video how Sony bought MJ’s part in ATV catalog:
1:19:50 to 1:20:20 : … the best example is Sony/ATV so after we bought the Beatles, Sony sent us a notice without telling us that they were going to exercise a buy/sell. Michael’ lawyers had installed because I wasn’t representing him. Michael had instructed me under no circumstances can I ever be forced to sell this company that’s what I had in the contract but in 2006 / 2007 some other lawyer changed that and Sony exercises this buy / sell
The question is what the intention of Sony Corporation was in 2016 when without warning they asked to buy Jackson’s part of ATV catalog? Who were Michael’ lawyers who changed the original contract between MJ and Sony in 2006-2007 and in favor of the latter? Who did represent Sony in 2006-2007 when the buy-cell clause was added to the original contract? How was the original contract drafted in the matter of buy and sell between the two owners?
We also know that Sony Corporation that had bought 30% of EMI catalog in 2012 bought the rest of EMI in 2018; 10% from the estate of Jackson ($287 million) and 60% from a consortium of investors including Abu Dhabi-based Mubadala Development, Jynwel Capital, Blackstone Group’s GSO Capital Partners and David Geffen.
As you see, Sony Music Entertainment (SME, as a part of Sony Corporation), Universal Music Group (UMG) and Warner Music Group (WMG, owned by AT&T, HBO is included in the Warner Media Group) own the global music industry for now.
There is no doubt that the streaming medias have changed the music and the film industries drastically. Having a strong foot in both of these industries, Sony goes head-to-head with the biggest like Disney, Google, Apple, etc.
There is still a question left! What was actually at the bottom of the Sony Pictures hacking story in 2014-2015, the North Korea involvement, the movie The Interview and at the time American President?
After the change of the law in California (see here), the appellate court decided yesterday (1/3/2020) to remand back Robson and Safechuck’s cases to the trial court for continuation.
The good news is that Mr. Tom Mesereau is back and helps the estate of MJ as special counsel.
Litigation Counsel of America (LCA) is pleased to announce that Thomas A. Mesereau, Jr. will serve as President of the LCA in 2020.
Tom Mesereau is well known in legal circles for representing both celebrities and the indigent. Each year the LCA awards the Thomas A. Mesereau Cup to a deserving lawyer, judge, or scholar practicing in the area of criminal law.
Mr. Mesereau has represented Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, Mike Tyson, Robert Blake, and others in high profile celebrity cases. He currently serves as Special Counsel to John Branca, Trustee of the Estate of Michael Jackson. 
Please remember that all Robson’ and Safechuck’ claims against the Estate were dismissed for good! Only their civil lawsuits against MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures will be re-examined.
Here you are a few excerpts from the declaration of the appellate court published yesterday. You will also find the document as well:
3, 3-2 and 3-3-
Mr. Weitzman, the estate lawyer, statement (1/3/2020) to the recent event:
More details later!
Reflecting on 2019 Live with Taj Jackson
Multistreaming with https://restream.io/
✅ Subscribe! ➜ https://www.youtube.com/TheMichaelJac… 🔔 Click On The Bell + Turn On Notifications.
King Of Pop News & Chart data
Please read an excellent thread by MJJRepository
Here’s a disgusting look at the relentless, systematic approach Billboard Magazine took across multiple issues to attempt dismantling of MJ’s legacy while serving as a massive promotional tool for Dan & LN.
This is separate from their online vendetta against MJ in similar style.
The article quotes Weitzman’s “just another rehash of dated and discredited allegations” but immediately attempts to downplay that remark as if the estate couldn’t had been well-versed on the claims when they just heard about film in January.
They also rely on anonymous sources.
The article then rehashes the synopsis of Leaving Neverland, complete with all the PR talking points and buzz words.
Such a hit piece wouldn’t be complete w/out quoting celebs in bold: Oprah “this moment transcends MJ,” Ehrlich “you may never listen to MJ again.” and so on…
Billboard uses the second separate story in the same issue to double-rehash the allegations of LN while also promoting Oprah’s “emotional” special.
Again they splash more blue tick quotes including Apatow: “5 min. in you’ll think to yourself…every word they’re saying is true.”
Right from the cover itself, Billboard attempts to steer the fake and manufactured narrative. “executives, creators and fans are confronting complacency & grappling anew…”
And from the get-go they again depict MJ as a monster, raising the BS “separating art from the artist.”
By The Last Tear (Lou)
UPDATE 12/18 UPDATE 12/18
This refers to other causes of action the estate raised alongside the statute of limitations in James’ case and demurrer. Such causes include determining the validity of negligent supervision, negligent hiring/retention, negligent failure to warn and breach of fiduciary duty.
Since Finaldi can’t produce any evidence that Safechuck was employed by MJ nor the two companies being sued during the abuse timeline (in fact MJJ Ventures didn’t even exist through much of it), this and other remaining issues help ensure it’ll be dismissed on summary judgment.
To summarize: Wade & James’ cases will head back to the original trial court (whose judge sat through more than half a decade of litigation already). From there, motions will be made on other grounds for dismissal. The appellate court only considered statutes, not other merits.
As you perhaps remember, Judge Beckloff, the judge that supervised the estate of Michael Jackson since Michael’s tragic death, dismissed the case of Wade Robson on December 19th 2017 and the case of James Safechuck on June 28th 2017.
Guided by their lawyer, Vince Finaldi, the two liars and perjurers, Robson and Safechuck proceeded to the appeals court. On Monday 11/18/2019, their hearing was scheduled on the 2nd District Court of Appeal.
Meanwhile, a new state law signed last month by Governor Gavin Newsom in California, has changed some circumstances. According to this law those who say they were sexually abused can file lawsuits until the age of 40 (it was until age 26 before the change). We will soon look closely to this new law.
As usual, the tabloids – The Sun, TMZ, …, some main stream media and Vince Finaldi – manipulated the facts. Here you are what Mr. Howard Weitzman, the estate’s lawyer said. Please notice that the emphasizes are mine:
“The appellate court’s tentative ruling is not on the merits of Robson and Safechuck’s allegations and the court in no way said that these cases will go to trial. Neither does it reverse the 2015 rulings dismissing Robson and Safechuck’s claims against the estate, which are final and no longer subject to any appeals. We are confident that the claims against Michael Jackson’s corporate entities will, once again, be dismissed as has happened before.”
Notice that the claims against the estate are dismissed and that will not change. Only “the third part” meaning the claims against MJJ Productions Inc, and MJJ Ventures, Inc.would be reexamined by the appeals court. These claims have been dismissed once in 2017, Estate’s lawyers estimate that they will be again dismissed by the Appeal Court. I am confident that they will be!
Now, let’s see what the new law is. We do not have go far! We have our Julia who has explained it: Source
So let me explain what exactly changed in the California Code of Civil Procedure that enabled Wade Robson and James Safechuck to save their cases from being dismissed and what this means for the future.
The relevant part of the law is CCP 340.1. Here is how it looked so far. Because both Robson and Safechuck filed their lawsuits when they were past their 26th birthday that meant that so far the (b)(2) section of the law – the last paragraph – applied to them.
To circumvent that Robson and Safechuck are suing MJ’s companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures . This is why they have to make up all those contrived tales about MJ’s companies being this sophisticated CSA mafia and his secretary being a “madame”.
It’s misleading to claim that victims of CSA did not have a chance so far to sue if they were above 26. They could directly sue their abuser, if they were alive, even if the accuser was above 26.
The only obstacle they had was that they had some limits to suing third parties that were allegedly responsible for their abuse.
They could still sue them, only they had to prove that those third parties (typically schools or churches) knew or had a reason to know of their abuse and that they had control over the abuser. I think that is pretty reasonable.
But since we are in the MeToo era politicians are now bending over backwards to create an environment which IMO is not really fair to both parties, but is heavily in favor of accusers. So let’s see how the law changed now.
This is the new text of the law. So what changed? First of all the term “sexual abuse” changed to “sexual assault”. More importantly for us “the plaintiff’s 26th birthday” changed to “the plaintiff’s 40 birthday”.
With the old law our focus was this part. All legal arguments revolved around whether the companies knew or had a reason to know and whether they had control over MJ.
Since MJ was the 100% owner of his companies he had control over them, they didn’t have control over him, so the lawsuits were thrown out based on the basis that the companies could not control MJ, therefore Robson and Safechuck can’t fulfill the requirements of (b)(2).
Now all of those arguments go out the window. We start it all over, with a focus on a different part of the law, namely what I posted above, but here it is again:
Mind you in case someone takes Robson and Safechuck’s allegations at face value, the (a)(2) is tailor made for their mothers! They definitely had a duty of care for their sons and if their sons’ allegations are true then they were negligent which was the legal cause of the CSA.
HBO has asked for an extension for the due date for their opening brief against the Michael Jackson Estate. New date is 2/28/20 for HBO, response by Estate due 3/30/20.
It is likely that HBO requests for 1 or 2 more extensions. That would delay the case between one or two years.
There is no settlement in the case MJ Estate vs HBO.
There are several updates in the dispute of MJ Estate against HBO.
As you perhaps remember, on September 20, 2019 Judge Wu ruled against HBO’s anti SLAPP case and for the MJ Estate’s motion to compel arbitration (see here).
However, on October 24, 2019, HBO lawyers filed a motion of appeal and stay. You find this document here.
John Branca, the co-executor of the Estate called HBO’s move a “cover-up” and added:
“If HBO truly believed that their desperate attempt to grab ratings was true, accurate, and fair, they would not be so strenuously avoiding a public reckoning of this junk programming which has become known as the Lies of Leaving Neverland  “The agenda is set at the top. Stockholders are questioning HBO’s leadership.”
Howard Weitzman, an attorney for the estate said: “HBO’s frivolous appeal to stall the court’s Order to arbitrate this dispute is yet another attempt to avoid the inevitable  “Soon there will be a hearing, as the Court ordered, and damages will be awarded for HBO’s intentional and unlawful conduct  “The real questions are what is HBO afraid of and how much will they end up paying the Estate of Michael Jackson.”
Bryan Freedman, another attorney for the estate, said in a statement: “This bogus appeal is nothing more than HBO’s latest desperate attempt to cover up the truth about its shoddy journalism  “For seven months HBO has tried and failed to avoid a public arbitration  “This appeal, which is its latest Hail Mary attempt, is even more pathetic than all of its other attempts to avoid public scrutiny. If HBO truly wanted to avoid a judgment, it should have thought about that before it aided and abetted a one-sided documentary without any journalistic integrity and in which the subjects have a huge motivation to lie – namely the millions of dollars for which they are suing the Estate. Our client will never stop until justice is served.”
On November 7, 2019, the MJ Estate filled an opposition to HBO request for stay:
On Friday, November 9, 2019, there was a hearing at the courthouse in LA. Charles Thomson was present at the hearing and wrote several Tweets:
Jackson Estate is suing HBO over Leaving Neverland. Inadequate defamation laws typically leave the deceased & their reps with no recourse against unproven allegations, but the Estate says in this case HBO breached a non-disparagement clause in a contract over an old concert film.
HBO says the documentary is journalism and thus protected speech. Jackson Estate says it is not journalism and is in fact a deliberately deceptive piece of non-journalism. Jackson Estate is fighting for public arbitration over the integrity of the show in order to prove this.
Judge George H Wu has dismissed HBO’s claims that the contract is old and void, and has ruled in favour of the Estate’s request for arbitration. HBO is appealing that ruling and requested a stay, pending that appeal. Today’s hearing was for a ruling on the stay.
This morning Wu handed down a tentative judgement granting HBO a stay, pending their appeal. The judgement suggested failure to do so posed a reasonable threat of ‘irreparable harm’ to HBO’s first amendment right to freedom of speech. Both sides then argued their positions.
Howard Weitzman, for the Estate, said: “In my opinion, you’ve taken a typical breach of contract case… [and] you’re turning it into something it’s not.” He questioned how HBO could reasonably claim ‘irreparable harm’ when it has continued airing the show after the ruling.
Judge Wu said he had already ruled on ‘the merits’ of the case when he agreed to send it for arbitration. Today, he said, “the question is whether I stay, pending an appeal… Your party sued to compel arbitration. I’m staying the arbitration that you have won.”
Wu: “This case is, to my mind, quite unique. I’ve never seen anything quite like it before and of course, that makes for bad law.” Weitzman: “Well don’t make any more bad law!” Wu: “I like to create a trail of interesting bon mots for the Court of Appeal to consider.”
Jonathan Steinsapir, for the Estate, said: “The idea that arbitration is irreparable harm has been rejected by every court to look at that.”
He continued: “They gave you no law that says arbitration will be irreparable injury. Once you find a valid arbitration clause, the only job of a federal court is to send it to arbitration… Where is the evidence? It’s their burden.”
Judge Wu responded that the arbitration clause was in ‘a 27-year-old contract that has nothing to do with the documentary itself’.
But Steinsapir argued the age of the contract was irrelevant, as Wu had already ruled. He said: “They used footage from that concert in the documentary… The idea that this does not relate to the contract is prejudging the merits of the arbitration.”
Wu to Steinsapir: “I’ve made my ruling and the ruling is in your favour. But I have doubts about whether I was correct in making that ruling. I would kind of like the circuit to get involved.”
Steinsapir told Wu he should not acquiesce to HBO’s ‘hand-waving’ about the first amendment: “You’ve not seen a single piece of evidence that anybody has been chilled in their speech.”
He continued: “Where is the evidence of this irreparable harm? Attorney argument is not evidence. They gave you no evidence. Not a single declaration. Nothing. You can’t get an injunction or a stay without evidence.”
He said the stay would significantly extend the litigation, arguing: “Their own cases make clear that speedy resolution is necessary. If their first amendment defences have any merit, they should want them resolved.”
Bryan Freedman – who previously defended Eddie Cascio & James Porte in Vera Serova’s class action lawsuit over allegedly fake songs on a posthumous Michael Jackson album – also appeared today on behalf of the Jackson Estate.
He said: “I understand you’re unsure about the underlying issue & would like the 9th Circuit to give you some direction, but you can’t disregard the standards for irreparable harm & that’s what’s been done here. You provide no reason at all why HBO would suffer irreparable harm.”
Wu said he didn’t apply typical standards because it was ‘not a typical arbitration situation’. Freedman replied: “But how it arises and the substance of whether a 27yo contract is enforceable or not is not for Your Honour to decide.”
Freedman: “We think it is a typical situation… [HBO] are big boys. They know what they are doing. They agree to terms. It’s a simple breach of contract case. For the court to say it’s untypical doesn’t make any sense.”
Freedman argued there was no legal reason why the non-disparagement clause should hold more or less weight than any other clause, saying that if HBO today breached the copyright terms of the same document, it would be an open and shut matter.
Freedman suggested Wu was aiding the defence and delaying the case. He said: “It’s only unusual because you’ve made suggestions for them to take. They did not file a SLAPP motion. Your Honour suggested they file a SLAPP. Now they want to take it to the Court of Appeal.”
He continued: “What’s irreparable harm is the harm to us in not being able to put forth our case to an arbitrator. You’re going to make us delay over 30 months before we even get a selection of an arbitrator. Arbitration is supposed to be a process that’s speedy.”
Wu replied: “But ultimately, you are looking for money, which is not irreparable harm when it has been delayed.” Wu then invited Daniel Petrocelli to speak for HBO. He argued the ‘irreparable harm’ was that ‘first amendment interests are threatened in multiple ways’.
Out of tweets. More to follow…
Petrocelli said the appeal was unusually significant as in most similar cases, ‘the ultimate question to be decided by the 9th Circuit [is] whether it proceeds in arbitration or in court’. But in this case, a successful appeal would end the whole lawsuit.
He said: “Pending the outcome of this appeal, the case may be over once and for all.” He then argued the contract was void: “When a contract is over and it’s been over for 27 years, you can’t invoke the arbitration provision in that contract.”
Freedman replied: “The contract is not over. It exists. Because a contract is dated 27 years ago, does not terminate the contract. The contract continues to this day.” Wu said although he’d let Petrocelli voice that argument, he was ‘not concerned with the merits’ at this stage.
Wu: “I’m just considering whether or not there’s a basis to grant the motion for a stay… A serious first amendment issue puts it into a potential irreparable harm situation.”
Wu concluded: “I’m not here to enforce contracts. I’m here to do justice and follow the law as I see it. In terms of whether or not to grant the motion for a stay, I’m following the law as I see it… I will make my tentative judgement my final judgement.”
As you see, Judge Wu had a U-turn! He said: “This case is to my mind quite unique. I’ve never seen anything like it”. He allowed HBO to proceed with its appeal and to take the case to the Ninth Circuit appeals court. Judge Wu’s Order:
There is a schedule for HBO’s Appeal that begins already in December 2019. However, fans who are lawyers or familiar with legal procedures say that there will be delays. The appeal procedure will probably take a year.
More updates will come later!
This Halloween, MJ has more than ever thrilled the World! There are so many Thriller celebrations. Here are some of them!
Another thing: Forbes articles – written by Zack O’Malley Greenburg – about Michael Jackson being the number one top-eraning dead celebrity
1 | MICHAEL JACKSON: $60 million
The King of Pop’s streaming surged : 2.1 billion U.S. spins, up from 1.8 billion a year ago. With proceeds flowing from his Mijac Music catalog, a Las Vegas show and a long-term deal with Sony, he retains his postmortem cash crown for the seventh consecutive year.
And this one:
The Real Reason Behind Michael Jackson’s Earnings Drop
There aren’t many living entertainers capable of clocking nine figures in a single year, but Michael Jackson has done it eight times since his 2009 death. Most recently, he tallied an estimated $400 million pretax in 2018, bringing his postmortem total to $2.4 billion 
Read more here.
Watch Prince Jackson interview! His Dad would be very proud!
While we are celebrating Thriller and Halloween, let’s not forget another masterpiece from MJ:
Please watch and share Square One by Danny Wu!
Square One is a documentary that investigates the first ever 1993 allegations against Michael Jackson. It strategically uncovers new evidence and information through interviews with people closest to the case. These interviews showcase never-before-heard public statements from witnesses, Michael Jackson’s nephew, and legal assistant to the prosecutor in ‘93.
I did not expect the incredible and overwhelming attention this documentary has created. I funded this project as much as possible by myself, and it would be amazing to get some help covering some recent traveling, hosting costs and further advertising the documentary! Thank you, and if you can’t donate, absolutely don’t worry!
9/20: Judge Wu ruled against HBO’s anti SLAPP case and FOR the MJ Estate’s motion to compel arbitration.
Article published by Variety on September 19, 2019
Judge Sides With Michael Jackson Estate in ‘Leaving Neverland’ Dispute
Sorry Guys! YouTube has deleted the documentary! There is an interview with the director of “Untouchable”. Please, watch this one:
Please watch the entire documentary!
Please read theses articles too!
What we learned from the Harvey Weinstein documentary Untouchable
Some of the women who have accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault tell their stories in a new documentary, which sheds light on the power he held over them and the rest of Hollywood.
Untouchable: The Rise and Fall of Harvey Weinstein was screened on BBC Two on Sunday and will be stream on Hulu in the US from Monday. In it, some contributors, including accusers and former colleagues, speak on camera for the first time.
The 67-year-old former film mogul denies all allegations of non-consensual sex and criminality, and refutes claims that he retaliated against women for refusing his advances. He has pleaded not guilty to criminal charges and is due to face a trial in New York in January.
Here are six insights and allegations from the documentary.
Read more here!
Harvey Weinstein’s Army of Spies
The film executive hired private investigators, including ex-Mossad agents, to track actresses and journalists.
The Michael Jackson’s Estate responded to HBO’s motion for dismissal on August 29.
In the opposition memorandum, the Michael Jackson Estate stresses that its petition turns exclusively “an issue of federal law under the Federal Arbitration Act” and as such, this court has no business applying California’s SLAPP law to whether or not HBO goes to arbitration. Recent Supreme Court rulings how states can’t create “procedural or substantive” obstacles to enforcement of arbitration agreements gets attention. And the Michael Jackson Estate reminds the judge of the modest chore before him.
The petition, states plaintiff, “arises out of HBO’s refusal to arbitrate. Breaching an agreement by refusing to arbitrate is not constitutionally protected activity. And even if it were, the Jackson Estate has shown a probability of success on that claim, as the Court explained in detail in its tentative order (where it definitively rejected all of HBO’s arguments against arbitration). If the Jackson Estate’s claims to be arbitrated are as frivolous as HBO would have the Court believe, it should have no reason for concern.”
California’s SLAPP law provides an automatic right to an immediate appeal. Meaning, no matter what Wu decides, there’s a pretty good chance that the case goes up to the 9th Circuit and maybe eventually the Supreme Court before the two sides would actually settle in for the prospective “open” arbitration.
Hearing on September 19.
Here the Estate’s response:
‘Square One’, Danny Wu documentary
In a new independent documentary ‘Square One’, Danny Wu investigates the false accusations against Michael Jackson from 1993.
The documentary will premiere on 28th September at the Chinese Theater, L.A. and be released on 5th October on youtube.
The Michael Jackson Fan Convention will return to London to celebrate our idol, Michael Jackson. With no Kingvention in 2018, the event returns during a year that has been challenging for the MJ fan community.
I caught up with organiser Pez Jax to find out what’s in store at Kingvention 2019, their plans behind a very public display of support for Michael and how the preparations are going for what is set to be the MJ event of the year! 
Read mre here: Behind the scenes of Kingvention 2019
Michael Jackson Accuser Wade Robson’s 2016 Deposition Released In Video Exposing ‘Lies of Leaving Neverland’
Wade Robson was videotaped for a 2016 deposition as part of his lawsuit against Michael Jackson‘s companies, and pieces of it have just been released in a video pointing out all the alleged flaws and issues with Robson and James Safechuck’s accusations against the singer.
Read more here at Blast
Or here at Rollingout
‘Lies of Leaving Neverland’ pokes holes in the stories of MJ’s accusers
An explosive new video called Lies of Leaving Neverland has been released that seemingly pokes multiple holes in the stories of Michael Jackson’s accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who claim they were sexually abused by the King of Pop.
According to The Blast, Lies of Leaving Neverland is a direct response to the Emmy-nominated documentary Leaving Neverland that horrified media members at the Sundance Film Festival in January and was subsequently released on HBO.
In the Lies of Leaving Neverland, the video accuses the original Leaving Neverland of being wrought with “provable lies, conflicting accounts, contradictions, staged reshoots, faked scenes, reconstructed memories, critical information omissions, manipulated news clips, discredited source material,” according to The Blast.
The Lies of Leaving Neverland centers around Robson’s 2016 deposition where he admits that he previously testified under oath that the “Billie Jean” singer never touched him a “sexual” or “inappropriate” way, but then said those previous statements were “mistruths.”
Not long after the 30-minute video begins, Robson admits in 2016 that he “was hurt” that he was not invited to Jackson’s memorial after Jackson died from acute propofol and benzodiazepine intoxication in 2009 in Holmby Hills, California. Robson believed that he and Jackson had “a close friendship.”
Why Robson would want to attend the funeral of his abuser at L.A.’s Staples Center has mystified and angered Jackson supporters to this day.
There were many other points of contention in The Lies of Leaving Neverland that the video points out:
- Why one of MJ’s closest young friends, Macaulay Culkin of Home Alone fame, was never contacted to speak in Leaving Neverland. Culkin said he was never abused by Jackson;
- Why no one from the Jackson family was ever given the opportunity to speak on the matter;
- How Safechuck could tell of being abused on the train at Neverland in 1988 or 1989 when the train was reportedly not built until years later;
- How Robson said he was abused when he was alone with Jackson while the family went to the Grand Canyon, but that the mother testified that the entire family was in Arizona together;
- That Robson claimed he burnt most of Jackson’s stuff, but failed to mention that he had already sold most of the items that had monetary value back in 2011;
- Emanuel Lewis, a close friend of MJ’s at the time when Thriller hijacked popular culture and owned the Billboard pop charts, was also never contacted. He also said he was never abused by Jackson.
Bryan Freedman, an attorney for the Jackson Estate, told The Blast that “the consideration of Leaving Neverland for an Emmy in any category other than one based on fiction is preposterous. A documentary is commonly defined as a film or video examining an event or person based on facts.”
The Michael Jackson Estate has filed a $100 million lawsuit against HBO.
Watch the documentary Chase the Truth on Prime video Amazon or on iTunes or Google Play. Here you are the links:
Wow it’s a miracle. Thank you TVLINE for reporting the accurate number of the poll which is 91% and that the Leaving Neverland fraud is actually disputed and debunked.
These tweets are Charles Thomson’s (from two conversations source 1, source 2). The time passes and we forget the facts. Also, new readers come on board and do not know where to begin. It is a good way to review some aspects of the 93 lawsuit against MJ and the 2005 trial:
About the law in California in 1993
The law at the time meant Jackson had zero choice but to settle the civil case, because a loophole meant the criminal case was scheduled after the civil, which was a breach of the American constitution. The law was changed as a direct result of the Jackson case.
The law was changed after 1993. If there was a civil trial and a criminal trial dealing with the same allegation, the civil proceedings would remain inactive until after the criminal proceedings. It was the prosecutor Ton Sneddon who wanted this change.
Here it is from his mouth: Source Linda Deutsch article
“It is an irony. The history of the law is that the L.A. district attorney’s office carried the legislation as a direct result of the civil settlement in the first investigation,” Sneddon told The Associated Press in an interview. 
“The law in California at that time provided that a child victim could not be forced to testify in a child molest proceeding without their permission and consent and cooperation,” Sneddon had said. “As a result of the (first) Michael Jackson case, the Legislature changed that law, and that is no longer the law in California.”
No I did not. I said Francia took $2m. The Arvizos went to two civil lawyers and only went to police on advice of civil lawyers. The mother told the police they wanted a criminal conviction first, which would bolster a civil case, as the boys had til they were 18 to sue.
About the art books
The fans are correct. There was no child ‘erotica’. There were completely legal art books, still available today, that contained artistic photography featuring children. There was separate adult erotica. But there was no child erotica.
About the verdict and the jurors (2005)
Jordan was cooperating at that point. There was absolutely nothing precluding an arrest. The same fallacious argument being advanced here would have applied to raiding Jackson’s properties or compelling him to participate in a nude photoshoot. Why gather evidence you can’t use?
Well, that… and after failing to find any probable cause for arrest/charge. There was a large window after the raids, after the forced nude photoshoot, during which the case was active, the Chandlers were cooperating and, with probable cause, they could’ve arrested/questioned.
It’s not like the allegation was made on Monday and the case was settled on Tuesday. It dragged on for months. The Neverland raid was August 1993. The settlement was Jan 1994. Huge window for cops to have hauled Jackson in if they had grounds to do so.
Are you seriously asking that question? Why someone wouldn’t consent to having their genitals handled and photographed by police officers unless court-ordered to do so? You’re seriously asking that? Framing that as an activity any other person would be glad to participate in?
And you know very well why the case was settled when it was. It was settled on the eve of Jackson’s civil suit deposition, in which he was about to be forced, unconstitutionally, to give away his defence in public, allowing law enforcement to build a case that circumvented it.
About how Leaving Neverland promotes pedophilia
The maker of the TV show you promote daily for free said: “He had a fulfilling sexual & emotional relationship at the age of 7 with a 30yo man… He enjoyed it, he loved Michael, and the sex was pleasant. I’m sorry, that’s just the reality.” People in glass houses, and all that.
About the 2005 trial and how the prosecutor changed the date of the alleged abuse
And how did they learn what the alibi was and what dates it covered? We’ll never know for sure. But what we do know for sure is that prior to the date change, prosecutors 1) illegally raided the defence PI’s office, and 2) illegally seized defence files from Jackson’s assistant.
And Gavin’s cross-exam revealed he had initially claimed the alleged abuse began before the rebuttal video and the DCFS interview. It was not clear when he’d changed it.
More about the 2005 trial
I am recently re-reading the trial transcripts as I’d forgotten a lot of details over the years. The more I read, the more convinced I am that Reed has not read them. He claimed it was shocking Jackson was acquitted. Nobody who’s read these transcripts could say such a thing.
The case absolutely fell to pieces. It was a turkey shoot for the defence. One prosecution witness after another came in and undermined the case instead of helping it. Some simply didn’t say what prosecutors assumed they would. Others did but were decimated on cross-examination.
I was reading a prosecution witness’s testimony the other day and it was almost toe-curlingly embarrassing. They came in and totally fucked up the prosecution’s case, as regards their piece of the story. The direct was so catastrophic that Mesereau barely needed to cross-examine.
Yes. It became clear prosecution witnesses were being scripted as the trial unfolded, to try to plug holes the defense was blowing in the case, ie. the way people like Palanker came in and blaming everything on David Arvizo, crowbarring his name into every answer they could.
Mesereau’s cross-exam of Palanker is hilarious. He hits her with line after line of her police interview where she calls the kids weird, Janet crazy, calls the lods liars, says Janet was coaching them, etc. Then explicitly asks if anyone’s told her to blame everything on David.
Of course, she claims nobody has – but contrasting her original interview with her complete rewrite by the time she testified, it was extremely obvious a message had come from somewhere that she needed to dump everything on David and erase all criticism of Janet and the kids.
Interestingly, she’s asked a question about whether she’s spoken with anyone about a particular topic and she replies, ‘Ron.’ Mesereau responds, ‘Prosecutor Zonen?’ Of course, we later learn Palanker and ‘Ron’ are an item. They’re now married. You couldn’t make it up.
Zonen and Palanker were guests at Gavin’s wedding. As was Diane Dimond.
Another extremely disturbing feature the Jackson trial was the number of prosecution witnesses who, under cross-examination by Tom Mesereau, revealed they’d been going to the prosecutors’ private homes for hours-long evening and weekend meetings, of which there was no record.
The whole premise of Sneddon’s conspiracy charge was that Jackson had no money or influence anymore & so was desperate to rescue his image & livelihood. Cut to the verdict, and Sneddon says it’s ‘celebrity justice’ and Jackson used his enormous wealth to get acquitted
About eight years ago, the fans collaborating with the blog Vindicating MJ did several researches and came to the conclusion that organized pedophilia was after MJ to use him as their mascot and frontman. When Jackson categorically turned them down, they changed their maneuvers, took revenge by slandering Jackson and spread pedophilia.
Ten years after Jackson’s death, Leaving Neverland does exactly the same job as a Victor Gutierrez or a Tom O’Caroll. Here you are several tweets by Justice for The Falsely Accused that explain how (Source):
When we say that the allegations against MJ are used as a part of a bigger, long term plan to normalize pedophilia we are neither delusional or conspiracy theorists. Check out this article from 2014:
Do you realize a familiar name in that article? Thomas O’Caroll (pen name Carl Toms) is a convicted pedophile who wrote a book of the MJ allegations, using them in his quest of normalizing pedophilia.
As we have shown you before, the very origin of the MJ allegations can be traced back to a man, called Victor Gutierrez, who actively advocated pedophilia. There are good reasons to believe that Evan Chandler was in contact with him when he got his son make allegations against MJ
We have talked a lot about Gutierrez already. You can read more about him in these threads:
Or how scary similar is the rethorics used by Gutierrez and Dan Reed:
Or here in video form:
If you don’t think Leaving Neverland is used in support of the long term agenda of normalizing pedophilia, think again. Remember how absolutely obsessed Slate magazine was with Leaving Neverland? They wrote think piece after think piece about it.
At the time I didn’t even notice an article that they have published that, on the heels of Leaving Neverland, questioned the criminalization of child molestation.
Here we go. This is the direction certain fractions on the far left are going.
The false accusers in LN are so perfect to carry this agenda, exactly because these are not people who actually experienced sexual abuse. So they can tell about alleged graphic sexual acts between a child and a man with a smirk on their face.
They can claim that at the age of 7 they anticipated having sex with an adult man. Pedophiles will surely be happy to use that to support the argument they are already making:
Dan Reed can go to the media and tell them that 7 and 10 year olds can have emotionally and sexually fulfilling relationships with adults. NAMBLA and PIE will give a standing ovation to this!
Pedophiles argue that there is no evidence that “sex” traumatizes kids, it is the stigma by society and the secrets they are forced to keep that does, so the solution is to legalize pedophilia. So they are going to be happy to see Reed to popularize that idea in the media:
I firmly believe that Leaving Neverland is going to be used as a trojan horse to normalize pedophilia. I am not saying everyone on the left is aware of this, but certain fractions definitely are and it is not really a new thing.
There were plans before to turn Victor Gutierrez’s book into a movie to promote the pedophile agenda.
That movie plan fell through, but now they have the perfect vehicle in LN to push the pedophile agenda.
Of course, LN doesn’t openly say that pedophilia should be allowed. No one would be open to it if it did. But they definitely are sowing the seeds of certain discourse arising from it that will then be used in arguments for the normalization of pedophilia.
It’s going to be a subtle, gradual process, but it will come, mark my words. Like I said, Leaving Neverland is such a perfect vehicle for this, because these false accusers do not display any trauma when they talk about the alleged “sex acts”, like real victims do.
Instead they claim BS like at the age of 7 and 10 they anticipated sex with an adult man. Or one of them claimed in a media interview that MJ supposedly making a video tape of the “sex” was “fun” and other crap like that.
It’s real sinister that pedophilia advocates can 100% use the stories of these false accusers to back up their agenda and arguments. It completely aligns with everything they argue for! Think about that!
Must read threads on Twitter! Please, save them for the next generations who need to know the truth!
@RuPaul – Why do you associate with @Randybarbato & @fbailey when they were trying as far back as 2005 to normalize Victor Gutierrez’ defunct child porn fiction book and bring it to a mass audience? In 1998, Michael Jackson successfully won 2.7 million from Gutierrez for slander.
A Los Angeles jury said the book was a malicious lie. “We talked to jurors afterwards. They said they wanted to send a message that they were tired of the tabloids telling malicious stories about celebrities for money. They said they hope this will send a message not to do this.”
Since that’s the case, why did Randy & Fenton buy the rights to this fabricated & disgusting book in 2005? These two bottom feeders you call business partners even wrote a completed screenplay for it. They must be ecstatic their dream came to fruition with Leaving Neverland.
Fenton Bailey in British GQ 2006: “There will be no explicit scenes of sex in the film, it will be all very subtle, but controversial. Some obstacles still lie ahead. America can deal with the sanitized version of the story, but our story is based on the TABLOID version”.
Randy Barbato on the trash he sought to legitimize: “Indie movies have gone mainstream in the States. They’ve become a genre. But this project is independent in the true sense of the word…outside any of the acceptable norms.” Also outside the acceptable norms of reality Randy.
Everyone knows Hollywood is a vile & disgusting place but this
@RuPaul is really the lowest of the low. I’m part of the LGBT community and I’m absolutely disgusted by who you associate with. Say it with me now. Randy Barbato and Fenton Bailey are two pedophile fantasists.
Social media should know the character & identity of the men behind
@RuPaulsDragRace. Just because they’ve achieved mainstream success now via your show @RuPaul doesn’t matter. Parasites like Randy & Fenton allowed identical vermin to crawl into our lives likely with their help.
To reiterate, we are disgusted by your two friends/business partners. This is a horrifically ugly side to your show that no Vaseline lense or soft focus can ever fix. It will likely make no difference to you for financial reasons but at least there’s now a Twitter record.
BTW, the next time Randy & Fenton start ranting in front of you about all the social injustices under the Trump administration, please remind them they need to first look in the mirror since they rank far lower on the totem pole in terms of morality, integrity and basic humanity.
A must read thread on Twitter! Please, save it for the next generations who need to know the truth!
It looks like it wasn’t MJ who was the pedophile in this story. I also remember Diane Dimond describe Macaulay in a sensual way (“bee-stung red lips” – or some crap like that). You have to wonder if she got her script from her buddy, Victor Gutierrez.
And Evan and his side-kick brother, Ray were sure creepy as hell as well. ALWAYS going out their way to talk about Jordan’s “good looks”. Like in this 2009 Daily Fail article that was written based on an interview with Ray Chandler. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1229622/Killed-curse-Michael-Jackson-What-drove-father-Jordy-Chandler-gun-head.html …
Here is Ray Chandler again in a story he sold to the National Enquirer emphasizing Jordan’s looks. (BTW, there is a lot of lies he is telling here.)
They also loved to brag about Evan’s “good looks”. This is from Randall Sullivan’s book – you can tell from it which “relative” it was that he was in contact with for his book (Ray Chandler).
Another one with the “better looking version of Rob Lowe” line. https://nypost.com/2009/11/18/jacko-molest-rap-dad-kills-himself/ …
Their bragging about the the looks of “drop dead handsome” Evan is just ridiculously narcissistic (if you have ever seen pics of him)…
And this is how the website “World of Wonder” wrote about Jordan Chandler, a supposed “sexual abuse victim”. https://worldofwonder.net/the-boy-in-the-michael-jackson-molestation-case-today/ …
Mind you, World of Wonder is owned by Fenton Baily and Randy Barbato, two producers who were very friendly with Victor Gutierrez and even wanted to make a movie of his book. The plot thickens, doesn’t it?
They even went out of their way to wish happy birthday to Victor Gutierrez on their website. “And PS: give Jordie a big old sloppy kiss from me if you see him!” https://worldofwonder.net/happy-birthday-victor-gutierrez/ …
And no one, absolutely no one is looking into these people. These are actually mainstream producers. Among many others they have produced content for HBO, Channel 4, The Oprah Winfrey Network.
I just realize that Fenton Bailey used this Leaving Neverland opportunity to promote Gutierrez’s book again. https://worldofwonder.net/wow-co-founder-fenton-bailey-on-michael-jackson-trump-our-united-states-of-delusion/ …
In one thing he is right: “(VG’s book) is explicit, clear-eyed and mirrors so many of the details in this documentary.” Of course, it mirrors the book! Robson/Safechuck copied much of their story from that book. It is not only fans who spot the similarity but anyone who reads it.
What Bailey isn’t telling you that Gutierrez’s book is fiction. He claims things that Jordan never actually claimed (like anal contact) and the Chandlers distanced themselves from the book! Jordan never kept a diary and even distanced himself from the book in a court declaration.
So of course if VG’s book is fiction then Safechuck/Robson making similar allegations as in the book isn’t evidence of their truthfulness, but evidence of them making up their story based on previous stories, including VG’s fictional book!
And let’s not forget the nature of World of Wonder’s obsession with VG’s book! When Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato wanted to make a movie out of it it would have portrayed the alleged relationship as a “consensual romance”. From that GQ article:
And these people hail Leaving Neverland! So you have to wonder what is the end game here. I would not be surprised if in a couple of years LN would be used to show how “boys enjoy sex” and it isn’t as harmful as made out to be, the only harm is in the secrecy surrounding it.
In actuality, Leaving Neverland director, Dan Reed already went there. Acc. to him, Robson and Safechuck weren’t traumatized by the “sex” itself, but by the secrets they had to keep as adults.
And you know why they can build pedophilia propaganda on these MJ cases? Because these accusers are false accusers! So of course they don’t seem traumatized by the “sex”! Of course, they never looked affected as kids! Because there was never “sex”! They are fake, fake, fake.
A must read thread on Twitter! Please, save it for the next generations who need to know the truth!
Michael Jackson and the Chandlers reached an out of court settlement in January, 1994, which only resolved the CIVIL SUIT and to proceed with the criminal case; to preserve a fair criminal trial in court!
Firstly, one cannot settle a criminal case. So people, stop using the vague argument ‘he paid his way out of prison’. A criminal proceeding, and a trial, only can send a perpetrator to jail, not a civil trial, which only results in a monetary restitution.
From the very beginning, it was the Chandlers who demanded the settlement, not Michael Jackson. People are quick to question that why an innocent man would settle, but not that why the parents of an alleged victim would seek for money instead of justice.
In their book ‘All that Glitters’, they admitted that they were never even remotely interested to pursue the criminal case from the get go. Almost horrified by the idea that the criminal proceeding may go ahead before the civil one.
The Chandlers demanded $20 million dollars from Michael, which he refused to pay. They even, at one point, agreed to go away for 1 million, chump change for MJ. He didn’t comply with any of their monetary demands or to pay for Evan’s script writing deals.
Michael Jackson had an excellent opportunity to prevent the accusations from going public in August 1993. Had he paid them $20 million, the Chandlers wouldn’t have made allegations against him in the first place, which they again admitted in their own book!
What the media and folks refer to as ‘HUSH MONEY’ would have been true if Michael Jackson had paid them millions, when they themselves were willing to be silenced. The fact he refused to pay them even $1 million despite Evan Chandler threatened to destroy him screams
It’s ridiculous to even suggest that the LEGAL CIVIL SETTLEMENT was hush money when the entire world knows about it, including the prying eyes of the media and tabloids; the allegations already being made public and an overzealous media that sensationalized it.
It was Michael Jackson and his legal team who tried relentlessly to get the criminal trial ahead of the civil trial by filing motions, all of which were rejected by the Judge David Rothman. The California law allowed the civil trial to go ahead of the criminal trial.
Michael&his team had lost all four motions in their attempt to postpone the civil suit until the criminal proceeding was completed where he would’ve testified and cleared his name.His right to a fair criminal trial was violated.Any person would have settled in a situation as such
Michael Jackson’s constitutional rights were violated at every point. Media and authorities were 100% against him and favoured the Chandlers. Saying he was powerful is not a valid and logical argument.
Eventually he was forced to settle the suit for $15,331,250 in order to proceed with the criminal case. The settlement wasn’t even for claims of molestation and clearly stated that Michael Jackson was innocent and this must not be considered as an admission of guilt in any way!
The criminal investigation continued. DA Gil Garcetti, right after the settlement, said that the Chandlers had every right to testify and will not affect the ongoing criminal proceeding in any way. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-01-26-mn-15478-story.html …
Larry Feldman, the Chandlers’ own attorney, announced that the settlement was no way for silence. In fact, he announced that his clients were indeed very happy with the settlement.
The criminal investigation continued and was convened before TWO GRAND JURIES. After months of investigation by the DAs, multiple searches including the strip search, unannounced raids, interviews with children and witnesses, there was not a scrap of evidence to even indict MJ!
Both Grand Juries declared that there wasn’t any evidence to secure an indictment after months of investigation and searches across countries. The prosecution couldn’t provide any incriminating evidence against Michael Jackson.
The Chandlers could have taken the money and still testified as any parent or victim will do: throw the abuser behind bars. They never did. They took the settlement money and refused to corroborate with the authorities or pursue for a criminal case again. They got their $$$
So if y’all question why would an innocent man settle, but not why would a parent choose money over justice? Only when the accusations are guided by a money driven agenda.
The FBI files proves that the District Attorney was still considering to file charges months after the settlement. The settlement was never a reason, but sheer lack of evidence to even indict Michael Jackson was.
Often misinformed people suggest that the settlement was made because the description of MJ’s genitals by the Chandlers was a match. It wasn’t a match and is a ridiculous excuse because Larry Feldman himself tried to bar the photos from the civil trial!
Larry Feldman filed a motion to bar the photos from the civil trial and that the copies of the photographs be provided to them and Michael Jackson be stripped searched for the second time! How convenient!
Michael Jackson was exonerated of both the 1993 and 2005 allegations as DA Tom Sneddon requested to introduce in court evidences of prior bad acts! The jury also heard the 1993 allegations where June Chandler testified and was discredited.
The FBI approached Jordan Chandler in 2004 to testify in the trial. Not only he refused, but threatened to go to any lengths to prevent himself from being subpoenaed and testify; also to take legal action against the prosecution saying ‘he had done his part’. He fled the country.
Also, Sneddon even tried to introduce the settlement in court and the jury looked into it. Had there been any attempts to silence accusers, Michael would have been charged with obstruction of justice. To date, every accuser of Michael Jackson has spoken.
So the argument of ‘silencing victims’ is unrealistic and has no legs to stand on.
The Chandlers were so desperate to prevent the criminal case from going ahead the civil trial that they even fired Gloria Allred, who, amid much fanfare in the media, announced that Jordan was ready to testify in the criminal trial. Larry Feldman took over
More about the CIVIL SETTLEMENT…
The DA, however, made an excuse that the reason why they wouldn’t file charges was due to the fact that Jordan or the Chandlers’ had refused to cooperate with the authorities. They almost had a year to bring charges against MJ.
After the settlement in January, 1994, they had ample time to charge him since the Chandlers refused to cooperate from July 6, 1994. So even after vigorous investigation for months (almost a year), they had no evidence. Simple.
This tape from July 8, 1993, between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz itself speaks volumes. “If I go through with this, I win a big time, I’ll get everything I want.”
“This attorney I’ve found is a nastier son of a bitch. Once I make the phone call, he’ll destroy everybody in sight.” “It would be a massacre if I don’t get what I want”
We have heard from many fans in connection with the recent announcement of Emmy nominations in the US. We share your outrage and disappointment that the disgraceful one-sided smear Leaving Neverland was nominated for potential Creative Arts Emmys by the Television Academy.
As you know, the Estate has spent years and considerable sums defending Michael and his estate against false allegations made by the two subjects of Leaving Neverland. When those individuals took their case to HBO having thus far failed in court, we wasted no time in filing a major lawsuit at considerable time and expense against HBO that remains active, attracted worldwide attention and which HBO has taken very seriously.
We also participated in public seminars highlighting the egregious bias of Leaving Neverland– at both Harvard and UCLA – which were covered extensively in the media. We have issued numerous public statements defending Michael, calling into question the motivations not only of the participants in the film but also the motivations of those who would choose to support the discredited liars and filmmaker who spread uncorroborated, unsubstantiated claims against a man who is no longer here to defend himself.
As we have indicated in prior statements, there are and will continue to be things that we do behind the scenes (including support offered to Taj Jackson), most of which will never become public. We recognize that in our unique position we must be thoughtful in whatever actions we take given that we are dealing with a network, filmmaker, plaintiffs’ attorneys and, in some cases, hostile media who are looking to seize on anything we do to advance their agendas and create publicity for this film. While we share the anger those who love Michael feel, we nonetheless must continue to balance our passion to speak out, against what best serves Michael’s legacy and not give those who wish to destroy him the excuse and opportunity they are looking for to try to further denigrate him. We know this is not what the fans want either.
As far as these specific Emmy nominations are concerned, as you may have noticed the media has actually given very little attention to them. So while we can confirm that we informed the Academy of our views regarding the absurdity of nominating for any award four hours of propaganda built on provable lies, it is important to keep in mind that, while not emotionally satisfying to restrain ourselves from speaking out publicly, we don’t want to do anything to effectively aid HBO, the filmmaker and the subjects of the film in seeking to promote this movie in any way. That includes aiding this and other self-serving campaigns they undertake for potential awards nobody will even remember who won a year or two from now.
After screening at Sundance and then playing on HBO, several lies were exposed in Leaving Neverland. The Estate, fans, foreign and African American media and even everyday viewers found holes in the film exposing its appalling lack of credibility and journalistic integrity. Our best course is to continue to shed light on an arrogant director who violated every basic journalistic standard of fairness in making his movie. No self-serving “award” will ever validate his decision to avoid anyone with a counterpoint of view, nor will it ever justify his inexcusable failure to fact check, fill the gaping holes of his timeline or absolve him for recklessly disparaging the reputations of Michael Jackson and others.
HBO’s reprehensible participation in disparaging Michael’s reputation by financing and supporting this infomercial has been frustrating for all of us over the last several months. But we are committed to protecting and preserving Michael’s incredible legacy. HBO and the film’s director were hoping they would mute Michael Jackson. They didn’t. No nominations or potential awards will change that.
We also want to take this opportunity to thank the fans for all of the time, energy and, in some cases, money you have invested in the defense of Michael. You can be assured that we are aware of those efforts and genuinely appreciate everything you do to support Michael and his legacy.
— The Estate of Michael Jackson
A thread on Twitter to read!
White privilege strikes again. Leaving Neverland withbits false allegations and graphic sexual descriptions of CSA is given a 4 hour “documentary” and promoted like crazy. Epstein doc is scrapped. Weinstein doc is buried
Re. the excuse that Epstein is not that famous. The mantra about Leaving Neverland was that “it’s not about MJ, but awareness of child sexual abuse”. Are you now telling us that it IS actually about how famous the accused is? Not about awareness about CSA? Who would have thought?
Moreover, you don’t have to be famous to get a documentary. Steve Avery got a 2-season documentary series on Netflix (Making A Murderer) and he’s not even Epstein or Weinstein famous. And it is a very popular doc.
The thing with Epstein and Weinstein is, that they are extremely powerful. They have connections in the media, they know which strings to pull to stop support for projects.
An Epstein doc could be very interesting to the public regardless of his personal fame. His connections to the rich and famous, high political and economical circles etc. Probably that’s exactly why he does not get a doc.
HBO ‘Neverland’ Arbitration Row Paused In Anti-SLAPP Effort
A California federal judge on Monday held back on deciding whether the Estate of Michael Jackson’s breach of contract suit over HBO’s “Leaving Neverland” documentary should go to arbitration right away, instead allowing HBO to address First Amendment issues underlying the allegations it disparaged Jackson’s character.
At a hearing in downtown Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge George H. Wu entertained a short oral argument over the estate’s motion to compel arbitration regarding a 1992 agreement between HBO and the estate before deciding he would not rule on the matter without first giving the network a chance to file an anti-SLAPP motion, which is used to guard against lawsuits that are intended to impede free speech.
HBO’s attorney, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, told Judge Wu there was “no question” that “Leaving Neverland” is a documentary of public concern.
“It’s clear it’s fully protected speech,” Boutrous said.
But the estate’s attorney, Jonathan P. Steinsapir of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP, argued that federal court rules dictate a deadline for filing anti-SLAPP motions and that it doesn’t apply in relation to motions to compel arbitration.
“Giving them a way out at this point is just not fair,” Steinsapir said.
But Judge Wu said there are SLAPP concerns in the allegations and that he would give HBO a chance to file an anti-SLAPP motion.
In the $100 million suit against HBO, filed in February, the late singer’s estate claims HBO broke an agreement permitting it to use footage from Jackson’s Dangerous World Tour in exchange for monetary and nonmonetary considerations, including a promise from HBO not to “disparage” the singer.
The estate alleges the documentary has harmed Jackson’s legacy.
In May, Judge Wu denied the Jackson estate’s bid to compel arbitration or remand the case to state court, finding that the language of the 1992 agreement does not indicate that any disputes should be handled only by state court. He also ruled that he should be the one to make a determination on arbitration.
But Judge Wu did allow for supplemental briefing on arbitration part of the motion ahead of Monday’s hearing.
A hearing for HBO’s anti-SLAPP motion was set for Sept. 16.
“As we said in our papers and at today’s argument, we believe there is no legal basis for the estate’s petition and we look forward to presenting further arguments to the court,” an HBO representative told on Monday.
A representative for Jackson’s estate did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Michael Jackson’s estate is represented by Howard Weitzman, Jonathan P. Steinsapir and Zachary T. Elsea of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP and Bryan J. Freedman of Freedman & Taitelman LLP.
HBO is represented by Daniel M. Petrocelli and Drew E. Breuder of O’Melveny & Myers LLP and Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. and Nathaniel L. Bach of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
The case is Optimum Productions et al. v. Home Box Office et al., case number 2:19-cv-01862, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Please watch this video to understand the anti-SLAPP motion:
Thanks to AndJustice4Some we have also the transcripts of the court hearing between the Michael Jackson Estate v Home Box Office, et al on July 15, 2019.
On July 4th, Emmanuel Ludot, the lawyer representing the French fans in a lawsuit against Wade Robson and James Safechuck, had an interview with LCI.
Here you are a translation of what he said:
LCI: Is this complaint filed by Michael Jackson fans against his two accusers really serious?
Mr. Emmanuel Ludot: Of course! The French fans’ associations still have to their credit a credit to the extent that they obtained in 2014 the conviction of Dr. Murray (the singer’s doctor was sentenced in 2011 to four years in prison for manslaughter – ed). The bond of affection between Michael Jackson, his memory, and his fans is today judicially established. Today we are starting the same ‘exercise’ with the same mechanism and in the same jurisdiction. In France, the Civil Code protects the memory of the dead. You can not lay charges against someone who has died on the pretext that something has been discovered about their past.
But can we really talk about emotional harm to fans? They are not even members of the family …
Absolutely! I always give the following example: Your best friend is killed in a car accident because of someone who committed a driving fault or was intoxicated. This person is tried in correctional. You, the friend in question, love this person. Well you have the right to obtain compensation for moral and emotional harm. On this point, there is no discussion possible. For the rest, I prove the link that united Michael Jackson to his fans with testimonials and even certificates of psychologists. Some are in a state of depression since the death of the singer.
The documentary “Leaving Neverland” only reinforced this malaise?
Yes because it is an outrageous documentary intended to make money. There is behind all a business of the slanderous denunciation that these two characters (Wade Robson and James Safechuck – ed) used to enrich themselves, with the help of a well-known French television channel.
Have you had any feedback from them since the complaint was filed?
No. I have not had a return and I will not have any. Just as they will not show up for the hearing for two reasons. The first is that I do not represent a financial threat to them. I do not ask for a million dollars! The Americans, when asked for a euro or a symbolic dollar, it makes them laugh softly. The second reason is that they have given the rights of their testimony to television channels. In the event that they come to be condemned, they know that they will be compensated by these chains.
Is the Jackson family aware of your complaint?
The Jackson family is upwind against these two fanatics, of course. They are very knowledgeable about the procedure and Michael’s sister, LaToya, plans to join us. The agent of Paris and Prince, the elder children of the singer, will contact us in the next hours. But whatever happens, we have the support of the Jackson family as a whole.
Here it is the interview in French as well:
LCI : Cette plainte déposée par des fans de Michael Jackson contre ses deux accusateurs est-elle vraiment sérieuse ?
Me Emmanuel Ludot : Bien sûr ! Les associations de fans français ont quand même à leur actif un crédit judiciaire dans la mesure où elles ont obtenu en 2014 la condamnation du Docteur Murray (le médecin du chanteur avait été condamné en 2011 à quatre ans de prison pour homicide involontaire – ndlr). Le lien d’affection entre Michael Jackson, son souvenir, et ses fans est aujourd’hui judiciairement établi. Nous recommençons aujourd’hui le même ‘exercice’ avec le même mécanisme et devant la même juridiction. En France, le Code civil protège la mémoire des morts. On ne peut pas porter des accusations contre une personne décédée au prétexte qu’on aurait découvert tel ou tel fait sur son passé.
Mais peut-on vraiment parler de préjudice affectif pour des fans ? Ce ne sont même pas des membres de la famille…
Absolument ! Je donne toujours l’exemple suivant : votre meilleur ami est tué dans un accident de voiture à cause de quelqu’un qui a commis une faute de conduite ou qui était en état d’ivresse. Cette personne est jugée en correctionnelle. Vous, l’ami en question, aimiez cette personne. Eh bien vous avez le droit d’obtenir la réparation d’un préjudice moral et affectif. Sur ce point-là, il n’y pas de discussion possible. Pour le reste, je prouve le lien qui unissait Michael Jackson à ses fans par des témoignages et même des certificats de psychologues. Certains sont en état de dépression depuis la mort du chanteur.
Le documentaire “Leaving Neverland” n’a fait que renforcer ce mal-être ?
Oui car c’est un documentaire outrancier destiné à faire de l’argent. Il y a derrière tout un business de la dénonciation calomnieuse dont se sont servis ces deux personnages (Wade Robson et James Safechuck – ndlr) pour s’enrichir, avec l’aide d’une chaîne de télévision française bien connue.
Avez-vous eu le moindre retour de leur part depuis que la plainte a été déposée ?
Non. Je n’ai pas eu de retour et je n’en aurai pas. De même qu’ils ne se présenteront pas à l’audience pour deux raisons. La première, c’est que je ne représente pas pour eux une menace financière. Je ne demande pas un million de dollars ! Les Américains, lorsqu’on leur demande un euro ou un dollar symbolique, ça les fait doucement rigoler. La deuxième raison, c’est qu’ils ont cédé les droits de leur témoignage à des chaînes de télévisions. Dans l’hypothèse où ils viendraient à être condamnés, ils savent qu’ils seront indemnisés par ces chaînes.
La famille Jackson est-elle au courant de votre plainte ?
La famille Jackson est vent debout contre ces deux énergumènes, bien évidemment. Elle est très informée de la procédure et la sœur de Michael, LaToya, envisage de se joindre à nous. L’agent de Paris et Prince, les enfants aînés du chanteur, doit lui nous contacter dans les prochaines heures. Mais quoi qu’il arrive, nous avons le soutien de la famille Jackson dans son entier.
Ninon de Vere De Rosa of Vegas Live with Ninon, Geraldine Hughes, and Valentino Johnson talk with Rude Mike of Reckless Raw Radio on HOT 702.5 FM.
The Truth About the Safechuck Loan In Leaving Neverland
UPDATE 02/07/2019: Michael Jackson Fan Clubs lodged a complaint against “Leaving Neverland” in France
The three associations are lodging a complaint against James Safechuck and Wade Robson about the memory of a dead person. Beyond the symbolic 1 euro claimed through this procedure, they want the two men (Wade Robson and James Safechuck) to explain to the law and bring evidence about their accusations. The three associations have studied the past of the two accusers presented in “Leaving Neverland”, and it appears that they have lied repeatedly in the past, whether in court or in public.
The court case will open this Thursday at Orleans at 9am.
Me Emmanuel Ludot who represents the 3 fan clubs (Michael Jackson Community, MJ Street & On the line) has stated that the 2 men sued for a symbolic €1 will not be present at the court nor will be represented and he is seeking a “conviction in principle” against the 2 men.
Michael Jackson fan clubs are set to sue two alleged child abuse victims of Michael Jackson in a French court this week over their claims in the recent HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland”.
Thursday’s hearing will take place at a court in the northern city of Orleans where the Michael Jackson Community, the MJ Street and On The Line groups will begin proceedings against the men they accuse of sullying the image of the late singer.
The French lawyer acting for the fan groups, Emmanuel Ludot, called the allegations “extremely serious” and likened them to “a genuine lynching” of Jackson, who died in 2009.
Under French law, sullying the image of a dead person is a criminal offence, unlike in Britain or America where libel and defamation laws do not offer this protection.
The fan clubs are seeking symbolic damages of one euro each.
More information MJ Factual
Spike Lee and Do the Right Thing 2019
By The Last tear (Lou)
I quote others only in order the better to express myself,
Michel de Montaigne
Truth Be Told? Documentary Films Today
As the number of documentary films has exploded on streaming services and in theaters, the medium’s blend of journalism and entertainment has caused increased reverberations in the law and culture, according to an all-star panel of entertainment attorneys, scholars and filmmakers who spoke at UCLA School of Law on June 4.
“Truth Be Told? Documentary Films Today,” drew more than 100 entertainment law practitioners, law students, filmmakers and others to a discussion moderated by Dale Cohen, director of UCLA Law’s Documentary Film Legal Clinic and special counsel for the PBS series Frontline.  Source
One of the panelists was John Branca; Howard Weitzman and Charles Thomson were also among the panelists. Please watch their speeches here:
This one is John Branca’s speech and he says among other things:
… that defamation claims do not survive death, disarming the Jackson estate from seeking legal recourse. He suggested that the right to pursue defamation claims should be extended for 20 or 30 years after death.
“If Michael were alive, HBO’s lawyers would never have allowed them to do this documentary, at least in its current form,” Branca said.
In Europe, people are protected against defamation by the law however the defamation law is unclear and weak when it comes to the deceased persons. The matter is even worse in the US. Mr. Branca is right to raise the issue. Now it is up to the lawyers and all of us to continue the debate until the politicians and the lawmakers do what it takes to protect the deceased people.
There are several petitions online; these are for the Americans:
And this one is for other nationalities:
By the way, in his speech, Mr. Branca mentions Victor Gutierrez and how Michael Jackson sued him and won the case. Gutierrez had to file bankruptcy and flee from the US. And that brings us to our next subject!
Gutierrez-Bashir-Reed: a right triangle
The right triangle is a very interesting geometrical shape! For example, the Pythagorean Theorem says that in any right triangle, the square of the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Usually, we write this theorem like this: a2 + b2 = c2.
Just for fun, we can write a geometrical analogy like this one: G2 + B2 = R2!
First, let’s see Gutierrez-Bashir sides. We know that Gutierrez who fled the US in October 1998 – after MJ won the defamation case against him – was back again to the country at least in 2004 because NBC hired him as “consulting producer” to the Dateline show to cover the Arvizos’ case and to help Martin Bashir.
We also know that during the trial (2005) Gutierrez and Bashir worked together and made a filthy fiction movie called Michael Jackson’s Secret World which was very close to Gutierrez’s pro NAMBLA book MJ Was My Lover. Corey Feldman was one of the people that Bashir interviewed in connection to this movie. Recently, the video of this interview has been published on YouTube.
Víctor Gutiérrez: “I think Michael Jackson wants to commit suicide”
“When I saw him in the court, he pointed me out, and I was really scared, I almost totally screwed up, getting me is the only demand that Michael Jackson has made in his life.”
With that revelation Víctor Gutiérrez,  , started the chat with La Cuarta …
– How do you think Jackson sees you today?
– He knows that most of the television hits that come out against him, I made them. It is clear that I have also worked with Martín Bashir, who made a documentary against him and that I will not get tired of bloating his … .
A MJ fan, who had done a lot of research about MJ, had a theory and shared it with me; according to this theory Gutierrez and Bashir have met each other already in the mid-eighties when the first one was a sport photographer and the second one was a sport journalist. Their common interest at that time was football (soccer)! Their other common interest was to climb on the social ladder by bringing down other people specially celebrities like Princess Diana and MJ.
Actually, by the end of the twenty century and the beginning of the twenty-first, Bashir was more “successful” than his twin brother Gutierrez, who had messed up – because of the lawsuit brought by MJ against Gutierrez and Diane Dimond – and had to flee! Martin Bashir and his “documentary” Living with Michael Jackson allowed the prosecutor Tom Sneddon to bring criminal charges against Michael Jackson.
Well, this fan had also another theory that could be very credible. According to this theory and despite what the MJ supporters and researchers usually believe, the Arvizos, their association with MJ and their lawsuit had something to do with Victor Gutierrez.
Firstly, we know that Gutierrez had and still has a strong connection with the Latin Americans. We know for example that in 1985-86, he found a job at a Hispanic tabloid in LA. In 1987, he did an interview with a future teller that predicted on October 12 at 13.30 another earthquake would happen in Los Angeles. On October first, a powerful earthquake had already shaken the city. The “news” appeared on the front page. On October 12, many Latin Americans left the city to save their lives but no earthquake happened. People who believed him, were angry but the tabloid hired Gutierrez because 150 000 copies of the paper were sold.
Secondly, when in mid-eighties, Gutierrez approached people close to MJ to turn them against Michael – Blanca Francia, Adrian MacManus, Kassim Abdul, Melanie Bagnall, Ralph Chacon, Estela Rodriguez, Jonathan Spence, Wayne Safechuck, Joy Robson, Wade Robson, Evan and Ray Chandler, June and Dave Schwartz, Margaret Maldonado, … – he always implied that the Latin Americans – “Latinos” as he called them – were his “natural allies”.
Thirdly, in October 1998, Gutierrez was surely very angry at MJ. He had been sued, he lost the case and had to declare himself bankrupt and fled from his beloved California, first to Mexico where he had and still has strong connections and then to Chile. To take revenge on MJ, why would he not cook up again a plan and look after people who would agree to accuse falsely Jackson?
And at last, these lines from Veritas project:
Part I: The Anatomy of a Scam
|In January 2000, a woman named Janet Arvizo consulted with a civil lawyer about suing Michael Jackson for having allegedly molested her son .The problem, however, is that in January 2000, Janet Arvizo had never met Michael Jackson; neither had her son. In fact, it would still be another seven months before Jackson would even be introduced to the Arvizo family. Three years after their initial meeting in August 2000, Janet Arvizo’s son accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse; 
Only time and further research will give us all the answers.
Going back to Gutierrez-Bashir, their active collaboration ceased after MJ’s acquittal but also because Bashir got job at different American media. Gutierrez, on the other hand, intensely looked for someone to turn his filthy book to movie.
Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato, the owner of World of Wonder were mentioned to be interested. But no movie was ever made probably because Michael Jackson was alive and could sue them.
As we know, in June 2005, Michael Jackson was acquitted of all charges by a jury and by the American justice department. The law enforcement agencies that scrutinized and inspected MJ during several years, never found anything which could incriminate him. However, the media mostly American and English – have had their own mantra. Years after Jackson’s vindication, the media suggested repeatedly but unjustly that MJ got free because he was “famous, rich and powerful”. The media questioned the accuracy of the jury’s verdict; by stating such a thing, they also meant that the case of Michael Jackson was not at all closed and could be back in the headlines at any time.
And this “any time” was the day that Dan Reed had a chat with his Channel 4-buddy to find out what his next project could be. And of course Michael Jackson and his “cases” were there! The media love that! It is a fact now that MJ and his “cases” are their livelihood, their rent-money, the house, the car … they will buy! And they want to keep it that way forever.
Reed had already “saved” the world from “the terrorists” and “the pedophiles” (see this blog Dan Reed, his movies and more) despite all these efforts, he was neither famous nor rich. After the conversation with his Channel 4-buddy, he realized that he could take from where Gutierrez and Bashir had left, put his name on Google and show to the high-ranking Jackson-haters that he is as good as G, B, DD, etc. Having already a scenario – Gutierrez book –, Bashir’s “documentary” as a parallel prototype / a double and con artists like the Safechucks & the Robsons, the task looked easy especially in the MeToo era!
But the statistics and the facts have shown that LN was a failure. To cover up his non-success, Reed is ready to shoot a LN part two! Surely, Robson & Safechuck’s lawyers will be happy to help!
In an interview with Awardsdaily.com published on June 17th, Reed plays the martyr and complains about Jackson’s “crazy” fans who sent him “death threats” and “nasty emails”! This is another fact: the tabloids and the mainstream media love MJ’s “crazy” fans because these “crazy” fans are their livelihood, like Jackson himself.
Stephanie ‘s zigzags
Do you remember the bathtub scene in Pretty Woman movie (1990, Julia Roberts and Richard Gere)? Roberts (a Hollywood boulevard girl) helps Gere (a multimillionaire businessman who rescues the girl from the streets) to get rid of his anger towards his father by holding him tightly.
Can you see some parallels between these two pictures?
The water is there and surrounds directly or indirectly people. The bearer is the bathtub in the first picture and the yacht in the second. Five people plus Robert’s arms hold tightly the multibillionaire businessman who owns the film industry.
On June 25, 18,757 red & white roses from fans around the world were delivered to Holly Terrace and set up by @OneRose4MJJ and a wonderful team of volunteers.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Statement to The Associated Press from Michael Jackson’s estate on the 10th anniversary of his death.
Ten years ago today, the world lost a gifted artist and extraordinary humanitarian. The entire global community joined in grieving during a powerful and emotional memorial service witnessed by more people than had ever viewed a live event before. Messages of condolences from Nelson Mandela and others were read as was a poem written for the occasion by the esteemed Maya Angelou. Berry Gordy Jr., founder of Motown, eulogized his protégé by saying, ”. the King of Pop is not big enough for him. I think he is simply the greatest entertainer that ever lived.” United in grief, the world wept not only at the loss of an artistic genius but at the void left by the loss of a father, son and brother.
A decade later, Michael Jackson is still with us, his influence embedded in dance, fashion, art and music of the moment. He is more important than ever. But the true measure of Michael was his giving to others, which came in many forms. He comforted the unfortunate at hospitals, in long term care facilities and at halfway houses. He equipped Neverland Ranch with medical facilities to accommodate patients seeking refuge from their lonely hospital rooms, and thousands came. He visited troops on bases around the world serving their country. Guinness World Records acknowledged his efforts with an award for Most Charities Supported by a Pop Star.
In a world where numbers are the measure of a man, Michael Jackson is a resounding success, whether by his 16 No. 1 singles and eight No. 1 albums in the U.S or the fact that his album “Thriller” is owned by more people on the planet than any album ever made and “Thriller” the short film is the only music video to have been inducted into the National Film Registry. And when mastery of a craft is the measure, Michael Jackson’s divine abilities remain the yardstick by which others are measured and against which today’s masters still measure themselves.
But we best remember Michael by paying tribute to his legacy of philanthropic work and ask music fans everywhere to make a difference in their community — whether it’s planting a tree, volunteering at a shelter, cleaning up a public space or helping someone who is lost find their way.
“I believe each person can make a difference in the life of someone in need,” he said. This is how we honor Michael.
Please watch and share!