Words, facts and thoughts (part 2)

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. 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

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:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

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:


Latin America

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.[1] 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”.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


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.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

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?

Interesting articles:


Who Will Own Spotify in Five Years?




Posted in Facts, Publications | Leave a comment

Robson & Safechuck vs MJEstate: Update

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-

The document:


Mr. Weitzman, the estate lawyer, statement (1/3/2020) to the recent event:

More details later!

Posted in Facts, Publications | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Updates and more!

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.

Billboard started their sleazy coverage from the first new issue (Feb 9) following LN’s Sundance debut.

They ask “Will LN affect MJ’s legacy?” then quote only the anti-MJ rhetoric including Gayle King “a game changer,” THR “devastating effect” & “Dan has received death threats.”

One month later (March 9), Billboard runs a cover story on this topic with the front-cover headline: “INNOCENCE LOST: Can Michael Jackson’s Legacy Survive ‘Neverland’?”

This headline appears atop Juice WRLD’s cover shot, which given JW’s sudden death has became a historic cover.

In this same March 9 issue, Billboard runs the “TOPLINE” story claiming LN “split fans of MJ and had a disruptive effect on plans made by the estate.”

The only “disruptive effect on plans” they cite was the Chicago musical trial run being skipped, instead heading direct to NYC.

The same issue then runs a 2 page spread w/ creepy-filtered NL photo. “100s of millions at stake.”

They include a quote in the teaser from an “estate lawyer” saying “it’s got to hurt,” before revealing this estate lawyer is Howard King (Tupac Shakur), not related to MJ’s at all.

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…

Then, still in this same issue of the print edition, Billboard has the audacity to run a graphic detailing the “timeline of allegations.”

They botch the facts even in their dumb graphic, such as claiming James “declined to testify” in 05, when he was court-barred & never-asked.

But wait, there’s more. Further down this same issue of Billboard (the 2nd within a month that promotes LN), they have a full page spread of the trio on Oprah.

Complete with this headline: “After LN aired Dan Reed was accused of telling a one-sided story. That was the point.” 🤷‍♂️

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.”

All of the scandalous coverage by Billboard in the first two issues that described LN was just the appetizer.

Their next issue (Mar 23) marks an unprecedentedly desperate attempt to become some “final nail” to MJ’s legacy. The cover is MJ cut up into 50 pieces, “BREAKING POINT.”

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.”

As if that wasn’t cringe-worthy enough, Billboard uses a full page spread of the boy-band photo depicting Dan, Wade & James in costume #1 from the photoshoot.

Their feature spread is captioned: “The Reckoning in Dan Reed’s culture shaking documentary.”

It gets worse from here.

Before reaching the cover story, Billboard can’t help but put another grudge-riddled story ahead of it.

They drudge up the old MJ v. Eagles & go on to explain how Eagles overtook Thriller after a supposed discovery of 9M added Eagles sales from 06-18. Even here they mention LN.

Still pages away from the cover story, Billboard slips in a single half-page piece that haphazardly summarizes a couple of points from the “24 page PowerPoint” the estate provided to them.

It is a thinly veiled attempt to claim neutrality; they also add Zonen & Finaldi quotes.

Then we reach the two-page photo cover spread to begin their main heart of adoration toward Leaving Neverland and the actors behind it.

This time using their costume #2 appearance from their photoshoot.

Again calling it “THE RECKONING” and running w/ contrived quote by Wade.

Billboard devotes a solid 13 PAGES for this cover story and interview of Wade, James and Dan, while spreading wall-of-text vitriol of LN through constant headline-grabbing quotes and excerpts from blue ticks, MeToo heroes & critics who were wined & dined. They again quote Oprah.

The imagery used throughout their stories on MJ all have sinister spins to them. From the chopped-up pieces of a disfigured MJ on the cover to other distorted graphics elsewhere.

In the mix of the MJ story is another devoted to the onslaught of MeToo allegations in the industry.

Much like the bogus report Billboard rushed out to suggest MJ’s streams dwindled after LN (forcing them to later issue a multi-part correction proving the opposite), it seems the content from these 3 issues was written far in advance—believing LN was an earth-shattering movement.

Billboard’s obsessive smear campaign against a deceased celebrity repeatedly refers to LN as “The Reckoning.”

In fact, a 2018 film about Weinstein uses that as its actual title. Billboard posted a blurb to site & that was the extent of any promo.

Double standards, as always. 😔


Posted in Facts, Media, Tabloids, Publications | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Time to read!

Dear reader, we have selected some articles and a video that we have found pertinent and interesting. You see below the links also the excerpts (in dark green). The first one is the whole article. If you do not have time to read all of them at the same time, please come back and continue your reading! Thank you!



Untouchable – How Oprah and Hollywood Enabled Harvey Weinstein

The Hypocrisy of Oprah and Hollywood Elites

By: Ubong Ekpo

Oprah Winfrey has championed herself as the mother figure archetype of Hollywood. From struggling with childhood sexual abuse, to working odd news jobs, Oprah’s story has been one we’re made to appreciate. 

From being a black woman on daytime television, rising through struggling ratings, to becoming a household name, it is definitely an impressive rise to say the least.

Winfrey is championed as a role model, but especially in the black community she holds a special place.  Too many members of the black community feel the pain and reality of racism.

However, lauded as she once was, there are some questionable actions that Winfrey needs to answer.

The ‘Me Too’ movement was kicked off by sexual abuse allegations towards Harvey Weinstein, the famed movie executive. 

Several movie actresses, including Angelina Jolie and Lupita Nyong’o, have claimed Weinstein acted inappropriately with them.

In the time since the allegations, Weinstein has received several delayings of his court procedures. His latest delay moved his trial date from September 2019 to January 2020.

Weinstein was formally charged in May 2018 with several counts of rape, sex abuse and sexual misconduct. He was given an ankle bracelet and can only travel to New York City and Connecticut.

In early 2019, a documentary titled Untouchable premiered at the Sundance Movie Festival. 

However, little to no attention was given to the Weinstein documentary, which went into detail about how Weinstein preyed on women using his power and influence as a Hollywood movie executive.

Instead, Winfrey and her associates decided to promote another documentary, Leaving Neverland. The film follows two men that say they were sexually abused by late pop star Michael Jackson as boys. 

It seems like once again in American society, black men are scapegoated for the problems that affect society at large.

That is why it is so perplexing why someone of Winfrey’s stature, a black woman, would decide to attach herself to Leaving Neverland.

An even bigger question is why hasn’t she addressed Weinstein’s sexual abuse allegations?

When it came to Leaving Neverland, Winfrey went on full force to endorse the documentary.

The ultimate act that has left a permanent scar in the legacy of Winfrey is when she decided to hold a special show after airing Leaving Neverland

She invites the alleged Jackson victims along with director Dan Reed. Winfrey expresses her support to the alleged victims.

Yet as of this writing, it appears Winfrey has no plans to invite any of Weinstein’s alleged victims for a sit-down.

Despite concerns with the validity of the film, such as James Safechuck’s claim he was abused in a train station that was not built until years after he claimed it occured, Winfrey has not wavered her support. 

Many have noticed since the coming developments that she has removed all content on her YouTube channel relating to the film.

The allegations against Weinstein are what jump-started the ‘Me Too’ movement. Yet media coverage would tell you different.

With simple google searches on Jackson and Weinstein, one can see a difference.

Jackson has passed away ten years ago, with no ability to defend himself, yet is branded an abuser over a film.

Weinstein has had hundreds of women make claims against him, yet we’ve seen little reaction. Maybe an article and a short news story.

There has been no calls to boycott Weinstein or any of the movies his production company produced, yet several radio stations worldwide have banned Jackson’s music.

Through her silence and connections, Winfrey has made it evident where she stands and it’s a shame.


Please listen to Mr. Branca interview:

Especially these parts:

at 29:30 to 33:56,

37:10 to 40:23,

50:19 to 53:22: … if Oprah Winfrey is better adjudication of the fact than the American court system then we get rid of all the judges and all the courts and the future adjudication can be made by HBO and Oprah Winfrey and we’ll save a lot of money and the other thing is they only need to hear from the prosecution they don’t need to hear from the defense …

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’s 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 so I was like okay we’re gonna take on Sony World. I read that Malcolm Gladwell book David and Goliath. We’re kind of David as big as Michael is we’re taking on Sony and they’ve got more resources and the buy/sell was all structured in their favor I mean thank you to whoever did that …


Two cuts from MJ estate lawyers answer to Wade Robson’s “Discovery”:


According to Billborad itself (on 10/11/2019), the banning of MJ’s music had an opposite effect!

Stuck In Neverland: Streams of Michael Jackson’s Music Have Actually Increased Since HBO Doc []

While radio fell 32 percent in the 31 weeks after Finding Neverland, on-demand streaming consumption of MJ’s music has outpaced the rest of the industry []

Yet people kept listening to Jackson’s music. During the same 31-week period, Billboard found that streaming consumption of Jackson’s catalog never saw a decline — on-demand streams of Jackson’s catalog actually increased by 22.1%, outpacing the industry’s 21.8% growth []

Hahaha: Finding Neverland!!! Hahaha!!


Do you remember Richard Plepler, the HBO ex-chief , the one who resigned a few days after the broadcast of LN?


Apple TV+ in Talks to Add Ex-HBO Boss Richard Plepler to Producer Lineup

Deal would be exclusive, could be finalized in coming weeks

Former HBO Chairman and Chief Executive Richard Plepler is in advanced talks to sign an exclusive production deal with Apple Inc. ’s new TV+ streaming service, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Under the terms of the agreement being discussed, Mr. Plepler’s new company, RLP & Co., would create original content for Apple TV+. A deal could be finalized within the next few weeks, the person with knowledge of the talks said. It is still possible a deal may not materialize.

If Apple lands Mr. Plepler, it would be getting one of the most well-regarded entertainment executives of the last decade. Under his watch as chief executive of HBO, the pay channel prospered, developing such hits as “Game of Thrones” and “Veep.”

Apple’s pursuit of Mr. Plepler is indicative of the battle for creative talent among Hollywood giants and the Silicon Valley disrupters such as Netflix Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. All have been spending heavily to woo producers and creators in anticipation of the so-called streaming wars, aimed at wooing viewers when many are tuning out of traditional broadcast and cable television.

Mr. Plepler left HBO last February after new owner AT&T Inc. took control of the company. He had been with HBO for nearly three decades, the last six years as its chief executive. Mr. Plepler left HBO when it was clear that under AT&T he would have less autonomy than he had enjoyed under prior owner Time Warner Inc.

Mr. Plepler declined to comment on the Apple talks []

Apple TV+ chiefs Zack Van Amburg and Jamie Erlicht had been wooing Mr. Plepler for the past few weeks as the company looks to bring in more talent to make shows there, the person involved in the talks said. Producers Steven Spielberg and J.J. Abrams and former talk show queen Oprah Winfrey are already involved in making shows for Apple []


And now Apple and Oprah!


Oprah Winfrey Inks Content Deal With Apple

In the war for talent, Apple has just scored a major victory.

The tech giant and eventual streamer has inked a multiyear content partnership with Oprah Winfrey. Under the pact, terms of which were not immediately available, Winfrey and Apple will create original content that will be released as part of the latter’s lineup of content.

Sources say the pact includes everything from film, TV, applications, books and other content that could easily be distributed on Apple’s all-encompassing platform. (The deal does not include podcasts, as Winfrey has her own platform for that.) Sources note that Winfrey landed at Apple in a competitive situation with other tech giants, likely including Netflix and Amazon, all pursuing similar deals. Apple is said to have aggressively pursued Winfrey as part of a larger push to reach a broad audience []


And the last one! From nytimes.com

Apple Enters Show Business With a Black-Carpet Premiere


The tech giant made its formal entry into show business on Monday with a spare-no-expense premiere at Lincoln Center for “The Morning Show,” a program set in the world of morning television starring Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Aniston.

At the fountain plaza, the carpet was black, not red. A glowing sign beamed the minimalist logo for Apple TV Plus. Ms. Witherspoon and Ms. Aniston roamed the grounds, along with the Apple chief executive Tim Cook. Invited guests and fans along the rope line captured the scene with their iPhones.

From the stage of David Geffen Hall, Ms. Witherspoon and Ms. Aniston spoke to an audience of 1,500 before the screening []

Posted in Facts, Publications | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

MJ Estate vs Robson & Safechuck: Review and updates

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.

With Wade, the motion for summary judgment related strictly to statute of limitations. MJ’s team did not originally raise any issues beyond that. That too will now change. The estate indicated the reversal will “put the merit of Robson’s causes of action at issue on remand.”

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.

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.

Posted in Facts, Media, Tabloids, Statements | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

MJ Estate vs HBO: updates

UPDATE 25/12/2019

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.


UPDATE 19/11/2019

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!

Posted in Facts, Publications | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Thrill The World 2019, MJ nr. 1 Top-Earning Dead Celebrity, …

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

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:

Posted in Publications, Tributes, Charity&humanitarian works | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment