Micky Jackson in trouble again

Boggles · 13-04-2019 11:02am

The Nal wrote: »

Yup. As per your link.

"Radio stations pulled his songs from their playlists, and a statue of Jackson was removed from the National Football Museum in Manchester"

You missed the important part.

The multi million pound West End musical gets extended.

hetuzozaho · 13-04-2019 11:41am

The Nal wrote: »

Yup. As per your link.

"Radio stations pulled his songs from their playlists, and a statue of Jackson was removed from the National Football Museum in Manchester"

They said they'd been planning it for ages. Think it might be a bit like the Oprah chat above.

joeguevara · 13-04-2019 7:13pm

I'd say Fulham fans wish they had the statue back. Since they got rid of it their form has been shocking.

Sleeper12 · 17-04-2019 8:32am

Has anyone been reading how Bill Cosby is furious with his insurance company AIG? They paid out to his sex abuse victims against his permission.

Does anyone remember all the "Experts" here insisting that Jackson's insurance didn't pay out against his wishes even though there are court documents saying that they did? The "experts" claimed that insurance companies don't pay out for sex abuse claims? In Cosby's case they actually paid out after he was convicted for sex crimes. In Jackson's case they paid out without an admission of guilt or a conviction.

joeguevara · 18-04-2019 6:44am

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Has anyone been reading how Bill Cosby is furious with his insurance company AIG? They paid out to his sex abuse victims against his permission.

Does anyone remember all the "Experts" here insisting that Jackson's insurance didn't pay out against his wishes even though there are court documents saying that they did? The "experts" claimed that insurance companies don't pay out for sex abuse claims? In Cosby's case they actually paid out after he was convicted for sex crimes. In Jackson's case they paid out without an admission of guilt or a conviction.

Do you know why AIG paid out? It was nothing to do with sex abuse claims and was to do with defamation claims. It has nothing to do do with this case and I have no idea why you brought this I up. Maybe I have misunderstood but if I have can you expalain the connection?

Sleeper12 · 18-04-2019 7:51am

joeguevara wrote:

Do you know why AIG paid out? It was nothing to do with sex abuse claims and was to do with defamation claims. It has nothing to do do with this case and I have no idea why you brought this I up. Maybe I have misunderstood but if I have can you expalain the connection?

It's been stated here time and again that insurance companies don't pay out where the law has been broken. It's been stated as fact several times on this thread that Jacksons insurance didn't pay out in the first case (civil case) when court documents clearly state that the insurance paid out against Jacksons wishes. This was submitted to the court in the 2nd case. I have seen the court documents

Sleeper12 · 18-04-2019 8:01am

joeguevara wrote: »

Do you know why AIG paid out? It was nothing to do with sex abuse claims and was to do with defamation claims. It has nothing to do do with this case and I have no idea why you brought this I up. Maybe I have misunderstood but if I have can you expalain the connection?

This wasn't a defamation case.

Cosby's insurance company, American International Group, struck a deal with a woman named Chloe Goins who claimed that Cosby assaulted her at the Playboy Mansion in 2008 when she was just 18. However, Cosby's lashed out against AIG, calling their conduct "despicable."

https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/bill-cosby-lashes-out-at-insurance-company-for-settling-sexual-assault-suit-news.77472.html

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 22-04-2019 12:03am

Good lord. I lolled, so I did. I’m going to hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8CgdRLnDQ

joeguevara · 22-04-2019 11:46pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This wasn't a defamation case.

https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/bill-cosby-lashes-out-at-insurance-company-for-settling-sexual-assault-suit-news.77472.html

Sleeper. I might be misunderstanding this. The link you provided specifically stated that they were involved in a defamation case with him. What was the payout for if not that? I don’t think you can insure yourself for not commiting a criminal offense like assault.

BorneTobyWilde · 26-04-2019 12:14am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqtxCwQLf3Y

BorneTobyWilde · 26-04-2019 12:33am

Why is it so that in the 1993 case no one stopped playing his music, in 2005 case even while on trial no one stopped playing his music, yet when a one sided documentary comes out based on nothing but stories with nothing to back it up people suddenly believe it and banish the greatest musician who ever lived to the deepest darkest abyss.

Child abusers do it for life, with Michael we're to believe it was just a short period of his life that he became an abuser of kids, and then reverted back to normality.
We're to believe that after the Bashir documentary came out, and Michael was headline news over his remarks about sleeping in same room as kids, that Michael at the point decided to abuse Gavin Arvizo.

So he abuses Gavin while all this heat is on him, and then in court calls Wade , and Safechunk to defend him. '' other victims?'' These actions would make Michael one of the dumbest people on the planet.
But we all know he was actually a very wise talented person.

joeguevara · 29-04-2019 2:42am

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Why is it so that in the 1993 case no one stopped playing his music, in 2005 case even while on trial no one stopped playing his music, yet when a one sided documentary comes out based on nothing but stories with nothing to back it up people suddenly believe it and banish the greatest musician who ever lived to the deepest darkest abyss.

Child abusers do it for life, with Michael we're to believe it was just a short period of his life that he became an abuser of kids, and then reverted back to normality.
We're to believe that after the Bashir documentary came out, and Michael was headline news over his remarks about sleeping in same room as kids, that Michael at the point decided to abuse Gavin Arvizo.

So he abuses Gavin while all this heat is on him, and then in court calls Wade , and Safechunk to defend him. '' other victims?'' These actions would make Michael one of the dumbest people on the planet.
But we all know he was actually a very wise talented person.

It is a recent thing with regarding stopping playing music. For example ‘cold outside’, the Christmas song was pulled from various radio stations including Christmas FM due to connotations of false imprisonment as well as non consensual activity. Also, there was a bit of a campaign by 2FM djs Eoghan McDermott and Stephen Byrne against the Pogues ‘Fairytale of New York’ because of the ‘f’ word.

It has even spread to classic literature. To kill a mocking bird has been banned from many US states school curriculum due to parents complaining about the fact that it includes the ‘n’ word and is perceived racist. It is the complete antithesis of what the book is about and it is one piece of modern literature that has broken down so many racial boundaries but appears to be par for the course to ban things for the sake of it. I was also shocked to see John Steinbeck’s ‘of mice and men’ similarly banned due to the inclusion of the ‘n’ word and the perceived discrimination of mental health. I know it is completely different to banning music of alleged child abusers but it appears to be the done thing now.

I can understand banning music if convicted criminals such as Gary Glitter or music produced by Phil Spector but social media and gobsh1te dis trying to create publicity should be very careful as by doing so maybe considered defamation if they state a reason.

Also banning classic literature through ignorance is a dangerous precedent. I know when I read to kill a mockingbird it taught me so much about how dangerous racism is. To think it is banned for the theme it fought against is ludicrous but it’s the times we live in.

Next Jaws will be banned for animal cruelty!

Sleeper12 · 29-04-2019 8:30am

joeguevara wrote: »

It is a recent thing with regarding stopping playing music. For example ‘cold outside’, the Christmas song was pulled from various radio stations including Christmas FM due to connotations of false imprisonment as well as non consensual activity. Also, there was a bit of a campaign by 2FM djs Eoghan McDermott and Stephen Byrne against the Pogues ‘Fairytale of New York’ because of the ‘f’ word.

It has even spread to classic literature. To kill a mocking bird has been banned from many US states school curriculum due to parents complaining about the fact that it includes the ‘n’ word and is perceived racist. It is the complete antithesis of what the book is about and it is one piece of modern literature that has broken down so many racial boundaries but appears to be par for the course to ban things for the sake of it. I was also shocked to see John Steinbeck’s ‘of mice and men’ similarly banned due to the inclusion of the ‘n’ word and the perceived discrimination of mental health. I know it is completely different to banning music of alleged child abusers but it appears to be the done thing now.

I can understand banning music if convicted criminals such as Gary Glitter or music produced by Phil Spector but social media and gobsh1te dis trying to create publicity should be very careful as by doing so maybe considered defamation if they state a reason.

Also banning classic literature through ignorance is a dangerous precedent. I know when I read to kill a mockingbird it taught me so much about how dangerous racism is. To think it is banned for the theme it fought against is ludicrous but it’s the times we live in.

Next Jaws will be banned for animal cruelty!

In bold isn't quite true Gary Glitter was jailed 20 years ago, 1999, & radio stations stopped playing his music then

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 30-04-2019 4:12pm

joeguevara wrote: »

It is a recent thing with regarding stopping playing music. For example ‘cold outside’, the Christmas song was pulled from various radio stations including Christmas FM due to connotations of false imprisonment as well as non consensual activity. Also, there was a bit of a campaign by 2FM djs Eoghan McDermott and Stephen Byrne against the Pogues ‘Fairytale of New York’ because of the ‘f’ word.

It has even spread to classic literature. To kill a mocking bird has been banned from many US states school curriculum due to parents complaining about the fact that it includes the ‘n’ word and is perceived racist. It is the complete antithesis of what the book is about and it is one piece of modern literature that has broken down so many racial boundaries but appears to be par for the course to ban things for the sake of it. I was also shocked to see John Steinbeck’s ‘of mice and men’ similarly banned due to the inclusion of the ‘n’ word and the perceived discrimination of mental health. I know it is completely different to banning music of alleged child abusers but it appears to be the done thing now.

I can understand banning music if convicted criminals such as Gary Glitter or music produced by Phil Spector but social media and gobsh1te dis trying to create publicity should be very careful as by doing so maybe considered defamation if they state a reason.

Also banning classic literature through ignorance is a dangerous precedent. I know when I read to kill a mockingbird it taught me so much about how dangerous racism is. To think it is banned for the theme it fought against is ludicrous but it’s the times we live in.

Next Jaws will be banned for animal cruelty!

Wow, this is so sad. And, frankly, doesn’t give schoolchildren much credit. I loved The Famous Five books as a kid and it didn’t turn me into an unrepentant racist. Indeed, I recognised that some of the terms Blyton used were not on but I also knew that the books were of their time. It didn’t stop me enjoying the stories.

I don’t think things should be banned. But I understand why it’s harder to ignore things when it’s a performer who is very visible in their art form.

joeguevara · 01-05-2019 6:46am

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In bold isn't quite true Gary Glitter was jailed 20 years ago, 1999, & radio stations stopped playing his music then

In UK and Ireland yes. He still takes in millions from royalties in US. Even covers in shows like Glee (gwyneth Paltrow cover).

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/424731/Gary-Glitter-continues-rake-in-royalties-thanks-to-American-radio-airplay/amp

is_that_so · 01-05-2019 1:13pm

joeguevara wrote: »

In UK and Ireland yes. He still takes in millions from royalties in US. Even covers in shows like Glee (gwyneth Paltrow cover).

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/424731/Gary-Glitter-continues-rake-in-royalties-thanks-to-American-radio-airplay/amp

Golden oldies stations need to fill airtime and it is pure glam rock. As always people make up their own minds what they will listen to or watch.

LuckyLloyd · 01-05-2019 1:21pm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Why is it so that in the 1993 case no one stopped playing his music, in 2005 case even while on trial no one stopped playing his music,

Because people have had enough. The context has dramatically changed, people will no longer play the music of a suspected / perceived child abuser just as they'll no longer watch the films of a suspected / perceived rapist. Because for decades we allowed the "artist" to be separated from the "person" and it's nonsense. Scaldy people don't deserve adulation because they can do something nice in a studio or behind a camera. They're scaldy and disgusting and people don't want to see or hear them in a fashion that ignores those realities anymore.

is_that_so · 01-05-2019 1:26pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Because people have had enough. The context has dramatically changed, people will no longer play the music of a suspected / perceived child abuser just as they'll no longer watch the films of a suspected / perceived rapist. Because for decades we allowed the "artist" to be separated from the "person" and it's nonsense. Scaldy people don't deserve adulation because they can do something nice in a studio or behind a camera. They're scaldy and disgusting and people don't want to see or hear them in a fashion that ignores those realities anymore.

Many of these individuals have produced some very good materials and set standards in their field. Dismiss them and you begin to lose the ability to determine what is actually good. That's where the separation works. One can recognise the quality even if the person deserves nothing.

Sleeper12 · 01-05-2019 2:09pm

LuckyLloyd wrote:

Because people have had enough. The context has dramatically changed, people will no longer play the music of a suspected / perceived child abuser just as they'll no longer watch the films of a suspected / perceived rapist. Because for decades we allowed the "artist" to be separated from the "person" and it's nonsense. Scaldy people don't deserve adulation because they can do something nice in a studio or behind a camera. They're scaldy and disgusting and people don't want to see or hear them in a fashion that ignores those realities anymore.

But the vast majority of radio stations aren't banning his music at all. Some have said that his music won't be on their play list temporarily, till things settle down. Most still play his music & a tiny fraction of stations and TV stations say his music is being banned.

joeguevara · 01-05-2019 8:30pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

But the vast majority of radio stations aren't banning his music at all. Some have said that his music won't be on their play list temporarily, till things settle down. Most still play his music & a tiny fraction of stations and TV stations say his music is being banned.

Not really true. More and more radio stations are staying public ally that they have dropped his music,

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/8571575/michael-jackson-songs-pulled-radio-leaving-neverland/amp/

However it is more than likely a publicity statement as if you read the article and not the headline it says ‘playlists change from week to week’ so it a marketing ploy as if a station comes out and says he is banned then they will be in worldwide articles. BBC have come out and explicitly stated that artist aren’t banned but can be dropped from playlists. For example when in the last month have you heard the ‘Grateful Dead one/fm. They aren’t banned but not on the playlist.

So, djs want to make waves. Come out and say ‘I won’t play fairy tale of New York, cold outside or MJ’. It’s in the news. Their stock rises. People clap. They get sacked because they are sh1te and low and behold we head Billie Jean and Shane McGowan long after the has been.

anewme · 01-05-2019 9:34pm

There was a Michael Jackson tribute show in the Olympia Theatre on 25th April just gone. Heard it advertised on all the big radio stations.

Looking up the show on Ticketmaster, it has a fairly big UK run too.

Sleeper12 · 01-05-2019 9:48pm

joeguevara wrote:

So, djs want to make waves. Come out and say â€˜I wonâ€™t play fairy tale of New York, cold outside or MJâ€™. Itâ€™s in the news. Their stock rises. People clap. They get sacked because they are sh1te and low and behold we head Billie Jean and Shane McGowan long after the has been.

Do you know what they did after they burned Beatles records in the 60s? They went back out & bought them again.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 02-05-2019 6:13pm

anewme wrote: »

There was a Michael Jackson tribute show in the Olympia Theatre on 25th April just gone. Heard it advertised on all the big radio stations.

Looking up the show on Ticketmaster, it has a fairly big UK run too.

He still has a very dedicated core of fans so it’ll probably sell out easily enough.

Outlaw Pete · 15-05-2019 12:28pm

Following is worth a watch. Exposes much of what was said in the Leaving Neverland docu as being fabricated nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUNO-MygJOQ

KikiLaRue · 15-05-2019 12:33pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Following is worth a watch. Exposes much of what was said in the Leaving Neverland docu as being fabricated nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUNO-MygJOQ

I watched exactly 60 seconds of that. Opening with Piers Morgan doesn't lend it a whole pile of credibility (remember that time he tapped a dead girl's phone) and then they asked a serious question of the film maker and cut away without giving him the opportunity to answer.

15-05-2019 1:20pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I watched exactly 60 seconds of that. Opening with Piers Morgan doesn't lend it a whole pile of credibility (remember that time he tapped a dead girl's phone) and then they asked a serious question of the film maker and cut away without giving him the opportunity to answer.

Him tapping a dead girl's phone is about as accurate a statement as most of those made in Leaving Neverland.

Laois_Man · 15-05-2019 11:39pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Following is worth a watch. Exposes much of what was said in the Leaving Neverland docu as being fabricated nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUNO-MygJOQ

Here's a different and shorter one that I posted earlier in the thread you should watch

hetuzozaho · 15-05-2019 11:45pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Following is worth a watch. Exposes much of what was said in the Leaving Neverland docu as being fabricated nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUNO-MygJOQ

Footage from the locked bedroom I presume! Ha

Edit: bedrooms. Yikes.

MOR316 · 11-03-2020 4:09pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Chandler could have? He did, didn't he? They settled out of court? Or was it a civil action, rather than a criminal one?

Michael Jackson filed 3 times for the criminal case to go before the civil. The Chandler family wanted the civil case first. Judge sided with The Chandlers and put the civil case first before the criminal.

He settled the civil case, after he refused to hand over any money to them before hand. Evan Chandler demanded $1million to $10million dollars to keep it all quiet but, Jackson refused to pay him anything.
In the prosecution's own words, it was not buying anyone's silence or settling anything and the criminal case was to go ahead.

A year later, the case was thrown out as 2 grand juries could not find any evidence against Michael Jackson.

In the years afterwards a book was written, from a member of NAMBLA, who described in detail what went on between Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler. Jordan Chandler released a statement to the cops, that was made public in 2003, stating all of that was false

In 1996, a handful of employees from Neverland sued Michael Jackson for unfair dismissal and said that they saw what he was doing to Jordan Chandler and Maculey Culkin.
They lost the suit, as they were robbing from Michael Jackson and they each were counter sued for $2 million dollars, which is still owed to this day. Adrian Macmanus being one of the employees. Jordan Chandler also released a statement to the cops, reach was made public in 2003, stating that what the employees said was false. Culkin has also come out numerous times and said nothing ever happened

Wade Robson and James Safechuck are now suing MJJ productions, for procuring them for Michael Jackson, after the judge threw their cases out against Michael Jackson, stating that "no one trier of facts could ever believe your story"
The case is expected to take place next year. However, the problem with that case is, Wade and James have both stated in their sworn depositions to the cops and in Leaving Neverland that their own Mothers chased after Michael Jackson, begging him to spend time with them. Not MJJ productions or Michael Jackson himself.
Wade's own mother even left his father to move to Australia to have a better chance of getting close to Michael Jackson so I have no idea how that is going to work out at all

The estate of Michael Jackson vs HBO is going to open arbitration but, HBO is trying to get a dismissal. From what I've read, the estate wants everything out in the open, as in who funded it, unedited footage, cuts that didn't make it etc but, HBO don't want it to go that far. Richard Plepler, HBO's CEO, left shortly after Leaving Neverland was aired. It was known he was massively against the production

Not speculation, just the facts. Make of it what you will.

I just typed all this up because I'm bored. I have various tabs open on different topics and I need a break from reading The Coronavirus thread.

Sleeper12 · 11-03-2020 4:52pm

MOR316 wrote: »

Michael Jackson filed 3 times for the criminal case to go before the civil. The Chandler family wanted the civil case first. Judge sided with The Chandlers and put the civil case first before the criminal.

He settled the civil case, after he refused to hand over any money to them before hand. Evan Chandler demanded $1million to $10million dollars to keep it all quiet but, Jackson refused to pay him anything.
In the prosecution's own words, it was not buying anyone's silence or settling anything and the criminal case was to go ahead.

A year later, the case was thrown out as 2 grand juries could not find any evidence against Michael Jackson.

In the years afterwards a book was written, from a member of NAMBLA, who described in detail what went on between Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler. Jordan Chandler released a statement to the cops, that was made public in 2003, stating all of that was false

In 1996, a handful of employees from Neverland sued Michael Jackson for unfair dismissal and said that they saw what he was doing to Jordan Chandler and Maculey Culkin.
They lost the suit, as they were robbing from Michael Jackson and they each were counter sued for $2 million dollars, which is still owed to this day. Adrian Macmanus being one of the employees. Jordan Chandler also released a statement to the cops, reach was made public in 2003, stating that what the employees said was false. Culkin has also come out numerous times and said nothing ever happened

Wade Robson and James Safechuck are now suing MJJ productions, for procuring them for Michael Jackson, after the judge threw their cases out against Michael Jackson, stating that "no one trier of facts could ever believe your story"
The case is expected to take place next year. However, the problem with that case is, Wade and James have both stated in their sworn depositions to the cops and in Leaving Neverland that their own Mothers chased after Michael Jackson, begging him to spend time with them. Not MJJ productions or Michael Jackson himself.
Wade's own mother even left his father to move to Australia to have a better chance of getting close to Michael Jackson so I have no idea how that is going to work out at all

The estate of Michael Jackson vs HBO is going to open arbitration but, HBO is trying to get a dismissal. From what I've read, the estate wants everything out in the open, as in who funded it, unedited footage, cuts that didn't make it etc but, HBO don't want it to go that far. Richard Plepler, HBO's CEO, left shortly after Leaving Neverland was aired. It was known he was massively against the production

Not speculation, just the facts. Make of it what you will.

I just typed all this up because I'm bored. I have various tabs open on different topics and I need a break from reading The Coronavirus thread.

Why aren't you stripping supermarket shelves bare like the rest of the nation?

MOR316 · 11-03-2020 5:07pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Why aren't you stripping supermarket shelves bare like the rest of the nation?

Because I'm ahead of the curve.

Musgraves looked like a punched lasagna when I was through there

MOR316 · 21-10-2020 3:55pm

One of the accusers from the documentary had his case dismissed today. Jackson's side won.

Just saying...

Sleeper12 · 23-10-2020 8:56am

MOR316 wrote: »

One of the accusers from the documentary had his case dismissed today. Jackson's side won.

Just saying...

I'm very much an innocent until proven guilty person & I am in this case but it was thrown out because he had no relationship with the companies he was suing. Sadly I don't think we'll ever know the truth here

tjdaly · 23-10-2020 1:52pm

The character of Michael Jackson was played by various actors over the years. One version is still doing the rounds as a burn victim.

MOR316 · 23-10-2020 7:52pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm very much an innocent until proven guilty person & I am in this case but it was thrown out because he had no relationship with the companies he was suing. Sadly I don't think we'll ever know the truth here

No evidence of wrong doing, has been thrown out of court several times. That documentary was seen to have over 70 lies in it. From memory, Jackson did sue ex employees for slander over accusations and won! They admitted to lying and they owed him something like 2 million quid in damages so... That and the fact this guy's cousin, who was around the two of them, had come forward and said it's all bull****

He had tried to sue before but, was thrown out. This is the 3rd time he has tried it and the first time he sued the companies.
He was in Jackson's presence between 1988 and 1992 and then later in the 90s as an adult(Why go back as an adult, to a man who apparently abused you?) The companies formed in 1993.

The guy was out for a cash grab, after his company sank. As the judge said, he had no facts or evidence. You can emotionally manipulate the public but, you can't do that in a court of law

You're right though, we'll never know the 100% truth, unless some evidence comes to light or one of them admits to fraud! But, everything I've read (I find the whole thing strangely interesting) Court documents, contracts, emails to recorded phone conversations etc...And there is a lot! (I started in April 2019 and I'm still going through it all) points to his innocence for me...I don't agree with some of his behaviours but, if he done nowt wrong/illegal, fair enough! He's dead, leave him be

innuendo141 · 27-10-2020 10:24am

MOR316 wrote: »

No evidence of wrong doing, has been thrown out of court several times. That documentary was seen to have over 70 lies in it. From memory, Jackson did sue ex employees for slander over accusations and won! They admitted to lying and they owed him something like 2 million quid in damages so... That and the fact this guy's cousin, who was around the two of them, had come forward and said it's all bull****

He had tried to sue before but, was thrown out. This is the 3rd time he has tried it and the first time he sued the companies.
He was in Jackson's presence between 1988 and 1992 and then later in the 90s as an adult(Why go back as an adult, to a man who apparently abused you?) The companies formed in 1993.

The guy was out for a cash grab, after his company sank. As the judge said, he had no facts or evidence. You can emotionally manipulate the public but, you can't do that in a court of law

You're right though, we'll never know the 100% truth, unless some evidence comes to light or one of them admits to fraud! But, everything I've read (I find the whole thing strangely interesting) Court documents, contracts, emails to recorded phone conversations etc...And there is a lot! (I started in April 2019 and I'm still going through it all) points to his innocence for me...I don't agree with some of his behaviours but, if he done nowt wrong/illegal, fair enough! He's dead, leave him be

This is why the lawyer tried to get both cases tried as one. What's interesting is that the court cases are claiming that his companies were a big massive pedophilia ring, when the film tells the exact opposite. Robson will face the same issues.

MOR316 · 27-10-2020 7:26pm

innuendo141 wrote: »

This is why the lawyer tried to get both cases tried as one. What's interesting is that the court cases are claiming that his companies were a big massive pedophilia ring, when the film tells the exact opposite. Robson will face the same issues.

Aye...They all said in the film that their mothers hounded Jackson for access and their mothers forced them upon Jackson.

"He abused me in Disneyland in Paris, in 1988..."
Very hard to do considering that it didn't open until 1992

Robson changed his story again.
The judge also ruled both Robson, Safechuck and their lawyer also owe Jonathan Spence thousands for damages claiming he was abused by MJ in that documentary. Spence says he wasn't, is said to be furious over such accusations.
Robson is also on Instagram, saying he "can heal" people after his experiences, if you subscribe to him for a few hundred dollars a month

The emails he wrote to his mother...The, "would this be believable" "time to make me relevant" emails, he was ordered to produce them in court and the lawyer basically said, "No, it's a secret!"

The director, Dan Reed was subpoenaed to appear in court and he's doing everything to get out of it.

It's an absolute mess!

Regardless of whether or not you think he done anything to a child, if anyone truly believes these two charlatans, I give up on humanity.

Santy is real, the earth is flat and the sun is giant candle

innuendo141 · 27-10-2020 7:34pm

MOR316 wrote: »

Aye...They all said in the film that their mothers hounded Jackson for access and their mothers forced them upon Jackson.
"He abused me in Disneyland in Paris, in 1988..."
Very hard to do considering that it didn't open until 1992

Robson changed his story again.
The judge also ruled both Robson, Safechuck and their lawyer also owe Jonathan Spence thousands for damages claiming he was abused by MJ in that documentary. Spence says he wasn't, is said to be furious over such accusations.
Robson is also on Instagram, saying he "can heal" people after his experiences, if you subscribe to him for a few hundred dollars a month
The emails he wrote to his mother...The, "would this be believable" "time to make me relevant" emails, he was ordered to produce them in court and the lawyer basically said, "No, it's a secret!"

The director, Dan Reed was subpoenaed to appear in court and he's doing everything to get out of it.

It's an absolute mess!

Regardless of whether or not you think he done anything to a child, if anyone truly believes these two charlatans, I give up on humanity.

Santy is real, the earth is flat and the sun is giant candle

This is it. He could have been an abuser (I don't think he was myself) but the way people just jumped behind these guys regardless of all the contradictory testimonies and stories was crazy.

Watch this space I guess. Their lawyer seems to have gone to the same school as Lionel Hutz.

MOR316 · 27-10-2020 7:40pm

innuendo141 wrote: »

This is it. He could have been an abuser (I don't think he was myself) but the way people just jumped behind these guys regardless of all the contradictory testimonies and stories was crazy.

Watch this space I guess. Their lawyer seems to have gone to the same school as Lionel Hutz.

Very much so...I've heard the racism argument, as in if he was a white man, he wouldn't get as much grief. Think it was just the media down the years and how much they abused him, headlines sticks in people's minds, along with some of his naïve and eccentric behaviours

Don't think he did anything either and everything I've gone through so far supports that.

If he did and if he was, there'd be a lot more accusers and more importantly, there would be evidence.

I don't understand why his estate want everything out in the open and the director, HBO and Channel 4 are refusing.

innuendo141 · 27-10-2020 7:50pm

MOR316 wrote: »

Very much so...I've heard the racism argument, as in if he was a white man, he wouldn't get as much grief. Think it was just the media down the years and how much they abused him, headlines sticks in people's minds, along with some of his naïve and eccentric behaviours

Don't think he did anything either and everything I've gone through so far supports that.

If he did and if he was, there'd be a lot more accusers and more importantly, there would be evidence.

I don't understand why his estate want everything out in the open and the director, HBO and Channel 4 are refusing.

I think it's because what was said in the film completely contradicts what they are arguing in court. They say this was never about money, but I'd say a little digging will unravel that one.

MOR316 · 27-10-2020 7:58pm

innuendo141 wrote: »

I think it's because what was said in the film completely contradicts what they are arguing in court. They say this was never about money, but I'd say a little digging will unravel that one.

If it wasn't about the money, they wouldn't be changing their stories, constantly! They also wouldn't have put out a ****ing soundtrack from the film, on CD and Spotify, if it wasn't about money. Absolute disgrace!

Dan Reed in an interview blurted out that it was all about the money. His company went bust over this!

The estate want everything out, even stuff that never made the final edit.
A sound engineer from the film said on Twitter that Robson told him none of it ever happened.

As I said, it's a mess from their point of view and it's just putting them in even more debt! They would want to absolutely insane to try this again

Quantum Erasure · 27-10-2020 10:15pm

MOR316 wrote: »

...He had tried to sue before but, was thrown out. This is the 3rd time he has tried it and the first time he sued the companies.
He was in Jackson's presence between 1988 and 1992 and then later in the 90s as an adult(Why go back as an adult, to a man who apparently abused you?) The companies formed in 1993.
...

Just on this bit, I've heard of it happen, child groomed and abused by middle aged neighbour, child grows up, has girlfriends, still goes around to the now elderly neighbour every once in a while ...

MOR316 · 27-10-2020 10:45pm

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Just on this bit, I've heard of it happen, child groomed and abused by middle aged neighbour, child grows up, has girlfriends, still goes around to the now elderly neighbour every once in a while ...

Fair enough...
I personally wouldn't go back to work for someone who abused me... Nor would I beg them for a job and money...

Nor would I beg them to let me have my wedding at the place where I was allegedly abused... Nor would I ask to spend my honeymoon there... Nor would I make a film about how it was the best place on Earth. Nor would I use the symbol of the location as a logo for my career.
Nor would I ask for custody of the abusers kids when he died... Nor would I go out and dance in tribute to my alleged abuser on live TV the week after his death. Nor would I apply to choreograph a show to honour my abuser...I certainly wouldn't write a tribute in his opus, calling my abuser the "kindest, most loving friend I've ever had"
I certainly wouldn't teach my students Michael Jackson dance moves in my choreograph class up until as recent as 18 months ago if he abused me... I without question wouldnt charge people, hundreds of dollars a month to "heal with Wade" the absolute charlatan!

But, that's just me... Probably better if he didnt ruin his career by shagging Britney Spears behind Justin Timberlake's back and have an affair with Prince's wife... Hollywood probably wouldnt have black ballad him then. Would have saved him a lot of hassle and legal fees, suing a dead man without proof or evidence... Then again, he didnt know what sex was according to the film, despite those affairs and having a kid himself

Charlatan!

Understand what you mean and I've heard of it before but, in this case...Makes no sense whatsoever. It's bull**** if I'm being honest about it

sligeach · 28-10-2020 7:34pm

innuendo141 wrote: »

This is why the lawyer tried to get both cases tried as one. What's interesting is that the court cases are claiming that his companies were a big massive pedophilia ring, when the film tells the exact opposite. Robson will face the same issues.

Sure they've flipped their story more times than a pancake. They've more holes than Swiss cheese. When you look at their stories, their backgrounds, their outlandish claims, it's a farce. It was complete BS. All the allegations were, all these people ever cared about was money.

Having failed in previous lawsuits, they then changed their story to sue his companies and their employees because they couldn't directly sue Michael Jackson.

Michael Jackson 'was running most sophisticated paedophile operation world has known' and 'sexually abusing kids all the way up until the day he died', according to a lawsuit.

Lawyer Vince Finaldi - who is representing Jackson's latest accusers Wade Robson, 36, and James Safechuck, 40 - believes the star set up two companies as a front for 'luring' children.

According to a lawsuit filed at the Los Angeles Superior Court in 2016, Jacko created MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures in order to arrange "encounters" with young children.

"The thinly-veiled, covert second purpose of these business was to operate as a child sexual abuse operation, specifically designed to locate, attract, lure and seduce child sex abuse victims," from court documents

You couldn't make it up. Except they did. It's unreal. How would you even go about this, keeping it quiet from the whole world until these allegations, how would you even go about interviewing people for jobs?

Corey Feldman knows who runs paedophile rings in Hollywood and said Michael Jackson had nothing to do with them or ever did anything wrong.

I believe Michael Jackson will be a case study in years to come and how the media shamefully portrayed him and would say anything for a buck.

Where are the Arvizo's? Crawled back under their rock after their case was blown to smithereens in court. How come they haven't said anything or joined Robson and Safechuck? Jordan Chandler, the first accuser, more like his father, who incidentally killed himself shortly after Michael Jackson died, Jordan it has been reported, privately denied anything ever happened. Could have testified in 2005, but refused.

Being different, having a troubled childhood and life, being eccentric, doesn't mean you're a bad person. There's so so much, when all added up, shows that Robson and Safechuck are liars, they're proven liars. But they know they can't be sued. I could post it all here, but I think some people just don't care, they're trolls, some are veiled racists. Michael Jackson had difficulty trusting adults, I don't blame him.

Robson, Mark my words, will have his case tossed out AGAIN.

sligeach · 28-10-2020 7:46pm

MOR316 wrote: »

Fair enough...
I personally wouldn't go back to work for someone who abused me... Nor would I beg them for a job and money...

Nor would I beg them to let me have my wedding at the place where I was allegedly abused... Nor would I ask to spend my honeymoon there... Nor would I make a film about how it was the best place on Earth. Nor would I use the symbol of the location as a logo for my career.
Nor would I ask for custody of the abusers kids when he died... Nor would I go out and dance in tribute to my alleged abuser on live TV the week after his death. Nor would I apply to choreograph a show to honour my abuser...I certainly wouldn't write a tribute in his opus, calling my abuser the "kindest, most loving friend I've ever had"
I certainly wouldn't teach my students Michael Jackson dance moves in my choreograph class up until as recent as 18 months ago if he abused me... I without question wouldnt charge people, hundreds of dollars a month to "heal with Wade" the absolute charlatan!

But, that's just me... Probably better if he didnt ruin his career by shagging Britney Spears behind Justin Timberlake's back and have an affair with Prince's wife... Hollywood probably wouldnt have black ballad him then. Would have saved him a lot of hassle and legal fees, suing a dead man without proof or evidence... Then again, he didnt know what sex was according to the film, despite those affairs and having a kid himself

Charlatan!

Understand what you mean and I've heard of it before but, in this case...Makes no sense whatsoever. It's bull**** if I'm being honest about it

Don't forget Michael Jackson setup Wade Robson with Brandi Jackson, his niece, and that they went out with each other for years(until Wade cheated), throughout the time Wade was supposedly being abused. Even though Wade claims Michael tried to keep him away from girls. Of course, that wouldn't be mentioned in Leaving Neverland, nor any of the excellent points you posted above. Wade's a piece of sc#m!

Necro · 28-10-2020 7:52pm

Mod:

sligeach, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt as some time has passed but you are still thread-banned. Do not post here again or you will face further sanctions.

Necro · 28-10-2020 9:51pm

Mod:

sligeach's threadban lifted after discussion with user.

Theboinkmaster · 13-11-2020 11:27am

Just watched this excellent doc on amazon prime:

Square one : Michael Jackson

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11033952/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Utterly brilliant and I'd challenge anyone after watching it how you think Michael Jackson abused children.

the last screenshots are compelling:

- research shows the average pedophile abuses approx 250 children

- michael jackson has 5 accusers

- none of them went to the police

- all of them went to civil lawyers seeking monetary compensation

MOR316 · 26-04-2021 2:25am

Wade Robson, the other accuser just had his case dismissed...
No evidence and his case had nothing in it apparently...

So that's the two of them now, after been thrown out of court...
Not reported either...
Interesting...

Perhaps he was just an innocent guy with mental issues...Which, if is the case, a lot of people need to seriously question themselves

Be interesting to see the fall out from this. Two accusers are broke and need money. They have no jobs. I see one of the accusers, Wade Robson, started a link to receive funds for abuse victims but, it's not attached to any charity, just him. Very eye opening...

The director of LN is broke and wanted to make a LN 2 but, he can't now as no one else came forward and his company is near bankrupt...

This is one giant mess!
Not even the Irish Government could mess up this badly

sligeach · 26-04-2021 3:50am

Yes, James Safechuck's case was dismissed last year. I was reading a few days ago that Wade Robson's case has been "tentatively" dismissed. The final ruling will be made after a hearing later today, 26th April by the judge.

Their cases have been thrown out numerous times. If people were interested in the truth and not some smear hitpiece without an ounce of credibility, they'd see these 2 desperate broke liars for who they are. The dead can't sue, so they can say what they like. They've changed their stories over and over. Leaving Neverland was their last desperate hope to maybe try and get the media on their side, influence public opinion, and that others liars would jump on board, for a class action lawsuit(there's so many of us, it must be true). And that the courts might buy their BS. Judges aren't stupid, and don't fall for tabloid BS. The courts deal with facts, and their lies have been exposed over and over there.

Though this is more about Michael's employees this time, this is how desperate the accusers are. They'll try anything to get a payout. Some of the accusations are ludicrous, and every single one of them has been dismissed. The media only care about the negative stories, so there may not be many like below:

https://www.showbiz411.com/2021/04/20/case-against-michael-jackson-brought-by-wade-robson-tentatively-dismissed-by-judge-basis-of-leaving-neverland-documentary

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments