Leaving Neverland - heehee

[Saffronette]

Yeah, I mean, who DOESN'T have at least one or two books of "artistic" photos of naked kids in their book collections, that's totally normal and everybody does it.

But you're acting like that's damning evidence. Keep in mind there's actual convicted pedophiles that have been covered on the Farms that have much worse stuff found on them than some books that weren't even relevant.

 

[Done]

I personally was never a fan of Michael's music, it always felt like it was being really pushed onto me for whatever reason, and I'm the type to respond negatively to things that are heavily promoted.

Didn't watch the documentary yet, but I find it really, really interesting that the Jackson Estate didn't sue the two people who actually appeared in the documentary for defamation, rather, they just sued HBO for airing the documentary and violating some contract clause from 199-whatever. You would think that Wade at least would be a huge slam dunk given that he denied it initially in open court. This gives me the feeling that they don't want to risk discovery finding more evidence in their archives.

It all just gives me a suspicion that the Estate's legal/PR teams themselves know exactly how exposed Michael is. The man had all the hallmarks of being a huge pedophile, and he had an aggressive, almost Scientology-esque zeal against criticism of any form. So it's entirely understandable why we had to wait a decade before accusers started rising up.

Also, Vulture has a good piece on the intricacies of the Estate's lawsuit against HBO:

Spoiler: Full Article

Why Michael Jackson’s Estate Is Suing HBO
By Dan Reilly

Days before the premiere of Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson’s estate filed a lawsuit against HBO. If you’ve read the headlines — some variation of “Michael Jackson’s Estate Sues HBO for $100 Million” — you might assume that the suit is aimed at debunking the accusations in Leaving Neverland that the late pop star sexually abused Wade Robson and James Safechuck when they were children. Technically, that’s true, but the lawsuit is more specifically about the violation of a single clause in a 27-year-old contract between Jackson and HBO. And, according to legal experts, it almost certainly won’t be decided with showy courtroom drama.

In reality, the Jackson estate’s suit is a petition to compel HBO into an arbitration hearing, where both sides will have the case decided by a panel of three retired judges, two selected by each side and a third agreed upon by those judges. As of now, the only step that will happen in a courtroom is scheduled for August, when a Los Angeles judge will likely tell HBO to agree to the estate’s demand that this arbitration should happen.

The suit hinges on a non-disparagement clause in a contract HBO signed in 1992 to air the live special Michael Jackson in Concert in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour. As part of that contract, the cable network agreed to “not make any disparaging remarks concerning Performer or any of his representatives, agents, or business practices or do any act that may harm or disparage or cause to lower in esteem the reputation or public image of Performer.” HBO also had to “notify and consult with Jackson and Optimum Productions if it wishes to air additional programming about Jackson.”

In the suit, the estate alleges that “HBO has disparaged Jackson’s legacy by airing a one-sided hit piece against Jackson based exclusively on the false accounts of two proven, serial perjurers.” The specific disparagement at question in Leaving Neverland, which the estate dismisses as a “fictional film,” is when Wade Robson’s mother Joy recalls Jackson not bringing Wade along on the Dangerous tour, and instead took Brett Barnes, who’s repeatedly said Jackson never molested him.

Here’s the crucial excerpt from the estate’s petition:

“The Film expressly alleges that Jackson was abusing children in connection with and on the Dangerous World Tour. For example, during one scene of the Film, Wade Robson’s mother, Joy “Joey” Robson, explains that she got very upset with Michael when he told her that he would not be taking Wade on the Dangerous World Tour. Mrs. Robson continues that she was especially upset because Michael had taken another boy and his family on the tour. Footage of the boy and Jackson on the Dangerous World Tour is then shown. Wade Robson then says that that is when he realized he had been “replaced” by that boy, i.e., any reasonable viewer would interpret that to mean that Michael Jackson was sexually abusing the boy on the Dangerous World Tour.”

As for the $100 million figure? That’s not what the Jackson estate is seeking, just what they’re saying could be awarded if arbiters rule in their favor of the contract violation. To that end, the panel would hear evidence about how much the estate stands to lose financially because of the perceived damage to Jackson’s reputation. There’s no hard and fast rule to determine that damage, just the lawyers arguing that, say, the estate will lose money because fans aren’t buying Jackson’s music and merchandise anymore because of Robson and Safechuck’s allegations in Leaving Neverland.

It’s important to note that disparagement is not the same as defamation. Suing for defamation would mean proving that HBO aired a false declaration of fact, and the network has repeatedly said the documentary was examined to ensure that didn’t happen. Disparagement, meanwhile, can cover pretty much any negative statement, even if it’s factual. If Joy Robson said something as mundane as “I didn’t like the Dangerous concert because Michael didn’t hit some high notes,” that would qualify.

As for why Jackson had this contractual zero-tolerance policy for negative criticism, the estate argues in its lawsuit, “He had also long been the subject of outrageous tabloid reporting: he slept in a hyperbaric chamber, he beat his pet chimpanzee, he bought ‘the elephant man’s’ bones, etc. Because of that, it was important to him that the people he did business with not disparage him and feed these tabloids.” (The suit also suggests that HBO aired the documentary because, under now-departed CEO Richard Plepler, the network has run out of quality original programming, “with the one exception of Game of Thrones,” but that’s really a matter of taste.)

So in that regard, according to Christine Lepera, a partner at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP who’s represented the likes of Drake and Timbaland in copyright suits, the lawsuit does have merit because of Jackson’s contract with HBO.

“Even though these particular stories may have been well-documented and well-produced elsewhere without any kind of claim brought against them for defamation, the fact that it’s HBO who’s doing it now, it’s strictly a straight shot as to whether or not the contract’s been violated,” Lepera says, also noting that the estate can’t sue another network that doesn’t have a similar contract with Jackson, such as the U.K.’s Channel 4, which aired the first part of Leaving Neverland earlier this week.

Then there’s the question of why the estate filed this petition in public, just weeks before the documentary debuted on HBO, when it could have been handled in private. The Jackson estate refused to comment on that and any other issue related to the film, but attorney Lisa Bloom — who represented Jackson accuser Jordan Chandler alongside her mother, Gloria Allred, in 1993 — believes it’s a fear-inducing stunt.

“This is just lawyer talk for them. Somebody found a contract and this clause and they probably feel very proud of themselves, and they want to come up with strong language attacking HBO,” Bloom says. “Really, it’s the Jackson estate that is talking about money and trying to protect their multibillion-dollar investment and Michael Jackson’s continuing image.”

So, what happens next? “There probably will be a response to this filed by HBO to knock it out and say there’s no need for the court to compel arbitration, there’s no dispute this is an arbitrable issue, and there are no grounds for it to be public,” Lepera predicts. “Then I would expect to have that decided within a six-month period of time, maybe.”

Given that the next hearing on this matter is scheduled for August 20, that likely means the case — if it doesn’t get dismissed — won’t be settled until 2020, long after the wall-to-wall coverage of Leaving Neverland has subsided. But even if the lawsuit is intended to make a splash while the documentary is all over the news, Pepperdine School of Law professor Barry McDonald believes this case won’t go away, no matter how long it drags on.

“The Jackson estate, they probably have a ton of money, so they’ll probably litigate this thing as far as they can: (1) to try to vindicate Jackson’s name, and (2) to try to win and get some money out of it,” he says. “If they have the resources to litigate, what do they have to lose by continuing to push it and hoping to get a favorable ruling down the road?”

Why Michael Jackson’s Estate Is Suing HBO

It all comes down to a single clause in a 27-year-old contract between Jackson and the cable network.

www.vulture.com

 

[Saffronette]

So you're suggesting these two men are in it for what? Fame? Money? Or just some malicious fun to spite burn down the legacy of the most famous musical peformer?

Because if it's the first two I just don't buy it. Who wants to be known for getting molested? Secondly I don't think there is much money to be made. I'd only reconsider if Indiegogo's start popping up.

We only know for certain that these two men had a tight knit relationship with Michael at his most famous. And I think it's incredulous to believe two men would say similarly disgusting stories with such conviction. This isn't Jussie Smollet going on daytime tv and implying he's a hero who "fought back."

I don't know how you tell you this...

Robson Child Abuse Healing And Prevention Fund - Hawaii Community Foundation

The Robson Child Abuse Healing And Prevention Fund is a Donor Advised Fund at the Hawaii Community Foundation. It was established in 2019 by Wade and Amanda Robson with a personal donation.

www.hawaiicommunityfoundation.org

Wade donated $10k to it already.

 

[XYZpdq]

But you're acting like that's damning evidence. Keep in mind there's actual convicted pedophiles that have been covered on the Farms that have much worse stuff found on them than some books that weren't even relevant.

Yeah it's probably just a misunderstanding and he had those books of naked children around to remind himself of how much he didn't like naked children.

 

[Done]

I don't know how you tell you this...

Robson Child Abuse Healing And Prevention Fund - Hawaii Community Foundation

The Robson Child Abuse Healing And Prevention Fund is a Donor Advised Fund at the Hawaii Community Foundation. It was established in 2019 by Wade and Amanda Robson with a personal donation.

www.hawaiicommunityfoundation.org

Wade donated $10k to it already.

You do realize that they don't get any money out of it, right? The fund is managed by an existing charitable foundation, which to my understanding vets the grant requests and has to send their documentation to the IRS in accordance with 503(c)3 law.

 

[Andrei Tarkovsky]

Well, regardless of what you think about MJ - whether he did or didn't do it - I think the one thing we can ALL agree on is that R. Kelly is 100% INNOCENT!

BECAUSE HE'S FIGHTING FOR HIS F**CKING LIFE AND HIS CAREER! YA'LL KILLING HIM WITH DIS SHIEET!

 

[Spatula]

If it's on TV it must be true!

 

[MrTroll]

I personally was never a fan of Michael's music, it always felt like it was being really pushed onto me for whatever reason, and I'm the type to respond negatively to things that are heavily promoted.

Didn't watch the documentary yet, but I find it really, really interesting that the Jackson Estate didn't sue the two people who actually appeared in the documentary for defamation, rather, they just sued HBO for airing the documentary and violating some contract clause from 199-whatever. You would think that Wade at least would be a huge slam dunk given that he denied it initially in open court. This gives me the feeling that they don't want to risk discovery finding more evidence in their archives.

It all just gives me a suspicion that the Estate's legal/PR teams themselves know exactly how exposed Michael is. The man had all the hallmarks of being a huge pedophile, and he had an aggressive, almost Scientology-esque zeal against criticism of any form. So it's entirely understandable why we had to wait a decade before accusers started rising up.

Also, Vulture has a good piece on the intricacies of the Estate's lawsuit against HBO:

Spoiler: Full Article

Why Michael Jackson’s Estate Is Suing HBO
By Dan Reilly

Days before the premiere of Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson’s estate filed a lawsuit against HBO. If you’ve read the headlines — some variation of “Michael Jackson’s Estate Sues HBO for $100 Million” — you might assume that the suit is aimed at debunking the accusations in Leaving Neverland that the late pop star sexually abused Wade Robson and James Safechuck when they were children. Technically, that’s true, but the lawsuit is more specifically about the violation of a single clause in a 27-year-old contract between Jackson and HBO. And, according to legal experts, it almost certainly won’t be decided with showy courtroom drama.

In reality, the Jackson estate’s suit is a petition to compel HBO into an arbitration hearing, where both sides will have the case decided by a panel of three retired judges, two selected by each side and a third agreed upon by those judges. As of now, the only step that will happen in a courtroom is scheduled for August, when a Los Angeles judge will likely tell HBO to agree to the estate’s demand that this arbitration should happen.

The suit hinges on a non-disparagement clause in a contract HBO signed in 1992 to air the live special Michael Jackson in Concert in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour. As part of that contract, the cable network agreed to “not make any disparaging remarks concerning Performer or any of his representatives, agents, or business practices or do any act that may harm or disparage or cause to lower in esteem the reputation or public image of Performer.” HBO also had to “notify and consult with Jackson and Optimum Productions if it wishes to air additional programming about Jackson.”

In the suit, the estate alleges that “HBO has disparaged Jackson’s legacy by airing a one-sided hit piece against Jackson based exclusively on the false accounts of two proven, serial perjurers.” The specific disparagement at question in Leaving Neverland, which the estate dismisses as a “fictional film,” is when Wade Robson’s mother Joy recalls Jackson not bringing Wade along on the Dangerous tour, and instead took Brett Barnes, who’s repeatedly said Jackson never molested him.

Here’s the crucial excerpt from the estate’s petition:



As for the $100 million figure? That’s not what the Jackson estate is seeking, just what they’re saying could be awarded if arbiters rule in their favor of the contract violation. To that end, the panel would hear evidence about how much the estate stands to lose financially because of the perceived damage to Jackson’s reputation. There’s no hard and fast rule to determine that damage, just the lawyers arguing that, say, the estate will lose money because fans aren’t buying Jackson’s music and merchandise anymore because of Robson and Safechuck’s allegations in Leaving Neverland.

It’s important to note that disparagement is not the same as defamation. Suing for defamation would mean proving that HBO aired a false declaration of fact, and the network has repeatedly said the documentary was examined to ensure that didn’t happen. Disparagement, meanwhile, can cover pretty much any negative statement, even if it’s factual. If Joy Robson said something as mundane as “I didn’t like the Dangerous concert because Michael didn’t hit some high notes,” that would qualify.

As for why Jackson had this contractual zero-tolerance policy for negative criticism, the estate argues in its lawsuit, “He had also long been the subject of outrageous tabloid reporting: he slept in a hyperbaric chamber, he beat his pet chimpanzee, he bought ‘the elephant man’s’ bones, etc. Because of that, it was important to him that the people he did business with not disparage him and feed these tabloids.” (The suit also suggests that HBO aired the documentary because, under now-departed CEO Richard Plepler, the network has run out of quality original programming, “with the one exception of Game of Thrones,” but that’s really a matter of taste.)

So in that regard, according to Christine Lepera, a partner at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP who’s represented the likes of Drake and Timbaland in copyright suits, the lawsuit does have merit because of Jackson’s contract with HBO.

“Even though these particular stories may have been well-documented and well-produced elsewhere without any kind of claim brought against them for defamation, the fact that it’s HBO who’s doing it now, it’s strictly a straight shot as to whether or not the contract’s been violated,” Lepera says, also noting that the estate can’t sue another network that doesn’t have a similar contract with Jackson, such as the U.K.’s Channel 4, which aired the first part of Leaving Neverland earlier this week.

Then there’s the question of why the estate filed this petition in public, just weeks before the documentary debuted on HBO, when it could have been handled in private. The Jackson estate refused to comment on that and any other issue related to the film, but attorney Lisa Bloom — who represented Jackson accuser Jordan Chandler alongside her mother, Gloria Allred, in 1993 — believes it’s a fear-inducing stunt.

“This is just lawyer talk for them. Somebody found a contract and this clause and they probably feel very proud of themselves, and they want to come up with strong language attacking HBO,” Bloom says. “Really, it’s the Jackson estate that is talking about money and trying to protect their multibillion-dollar investment and Michael Jackson’s continuing image.”

So, what happens next? “There probably will be a response to this filed by HBO to knock it out and say there’s no need for the court to compel arbitration, there’s no dispute this is an arbitrable issue, and there are no grounds for it to be public,” Lepera predicts. “Then I would expect to have that decided within a six-month period of time, maybe.”

Given that the next hearing on this matter is scheduled for August 20, that likely means the case — if it doesn’t get dismissed — won’t be settled until 2020, long after the wall-to-wall coverage of Leaving Neverland has subsided. But even if the lawsuit is intended to make a splash while the documentary is all over the news, Pepperdine School of Law professor Barry McDonald believes this case won’t go away, no matter how long it drags on.

“The Jackson estate, they probably have a ton of money, so they’ll probably litigate this thing as far as they can: (1) to try to vindicate Jackson’s name, and (2) to try to win and get some money out of it,” he says. “If they have the resources to litigate, what do they have to lose by continuing to push it and hoping to get a favorable ruling down the road?”

Why Michael Jackson’s Estate Is Suing HBO

It all comes down to a single clause in a 27-year-old contract between Jackson and the cable network.

www.vulture.com

You can't defame a dead person. And celebrities almost never win defamation cases anyway because public figures have to meet a much higher legal threshold when suing for defamation.

 

[Travoltron]

But, can someone explain to me the reasoning behind watching a documentary and making up your mind to match exactly what that documentary was telling you without looking further into the matter?

All because he just seemed creepy and hung out with kids? Really?

HE BUILT AN AMUSEMENT PARK AND ZOO AT HIS HOUSE TO LURE CHILDREN!!! At an astronomical expense not only to build it, but to hire the staff to man and maintain it! The entire compound was designed to attract children. He had alarm systems to let him know if people were approaching his bedroom. He had a collection of nude photobooks of kids.

Honestly, all this info about Michael Jackson was out there already. People should have known he was a pedo BEFORE this documentary was out.
The only thing real revelation I learned was that he would take a boy with him on every tour. I'm stunned that everyone, even the tabloids turned a blind eye to that.

 

[Andrei Tarkovsky]

At an astronomical expense not only to build it, but to hire the staff to man and maintain it! The entire compound was designed to attract children. He had alarm systems to let him know if people were approaching his bedroom. He had a collection of nude photobooks of kids.

Honestly, all this info about Michael Jackson was out there already. People should have known he was a pedo BEFORE this documentary was out.
The only thing real revelation I learned was that he would take a boy with him on every tour. I'm stunned that everyone, even the tabloids turned a blind eye to that.

"Dude looked and acted like a total creep! I mean, just LOOK at the guy! And I'm pretty sure he built himself a child-like wonderland, so it was obviously meant to lure in kids! Incredibly convincing stuff if you ask me. Also, fuck you for being unsure about the whole situation you fucking piece of shit."
Seriously? Whoa, now I'm entirely convinced.

In all seriousness, Michael Jackson owned a fucking library of countless books. Apparently in the range of 400,000. You're pinpointing the books that make him look like a pedo. I bet there is just enough material there to claim any fetish you want - that he's a foot freak, that he's a scat pervert, etc... And here I thought having a copy of Mein Kampf didn't mean I was a Nazi. Oh, how wrong was I.

He had books full of pictures of clocks, books full of pictures of landscapes, books with photos of all the works of Michelangelo, books filled with homosexual erotica, books filled with heterosexual erotica. He honestly just enjoyed artful photography, paintings and statues a lot, to an extent maybe most people have a hard time understanding. He was a high art fanatic, obsessed with ancient Greek artwork and classical music. While he was touring, his roadies used to complain because at every stop, the bus would become heavier after he visited another bookstore to buy hundreds of books and store them in cardboard boxes.

You also casually forgot to leave out the part where Michael Jackson DID have actual porn in his house. However, it was just normal, legal heterosexual porn of girls getting fucked.

Sorry, but I'm gonna need more than that man.

HE BUILT AN AMUSEMENT PARK AND ZOO AT HIS HOUSE TO LURE CHILDREN!!!

Keep screaming like an autist. Not gonna magically create concrete evidence or proof.

 

[Andrei Tarkovsky]

In other news: Sam Hyde is apparently a Neo-Nazi.

"Why?"

"Umm, I mean, he just seemed like one, okay? For fuck's sake, he supports Donald Trump! Did you even watch that show him and his Alt-Right buddies did on Adult Swim? Ya fucking idiot."

 

[Saffronette]

I'm stunned that everyone, even the tabloids turned a blind eye to that.

The tabloids were always making up stuff about Michael way before the allegations in 1993. Usually about him being "homosexual" or his plastic surgery. Afterwards the stories became so outrageous that some people actually believed them without fact checking it first.

A very key thing that people gloss over is how naive and easily trusting of people Michael was. People would often take advantage of that so that they could later turn on him and sell stories to the tabloids.

 

[Dolphin Lundgren]

But you're acting like that's damning evidence. Keep in mind there's actual convicted pedophiles that have been covered on the Farms that have much worse stuff found on them than some books that weren't even relevant.

To be fair, it's suspicious when anyone owns that boy photograph book that was made by a member of NAMBLA.
As for that foundation, I don't see what's wrong to have a foundation like that. Just because it's in his name.

 

[LN 910]

We've reached 12 pages. We are now above the age range that Michael Jackson goes for

 

[Travoltron]

You also casually forgot to leave out the part where Michael Jackson DID have actual porn in his house. However, it was just normal, legal heterosexual porn of girls getting fucked.

Yes, and he would show use it to children to get them horny. You're leaving that little bit out.

Keep screaming like an autist. Not gonna magically create concrete evidence or proof.

Yes, a grown man building amusement park and zoo full of toys and video games designed to lure children , with hidden bedrooms, porn and booze absolutely is evidence. Are you high?

The tabloids were always making up stuff about Michael way before the allegations in 1993. Usually about him being "homosexual" or his plastic surgery. Afterwards the stories became so outrageous that some people actually believed them without fact checking it first.

It was Michael himself that was feeding half these stories to the tabloids, like the oxygen chamber one and the elephant man's bones one. They say he was doing this just for publicity, but I have to wonder if maybe he just wanted to throw people off the trail off of his seedier side. And the stuff about his plastic surgeries was obviously true. I remember one time Michael flat out LIED to Oprah and said he NEVER had ANY plastic surgery and that GOD had changed his face.

 

[tyjc]

Who wants to be known for getting molested? Secondly I don't think there is much money to be made. I'd only reconsider if Indiegogo's start popping up.

You're really doubting the lengths people will go to for money? Especially millions of dollars? They already tried to sue the estate for millions and had their case thrown out. It's not even up for debate, they DID want money.

 

[MrTroll]

Yes, a grown man building amusement park and zoo full of toys and video games designed to lure children , with hidden bedrooms, porn and booze absolutely is evidence. Are you high?

tbh an amusement park and zoo full of toys, video games, hidden bedrooms, porn and booze sounds like a good time for adults too.

 

[Saffronette]

To be fair, it's suspicious when anyone owns that boy photograph book that was made by a member of NAMBLA.
As for that foundation, I don't see what's wrong to have a foundation like that. Just because it's in his name.

I doubt he actually knew who published it or even knew what NAMBLA was. Like I said it's odd that some of you are focusing on that as if it's actually evidence. He had thousands of books on all kinds of things but they tried to use those few books as a gotcha in the case. It didn't work.

I remember one time Michael flat out LIED to Oprah and said he NEVER had ANY plastic surgery and that GOD had changed his face

Well gee I watched that interview with Oprah and I remember he said that he had about 2 plastic surgeries and revealed to the world that he had vitiligo.

YouTube

youtu.be

26:48 is where he talks about it.

Yes, and he would show use it to children to get them horny. You're leaving that little bit out.

Do you have actual proof that he showed it to those kids? No don't tell me...Wade and Safechuck said it totally happened so it must be true!

 

[sperginity]

It's pretty mindboggling how few autistic ratings are being given in a thread where people keep saying "I know Michael Jackson was a pedo because I can tell from the guy in the documentary's eyes that he had been abused".

He admitted to sleeping in the same bed as unaccompanied minors and settled several sexual abuse lawsuits for millions of dollars. He has been accused at least five times of molesting children.

"Dude looked and acted like a total creep! I mean, just LOOK at the guy! And I'm pretty sure he built himself a child-like wonderland, so it was obviously meant to lure in kids! Incredibly convincing stuff if you ask me. Also, fuck you for being unsure about the whole situation you fucking piece of shit."
Seriously? Whoa, now I'm entirely convinced.

Wait are you defending michael jackson or a dude with a van that has "free candy" written on the side? Because this argument is dumb and could be applied to either case.

 

[PrincessHomura]

He admitted to sleeping in the same bed as unaccompanied minors and settled several sexual abuse lawsuits for millions of dollars. He has been accused at least five times of molesting children.

Why do you put weight on accusations but not on "not guilty" verdicts? I think these two videos do a much better job of painting the picture than proven liars in a sobstory documentary, especially considering one of them ripped his whole story from the first accuser - who was proven to have made everything up. But it's up to you if you want to watch them or not.