3T Sues Radar Online for $100 Million Over Sexual Abuse Reports

[Bubs]

Same article. The “EXCLUSIVE” and titled “***** Betrayed! Sex Perv Singer’s Family Turned Against Him In Abuse Probe.” is its main title and the "New claims relatives told cops he liked 'prepubescent' boys." is the smaller title.

Now, you forced me to click on RO because of this. I took the article from the Wade Robson thread where it was posted when it was published so that fans do not go on Radar, but now I had to go to Radar to check this out.

Ok, I thought they were two different articles.


I suppose Radar can now count 0.0001% increase for their July clicks:cheeky:

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Sick perverted Bar stewards. Those tabloid fith reporters are throwing stones to hide their hands

 

[terrell]

When there is a demand, there will be supplier. If Radar writes MJ is an angel in disguise, they wouldn't get a single click from fans, but if they write MJ is devil, fans falling over themselves running over there to defend Michael. If I remember correctly, you yourself wanted fans to go on these sites to defend Michael against the haters, but what do you really win? Nothing, but those sites wins clicks, and they see bad articles of MJ sells, so the vicious circle continues.


"The site's 20 million unique visitors and 153 million page views were up 25% and 8%, respectively, over prior year. Even more important, Radar continues to deliver a highly engaged readership – over 3.3 million users returned to RadarOnline.com at least 200 times during June, with more than 13 million returning at least 3 times per day."

Now tell me, what amount of those returning 3.3 million users were your visits:cheeky:

All the fairness, I do believe there are plenty of people who clicks those sites because the shocking headlines and out of curiosity, so I don't really blame fans - that much

And there are people on Radar who uses different names but it is the same two to three people.

 

[ivy]

This is the july 5th letter they sent to Radar Online asking for a correction

 

[HIStory]

^ Good. So it is in written form and Fields duly warned them about what false statements they have in their article - including their misrepresentation of the police report. There is no excuse for them after this not to publicly correct and retract their article. That they refused clearly proves malice on their part.

 

[Goddess4Real]

^ Good. So it is in written form and Fields duly warned them about what false statements they have in their article - including their misrepresentation of the police report. There is no excuse for them after this not to publicly correct and retract their article. That they refused clearly proves malice on their part.

Yuuuuuuuuuup cause they don't care. MJ+False malicious reports = PROFITS $$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[redfrog]

If Radar is going to claim they got the docs this way they will have to tell from whom. Maybe they will hide behind the Shield Law there, but we will see if that can be beaten in this case. I say that because this is clearly a doctored document. Someone doctored it. So it's not just a claim that someone made, but there is a doctored document. So let's see what will happen. Maybe it will be revealed who gave them to RO. Even if the source will remain anyonymous under the Shield Law and RO will blame it all on them, it was at the very least negligent from RO not to check out the veracity of the document. If we could see, for example, the 2016 dates on the added, printed pages they should have seen them too. And like I said, they were actually warned that this was not the original document. The police came out and made a statement about it I think only a day or two after RO published the document. They said there are additions that weren't in their original document. Some media reported it, did RO? Did they report Zonen's comment? Did they report the comment by the photographer of the Ramsey photo? Did they make a public correction of their original claims after they realized the added photos did not come from the books that were confiscated? Did they make a public apology when 3T asked them to? If none of that happened, there is a malicious intent there IMO that could be visible to a Court. Instead of corrections RO was busy running more damaging and false articles about MJ that week. What is that if not malice?

But with all these they slandered MJ not the nephews. MJ is not a plaintiff.
Would the judge allow these facts in court at all?

When there is a demand, there will be supplier. If Radar writes MJ is an angel in disguise, they wouldn't get a single click from fans, but if they write MJ is devil, fans falling over themselves running over there to defend Michael. If I remember correctly, you yourself wanted fans to go on these sites to defend Michael against the haters, but what do you really win?

I never said they should go to Radar's site. I was talking about mainstream sites like Huff post or Yahoo.
Once a story is in those places staying away solves nothing. It's already big news.
And posting rebuttals may influenced non-haters, casual fans and people who just click on the article out of curiosity.

I doubt many MJ fan would go to Radar or Daily Mail or the Mirror.

Nothing, but those sites wins clicks, and they see bad articles of MJ sells, so the vicious circle continues.

They sell without the fans too. Losers who read those tabloids love to hate MJ. It makes them feel superior.

 

[redfrog]

double

 

[Bubs]

Sick perverted Bar stewards. Those tabloid fith reporters are throwing stones to hide their hands

Who is Bar Stewards?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Sorry its a british way of not saying bastards but meaning that

 

[christy]

^LOL! I think 3T would get a shot at this. Trust Burt Fields, he's one of Ivy league attys out there
along with Benjamin Braffman. I wish R.O. will end the same fate as Gawker.
If Paris wants to sue, she could use her guardian to set her on the trajectory,
but seriosuly.... wishful thinking knowing her guardian is KJ,
maybe her guardian et Litem: Margaret Lodice..just thinking out loud...

 

[Bubs]

^LOL! I think 3T would get a shot at this. Trust Burt Fields, he's one of Ivy league attys out there
along with Benjamin Braffman. I wish R.O. will end the same fate as Gawker.
If Paris wants to sue, she could use her guardian to set her on the trajectory,
but seriosuly.... wishful thinking knowing her guardian is KJ,
maybe her guardian et Litem: Margaret Lodice..just thinking out loud...

She is 18, so Margaret L is not her guardian anymore, nor KJ or TJ, or is it different in California?

Sorry its a british way of not saying bastards but meaning that

It took me a while to figure out why, but eventually I got there

 

[Bubs]

What do you mean? There is no fixed amount for these things. And IMO the allegations about 3T were a lot more serious.

Who knows why the sum, but in Tom Cruise's case they "only" claimed he was a bad father. In 3T's case, however, these are much more serious and damaging allegations. They accuse MJ of a crime and they accuse certain family members of his (including the alleged victims themselves) covering-up for it and/or turning a blind eye.

I'm not an law expert by any means, but thinking of how much KJ demanded from AEG and for what the amount on demand was based, such as how much MJ would have supported her etc.
Then how much Murray would have had to pay restitution, based on how much MJ would have spend for his kids and so on .

As far as I know (Ivy, correct me if I'm wrong), 3T would have to show during the trial how those accusations damaged their career etc. To be frank, 3T is not that know and really don't do much in comparison to what Tom Cruise's career is and what accusations could do to his career.

That made me think why 100 million? What is only to cause headlines and do damage Radar or what is behind it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put down 3T attempt to at least try something, but something is out of place, but I don't know what. Second thing is that 3T don't have tons of money to get themselves into lawsuit that costs tons of money, no matter whether to win or lose, so where the money comes for this lawsuit? Is Prince behind this or is the estate backing up 3T by providing the funds for it?

I could be totally wrong with this instinct so don't take me too seriously.

 

[HIStory]

I'm not an law expert by any means, but thinking of how much KJ demanded from AEG and for what the amount on demand was based, such as how much MJ would have supported her etc.
Then how much Murray would have had to pay restitution, based on how much MJ would have spend for his kids and so on .

As far as I know (Ivy, correct me if I'm wrong), 3T would have to show during the trial how those accusations damaged their career etc. To be frank, 3T is not that know and really don't do much in comparison to what Tom Cruise's career is and what accusations could do to his career.

That made me think why 100 million? What is only to cause headlines and do damage Radar or what is behind it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put down 3T attempt to at least try something, but something is out of place, but I don't know what. Second thing is that 3T don't have tons of money to get themselves into lawsuit that costs tons of money, no matter whether to win or lose, so where the money comes for this lawsuit? Is Prince behind this or is the estate backing up 3T by providing the funds for it?

I could be totally wrong with this instinct so don't take me too seriously.

There are two types of damages in a civil trial: puntitive and compensatory damages. Radar just put out the information (that you yourself quoted in this thread earlier) that this June was their most successful month ever. Obviously a lot of it is a result of these lies. So 3T can argue that they need to be punished severly for these lies if they used them to generate the kind of success that they never had before. As for compensatory damages, you cannot only have compensation for a lie that is ruining your career. There is such a thing as personal reputation and here we have three people, not one as plaintiffs. But all in all, I don't think the sum is set in stone. The Court can decide about a smaller sum if they deem fit. This is just a number right now, I don't think we should be too hung up on.

 

[ivy]

That they refused clearly proves malice on their part.

If only it was that easy.

As I mentioned before Tom Cruise case isn't a good example. He didn't win. His deposition proved to be somewhat correct. The case settled and he got an apology but it doesn't mean that he got monetary damages. David Beckham was another example. He sued for libel when In Touch claimed he was cheating with a prostitute. He proved that the story was wrong. But the case got dismissed because judge and appeals court didn't believe it was "actual malice" on In Touch's part. They believed this woman who turned out to be lying. In other words the fault lied with the woman and not the magazine.

Here is legal standards

Celebrities, politicians, high-ranking or powerful government officials, and others with power in society are generally considered public figures/officials and are required to prove actual malice. Unlike these well-known and powerful individuals, your shy neighbor is likely to be a private figure who is only required to prove negligence if you publish something defamatory about her.

Actual Malice

In a legal sense, "actual malice" has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either

knowing that it is false; or

acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity.

It should be noted that the actual malice standard focuses on the defendant's actual state of mind at the time of publication. Unlike the negligence standard discussed later in this section, the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication. Instead, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant's state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn't like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.

Not surprisingly, this is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to establish. Indeed, in only a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation.

 

[HIStory]

Ivy, I don't know why you keep telling me the Tom Cruise case isn't a great example when I never said it was, nor did I ever say it was a similar case to this. It was a completely different case and so far in this thread I only pointed out differences - how this case differs from that.

And I know that it isn't about whether Radar Online likes MJ or the Jacksons. I think so far in my posts I made it very clear that I know they have to prove malice. And that's what I was actually focusing on in my posts. I never said it is enough if they say Radar doesn't like them or even if they prove Radar's claims were lies. What I say that IMO there IS a possibility here to prove malice, unlike in the average celebrity case. And no, I didn't mean malice=Radar not liking the Jacksons.

Let me make it clear then once again where I think malice could be proven based on exactly the legal criteria of malice, ie:

knowing that it is false; or

acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity.

1) Radar made a claim that the detetive's document stated that MJ used those 3T pics to "excite young boys".
2) The actual detective's document does not contain such a claim.
3) Although Radar tries to put this statement under the shield law by citing an unnamed private investigator as saying it, but the fact is they themselves had the document itself, so that's a reason to believe they knew the statement was false.
4) Even when they were warned about the statement being false in a letter written by Bert Fields on July 5, they showed reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity by simply ignoring the request to issue a public correction.

The difference here compared to other celebrity cases where the tabloid relies just on the words of some made-up or real source that in this case the claim was made about a document that was actually in Radar's possession and they knew what they claimed in their article was a blatant misrepresentation of what it stated. They had the document about which they made a false statement! That's the difference that may actually make it malicious. Whether it will or not, we will see, but I definitely see more potential in this case to prove malice than in most average celeb cases against tabloids.

 

[ivy]

^^

I'm not telling it to you personally. It's more of a general comment of saying Tom Cruise libel case isn't necessarily a successful one.

My last reply was addressing your comment that "refusing correction shows actual malice". According to the legal description, unfortunately it isn't the case. See below part.

It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn't like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.

I'm all for 3T filing this case, I sure hope Radar is held responsible and ordered to pay. Just it won't be easy slam dunk. Especially give how easily Radar can shift the blame to their "sources" and claim they though the "sources" were telling the truth.

 

[HIStory]

My last reply was addressing your comment that "refusing correction shows actual malice". According to the legal description, unfortunately it isn't the case. See below part.

I'm all for 3T filing this case, I sure hope Radar is held responsible and ordered to pay. Just it won't be easy slam dunk. Especially give how easily Radar can shift the blame to their "sources" and claim they though the "sources" were telling the truth.

Like I said, there is a significant difference here to cases where a tabloid just relies on a source: that Radar themselves had the actual document about which they lied. So they cannot just blame it on their source. They cannot claim they just believed him when they had the document themselves about which they knew what they put in their article wasn't in it.

No, I do not expect an easy slam dunk. It will be probably long and drawn out and it may end in a settlement because usually that's how cases like these end. I would not mind that either as long as the settlement contains an obligation for Radar to retract their story, admit it was false and that they mislead the public with it and they publicly apologize.

 

[Bubs]

I'm all for 3T filing this case, I sure hope Radar is held responsible and ordered to pay. Just it won't be easy slam dunk. Especially give how easily Radar can shift the blame to their "sources" and claim they though the "sources" were telling the truth.

Thats the thing with Radar, they keep quoting this un-named source and when it comes to prove malice, they can say "we didn't say anything but our source did".

 

[barbee0715]

Fields is John Travolta's attorney too and lambasted the press when those guys accused him of sexual advances a few years ago. Not sure if those cases went anywhere but it doesn't matter to me.
I don't care if they sue for a billion or 100 million.
I just care that they're doing something and more family members should join in. They've slandered all of them.

"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."

 

[Bubs]

Seemingly Fields is the right man for this kind of job.
Interesting and very loooooong article and Bert Fields
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/24/hollywood-ending

"Fields had been recommended to Michael Jackson by David Geffen and Sandy Gallin, Jackson’s manager, in 1990, and in 1993, when Jackson faced charges of child molestation, Fields recommended Weitzman and Johnnie Cochran as criminal-defence lawyers"

 

[Soundmind]

According to this article some judges consider that there was no source whatsoever if a publication refuses to disclose their sources. Whereas some judges do not allow publications to rely on unnamed sources in their defense to prove there was no malice on their part if they insist on keeping names confedintional. So there is a possibility radar will eventually screw its sources to protect itself because such criminals when their asses are on line they will throw everyone under the bus to save themselves.

http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-la...-and-law-spring-2007/confidentiality-catch-22

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Thats what i think. All they have to do is be told to reveal their source and let the source (if it excists) be sued instead.and if they refuse to reveal it should be presumed no source excists and the publication holds full responsibility.

 

[ivy]

Complaint file


https://www.scribd.com/document/319652929/3T-Complaint-for-Libel-against-Radar-Online

 

[Justthefacts]

According to this article some judges consider that there was no source whatsoever if a publication refuses to disclose their sources. Whereas some judges do not allow publications to rely on unnamed sources in their defense to prove there was no malice on their part if they insist on keeping names confedintional. So there is a possibility radar will eventually screw its sources to protect itself because such criminals when their asses are on line they will throw everyone under the bus to save themselves.

http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-la...-and-law-spring-2007/confidentiality-catch-22

If that happens it will be interesting.

 

[Bubs]

Complaint file


https://www.scribd.com/document/319652929/3T-Complaint-for-Libel-against-Radar-Online

I feel much better after reading that, thanks Ivy.

Fields filed libel lawsuit and that link posted here says this:
"Think your unnamed sources are protected by a state shield law? If you are sued for libel, think again."

Thumbs up that Radar gets whats coming to them.

 

[KOPV]

Radar knew this story was BS when they posted it... They can't play dumb with this one.. they took OLD 2005 court information (the story prosecution story). The only part they can play dumb is saying they did not know that the pics they showed were taken 5 years after.. which in itself is poor judgement on many levels.

That's like me handing them a pic of my d**** and saying its Michaels and them sharing it without research!

 

[ivy]

another news article

Jackson Nephews Hit Tabloid With Libel Suit
By MATT REYNOLDS
ShareThis
LOS ANGELES (CN) — Three nephews of the late pop star Michael Jackson sued celebrity gossip website Radar Online for $100 million on Wednesday, claiming the site falsely accused their uncle of molesting them and then buying their silence to avoid a criminal investigation.
Taj Jackson, TJ Jackson and Taryll Jackson — who form the pop group 3T — filed the complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court and say Radar made the "false and defamatory" allegations in several stories posted in June.
In the stories, the gossip magazine claimed that their uncle had molested his nephews, bribed them with a new car and whisked one of them off to an island, according to the nephews.
Michael Jackson died in 2009.
"In fact, although plaintiffs are Michael Jackson's 'nephews,' 'relatives' and members of his 'family,' none of them was ever sexually abused by Michael Jackson or ever had any sort of sexual contact with him. Nor did Michael Jackson ever attempt to have any such contact with any of them. None of plaintiffs ever, in, any way, resisted any effort by detectives to inquire about Michael Jackson's supposed criminal conduct," the lawsuit states.
The Jackson nephews say they were never "spirited off to any island," received a car or concealed any crimes from authorities.
They deny claims that appeared on Radar Online that Jackson had "sexy photos" of his nephews that he had used to "excite young boys," as well as the claim that a detective report revealed that the star had hoarded pornography at his Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County.
"Now that Michael Jackson can no longer defend himself or sue for libel, Radar has tried to profit by launching a vicious and unrelenting attack on him based on claims that, years ago, he was guilty of sexual abuse even though, at the time, he was found 'not guilty' of that very charge," the 10-page complaint states.
A Santa Barbara jury found Jackson not guilty of sexual abuse in 2005. The verdict came after prosecutors accused Jackson of sexually abusing a 13-year-old cancer patient.
The detective reports have been available for years, the nephews say, and Radar has "misrepresented" their content while also falsely accusing Jackson's nephews of "being accessories to Michael Jackson's supposed crimes," the filing states.
"Radar's assertions about plaintiffs' are unsupported by any facts and are provably false and defamatory," the complaint says.
American Media owns Radar, and also publishes "The National Enquirer" and "The Globe." A representative for the company told the Los Angeles Times that Radar had not accused Jackson of sexually abusing the nephews.
"The Radar article clearly states that detectives reported that Michael Jackson may have used photos of his nephews 'to excite young boys," the company told the Times. "This theory was, in fact, presented by the prosecution during Michael Jackson's 2005 criminal trial. Radar looks forward to correcting plaintiffs' misstatements in a court of law."
The nephews are represented by Bertram Fields of Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger.

 

[Doggone]

I hope that Radar Online gets sanctioned. Next lawsuit sjould be aimed at Murray. Can't wait to see him rot in prison.

 

[terrell]

There are two types of damages in a civil trial: puntitive and compensatory damages. Radar just put out the information (that you yourself quoted in this thread earlier) that this June was their most successful month ever. Obviously a lot of it is a result of these lies. So 3T can argue that they need to be punished severly for these lies if they used them to generate the kind of success that they never had before. As for compensatory damages, you cannot only have compensation for a lie that is ruining your career. There is such a thing as personal reputation and here we have three people, not one as plaintiffs. But all in all, I don't think the sum is set in stone. The Court can decide about a smaller sum if they deem fit. This is just a number right now, I don't think we should be too hung up on.

As it is done in some civil, "aim high even if you get low".