Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Haha :lol:
Haha
I bet you regret that didn't you dick head
What a dick. You really are something James.
 
That is why we can now expose the media on social media. I know I will call these media folks out even more
 
#MJInnocent top trending in the UK, the tides are turning slowly but surely! I wish a responsible media outlet would pick this up, if such an outlet exists.
 
Snek said:
#MJInnocent top trending in the UK, the tides are turning slowly but surely! I wish a responsible media outlet would pick this up, if such an outlet exists.
Click to expand...
Good. I hope they post the rulings for that to trend
 
I was dancing when i read that Safec*nt's case has been dismissed, i was so happy, especially since i was so pessimistic in earlier posts i can happily say I've been proved wrong and I am glad I have been proved wrong.
 
Truth from fans, lies from Channel 4, whose Head of News and Current Affairs is whinging mightily on Tw:

Dan Reed has been subpoenaed to supply footage/communications between himself & accusers/families for purposes of proving his doc knowingly executed a false story of child sexual abuse

It has ZERO to do with him filming LN part 2

Amend your misleading headline
Click to expand...

396hZov.jpg
 
MICHAEL JACKSON Accuser James Safechuck HAS REVIVED ABUSE LAWSUIT DISMISSED

One of Michael Jackson's "Leaving Neverland" accusers just suffered a huge defeat in court ... the judge threw out his revived lawsuit over alleged abuse.

James Safechuck's 2014 lawsuit against MJ's companies -- MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures Inc. -- was brought back to life by the State of California earlier this year ... when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law extending the statute of limitations for alleged victims.

The upshot of the judge's opinion is that Safechuck and his legal team presented no facts to support their key argument -- namely, that honchos at MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures Inc. had a legal obligation to supervise MJ's behavior in the '90s ... when he allegedly abused James as a child back then.

The judge wasn't buying it, concluding MJ was the owner and sole shareholder of both of these companies, so how could his employees rein in their own boss?

The court found that since Mike was essentially the top dog, there was no evidence his subordinates had the power to supervise him. Safechuck had also argued ... while he was hanging out with MJ, the companies served a quasi-parental role -- meaning they would have had a duty to protect him.

The judge didn't bite on that either, finding James' side didn't lay out enough facts to support that claim.

James can appeal the ruling if he wants -- as it stands, however, he's lost this case against MJ's companies.

https://www.tmz.com/2020/10/21/mich...es-safechuck-revived-abuse-lawsuit-dismissed/
 
myosotis said:
Truth from fans, lies from Channel 4, whose Head of News and Current Affairs is whinging mightily on Tw:



396hZov.jpg
Click to expand...
New york dailey news needs to change their headline as well. This shows the media is full of BS. This is why we need to call them out
 
First things first, this is great news. 1 down, 1 to go....Does anyone think James will appeal though?
 
This ruling show no one is going to use that new CA law to push lies when it is clear the accusers are liars. Justice was serve
 
Appeal confirmed (and TMZ cannot spell 'ludicrous'.) :

DcY3Vr8.jpg



and a reminder:

''A court of appeals answers the question: did the (trial) court make a legal error in deciding the case? Therefore, the court of appeals will not hear testimony from live witnesses or consider new evidence. The court reviews only the written record generated in the (trial) court — the documentary evidence admitted, the transcript of the testimony, and the affidavits and discovery materials filed with the court.''

https://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/863/
 
Last edited:
myosotis;4307282 said:
Appeal confirmed (and TMZ cannot spell 'ludicrous'.) :

DcY3Vr8.jpg
Click to expand...

Pfft. Let em’ appeal if they want, it won’t get them anywhere anyways now the truth has been out.
 
No, this ruling shows making false claims will not work when everything shows you are lying and making false claims in hopes to get a quick buck
 
PoP;4307283 said:
Pfft. Let em’ appeal if they want, it won’t get them anywhere anyways now the truth has been out.
Click to expand...
These fools are losing money now. James will have to pay to get it appeal and the chances of him winning on appeal is next to zero let alone all the lies the estate can prove. His lawyer know it as well.
 
terrell;4307287 said:
These fools are losing money now. James will have to pay to get it appeal and the chances of him winning on appeal is next to zero let alone all the lies the estate can prove. His lawyer know it as well.
Click to expand...

Well if they don’t have the $$$ to pay for an appeal, then they’re done. Like I said, they won’t get anywhere.
 
so what happens if wade is dismissed? would it means we won? or there's more to it we don't know? i remember some fans saying that we have a long way to go. so we shouldn't be too happy yet? i don't understand court etc, so.
 
NatureCriminal7896;4307294 said:
so what happens if wade is dismissed? would it means we won? or there's more to it we don't know? i remember some fans saying that we have a long way to go. so we shouldn't be too happy yet? i don't understand court etc, so.
Click to expand...

That leaves Robson’s case and the “Non-Disparagment” contract violation against HBO left. We’re happy with STABchuck’s case is dismissed. Oh yeah there’s also a defamation case against these 2 (Robson & STABchuck) in French court.
 
I honestly feel that we are out the woods because i doubt the french court gonna pass on this. so i guess we pretty much won. i'm just giving my 2 cents but we don't know. the french pretty much on michael side anyway. so....
 
Interesting that Channel 4 (who support Reed and LN) have had a 'go' at Bashir tonight, in a programme called 'Diana, The truth behind the interview'.
I'm including the story here, because it is relevant to media lies. (Channel 4 didn't mention Bashir's MJ interview, but it is well known that this 'Diana' interview was said to have led MJ to be predisposed to being interviewed for TV by Bashir, which then led to the Arvizo false allegations.)

This programme looked at how Bashir managed to get a major interview with the Princess of Wales, where she claimed that there were '3 people in her marriage', &etc.

Channel 4 claims that Bashir secured the interview with Diana, by playing on her insecurities that 'dark forces' (the men in suits) were working against her. Fundamental to this persuasion, were a number of false documents (false bank statements etc. ) that Channel 4 claims Bashir arranged to have created, which purported to show payments to informers about Diana. These documents were shown to Diana's brother Charles Spencer, who supported Diana's belief that her fears about paid informers were correct. She then went ahead with the Bashir interview, to publicise her various predicaments.

Channel 4 interviewed a barrister, who said that 'if a false document is used as an inducement to do an interview, and the interview has monetary value, then an offence may have been committed'. (The Bashir - Diana interview rights were apparently sold worldwide for over £100k).
The BBC has said that key management figures only became aware of the false documents after the Diana interview had been screened in 1992.
Bashir apparently admitted in '95 that the false bank statements were shown to Charles Spencer.

Channel 4 had asked Bashir to participate in an interview or to respond to written questions, but he declined because he is currently too unwell (apparently with Covid).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Summarised in this article:

BBC's Martin Bashir, 57, 'seriously unwell' with Covid-19 related complications

Martin Bashir is "seriously" unwell with COVID-19 related complications, according to a spokesperson from the BBC.
The 57-year-old is the BBC News Religious Affairs correspondent and has been quiet on social media in recent weeks.
The BBC confirmed Martin is very ill after contracting coronavirus.

Martin's 1995 Panorama interview with Princess Diana is covered in a Channel 4 documentary tonight.
The ethics of the interview is called into question in Diana: The Truth Behind the Interview.

The documentary alleges the reason she decided to take the BBC interview was because her brother, Earl Spencer, was shown forged bank statements created by someone working for the BBC.
The documents showed payments worth £10,500 from two companies, one of which was News International, and the other was from a company with an invented name.
The graphic designer who says he mocked up the false documents even explained on the documentary how he did it.

Andrew claimed: “Speaking to those in Diana’s circle at that time, you could get a sense why those bank statements were a tipping point that made her mind up to sit down and speak about her life.”

The BBC made a statement which acknowledged the document was shown to Earl Spencer, but said it had a letter from Diana confirming this did not mislead her into taking the interview.
But in 2007, it was claimed this letter either did not exist or had been list, which Andrew casts doubt upon.

“If they received a letter basically saying the Princess of Wales, herself, was very happy about the way the programme was made, that would bomb-proof them against any future concerns," he said.
“I find it astonishing that, according to them, this letter doesn’t exist.”

The BBC told MirrorOnline: "The suggestion of criminal activity is a serious allegation, but, in these circumstances, a risible one.

A handwritten note from Princess Diana attested to the fact the Princess had not seen the ‘mocked-up’ bank statements and that they played no part in her decision to give the interview.
"The BBC itself no longer possesses a physical copy of this note, and thus could not release it under FOI in 2007 or indeed now, but its existence is documented in the BBC’s records, and it was seen, at the time, by BBC management.

"Questions around the ‘mocking-up’ of bank statements were covered in the press a quarter of a century ago.

"BBC records from the period indicate that while we understand the documents were shown to Earl Spencer, they were not shown to the Princess of Wales and that she had confirmed that they played no part in her decision to give what was, and still is, one of the most iconic interviews of the last half of the twentieth century."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/bbcs-martin-bashir-57-seriously-22884950
 
Last edited:
Yeah just heard about bashir. What a shame. I think the mail ran article about these cheques a few weeks back. He claimed to have a brain tumour for years nothing would surprise me if it were just made up to avoid questions over the fake cheques. The devil looks after his own.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top