Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Channel 4 quoted again....

‘Leaving Neverland’ sequel snared in legal war with Michael Jackson estate'

The controversy is just beginning for the men behind “Leaving Neverland.”

Deadline has reported that director Dan Reed is currently filming in a Los Angeles Superior Court as Wade Robson and James Safechuck, the two men who alleged assault at Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch some 30 years ago, remain embroiled in lawsuits with the King of Pop’s legacy companies, including MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, who deny the accusations on the late entertainer’s behalf.

Reed’s plans to shoot a sequel to the explosive Emmy-winning HBO documentary have been challenged as a result of the MJJ brands seeking to entangle the director in court proceedings after serving subpoenas to the documentarian and his production company, Amos Pictures, on September 21.

Jackson’s attorneys are also seeking a ban on filming in the courtroom.

Reed’s counter motion to remove the subpoenas came last week, making clear that the LA court had little jurisdiction over the UK-based production company, while also pointing out that Robson and Safechuck have not received payment from Amos Pictures, despite the Jackson companies claims to the contrary.

“The follow-up documentary for which I am currently filming in these cases is about current events taking place partly in public view and will be an unfolding narrative with multiple points of view,” wrote Reed in his 79-page motion, adding that he had asked MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures counsel Howard Weitzman to appear in the second documentary.

“I have resolved that neither myself or anyone in my offices will participate in the documentary we all discussed for several reasons. Among them is the fact that you are already clearly on the record saying that you believe both accusers’ stories without hesitation,” Weitzman responded in an email attached to Reed’s motion.

Louisa Compton, head of news and current affairs at Channel 4, contributed a statement in support of the sequel, which is due to debut on her UK-based network.

“Understandably, the MJJ companies are not happy with ‘Leaving Neverland’ or the making of the follow-up documentary,” she said. “It is easy to see why they do not want the subject matter of these films to be reported to the public. However, as much as they may dislike the messages that are being conveyed by these documentaries, we strenuously oppose their efforts to ‘shoot the messenger.’ ”

She continued on to say that the MJJ companies’ claims to the journalist’s unpublished materials are meritless “given the strong legal protections that exist to protect freedom of expression.”

“The motives of the MJJ companies are further revealed by their attempt to ban Reed from filming in the courtroom and thereby prohibit him from getting footage to report on the proceedings,” she said, suggesting that Jackson’s legacy should have nothing to hide if their claims are true.

A hearing regarding Reed’s subpoena is scheduled for April 9, 2021.

Safechuck is now gearing up for an appeal of his case against MJJ companies over his alleged assault, which was dismissed on Tuesday by LA County Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young. Robson’s case is scheduled to go on trial June 14, 2021.

Meanwhile, HBO is fighting its own dispute with the Jackson estate after they alleged the network had breached a non-disparagement clause found in a 1992 contract for HBO’s concert special on Jackson’s “Dangerous” tour.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/21/leaving-neverland-sequel-in-legal-war-with-michael-jackson-estate/
 
Why are they saying this going to trial for wade in june 2021? That is the date set just in case it was not thrown out i thought
 
Yes that's right. Just a date set ages ago.. sh1tchuck was thrown out based on the companies not having a duty of care to him as they couldnt control mj. This is the exact same for robson regardless of whether he worked for the companies or not. So theres only one way robsons case is going aswell
 
Channel 4 is full of it. Dan BANNED to deal with the Estate for LN. Who is the one who had something to hide? Now his plans are getting expose and now want to act like he want to deal with MJ lawyer which is a front. Glad they turned him down and we need to keep exposing these liars
 
Last edited:
Rodney Jerkins Says Michael Jackson Accusers From ‘Leaving Neverland’ Should ‘Be Ashamed of Themselves’ for Suing Jackson’s Estate

Michael Jackson’s famous moonwalk helped to solidify him as one of the greatest entertainers of all time, but his astounding career was not without pitfalls. For decades, boys and men have come forward accusing Jackson of sexual abuse.

The documentary Leaving Neverland details two alleged victims’ accounts of Jackson’s abuse. Producer Rodney Jerkins says the men should be ashamed for suing Jackson’s estate.

A recap of allegations in ‘Leaving Neverland’

Leaving Neverland focuses on two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who allege they were sexually abused as children for multiple years by Jackson. Throughout the film, the men give accounts of what they say happened and how the alleged abuse impacts their adulthood.

The film premiered in two parts on HBO in the spring of 2019. It was well-received by critics, winning the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special the same year.

The film however received backlash from Jackson’s fans, with many calling the men’s stories false and questioning their validity based on their previous testimony in denial of any abuse at the hands of Jackson.

Jackson’s family also blasted the film. Per Rolling Stone, they alleged the men are money hungry. Jackson’s nephew Taj Jackson told the publication:

“We live in a world where currency is popularity — through followers, through social media — the more popular they are, the more money you’re gonna make. That’s just a fact. And it’s not a coincidence that both Wade and James have appeals going right now against the estate for hundreds of millions of dollars.”

-Taj Jackson, Rolling Stone Magazine

The Jackson estate sued HBO for breach of contract, citing a clause in a 1992 contract between Jackson and HBO and seeking $100 million from the network. The suit is still ongoing.

Rodney Jerkins slams ‘Leaving Neverland’ accusers

Jerkins produced many of Jackson’s records, including Jackson asking him to produce his final album Invincible. In a new interview with Vlad TV, Jerkins gushes about his time with Jackson and bashes Jackson’s alleged victims.

“I think allegations are merely allegations,” Jerkins begins. “I feel as though, like, for people to come out after someone dies should be ashamed of yourself. Even before all of that [Leaving Neverland], they’re just allegations — we don’t know [what happened].

Jerkins says he spent much time with Jackson producing his music and maintains he never saw Jackson participating in any inappropriate behavior with children. He also states that he never saw any young boys around Jackson while they were working together, outside of Jackson’s children.

Furthermore, Jerkins says he believes the allegations against Jackson are an attempt to jeopardize Jackson’s accomplishment.

“I really get upset when someone dies and you try to kill their legacy,” Jerkins says. “What was it that you weren’t strong enough to do it when he was alive and now that he’s under the ground [your plan is] ‘Well, let’s take him further down.’”

The Jackson family vehemently denies all claims against the late pop star. Jackson was found not guilty during all trials related to sexual abuse of children, though he did reach settlements with some parties. Jackson also denied the allegations while he was alive.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertai...of-themselves-for-suing-jacksons-estate.html/
 
NatureCriminal7896;4307528 said:
Rodney Jerkins Says Michael Jackson Accusers From ‘Leaving Neverland’ Should ‘Be Ashamed of Themselves’ for Suing Jackson’s Estate

Michael Jackson’s famous moonwalk helped to solidify him as one of the greatest entertainers of all time, but his astounding career was not without pitfalls. For decades, boys and men have come forward accusing Jackson of sexual abuse.

The documentary Leaving Neverland details two alleged victims’ accounts of Jackson’s abuse. Producer Rodney Jerkins says the men should be ashamed for suing Jackson’s estate.

A recap of allegations in ‘Leaving Neverland’

Leaving Neverland focuses on two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who allege they were sexually abused as children for multiple years by Jackson. Throughout the film, the men give accounts of what they say happened and how the alleged abuse impacts their adulthood.

The film premiered in two parts on HBO in the spring of 2019. It was well-received by critics, winning the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special the same year.

The film however received backlash from Jackson’s fans, with many calling the men’s stories false and questioning their validity based on their previous testimony in denial of any abuse at the hands of Jackson.

Jackson’s family also blasted the film. Per Rolling Stone, they alleged the men are money hungry. Jackson’s nephew Taj Jackson told the publication:

“We live in a world where currency is popularity — through followers, through social media — the more popular they are, the more money you’re gonna make. That’s just a fact. And it’s not a coincidence that both Wade and James have appeals going right now against the estate for hundreds of millions of dollars.”

-Taj Jackson, Rolling Stone Magazine

The Jackson estate sued HBO for breach of contract, citing a clause in a 1992 contract between Jackson and HBO and seeking $100 million from the network. The suit is still ongoing.

Rodney Jerkins slams ‘Leaving Neverland’ accusers

Jerkins produced many of Jackson’s records, including Jackson asking him to produce his final album Invincible. In a new interview with Vlad TV, Jerkins gushes about his time with Jackson and bashes Jackson’s alleged victims.

“I think allegations are merely allegations,” Jerkins begins. “I feel as though, like, for people to come out after someone dies should be ashamed of yourself. Even before all of that [Leaving Neverland], they’re just allegations — we don’t know [what happened].

Jerkins says he spent much time with Jackson producing his music and maintains he never saw Jackson participating in any inappropriate behavior with children. He also states that he never saw any young boys around Jackson while they were working together, outside of Jackson’s children.

Furthermore, Jerkins says he believes the allegations against Jackson are an attempt to jeopardize Jackson’s accomplishment.

“I really get upset when someone dies and you try to kill their legacy,” Jerkins says. “What was it that you weren’t strong enough to do it when he was alive and now that he’s under the ground [your plan is] ‘Well, let’s take him further down.’”

The Jackson family vehemently denies all claims against the late pop star. Jackson was found not guilty during all trials related to sexual abuse of children, though he did reach settlements with some parties. Jackson also denied the allegations while he was alive.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertai...of-themselves-for-suing-jacksons-estate.html/
Click to expand...

Thank you Rodney.
 
Regardless of what they did, you don't wish death on anyone. That is completely abhorrent and shameful behaviour and as MJ fans you should know better. Don't do it again.
 
I'm not sure who wishing death on others. but i do agree with punishment. punishment is different then death. though, i live in America and we have death penalties. but you really have to do something really bad in order to get that.
 
The Matt Blaze Show on Youtube is challenging 'MJ Haters' to debate him on the LN allegations- and he has also challenged Dan Reed to debate him on his YT channel. Matt Blaze has only 605 subscribers at the moment but he wants 1k subscribers before he goes live with this debate.

Matt is also inviting MJ fans to contact him to celebrate MJ's life, music, videos etc.
(Matt is also planning a 'Thriller' reaction video later today - he's seen the vid 'thousands' of times, so it should be interesting!)

Here's his YT invitation (The Michael Jackson Challenge):



Matt is also inviting fans to follow him on twitter:

https://twitter.com/MattBlazeShow
 
Last edited:
So, sometimes as TV management changes over the years, and as public opinions change - decisions can come back to haunt documentary makers. Maybe DR should take note? :

BBC confirms it will launch new investigation into alleged subterfuge used to clinch Princess Diana interview

The BBC has performed a U-turn as it confirmed it will investigate new allegations concerning the “dishonest” manner in which it secured its historic Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales.

Earl Spencer, the Princess’s brother, has demanded a full BBC inquiry into the alleged subterfuge used by Martin Bashir, the interviewer, as he sought to win her trust.
He has handed over a “dossier” of evidence to the BBC which he said illustrated the full gamut of underhand methods adopted by Bashir, including the use of forged bank statements and the concoction of fantastical stories that played on the Princess’s insecurities.
The Earl described an internal 1996 inquiry into the allegations, overseen by Lord Hall, who went on to become director general, as a “whitewash”.

Documents released under Freedom of Information laws have revealed that Lord Hall told BBC governors at the time that “there had been no question of Bashir trying to mislead or do anything improper” and that he was “an honest man.”

The BBC has since admitted that Bashir, 57, who is now the corporation’s religious affairs correspondent, did fake bank statements but insisted they were not instrumental in securing the interview.
It has now acknowledged that the journalist's behaviour was wrong.

Tim Davie, the BBC’s director general, apologised to Lord Spencer about Bashir’s methods last month but declined to open a formal investigation.

However, the corporation has come under mounting pressure to take action and the Earl lambasted its failure to accept "the full gravity of this situation” amid increased publicity surrounding the 25th anniversary of the historic interview, in which the Princess famously declared: “There were three of us in this marriage.”

In a letter sent to Mr Davie, he said he would never have introduced Bashir to the Princess had he not been shown the forged statements purporting to show that several royal courtiers were in the pay of the security services, and criticised his “sheer dishonesty”.
He said Lord Hall had never contacted him when investigating the issue in 1996 and asked why the BBC had “bent over backwards to whitewash Bashir”.
He also demanded an apology for himself, the viewing public and his sister, who were “so grossly lied to”.

The BBC had earlier claimed it could not investigate further because Bashir is seriously ill with complications arising from coronavirus.
However, it has now vowed to pursue the matter when he is better.

It said in a statement: “The BBC has apologised. We are happy to repeat that apology.
“And while this was a quarter of a century ago, we absolutely will investigate - robustly and fairly - substantive new information.

“We have asked Earl Spencer to share further information with the BBC. Unfortunately, we are hampered at the moment by the simple fact that we are unable to discuss any of this with Martin Bashir, as he is seriously unwell. When he is well, we will of course hold an investigation into these new issues.”

Despite apparently confirming in 1996 that Bashir had engaged in subterfuge, the journalist remained at the BBC and, after leaving to pursue a career in America, he returned to the UK and was rehired as the corporation’s religious affair’s correspondent in 2016.

BBC sources insisted he had “applied through an open competition, in which he was successful” and that “nobody looked at his file from 25 years ago.”

Despite previous assertions that Mr Bashir had done nothing untoward, one source revealed that at the time Bashir "understood he was wrong and was contrite about it".

The original investigation is understood to have centred almost solely on a letter said to have been written by the Princess, in which she absolved Bashir of any blame, claiming she had not been shown any bank statements and had not been misled.
That letter, seen at the time by BBC management, has now mysteriously disappeared.

BBC sources close to the Panorama team told the Telegraph that they were all “gobsmacked and astonished” when Bashir was re-hired by the BBC.
One said: “It was known, within a relatively tight circle, what he was up to at the time. It didn’t sit comfortably with anyone.

“BBC guidelines allow subterfuge if there is a prima facie case of misbehaviour and it is in the public interest but this was about as far from that justification as you can get.

“For Hall, who knew everything, to allow him back to the BBC is quite something.”

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/roya...rview/ar-BB1aEz2s?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout
 
There's an interesting article here that details all the ways that journalism has gone wrong in recent years, not least in 'chasing prizes'. The article starts with discussing a writer (Relotius) who literally made up stories for years, and no-one ever fact-checked them. He then goes on to discuss the wider failings of journalism. It's a long article (from 27 Dec 2018 - not long before 'LN' burst on to the scene...) so I'll just include a few extracts below:

The Spiegel Scandal and the Seduction of Storytelling
by Jeff Jarvis

The German journalism world is grappling with the implications of a shocking scandal at Der Spiegel: An award-winning, 33-year-old reporter — no, a fabulist and a fraud — named Claas Relotius made up article after article with stunning and audacious contempt for truth....

But the Germans are digging deeper into the essence of journalism, questioning the perils of the seduction of the narrative form; the misplaced rewards inherent in professional awards; the risk to credibility for the institution in the time of “fake news;” the need for investigative self-examination in media; and more.

The perils of the story and storyteller
.....I hear journalists say their primary role is as storytellers. No. I hear them say their task is to fill a product — a newspaper or magazine or show. No. Our job is to inform the public conversation.
.....Fichtner’s explanation of the cause: “Anyone who has such material as a reporter, anyone who has a talent for drama, can spin gold out of it like in a fairy tale. Relotius has the talent. He invents the material. .....

The perils of prizes and self-congratulation
...The larger problem here is that our measurements of success are royally f****d up. On the business side, we value volume for volume’s sake — circulation, audience, pageviews, clicks, CPM — which, as I like to say, inevitably leads to cats and Kardashians and ultimately to clickbait made flesh, Donald Trump. On the editorial side, we value attention to us — most read, most clicked, most emailed, time spent. All of these metrics are mediacentric, egocentric. Our measures of success should instead be set by the public against its needs and goals. If anyone’s going to give journalism prizes, let it be the communities we serve.

As for the artful, rich, perfect story that is made to win awards: Leave it behind. Says Holger Stark in Die Zeit: “The Relotius affair is not the end of reportage. But the artform of flawless, over-perfumed reportage, which deceives readers and pretends it can tell the fate of the world in one person with the figure of the omniscient-authoritative narrator, which pops and smokes and sparks — that cinematic artform must now, at last come to an end…”

A failure of fact-checking
Monika Bauerline said: (An) Up and coming rockstar journo produces stories that are candy to editors—nicely written, amazing access, great color, AND importantly, confirmation for editors’ preexisting assumptions.

Another writer (Niggemeier) says Der Spiegel’s fabled Dok — documentation (research or fact-checking) department — too often relied on the credibility of the reporter. He says these systems are built to pick up the error of the busy reporter who’s sloppy or hurried or merely human, not the work of a fraud. This is an indicator of a closed system that verifies trust by trusting itself. ......

To be clear: Facts are the essence of journalism. Fact-checking is vital. I’ve been arguing that in Journalism schools, we need to do more to teach as a skill verification of both facts and of what people are saying in social media. But in the end, we must remember that facts themselves are a system that can be manipulated. See Kellyanne Conway’s inadvertent epiphany about alternative facts.......

Investigate thyself

Had it not been for the diligence of one of Relotius’ Spiegel colleagues, Juan Moreno, the fraudster might still be quoting unicorns. Working alongside Relotius on a story, Moreno’s spidey sense prickled and he tried to alert his editors. They all but threatened Moreno with firing if his allegations did not pan out. Dogged, as a reporter should be, Moreno took a trip to the U.S. and, without the company’s approval, found some of Relotius’ sources, who all said they’d never been interviewed. After risking his own job, Moreno is now a hero.

In Die Zeit, Prof. Pörksen says Moreno engaged in something too rare in Germany (and I’d say anywhere): investigative media reporting............

Says Ramelsberger in the Süddeutsche: “We can learn from all this. First of all: Journalists are not artists, they are mostly ordinary craftsmen. Second, they must serve the truth and not their own glory. Third, they have a task. They are the … so-called garbage collectors of the fact world who document, question, and doubt. From this come no articles that glitter on all sides like disco balls. But the reputation of journalism and the mission it has in society helps the solid story more than stories that are too good to be true.”

Oh, I hear some saying, but because of the internet, we have fewer resources and so doing good work becomes only harder; we can’t afford fact-checking and investigation and wisdom. No. This is why we must prioritize our work with our mission. Give up the fluffiest of our fluff. Stop copying each other just to churn out our own page views. End our quest for the perfect compelling, attention-grabbing, prize-winning narrative. Put our resources behind the job that matters: doing our part to assure a civil, informed, and productive public conversation.

https://buzzmachine.com/2018/12/27/the-spiegel-scandal-and-the-seduction-of-storytelling/
 
I have no plans on watching that piece of crap. I just wonder what Elizabeth Taylor would be saying about that "documentary" if she was alive today.
 
Anna said:
Thread cleaned. Please stay on topic.
Click to expand...

^ I understand why that has been done, but personally I think the parallels between the cases were worth discussing in this thread, since they both relate to a British TV company which commissioned a documentary maker to make an 'interview' film about the same person. Both documentary makers subsequently went to court and both declined to answer questions under the shield laws. One of the documentary makers has subsequently been 'exposed' as dishonest, and is being investigated by the TV company which employed him. I thought that showed a route to Reed's possible future. The Bashir events suddenly in the news were not a turn of events that anyone planned, but shed light on TV journalism and film makers, and their similar histories with Michael. I'm sad that a short detour in this direction was not permitted, in the same way that for example when discussing one song of Michael's another might be raised for comparison purposes. I hope I'll be forgiven for adding this comment, but sometimes an overarching narrative develops from a single topic unexpectedly.

I'd be grateful to know where the 'Bashir' comments have been moved, so that discussion about his film and relationship can be continued? (I've had a quick look but can't see the new thread...)
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but this thread is already massive enough without branching into completely separate topics which aren't actually related to LN. The posts weren't moved they were deleted because there wasn't a thread for them to be moved to. If you want them moved to a new thread you can start one in the Anything Goes section and I will migrate them over.
 
https://mobile.twitter.com/NeverlandFacts/status/1348445571334377472

Dorothy bryne who commissioned L.N for channel 4 confirms her vicious biast hatred for mj in a recent podcast. Her words are quite something!!! Talk about showing your colours. where they admit they had been planning this since 2009.

Contact details for the podcast in the tweet replies. Im sure the estate will "enjoy" using her words against HBO?
 
Leaving Neverland Facts
@NeverlandFacts
·
9h
Here is a link to the podcast with Channel 4's Dorothy Byrne. https://thismediatribe.com/dorothy-byrne/ Exposes their previous story as BS as to how Dan Reed and Channel 4 came to end up doing Leaving Neverland. They were determined to smear Michael since the day he died.
 
elusive moonwalker;4315186 said:
Leaving Neverland Facts
@NeverlandFacts
·
9h
Here is a link to the podcast with Channel 4's Dorothy Byrne. https://thismediatribe.com/dorothy-byrne/ Exposes their previous story as BS as to how Dan Reed and Channel 4 came to end up doing Leaving Neverland. They were determined to smear Michael since the day he died.
Click to expand...
She can be exposed just like anyone else. we do not have to take this no more.
 
I really think most people outside the fan community has forgotten about this stupid doc.

I even think most people didn't believe it. - so many wrong and bizarre stories - it was so obviously to get attention they made this.
The train-station story said it all. - You could never mix that so much up. - He clearly said when it happend, how old he was - and he perfectly descriped a trainstation that was only bulid years later... - had you really been molested you would never remember so crucial details so wrong.

This hole doc was bizarre, outrages, crazy and stupid.
 
And the channel 4 head who commissioned it hates mj guts so will continue with the b.S aided and abetted by their jobs for the boys and girls friends in the media.
 
Channel 4 is just a bunch of racist pigs. singer Sting was accused last year and a law suit is pending on him and this UK channel said nothing about it. I will continue to expose these racist media people as well. What happen at the Capitol is not limited to Trump. There are alot of Trump thinkers even in the media. And look at who mostly want to believe these liars all because they are white
 
Some people in the UK got a problem with black people and i thought America was bad. racism is everywhere but everytime hear about it it always from that country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top