[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Went Wade came out with he story on the Today Show that he was sexual abuse by Michael i don't think the ppls believe him for one to come out with this now and Michael has been gone for 5 years some ppls might have been saying why did he not take care of this when Michael was alive it was odd. The story did fade away you did not hear that much about it none of the news channels kept it going and now only a few TB are report it. I really do believe that Wade/James plan was to get the Estate to settled and when that did not happen the plans change by feeding this to the TB they were hoping to get the attention but that did not happen either.


I do not know what this judge is thinking but i hope he can see through Wade/James lies and the reasons why they are claiming that the statute of limitations does not apply to them. Just maybe we might hear from this judge before the holidays keeping fingers cross.

 

[HIStory]

Respect77, what exactly are you suggesting I started? You and Ivy took the leap that Safechuck’s claims would have an effect on the AEG civil trial and it is up to you both to reason that out for yourselves. I clearly never stated such.

Well, apparently you do not realize that if you say Robson's lawyers are paid by AEG then there is also a connection with Safechuck since he is represented by the very same lawyers. If these lawyers are paid by AEG then certainly their priority is to serve AEG's interest, isn't it? And to do so they could have publicized Safechuck's allegations during the trial to support AEG, but they did not.

And how does it work for you? You wonder about the whole funding of Robson's lawsuit and because we do not have information about that you make leaps to suggest that it's funded by AEG. If not having information about who funds Robson's lawyers is a reason to make conspiracy theories about AEG being behind it then the same thing is true of Safechuck. Or how do you decide that Robson would not be able to find ways to finance his lawsuit without AEG but Safechuck would? Or is it only because you realized that Safechuck does not fit your theory?

No argument has been reversed. As you stated, your issue is you do not agree with my suggestion of what AEG’s “something big” was and you want me to substantiate it despite not being able to substantiate for yourself that the “something big” is what you and Ivy suggest it to be (as you both share the same suggestion). That is an issue you will simply have to accept; neither suggestion is correct or incorrect as neither can be substantiated. Simply put, your/Ivy's guess is as good as mine.

That the "something big" thing (it would be good to find the exact quote by the way) was said about Robson is your theory. You brought this up, you are the one who needs to provide support for it. I do not have a strong opinion about what AEG meant by that, so what exactly do I have to "substantiate"? Ivy said it could have been about drug addiction - and in the context of the trial it makes sense it was about that - or it could be dozens of other things (eg. simply an empty threat to pressure the other side), but I have no strong opinion about it either way. I said I'm open to accepting your theory of it being about Robson's claims if you can provide a compelling argument for it. So far you could not. That's all.

I asked the question to see if anyone knew as this is often public knowledge on lawyers’ websites. It is rather hilarious you both would suggest such a question is out of order on a discussion board that has detailed these frivolous claims at length.

No one said it's out of order to ask questions, but you use our inability to answer an impossible to answer question to jump to conclusions about AEG funding him. That's unfair and a logical fallacy.

As no one knows the benefactor(s) – provided the lawyers are not contingency-fee lawyers – the funding source can be speculated. I speculated the source as did both of you.

No, I did not speculate about the source of the funding for his lawsuit. That was you. Robson's lawsuit can be funded several ways and that's all I claim regarding this. But if someone makes a big claim that this or that person or organization funds it and is behind his claims then to agree with it I will need evidence or at least a theory that logically makes sense. That's all.

 

[Virre]

Girls.. it´s like talking to a wall..

 

[analogue]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I came across this RARE video of Michael Jackson MANIPULATING his friend Macaulay Culkin.

notice how in 0:21 he threatened Mac he was going to KILL him!

Ladies and gentleman, this is a very dangerous man.

Well I'm convinced

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

New body language analysis by expert Susan Constantine on King Jordan show... not sure how much of this are new insights, the "My truth" part's been discussed last year and I thought it was a odd way to put it... the graphic description that came a year after the interview - I do find some of it interesting, but isn't always like that? first more general claims and then they go into details?

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I hope we hear something this week just alittle good news to give us hope.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That the "something big" thing (it would be good to find the exact quote by the way)

I can help with that.

News story about it from CNN Alan Duke

AEG Live's lawyer warned jurors that "we're going to show some ugly stuff" as he began the defense's opening statement in the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial Monday. The concert promoter has no choice to reveal Jackson's "deepest, darkest secret" because the company must defend itself from the accusation from Jackson's family that it is responsible for the pop icon's death, Marvin Putnam said.

Given I have the transcripts for the opening statement allow me to post the exact quote as well

AEG lawyer Putnam

WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF THINGS SAID TODAY ABOUT WHAT DEFENDANTS ARE GOING TO DO, AND THEY'RE GOING TO SHOW SOME UGLY STUFF. YOU KNOW WHAT? WE ARE GOING TO SHOW SOME UGLY STUFF. IT'S REALLY TRUE. AND YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY? BECAUSE A.E.G. LIVE, RANDY PHILLIPS, PAUL GONGAWARE, THEY HAVE BEEN PERSONALLY SUED FOR MICHAEL JACKSON'S DEATH. AND AS A RESULT, THEY HAD TO GO AND FIND OUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. AND AS YOU WILL SEE OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, IT'S NOT A PRETTY PICTURE; ALL RIGHT? THEY DON'T PRETEND IT IS. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO RUSH INTO THIS COURTROOM TO SHOW YOU, THEY HAVE TO, TO DEFEND THEMSELVES ABOUT WHAT WAS PUBLIC AND KNOWN, AND WHAT WAS PRIVATE AND TOTALLY UNKNOWN.

and then he continues to explain propofol, michael's alleged history and how no one knew.

I think it's important to realize that this happened during opening statement. It started with Panish Jackson lawyer in his opening statement saying "AEG will tell you Michael wanted propofol. AEG will tell you Michael was doctor shopping" etc. When it was Putnam's turn he referred to what Panish said by "they told you we will show ugly stuff" and then admitted that they will do it - during trial show it to the jurors. So both parties were referring to the trial testimony and AEG's "drug addiction" claims.

Now when you read CNN/Duke story it almost sounds like AEG lawyer got up and out of the blue promised "ugly stuff". But when you read the transcripts (which are available at other places and a summary available here) in the last 30 minutes of his opening Jackson lawyer went with "AEG will tell you Michael was broke. AEG will tell you Michael couldn't earn money. AEG will tell you Michael was an addict that wanted propofol and was doctor shopping" and then you have AEG lawyer got up and say "all of those ugly stuff Jackson lawyers said we will bring up, yes we will bring them up during testimony".

That's why I said that "ugly stuff" was a reference to the "drug addiction".

 

[Soundmind]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Tyyger, do you take it upon yourself to destroy every thread you participate in?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

New body language analysis by expert Susan Constantine on King Jordan show... not sure how much of this are new insights, the "My truth" part's been discussed last year and I thought it was a odd way to put it... the graphic description that came a year after the interview - I do find some of it interesting, but isn't always like that? first more general claims and then they go into details?

Talking about body language: it's interesting to see him in slow motion in that video. I do not place too much weight on body language analysis in proving or disproving a case, but there was always something off to me about Wade's in that Today's Show interview and also in that interview by TMZ at the airport afterwards. Just as a layperson, without doing a conscious body language analysis - he just did not come accross as genuine but very reharsed, talking in textbook terms in both interviews. I also remember noticing a little smile on his mouth when he was telling his textbook text about "speaking his truth as loudly as he could". I always found that smile odd and kind of like a cynical smile, almost as if thinking "I can't believe I'm talking all this BS" kind of smile, you know. It's at 0:34.

And his demeanour in the Today's Show interview: the way he sits with his hand between his legs. I do not know what that means in body language but it kind of looks like a defensive pose to me, not an open and genuine one.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I can help with that.

News story about it from CNN Alan Duke

AEG Live's lawyer warned jurors that "we're going to show some ugly stuff" as he began the defense's opening statement in the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial Monday. The concert promoter has no choice to reveal Jackson's "deepest, darkest secret" because the company must defend itself from the accusation from Jackson's family that it is responsible for the pop icon's death, Marvin Putnam said.

Given I have the transcripts for the opening statement allow me to post the exact quote as well

AEG lawyer Putnam

WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF THINGS SAID TODAY ABOUT WHAT DEFENDANTS ARE GOING TO DO, AND THEY'RE GOING TO SHOW SOME UGLY STUFF. YOU KNOW WHAT? WE ARE GOING TO SHOW SOME UGLY STUFF. IT'S REALLY TRUE. AND YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY? BECAUSE A.E.G. LIVE, RANDY PHILLIPS, PAUL GONGAWARE, THEY HAVE BEEN PERSONALLY SUED FOR MICHAEL JACKSON'S DEATH. AND AS A RESULT, THEY HAD TO GO AND FIND OUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. AND AS YOU WILL SEE OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, IT'S NOT A PRETTY PICTURE; ALL RIGHT? THEY DON'T PRETEND IT IS. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO RUSH INTO THIS COURTROOM TO SHOW YOU, THEY HAVE TO, TO DEFEND THEMSELVES ABOUT WHAT WAS PUBLIC AND KNOWN, AND WHAT WAS PRIVATE AND TOTALLY UNKNOWN.

and then he continues to explain propofol, michael's alleged history and how no one knew.

I think it's important to realize that this happened during opening statement. It started with Panish Jackson lawyer in his opening statement saying "AEG will tell you Michael wanted propofol. AEG will tell you Michael was doctor shopping" etc. When it was Putnam's turn he referred to what Panish said by "they told you we will show ugly stuff" and then admitted that they will do it - during trial show it to the jurors. So both parties were referring to the trial testimony and AEG's "drug addiction" claims.

Now when you read CNN/Duke story it almost sounds like AEG lawyer got up and out of the blue promised "ugly stuff". But when you read the transcripts (which are available at other places and a summary available here) in the last 30 minutes of his opening Jackson lawyer went with "AEG will tell you Michael was broke. AEG will tell you Michael couldn't earn money. AEG will tell you Michael was an addict that wanted propofol and was doctor shopping" and then you have AEG lawyer got up and say "all of those ugly stuff Jackson lawyers said we will bring up, yes we will bring them up during testimony".

That's why I said that "ugly stuff" was a reference to the "drug addiction".

Thanks Ivy.

To me the context points to "ugly stuff" being told within the trial and not something outside of it. And that would be things having to do with the subject of the trial. As we know, Robson's allegations were never mentioned at this trial.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Thanks Ivy.

To me the context points to "ugly stuff" being told within the trial and not something outside of it. And that would be things having to do with the subject of the trial. As we know, Robson's allegations were never mentioned at this trial.

and I agree. See I reported extensively on that trial. Even before trial started the motions to exclude by Jacksons were all about finances and drugs etc. and when you look to that in context Jackson lawyer referred to that ugly stuff about finances and drugs and AEG lawyer said it's true that they would bring them up. As yes it was about the trial as these statements came during opening statements said to the jurors.

To be fair not everyone followed the case before it went to trial and media reporting made them miss the context. If you read CNN story it does sound like AEG lawyer out of the blue mentioned ugly stuff. The full transcript refers back to the fact that actually it was Jackson lawyer who brought the subject up. So based on all of that I guess it was an easy leap to speculate a tie between Robson and AEG.

However if you sit down and think about it doesn't make sense. As I said before I don't see anyone being involved in an illegal conspiracy and then hinting about it / announcing it at a trial that was widely reported/followed by media and MJ fans.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Talking about body language: it's interesting to see him in slow motion in that video. I do not place too much weight on body language analysis in proving or disproving a case, but there was always something off to me about Wade's in that Today's Show interview and also in that interview by TMZ at the airport afterwards. Just as a layperson, without doing a conscious body language analysis - he just did not come accross as genuine but very reharsed, talking in textbook terms in both interviews. I also remember noticing a little smile on his mouth when he was telling his textbook text about "speaking his truth as loudly as he could". I always found that smile odd and kind of like a cynical smile, almost as if thinking "I can't believe I'm talking all this BS" kind of smile, you know. It's at 0:34.

And his demeanour in the Today's Show interview: the way he sits with his hand between his legs. I do not know what that means in body language but it kind of looks like a defensive pose to me, not an open and genuine one.

Good points. There are two things that stood out the most to me on Wade's interview:

1. His monotonic voice and overly composed\controlled demeanour. It's like he knows he will be watched by others who would try to analyze his every move and tone so he's making minimal gestures and movements. It's not his first time interview infront of camera so we can compare it to his other performances, where his he talks fluently with emotions. It's not that he sounds sad, he sound emotionless and almost robotic IMO.

2. When Matt Lauer asks him if Michael was touching him or forced Wade to touch him, he simply answers "Yes." (how's that answer for OR question? even if it's both) which even got Lauer a bit puzzled. It kind of sounded like Lauer could ask any question and Wade would just go with it. Plus, knowing now his claims include rape, his choice of words sounds too lite to me. Don't know - too 'friendly' maybe?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Good points. There are two things that stood out the most to me on Wade's interview:

1. His monotonic voice and overly composed\controlled demeanour. It's like he knows he will be watched by others who would try to analyze his every move and tone so he's making minimal gestures and movements. It's not his first time interview infront of camera so we can compare it to his other performances, where his he talks fluently with emotions. It's not that he sounds sad, he sound emotionless and almost robotic IMO.

Yeah, exactly. It's like he keeps his hand between his legs to not to allow himself any gestures or movements, to deliberately restrict his movements out of some kind of defensiveness.

 

[dannyboy72]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The smirk he did when Matt read Jermaine Jackson's comment is very interesting.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

for anyone wondering: online system still not showing robson's amended complaint

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, Respect77, your responses are more and more desperate!

As you may or may not know, sometimes the simplest answer is the best. I asked a question because I did not know the answer. This is oftentimes how questions work. Had I known the lawyer(s) name I would most likely have done the research myself. I still do not know the lawyer(s) name or if the lawyer(s) is a contingency-fee lawyer.

I wrote ONE sentence about AEG that it took you both several attempts to re-interpret and add your own meanings to for whatever your reasons. Despite that, it is one sentence and it simply means what it said. Your (multiple) words (posts) cannot change that.

You simply do not know who funds those lawyers as I do not because – as it stands – none of us know if these lawyers are contingency-fee lawyers or not. I NEVER said AEG funded those lawyers. Feel free to repost my words to that effect if you can. However; if you both do not realize that, keep reading my posts until you do understand that. While it has not happened thus far, I trust you will get there eventually.

I speculated as to who had the funding power for these lawyers and these doomed, long winded claims – provided they are not contingency fee lawyers – just as you speculated Robson/Safechuck funded these lawyers themselves. It is ALL speculation and there will be no proof of either theory. This does not automatically render one speculative theory more valid than another, i.e. your own speculative theory over any other.

What about that – your theory having no more weight than mine – makes you both so uncomfortable that you would continue to wrestle with your inner discomfort on a public forum?

By the way, “something big” has now been equated to “ugly stuff?” As long as you both agree with each other, it seems it does.

Virre, Soundmind, good to know you are reading along and have the ability to add value and insight to the topic.

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

You know somebody help me understand something who and what is this thread about again? Because all of a sudden it's not very recognizable, ice to read that had to really good information and it has turned into a conspiracy about nothing can we please not go there? Can we just stick to the facts and not people's opinions about wha AEG may or may not have done good Lord

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Had I known the lawyer(s) name I would most likely have done the research myself. I still do not know the lawyer(s) name .

Henry Gradstein and Maryann Marzano.

For future reference :

ALL the court documents list the name of the lawyers on the first page.

The very first post on this thread has "document here : http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/wade-robson-full-doc.pdf " at the end of it and if you click on the document on the top left of the first page you can see the name of the lawyers.

If you don't feel like clicking here a screenshot of it

Also a simple google search of "Wade Robson lawyer" gives the name of his lawyers. there are multiple articles with their names mentioned in it.

You are welcome. Now you can do your own research and share your findings with us.

 

[passy001]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

You know somebody help me understand something who and what is this thread about again? Because all of a sudden it's not very recognizable, ice to read that had to really good information and it has turned into a conspiracy about nothing can we please not go there? Can we just stick to the facts and not people's opinions about wha AEG may or may not have done good Lord

This is where i wished the moderators could step in and show their worth. The last 2 pages or so have been absolutely futile. Will they please clean out all these junk posts?

 

[HIStory]

I speculated as to who had the funding power for these lawyers and these doomed, long winded claims – provided they are not contingency fee lawyers – just as you speculated Robson/Safechuck funded these lawyers themselves. It is ALL speculation and there will be no proof of either theory. This does not automatically render one speculative theory more valid than another, i.e. your own speculative theory over any other.

What about that – your theory having no more weight than mine – makes you both so uncomfortable that you would continue to wrestle with your inner discomfort on a public forum?

This is what you do not seem to understand. Saying that "I do not know who funds these lawyers" or "I don't know how these lawyers are funded" is what both Ivy and me are saying. That's not a "theory". That's just saying we have no information. You are the one with a theory - ie. that AEG is behind these claims.

By the way, “something big” has now been equated to “ugly stuff?” As long as you both agree with each other, it seems it does.

The "something big" was first said by you ( http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page622?p=4065296&viewfull=1#post4065296 ), but it was not an exact quote. Ivy simply searched for the exact quote in the exact context and it turned out that it wasn't "something big", but "ugly stuff". But anyone is free to post it if there is indeed a "something big" quote.

This is my last answer to you, because others in this thread are right: this is futile.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, the lawyers’ names!

Someone with admittedly minimal interest in these faux claims minus their dismissal and admittedly failed attempts to screen posts here would not know those names or utilized the methods you listed to retrieve them.

I believe it has been confirmed no one knows the information I seek so, I will not attempt any such research. Thanks.

Respect77, you, Ivy, and I have all said that no one knows who is funding these lawyers despite our best speculative efforts. In all of the unnecessary back and forth that was at least one point that was agreed upon. (I will assume a dismissal of the claims is another but, correct me if I am wrong.)

If you do not understand that you speculated Robson/Safechuck are funding these lawyers themselves, you are still wrestling.

It was a futile back and forth of your and Ivy’s making only because you did not appreciate one sentence in my original post for whatever your reasons. Hopefully that will end now.

 

[ivy]

That's not a "theory".

I'm pretty sure tygger is referring to my post where I wrote they could be paying their own legal costs and/or lawyers could be willing to accept a case with small upfront payment if they are hoping to win or get a settlement - hence other party paying their legal costs. Those aren't theories, they are possibilities. Tygger's list of possibilities only included either lawyers are contingency lawyers or someone is funding them. However there are other possibilities as I mentioned. I have no claims or knowledge about which one is the case here.

But anyone is free to post it if there is indeed a "something big" quote.

now you are being hilarious. and so do you passy

edited to add

Ivy, the lawyers’ names!

Someone with admittedly minimal interest in these faux claims minus their dismissal and admittedly failed attempts to screen posts here would not know those names or utilized the methods you listed to retrieve them.

I believe it has been confirmed no one knows the information I seek so, I will not attempt any such research. Thanks.

Well that's your choice but I must say that I find it interesting. I understand you might have no interest in the claims but you certainly had interest in the lawyers fee schedule. So I don't get why that wouldn't be enough motivation for you to do a simple google search of "Wade robson lawyer" and see the lawyers names in the very first result. It literally takes 10 seconds to find their names. And as for court documents you don't need to read the complaint or full documents to see lawyers names. Their names are written on the top of the first page. So that too takes 10 seconds and allows you avoid the claims (click on any document link, see the lawyers names on top of first page and close the document without reading another word).

Furthermore you don't like me, you never agree with me, you never accept anything I say or any information I provide. Given that you don't trust me, I don't get why wouldn't you prefer to bypass me and gather your own information or at least check to see what I'm saying is correct. Plus always it's possible for you or someone to find out something I don't know or missed.Just because I or respect or anyone doesn't have the information you seek, doesn't mean you or anyone else can't find that information. It's your choice like I said but just odd to me.

 

[Tygger]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Ivy, I understand your use of the word possibility as opposed to speculation however they are the same for this situation; modality actually.

The remainder of your post? You also are still wrestling. As children now sing: "let it go."

Reminder: although you are trying your best to appear on-topic while airing what seems to be your personal grievances regarding my posts, tis better to resolve your issues outside the thread as your grievances are off-topic.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^
Now you are being hilarious with "personal grievances off topic". We both know all the lovely adjectives you used in the last 24 hrs to describe me and others and/or our/their posts in multiple threads. Now are you gonna act like you don't do "off topic personal grievances" in majority of your posts? I don't know who you think you are fooling but okay let's pretend.

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

for anyone wondering: online system still not showing robson's amended complaint

I wonder did he file one on Dec 16? Imo i do not think anyone came forward to said that they knew or were aware that this was happening to Wade i could be wrong.
Who know what Wade and his lawyers has up they sleeves

 

[Tygger]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Ivy, if that is how you truly feel about my posts, the report function is waiting for your use.

Let it go...

There is a question posed to you above my post. Please do not ignore this question in favor of another long-winded response in some weird effort to have the last word online. There is no value. Let it go.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I wonder did he file one on Dec 16? Imo i do not think anyone came forward to said that they knew or were aware that this was happening to Wade i could be wrong.
Who know what Wade and his lawyers has up they sleeves

I have no doubt that he filed the amended complaint by the deadline. Isn't that the one that had to be changed to negligence? That would break his case if not.
I wish we could see it.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

in some weird effort to have the last word online.

Lol I see we are still in pretending mode. okay.

Remember when you posted no one has authority to tell you what you can or cannot post here? Same applies to others as well. So I'll post about whatever I want as long as I want it. So take your own advice in every regard including not acting like you have authority to tell people what they can post, report if you have an issue and let it go yourself. Remember it's two way street honey, two way street.

 

[Tygger]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Pminton, I hope your question was answered above. I personally do not know the answer otherwise, I would have responded.

Honey, eh?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ Look, I'm almost sorry to butt in but why don't you take this to your private inbox. It looks like you're stalling in here with this personal argument on too many pages now even though nobody here said anything new. People are using this thread to get updates on the case and I couldn't give any less shit about your arguments with other members that have nothing to do with the case. I'm sorry you don't have anyone here that can help you with the AEG connection thing, but I'm sure you'll live . Thank you and I hope you have a Merry Christmas.