Latest on MJJC

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

From Motown To Your Town;4305327 said:


Will a list of who was deposed be available? I'm wondering if Crow will be brought in seeing how she ran her mouth about S and LN.
Click to expand...

Regarding Crow, I'm sure Finaldi and co. will be 'on the case' of everyone who was on tour with MJ when S'chuck was around, and will do their level best to get people to say ANYthing that might cast doubt on MJ's propriety with kids. Finaldi's team will have to scrape the bottom of every barrel to try and find something he can use. Since these two complainants are lying Finaldi will have to use whatever he can get, and will use whatever tactics he can to get it.

As to whether we will see a list of all those deposed (by both sides) - I'm not sure. Little fragments about the depos. appear in the public realm from time to time (via fans) but I'm not sure how these fans get the information. (They may be making requests to purchase the transcripts- see 2nd article below). Other information appears when the people deposed / called to deposition are accused by Finaldi of not co-operating, and brought to court for sanctions. That's how we know about Yoshi, Spence and Chandler-case people. (Not J. Chandler himself so far, sadly - it may be that he hasn't been / can't be subpoena'd in this case.)

People deposed do have right to privacy, and I found an interesting article which discusses this:
The article is mainly suggesting that people deposed may not have to answer certain questions eg if their 'financial' or 'sexual' privacy will be breached.

What makes American litigation unique is the very powerful discovery tools available to any party in the litigation. The tools include sets of written questions that must be answered under oath (interrogatories) and demands for production of documents that must be delivered to opposing parties for copying. Even more powerful is the right to compel a party or witness to appear before a court reporter and answer questions that are recorded and may be used in court (depositions.) Such depositions are often videotaped.

No other nation allows such rights to a party and conflicts over what is appropriate discovery abound in our legal system. Most cases are won or lost in discovery and since over 90% of cases settle before trial, it is in discovery that most attorneys develop the evidence to convince a mediator, settlement judge, or the other parties to make appropriate offers of settlement.

One of the areas that can be in dispute is the right of a witness or party to preserve privacy rights in the midst of such discovery. Such a right does exist, and balancing those rights with the right of a party to seek discovery of relevant evidence is the scope of this article.

Powers of the Court.
The parties may seek a protective order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 26, subdivision (c) in order to protect the relevant privacy interest. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 26, subdivision (c) states that the court “may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including:

1. Prohibiting disclosure or discovery;
2. Conditioning disclosure or discovery on specified terms, “including a designation of the time or the place”;
3. Permitting discovery be had by a method other than selected by the party seeking discovery; or
4. Limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters.
Click to expand...

https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/right-privacy-california-and-federal-discorvery

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This next article gives information about obtaining a deposition from the court- it says they need to be applied for and can be protected.
I wonder if a certain doc. maker is applying for any of the depos. in this case....?

Deposition Transcripts - Who Can Get What?
6/12/2015 | by Heather Duncan, Esq.

Unlike most trial transcripts, a deposition transcript and the audio or video of deposition testimony are not public records. All parties to a case in which a deposition is taken, as well as a deponent are entitled to obtain a copy of a deposition transcript. However, there are limitations on a third party’s right to obtain a certified copy from the court reporter.

If all parties and the deponent have stipulated, or there has been a court order, a certified deposition transcript may be provided to a third party by the court reporter pursuant to the terms outlined in the order or stipulation.

Other methods of obtaining transcripts and videos may apply to cases filed in jurisdictions outside of the California state courts.

For cases filed in California state courts, absent a court order or stipulation of all parties and the deponent, a request for a copy of a deposition transcript made by a non-party requires a 30-day notice, allowing parties the time to seek a protective order under CCP 2025.570 (b). If a protective order is not served on the deposition officer, the third party is entitled to purchase a certified copy of the transcript.

https://www.networkdepo.com/blog/Bl...ng transcripts,of the California state courts.
 
Last edited:
TSCM
@MJJRepository
WADE ROBSON CASE UPDATE: Here is a rush copy of the judge's rulings from today's hearing w/ many thanks to @andjustice4some.

FINALDI LOST across the board and in a scathing fashion from judge—ordered to PAY SANCTIONS to Fox & Spence to the tune of $6270!

http://mjjr.net/docs/2020-09-24-Hearing.pdf
12:42 AM · Sep 25, 2020
 
^ Most interesting! Thank you for posting this link.
I thought it might be helpful to include some extracts from this doc. here.

Basically, the court determined that 'fishing expeditions' into people's private lives are not consistent with privacy laws, and that evidence obtained in this way would be inadmissible anyway.

1. Plaintiff (Finaldi and Co) subpoenaed Jonathan Spence, Marion Fox, Lily Chandler, and Tabitha Rose Marks seeking to depose these parties. Non-parties Jonathan Spence and Marion Fox filed separate motions for protective orders on August 31, 2017, and October 20, 2017, respectively. Non-parties Li ly Chandler and Tabitha Rose Marks filed their joint motion for a protective order on June 12, 2017.

....Here, Wade Robson's deposition subpoena is silent as to the information it seeks from Jonathan Spence.
The deposition subpoena for Marion Fox contains two document requests: (1) "Any and all photographs in your possession. custody or control of your son. Jonathan Spence, taken while he was 3 through 18 years age;" and (2) ''Any and all photographs in your possession, custody or control depicting Michael Jackson." (See Ex. 1 to Hardman Deel. ISO Marion Fox's motion for protective order.)

....In the oppositions to the Spence and Fox motions, Plaintiff Robson states that he seeks information related to whether Spence knew or interacted with Michael Jackson during childhood and onward, including alleged sexual interactions. This information is constitutionally protected.

The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that the information sought is directly relevant to a claim or defense and essential to the fair resolution of their lawsuit. (See Alch. 165 Cal.App.4th at 1426-1427, 1433; Brit, 20 Cal.3d at 859.)

The Court sustained all objections to the Finaldi and Reilley declarations based upon hearsay, lack of foundation, lack of personal knowledge and speculation. As such, Plaintiff fails to present admissible evidence demonstrating that he seeks information from these witnesses that is directly relevant to his own claims. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden as to information sought from Spence and Fox. Even if this evidence was admissible, however, the Court would still conclude that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he seeks information directly relevant to his own claims of sexual abuse. Plaintiff's do not contend that these witnesses are percipient witnesses or have direct knowledge of his sexual abuse, but are seeking evidence that would corroborate his own allegations. This is an insufficient basis to compel third parties to discuss such highly sensitive and protect ed private information. The Court is hard pressed to identify information that is more sensitive or private than childhood sexual abuse. Even if the evidence submitted by Plaintiff was admissible, the Court would still grant Spence and Fox's motions for a protective order because the stated desire for corroboration of Plaintiff's own sexual abuse is not directly relevant to his claims or essential to the resolution of his case.

Here, non-parties Spence and Fox have shown good cause to prevent their depositions from covering topics that infringe upon their rights to privacy. Since Plaintiff has failed to show that the information sought is directly relevant, and since Fox and Spence demonstrated that Plaintiff seeks to discover information that is constitutionally protected, the motions for a protective order as to Spence and Fox are GRANTED. Fox is not required to produce the documents request in the subpoena since those requests are overly broad and irrelevant. Plaintiff may not inquire into any matters that are protected by Fox or Spence's constitutional rights to privacy, including but not limited to their medical, psychotherapeutic, and sexual histories.

...............Fox's motion for sanctions is GRANTED and Spence's motion for sanctions is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the reduced amount of $3,135.00 to Fox and $3,135.00 to Spence within 60 days of this order.
 
Last edited:
ctd.

2. Non-Party deponents Lily Chandler and Tabitha Rose Marks ("Chandler and "Rose Marks") seek a protective order precluding their depositions. Chandler and Rose Marks argue that Plaintiff served them individually with subpoenas and seeks to depose them concerning the whereabouts of Jordan Chandler, Jordan's interactions with Michael Jackson in the early 1990's, and with respect to Chandler and her families' interactions with Jackson.

...nearly four years have passed since Rose Marks and Jordan Chandler were engaged. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to depose Rose Marks as to the location of Jordan Chandler, Plaintiff cannot possess a reasonable belief that Rose Marks has information relevant to this inquiry. Furthermore, there is no dispute that Rose Marks has no direct knowledge of any conduct involving Michael Jackson and either Jordan Chandler or Plaintiff.

...Chandler declares that she is the half-sister of Jordan Chandler. (Chandler Deel. ~ 3.) She also states that she has no specific memories of any interaction with Michael Jackson even though she has seen picture of herself. Jordan Chandler, and their mother with Michael Jackson. (Id.~ 5-6.) Chandler has no memory of any individuals that might have been employed by Michael Jackson when she was a child.

....The ultimate goal appears to be for Plaintiff to find and depose Jordan Chandler for the purpose of using evidence of Jordan Chandler's sexual abuse to assist in proving his own case of sexual abuse. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to admit character evidence, it would be inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1102(a).

....The Court has balanced the privacy rights of Chandler and Rose that implicate their familial relationships as well as Jordan Chandler's alleged childhood sexual abuse history along with the inherent intrusiveness of these lines of inquiries, against the interests of Plaintiff in obtaining this information from nonparties who have no direct knowledge of any sexual abuse, including alleged abuse of Plaintiff and Jordan Chandler. As a result, the Court determines that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the compelling need for their depositions.

The motion for a protective order is GRANTED. Plaintiff cannot depose Lily Chandler and Tabitha Rose Marks in this matter.
 
Last edited:
ctd.

3. In March 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order regarding the conduct of defense counsel during the deposition of third party Leroy Whaley.

Plaintiff (Finaldi and co.) seeks $8,194.38 in monetary sanctions against Suann Macisaac and Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump & Aldisert LLP.

(Either the document is incomplete, or a ruling on this is awaited....)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall....This lawsuit just got that bit more expensive for Robson.
(But I think bankruptcy can discharge some or all court debts...)
It will be interesting to see how this case goes from here.

NB Fans on Twitter note that more monetary sanctions may follow because Finaldi refused to 'meet and confer in good faith' before requesting sanctions:

The judge refers to 2023.010 w/ intent to issue more sanctions (amount to be determined) for Finaldi's opposition to protection orders by 4 parties.

Amber Heard was dealt a similar blow in 2018 and the sanction was $6,850 (typically sanctions are $500-$1,200 per infraction).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thanks my.. for posting.i havnt had time to read the docs. Will now

Just read it. Talk about fishing. How the heck can you ask for all photographs of spence etc. Talk about crazy. Finaldi doesnt seem to get this case is about the companies not trying to find evidence of abuse.

Same re chandler. No connection to him for 4 years and lilly is supposed to remember what? as a young child. All B.S. if finaldi wanted to find J.C hire a half decent private eye.
 
Last edited:
The pre-court hearing letters from both parties have also been shared. (With many thanks to fans).

It's interesting that a partner in a major CSA legal firm with $660 million in global settlements seems to think that judges can be 'bought and paid for'. Hmmmmm??? (8th March letter p2 refers).


https://mjjr.net/docs/FinaldiEstateEmails.pdf

(All the time that I was reading about how Ms Mac got M&F so rattled that they made comments about her (obv. the kind of guys who can't cope with professional, articulate, competent women), I could hear MJ singing 'The girl was bad, The girl was dangerous... ) Go girl! :girlhappy:
 
Last edited:
The recent ruling has re-newed my faith somewhat. Seeing the opposing side get slapped with sanctions makes for some good reading for a change.
 
A fan attended the hearing last week, and has added a little bit of 'court detail' to the report above:

On the Yoshi case:
The judge commented: 'After reading the whole transcript I find (the defence lawyer's) transgressions minor. He told Finaldi 'Your speaking objections aren’t proportional and you're taking it out of context. The judge repeated this point a few times throughout the exchange, and added 'you two have 'lived' together and been on numerous cases (together)...meaning that they had worked on cases jointly before. Finaldi told the judge 'We didn’t live together'. The judge laughed and said 'I didn’t mean that literally'. His face had an expression where it was like 'Don’t you understand sarcasm' ?

(Note: I don't think the judge was being sarcastic, I just think he was just surprised Finaldi didn't follow his meaning about 'living' together ie that they are both lawyers used to working on cases involving other lawyers, including each other in the past.)

Finaldi said 'I tried to de-escalate the situation' and the judge replied 'It doesn’t sound like you were de-escalating'. Finaldi wanted to give more examples, taking long pauses to find his examples (in the transcript). The judge said 'We don’t need to read that. Finaldi said 'I gave (the defence lawyer) a warning about sanctioning her'. The judge read the law to him and told Finaldi he didn’t follow the proper procedure.

The judge told Finaldi that he found lack of civility and gender bias with his behavior; 'you belittled her experience and her appearance and I would not be doing my job if I don’t warn you if I see this kind of behavior'.

There is more but it includes various insults by Finaldi against MJ / the MJ Estate, so we don't learn anything more except about Finaldi's character and modus operandi (which I think we've already worked out ).

We know Finaldi is determined to put words in people's mouths, and make victims where there are none.

Judge: ''He has denied he is a victim then you have a problem because this affects his privacy rights. Privacy rights vs your needs this is where you fall short''.
 
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker said:
the estate has concerns about reed fliming and it will be addressed on the next hearing in october.
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting. Fans say:

'Those concerns will be heard from the Estate attorney on 16th October'. (which is the date for the Safechuck demurrer).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is part of the California Rules of Court:

The judiciary is responsible for ensuring the fair and equal administration of justice. The judiciary adjudicates controversies, both civil and criminal, in accordance with established legal procedures in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom. Photographing, recording, and broadcasting of courtroom proceedings may be permitted as circumscribed in this rule if executed in a manner that ensures that the fairness and dignity of the proceedings are not adversely affected. This rule does not create a presumption for or against granting permission to photograph, record, or broadcast court proceedings.
Click to expand...

My view: 'LN' was clearly not made by an impartial journalist. (There are many photos of the plaintiffs together with DR at award ceremonies.)

And then there's this (amusing that they called it Finding Neverland- see the top line):

AzNnGTc.jpg
 
Last edited:
From fans on Twitter with thanks:

Estate's declaration requesting $14,281.25 in sanctions against Finaldi for his failed motions (separate from $6,270 Finaldi owes Fox & Spence).

$3,912.25: Meet & confer
$1,100: Response to Ex Parte Doc
$9,200: Preparation of Opposition Papers

Finaldi will respond by Oct. 9, and the judge will issue a final sanction amount on October 16.

Often the declared amount by the judge will be lower than the amounts requested by attorneys, but he will consider all of their arguments and expenses in deciding.
 
myosotis said:
From fans on Twitter with thanks:

Estate's declaration requesting $14,281.25 in sanctions against Finaldi for his failed motions (separate from $6,270 Finaldi owes Fox & Spence).

$3,912.25: Meet & confer
$1,100: Response to Ex Parte Doc
$9,200: Preparation of Opposition Papers

Finaldi will respond by Oct. 9, and the judge will issue a final sanction amount on October 16.

Often the declared amount by the judge will be lower than the amounts requested by attorneys, but he will consider all of their arguments and expenses in deciding.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that moron Finaldi has to pay up?
 
PoP said:
Does that mean that moron Finaldi has to pay up?
Click to expand...

When the judge declares the final amount, yes indeed.

It's not a lot in the scheme of things though. This law firm works on a contingency basis so they get a percentage of every case they win (Not sure how much, but maybe 20-30% .) As a firm, they say they have won over $600 million for their clients, so 20% of that would be enough to pay a few legal bills.
 
myosotis said:
When the judge declares the final amount, yes indeed.

It's not a lot in the scheme of things though. This law firm works on a contingency basis so they get a percentage of every case they win (Not sure how much, but maybe 20-30% .) As a firm, they say they have won over $600 million for their clients, so 20% of that would be enough to pay a few legal bills.
Click to expand...

HA! Serves him right.
 
News from fans on Twitter- Finaldi and Co are trying to remove the judge. (AE Cunny is an atty for the plaintiff's law firm).
Maybe Finaldi has an alternative judge in mind....


A motion file yesterday :
Challenge To Judicial Officer - Cause (170.1/170.3) (Notice of Written Verified Statement of Alex E. Cunny, Esq. for Voluntary Recusal Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 170.3(3))
Filed by Wade Robson (Plaintiff)
Click to expand...

(it seems that this motion quotes potential conflict issues relating to the work of the judge's wife, who is an attorney. She appears to be a partner in a legal practice where she specialises in employment law, training employers in legal matters etc.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §170.1(a)(6): [A judge shall be disqualified if] (6)(A)
For any reason:
(i) The judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice.
(ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial.
(iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.


A) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. ... (2) Without conceding his or her disqualification, a judge whose impartiality has been challenged by the filing of a written statement may request any other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and act in his or her place.

California Code, Code of Civil Procedure - CCP § 170.3 ...codes.findlaw.com › ca › code-of-civil-procedure › ccp-sect-170-3

Notes to the above include:
It is important that presiding judges remind judges that unless they are disqualified, they have a duty to hear all assigned matters

For CCP §170.3, the judge’s (own) personal determination of disqualification (must be) the first step in the disqualification analysis.

Unless:
... a party files a written verified statement pursuant to Civil Procedure Code §170.3(c) declaring that all judges on the court are disqualified. Such a challenge presents a legal issue that must be resolved in the context of the litigation.

https://www.caljudges.org/docs/Ethics Opinions/Op 62 Final.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More background info. on Cal. law:

The judge or commissioner may only be challenged if he or she has not determined a contested issue of fact relating to the merits of the case. Usually, this means within ten days after a party receives notice of the judge’s assignment to the case or within ten days of the party’s appearance in court. C.C.P. § 170.6(a)(2).

....one can seek to disqualify a judge at an arraignment, on the filing of an amended information, on a hearing of a continuance of a motion, at a demurrer, at a hearing to determine competence of defense counsel, when polygraph results shown to judge, on summary revocation of probation, at a Penal Code § 1368 motion to determine defendant’s competence to stand trial or when a judge rejects a proposed plea agreement. People v. Montalvo (1981) 117 Cal.App.790, 796, 173 Cal.Rptr. 51 (in determining whether to accept or reject proposed plea bargain, judge does not determine contested issues of fact; therefore, defendant’s motion to disqualify judge who rejected proposed plea agreement was timely).

Only one peremptory challenge can be made in any one case. C.C.P. § 170.6(a)(3).

However, it is almost impossible to have a judge replaced or a case reassigned based on a claim that a judge is unfairly prejudiced against one party regardless of the case facts. In fact, judicial disqualification on due process grounds will only be found in “exceptional cases presenting extreme facts.” Such “extreme facts” must show that the probability of actual bias by a judge “is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, at 456.
In a Nutshell: One can disqualify a judge from a case when defendant can prove it is an “exceptional case with extreme facts” that “show the probability of actual bias by a judge is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.”

https://www.greghillassociates.com/when-can-one-disqualify-a-judge-from-hearing-a-case.html
 
Last edited:
From fans on twitter with many thanks for sharing:

Finaldi's latest opposition to the estate's recently filed demurrer request, relating to James Safechuck's third amended complaint.

Largely the same recycled & fallacious arguments that Finaldi desperately stretches in the name of $$$.
Click to expand...

https://mjjr.net/docs/2020-10-02-Finaldi-Response-Safechuck-Demurrer.pdf

The document insists that Chucky was a 'minor employee of defendants, who had a duty of care to protect, supervise, train, educate and warn against the forseeable dangers that they knew or should have known about.

The defendants maintained control over MJ

Intentional Infliction of emotional distress has been sufficiently pled

The negligence cause of action has been sufficiently pled

The negligent supervision cause of action ditto

The negligent retention cause of action ditto

The negligent failure to warn cause of action ditto

The breach of fiduciary duty cause of action ditto


The attached document starts:

'Defendants MJJP and MJJ V took minor children into their custody and control knowingly exposing them to an unreasonable risk....etc etc. It was their conduct that placed these children in (MJ's) home......'

They go on to assert that Defendants were entities created to, at least in part, provide for the welfare and safety of minor children' and 'Defendants employed individuals who were responsible for supervising Jackson' (!!!)

The element of control is asserted as 'Staikos once having forced Jackson to agree to fire an employee who had requested a raise'.

Section B of the doc. is curious in asserting abuse 'from June until 1992'. (No year given for June).

There appears to be no mention of Mrs Safechuck, who was with James throughout.

Basically the same old - same old that we have seen before for Robson.
 
Last edited:
Thriller_MJ said:
Starting to feel like Michael won't recover from this and that his legacy will be permanently damaged by all this. It's a shame really, seems nobody is willing to fight in his corner. It feels as if the estate will lose, in fact i would actually bet money on it if my gut feeling is right. The estate will only lose due to out-side interference in the case adding pressure onto the judge. If the estate do lose and there is a guilty verdict i'll be done with M.J for good i think. It shouldn't be this stressful being a fan of someone.
Click to expand...

Dude Darren I have known you a long time......It hurts me to see you give up so easily! You may of been too young to remember when news broke against Mike in 1993 when he arrived in Bangkok that day??? But I went to school and faced so much slander and bullying!!!!! and 12 years later I got all my peers to finally understand the MAN MICHAEL JACKSON and after watching LWMJ they was not fazed they knew he was stitched up.... After a Loooooong 5 month trial of man and complete strung up 100% innocent drawn out for the media show to dissect from every angle.To watch and hear that every day in words is totally unimaginable.But still my family and friends believed in what I believed In..Not because of Me But because what they could see in front of their eyes and thats a man totally brought to his knees against extortion! This case with WR and JS is beyond a joke....its not even a case its just more public because of social media spreads like wild fire.....But I tell you why its spreading more...its because The INNOCENT MAN aint hear to defend himself.So if you think this is hard try been here 30+ years ago,Fighting for a man you knew was INNOCENT and no one was listening to his living voice!!!!!!!!
 
Michael legacy won't be damage. there's alot people who loves michael and know he is innocent. i'm gonna admit that it does have some dents in it. but other then that his legacy is fine.

i'm with everyone here that i'm tired of it too. wade and james needs to get jobs.
 
Kingofthedancefloor said:
Dude Darren I have known you a long time......It hurts me to see you give up so easily! You may of been too young to remember when news broke against Mike in 1993 when he arrived in Bangkok that day??? But I went to school and faced so much slander and bullying!!!!! and 12 years later I got all my peers to finally understand the MAN MICHAEL JACKSON and after watching LWMJ they was not fazed they knew he was stitched up.... After a Loooooong 5 month trial of man and complete strung up 100% innocent drawn out for the media show to dissect from every angle.To watch and hear that every day in words is totally unimaginable.But still my family and friends believed in what I believed In..Not because of Me But because what they could see in front of their eyes and thats a man totally brought to his knees against extortion! This case with WR and JS is beyond a joke....its not even a case its just more public because of social media spreads like wild fire.....But I tell you why its spreading more...its because The INNOCENT MAN aint hear to defend himself.So if you think this is hard try been here 30+ years ago,Fighting for a man you knew was INNOCENT and no one was listening to his living voice!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

That's the frustrating part about all this. In my heart i know Michael is innocent but it's just so frustrating at how it always feels like an uphill battle and i guess thats what wears me down about it all.
 
What makes me angry most of all is the emotional manipulation of it all. I can't stand feeling manipulated and then that floods your head with doubts and so on and so forth. Especially when it comes to such a sensitive subject like child abuse, and as i victim myself i don't like being reminded of what happened and then have it attached to someone i consider a hero of mine leaves me feeling conflicted sometimes. But as I said in my heart i know Michael is innocent, just feels frustrating and tiring dealing with it all.
 
Thriller_MJ said:
What makes me angry most of all is the emotional manipulation of it all. I can't stand feeling manipulated and then that floods your head with doubts and so on and so forth. Especially when it comes to such a sensitive subject like child abuse, and as i victim myself i don't like being reminded of what happened and then have it attached to someone i consider a hero of mine leaves me feeling conflicted sometimes. But as I said in my heart i know Michael is innocent, just feels frustrating and tiring dealing with it all.
Click to expand...
Just remember, false claims on someone is abuse as well. image what MJ went through even help caused his death. Also, many people love MJ and some fans has to stop allowing the few people who bother MJ make you think everyone is doing it which is not true. MJ is a money maker for these folks but we now have social media and we can now tear into these folks for their lies. Wade and james and Dan are going to do whatever to try to get money. It wont work. We are even more bettet today than last year. Stop fretting and stay in prayer. It is working in MJ's favor again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top