Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson v. Wade Robson, a new trial to be held

dam2040 said:
Been on this site since before MJ was acquitted in 2005 and it's honestly laughable at some of the utter garbage allowed on here.
Click to expand...

Cold hard facts. I'm shocked too, it's ridiculous.



This guy is talking facts too. The photo of Wade doing this can even be found too.
 
Agonum said:
Frankly, I find it concerning and sad that people on here — a Michael Jackson fan forum, for Pete’s sake! — obviously haven’t read up on this. To describe it as a “pay off” is plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Calling it a pay off is exactly what haters and detractors on Twitter say, fully implying that he bought their silence, when nothing of the sort is the case at all. But clearly some people are hell bent on calling it a pay off instead of a settlement, silly af. The definition of a pay off is something else and I explained that, yet people want to keep calling it a pay off. It's whatever to me at that point, you do you, lol.

I really don't think some people here are acting in good faith either. And I would have expected some real warnings or actually temporary or full on bans by now.
 
Last edited:
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Calling it a pay off is exactly what haters and detractors on Twitter say, fully implying that he bought their silence, when nothing of the sort is the case at all. But clearly some people are hell bent on calling it a pay off instead of a settlement, silly af.

I really don't think some people here are acting in good faith either. And I would have expected some real warnings or actually temporary or full on bans by now.
Click to expand...
Then explain what the motive of the settlement was made? Why did he settle? and after settling why was there no big criminal trial?

Now people are just shouting yes no yes no for both sides, please explain why or not is was hush money or not. Maybe we could learn something from each other instead of useless shouting at each other
 
MJImpeccable said:
Then explain what the motive of the settlement was made? Why did he settle? and after settling why was there no big criminal trial?

Now people are just shouting yes no yes no for both sides, please explain why or not is was hush money or not. Maybe we could learn something from each other instead of useless shouting at each other
Click to expand...
don't bother you cant reason with him
 
MJImpeccable said:
Then explain what the motive of the settlement was made? Why did he settle? and after settling why was there no big criminal trial?
Click to expand...
Bc Sneddon took the case to 2 grand juries and neither of them would indict Michael. It's very unusual to go to 2 grand juries, normally one is sufficient. But Sneddon chose to do it twice and it didn't work. The juries decided there was not enough evidence to go forward with a trial. The Chandlers were free to co-operate with a criminal trial if one had taken place. They clearly were not interested but, in the end, it didn't matter bc there was no trial. Not bc of anything Sneddon did, not bc of anything Michael did, but bc the grand juries threw Sneddon's application out.

MJImpeccable said:
Now people are just shouting yes no yes no for both sides, please explain why or not is was hush money or not.
Click to expand...
The facts are all there in various blogs. It's all laid out very carefully so it's easier to understand.
 
zinniabooklover said:
Bc Sneddon took the case to 2 grand juries and neither of them would indict Michael. It's very unusual to go to 2 grand juries, normally one is sufficient. But Sneddon chose to do it twice and it didn't work. The juries decided there was not enough evidence to go forward with a trial. The Chandlers were free to co-operate with a criminal trial if one had taken place. They clearly were not interested but, in the end, it didn't matter bc there was no trial. Not bc of anything Sneddon did, not bc of anything Michael did, but bc the grand juries threw Sneddon's application out.


The facts are all there in various blogs. It's all laid out very carefully so it's easier to understand.
Click to expand...
im sure sneddon did tell evan he couldve gone for criminal trial if he wanted too and sneddon wouldve tried his hardest to convince evan to go to criminal trial
 
MJImpeccable said:
Then explain what the motive of the settlement was made? Why did he settle? and after settling why was there no big criminal trial?

Now people are just shouting yes no yes no for both sides, please explain why or not is was hush money or not. Maybe we could learn something from each other instead of useless shouting at each other
Click to expand...

Michael himself said it during Diane Sawyer if I'm not mistaken. He wanted to move on with his life, with his career. He didn't want to settle at first, but he was very likely not gonna get a fair deal with the civil case going first. It's all documented on VindicateMJ and many other sites.

Why was there no big criminal trial? I really think you should ask the Chandlers that. Nothing was stopping them from doing so. A pay off to me sounds like something that happens out of court, basically illegal, to silence someone. And the definitions I've looked up on what paying off means really don't go in line with what Michael and his team did.

You don't see me shouting at anyone, you don't see me threatening to fuck someone up. I mean, wtf, aren't we all adults here?
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
Don't you talk to me btch, I'll slap you so hard that you will think MJ is still alive.
Click to expand...
Some reasons for the settlement:

(1) Even before the whole allegations started, Evan privately demanded 20 millions from Michael otherwise he would go public, Michael had lots of chances to use the deal and pay Evan the money to 'save his name for the allegations in the media'. But he didn't because Michael knew he was being extorted.

(2) The court denied Michaels request to have the criminal trial before the civil trial. The chandlers wanted the civil trial first > but why? One reason could be that, since they wanted money instead of 'justice of their molested kid', the criminal trial would show Michaels innocence, which will decrease the chances of earning money in a civil trial.

(3) When the civil trial would be first, the accusers would already know Michaels defence for the criminal trial > remember: Michael cant 'prove' his innocence, in this type of accuse its your words against the accusers. If the chandlers knew Michaels defense from the civil trial and they wanted to go to the criminal trial, they could anticipate on Michaels defense, which would result in an unfair trial.
> If I am correct, since then it is not possible to have a civil trial before a criminal trial.

(4) After the settlement, the criminal case would this proceed and Evan Chandler could still go for a criminal trial if he wanted to.

(5) In april 1994 after the Jackson criminal investigation: two grand juries disband without indicting Michael (they were not convinced). THe investigators tried to convince Jordan to still testify, but he refused.


Now for this last point, you probably argue that in the settlement, the chandlers and Michael agreed that they wouldnt go further in the criminal trial. But does this mean it was hush money to keep them quiet (hush money)?

> Or possible reason number 2: The Chandlers were out for money from the beginning (and Michael knew it was and extortion attempt), which would mean Evan Chandlers mission was accomplished. He didnt want 'justice' for Jordan, as also stated in the leaked videotapes from 1993 and demanding the 20 million before going public (point 1), he stated this was his plan all along!
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
It is all pro MJ articles so of course they will be positive.

Fans seems to move the goal posts all the time to fit their own narrative.
Click to expand...

Please explain what goal posts are being moved here. You are spouting a load of ignorant rubbish and people here are providing you with resources to research. If you don't want to do that then please log off or stay out of threads like this because your posts are annoying af to read. Thanks.
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
It is all pro MJ articles so of course they will be positive.

Fans seems to move the goal posts all the time to fit their own narrative.
Click to expand...

This is where I stop bothering with you. This website is by someone who DID do their research, you could say she dedicated her life to it. You really want to talk goal posts moving? She even has a section dedicated to talking about the more difficult subjects. Maybe go take a look at that? I am done though, you go do whatever you want.
 
MJImpeccable said:
Now for this last point, you probably argue that in the settlement, the chandlers and Michael agreed that they wouldnt go further in the criminal trial.
Click to expand...
It doesn't work like that. You don't get to choose whether a criminal trial goes forward or not. Once an accusation of child sex abuse has been made, the criminal justice system is activated. That is why Michael was investigated by Child Protection. Once JC was taken to that psychiatrist and the abuse allegation was out there the psychiatrist had no choice but to report it. He is legally and professionally required to do so. After that, it's a matter for the police. The Chandlers clearly did not want to co-operate in a criminal trial but Sneddon went ahead, anyway. Bc that is the legal requirement.

MJImpeccable said:
But does this mean it was hush money to keep them quiet (hush money)?
Click to expand...
No. It was not 'hush' money. It was a settlement.
 
Last edited:
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
This is where I stop bothering with you. This website is by someone who DID do their research, you could say she dedicated her life to it. You really want to talk goal posts moving? She even has a section dedicated to talking about the more difficult subjects. Maybe go take a look at that? I am done though, you go do whatever you want.
Click to expand...
Having been a fan vor just over 20 years, I do not need to research. I know a lot about the case.

If these 'facts' were such worldwide knowledge then perhaps MJ would not be know as an alleged Paedophile? Yet he is.
 
zinniabooklover said:
It doesn't work like that. You don't get to choose whether a criminal trial goes forward or not. Once an accusation of child sex abuse has been made, the criminal justice system is activated. That is why Michael was investigated by Child Protection. Once JC was taken to that psychiatrist and the abuse allegation was out there the psychiatrist had no choice but to report it. After that, it's a matter for the police. The Chandlers clearly did not want to co-operate in a criminal trial but Sneddon went ahead, anyway. Bc that is the legal requirement.


No. It was not 'hush' money. It was a settlement.
Click to expand...

I know that was literally the point I was making to @BuffaloBill87..

When Evan got the money he was desparatly looking for, they didnt cooperate with the criminal case. The investigators wanted Jordan to go further with the allegations, but after the settlement the Chandlers didnt want to cooperate.

So people argue if in the settlement, Michael and the Chandlers agreed that Michael would pay the money, but the Chandlers would stop the allegations and not cooperate. That that would mean that it was 'hush money'. Which is a logical reasoning.

I argue, that since Chandlers only wanted money, they were happy to accept and stop the accusations. Which was their plan all along.
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
Having been a fan vor just over 20 years, I do not need to research. I know a lot about the case.

If these 'facts' were such worldwide knowledge then perhaps MJ would not be know as an alleged Paedophile? Yet he is.
Click to expand...

Yo bro, are you also going to respond to people who actually give information to contradict your statement?
Or are you only responding to people to have a fight with them?

I thought you made some interesting points but even to me now it sounds like you just want to fight and mock people here.
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
Having been a fan vor just over 20 years, I do not need to research. I know a lot about the case.

If these 'facts' were such worldwide knowledge then perhaps MJ would not be know as an alleged Paedophile? Yet he is.
Click to expand...

The problem with only being accused of being a pedophile is you cant prove you didnt do it. Michael did not have a camera around him his whole life to say, 'look it never happened'. He has to defend himself against the words of the accusers.

People who looked into the cases will probably say that all accusers are NOT credible and they were simply looking for money. Which would mean they'd argue that Michael Jackson didn't do it.

However, most mass media already convicted Michael and even to this day, all the contradictions, all the lies told by the accusers are not reported in the media. What does this result in? Most 'normal' people might not be sure of Michaels innocence. Which is logical, I dont blame them.

If people once accuse you of being a pedophile, then the damage is done because people wont believe you.

Michael was the most easy target to accuse of child molestation. (1) He publicly admitted his (innocent) love for children, (2) he has lots of money (3) the media and people already thought he was 'weird' or 'eccentric' so they already had a form of bias against him.

So this alleged pedophile narrotive for those reasons will never go away. And this argument with where there is smoke there is fire. Yes I understand that but Michaels life story can explain a lot.

On the other hand, you can use the expression to, so if the story of the accusers is not credible (smoke) their whole story could not even or probably is not be true!
 
MJImpeccable said:
Yo bro, are you also going to respond to people who actually give information to contradict your statement?
Or are you only responding to people to have a fight with them?

I thought you made some interesting points but even to me now it sounds like you just want to fight and mock people here.
Click to expand...

Newsflash, he really isn't here in good faith, he's clearly showing that now. Not sure what those threats to the other poster was supposed to mean either, who does that? People provide him with resources but brushes them off as pro MJ. He puts the word facts in quotes, I'm done with clowns like these.

Life is too short, time is too precious to be wasting it on people who clearly don't give a shit. He doesn't take it seriously, why should we? At this point no matter what you say or show he'll just brush it off as pro MJ or acts like these aren't facts. I'm done.

And on any other forum this person would at least have been put on pause for a while, especially so for that insult and shouting "match" or whatever that childish crap was supposed to be, not to mention some other comments.
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
Having been a fan vor just over 20 years, I do not need to research. I know a lot about the case.

If these 'facts' were such worldwide knowledge then perhaps MJ would not be know as an alleged Paedophile? Yet he is.
Click to expand...
You don't even know what facts you're talking about as you refuse to read them because they are positive towards MJ (Which you seem to be implying is a bad thing for some reason?)

You're clearly just here to cause drama and annoy, please go and do something else with your time.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
I wish the estate could get Mesereau again [...]
Click to expand...
I've just started watching an interview with Tom Mesereau and about 2 mins into the interview he's just said, in his first job after law school, he started out as a civil litigator. It's a VladTV interview posted 2 years ago. Well, I took a break from all of this stuff about 2.5 years ago which explains why it looked unfamiliar to me.

I'm sure I read somewhere that MJE has Tom on retainer. I'm really hoping that he can work on this trial as an advisor. If he started out as a civil litigator that has to be a good thing, imo.
 
Folks, I have cleaned up this thread for the 3rd time. Please stay on topic, and instead of engaging with personal and hateful comments and creating more mess, please report them so that I can delete them. If this continues, I will close this thread.
 
Lightbringer said:
This is what I will remember most, totally uncalled for.

BuffaloBill87 got what he asked for, no more, no less., might not be a hater, but just dont come across as a nice person.

I welcome different viewpoints, its actually makes for better argumentation, but when Buffalo never responds to any of the details and just resorts to making sweeping statements its pointless. And also, anybody that throws in the "Mexican boys" or speaks about "6 or 7 accusers" to provoke, they are not coming from a good place to debate with.
Click to expand...
Some of my posts are provocative but I'm just far too frustrated by some of the content that I'm seeing on here.

I have an opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Does anyone know of the band The 1975? The lead singer was a massive MJ fan, he thinks he's a Paedophile.
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
Some of my posts are provocative but I'm just far too frustrated by some of the content that I'm seeing on here.

I have an opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Does anyone know of the band The 1975? The lead singer was a massive MJ fan, he thinks he's a Paedophile.
Click to expand...

Does not interest me unless he can express detailed reasons for it and also have researched all the cases. The latter part excludes about 99% of anyone discussing it.

I would never discuss R Kelly, Cosby or anyone else if were not up to date. (I am not, so I dont judge)

Most people have no idea of the reasons behind the settlement and even fewer have any clue 2 grand jurys declined to indict 6 months later. And 99% of people also do not know Jacksons mother was called to testify at the grund jury and was asked if MJ could have altered his genitals - meaning Jordan Chandlers description did not match. Anyone who dont know the specifics and have an opinion simply because of the settlement are idiots.

Does that mean the settlement did not affect MJs public perception in a bad way? No, of course it did. Thats because the only thing thats brought up is the settlement itself without any context to it. If it was a mandatory class in school to study the 1993 case for a week, that would benefit MJ massively, since everything that point to MJ being framed is never highlighted by the media, never has been and never will.

It made perfect sense to settle the civil case, in this thread only a few of the main arguments for a settlement has been discussed, there are several other arguments to settle that has not been brought up, and they are not about guilt, but simply how you conduct financial business in the best sense!
 
Last edited:
SMJJ777 said:
www.tmz.com

Michael Jackson Molestation Allegations by Wade Robson Will Go to Trial

Michael Jackson will effectively be tried for allegedly molesting choreographer Wade Robson when he was a child ... TMZ has learned.
www.tmz.com www.tmz.com

The allegations made by Wade Robson against MJ will go to trial as stated by news articles. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I'm confused. I thought they weren't allowed to sue MJJ Productions again. Wasn't the case closed last time because they had no proof plus they didn't work for MJJ Productions?
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
Some of my posts are provocative but I'm just far too frustrated by some of the content that I'm seeing on here.

I have an opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Does anyone know of the band The 1975? The lead singer was a massive MJ fan, he thinks he's a Paedophile.
Click to expand...
Thinking someone is a pedophile and proving it are two different things. You actually have to prove it. No one cares about 1975 or whatever that is.
 
zinniabooklover said:
"TMZ report explained: Normally, the tentative ruling is sent to the attorneys a day or two before it is made public. More than likely Finaldi leaked to TMZ. Tentative rulings can be changed. Oral arguments will take place on July 26. Estate will argue why this ruling is wrong. Final ruling will come out later. A few weeks to a month probably. If the final ruling is the same as the tentative, more than likely the Estate will appeal to the Supreme Court. SC only hears 5% of the cases submitted, so it's a long shot.If SC hears the case, and rules for the Estate, it's over. Wade loses. If the SC rules for Wade, it goes back to the lower court for trial.If the SC refuses to hear the case, the case will go back to the lower court for trial. If the case goes to trial, we're looking at some serious time before it happens. Possibly some time next year."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1673661337354878976
Click to expand...
Just in time to smear mud over the 15th anniversary of Michael's death...I see a pattern here...
 
brownin329 said:
Thinking someone is a pedophile and proving it are two different things. You actually have to prove it. No one cares about 1975 or whatever that is.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There was an MJ impersonator, doing it for a living if I'm not mistaken and after LN he said he believed it. That's his loss. I'm at a point now where I don't care anymore. If my favorite actor would say he believes them....good for you I say, I don't care anymore. Research is key, then we can talk.

Jamie Lee Curtis, cool actress but also sadly someone that believes a one side hit piece, with zero evidence. Then a while ago some dude called James Corddn or something was accused of something and she was in full defense. But she can't do that for MJ.....ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top