Michael Jackson’s Estate Challenges IRS in Tax Dispute

King Of Pop's Ex-Manager Says Brands Lined Up Before Death


Law360, Los Angeles (February 16, 2017, 8:15 PM EST) -- Michael Jackson’s former manager Tohme Tohme took the stand at the IRS’ behest Thursday in the Los Angeles trial over the value of the late entertainer’s estate at the time of his death, testifying that Nike, Sony and others had licensing deals in the works when Jackson died.

During the second week of the trial before visiting Judge Mark Holmes of the U.S. Tax Court, the Internal Revenue Service began its case in chief, arguing that the estate underreported its value, including Jackson’s name and likeness rights, by hundreds of millions of dollars at the time of the King of Pop's death in June 2009. So far in the trial, the estate has put on percipient and expert witnesses to testify that child abuse allegations against Jackson rendered his image poisonous for brands and that he had no name and likeness licensing deals in place when he died.

On Thursday, the IRS called to the stand onetime Jackson manager Tohme, who has previously been sued by the estate for allegedly tricking the entertainer into entering extortionate management agreements. Tohme testified about his time managing the entertainer from mid-2008 until Jackson’s death in June 2009.

Under examination by IRS attorney Sebastian Voth, Tohme testified that there were numerous deals in the works before Jackson’s death, including a plan with Nike to create “Moonwalk” sneakers named for Jackson’s famous dance move, a plan with James Nederlander of The Nederlander Organization to create a Broadway show based on the music video for Jackson’s song “Thriller,” a plan with animation producer Andy Heyward to create a “Thriller” TV show, a plan with Sony to create a Jackson-themed video game, and the beginnings of plans with Cirque du Soleil to create a Jackson-themed show.

While no deals were actually signed for the Nike shoes or the Sony video game, Tohme testified that the companies had given the go-ahead for the projects, and that they only fell by the wayside because of Jackson’s death.

The present case has its origins in a petition Jackson’s estate sent to the Tax Court in July 2013, challenging a lengthy notice of deficiency the IRS mailed to the estate that month. The notice contested the estate’s reported valuation of a litany of items, including a 2001 Bentley Arnage and rights to the master recordings of the Jackson 5.

According to the notice, the IRS adjusted the value of the estate from $7 million to $1.32 billion. As a result, the agency demanded $702 million, including $505.1 million in deficiencies and $196.9 million in accuracy-related penalties.

The most notable discrepancy between the competing valuations as highlighted in the notice included the right to Jackson’s image and likeness. The IRS originally pegged that asset at $434.3 million, whereas the estate had claimed the right was worth only $2,105.

In the runup to the trial, the IRS continued adjusting its proposed value of the estate, increasing the assessed value of Jackson's Mijac music catalog — which held the singer's own songwriting copyrights — by tens of millions of dollars, but revising its proposed value of Jackson's name and likeness upon his death to $161 million.

During last week’s opening statements, Avram Salkin of Hochman Salkin Rettig Toscher & Perez PC, representing the estate, said that at the time of Jackson's death, his estate was burdened with over $400 million in debt and that the name and likeness rights were worth only $3 million. Salkin also said that the IRS had overvalued the Mijac catalog by roughly $90 million and Jackson's half-share of music publishing company Sony/ATV by $200 million. Jackson's estate sold that share to Sony for $750 million last year.

On Thursday afternoon, the estate’s attorney Howard Weitzman of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP cross-examined Tohme, asking him to name any actual licensing deals he knew Jackson had at the time of his death, with Tohme admitting only Jackson’s musical licensing deals with Sony and Warner/Chappell were in place.

On the claimed Cirque du Soleil plans, Weitzman also got Tohme to admit that he spoke only to a man named Jack Wishna, who claimed to know Cirque's interests, before Jackson’s death, but never actually spoke to a confirmed Cirque du Soleil representative nor signed any deal for the performing troupe to use Jackson’s name, likeness or music.

After Jackson’s death, the estate did end up working with Cirque du Soleil to create two Jackson-themed shows that grossed hundreds of millions of dollars for the estate, according to testimony earlier in the trial by Jackson’s former attorney John Branca, who is the estate’s co-executor.
 
The IRS final numbers are still not being reported, except their final evaluation of three assets.
But how much tax and penalties do they want? What about the other assets? Are the settled values more or less than what the
IRS originally claimed?
How much taxes and penalties do they demand for those items?

While no deals were actually signed for the Nike shoes or the Sony video game, Tohme testified that the companies had given the go-ahead for the projects, and that they only fell by the wayside because of Jackson’s death.

If no deal then no money. They cannot tax money which he didn't earn. They cannot tax hypothetical money.


Michael Jackson’s estate on Wednesday called a business appraisal expert to testify at the Los Angeles tax trial over the estate's value at Jackson’s death, with the expert testifying that child molestation allegations had plunged the singer's publicity rights into “nuclear winter,” reducing their value to just $3 million.

Did he even earn 3 million with his name and likeness? How?


Michael Jackson’s Image Was In ‘Nuclear Winter’: Expert

vs

King Of Pop's Ex-Manager Says Brands Lined Up Before Death

nick-young-confused-face-300x256_nqlyaa.png
 
Last edited:
Under examination by IRS attorney Sebastian Voth, Tohme testified that there were numerous deals in the works before Jackson’s death, including a plan with Nike to create “Moonwalk” sneakers named for Jackson’s famous dance move, a plan with James Nederlander of The Nederlander Organization to create a Broadway show based on the music video for Jackson’s song “Thriller,” a plan with animation producer Andy Heyward to create a “Thriller” TV show, a plan with Sony to create a Jackson-themed video game, and the beginnings of plans with Cirque du Soleil to create a Jackson-themed show.

Tohme is a hustler; if he could have got any of these contracts signed, he would have (he was MJ's 'manager' for over a year??). This is the guy who arranged for the contents of Neverland to be put up for auction, ultimately costing MJ $1m in compensation to the auctioneers when the sale was cancelled.

Most of these 'talks about deals' relate to MJ's music. The catalogues are so valuable because of their commercial value in deals like this. As to the proposed Nike 'Moonwalk' sneakers...well, why wasn't the contract signed?? (If signing was that close- only 'not signed because MJ died' - wouldn't there be draft contracts or other similar paperwork as evidence?) I don't think Nike need to pay anyone for the use of the word 'moonwalk'...I don't think MJ licensed or trademarked it? So they would have to be 'MJ moonwalk' sneakers to warrant a payment to MJ. But Tohme doesn't say why the contract wasn't signed before MJ embarked on his O2 residency, which was only a few weeks away. I don't think this adds anything to the arguments in court about the value of MJ's 'name and likeness' as at 25 June 09. I don't think the court can give a value to discussions about things that might have happened 'maybe , sometime, never'.
 
Last edited:
If no deal then no money. They cannot tax money which he didn't earn. They cannot tax hypothetical money.

Did he even earn 3 million with his name and likeness? How?


http://i2.kym

It is not only the question if he had likeness deals at time of his death but also what a firm would have given for the rights when Michael hypthetical did offer his imagae and likeness-rights for sell and the firm can use them for whatever they want.

_________-
So far I think it is not going bad in trial for the Estate.. The Tohme deposition seems not very helpful for the IRS.
 
Michael Jackson's Ex-Manager Takes the Stand in Tax Trial
Tohme Tohme's testimony could foreshadow an ugly trial ahead in his own legal fight with Jackson's estate.
Getty Images
Tohme Tohme and Michael Jackson

Tohme Tohme's testimony could foreshadow an ugly trial ahead in his own legal fight with Jackson's estate.
Describing the relationship between Michael Jackson's estate and his ex-manager Tohme Tohme as adversarial is putting it mildly, and that tension was on full display Thursday as he took the stand in a trial over the King of Pop's taxes.

Tohme, a former Colony Capital consultant, began working with Jackson in 2008 when he coordinated the buyout of a loan on Neverland Ranch. He says Jackson brought him on because of his relationship with Colony CEO Tom Barrack and, as a finder's fee of sorts, he was to receive 10 percent of the total value of the loan. At the time, he says he was receiving $20,000 a month in consulting fees from Colony — plus a share of the deals in which he was involved.

The $23 million loan buyout allowed Jackson avoid foreclosure on the ranch and sealed Tohme's position as the entertainer's manager. Since 2012 he's been involved in a contentious legal battle with Jackson's estate over his pay. (More on that later.)

He was called as a witness by the IRS, presumably, to show that Jackson had business suitors in the time leading up to his death despite allegations of child molestation — which the estate claims hurt his brand and diminished the value of licensing his name and image. Tohme specifically mentioned prospects of a "Moonwalker" shoe deal with Nike and a Broadway musical based on Jackson's songs.

Jackson estate attorney Howard Weitzman pulled no punches during his cross-examination of Tohme, making it quite clear his goal was to impeach him as a witness.

After going through the potential list of deals Tohme had mentioned and pointing out that none had come to fruition, Weitzman turned his attention to a series of documents that suggest Tohme was terminated in the spring of 2009. Tohme claims he worked with Jackson up until his death, but the estate has held that he was fired several months before that.


READ MORE
Michael Jackson Estate Faces Billion-Dollar Tax Court Battle
Jackson's ex-manager has been known to go by "Dr. Tohme," which led Weitzman to ask him about his résumé. Did he attend medical school? No. Did he have a Ph.D. in economics? No.

Weitzman then asked why Tohme had said during a deposition in a previous case, in which he was a witness, that he held those degrees.

"You tortured me in the media," Tohme said, claiming that the estate hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on him and that the P.I. visited a woman he was briefly married to decades ago. "The reasons for these answers is I don't want you to know. I'm a very highly educated person. I speak many languages. I don't know what else to tell you."

The transcripts of that deposition were admitted to the record following an objection from the IRS, but only for the purposes of impeachment. The topic came up so often during Tohme's questioning that during a recess he asked someone in the hall what "impeachment" meant and why Weitzman kept saying it.

Tohme got a brief break while noted theater producer James L. Nederlander took the stand to discuss the never-launched Thriller play. But when Weitzman called Tohme back for round two he turned up the heat, asking him about his replacement by Frank DiLeo. Tohme's exasperation was clear as he angrily asked, "Who’s on trial here, me or the estate?"

Eventually, Weitzman brought up the estate's pending litigation with Tohme. "Did you ultimately file a lawsuit against the estate?" he asked. "Yes," said Tohme. He then noted to Weitzman that he's been seeing him in court for several years and added coyly, "I like your company." U.S. Tax Court Judge Mark Holmes took full advantage of the lighter moment to quip, "You’re under oath."

Chuckles echoed through the courtroom, as they would a few minutes later when Holmes had another burst of wit after Weitzman's final question.

Weitzman: Why do they call you Doctor?
Tohme: Why do they call me a doctor? You have to ask whoever calls me a doctor.
Weitzman: Is it in the same vein as Dr. J (Julius Erving) or Doc Holliday?
Holmes: Doc Holliday was a real doctor.
Weitzman: You don't have to answer.

Tohme decided to leave the matter "for another time" — which could likely be mere months from now during his own trial against the estate.

After Wietzman finished, IRS attorney Sebastian Voth pointedly asked Tohme about their relationship. “Is it fair to say that you and the estate have a very contentious relationship?" asked Voth. "Yes," answered Tohme.

The legal fight between Tohme and the estate dates back to 2012, when a pair of dueling lawsuits were filed. At the center of the dispute is whether Tohme's work near the end of Jackson's life was for the superstar's benefit or his own. They also dispute whether he is entitled to the $2.3 million from the Neverland Ranch loan and a share of the revenue that has been earned since Jackson's death.

Trial is currently set for October and, if Tohme's time on the stand Thursday is any indication, there will likely be fireworks in the courtroom.
 
^ I wish the report had included more about J Nederlander's testimony.

I'm also curious that the Estate lawyer is characterised as wanting to impeach Tohme. Is that better (having his testimony negated) than showing that he has NO credible evidence in this case? Tohme's tactic in court seems to be to provide no concrete evidence and to avoid straight answers. I think the October trial will be 'hard work'. I hope that the Estate have been able to make a super-watertight case against him for that trial.
 
It is not only the question if he had likeness deals at time of his death but also what a firm would have given for the rights when Michael hypthetical did offer his imagae and likeness-rights for sell and the firm can use them for whatever they want.

Which means exactly what I said: they want to tax hypothetical money.
Noone even offered to buy MJ's name and likeness rights let alone actually buy them.
Now they can say anything about what someone would have done but didn't do.
It's beyond unfair to demand taxes on revenue which never existed. It's like demanding income taxes on income you never had. Just absurd.

As for Thome he is one of those creatures who make me wonder how MJ could hire such crooks in the first place.
Schaffel, Bob Jones, Blanca Francia, McManus, Cachon, Abdul, Murdoch, the Quindoys, the Lemarques,
the two Germans, Murray, Bashir, Arnold Klein ... looking and listening to these creeps for 30 seconds would set off my bullshit artist radar but MJ didn't detect anything until it was too late.
 
Last edited:
Zia Modabber testified (MJ fired him for negligence during the Awran case but now he is the Estate's lawyer) Modabber with the help of Weitzman dragged MJ through the mud. He even claimed that MJ once overdosed on painkillers
which I never heard from anyone before. Estate is throwing whatever they can at MJ to establish that he was worth virtually nothing before he died.


This fan is in the courtroom every day and tweeting live about the testimonies.
https://twitter.com/TeamMichael777


She confronted Modabber after he left the courthouse, Modabber
was not happy about it:
https://twitter.com/TeamMichael777/status/831321583411093504

I can't decide which side is the bigger crook, Branca/Weitzman or the IRS.
Sony ATV with hundreds of thousands of songs was worth 1.1 billion in 2009. But IRS thinks
MIJAC with about 500 songs was worth 114 million?


Only shi* like this could happen to mj. You really couldnt write a script like this. His own "side"having to try to crap on him as much as poss inorder for mj to "win" just glad ive heard nada about this in the media. It never ends does it.

What a arrogant pr*** thome is
 
Last edited:
I swear i could slap them all to hell if i ever see any of them!
 
Only shi* like this could happen to mj. You really couldnt write a script like this. His own "side"having to try to crap on him as much as poss inorder for mj to "win"


If this really happened it perfectly illustrates your point. This is beyond absurd.


book2.jpg



I don't like this judge. I have a gut feeling he will allow the IRS to rob Mj's kids. I hope I'm wrong.
 
If this really happened it perfectly illustrates your point. This is beyond absurd.


book2.jpg



I don't like this judge. I have a gut feeling he will allow the IRS to rob Mj's kids. I hope I'm wrong.



Wow, aren't judges supposed to be impartial?
This guy doesn't sound very professional and his comments really sound as though the judge is on the side of the IRS.
 
Wow, aren't judges supposed to be impartial?
This guy doesn't sound very professional and his comments really sound as though the judge is on the side of the IRS.

'Selling many records' and 'was one of the greatest entertainers' aren't huge predictors of 'name and likeness value in June 09', which is the issue at trial. This isn't about the catalogue value.
 
You should really stop to follow Taaj Malik /TeamMichael Jackson.

Unfortunately there is noone else there who reports from the courtroom and the media's report
can be just as biased. I take Taj's tweets with a grain of salt but based on his pre trial actions
I can imagine that this judge made those one sided remarks.


'Selling many records' and 'was one of the greatest entertainers' aren't huge predictors of 'name and likeness value in June 09', which is the issue at trial. This isn't about the catalogue value.

The value of MIJAC is also at issue not just the name and likeness.
 
When I read about the IRS trial, besides Money by MJ I think of this song :no:

 
Abuse Claims 'Overblown' In Jackson Tax Trial: IRS' Expert

Law360, Los Angeles (February 23, 2017, 10:52 PM EST) -- An intellectual property expert testified for the IRS on Thursday that the damage child molestation allegations did to Michael Jackson's name and likeness rights has been “overblown” in the Los Angeles trial to determine if Jackson's estate owes the IRS hundreds of millions of dollars for undervaluing its assets.

During the third and final week of the trial before visiting U.S. Tax Judge Mark Holmes, the IRS called to the stand intellectual property expert Weston Anson, chairman of Consor Intellectual Asset Management, to explain some of the details behind his report concluding Jackson's publicity rights were worth $161 million at the time of his death. The value of those publicity rights, also known as name and likeness rights, has been hotly contested in the estate’s dispute with the IRS, with the estate's own expert Jay Fishman saying the rights were worth only $3 million at the time of Jackson’s death in 2009.

Under examination by IRS attorney Sebastian Voth, Anson discussed a wide range of potential licensing opportunities he had considered available to Jackson's estate when assembling his expert opinion, including video games, slot machines, a potential themed hotel or casino, and posthumous appearances — similar to the use of a “hologram” of deceased rapper Tupac Shakur at the music festival Coachella in 2012.

Anson then addressed what has been a key topic for the various name and likeness experts opining in the case: the allegations, first in 1993, and then in 2003, that Jackson had molested young boys, and the ultimate impact those allegations would have had on the value of Jackson's name and likeness at the time of his death. The estate's expert, Fishman, testified last week that the allegations put Jackson's image in “nuclear winter,” saying that allegations involving harming children are anathema for the brands that might otherwise pay to use a celebrity's image.

Anson, however, testified that while he wouldn't have taken his son to a Michael Jackson-themed hotel in 1995, by 2009 the situation had changed, after Jackson was acquitted on all counts in a 2005 trial on the latter allegations, and said that testimony in the tax trial had shown that apparel and entertainment licensing opportunities were available for Jackson before his death. Anson added that the value of the rights would only have grown for the estate, noting that he was once told that “the greatest client in the world is a dead celebrity.”

“I think the child molestation issue is just frankly overblown,” he said. “In a way, Michael Jackson will forever be a young man with a great talent whose talent never degraded, and for that reason will always have a marketable name and likeness.”

Jackson’s estate had petitioned the tax court in July 2013, challenging a lengthy notice of deficiency the IRS mailed to the estate that month. The notice contested the estate’s reported valuation of a litany of items, including a 2001 Bentley Arnage and rights to the master recordings of the Jackson 5.

According to the notice, the IRS adjusted the value of the estate from $7 million to $1.32 billion. As a result, the agency demanded $702 million, including $505.1 million in deficiencies and $196.9 million in accuracy-related penalties.

The most notable discrepancy between the valuations of the parties as highlighted in the notice included the right to Jackson’s image and likeness. The IRS originally pegged that asset at $434.3 million, whereas the estate had claimed the right was worth only $2,105.

In the run-up to the trial, the IRS continued adjusting its proposed value of the estate, increasing the assessed value of Jackson's Mijac music catalog — which held the singer's own songwriting copyrights — by tens of millions of dollars, but revising its proposed value of Jackson's name and likeness upon his death to $161 million.

During opening statements on Feb. 6, Avram Salkin of Hochman Salkin Rettig Toscher & Perez PC, representing the estate, said that at the time of Jackson's death, his estate was burdened with over $400 million in debt and that the name and likeness rights were only worth $3 million. Salkin also said that the IRS had overvalued the Mijac catalog by roughly $90 million and Jackson's half-share of music publishing company Sony/ATV by $200 million. Jackson's estate sold that share to Sony for $750 million last year.

Jackson's estate is represented by Avram Salkin, Charles Paul Rettig, Steven Richard Toscher, Robert S. Horwitz, Edward M. Robbins Jr., Sharyn M. Fisk and Lacey E. Strachan of Hochman Salkin Rettig Toscher & Perez PC; Paul Gordon Hoffman, Jeryll S. Cohen and Loretta Siciliano of Hoffman Sabban & Watenmaker APC; and Howard L. Weitzman of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP.

The IRS is represented by its attorneys Donna F. Herbert, Malone Camp, Sebastian Voth, Jordan Musen and Denise Larson.

The case is Estate of Michael J. Jackson et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, case number 17152-13, in the U.S. Tax Court.
 
Abuse Claims 'Overblown' In Jackson Tax Trial: IRS' Expert

I would falsely accuse this "expert" of molesting three kids let's see how "overblown" he would think it is.
Those abuse claims were directly responsible for his huge debt, his inability to perform as he used to,
the lack of sponsors, the decline in record sales. IRS is trying to rewrite history.


Anson discussed a wide range of potential licensing opportunities he had considered available to Jackson's estate when assembling his expert opinion

Then the IRS should get potential money not real money OK?


and posthumous appearances

Let's just pretend his death didn't make any difference.

Anson, however, testified that while he wouldn't have taken his son to a Michael Jackson-themed hotel in 1995,

Translation: just another scumbag who hates that MJ made that much money and does his part to take it away from his Estate.


by 2009 the situation had changed, after Jackson was acquitted on all counts in a 2005 trial on the latter allegation

Bullshit. The 2005 trial made things worse not better.
 
Last edited:
This is rather surreal.we spend years,decades saying the opposite now we basically have to go against mj attack how he continued and survived inorder for mj to "win" the case.

Its like a paralell universe. Inorder to defend mj we have to support or want the IRS to win.????
 
This is rather surreal.we spend years,decades saying the opposite now we basically have to go against mj attack how he continued and survived inorder for mj to "win" the case.

Its like a paralell universe. Inorder to defend mj we have to support or want the IRS to win.????????

It is surreal but the Estate should just present hard facts not make up bogus overdose stories. They should just remind the IRS and the judge how the American and British media treated MJ between 2003-2009. I don't think any objective person ever denied
that the Chandlers/Arvizo, Sneddon&Co. and the media destroyed his reputation and that was directly responsible for the lack of endorsement deals and his growing debt.
That doesn't mean we support what his enemies did. We just point out how brutal their attacks were.
 
I agree they have gone below the belt with some major B.S but at the end of the day the estate just want to win and we know they dont have the personal "intrest" that we do. Throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the person they are supposed to represent shows that. At the end of the day its all about business to them.you dont become businessmen like them by taking on things in a personal way or caring on a personal level. Its the joys of capitalisim for you. For them to care like us or the kids is a eutopian dream. Aint gonna happen.mj is a business to them like hes a cashcow to the jacksons.
 
Last edited:
. At the end of the day its all about business to them.you dont become businessmen like them by taking on things in a personal way or caring on a personal level. Its the joys of capitalisim for you. For them to care like us or the kids is a eutopian dream. .

What does you mean about not caring about the kids. How would you as a fan argue in the process, knowing Michael's children must pay the bill?
 
Sorry i think you miss read or maybe i wasnt clear. I ment the estate caring about defending mj on a personal level like the fans and his kids do. Not about the estate not being bothered about them.
 
:mad:How dare they drag the 93' and 03' allegations into this case? The IRS b@$^@#%$ have gone too far this time.:mad:
 
:mad:How dare they drag the 93' and 03' allegations into this case? The IRS b@$^@#%$ have gone too far this time.:mad:

Actually the IRS are doing their best to pretend that those allegations were no big deal.
Now Branca allegedly said that the CURRENT abuse claims are negatively affecting the Estate's earnings.
Really? And what exactly did Branca do to counter those claims? Nothing. It makes you wonder whether
they intentionally refused to fight against those lies in the media, the very place where it matters as no one gives
a shit about the actual court documents except hard core fans.

MJ's Estate is controlled by those who don't give a shit about his reputation and may have even
let horrendous slander go unchallenged because they saw it as a weapon against the IRS.
 
Last edited:
Actually the IRS are doing their best to pretend that those allegations were no big deal.
Now Branca allegedly said that the CURRENT abuse claims are negatively affecting the Estate's earnings.
Really? And what exactly did Branca do to counter those claims? Nothing. It makes you wonder whether
they intentionally refused to fight against those lies in the media, the very place where it matters as no one gives
a shit about the actual court documents except hard core fans.

MJ's Estate is controlled by those who don't give a shit about his reputation and may have even
let horrendous slander go unchallenged because they saw it as a weapon against the IRS.

Nothing surprises me these days ?
 
So the trial is over? I am glad it wasn`t a big media event.

When can be expected with a decision from the judge?
 
redfrog;4184917 said:
Actually the IRS are doing their best to pretend that those allegations were no big deal.
Now Branca allegedly said that the CURRENT abuse claims are negatively affecting the Estate's earnings.
Really? And what exactly did Branca do to counter those claims? Nothing. It makes you wonder whether
they intentionally refused to fight against those lies in the media, the very place where it matters as no one gives
a shit about the actual court documents except hard core fans.

MJ's Estate is controlled by those who don't give a shit about his reputation and may have even
let horrendous slander go unchallenged because they saw it as a weapon against the IRS.
Now wait-where did you hear that? From Tweets? It wasn't in the media reports and if he did say it, you don't know how he said it. He might just be pointing out that there are ongoing allegations that are still hurting the image.
They wouldn't not fight the allegations because of the IRS-they know if they don't fight those tooth and nail, it's game over. There's no restoring anything. That's why there will never ever be a settlement with Robson, Safechuck and Doe, and they were crazy to even think they would consider one.



Anson, however, testified that while he wouldn't have taken his son to a Michael Jackson-themed hotel in 1995, by 2009 the situation had changed, after Jackson was acquitted on all counts in a 2005 trial on the latter allegations, and said that testimony in the tax trial had shown that apparel and entertainment licensing opportunities were available for Jackson before his death. Anson added that the value of the rights would only have grown for the estate, noting that he was once told that “the greatest client in the world is a dead celebrity.”

“I think the child molestation issue is just frankly overblown,” he said. “In a way, Michael Jackson will forever be a young man with a great talent whose talent never degraded, and for that reason will always have a marketable name and likeness.”
I can't believe that Anson had the audacity say that the molestation allegations were overblown. He wouldn't have taken his son to Michael themed hotel in 95, but I do NOT believe that he would have taken him to one between 95 and 2009 either! Look how long it took Gardner School to take down the plywood off Michael's name on the auditorium. That was not after he was acquitted-that was AFTER DEATH.

Personally, I did not speak Michael's name out loud one time starting the day of the Chandler settlement until June 25, 2009. I walked out of the room whenever anyone was talking about him, because it was always bad and ugly. I knew he was innocent, but the information of what he was going through was NOT available back then, and I don't know a single person that didn't see that settlement as anything as an admission of guilt. I freaked people out when I went into heavy mourning when he died, because frankly, they had totally forgotten that I had such a thing for Michael-it had been so long.
They were nice about it at first, but that lasted about a month until I started hearing things like "I like his music, BUT..." or "you need to quit talking about Michael Jackson because people are going to start thinking wierd about you...". To this day, I'll wear a Michael Jackson t-shirt and I watch people actually look at it and avert their eyes. If this is really just about image and likeness as of the day of death, then this is NOT overblown-not here in America.
Now, I think he's right about Michael always being young to those who love him, and hopefully to the generations that come along later, and yes, his career never degraded. But for estate tax purposes, are we talking about the day of death, or the image AFTER he died, when people want to celebrate the Michael they remember and his music and not think about the bad stuff.
 
Back
Top