Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson's Nephew Threatens to Sue UK Television Station [Merged]

I'm proud of Taj. He's always been a good guy (as well as his brothers) and they were very close to Michael. 3t has been taking Michael's children out to various places and making sure they are okay. I love these guys. Very sweet and I am proud to still be a big fan of 3t and will support whatever they do.
 
Very very good, but he threatens? So that doesn't mean he's definitely gonna do it...either way, good going. I don't have words for what this guy at that tv station said, no words.
 
I really do not want to be negative but on what basis is he planning to sue? some sort of UK broadcasting rule/law?

Because both in US and UK, you cannot defame the dead. So a lawsuit for defamation/libel/slander of Michael is not really possible.
 
ivy said:
I really do not want to be negative but on what basis is he planning to sue? some sort of UK broadcasting rule/law?

Because both in US and UK, you cannot defame the dead. So a lawsuit for defamation/libel/slander of Michael is not really possible.
Click to expand...


Yea............where the hell were the family when Michael was getting bullied and tortured by these monsters on a daily basis????????..............


...........and now he's gone they think they can actually win a lawsuit............
 
Krshna28 said:
Yea............where the hell were the family when Michael was getting bullied and tortured by these monsters on a daily basis????????..............


...........and now he's gone they think they can actually win a lawsuit............
Click to expand...

pushing him to do the reunion tour...



now at least they could win most fans' hearts and supports by Threatening to sue the media:scratch:
 
Moonwalker.Fan;3076129 said:
Michael Jackson's Nephew Threatens to Sue UK Television Station

By Charles Thomson

November 13, 2010, (Sawf News) - Michael Jackson's nephew has threatened UK television company ITV with legal action.

Taj Jackson, son of the Thriller singer's older brother Tito, made the threat on his Twitter page after former Sun newspaper editor Kelvin MacKenzie made disparaging comments about Michael Jackson and his children.

Appearing on Tuesday's episode of UK breakfast show 'This Morning', MacKenzie said that he had a "substantial question as to how and why some of [Jackson's] children were born" and added, "the death of Michael Jackson may well have saved some children… from a lifetime of being mentally corrupted."

He further commented, "He's faced a number of charges, a number of allegations, and I in some ways feel that the children will have a better life for their father not being around."

The comments sparked anger amongst Jackson's fans and prompted many to send complaints to ITV and British television regulator OFCOM.

ITV removed the clip from its website on Thursday but has thus far refused to give fans the on-air apology they are demanding. Fans were dealt a further blow on the same day when OFCOM announced that it would not take action over complaints made about MacKenzie's comments.

Taking to his twitter page after OFCOM's announcement, Taj Jackson joined fans in demanding an on-air apology.

After urging his 20,000 followers to complain to ITV he issued the television station with an ultimatum.

He wrote, "If we don't get an on air apology from ITV soon, my next step is legal. The time for bad mouthing & spreading lies about my uncle are OVER."

Jackson's comments prompted fans to bombard the TV station with angry telephone calls and emails the following day. ITV staff told one caller that bosses were 'looking into' the complaints.
Click to expand...


I'm still in shock after readin' that bull. I hadn't heard about this. I cannot believe someone would have the audacity to think, let alone utter such complete garbage.

Kelvin who the freak?????????? Didn't his mommma teach him right? Goodness gracious. Who on earth gave that creature permission to talk like that? Calling him a man would be a disgrace to the all the decent men out there and to humanity in general. Given his "illustrious" and most "honorable" ex job i shouldn't be that surprised, but still.....it is such an insensitive and slanderous thing to say. The nerve some people have....incredible really. Great goin' Taj, great goin'.

This kind of people really think they can get away with sayin' just about anything when it comes to Michael and his family, don't they? Hate to break it to them, but the 'joy ride' is about to end. Somethin' tells me we're all headed full speed ahead towards the bull-free zone and there's a big, huge sign showin' "zero tolerance for crap" right where that zone begins. Michael's strategy of not answerin' all ridiculous claims over the years was quite right. He would've spent three quarters of his lifetime in courtrooms, but pure and unaltered slander such as the one spewed by this man should have been dealt with. It is a blatant attack on the two MOST important elements of Michael's life - his children and their well being (his fatherhood being admired by all who have seen/heard the children) and his innocence when it came to them horrible lies.
 
Re: Michael Jackson's Nephew Threatens to Sue UK Television Station

twinklEE said:
Ramblings on Twitter are not enough, if I were in any way related to Michael Jackson would have sued a bunch of people long ago already.
Click to expand...

You said it Twinklee. Many times I have wished i was related to him so I could sue. Good going Taj. Keep with it because you have our support!!!
 
ivy said:
I really do not want to be negative but on what basis is he planning to sue? some sort of UK broadcasting rule/law?

Because both in US and UK, you cannot defame the dead. So a lawsuit for defamation/libel/slander of Michael is not really possible.
Click to expand...

can someone sue on behalf of Michael's children?
 
I would like to add that while Mike was around he would be the only one that could sue, NOT THEM. Also it would be hard for him to sue for slander/libel because the bigger you are in the public eye, the less you are protected by the law. Im not sure they can sue now, but they may have a better chance since he is dead and that the person included their kids
 
:mat: Thank GOD I didn't see that on tv, I would have been livid! I am absolutely disgusted at that sorry excuse for a human being making comments like that! Does that make him the "big man?" Does he want an award or some shit? Fucking moron!:banghead: He was the best daddy and ONLY parent to those kids! Let's put this asshole under the magnifying glass!:perrin: I bet everything and choice this asshole made in life has always been perfect and outstanding! Yeah right! I would love to hunt this idiot down and give him what for...:mat:

Good on Taj! We can all stand up to these ignorant pieces of shit together!

Why are people so F*cking mean?!? He's dead already!!, Oh noooo that's not enough..they gotta keep talkin shit because having someone's life stolen from them, while their children are left to weep isn't enough! Go to hell you bastard! You creep! You self righteous sick F*ck!
 
Updates on the McKenzie/ITV issue for those who want to help:

Mackenzie Protest: Monday November 15.


Due to the raising of voices in protest at the contemptible and shocking comments of Kelvin Mackenzie, ITV removed the segment where the ex-Sun editor made those comments. This was a tacit admission by ITV that this incident was indeed offensive. OFCOM thought otherwise. But the decision to continue the protest has rippled through an ever-growing group of concerned individuals - both in the UK and around the world.

Now with the news that not only Taj Jackson, but also Mr Paul W Jones, US Ambassador to Malaysia, have added their voices to the growing chorus of protest over Kelvin MacKenzie's controversial comments -- fresh impetus has been added to the protest which resumes from November 15.

We are hoping the media will pick up on this story, and those participating in this effort are being asked to tip Roger Friedman and other media outlets, the links to a sawf news article: http://tinyurl.com/2u48hfy - which report's Taj Jackson's comments, and also British journalist, Charles Thomson's report about the Malaysian Ambassador: http://tinyurl.com/36zv6a3

Now is the time to reinforce the pressure on ITV. We are asking ITV for more than just a removal of the MacKenzie segment. We are asking ITV to officially distance themselves from a man with a proven history of making inaccurate, repellent statements -- and further, to offer a simple, and sincere apology to both the Jackson family and those around the world -- including UK viewers -- who are profoundly disgusted that no on-air apology has as yet been forthcoming. All those joining us from tomorrow, Monday, November 15, are advised to follow Charles Thomson, Seven's, or Deborah Ffrench's tweets to get updates about information you will need to come across as resident in the UK when you call the ITV complaint lines, and to also read the information below:



* Remember: We are asking for an an-air apology for the gross offence caused by Kelvin Mackenzie's comments*




( If you do not live in the UK, find out what the international code is from your country)



1st Number:


0 11 44 8000 30 40 44 (Lines open 09:00 GMT - 12:30 GMT) ( If you live in UK: call 08000 30 40 44 - free)



The number above is the direct complaints number for " This Morning, " on British TV Channel ITV - thus the programme is called ITV This Morning. The person answering this number is obliged to take your details, so even if they try to tell you something different -- do not allow yourself to be transferred or ' told to ring back.'

As far as what details to give: you only have to give a name and your email * YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE YOUR TEL NUMBER.* If asked to give your number you can simply say - ' when I give my number out to companies, I get marketing calls -- but I'm happy to leave my email.' By not giving your number, you cannot be identified as an overseas caller, and as lots of Americans and Europeans live in the UK --for instance we have lots of American Schools here for sons and daughters of diplomats, people working in banking, finance, publishing etc -- an identifiable accent is therefore not an issue. The point is: there are lots of Americans living in the UK.




2nd Number:


0 11 44 844 881 4150 (Lines open 09:00 GMT - 19:00 GMT) ( If you live in UK: call 0844 881 4150 -free)



This second number is a general complaints number, where they log the amount of complaints. As it is open until 19:00 (GMT), many of you in the US - being up to 8 hours behind UK time, may find it more convienient to call this number. N:B When you call this number you will be prompted an auto voice will ask you to choose options, after hearing the selection:



1st step is:--

Press 2 on your telephone pad



2nd step is:--

When the next auto voice asks you to choose again

Press 4 on your telephone pad.



You will then go through to staff who will take your complaint. The phone may ring for a while. Stay on the line. When they do pick up, he/she will ask you which program you are complaining about -- your answer should be ' This Morning.' They may then try to blow you off or say 'oh you need to speak to that department on another number.' At this point you should politely insist that you already have, but that you want to register your complaint 'here' also. Again, you do not have to give telephone number -- just a name, and, if they ask for it -- an email address.

They will however ask you WHERE you are calling from. Below is a selection of places in the UK that you could be calling from. You don't need to give a street name or door number - just a location is fine. Simply choose ONE 'area' from the list below:



*Places in London*:



PADDINGTON
CAMDEN
LISSON GROVE
HAMPSTEAD
LISSON GROVE
WIMBLEDON
EAST FINCHLEY
MILL HILL
HOLLOWAY
FINSBURY PARK
HOLLAND PARK
KILBURN
TURNPIKE LANE
FULHAM
KNIGHTSBRIDGE
ROYAL OAK
LADBROKE GROVE
HACKNEY
ACTON
SHEPHERDS BUSH
BARNES
HIGH BARNET
HIGHGATE
BELSIZE PARK
CHALK FARM
REGENT'S PARK
ISLINGTON
WHITE CITY
ST JOHN'S WOOD
SWISS COTTAGE
QUEEN'S PARK
LONDON BRIDGE
TOWER BRIDGE
STOKE NEWINGTON
WHITECHAPEL
GOLDERS GREEN
HENDON
BATTERSEA
LONDON BRIDGE
PUTNEY
CRICKLEWOOD
WOOD GREEN
SOUTHGATE
FARRINGDON
WAPPING
BISHOPSGATE
EARL'S COURT
ANGEL
BLACKHEATH
LAVENDER HILL
TOWER HAMLETS
BAYSWATER
TEMPLE FORTUNE
BRENT CROSS
MANOR PARK
STRATFORD
STAMFORD HILL
VICTORIA
BROCKLEY
STOCKWELL
CANNING TOWN
STONEBRIDGE
COLINDALE
HAMMERSMITH
EAST HAM
SNARESBROOK
WANDSWORTH
CATFORD
TOOTING
SOUTHFIELDS
LEYTON
NEASDEN
NORWOOD
ELM PARK



And



* Places outside of London*



BYFLEET
MORDEN
RICKMANSWORTH
STANMORE
WEMBLEY
EDGWARE
RICHMOND
KINGSTON-UPON THAMES
TWICKENHAM
ASCOT
ENFIELD
BARNET
POTTERS BAR
ST ALBANS
BECKENHAM
BARKING
CHIGWELL
MITCHAM
CAMBERLEY
BAGSHOT
WOKING
CHERTSEY
FARNBOROUGH
BROMLEY
KNAPHILL
ALDERSHOT
LIGHTWATER
ST. ALBANS
SHEPPERTON
WOODFORD GREEN
KESTON
BEXLEY HEATH
THORNTON HEATH
VIRGINIA WATER
GERRARDS CROSS




If you are sending emails, please do not sign with fan names, but simply and firmly state your complaint. Even though we are all angry, it is better not to use abusive language, as it makes our argument that it was wrong for Mackenzie to have 'abused' Michael's name and reputation -- that much stronger by example.


Email addresses:


viewerservices@itv.com and the C.EO of ITV adam.crozier@itv.com
 
ivy said:
I really do not want to be negative but on what basis is he planning to sue? some sort of UK broadcasting rule/law?

Because both in US and UK, you cannot defame the dead. So a lawsuit for defamation/libel/slander of Michael is not really possible.
Click to expand...

Maybe on the grounds of insulting the alive minors? When you tell children they're better off with their father dead isn't that child abuse?
 
they deserved to be sued!Michael was a great father for his kids and they are lucky to have had such a parent!
 
In general I think it's a bad idea giving idiots like him to much attention, and I'm not really sure they'll have much luck with such a case in the UK... In the states it would work, but as said I'm not sure about the UK.... anyway good luck to them...
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure about any LEGAL action.

As far as I'm concerned, if Taj wants to be HEARD, he should have called into the program and addressed his concerns, i.e. LIVE ON THE AIR!

I'm thinking the story would have gotten picked up quicker than a simple tweet from Taj Jackson.
 
144 said:
can someone sue on behalf of Michael's children?
Click to expand...

Maria MJ said:
Maybe on the grounds of insulting the alive minors? When you tell children they're better off with their father dead isn't that child abuse?
Click to expand...

I thought that too but reading the transcript of what he said I don't think that there's a personal direct insult to the children. but hey if they can make a case, why not? sue him.
 
very easy to sue and win in the UK courts. but lets face it we have heard this all b4. taj is better off addressing why this happened in the first place ie katherine selling the kids out. theres been several nasty articles in the uk press attacking the childrren since the interview.
 
Written by Charles Thomson

It has been a while now since I blogged about Michael Jackson. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that in the wake of my last Huffington Post article I became the subject of some rather bizarre conspiracy theories. The second is that there hasn’t been much to write about.

However, today I was informed of an incident which my conscience wouldn’t allow me to ignore. Kelvin MacKenzie, former editor of the Sun newspaper, appeared today on the British TV show ‘This Morning’ and claimed that Michael Jackson was a child molester and his children are better off now that he’s dead.

He launched this vicious diatribe in the wake of a moving interview with Jackson’s children, conducted by Oprah Winfrey, in which the three kids recounted what a wonderful father Jackson was and how much they missed him.

Here is a full transcript of the exchange:

Phillip Schofield (Host): Let’s finish on this one. Michael Jackson was the best dad, his daughter tells Oprah. Oprah Winfrey has done the first interview with Michael Jackson – his parents, his children; Paris and Prince Michael and Blanket, of course, since he passed away. Paris called her dad the best dad and revealed that he was a normal dad. She said that he made the best French toast in the world. We’ve got a clip from it, actually. Here you go.




Schofield: Interestingly, these things don’t happen without controversy. Here you go. Michael’s brother Randy has spoken out against the chat, saying ‘I know that he would not have wanted this. In fact, she’s the last person on earth he would want around his children.’ He said that because in 2005 while the jury was deliberating Michael’s molestation charges, Oprah did a whole show dedicated to him.

Lesley Joseph (Guest): But you do wonder why they went on, because I have a feeling that those kids – much as I don’t know anything about it – but they do seem terribly well adjusted. So I’m sure they would not have been got on there had they not wanted to do it and had they not… Especially the girl, and you just have the feeling that she said, ‘Listen, I want to go on and say how great my dad was. And then who’s to say they shouldn’t? They do seem incredibly well adjusted, maybe I’m wrong.

Kelvin MacKenzie (Guest): Well, she gave a good interview but of course she’s been brought up in the limelight. It was quite a nice thing for her to say, I must say, about her dead father. I have much more significant question about how and why some of those children were born and under what circumstances they were born – and whether he, in the end, would have turned out to be a great father. Certainly, there are aspects to him which I think your audience would raise their eyebrows.

Joseph: But that’s them, Kelvin, that’s not the children. The children are born

Holly Willoughby (Host): Because their identities were kept so secret I think we all had it in our minds that they were going to be a bit of a horror show but they seem, like you said, very well adjusted and normal kids just talking about their father.

[Cross talk]


Joseph: And they’re not to blame for what went on before or even for the fact that they were born. That’s him, not them.

MacKenzie: OK, well a rather different view to that is that the death of Michael Jackson may well have saved some children, possibly, who knows…

Schofield: Allegedly, though…

MacKenzie: Others…

Schofield: He wasn’t found guilty

MacKenzie: …from a lifetime of being mentally corrupted, shall we say.

Schofield: We don’t know that, though. We don’t know that…

MacKenzie: No, we don’t know that.

Schofield: …that is the case.

MacKenzie: He’s faced a number of charges, a number of allegations, and I in some ways feels that the children will have a better life for their father not being around, which is pretty unusual.

Schofield: Those are tough words and I think they would obviously disagree with you there.

MacKenzie’s comments were morally and ethically reprehensible. He demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the justice system and also for the ethics of his profession. Jackson was acquitted of any wrongdoing and nobody has any right to insinuate that he was anything other than innocent.

That said, it’s not unusual to witness misinformed nitwits talking rubbish about Jackson’s court case – the vast majority of those who take to the airwaves to deliver their expert opinion on his trial have never read single day’s worth of transcripts. More alarming than MacKenzie’s ridiculous comments about Jackson’s trial was the callousness he demonstrated in claiming that the children were better off now that their father was dead.

The comments had no basis in reality. After watching video footage of Jackson’s children speaking about what a wonderful father he was and what a magnificent childhood he gave them, MacKenzie completely disregarded everything they’d said in order to offer a baseless opinion that they were actually severely at risk of abuse and mental corruption. Moreover, he in one breath showed apparent concern for their wellbeing and in another insinuated that they should never have been born in the first place. In other words, he’s a hypocrite.

He’s also a bigot. In the past he has claimed that he tailored his newspaper to those who hate ‘wogs’ and ‘queers’ (note to US fans: ‘wog’ is a derogatory phrase used to describe black people). MacKenzie has a long and provable bias against Jackson and, during his time as editor of the Sun, was responsible for countless inaccurate and heavily biased stories about the star. He was also helming the newspaper when it coined the term ‘***** *****’ in the 1980s.

Given MacKenzie’s long and demonstrable hatred of Michael Jackson, questions must be asked as to why exactly he was asked onto the show in the first place, unless producers were specifically angling for exactly the kind of cruel and heartless comments that he inevitably wound up making.

Moreover, the incident once again raises questions about the validity of television shows which invite non-experts to offer their opinions on people they’ve never met and stories that they don’t understand. What purpose does this practice serve? These inane TV spots plagued Jackson during his 2005 trial. ‘Expert panels’ comprising collections of people who had been nowhere near the courtroom for the duration of Jackson’s trial were routinely assembled on television shows to offer their brainless comments on a court case in which they couldn’t even recite the charge sheet.

MacKenzie’s outburst was unaccaptable. Although entirely devoid of any moral, ethical or factual basis, the comments about the trial were unsurprising. It’s all been said before and – though I’m sure it’ll pain MacKenzie to hear it – far more shockingly. But to announce on television that three orphaned children are better off now their father is dead and proclaim that they should never have been born in the first place – that is beyond vile.

Fans wishing to complain directly to the television show can do so by emailing viewerservces@itv.com

For fans wishing to take their complaints a little further, MacKenzie’s comments also breached numerous segments of the OFCOM Broadcast Code. OFCOM is the UK’s regulatory body for television and radio programming.

Section 2.2 of the code demands that, “Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.” MacKenzie’s comments were clearly misleading. He ignored the facts and evidence presented at Jackson’s trial and dismissed the verdict. He also ignored the children’s firsthand accounts of their lives with Jackson in order to portray them instead as having been ‘corrupted’ and say that they were potential victims of ‘abuse’.

Section 2.3 of the code demands that, “Broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context.” MacKenzie’s comments were patently not justified by the context. In a discussion about an interview between Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jackson’s children, MacKenzie irrelevantly raised the subject of Jackson’s trial and proceeded to dismiss the verdict, insinuating that Jackson was a child molester.

Section 7.1 of the code demands that, “Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes.” This section of the code is constantly flouted when dealing with Michael Jackson. Examples of programmes which were biased, inaccurate and borderline illegal include Martin Bashir’s ‘Living With Michael Jackson’ and Jacques Peretti’s ‘What Really Happened’. OFCOM never implements this section of the code. Does calling somebody a child abuser when they’ve been acquitted in a court of law constitute treating somebody unjustly or unfairly? You’d be hard pressed to find anybody to argue that it didn’t, but watch OFCOM try anyway.

Section 7.9 of the code demands that, “Before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation.” Material facts were clearly omitted and disregarded during Kelvin MacKenzie’s unprovoked diatribe against Jackson. He ignored the facts, evidence and verdict in Jackson’s trial and accused the star of being a child molester. MacKenzie also ignored the children’s comments about their upbringing and proceeded to portray it as the exact opposite of what they claimed.

Section 7.11 of the code demands that, “If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond.” Clearly, Jackson could not respond to Kelvin Mackenzie’s inaccurate allegations, but no representative of Jackson’s family or estate was invited to appear on the show or to offer a rebuttal in the aftermath.

Fans wishing to complain to OFCOM can do so at this link:

https://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/specific-programme-epg

However, they will be required to supply a UK address and telephone number.

Source:Charles Thomson: Kelvin MacKenzie: Jackson was an abuser and his children should never have been born
 
YEEESS!!! Please Taj do it!

I hope you can and will do it, take that next step PLEASE!

We the fans, cannot do everything, we cannot do that kind of things because we aren't family. I know Michael never sued them, nor Katherine or Joe, but when I read your comment, I see the light! That's the step the family has to take so we can, all together, keep MJ's legacy alive and clean his image once and for all! Just one time and tabloids (or very mean journalists) will think twice before spitting on your uncle!

Reading what you said made my day. We are SO with you on that one!

*Praying this is going to work!*
 
Re: Michael Jackson's Nephew Threatens to Sue UK Television Station

ScrEAm.Jack5on said:
why didn't Michael sue for all the stories about him over the years? well, i probably know the answer, he didn't want to deal with the negativity.
Click to expand...

Suing is not free. You can't sue over one million people without throwing lots of moneys on expensive lawyers. That why Michael didn't want to go after all of them. The idea was to get him go bankrupt. It would send a better statement if the family would unite on this as one voice. To tell you the truth, it is equally the Estate job is to protect Michael image by going after these people. Protecting Michael image leads to more revenues to the Estate. They have every reason to scare people from throwing dirt on Michael legacy. The Estate should be fighting back on front row.
 
The first to criticize are usually the ones with the most skeletons in their closets--truly pathetic. I think children, and the whole world in general, would be better off if insensitive wretches like him with no redeeming qualities whatsoever were to vanish off the face of the Earth forever. Then we'd have more air of the people who actually deserve to breathe it.

No one's criticizing him, his life, or his children if he has any. Who knows? Maybe his skank of a wife slept with some bum and they're not really his? *shrugs* We let people's personal lives be what they are for a bloody reason--it's time we stop scrutinizing public figures for ridiculous shit. It's turned everyone into pathetic imbeciles.

Moreover, bringing up the 1993/2005 allegations is just a cheap attack move. Unless he has something which serves as proof, mind you, proof, not tabloid talk or hearsay, but actual, factual proof, he should keep his mouth shut and at least allow us the benefit of the doubt, instead of revealing himself as a complete idiot by opening it. Clearly, there is no such thing--otherwise the events would have played much differently. How many people didn't want to see Michael locked up for a crime he didn't commit, just to get their sadistic rocks off and make some money along the way? Hmmm? If he's insinuating the trial was unfair in any way at all, I would have to agree with him on that one, because it should have NEVER happened in the first place.

It's people like him who bring a sickness down upon the world. The Sun is sick. It's perverse, unnecessary, and a great poison to our society. The sooner it is done away with, the f---ing better off we'll be!

I am too angry for words now. I only hope the children don't hear of this, and if they do, they should consider the source. Who's going to listen to what a slimy, subhuman idiot has to say? If anything, his comments tell more about the speaker than they do about the subject, and the impression I am getting is that he is an incurable imbecile.

Taj Jackson--Thank you so much for standing up for your uncle and his children. I am sure he is grateful for it.
 
Re: Michael Jackson's Nephew Threatens to Sue UK Television Station

gentlecharm said:
Suing is not free. You can't sue over one million people without throwing lots of moneys on expensive lawyers. That why Michael didn't want to go after all of them. The idea was to get him go bankrupt. It would send a better statement if the family would unite on this as one voice. To tell you the truth, it is equally the Estate job is to protect Michael image by going after these people. Protecting Michael image leads to more revenues to the Estate. They have every reason to scare people from throwing dirt on Michael legacy. The Estate should be fighting back on front row.
Click to expand...

I would also like to add that if Mike did sue he would more than likely have lost because of the laws in the US. I posted earlier that the slander/libel law covers you less the more you are in the public eye. So if youre someone like Mike, then you are free game. It is very hard to sue when you are than famous and win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top