Latest on MJJC

Nov 17 News & Mentionings

DenisRS said:
Soso Deaf, Foxy: This thread is 12 pages long only because there are people who in hurry to state that Michael had to pay $7 million without even caring on matter whether he actually owes those money. The trial did not start yet, but people are already "mad at" Jackson. People have the right for whatever opinions, of course, but some other fans have the right to argue, to be against such prejudice (pre-emptive judgement), so we have a long thread.
Click to expand...
babe, how can u be mad at someone u don' teven know?

its the nature of the beast to always assume the worst...but the last two pages have turned into a pissing match for no reason. out analyzing each other?
 
1220459179-1.jpg


:bugeyed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry!!!!!:blush:
 
Fans may feel "mad at" Jackson because they (subconsciously) think of him as a close person -- this is not a bad sign in itself. However, if this goes into suggesting and accepting Michael's responsibility that is not actually established, then an argument raises.

I am against any exclamation signs (!) in a writing because those may create unnecessary drama, so I agree the last two pages ceased to be a normal dialogue because of that.
 
Last edited:
u know whats crap in all of this that after all that happened in 03-95 there was still no one around him to either protect him from ppl taking advantage or to protect him from himself and his habit of signing contracts without legal advice how many times are we gonna hear this in relation to lawsuits and mj saying i didnt know what i was signing. when u gonna learn MJ?

the whole gift thing is a joke you dont give ppl gifts in order to suck upto them to get them to go into biz we you and then when it doesnt happen cry foal. he sucked upto mj to get close to him cause he wants to be a celeb and he got bit on the arse by mj. all it shows is that is was nothing more than fake hospitality and motives. same ole crap from 99% of ppl who get into mjs world
 
Nobody is "mad" at Michael... it's just disheartening to see him always get himself involved in avoidable, embarrasing, reputation tarnishing, bullshit cases!

And it's annoying how some fans always see the poor victim in Michael, without ever holding him responsible for anything! He's a grown ass man, head of a, supposed, multimillion dollar company and brand... he should act like that! In all those bullshit cases the common link is Michael... that makes you think! That whole evil world, everybody is out to get Michael excuse is not flying anymore!
 
Well I don't see that we or anyone else has the right to point the finger or decide to sit in judgement, we don't know what was agreed, or not, behind closed doors, Michael does need to beware of people bearing gifts, they always come with strings.

Maybe this guy upped his expectations of Michael, who we know can't be rushed, and two albums and a musical would take Michael years to complete. Michael must have felt unbelievably vulnerable at that point in his life and possibly willing to agree to anything before really thinking it through.
 
PatrickS77 said:
Nobody is "mad" at Michael... it's just disheartening to see him always get himself involved in avoidable, embarrasing, reputation tarnishing, bullshit cases!

And it's annoying how some fans always see the poor victim in Michael, without ever holding him responsible for anything! He's a grown ass man, head of a, supposed, multimillion dollar company and brand... he should act like that! In all those bullshit cases the common link is Michael... that makes you think! That whole evil world, everybody is out to get Michael excuse is not flying anymore!
Click to expand...

Exaaaactly! Well said
 
So I am thinking us fans need to get on the band wagon here and sue Michael to pay back all the money we spent on him. It isn't right that we don't get monetary compensation for spending all that money on his albums and going to support him and spreading the word about him being innocent and the money for the signs we made that were advertising for him and tickets we bought, not to mention all the gifts WE gave him. It's just sick that he would accept them and not give us money in return. ... yeah :rolleyes:

(disclaimer in case it's needed: This is pure sarcasm. Trying to show how ridiculous it would be... though someone was right in saying we don't know all the facts)
 
Last edited:
Timmy84 said he was "mad at" Michael (even though in itself it is not bad, as I said above; it is even cute attitude). Lets see for the trial before we will find out who is victim -- not before that, that is the point.

And, of course, no matter what will be disclosed further in the trial, there was and there, unfortunately, will be problem of now enough organized business discipline and documentation in what and how Michael does.

Jackson is emotional-driven, visionary person who is, according to witnesses, mostly far and beyond everything in his ever-changing concepts of the future.

That is inseparable part of Michael -- thanks to it we have his outstanding creativity, but it also bears side effects that may hamper with day-to-day, may I say, court life :lol:

Id est Jackson may not actually owe money to prince, but where commentators are right is that this problem could be probably avoided altogether with more strict and proper business processing.

That is different kind of responsibility rather than responsibility for concretely those money prince claims Michael owes to him. And, unfortunately, this hardly can be fixed ever since, as I showed above, it comes as result of his immanent, uniquely developed qualities such as emotionality and creativity.

To complain about it is the same thing as to complain about a rain. It is useless: hardly Michael will be ever able to change in this.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I will not be even following this mess. Hopefully, if Michael is in the right, he will prevail.

I'm tired of trials.-_-
 
the prince gave money for bill etc but everything else was the prince buying mj gifts. watches a car etc. the expenses he claims of mj staying with him. the prince bought mjs friendship imo and there was a motive so frankly it serves him right

well frankly i agree with mj. the guy sucked upto mj to get him to take part. come stay with us ill pay for everything gave him gifts like watches. you dont invite someone to come stay with you to get away from the trial and then say oh buy the way u have to pay rent. somethings are ovbiously seen as a gift of hospitality by anyones standards. you dont buy ppl things on the pretence of getting them to go into busines with you. so imo the motive from the prince was certainly not giving mj hospitality but doing so to use as a leverage to get him to agree to getting the princes music out there. it serves the prince right.

the prince certainly isnt whiter than white in all of this. talking to mj during the trial and bringing up working together and in the days after the case. what sort of B.S is that yes mj isnt totally the victim but from what we have seen so far the prince had a big agenda going on, and i can have no sympathy for someone acting in such a way when mj was in such a state.
 
Ape said:
So I am thinking us fans need to get on the band wagon here and sue Michael to pay back all the money we spent on him. It isn't right that we don't get monetary compensation for spending all that money on his albums and going to support him and spreading the word about him being innocent and the money for the signs we made that were advertising for him and tickets we bought, not to mention all the gifts WE gave him. It's just sick that he would accept them and not give us money in return. ... yeah :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, and lets stop making him look as victim! He took our money and many times promised albums and concerts to us in his notes he threw down from his hotel rooms!

Just count how many albums he promised to us that way! And how many magazines we bought in the past or paid for Internet access to learn that there is still no album, even though we thought it will be and there is genuine signature on those notes from Michael!!!

He made us spend loads of money in the last seven years with no albums and concerts!! Those are our losses and damages! :evil:
 
i found more news on neverland MJJC MOD1 :yes: o.k :yes:

here is website:http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/...it-face-markets-cx_je_1117autofacescan02.html

New Courtroom Thriller For Jackson

Bahraini prince hits singer with $7M suit for failing to deliver an album.

It's the case of the King of Pop v. the Prince of Bahrain.

Just a week after Michael Jackson was forced to give up at least some of his ownership stake in the 2,500-acre Neverland ranch in California, the singer is being sued for $7.0 million for breaching a contract with the son of the king
of Bahrain.

Yahoo! BuzzSheik Abdulla bin Hamad Al Khalifa claims the troubled pop music icon announced in 2006 that he would put out a new album for Khalifa's 2 Seas Records label but that his promised work was never delivered, according to representatives of the royal.

The Bell Pottinger Group , which represents the prince, also alleged he gave the singer a new Rolls-Royce car worth $120,000.

The trial at London's Royal Court of Justice, is expected to last up to 10 working days, a court official told Forbes.com. A decision by the judge will not necessarily be immediately rendered.

Jackson's finances fell apart following his arrest in 2003 on charges that he molested a 13-year-old boy at Neverland. He moved to Bahrain after being acquitted. Last week, he transferred the title of Neverland to a company comprising himself and a lender, Reuters quoted a source with knowledge of the deal as saying.

Khalifa had plans to revive Jackson's musical career right after the trial ended in 2005. Bankim Thanki, who represents the prince, claimed his client was first asked through a Jackson assistant for $35,000 to pay utility bills at Neverland. Then in April 2005, Jackson asked for $1.0 million, again through an assistant.

Jackson's lawyers say the pair never entered a valid agreement and that Al Khalifa's money was given freely.

Thanki acknowledged that Al Khalifa gave some gifts to Jackson but the presents "were essentially personal effects - watches, jewelry."
 
DenisRS said:
Timmy84 said he was "mad at" Michael (even though in itself it is not bad, as I said above; it is even cute attitude). Lets see for the trial before we will find out who is victim -- not before that, that is the point.

And, of course, no matter what will be disclosed further in the trial, there was and there, unfortunately, will be problem of now enough organized business discipline and documentation in what and how Michael does.

Jackson is emotional-driven, visionary person who is, according to witnesses, mostly far and beyond everything in his ever-changing concepts of the future.

That is inseparable part of Michael -- thanks to it we have his outstanding creativity, but it also bears side effects that may hamper with day-to-day, may I say, court life :lol:

Id est Jackson may not actually owe money to prince, but where commentators are right is that this problem could be probably avoided altogether with more strict and proper business processing.

That is different kind of responsibility rather than responsibility for concretely those money prince claims Michael owes to him. And, unfortunately, this hardly can be fixed ever since, as I showed above, it comes as result of his immanent, uniquely developed qualities such as emotionality and creativity.

To complain about it is the same thing as to complain about a rain. It is useless: hardly Michael will be ever able to change in this.
Click to expand...
and if u know anything about timmy, u know that he's joking and being a smart ass

and it's funny that everyone is tryingto analyze each other
 
Why is everyone having at one another in here?

This is a trial that we don't even have all the facts on. Why are we drawling conclusions and making predictions when all the issues haven't even been presented?

Patience with the legal system and with one another seems to be in demand.

Respect one another and each others comments. Give it some time then ya'll can fuss or rejoice about the out come :lol:

No one here really has a right to think anything cuz face it ya'll don't know what happened. We weren't there. And there simply isn't enough information to be getting your drawers in a bunch over.

Again, patience. Once all the info is out there you may find your shoes on someone else's feet :yes:
 
Midas @ KOPD posted this article, which contains some interesting new details... Lucky court watchers got to hear and see the "Making of I Have This Dream" DVD with Michael singing lines from various songs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...on-deal-to-perform-sheikhs-songs-1023094.html

Jackson sued for 'reneging' on deal to perform Sheikh's songs

By Ian Johnston
Tuesday, 18 November 2008

The pop superstar Michael Jackson reneged on an agreement that he would perform songs written by an Arab sheikh who paid him $7m (£4.7m), the High Court has heard.

Sheikh Abdulla bin Hamad Al Khalifa – the second son of the King of Bahrain – is suing Jackson for the return of $7m which he claims he loaned to the singer who was in financial trouble in 2005 amid his criminal trial over child molestation charges.

He also says he set up Jackson with a recording studio at his Neverland ranch and then sent him his own compositions, one of which was recorded and is to be played to the court.

Jackson insists payments made by the sheikh were "gifts" and that there was no valid agreement between them which committed him to a recording contract, writing an autobiography and producing a musical stage play.

Bankim Thanki QC, representing Sheikh Abdulla, told Mr Justice Sweeney that the day after the end of Jackson's trial in California, the star recorded one of the compositions which the sheikh wanted released as a charity single to help victims of the Boxing Day tsunami. "It shows the quality of Sheikh Abdulla's songwriting skills and that of Mr Jackson's voice," he told the judge.

The two had a "close personal relationship" and discussed the chances of Jackson moving to Bahrain to "continue their musical collaboration in a more conducive environment", said Mr Thanki. Sheikh Abdulla had plans to revive Jackson's career, releasing records through their own label.

Mr Thanki said the sheikh was first asked by an assistant of Jackson for $35,000 to pay utility bills at Neverland. "Sheikh Abdulla began to support Mr Jackson financially after 2005 when it became clear that Mr Jackson was in very serious financial difficulties, much to Sheikh Abdulla's surprise," said Mr Thanki. Sheikh Abdulla is suing Jackson for allegedly reneging on a "pay-back" agreement he says applies to all the money. He further claims he and Jackson entered into a "combined rights agreement" (CRA) over their musical collaboration.

At the start of the hearing in London, Mr Justice Sweeney heard that an application would be made for Jackson to give evidence via video link from Los Angeles. Jackson, who is contesting the claim, says Sheikh Abdulla's case is based on "mistake, misrepresentation and undue influence" and that no project was ever finalised. He admits he signed a document which he understood gave him a substantial shareholding in Sheikh Abdulla's 2 Seas recording company. But he challenges the sheikh's description of him as "an experienced businessman" and says he did not read the terms of the document.

Jackson claims the contract was entered into on the basis of "false representations" that the recording company was "capable of releasing and distributing, on a worldwide basis, recordings by an artist of international repute". He also alleges that Sheikh Abdulla, a powerful and influential public figure, exercised "undue influence" over him when he was emotionally exhausted after his criminal trial.

Jackson travelled to Bahrain at the sheikh's invitation following his acquittal. Among Sheikh Abdulla's complaints is that, despite his having paid the cost of Jackson recording a song called "I Have This Dream" – intended to benefit the victims of Hurricane Katrina which hit New Orleans in August 2005 – the singer did not attend the studio for the final recording and the song was never released.

Sheikh Abdulla claims that both he and Jackson agreed the quality of his vocal track was not good enough for the single, but the star failed to attend the studios to re-record the song.

A DVD of the making of the recording of "I Have This Dream" in the Metropolis Studio was played in court. It showed screaming fans mobbing the star as he arrived, then Jackson singing a few lines from "I'm Into Something Good" and "Ferry 'Cross The Mersey" before trying a couple of lines from "I Have This Dream".

The hearing continues today.
 
Midas @ KOPD posted this article, which contains some interesting new details... Lucky court watchers got to hear and see the "Making of I Have This Dream" DVD with Michael singing lines from various songs.
Click to expand...

Thank you TSCM.
 
OK after going through this whole thread here is what I think. If the Prince does not have it on paper saying that Michael agreed to pay him back for what he gave him no dice you are not getting anything. Now what Michael says he signed had more to do with the record company not saying he would pay the guy back. Two seas record company from what I am reading does not sounds like it was bought up at all. IMO the bottom line if you don't have him on paper you ain't getting anything. Again JMO
 
Maybe Michae wasn't "thinking" at all. Do you all really think Michael would have signed anything he hadn't read if he was pyschologically or emotionally okay? Do you really think he would take songs from an unknown songwriter if he was of sound mind? And you KNOW what his policy has always been on that. He was taken advantage of, bottom line, and it fucking sucks. Michael was half dead at the end of that trial. Here comes the Prince, "Oh, Michael, let me help you, come to my palace and recover, have privacy and royal treatment, where no one can harrass or hurt you. Oh, by the way, you see this contract? It would be great if you could sign it." Michael lost what? 20 lb. He weighed nothing. 100 lb. maybe. He was clearly on pain killers. He hadn't eaten anything in weeks. When he finally tried, after he was acquitted, he threw it all back up again. He was fucked up. Just to be clear. That's just physically. Mentally and emotionally, he'll probably suffer the affects for the rest of his life. No joke. So don't judge his mental capacity when half of you probably wouldn't have made it out alive even. It's like when Jermaine went to Michael in 93 and made him sign that stupid ass contract for him to perform on the Jackson Family Honors show. While he wasn't in any sort of mental or physical condition to make any decisians. Same damn thing. Just like Jermaine, this Prince took advantage of Michael when Michael was mentally, physically and emotionally incapcitated. That's all it is. And its sad. For someone like Michael, who's given freely, without request for ANYTHING in return, his whole life, to be taken like that, its just sad.
 
PatrickS77 said:
According to the Prince it was no gift! If Michael pays back that money there is no harm to him... since he actually received that money! Unless he spent that money on junk he otherwise wouldn't have gotten and only has gotten, because he thought the prince would pay for it!
Click to expand...

And that, my friend, is why the danggone case is in civil court. Either the Prince produces a signed contract saying that MJ agreed to X, Y and Z or FORGETTABOUTIT. Supposedly, Jermaine knows this Prince and hooked up MJ to stay there.

And it's not too far fetched to have thought that staying at the Prince's home was received as a gesture of hospitality.

But at the end of the day, it's for the courts to decide.
 
It sounds like the Prince wanted Michael to be his puppet just like Jermaine is. But Michael was not having it
 
TSCM said:
Such doom and gloom coming from some...

Truth is, we still know very little about the case in general, and even less about Michael's side of the case. All of the reports today focused chiefly on the prince's allegations.

Michael admitted that he "signed a document which he understood gave him a substantial shareholding in the 2 Seas recording company," but that he "never read the terms of the document and was never advised to take independent legal advice." He also said that the case is based on "mistake, misrepresentation and undue influence".

We still have no idea to what extent the "agreement" Michael signs encompasses. Obviously more details will come through as the court hearings continue.
Click to expand...

This sounds way different than an artist signing a deal to record under someone's company --- it sounds to me that he THOUGHT he would be recording under HIS OWN LABEL.

Mistake == perhaps being his;

Misrepresentation == perhaps meaning that the Prince was not on the up and up about what the deal was really about;

Undue Influence == perhaps being that he was mentally and physically exhausted, he thought the Prince was being a concerned and hospital friend and he was in a country with vastly different laws and customs.

Personally, I would seek to settle this case if possible. It's clear to me that this is why MJ has not announced the whens and wheres to his next project -- he has this hanging over his head and until it is clear, he will not be recording for anyone for now.
 
Michael was not in a regular state of mind. His policy has always been not to take songs from unknown songwriters (the Prince), he has always read everything carefully and has made intelligent business decicians. Its clear from what's occured here that Michael WASN'T thinking, for those who wonder what he was thinking. He wasn't. He was severely screwed up, physically, mentally, emotionally, and the Prince took advantage of his condition at the time and lured him in to something he otherwise never would have gotten in to. Maybe legally Michael owes this Prince money, but morally, Michael was the one wronged in this situation.
 
PatrickS77 said:
Nobody is "mad" at Michael... it's just disheartening to see him always get himself involved in avoidable, embarrasing, reputation tarnishing, bullshit cases!

And it's annoying how some fans always see the poor victim in Michael, without ever holding him responsible for anything! He's a grown ass man, head of a, supposed, multimillion dollar company and brand... he should act like that! In all those bullshit cases the common link is Michael... that makes you think! That whole evil world, everybody is out to get Michael excuse is not flying anymore!
Click to expand...

Well I suppose everyone sees what they want to see. Of course, you have nothing to worry about. If anyone will be embarrassed or have their reputation tarnished, it will be MJ -- not YOU.

Of course, unless these things embarrass YOU as a FAN. And if that's the case, then you are far too invested in someone who you don't even know.
 
mello1 said:
This sounds way different than an artist signing a deal to record under someone's company --- it sounds to me that he THOUGHT he would be recording under HIS OWN LABEL.

Mistake == perhaps being his;

Misrepresentation == perhaps meaning that the Prince was not on the up and up about what the deal was really about;

Undue Influence == perhaps being that he was mentally and physically exhausted, he thought the Prince was being a concerned and hospital friend and he was in a country with vastly different laws and customs.

MELLO 1 so on point. Michael made a mistake in trusting the Prince so much. The Prince is not totally to blame. The Prince thought he found a way to make his dream come true by using cash and influence.
Click to expand...
 
hi :waving: i found news o.k ;)

here is website:http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/17/jackson.court.ap/?iref=mpstoryview

Sheikh seeks millions from Michael Jackson


LONDON, England (AP) -- The son of an Arab monarch is taking the King of Pop to court over an album and an autobiography Michael Jackson was allegedly paid for but never produced.

Sheikh Abdulla bin Hamad Al Khalifa is seeking $7 million from the embattled singer at London's Royal Courts of Justice.

Lawyers for Al Khalifa say the money was intended as an advance on a joint recording project. Jackson, however, claims the cash was a gift.

David Sherborne, representing Al Khalifa, says the case would mainly hinge on the nature of Jackson's friendship with the sheikh.

Jackson was not in court as the trial opened Monday.

Jackson's finances fell apart following his arrest in 2003 on charges that he molested a 13-year old boy at Neverland. He moved to Bahrain after being acquitted.

here is website:http://www.gmanews.tv/story/134073/Fans-party-with-Chris-Brown-and-Rihanna

Fans party with Chris Brown and Rihanna

MANILA, Philippines - With the two of the hottest pop sensations performing in the year’s most-awaited back-to-back concert, there’s never a right time to say goodbye!

Under the fullness of the moon, Chris Brown and Rihanna drew in as many as 70,000 fans last November 16 to The Fort Open Field, Global City, in Taguig, for their first-ever Philippine concert.

From the moment Chris Brown took the center stage, to the time he bid the audience goodbye to give the floor to Rihanna, the audience were wild, feverishly singing their lungs out, dancing, jamming, and clapping their hands.

Brown opened the night with an assurance to his crowd that the night will be a sure “party” – and partying on a Sunday night has never been this fun!

His dance moves were consistently flawless and his own version of Michael Jackson’s Rock with You and Thriller was a bomb.

One fan even said: “He’s the contemporary Michael J,” referring to pop icon Michael Jackson.

Brown entertained the audience with hits such as Run It; Kiss, Kiss; Yo! (excuse me miss); There’s Never a Right to Say Goodbye; With You; No Air; and Forever.

The concert night was perfect, with nature and man seemed to have connived for the much-anticipated concert, which was unmarred by rain despite weeks of sporadic rainshowers that preceded the event.

The crowd control was also impressive. Despite the whooping number of fans, the security observed was remarkable.

Before Rihanna formally took center stage, a roughly 15-minute break occurred. It would have been boring if not for the breath-stopping fireworks that awed everybody.

After the interval and with the intro of her song “Disturbia” booming out from the loud speakers, the audience went from calm to frantic, and got even wilder when Rihanna finally appeared on stage.

The appearance of Rihanna, who was clad in her signature black-leather outfit, generated much excitement.

The stage effects were dazzling during the show; the sound system was a bit disappointing though but it was not enough to divert the attention of the fans who were so busy raising their mobile phones and digital cameras to take pictures and record a video – perhaps, two ways to save the pieces the historic concert.

Almost everytime Rihanna would shift from one song to another, the stage lights would go out and one point, the enthusiastic crown shouted “more!”

And Rihanna did so by entertaining the fans with her hits such as: Pon de Replay; Don't Stop the Music; Take a Bow; Shut up and Drive; Good Girl Gone Bad; and Hate that I Love You.

During her performance, Rihanna would repeatedly express her disbelief that more than 70,000 people flocked to the venue to watch them perform, adding that she cannot wait to hold another concert in the Philippines.

And when it was time for her to go, the fans were a bit saddened. But with the intro of her song “Umbrella” started playing, the fans were enlivened.

They shouted loudest as ever and cheered even louder after Brown came out to join Rihanna.

The pop stars’ chemistry was exquisite. As they made beautiful music together, and with Brown hugging Rihanna after their song, the fans, who adored their chemistry, kept on saying “they look good together!”

Before Rihanna left, she blew goodbye kisses to the audience.

The concert, which started past 8 p.m., ended at about 11 in the evening, and as the stage lights went out for good, fans swore that their Sunday has never been this splendid.

some news on NeverLand :yes:

here is website:http://www.star-ecentral.com/music/...leeve/2008/11/18/18Jackoloses&date=11/18/2008

***** loses possession of Neverland

Michael Jackson has lost possession of his Neverland ranch after handing over the deeds to a new company.

The Sycamore Valley Ranch Company is now the new owners of the property, after taking possession of the grand deed last Monday.

Neverland was to be auctioned off earlier this year, after it was claimed that Jackson was bankrupt.

here is website:http://www.uab.edu/kscope/kaleidoscope-article-982.html

'90s are officially over


We all remember that movie from 1992 about all those nuns and a fugitive Whoopi Goldberg. That’s right, movie fans, “Sister Act.”

But, as we remember that story as it was shown on the big screen, Goldberg is teaming up with renowned choreographer Anthony Van Laast (“Mama Mia,” the film and stage show), director Peter Shnieder and others to bring “Sister Act” to the stage. But not Broadway.

According to MSN Entertainment and the Associated Press, Goldberg is taking “Sister Act” to London, where she’ll act as producer. Goldberg will not star in this revival of the play, whose debut was at the Pasadena Playhouse in California (Goldberg was not a part of that project).

Goldberg warns fans of the movie that the musical will be a little different, stating that the main character, Deloris Van Cartier, “is not as old as [Goldberg] was at the time [the movie was filmed]. So she has a lot of decisions to make, more decisions to make than my character had. So it will be fun to watch.”

Another ’90s favorite, Neverland ranch, the home of controversial entertainer Michael Jackson, is resurging in today’s world.

The home of many of Jackson’s scandals has been officially sold to the Sycamore Valley Ranch Company, LLC, a joint venture between Jackson and Colonial Capital, LLC.

So, although the deed is officially signed over, it is still possible that Jackson indirectly owns the property, according to the Associated Press.

Jackson has been through some public ethical and financial scandals at his famous ranch, and giving up the deed seems like the end of an era. An era where “P.Y.T.” meant something, “Billie Jean” was a household name, and Neverland existed for real, not just for Peter Pan.
 
TSCM said:
Jackson insists payments made by the sheikh were "gifts" and that there was no valid agreement between them which committed him to a recording contract, writing an autobiography and producing a musical stage play.
Click to expand...


the "writing an autobiography" part would be especially "funny" if it hasn't been so sad.
personally i cannot imagine Michael anyday after the trial thinking
"ok, now let's remember my life over the last several years"
:bugeyed

i might be wrong but i don't think that Michael is too upset about this "Bahrain" trial or the sale of Neverland.
He knows he might expect lawsuits from people that are unhappy with him.
It doesnt matter what the media say cause they'll always be negative.
If Michael releases his album tomorrow - whatever the media say or do - the album will be successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top