Latest on MJJC

The Estate vs HBO

Interesting event around US 'SLAPP' legislation. I don't know if they will publish discussions or add any recordings to YT afterwards...

Experts to discuss impacts of frivolous defamation lawsuits during March 17 Sunshine Week event

In honor of Sunshine Week, a panel of experts will examine the impacts to freedom of information and expression of a rising tide of frivolous but expensive lawsuits against news organizations and other speakers that are seen as aimed at deterring journalism in the public interest.

The moderated conversation, organized by The National Press Club Journalism Institute and the National Press Club's Press Freedom Team, will take place in the National Press Club conference rooms from 6-7:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 17, 2020

As many newsrooms across the United States grapple with dwindling revenues – leading to declining coverage by newspapers, magazines, and news websites – the notable increase in so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation has come at a particularly difficult time for American journalism. These lawsuits are often brought by wealthy, powerful individuals and institutions who may object to news coverage critical of their activities. Plaintiffs who have recently filed SLAPP suits include U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) against McClatchy News, Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax against CBS, and the estate of Michael Jackson against HBO over the documentary 'Leaving Neverland.'

In recent years, state legislatures have responded to the growing prevalence of frivolous defamation lawsuits by passing or strengthening anti-SLAPP laws. And more states like Virginia and Maryland could soon follow suit.

Discussing this rise of frivolous defamation lawsuits, their impact on newsrooms, and the possibility for reforming state laws to provide heightened protections for journalists and other content creators are:

Katie Townsend, legal director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Jim McLaughlin, deputy general counsel at The Washington Post

Michael Schaffer, editor of Washingtonian and former editor of the Washington City Paper when it was sued by Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder

Max Mishkin (moderator), associate at Ballard Spahr LLP and First Amendment attorney

Additional speakers may be added.

For more information, email Press Freedom Team Vice Chair Rachel Oswald at rachelm.oswald@gmail.com

About NPCJI
The National Press Club Journalism Institute promotes an engaged global citizenry through an independent and free press, and equips journalists with skills and standards to inform the public in ways that inspire civic engagement. As the non-profit affiliate of the National Press Club, the Institute serves as a beacon for journalism in the public interest.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/expe...n-173800232.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw
 
If a media outlet is pushing a program that is full of lies on someone, they need to be sued. They have to be held responsible for what they promote especially trash like leaving Neverland where there was plenty of evidence showing their lies.
 
terrell said:
If a media outlet is pushing a program that is full of lies on someone, they need to be sued. They have to be held responsible for what they promote especially trash like leaving Neverland where there was plenty of evidence showing their lies.
Click to expand...

....also that the irony in the 'invitation' to this event is that the HBO anti-SLAPP case isn't strictly related to a defamation claim by the MJ Estate, but in relation to an arbitration provision in MJ's contract with HBO. Also that HBO could be argued to be a 'wealthy, powerful' organisation, which broke a pre-existing contract....
 
Experts speaking on a topic they are educated on but using a case they most likely have not looked at is exactly what we come to expect...
 
Coronavirus: All California trials delayed; L.A. County courts close to the public

Criminal and civil trials were discontinued in California for at least two months after a sweeping order was issued late Monday by the state’s chief justice that aims to sharply cut down public traffic in state courthouses during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye said in her order that court facilities were “ill-equipped to effectively allow the social distancing and other public health requirements” that have been imposed across California to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus.

“Even if court facilities could allow for sufficient social distancing, the closure of schools means that many court employees, litigants, witnesses, and potential jurors cannot leave their homes to attend court proceedings because they must stay home to supervise their children,” Cantil-Sakauye said in the order.

The 60-day delay — which puts the courts in California’s 58 counties on a uniform trial delay schedule — came the same day that the presiding judge of Los Angeles Superior Court, Kevin C. Brazile, blocked public access to county courthouses except for attorneys, staff, defendants and “authorized persons,” a vague category that includes news reporters. The clerk’s office will still be available to accept filings and assist people by phone or electronically.

https://www.latimes.com/california/...elays-trials-la-county-shuts-courts-to-public
 
Due to the things that's going on this doesn't bother me. let's see what happens in 2 months probably.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">For those of you asking about MJ Estate v HBO today, and for the Robson/Safechuck depos, CA courts both criminal civil are delayed by at least 60 days. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJEstatevHBO?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJEstatevHBO</a> <a href="https://t.co/8yXDdlNtIC">https://t.co/8yXDdlNtIC</a></p>&mdash; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1242319949332279296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
From fans on Twitter (with thanks):

RE MJ Estate v HBO. The MJ Estate has asked for an extension to file their reply brief. Extension granted, brief due 4/29/20.
Click to expand...
 
From fans on Twitter (Thank you):

Due to COVID, the Estate of Michael Jackson has asked for a 60 day extension to file their brief, originally due 4/29/20. If the judge grants, it will be due somewhere near the end of June
Click to expand...

(This is a second extension request. It has been automatically approved by the court. )
 
Last edited:
Ha! I'm glad the state found that ancient contract to be able to sue HBO. So wrong though that journalists and anyone can basically say whatever lie or misleading thing they want about someone who's dead.
 
Last edited:
We live in a crazy world. not only Michael has to deal with this. other stars do as well. i think Michael case is one of the worst ones out there. maybe not the first but one of them. this court case gonna be a piece of cake.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Reminder: MJ Estate v HBO case: The Estate has until 6/29 to file their reply brief to HBO&#39;s claim on appeal.</p>&mdash; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1270024439128715266?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 8, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
From fans on twitter:

Update: MJ Estate v HBO: The Estate has asked for another extension, court agreed. New reply brief is now due on 7/8/20.
Click to expand...
 
From fans on twitter:

Today the MJ Estate reply brief was filed. It basically summarizes what happened in the original lawsuit.
Click to expand...

https://www.scribd.com/document/468515782/MJ-Estate-Reply-Brief-to-HBO

6Dq6mQ1.jpg



9lnMFGm.jpg



6YP8nG9.jpg


(Also with thanks to fans on Twitter: The Estate also filed a Supplemental excerpt of records, which holds most of the doc's already filed in the original lawsuit:
https://www.scribd.com/document/468516234/MJ-Estate-Supplemental-Excerpts-of-Record )
 
Last edited:
From fans on twitter (with thanks):

Re MJ Estate v HBO: HBO originally had 21 days from the filing of the answer brief by the Estate, to file a reply. That date would have been 7/29/20. HBO has asked for and received an extension. Their new reply date is by 8/31/20.
Click to expand...

At the next hearing, there will be a panel of three judges, and each side will be allowed 15 mins of oral arguments.
 
I'm seeing this on FB:

Update: MJ Estate v HBO.

Oral arguments are being considered for November, 2020. This is the last step in the appeals process before a decision about arbitration is made. Court will be held in Pasadena, not LA.
Click to expand...

Hopefully the appeal panel will send this case on to arbitration, and not deny its progress.

Edited to add:
Oral arguments in the #MJEstatevHBO case will be on a single day in November in Pasadena. The open dates on the calendar are November 9-13 or 16-20.
Click to expand...

Also:

August 31st is the last day for the final reply to be filed by HBO.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Reminder for the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJEstatevHBO?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJEstatevHBO</a>. August 31st is the last day for the final reply to be filed by HBO. It will probably be a rehash of the original lawsuit, but I will post on Scribd. In November, oral arguments will be made. And then we wait for a decision, probably early 2021.</p>&mdash; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1291935682995183619?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 8, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
NatureCriminal7896;4300313 said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Reminder for the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJEstatevHBO?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJEstatevHBO</a>. August 31st is the last day for the final reply to be filed by HBO. It will probably be a rehash of the original lawsuit, but I will post on Scribd. In November, oral arguments will be made. And then we wait for a decision, probably early 2021.</p>&#8212; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1291935682995183619?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 8, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

Look like we are doing this for a whole another year. ugh.
 
HBO final reply brief here (Basically the same argument as before ie that the the 1992 contract did not create a perpetual non-disparagement obligation):

https://www.scribd.com/document/474343968/Hbo-Reply-Brief-Final

eMheFXx.jpg


b6cpddu.jpg



We now wait for a date in November for the panel to decide whether the case should go to arbitration (on the basis of the 1992 non-disparagement clause) or not.

Oral arguments in the MJ Estate v HBO case will be on a single day in November in Pasadena. The open dates on the calendar are November 9-13 or 16-20.

(After the panel hearing, we will then have to wait some time for a decision. The losing party may then be able to appeal).
 
Last edited:
"...the parties in 1992 did not intend for this provision to apply to HBO's exhibition of Leaving Neverland in 2019 and thus this dispute is not arbitrable."

I'm not super well-versed in law, so I could be completely misunderstanding this, but it sounds to me like their argument is basically "in 1992, we weren't expecting to ever show anything else about MJ, so since we didn't anticipate LN, it doesn't count." Am I interpreting that correctly? If so, it seems like a completely nonsensical argument, akin to "we didn't expect to get caught, so now it doesn't matter that we did."
 
Nantucket Cat said:
"...the parties in 1992 did not intend for this provision to apply to HBO's exhibition of Leaving Neverland in 2019 and thus this dispute is not arbitrable."

I'm not super well-versed in law, so I could be completely misunderstanding this, but it sounds to me like their argument is basically "in 1992, we weren't expecting to ever show anything else about MJ, so since we didn't anticipate LN, it doesn't count." Am I interpreting that correctly? If so, it seems like a completely nonsensical argument, akin to "we didn't expect to get caught, so now it doesn't matter that we did."
Click to expand...

Yes, HBO are basically saying that the contract 'ended' in 1992 (because it was written to cover the MJ concert performance which was televised), but the relevant clause in the contract (which their lawyers signed) reads otherwise. Both sides are quoting relevant cases as precedent for their own argument, so the appeal panel has to decide if the case can go to arbitration (as the 1992 contract indicates that such a breach should).

It seems that when the MJJ Co. wrote the 1992 contract they were thinking of the future, and when HBO signed it, they were not.

(If HBO didn't like this contract clause in 1992, presumably they could have clarified it or asked to have it changed back then. )
 
Last edited:
myosotis;4303271 said:
Yes, HBO are basically saying that the contract 'ended' in 1992 (because it was written to cover the MJ concert performance which was televised), but the relevant clause in the contract (which their lawyers signed) reads otherwise. Both sides are quoting relevant cases as precedent for their own argument, so the appeal panel has to decide if the case can go to arbitration (as the 1992 contract indicates that such a breach should).

It seems that when the MJJ Co. wrote the 1992 contract they were thinking of the future, and when HBO signed it, they were not.

(If HBO didn't like this contract clause in 1992, presumably they could have clarified it or asked to have it changed back then. )
Click to expand...

Just a thought, but if they didn&#8217;t breach the clause in 1993 and 2003&#8211;2005 even though they surely had plenty of opportunities to drag MJ through the mud like everyone else did at the time, I guess they were well aware that their contract hadn&#8217;t expired in 1992.
 
.the parties in 1992 did not intend for this provision to apply to HBO's exhibition of Leaving Neverland in 2019 and thus this dispute is not arbitrable."

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

So what programmes did/would it apply to?

Stupid argument. A contract is pretty clear either it says we will air the concert and agree not to slag you off when promoting it or the contract says we agree NEVER to slag you off in the future. The contract should be pretty clear and if it's not then the lawyers were crap at their job.
 
I hope the Estate wins this. I think they have a good chance, to be honest. It will be a moral victory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top