The Estate vs HBO

As expected, HBO have decided to appeal the court order granting plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration.

In my opinion, TO APPEAL is HBO's defense. Prolong! Prolong! Prolong!

If they were so sure of themselves, they would go in there, guns-a-blazing and fight the good fight. But alas, in my opinion, they are not confident in a win and will fight arbitration with their last dying breath.

And with this type of defense, HBO will also be fighting with their shareholders, whom I'm sure would like this thing to go away. Shareholders don't like lawsuits, especially lawsuits with a ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG!!!!
 
In my opinion, TO APPEAL is HBO's defense. Prolong! Prolong! Prolong!

If they were so sure of themselves, they would go in there, guns-a-blazing and fight the good fight. But alas, in my opinion, they are not confident in a win and will fight arbitration with their last dying breath.

And with this type of defense, HBO will also be fighting with their shareholders, whom I'm sure would like this thing to go away. Shareholders don't like lawsuits, especially lawsuits with a ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG!!!!
Also, the "appeals" are often less likely over turned. The chances are very low.
 
HBO is appealing a judge’s decision last month that sided with the Michael Jackson estate in its battle against the documentary “Leaving Neverland.”

The four-hour documentary details the allegations of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who allege that Jackson sexually abused them when they were young boys. The film won the Emmy for best documentary or nonfiction special in September.

The Jackson estate has waged a high-stakes PR and legal battle against the film, suing HBO for $100 million and claiming that the subjects had a financial motive to lie. The estate sought to compel HBO into arbitration, claiming that the cable network was violating a 1992 contract for a Michael Jackson concert film which contained a non-disparagement provision.

HBO has argued that the documentary was protected by the First Amendment, and that the Jackson estate was seeking to chill public debate on child sexual abuse. HBO sought to dismiss the case under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which prohibits frivolous suits that threaten free speech on matters of public concern.

In his ruling last month, Wu found that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to arbitration requests. He denied the motion to strike the suit, and ordered the case to arbitration. Wu acknowledged that his ruling would likely be appealed.

HBO filed a notice on Monday that it would appeal the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.

John Branca, the attorney who is co-executor of the Jackson estate, called the move a “cover-up.”

“If HBO truly believed that their desperate attempt to grab ratings was true, accurate, and fair, they would not be so strenuously avoiding a public reckoning of this junk programming which has become known as the Lies of Leaving Neverland,” Branca said in a statement. “The agenda is set at the top. Stockholders are questioning HBO’s leadership.”


Howard Weitzman, an attorney for the estate, said the appeal was a frivolous attempt to avoid the inevitable.

“Soon there will be a hearing, as the Court ordered, and damages will be awarded for HBO’s intentional and unlawful conduct,” he said. “The real questions are what is HBO afraid of and how much will they end up paying the Estate of Michael Jackson.”


https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...0bMJYPZrLB1b2edj7WKR8oGRhahG12BXWH5gF0lpBcPPB
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Jackson Estate Moonwalks Over HBO’s ‘Leaving Neverland’ Appeal, Calls Move “Bogus” & “Desperate”

The dance-off over Leaving Neverland is far far from over. Less than a month after HBO lost an attempt to get the multimillion-dollar lawsuit from the estate of Michael Jackson against the Emmy-winning documentary tossed out, and saw a federal judge shift the whole matter towards arbitration, the AT&T-owned premium cabler kicked back Monday. In a short filing, HBO’s lawyers from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and O’Melveny & Myers LLP notified the court that they intend to take the matter upstairs, so to speak.
...
It’s pretty clearly the Jackson estate and their attorneys thought that was bad – really bad.

“This bogus appeal is nothing more than HBO’s latest desperate attempt to cover up the truth about its shoddy journalism,” Freedman & Taitelman, LLP’s Bryan Freedman said a statement this afternoon.

“For seven months HBO has tried and failed to avoid a public arbitration,” the lawyer added of the turns of the $100 million lawsuit the estate launched in late February. “This appeal, which is its latest Hail Mary attempt, is even more pathetic than all of its other attempts to avoid public scrutiny. If HBO truly wanted to avoid a judgment, it should have thought about that before it aided and abetted a one-sided documentary without any journalistic integrity and in which the subjects have a huge motivation to lie – namely the millions of dollars for which they are suing the Estate. Our client will never stop until justice is served.”


Having fist premiered at the Sundance Film Festival under threats and police protection, and then debuting on HBO to big viewership on March 3, the Dan Reed-directed Leaving Neverland spotlighted specific claims by Wade Robson and James Safechuck that they were sexually abused by Jackson back when they were children.

“HBO’s frivolous appeal to stall the court’s Order to arbitrate this dispute is yet another attempt to avoid the inevitable,” fellow Jackson estate lawyer Howard Weitzman said Monday. “Soon there will be a hearing, as the Court ordered, and damages will be awarded for HBO’s intentional and unlawful conduct,” the Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert partner added with a verbal grenade. “The real questions are what is HBO afraid of and how much will they end up paying the Estate of Michael Jackson.”

Called out as another set of smears upon the deceased pop star, the estate’s attorneys hoped to bludgeon the film, the filmmaker and the outlet by dredging up a portion of a 1992 deal between Jackson and HBO over a concert special as proof of the legal miscarriage by the premium cabler. That citation of the almost three-decade old agreement didn’t get much movement for the estate, and the case moved out of L.A. Superior Court to federal court in early March for jurisdictional reasons.

The August 15 move to dismiss from HBO’s legal team came following a ruling in late May by U.S. District Court judge Wu to stop the Jackson estate’s desire to have the matter shut away behind closed doors and be decided by the American Arbitration Association. The estate also lost out in its aim to have the lawsuit sent back to state court. Last month, the often-unpredictable Wu went the other way and bundled together a series of rulings to put the matter in open arbitration.

From that point on, the HBO appeal was basically a done deal waiting to happen.

Coming as WarnerMedia gets ready to put its HBO Max streaming service on the launch pad next year and some ornery shareholders kick up dust about AT&T’s purchase of DirecTV and a few other corporate decisions, the Jackson estate is now out for legal blood.

“This is a cover-up,” asserts estate co-executor John Blanca of the appeal move by HBO. “If HBO truly believed that their desperate attempt to grab ratings was true, accurate, and fair, they would not be so strenuously avoiding a public reckoning of this junk programming which has become known as the Lies of Leaving Neverland,” he kitchen sinks and then some. “The agenda is set at the top. Stockholders are questioning HBO’s leadership.”

Before his death from a prescription drug overdose in 2009, Jackson settled a previous child abuse claim in 1993 and was acquitted of other such charges in 2005.

HBO did not return request for comment on its appeal filing today.

https://deadline.com/2019/10/michae...nd-lawsuit-hbo-appeal-emmy-winner-1202765393/
 
Last edited:
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again that HBO is gonna lose, not just because the appeal unlikely gonna happen, but because the stockholder knew what’s gonna if the defaming film was green lit and they knew they got what’s coming to them.
 
HBO wants another shot at convincing a court that the Michael Jackson Estate can’t go to arbitration over its “documentary” Leaving Neverland.

On Monday, the pay network filed paperwork for a high-stakes appeal.

HBO is now going to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“This bogus appeal is nothing more than HBO’s latest desperate attempt to cover up the truth about its shoddy journalism,” responds Bryan Freedman, an attorney for the Michael Jackson Estate. “For seven months HBO has tried and failed to avoid a public arbitration. This appeal, which is its latest Hail Mary attempt, is even more pathetic than all of its other attempts to avoid public scrutiny. If HBO truly wanted to avoid a judgment, it should have thought about that before it aided and abetted a one sided documentary without any journalistic integrity and in which the subjects have a huge motivation to lie — namely the millions of dollars for which they are suing the Estate. Our client will never stop until justice is served.”
 
NatureCriminal7896;4272496 said:
“For seven months HBO has tried and failed to avoid a public arbitration."

In my opinion, HBO is more afraid of PUBLIC ARBITRATION, then they are in losing One Hundred Million Dollars.
 
Hahahaha! good job estate! they too sacred because they know they gonna loose. HBO and the 3 lairs need to hang it up already. they keeping this crap up just to get more money. yeah! go ahead and do it! i can wait to see these buttholes put in jail or etc. bring it on! :D
 
From fans on Twitter (Thank you) :

HBO has not only filed a motion for appeal against the ruling for arbitration, but they now have told the Estate and judge they will file a motion for a stay in the case until the appeal has been resolved.

https://www.scribd.com/document/431579937/HBO-Motion-of-Appeal-and-Stay

Currently-planned dates (HBO motion for appeal and stay) are:

HBO 'Moving' papers: 7th Nov
Estate opposition 21st Nov
HBO reply 5th Dec
Hearing date 19th Dec.


(I feel sorry for the Estate. I don't think I'd have the patience to work in law. Glaciers move more quickly than this).

Also from fans on Twitter:
Estate is asking for proceedings to continue until the appeal.

Plaintiffs (Estate's) motion to stay enforcement of order pending resolution of appeal (Not sure if that is right! It's getting complicated).

Plaintiff opening brief : 28th Oct
opposition: 1st Nov
Plaintiff reply: 5th Nov
Hearing on motion 7th Nov.
 
Last edited:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">RE MJ Estate v HBO: HBO has filed their motion to stay all proceedings pending appeal. <a href="https://twitter.com/Hammertonhal?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Hammertonhal</a> <a href="https://t.co/hBmQOoWWVN">https://t.co/hBmQOoWWVN</a></p>&mdash; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1189047410607058944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>



This is hardly surprising I suppose because they've been playing this game all along - trying to stall the proceedings and keep it out of the public arena.

I hate reading these because the HBO lawyers like to state everything as facts when they're not. It's a normal way to try to sway the judge in their favour, but trouble is it makes it very easy for the media to publish reports with direct quotes that then further mislead the public about this whole situation.


for example they once again mention the "27 year old expired contract", but we all know whether that is true or not still has not been established by a judge/arbiter.

Makes me laugh that they say "HBO will be irreparably harmed" without a stay of arbitration. What a joke!

They also refer to "newsworthy works exploring issues of public concern such as Leaving Neverland" Another joke. These guys are comedians. It's "public concern" when they want a stay of arbitration, but when arbitration is the judge's decision they want it to be kept out of the public eye!
 
Last edited:
With thanks to fans on Twitter-

Filed: HBO motion to stay pending their appeal:

https://www.scribd.com/document/432487514/HBO-Motion-to-Stay-Pending-Appeal

'HBO will suffer irreparable harm in absence of a stay' (Don't laugh!)

...because Plaintiff's demand to immediately arbitrate seeks to provide them a perpetual forum to attack HBO's speech about Michael Jackson and represents a serious threat to HBO's right to exercise of its free speech rights to continue to distribute an important award-winning documentary like 'leaving Neverland'....... Moreover HBO is likely to prevail on its appeal given Plaintiff's efforts to invoke an expired arbitration agreement and hold HBO hostage to it in perpetuity.

Second, a stay is warranted because of the difficult legal issues at play here....

Third a stay will not will not (sic) prejudice nor substantially injure Plaintiffs who seek only money damages.

Fourth the public interest favours a stay given the strong interest in protecting the exercise of First Amendment rights and promoting expressive, newsworthy works exploring issues of public concern such as Leaving Neverland.
 
With thanks to fans on Twitter-

Filed: HBO motion to stay pending their appeal:

https://www.scribd.com/document/432487514/HBO-Motion-to-Stay-Pending-Appeal

'HBO will suffer irreparable harm in absence of a stay' (Don't laugh!)

...because Plaintiff's demand to immediately arbitrate seeks to provide them a perpetual forum to attack HBO's speech about Michael Jackson and represents a serious threat to HBO's right to exercise of its free speech rights to continue to distribute an important award-winning documentary like 'leaving Neverland'....... Moreover HBO is likely to prevail on its appeal given Plaintiff's efforts to invoke an expired arbitration agreement and hold HBO hostage to it in perpetuity.

Second, a stay is warranted because of the difficult legal issues at play here....

Third a stay will not will not (sic) prejudice nor substantially injure Plaintiffs who seek only money damages.

Fourth the public interest favours a stay given the strong interest in protecting the exercise of First Amendment rights and promoting expressive, newsworthy works exploring issues of public concern such as Leaving Neverland.
Ofcourse they have to say something but those arguments are imo ridiculous. Are they really going to get away with this?
 
myosotis;4273119 said:
With thanks to fans on Twitter-

Filed: HBO motion to stay pending their appeal:

https://www.scribd.com/document/432487514/HBO-Motion-to-Stay-Pending-Appeal

'HBO will suffer irreparable harm in absence of a stay' (Don't laugh!)

...because Plaintiff's demand to immediately arbitrate seeks to provide them a perpetual forum to attack HBO's speech about Michael Jackson and represents a serious threat to HBO's right to exercise of its free speech rights to continue to distribute an important award-winning documentary like 'leaving Neverland'....... Moreover HBO is likely to prevail on its appeal given Plaintiff's efforts to invoke an expired arbitration agreement and hold HBO hostage to it in perpetuity.

Second, a stay is warranted because of the difficult legal issues at play here....

Third a stay will not will not (sic) prejudice nor substantially injure Plaintiffs who seek only money damages.

Fourth the public interest favours a stay given the strong interest in protecting the exercise of First Amendment rights and promoting expressive, newsworthy works exploring issues of public concern such as Leaving Neverland.
Those arguments are quite ridiculous. If they had nothing to hide with their &#8221;award winning documentary&#8221; they shouldn&#8217;t be so afraid oh all fact coming out in the open.
 
Big Apple NYC;4272504 said:
In my opinion, HBO is more afraid of PUBLIC ARBITRATION, then they are in losing One Hundred Million Dollars.
I agree and that should tell people something.
 
La74;4273126 said:
If they had nothing to hide with their &#8221;award winning documentary&#8221; they shouldn&#8217;t be so afraid oh all fact coming out in the open.

Exactly!! I agree with you 1000Percent.

In my humble opinion, HBO is between a rock and hard place. Meaning they not only have to fight The Estate Of Michael Jackson, but they also have to fight their stockholders, or should I say: HBO has to appease their stockholders, whom I'm sure want this case to just go away, so they don't continue to have this ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT hanging over their heads.

The stockholders are worried about losing the money, while the HBO executives are worried about Public Arbitration exposing all of the lies, and inconsistencies within their "award-winning mockumentary."

OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE WHEN FIRST WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE!!!
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The MJE Reply to HBOs Appeal [Nov. 1 2019]<a href="https://t.co/6YJDbCytcw">https://t.co/6YJDbCytcw</a></p>&mdash; Rasheed (@rasheedKOPV) <a href="https://twitter.com/rasheedKOPV/status/1190370120561913857?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 1, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

EIUMNPEWsAIC_xP.jpg
 
^ Estate arguments sound excellent to me. HBO hopefully doesn't have a leg to stand on! Love Estate's points that 'the time and expense involved in a typical arbitration scarcely qualify as irreparable injury' and also that HBO cited an authority saying that 'speedy resolution of cases involving free speech is desirable'- but the Estate point out that 'granting a stay would further delay a hearing'. Ha ha!

If the judge agrees with the Estate, the only issue seemingly still in the way of arbitration is that the arbitrator is said (from previous cases) to have the say in whether the case is 'arbitrable', so we still need to get the arbitrator's decision on that, if the stay is not granted. So still at least 2 steps (deciding on the 'stay', and then arbitrability) before actual arbitration.

Next dates in this 'step':
Plaintiff reply: 5th Nov
Hearing on motion 7th Nov.
 
Last edited:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">HBO responce 11.5.19 (Full)<a href="https://t.co/iFfFAhfLvY">https://t.co/iFfFAhfLvY</a></p>&mdash; Rasheed (@rasheedKOPV) <a href="https://twitter.com/rasheedKOPV/status/1191799441411301376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 5, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

EIoc4JzXkAAf8Md.jpg
 
5th November.

HBO has now replied to the Estate's response. (corrected)

The Estate had noted that AT and T (generally) force arbitration on customers, indicating that the 'gloves were off' in this battle. HBO has hit back in their response to the MJ Estate, by referencing (in support of their claim that 'a stay will not harm the plaintiffs') the recent 'Market Watch article with the headline:'Michael Jackson and Elvis top list of dead celebrities Earning the Most money'.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...s-making-millions-in-the-afterlife-2019-10-30

I wonder if the Estate will counter that at the next hearing by mentioning other projects which they have put on the back burner. It's maybe a pity that they said that the cancellation of the Chicago workup for 'MJ The Musical' was not related to 'LN'.......

HBO is still underlining its 'First Amendment' (Free Speech) rights, and even going as far as to say: 'would-be critics of Mr Jackson may also wonder what claims Plaintiffs may try to assert against them, despite the law barring 'defamation after death claims.' (So HBO seems to be saying that they are 'entitled' to defame MJ, under the First Amendment. )

HBO response in full (With thanks to fans on Twitter):

https://www.scribd.com/document/433589322/HBO-Responce-11-5-19

Next date: Hearing on motion 7th Nov.
 
Last edited:
myosotis;4273642 said:
HBO has hit back in their response to the MJ Estate, by referencing (in support of their claim that 'a stay will not harm the plaintiffs') the recent 'Market Watch article with the headline:'Michael Jackson and Elvis top list of dead celebrities Earning the Most money'.

Oh, maybe that’s why Dan Reed twittered this the other day?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Michael Jackson tops Forbes' 2019 highest-earning dead celebrities list - raking in $60million | Daily Mail Online <a href="https://t.co/4jQMpgYvSZ">https://t.co/4jQMpgYvSZ</a></p>&mdash; Dan Reed (@danreed1000) <a href="https://twitter.com/danreed1000/status/1189834115216007168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 31, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Someone’s trying to save their own butt?
 
Also, thanks for translating all that Legalese for us, myosotis. :)

Only 'translated' some of HBO though, because it's impossible to know whether all their quoted prior cases are 'suitably appropriate' for their arguments.

It seems to me that HBO are grasping at straws overall, but who knows what the judge will make of it. It seems that there are no similar cases where a contract this old was taken to arbitration, and HBO keep repeating that the contract is 'old'. However, the contract WAS intended to be 'in perpetuity'. So unless the judge rules that 'perpetual' contracts are unlawful, I can't see HBO winning this point. Especially since HBO lawyers SIGNED the original contract, so they must have known what they were signing!

It's being said on Twitter that:
If granted, a stay would halt all proceedings pending the appeal.
Appeal could take about a year.
 
Exactly. Contracts don’t simply expire. If that were the case, what’s the default “best before” date when you sign a contract? :laughing:
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Well written argument by the MJ Estate on why the contract between Michael Jackson and HBO from 1992 has not expired. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJEstatevHBO?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJEstatevHBO</a> <a href="https://t.co/S6sbhDv3nZ">pic.twitter.com/S6sbhDv3nZ</a></p>&mdash; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1191834858927976448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 5, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
i wonder if there was the same kind of contract with oprah
 
i wonder if there was the same kind of contract with oprah

afaik there is. and that is why she never directly says "MJ is a pedophile!". She only supports the fantasy story and has nothing to be afraid of by this way.
 
ScreenOrigami;4273665 said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Well written argument by the MJ Estate on why the contract between Michael Jackson and HBO from 1992 has not expired. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJEstatevHBO?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJEstatevHBO</a> <a href="https://t.co/S6sbhDv3nZ">pic.twitter.com/S6sbhDv3nZ</a></p>&#8212; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1191834858927976448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 5, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

...but HBO say that the Estate is ''undermining their own argument by saying this, because those occurrences relate to the original contract (ie for the HBO screening of the MJ concert) 'unlike the 2019 exhibition of Leaving Neverland which has nothing to do with it.''

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

To see the original contract, it is attached to the Estate's 'Petition to Compel Arbitration', and the relevant wording appears in the 'Confidentiality Provision'. on p49 of the document page counter.

'HBO shall not in any manner nor at any time (either during or after HBO's contact or HBO's relationship with Licensor and/ or Performer, use or disclose either directly or indirectly, even in the course of casual discussions, to anyone other than representatives of Licensor or other persons designated by Licensor any of the following described information (the 'Confidential Information') any information ,date, documents or other materials of any kind or nature in any way related to Performer from any source or for any reasons, including without limitation as acquired by HBO in the course of HBO's contact with Licensor and Performer. Confidential Information shall also include without limitation any information relating to Licensor's business affairs or operations, the business affairs, operations and/ or personal life of Performer, the business affairs and operations and/or private lives of any and all members of Performers family....which information is generally not known to the public. .....

HBO shall not, without Licensor's prior written consent in each instance publish directly or indirectly or cause or induce the publication of any Confidential Information including, without limitation, give any interviews, write or prepare or assist in the preparation of any books, articles, programs or any other oral or written communications concerning Performer or any entities or corporations doing business with or in any way related to Performer an of any of his or their activities.

HBO understands and acknowledges if HBO has any question as to whether any particular piece of information is confidential, HBO is obligated to obtain Licensor's written approval prior to disclosing any such information. HBO shall not make any disparaging remarks concerning Performer or any of his representatives, agents or business practices or do any act which may harm or disparage or cause to lower in esteem the reputation or public image of Performer or any person, firm or corporation related to or doing business with Performer.

https://leavingneverlandfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Petition-to-Compel-Arbitration.pdf
 
Back
Top