Quantcast
Channel: Vindicating Michael
Viewing all 233 articles
Browse latest View live

What JEFFREY EPSTEIN’s case tells us about the MEDIA and MICHAEL JACKSON

$
0
0

Hopefully some of you have already seen the ‘Filthy Rich’ Netflix series about pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and had a chance to think it over.

The documentary requires a comparison with Dan Reed’s ‘Leaving Neverland’ of course, but there is so big a difference in the standards of research for the two films that it is not even worth it.

One is a sloppy propaganda piece, while the other is a serious study of a horrible case and a horrible phenomenon. And how can you compare the two rogues spilling their fantasies about Michael Jackson without any proof, with the testimonies of Epstein’s victims supported by the documents, police and even the FBI 53-page indictment? The two cases are totally incomparable and are actually poles apart.

But if you do compare there are at least two factors that are drawing attention.

One is that the genuine victims in ‘Filthy Rich’ look unwilling to discuss the sexual crimes committed against them and are visibly reluctant to describe them in graphic detail. There are no juicy details in their accounts and when it is necessary to give some, the victims stop short, clearly hesitate and are still unable to utter it. Only one woman out of many in ‘Filthy Rich’ mentioned a sex toy used by Epstein but said it in so low a voice that it was barely heard, though this was one of his main tools of abusing minors.

Remember Robson & Safechuck who gleefully described in ‘Leaving Neverland’ the various ways they were allegedly abused by MJ as well as their occasional smiles and twinkling of the eye during descriptions?

What a dead give-away that they are lying! Their desire to tell it in so much graphic detail in order to look convincing shows that for their own selves their stories are cold and devoid of any emotion, and all their descriptions are just words not resonating with any feelings.

Real feeling is what you see in Epstein’s victims though they do try to look unemotional and calm.

Another thing that strikes you as a very big difference is that Epstein’s victims never changed their stories. What they initially said they repeated later, and what they repeated later they had been saying from the very beginning. And though initially most of them were unwilling to talk, when interviewed by the police all of them admitted that they were molested by Epstein. According to the police two of the girls claimed that they ‘loved’ Epstein and hoped to marry him, but the fact of molestation was not disputed even by them.

The only ones who still deny everything are Epstein’s accomplices – Ghislaine Maxwell and several other monstrous females who turned the sexual abuse of girls into their daily routine. By now they have changed their names and are unavailable for comment, but hopefully one day they will see their day of reckoning.

If we didn’t know Robson to be a liar he could easily qualify for the role of an accomplice and it would be an interesting turn to the matter, because if we are to believe his current story it means that when defending Michael Jackson at the 2005 trial he perjured himself and obstructed justice that way. But if he told the truth then, it means that now he is lying to extort the MJ Estate for money (initially a billion reduced to hundreds of millions by today). So whichever way you look at him the only place where Robson really belongs is prison, and not a TV show.

The ‘Filthy Rich’ documentary shows how to tell a victim from an accomplice. Accomplices deny everything whatever it takes, while victims don’t deny and just keep silence, sometimes for years – but only until a certain moment in time when they are given a chance to finally speak up.

The fact that men and women who were sexually abused as children are usually unwilling to talk is no big news. It is a common phenomenon originating in their feelings of shame and guilt, the fear and intimidation accompanying the molestation, the trauma of reliving it again and their often justified belief that no one will listen.

The Miami Herald that published an expose of Epstein’s crimes in November 2018 provided the impressive ratio of 80 abused victims identified by the journalists in 2001-2006 and scattered around the country and abroad. About 60 of them were located, but only 8 women agreed to be interviewed and 4 were willing to speak on camera:

The Herald identified about 80 women who say they were molested or otherwise sexually abused by Epstein from 2001 to 2006. About 60 of them were located — now scattered around the country and abroad. Eight of them agreed to be interviewed, on or off the record. Four of them were willing to speak on video. The women are now mothers, wives, nurses, bartenders, Realtors, hairdressers and teachers. One is a Hollywood actress. Several have grappled with trauma, depression and addiction. Some have served time in prison. A few did not survive. One young woman was found dead last year in a rundown motel in West Palm Beach. She overdosed on heroin and left behind a young son.

So the overwhelming majority of them would not talk and this is indeed characteristic of victims who were sexually abused as children.

But what is totally uncharacteristic of genuine victims is to grow up into adult people and go to a courtroom to defend their abuser when he is tried there on molestation charges. And do so under oath. And some time later change their minds and decide that it is better to accuse him after all.

Epstein’s victims kept a long silence because they were scared to death, didn’t want to go through all that scarring again, and had every reason to believe that justice would not prevail – some of them had already approached law enforcement, but it brought them nowhere.

But IF their chances to put their molester behind bars had been real, they would have undoubtedly testified against him. Even the two girls who were allegedly ‘in love’ and hoped for a marriage would have told the truth and said that when they were underage they were lured into sex.

Thus it is utterly impossible to imagine Epstein’s victims to testify in his defense, deny everything and say that they were never touched, and then – upon leaving the courtroom – smile on camera and make a V-sign.

And years later accuse him of molestation in the same vehement way they defended him before.

Wade Robson in 2005 after leaving the courtroom

But this is exactly what Wade Robson did.

Why did he? The answer is simple – he is not genuine. Robson had his every chance in court and used it to defend Jackson, so here you will have to choose between Robson being an accomplice or Michael Jackson being innocent because Robson the victim is simply not an option.

He is an actor who has simply adjusted himself to the role of a victim. It doesn’t really fit but he is trying hard and learned the right words. He is also sure that there will be an armada of claque to applaud his performance and write positive reviews about his garbage. And he also rightfully believes that the media will do their utmost to force the smelly substance down the viewers’ throats and the public will swallow it without giving it a thought.

But if the people gave the product a second look they would be aghast at what is being offered to them under the guise of MJ’s ‘victims’.

The first obvious difference is that those who were really abused have a trove of factual evidence to support their case while fake victims just say it with no proof whatsoever, and it is only the graphic content which makes people faint at what they hear.

Robson & Safechuck, for example, make factual mistakes in their every statement, contradict what they said a couple of months earlier, refute their own testimonies and the timeline presented by their families and produce several editions of complaints each time inconsistent with their previous version. Their stories are long, winding and intricate, so that their followers are able to grasp only the main idea, while the accounts of genuine victims are usually simple and plain – actually so simple and plain that it is even horrible.

All Epstein’s underage girls, for example, came from troubled homes and often lacked money for basic things like shoes which they had to wear tight for years. And then at school they heard that a certain strange old man was giving 200-300 dollars just for a 30-min massage. The only condition was that the girls were to be in their underwear, but this didn’t sound that bad to them for so big a sum.

However when they were groped or even raped and if they felt ‘uncomfortable’ after it using Epstein’s terminology, they were offered to simply bring another girl and get their $200 anyway. And many of them did.

One girl, for example, brought 40 to 60 more victims and sometimes came to his mansion three times a day as Epstein requested sex as regularly as breakfast, dinner and supper. Now she is one of Epstein’s most ardent accusers despite or probably due to her involvement in the victimization of others.

We can imagine how difficult it was for these girls to admit that they were turned into Epstein’s accomplices and made money at other victims’ expense. Their guilt and fear are real and this is why it took these young women really much fortitude to come forward – first their innocence was taken away from them, then they were manipulated by this monster, then they were betrayed by the prosecutors who were supposed to protect them and then they had to struggle with their own crushing guilt.

This banality of evil is what actually makes it so sad and so much unlike Robson & Safechuck’s spectacular tales specially designed to shock, confuse and cloud the minds of the gullible public.

  • … Robson, for example, had to seek a way to explain why he defended Michael Jackson at the 2005 trial, so in ‘Leaving Neverland’ he is telling a long story that he decided to speak in MJ’s defense at a dinner on the eve of his testimony when he saw Michael’s children, ‘felt sorry for them’, etcetera. However the dinner was after his court testimony and not before, and when Taj Jackson, who also attended the dinner, noted it after watching the film, the episode was simply cut out and the propaganda piece still went ahead as if nothing happened.
  • … the film gives Robson almost half an hour to graphically describe the way he was allegedly molested when ‘he was left alone by his parents after their first weekend at Neverland’.  But his mother testified on three different occasions that after that first weekend all of them left the ranch including the small boy, and a studious research of the documents proves that not a single Neverland employee saw the boy left alone there. Do Robson and Dan Reed mind this little inconsistency? Certainly not. The false half-hour description is still there.
  • … Robson claims that his alleged molestation at the ranch was multiple and continued for a long time. But if you look up his mother’s testimony at the 2005 trial she says that during the 14 years they were in the US, her son stayed with Michael at his ranch on four occasions only, and they hardly saw him at all as he was almost always away. And she even sounded annoyed and displeased with this fact. So where were those multiple occasions?
  • ….and if you listen to Safechuck he says that ‘they had sex’ (the expression never used by genuine victims) under nearly every bush at Neverland. Never mind that right at that time hundreds of workers were renovating the ranch and were putting rails all over it for a circular railroad and none of them saw the alleged activities. And most Neverland employees could hardly even remember who Safechuck was.
  • …. actually the train station was one of those sex scenes described by Safechuck in vivid detail. However the train station was non-existent at that time, in the literal meaning of the word as it was built only several years later. Does it matter to Dan Reed? Certainly not. He shrugs it off saying that Safechuck misremembered the time of the event, but the problem is that by the moment the train station was built Safechuck had stopped seeing MJ.

The list of similar pits and falls in Robson’s and Safechuck’s stories can go on forever. If Epstein’s victims had given that kind of testimony about their molester, there can’t be any doubt that their case would have been immediately thrown out with serious repercussions for the accusers – however when it comes to accusing Michael Jackson it is perfectly okay to tell even the craziest lies.

Telling lies about Michael Jackson, even most absurd ones, has always been okay because from the very beginning it was the basic rule of the Game.

The rule is that anyone can claim anything about Michael Jackson and the media will make extreme noise about it to smear MJ and deflect attention from real predators, and in the resulting smoke and mirrors their crimes will go unnoticed despite any amount of evidence against them and hundreds of their victims.

And no one even had to agree about the rules of the game – it was sort of a given, accepted by all those involved with a knowing wink and smile, like ‘let’s show this self-proclaimed messiah his place‘.

As regards the evidence against Michael Jackson it was never there, in contrast to Epstein who had a ton against him, though all of it was effectively put down the drain by the media, the seven-strong team of his lawyers and even the prosecutors who went as far as signing a sweetheart deal with his lawyers on the terms dictated to prosecution by Epstein himself.

But the deal came much later as at the beginning no one even talked about Epstein. The earliest (unverified) reports about his abuse of young girls were revealed only recently in 2019 and take us back to 1985. His first confirmed case is dated 1996 when Epstein’s employee Maria Farmer and her 15-year old sister Annie were sexually abused at different places and apart from each other. The sisters approached the police, the FBI and the media, but what did their story matter when everyone was busy with Michael Jackson and the frenzy campaign against him was at its peak? No one even paid attention.

In 2003 after Martin Bashir’s notorious film Michael Jackson’s name was in every paper and the media was trashing him on a daily basis, while Jeffrey Epstein was still untouchable and his name, business and social life were shrouded in complete secrecy. The Vanity Fair decided to fill the void and publish a lengthy business profile of the billionaire, however the research of their journalist Vicky Ward suddenly went in a different direction when she uncovered the complaint of the two Farmer sisters and had an interview with them.

Epstein certainly learned of the interview and told Ms. Ward that she needn’t touch on this matter adding that he knew all doctors in the vicinity – a seemingly innocent remark if it weren’t for Vicky Ward’s then pregnancy with twins.

Ghislaine Maxwell called Maria Farmer and flatly threatened her saying that she would ruin her career. She told her to be careful and watch her back:

“She told me I needed to watch my back, that ‘I know you like to go running on the West Side Highway, and that’s not going to be a safe place for you anymore, because there are a lot of ways to die on the West Side Highway,’” Farmer recalls. These calls continued for years, prompting her to go into hiding in the North Carolina hills and change her name.

Before the Vanity Fair 2003 publication a severed head of a cat was also placed in the yard of the editor-in-chief Graydon Carter as well as a bullet on his doorstep. As a result the girls’ interviews were cut from the article at the last minute and Mr. Carter’s recent explanation why it happened was that “Ward did not have three sources to verify the claims, and that the reporting did not meet the magazine’s legal threshold.”

Well, the reports of Maureen Orth of the Vanity Fair did not have three sources to verify the claims against Michael Jackson either, but it was never an obstacle for publishing non-stop dirt about him. The Vanity Fair witch hunt of Michael Jackson began with Orth’s articles in 1994 and was resumed with double force in 2003 and funnily, this was exactly the time when the same magazine silenced the molestation complaints about Jeffrey Epstein.

In March 2005 when the media, prosecution and public were even more busy with poor Jackson (he was on trial in the crazy Arvizo case), the parents of a girl abused by Epstein reported it to the police and shared with them the conversations they overheard between their daughter and other schoolgirls about the strange activities in Epstein’s mansion.

This time an investigation followed where every new girl gave three or four more names and the case quickly snowballed to at least 36 confirmed cases. However no one except the police knew of the investigation as every effort was made not to leak information to the press. All cameras were on Michael Jackson of course – the media’s favorite victim.

On June 13th 2005 Michael Jackson was fully acquitted in the court of law, but found guilty in the court of public opinion. Why so? Because the public was completely unaware of the real state of affairs, and being heavily misinformed by the media was shocked to hear the not guilty verdict. Almost no one believed that Michael was innocent – the media told them that the jurors were star-struck and made a mistake.

But there was no mistake. The case against Michael Jackson was simply non-existent.

The Arvizo case was hopeless from the very start, so the prosecution had to scratch every corner for other victims but found none and in the absence of victims proper brought some third parties – hear-say witnesses covering the 12-year period since 1993, however they too utterly shamed themselves in court.

The only ‘victim’ the prosecution could get was Jason Francia, a maid’s son who in 1994 under much pressure from the police complained of three cases of tickling during a tickling contest he had with MJ and said he was in therapy for five years after that. The jurors could hardly stifle a laugh when they were listening.

By time the prosecution rested its case it had already fallen apart and technically there was no need for the defense to lay out its case, however several of Michael’s friends were ready to speak up – Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin and Wade Robson (who was not subpoenaed and testified of his own free will in contradiction to what he claims now), and the testimony of these former young Michael’s friends, now adult people, only added more clarity to the fact that Michael Jackson was innocent.

The trial was long and costly for taxpayers, but it was still worth it for the interested parties. The media ratings were boosted, Michael’s reputation was damaged and real sex offenders stayed in the shade as due to the hiss, cry and smoke around MJ not a soul learned about the horrid activities of Jeffrey Epstein (or any other predator) though for several months the police investigation of Epstein’s crimes was running parallel to MJ’s trial.

I honestly tried to find media reports about Epstein’s investigation in 2005 and 2006 but didn’t find any except the occasional report about his finances. There are simply none. You can check three hundred references below the Wiki article about Epstein, and you will see that despite Epstein’s multiple victims and overwhelming evidence uncovered by the police not a single media outlet was reporting the investigation at that time.

The first news began to leak only closer to 2008 when Epstein was finally sentenced to a short term in jail for two cases of ‘soliciting prostitution’ (the minors were called ‘prostitutes’), but the real depth of the inferno opened up only ten years later.

A few news drops also trickled in 2015 when one of Epstein’s victims claimed that Epstein offered her for sex to his friends, one of whom was Prince Andrew with whom she had a photograph and was then sexually abused, but the girl was almost immediately silenced.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre, Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell

Three more years passed and in November 2018 the Miami Herald published a groundbreaking report about Epstein which was so well-researched and so well-documented that it forced the prosecution to resume their investigation. However the real outpour of information came only in 2019, and most of it was after Epstein’s detention and alleged suicide.

After decades of silence the Miami Herald series by Julie K. Brown was a revelation and a thunderbolt out of a clear blue sky. It suddenly turned out that Epstein’s abuse of girls had been going on for years and his victims were as young as 13, 14 and 15 years old. There was also some evidence of a gift made to him on his birthday when he was presented with 12-year-old triplets who were flown to him from France and flown back the next day.

Epstein’s crimes were far from being a ‘he said, she said’ case. They were confirmed by the written memos from his enablers who left hundreds of open or coded messages like ‘at 4pm, 2×8 years old, doesn’t speak English’, scattered all over his home and seized by the police.

Numerous airport employees testified that they saw young girls accompanying Epstein to his private island, some of whom looked like 11 or 12 years old, and this is why his jet was nicknamed ‘Lolita express’. The logs of Epstein’s pilots contained the names of important visitors and the number of their visits to his island. As Epstein needed as many as three masseuses a day, his recruiters brought him more than 200 girls to his Palm Beach island alone, not to mention similar activities in his other homes.

When the police made their first search of Epstein’s house in October 2005 most of his computer hard drives, surveillance cameras and videos had been removed leaving loose and dangling wires – which made it clear that he had been warned in advance about the police raid. However they did manage to uncover the nude photos of some of his accusers.

Alfredo Rodriguez, the key witness in Epstein’s case died

The walls of his house were lined with photos of naked women and girls (one was a 6-year old). The bathroom had soaps in the shape of penises and vaginas and the dresser drawer was filled with sex toys described by the victims.

The sex toys were regularly picked and washed by his housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez who said that ‘he felt there was a lot more going on than just massages’ given the cleanup operation that typically awaited him afterwards.

There were also manuals on sex slavery and porn videotapes with ‘name of girl+name of visitor’ labels carefully assembled and stored, possibly for the blackmail of these people.

The testimonies of the victims and eye-witnesses were verified by the police and FBI many times over, and in 2008 were finally laid out in the FBI 53-page indictment, at a stage when their investigation was about to go international.

However it was suddenly brought to a halt when the lead federal prosecutors in the case quietly signed a ‘sweetheart’ deal with Epstein’s lawyers and after meeting most of his demands too.

As we already know Epstein’s child victims were downgraded to prostitutes and Epstein was charged with only two cases of soliciting prostitution. He agreed to serve a 18 months sentence in a private wing of the county jail and be registered as a sex-offender (though not in all states). His madame Ghislaine Maxwell, other agents and undisclosed clients were guaranteed immunity from prosecution. The FBI investigation was closed (one of the FBI agents who pledged to take the case to court was seen crying on hearing the news). The deal was to be kept secret from Epstein’s victims and their lawyers, and all of them indeed thought that the investigation was still going on until it was too late to change anything.

Email after email the prosecutors treated Epstein’s demands with exceptional consideration:

“On an ‘avoid the press’ note … I can file the charge in district court in Miami which will hopefully cut the press coverage significantly. Do you want to check that out?’’ the lead federal prosecutor was writing to Epstein’s lawyer in a September 2007 email.

Epstein’s jail term was a joke as he was allowed to leave the jail 6 days a week, stay in his office 12 hours a day and come back only for sleep. This right was granted to him despite the rule that sex offenders don’t qualify for work release. Very soon he would be regarded by the jail staff not as an inmate but a ‘client’ because he hired the deputy sheriffs as his paid guards who accompanied him to his office and stayed outside while his visitors would come and go.

Out of 18 months Epstein served 13 and was freed 5 months earlier on condition that he would stay under house arrest for a year – the rule which he certainly broke every single day as he was seen freely walking about town. Epstein never once checked in with the New York Police Department in the eight years since he was told to do so every 90 days, as he was supposed to be a registered sex offender.

And now imagine that throughout the whole period the media didn’t report any of the above news and continued to trash Michael Jackson presenting him as the only and worst predator ever.

The public learned all these horrid details about Epstein only in 2019. Why?

Because Epstein had power and all the right connections and this is why his crimes were covered up and his victims silenced, while Michael Jackson the innocent man was thrust forward for the crowd to get distracted and practice some lynching.

The media hysteria around Michael Jackson was outrageous in its zeal and scope, the spin unheard of, the claims ridiculous and each of his moves was turned into a misdeed blown out of every proportion.

And while the public was entertained by the fake news about Michael Jackson real crime was swept under the carpet and the juiciest part of it is that the things committed by real offenders were attributed to MJ, thus adding much fun to the big game played by the powerful.

“Bryan Singer has been trailed by accusations of sexual misconduct for 20 years” – The Atlantic

Remember those mantras about ‘vulnerable teenage boys’ and ‘Nobody Is Going to Believe You’?

Oh, all of it was coming from real-life stories and was actually true, only was said about the wrong person.

The rules of the game are more than clear now – in order to deflect attention from the powerful and guilty, their guilt was to be placed on the innocent and helpless.

Otherwise you cannot explain the top secrecy and total lack of publicity for the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein, Jimmy Savile, Harvey Weinstein and many others, while the smear campaign of Michael Jackson was going virtually non-stop and spanned several decades.

Remember Harvey Weinstein relying on his PR team and a certain A.Benza, a gossip columnist known for trashing Michael Jackson, to dig up dirt on MJ when Weinstein still hoped to get away with his crimes? Using a spin against Jackson to stop negative press about themselves was their usual modus operandi and a well-tested method to divert attention from themselves.

Collecting a monthly retainer, Mr. Benza said, he reported items on Roger Clemens, Michael Jackson and others and sent them to Mr. Weinstein’s communications team, though he didn’t know whether they were used to trade away stories about the producer. Mr. Weinstein’s spokeswoman said the payments to Mr. Benza were for public relations work during Miramax’s dispute with Disney.

After 10 months, Mr. Weinstein said, “I think the coast is clear; I think we beat this thing,” according to Mr. Benza, who recently had a brief stint as a writer for American Media and also runs his own gossip podcast, “Fame Is a Bitch.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/05/us/harvey-weinstein-complicity.html

They name other names besides MJ, but in reality only Michael Jackson was their fall guy.

Being a genius and a natural magnet he was irresistible to millions, but at the same time also exceptionally vulnerable. In his childlike innocence he couldn’t imagine the dirt people were capable of thinking when they saw his friendship with youngsters. It is rare to find that kind of genius, mega success and appeal to people in combination with so much trust, naivety and helplessness, but Michael Jackson managed to be one.

To see how naïve and helpless he was, here is his plea to the media during the Bad tour in 1987 when he was already in so much despair with all that ‘Wacko Jacko” stuff that he pleaded the media to have mercy on him.

Like the old Indian proverb says

Do not judge a man until you’ve walked 2 moons in his moccasins.

Most people don’t know me, that is why they write such (crossed out) things in which most is not true.

I cry very, very often because it hurts and I worry about the children, all my children all over the world, I live for them.

If a man could say nothing against a character but what he can prove, history could not be written.

Animals strike, not from malice, but because they want to live, it is the same with those who criticize, they desire our blood, not our pain. But still I must achieve. I must seek truth in all things. I must endure for the power I was sent forth, for the world, for   the children.

But have mercy, for I’ve been bleeding a long time now.

MJ

But mercy never came and the media response was predictable: “Mad, Sad’, “I’M NOT MAD SAYS JACKO’S DAFT LETTER”, “Jacko pens a bizarre plea I’M NOT WACKO” , “Why Michael Jackson should stick to singing” and the like.

Instead of restraining themselves the media took advantage of Michael’s helplessness and first ridiculed him for everything under the sun and then upheld false accusations against him which were inevitable in the atmosphere of so much mud-slinging and everyone getting away with it.

The only obstacle to the final lynching was that there were no victims and no evidence of any wrongdoing.

In order to explain why despite the decades of investigation MJ was still free, the media kept rubbing in the idea that he was ‘too powerful’ and this is why he managed to ‘escape justice’.

Powerful Michael Jackson was, but not the way they mean it. He was an exceptionally pure guy and his genius and purity gave him the unique power to appeal to human hearts without him even trying. But what he didn’t have was the power to silence voices, suppress evidence, make sweetheart deals with the prosecution and manipulate the media.

None of it Michael Jackson had and this is why he was easy prey and a ‘sitting duck’ as the late Donna Summer called him.

If Michael Jackson had indeed been that powerful he would have never been accused, let alone tried. And if his power had been worldly, the media would have fallen over themselves to be respectful and afraid to say a word of criticism let alone mock him in the despicable way they did.

For those who forgot how despicable it was here is a reminder from the New York Times and their Jon Pareles, who in 1995 scorned Michael for his anger (as if it wasn’t justified) and claimed that he could no longer ‘manipulate the media’ (which Michael never did and never could).

Michael Jackson Is Angry, Understand?

By Jon Pareles

June 18, 1995

MICHAEL JACKSON IS BACK, AND HE’S furious. On his new double album, “HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I,” his rage keeps ripping through the sweet, uplifting facade he has clung to throughout his career.

He’s not pretending to be normal any more. In his new songs, he is paranoid and cagey, messianic and petty, vindictive and maudlin. Comparing himself to John F. Kennedy and Jesus Christ, he’s a megalomaniac who feels like a victim.

In the first of the new songs, “Scream,” Jackson jeopardizes his commercial safety zone, the G-rated kiddie audience, by using profanity. In the second, “They Don’t Care About Us,” he gives the lie to his entire catalogue of brotherhood anthems with a burst of anti-Semitism: “Jew me, sue me, everybody do me/ Kick me, kike me, don’t you black or white me.” While he does manage to calm down for an occasional ballad or love song, he can’t stop lashing out at tormentors named and unnamed, chief among them the news media that he could no longer manipulate.

“Stop pressurin’ me,” Jackson yelps in “Scream,” adding, “Tired of you tellin’ the story your way.” In “This Time Around,” he mutters, “They thought they really had control of me.” In “D.S.,” he accuses somebody named Dom Sheldon of being tied to the C.I.A. and the Ku Klux Klan. And in “Money,” he whispers, “You’ll do anything for money.” With his paranoia, his anti-Semitic lyrics and his endless supply of uniforms, Jackson may be ready to join a militia. [ ]

The CD booklet insists that Jackson is popular, beloved, important, good. It includes endorsements from Stephen Spielberg and from Elizabeth Taylor, and it lists every award that he has ever won. He’s photographed with Presidents from Carter to Clinton and, of course, surrounded by adoring children.

The booklet also includes a baby picture of Jackson with his genitalia revealed — celebrity child porn? — and an illustration he drew to go with a new ballad, “Childhood.” The drawing is of a boy huddled in a corner with a microphone, looking scared. A child’s letter to President Clinton asks him to end war and pollution and to “stop reporters from bothering Michael Jackson,” clearly a matter of equal importance.

It adds up to a fine-tuned contradiction: Jackson the megastar, the world leader by association, is also Jackson the powerless, suffering child. With all the photographs and testimonials, the booklet has no room to print the most hostile lyrics.

But they’re the core of the album. Fearfulness used to be part of Jackson’s appeal; the vulnerability of his singing voice and his shy offstage demeanor somehow balanced his mastery of music, dance and hype. He was immeasurably famous, but he was obviously paying a price for it; he was a freak who needed sympathy.

On “HIStory Continues,” fear has turned to aggression. Most of the time, Jackson sounds as if he’s singing through clenched teeth, spitting out words in defiance of any and all persecutors.

In the song called “HIStory,” [ ] Jackson tries to put a brave face on things. Harsh, clipped whispers spit out an individual’s travails, a rising march asks, “How many children have to die?” and then a gospel chorus and children’s voices preach, “Let’s harmonize all around the world.” But the song seems more obsessed with dying soldiers and “victims slaughtered in vain across the land” than with hope. The other social-conscience selection, “Earth Song,” is a complaint to God about problems that range from war to endangered whales.

Most often, Jackson is on the defensive, and he has decided the best defense is a two-pronged counterattack. On the “Dangerous” album, he whined, “Why you wanna trip on me?” Now, he snarls accusations of his own. First, there’s the Watergate defense: it’s not him, it’s the news media that are out to get him. In “Tabloid Junkie,” he comes close to rapping: “Speculate to break the one you hate/ Circulate the lie you confiscate.” He sings, “With your pen you torture me/ You’d crucify the Lord,” and then, with harmony vocals akin to “Billie Jean,” he tries to put across a catchy message: “Just because you read it in a magazine/ Or see it on a TV screen/ Don’t make it factual.”

Jackson usually keeps his animosity general. The two-faced, money-grubbing people who besiege him stay unspecified — “Somebody’s out to get me” — and he insists he’ll tough it out: “I’m standin’ though you’re kickin’ me.” [ ] When he’s not slinging the word kike, he calls himself “a victim of police brutality” and a “victim of hate” and insists that “if Roosevelt was livin’, he wouldn’t let this be.” A listener might wonder just who “us” is supposed to be.

The article is not provided here in full not to add more fire to what is already there – Michael was a peacemaker and was against any violence. However thanks to the pillar of journalism reminding us of its torrents of venom towards Jackson, now his lyrics sound even more justified and relevant to us. “Us” meaning the general public or at least us, the truth seekers.

If only the media ever spoke that way to Jeffrey Epstein! Or at least made a tiny report about his exploits!

The media called Michael ‘Wacko Jacko’ for innocent things like having a pet chimp and the incidental photo in a hyperbaric chamber at a burn center – but what about Epstein, whose entrance hall in his nine-storey mansion was decorated with rows of framed eyeballs imported from England and made for injured soldiers there? Or the stuffed black poodle, standing atop his grand piano with a piece of dog feces beside it? Or a huge portrait of Bill Clinton on his wall reclining in an armchair and portrayed in a blue dress and red high-heeled shoes?

Wasn’t this décor reason enough to call Epstein weird and bizarre? But why then did the media wag their tails when they saw the real wacko?

Or look at the trail of ruined young lives left by Epstein and compare it with MJ’s so-called victims. First of all, they were not hundreds like Epstein’s but only five, and even those five were sham and imitation copies of someone else’s originals.

Jordan Chandler was a fake because his 1993 description of Michael’s private parts was all wrong and this is the reason why he regularly refused to testify against MJ. And since there was no guilt, the matter of the settlement and who paid it – MJ personally or his insurance company – is irrelevant.

The maid’s son Jason Francia is a fake victim too. His testimony about three cases of tickling was highly exaggerated and was actually bought for good money in a deal arranged by no other but Tom Sneddon, the Santa Barbara District Attorney and his people in return for the Francias’ testimony (see here for details, please).

Gavin Arvizo is not even a case – his timeline was so absurd that his alleged molestation fell on the period after Martin Bashir’s 2003 film, which means that MJ suddenly decided to molest Gavin when the whole world’s attention was already focused on Neverland and the Department of Family & Children Services was opening its investigation. Michael Jackson was naturally acquitted on every single charge and if he hadn’t all of us should have escaped by a hot air balloon to the Amazon jungles not to see the travesty of justice.

And Robson & Safechuck’s case is just a big show or rather a circus, complete with disappearance acts and clowns’ buffoonery. Their non-existent train-station and never-home-alone-at-Neverland stories are the classics of the genre – the illusion acts made against the background of their earlier testimony about Michael’s innocence. And it won’t hurt to mention that their current performance costs hundreds of millions while their previous testimony was free of charge.

Compare these five imitation victims with the insane amount of evidence against real sex offenders like Epstein, Savile, Wienstein and still-to-be-investigated Bryan Singer whose accusers are already coming in packs, and you will see that they and Michael Jackson are poles apart.

I will never tire of repeating that the glaring contrast in the way MJ was treated by the media and prosecution is the best proof that Michael Jackson was innocent and the opposite of real sex predators.

To me personally the biggest shock in this ugly story is not even the abuse of power by the authorities – living where I live I know of even worse cases than that. But it is the so-called free media and the reprehensible way they break their duty and sear their conscience is what is so disgusting.

Their double standards and hypocrisy, their cowardice in exposing true crime and readiness to go on a witch-hunt for the innocent, their zeal in promoting lies and silencing the truth – all of it is a disaster, a sheer disaster to anyone who had any illusions.

After Michael Jackson’s death there was some hope that the media would repent or at least stop their slander, but they continue to drag Michael’s name through the mud and now liken him to real monsters like Epstein and Savile, all the time pretending that by going after Jackson they ‘fought pedophilia’ and defended children’s rights.

But they never did and their pretense is a horrible insult to the truth. The media actually ignored the genuine victims of child sexual abuse, like Corey Feldman and Corey Haim molested in Hollywood, and multiple victims of Savile and Epstein who committed their crimes in plain sight but were still respected, admired, honored and whatnot.

Corey Feldman was openly laughed at and resented by the media (Barbara Walters: “You’re damaging an entire industry!”), and as to Epstein and Jimmy Savile the media simply ‘didn’t know’.

The poor things didn’t know. But it was impossible not to know considering that everyone around Epstein (and Savile) was aware of what was going on – his employees, the airport staff who took care of his flights to the private island, the guests entertained at his home, his lawyers one of whom was even Epstein’s client as he had sex with one of his underage girls, according to her account.

The media knew all of it but preferred to look the other way (in Michael Jackson’s direction, to be more exact). As to the real problem they turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to it, preferring to go after an easy, helpless, innocent and safe-to-kill prey.

It is fifteen years since Michael Jackson was acquitted and found an innocent man, but lies about him continue to be spread in the same despicable way as before.

Here is a small example.

Remember the housekeeper who testified about the sex toys in Epstein’s bathroom? He was the one who also provided a little black book of Epstein’s contacts and insisted that it was the key to unraveling his crimes. The man never had a chance to testify – he was sentenced to 18 months in prison for trying to sell the little book for $50,000 to the girls’ lawyer and died during incarceration.

This little black book is mentioned in Wiki as Epstein’s Holy Grail which contained the personal phone numbers of some of the world’s most influential people. Of course the fact that Epstein knew these people does not necessarily mean that they knew what he was up to. But it was still a shock to see the Wiki article name Michael Jackson among Epstein’s contacts.

This made me look up the original and I found that all of it is not exactly the way it is described in the Wiki entry (* this point was updated to remove an inaccuracy).

 

It turned out that the name of “Michael Jackson” actually stood for the office telephone number of a certain Samuel Gen, the New York attorney later disbarred for a grave misdemeanor, who was friends with a certain James Meiskin who in his turn advised Michael Jackson on matters of investment (see this article for details).  This round-about-way of ‘knowing’ a person cannot in any way compare with Epstein’s book having direct, personal and home numbers of lots of other people – Barbara Walters, for example, or a certain Mick Jagger who is listed next to “Michael Jackson” but is not mentioned in the Wiki article.

Now do those who focused on Michael Jackson of all people and deliberately inserted his name into the life story of a sex predator know that they are stretching the truth?

Certainly they do.

And what do you think – will other readers look into it and see that the connection between MJ and Epstein is far too distant to even matter?

Certainly they won’t.

So see how easy it is to make ugly myths about Michael Jackson? Easy, effortless and sure, and those who engage in it can always say that they ‘made a mistake’.

But I no longer believe in their mistakes and hope that you don’t either.

These people know perfectly well what they are doing. And if you are sick and tired of all this manipulation the way I am sick and tired of it too, the first thing to do is refuse to be manipulated.

Just check yourself each time the old mantra is repeated about the ‘guilt’ of Michael Jackson and do your research. And tell others to do the same.

And only after that express an opinion. And let your opinion be informed. And let it be your opinion and not the old lie imposed on you long ago and mindlessly repeated just out of habit or in order to crack another joke.

And though no one forces you to think well about Jackson after the research, something tells me that you will.

As to the media I wonder if they understand that if they hadn’t run down Michael Jackson into the ground, he could have been the nation’s savior now. Michael Jackson the peacekeeper could protect the country from riots and unrest. Michael Jackson the magnet could appeal to millions and they would be listening.

He could indeed harmonize all around the world and instead of making ruin people could join their hands and work together for a better future.

Redeem Michael Jackson the peacemaker, redeem Michael Jackson the innocent and he will probably be still able to help.

Jon Pareles of the NY Times, Understand?


The Schleiters remember Michael Jackson in AKTE documentary

$
0
0

The AKTE documentary about the Schleiter family and their friendship with Michael Jackson aired on German TV sometime in January this year, but its English version was made available to us only recently, thanks to AlfonsMeir who uploaded it here.

The Schleiter family

Many of us have probably not heard of the Schleiters except their emphatic “Enough is enough” letter in support of Michael Jackson as previously they never spoke to the press.

I encourage everyone to read the letter and watch the documentary as the latter is quite accurate in describing Michael Jackson’s tribulations beginning with 1993 (except the wrong age of the accuser and some minor details) and covers almost everything up to Martin Bashir’s film and La Toya’s various performances in this or that attire for and against her brother.

Anyone can watch the documentary themselves to form an opinion, but your impression will not be full if you don’t know what is insinuated about Anton Schleiter by Michael’s detractors.  In fact it is the comparison between these freaks’ innuendoes and the truth which is a real eye-opener here.

For example, a “MJandboys” site made a post about Anton Schleiter in November 2016 following the usual pattern – all attention is certainly on the boy who is called a “special friend” of MJ while the boy’s sister Franziska is certainly ignored and is totally non-existent for the writers. Here is a sample:

Michael Jackson and Anton Schleiter (1995-2006)

 “Whenever Michael Jackson toured the world, he used the possibility to make a new young male friend. Those boys are known to the public as special friends, but a few boys are simply overlooked. …Anton was one of the many boys whom Jackson befriended during the 1990s, but he never got the attention by the media that most of Jackson’s young friends receive, although he was very close friends with Jackson.

It was November 1995, when Michael Jackson performed at a German TV show called “Wetten dass…?”. MJ met 12-year-old Anton Schleiter backstage. Anton became a special friend of Jackson after meeting him and started to spend time with Jackson on a regular basis.”

And this is what the AKTE documentary tells us about the way the Schleiters befriended Michael Jackson:

02:55 Hamburg Niendorf, at the forest border there is an unremarkable one family house that made history almost 15 years ago (in 2006) because back then superstar Michael Jackson lived and slept for multiple weeks in this house. Here he spent carefree days with the Schleiter family including their children Franziska and Anton, today aged 34 and 36 (so in 2006 they were 20 and 22 years old respectively). Private videos remind them of an unforgettable time with their world-famous friend.

03:31 (Anton) “The personal time with Michael was – I mean when we just talked or played games – he was simply a great person and so loving/caring that you felt so comfortable…. Everything else became irrelevant. That’s just how it was. [It was like] coincidentally our best friend Michael was also the superstar Michael Jackson”.

 (Franziska) “The best time was actually when he came to our house. This was the best time.”

 (Anton) “This was so exciting and great as a kid, but later it was true friendship.”

Actually the Schleiters met Michael Jackson 25 years ago (in 1995, when Anton was 13 and Franziska was 11 respectively) and this is how Franziska describes the first time they met Michael Jackson:

04:27 (Franziska) “My father worked in the music industry and he had to go to “Wetten Dass…?” [1995] and Anton learned that Michael would also be there. So we as a family decided to go there too, like a family trip and to see Michael live.

We were also backstage and Anton and me had our tickets and we wanted to have an autograph. Our father said “Now or never”. I was so scared. But in the end I followed my father’s advice and we went to him and got an autograph”.

Back then we thought this would be the biggest thing that can ever happen that we met him and got an autograph. But then it appeared that he asked through his managers if we wanted to join him to Phantasialand [amusement park] the next day.  He invited us and we spent the day together. And this was such a wonderful day. We couldn’t believe it and said “Wow, we spent a day with Michael Jackson!” This was incredible.

Franziska and Anton are sitting in front of Michael Jackson, and MJ is sitting with two small girls (all screenshots are from the documentary)

And then we were so lucky that he even called us the day after and from this point on the friendship developed. This is somehow… I’m still stunned when I’m saying this.”

 05:49 (voiceover) We are with the family at the Niendorfer Gehege, a forest park in West Hamburg. Here they spent a lot of time with their famous friend.

06:02 (Anton) ‘When he was with us he really liked it that he could be undercover /incognito.

(Franziska) “Michael wanted to be solely with us, no bodyguards and they [the bodyguards] said “Are you crazy? There are many things that can happen to you”. But this was exactly what he wanted, escaping from everything, to be himself and being with us like a normal person, spending time as if there wasn’t this hectic around him”.

06:42 The Schleiters never wanted to comment on the private moments in public.

(Wolfgang, father): “The situation today is different – after the new accusations were made, which are so shabby, and he himself cannot speak anymore.

And personally, what hurts me most is that his children have to experience how their father is dragged through the mud. And that’s probably the time that we have to raise our hand. We usually avoided it also in the sense of Michael’s wish to keep it private and we gladly respected it, also posthumously. But now it is a different situation.  And I know that others also raise their hands to speak up for Jackson. I think it is a good thing that now there are also completely different voices coming and we gladly line up with them”.

In the meantime the “MJandboys” keep their own record of Anton Schleiter’s activities. 

“Jackson returned to Germany, because of the HIStory world tour and 14-year-old Anton became his constant companion throughout the whole country.

1997, Bremen: The teen was even seen disappearing into Jackson’s hotel, along with MJ.  In 1997, Jackson stayed about three weeks in Germany. Anton was alone with him for nearly a month, from which you can draw the conclusion that Jackson liked the kid. Their time together was very special to Jackson, they inspired him to write the romantic song “Speechless”.

Why didn’t it seem weird to anyone that Jackson was inspired by a 14-year-old boy to write Speechless?

The above is a myth while the AKTE documentary describes the true circumstances under which “Speechless” came into being:

1:23:54 Franziska and Anton show us exclusive videos, recorded in private moments with Michael Jackson, like a water balloon fight in the family’s garden.  Moments that they describe as the best in their lives. Therefore we were allowed to watch the videos, but not to show them publicly.   

(Reporter) “Is this Michael Jackson laughing?” (everyone laughs)

The Schleiters still feel so close to Michael Jackson that they want to protect their friendship with the superstar. The relationship was so close that Jackson dedicated a song to them after the water balloon fight: “Speechless”:

“Special thanks to Anton and Franziska… I love you with all my heart, Michael Jackson”.

1:24:53 (Anton) “We didn’t notice it, he just went upstairs to change his clothes because he was soaking wet. He was upstairs in his room for an hour and then he came downstairs and was all smiles that he had written a really great song. Because he was having the most fun he’s had in a long time”.

So the song wasn’t about the boy, but about the long-forgotten feeling of carefree happiness Michael experienced for the first time in several years amid much fun and much laugh with two other carefree water balloon fighters. Inspiration is like that – it may come at most unexpected moments in your life, like “Speechless” came to Michael Jackson and reminded him of a woman he passionately loved:

Your love is magical, that’s how I feel
But I have not the words here to explain
Gone is the grace for expressions of passion
But there are worlds and worlds of ways to explain
To tell you how I feel
But I am speechless, speechless
That’s how you make me feel
Though I’m with you I am far away and nothing is for real
When I’m with you I am lost for words, I don’t know what to say
My head’s spinning like a carousel, so silently I pray
Helpless and hopeless, that’s how I feel inside
Nothing’s real, but all is possible if God is on my side
When I’m with you I am in the light where I cannot be found
It’s as though I am standing in the place called Hallowed Ground
Speechless, speechless, that’s how you make me feel..

Why a woman?

In the documentary Bill Whitfield, Michael’s personal bodyguard since 2006, same as many other people close to Jackson, did not have a moment of doubt about Michael’s attachments and said that he was ‘into women’.

52:47 (Whitfield)” I got to know Mr. Jackson quite well. I have been working in personal security for 25 years and one of the things you do in this business is to keep a close eye on the client. You know what the person likes, what he doesn’t like. And I’ve watched Mr. Jackson enough to know that hurting children – he wasn’t into that. Women. He was into women.

(voiceover) That’s what the Schleiters say too.

53:32 (Anton) “Of course, the media liked to report that Michael and I somehow had a relationship., that there was a love relationship. But of course, that’s not true. The media always wanted to connect Michael with little boys, so they had some fun writing this, for whatever reason.

Michael wasn’t just friends with me, he was friends with the whole family. And they always reduced it to me when it came to our friendship, but it wasn’t true at all.

I have been with my wife since 2001, and she was also there [with MJ] many times. There was no love relationship between Michael and me. I had a love relationship with my wife”.

Today Anton and his wife have two little children.

55:05 (Whitfield) “We had normal guy talk. When we as bodyguards were in the car with Mr. Jackson and a nice young woman walked by, he’d say something like ‘Wow, she is pretty”.

55:19 (Brad Buxer): “The type of women that he loved were South American women, with dark skin. I don’t want to get too personal, that would be weird. He likes the girls in Brazil. That was his favorite type of girl”.

However according to the time-honored tradition people like the “MJand boys” know better. They habitually  see only the boy by Michael’s side ignoring his sister even when the girl looks out of the hotel window together with  her brother and MJ:

“Jackson visited Anton in Germany for six years until 2006. FurthermoreAnton also travelled with Jackson to other countries and shared his hotel rooms. Here are some pictures of them in France (1997). They stayed friends. In 1999, 16-year-old Anton Schleiter was also seen at Jackson’s side regularly. This is a picture of them in a hotel room.

During the same year, Michael Jackson visited Disneyland in Paris. His travel companion was 16-year-old Anton Schleiter.

Michael Jackson’s detractors are either mad or half-blind – otherwise how is it possible to overlook the sister in those photos though she is always by her brother’s side and see only two people in the window when there are three people there (MJ, Anton and Franziska)?

On the other hand the freaks’ personal deformities enable them to see things in the Schleiters’ private videos which are simply not there. Here is an example.

Anton visited Neverland many times. There is a video filmed in Switzerland in 2000. From 12:40 until 14:00, Jackson is filming a young man who is holding his two kids. He goes down with his camera several times and it seems like he is checking out the guy’s butt. This guy is Anton Schleiter. He was 17 years old in that video. And as I already mentioned, Jackson is checking out his butt between 12:40 and 14:00.

Exclusive! Michael Jackson 100% New Rare private home videos with his kids #2

Okay, let’s watch the video if they insist on it. However when we look beyond the required 12:40-14:00 time frame we begin to realize that the video was recorded by Franziska and not by Michael Jackson. The distortion is not a surprise though – if she doesn’t exist for these people how could she record the video then?

Franziska and Paris in the same episode

The episode starts with Michael Jackson going out into the garden where he makes a few dance moves and Anton takes a picture of him, while Franziska is video recording both of them.

Prince starts crying and calls his father, so Michael reenters the house, and then leaves through another door to take off the coat he is wearing over his pajama.

Anton puts both children on the window-sill while Franziska continues to film them, moving her camera up and down. At some point we hear Michael’s voice asking the children to look back and upon hearing his voice they turn their faces to the camera. Then Anton carefully puts them on the floor and that is all.

Michael’s detractors must be super biased or super perverse to interpret so innocent and beautiful an episode as “MJ checking out the guy’s butt”.

Something is definitely not right with these guys and their fixed ideas about MJ…

As to their innuendoes about Anton Schleither here he is personally handling them in the AKTE documentary:

1:09:35 (Anton) “I never slept in a bed with Michael and he never even once touched me inappropriately”.

1:09:48 (voiceover) The Schleiter family from Hamburg was often invited to visit their friend Michael Jackson at the Neverland ranch, spent a lot of time there with the megastar. 

1:10:10 (Anton) “I never slept in a bed with Michael and that was never his wish or mine. This was never under consideration. We always had our own rooms.”

“It was never like Safechuck said here now, that you stayed with him and the family somewhere else. It was nothing like that. There were guest houses and there we were accommodated as a family and Michael was in his bedroom.

According to the press I’m exactly the kind of guy Michael would be after. I was a boy and spent a lot of time with Michael. But the press always presented it in a way that I spent a lot of time with Michael, even though it was us as a family”

There was never anything like this, he never even once touched me inappropriately. Nothing. He was simply like the dearest uncle one could ever imagine”

1:11:38 (Dieter Wisner, MJ’s manager) “We were at the ranch, there were different situations in the evening with several children, the nephews, people who were close to him. Then they were lying in the room with Michael on the floor. They sat on the bed and had tea with honey and so on, and read.

He did not lie in bed with them and then slept, it was just a room they felt comfortable in. There was nothing sexual, nothing like that! Complete nonsense”.

The AKTE documentary says that Anton and Franziska confirm “the closeness between the superstar and the children and that both experienced the close relationship with Michael Jackson was an exciting adventure”

27:30 (Anton) “When it came to the situation that you slept in one room, then Michael lay down on the floor, on a mattress , or on the couch.

Actually, it wasn’t even Michael who requested to stay overnight. When it happened it was us asking him because we wanted to watch movies together.”

“And you made yourselves comfortable. During the day we all threw ourselves in bed with our parents together, and we all lay there.”

The Schleiters were indeed very close to Michael Jackson but not the way those “MJandboys” mean it. The documentary says about the family:

1:22:40 (voiceover) Until Jackson’s death the Schleiters from Hamburg accompanied their friend for almost 15 years.  Jackson often brought his own children to the family. The Niendorfer Gehege (a forest park) was a place for everyone to relax. For a while Anton and Franziska have been like big siblings for Paris, Prince Michael and Blanket who have been suffering for years from the abuse accusations against their father.

1:23:17 (Anton) “It helped him a lot that he had his children. Children gave him a lot of strength. And the children loved their father more than anything. That was the greatest thing for him to have children of his own. Because he always loved children and when his dream came true to have his own children, that was the greatest thing for him. That gave him a lot of strength”.

1:23:41 (Wolfgang) “He was the best father you can imagine. No one could have known how Michael dealt with his children. He was with them day and night”.

As to Neverland, it turns out that Anton was the one who together with Michael’s nephew packed MJ’s belongings at the ranch when the trial was over as Michael refused to return there after the police desecrated his home:

1:18:00 (Anton) “After the police tore Neverland apart twice, slashing every pillow, it wasn’t his home anymore for Michael, he never wanted to go there again. Then Michael asked me and a nephew of his to pack all his things together. So I was there for a month and probably packed at least 2000 boxes. Full of all his things, from all the rooms.

We were there for a month, every day for at least ten hours and packed boxes. I found nothing reprehensible. If the FBI missed something, I would have found it, but there was nothing”.

The Schleiters also spoke about the trial:

40:00 (Wolfgang) “He knew he could always call us. He knew his phone calls were monitored, the prosecutor observed everything which is no secret any more given how communications are intercepted nowadays…. He said, ‘You don’t have to say anything, it is okay…”

40:28 (Anton) “We wrote him letters and through his managers he received them and afterwards he told us that he always was really happy when he received letters and that he always kept them with him. And that he regularly read them and I assume that it helped him too. We always said, “We believe in you” and “You can do it”, that we are behind you whatever happens, we will be there immediately and this helped him a lot.

The Schleiters visited him one last time a few weeks before his death.

42:57 (Franziska) “One of the first thoughts I had when he passed away, after the first shock, was really for me, who is saving the world now? This sounds so banal, but that symbolized Michael for me. I think a lot of people would never have thought of that at first, but as we knew him that was the Michael I knew, that he wanted good to the world and for the world”.

The makers of AKTE documentary let the Schleiter family watch “Leaving Neverland” and this was their reaction:

43:54 The Schleiters watch the documentary for the first time with us. 

Only after the new allegations of abuse in the TV documentary “Leaving Neverland” they want to express themselves and support their famous friend after his death. Because in the documentary two men report in detail how Michael Jackson allegedly sexually abused them as boys.

(Robson) He kissed me full open mouth, with his tongue in my mouth”.

Hearing what Robson claims in “Leaving Neverland” Wolfgang shakes his head and even laughs saying that he doesn’t want to watch this anymore.

(Wolgang) “I don’t wanna watch this anymore. This is utter bullshit”

(Franziska) starts crying: “Uhmm… sorry… can we stop it?”

(Wolfgang) “This is not Michael Jackson who is described in there… Never”

(Franziska) “From our perspective this isn’t possible, because we know a completely different person. And it’s so absurd to see this… I think”.

(Franziska) “This may be different for people who didn’t know him, because they don’t know how he was. They [the public] have to rely on opinions of others to get an idea of him. But for us, to see it from our perspective, this is too absurd. I cannot take it seriously”.

(Wolfgang) “It is staged like a feature film with the ‘human touch feeling’ that gets dragged into it. I think this is really shabby”.

(Anton) “It’s quite disgusting to see this. I don’t know what ….. to taint this wonderful place [Neverland]…. I think this is fiction”.

(Franziska) “I think it’s a difficult subject per se, that nobody – not us, but also nobody out there – has the right, uhm…. I mean victims don’t belong in a film, if anybody experienced such a thing, it belongs in court”.

Dieter Wiesner was similarly disgusted and was keen enough to notice that the two accusers are devoid of any emotion:

1:15:26 (Wiesner) “When I saw the first statements from the two men who were supposed to have experienced all this, I was simply shocked that someone has the cheek to go out and say something like that. Because when you look at it more closely, it is simply quite clear that it is told without any emotion. That just has not truth to it.

When you know Michael Jackson and hear the way they tell it, what happened it’s just unbearable

There is a lot more to the documentary as it also covers the various inconsistencies in “Leaving Neverland”; the love affair Robson had with Brandi Jackson (and cheated on her with Britney Spears) just at the time when he was supposed to be ‘in a relationship’ with MJ; the loving notes Michael regularly left to his nephew Taj Jackson and hundreds of his fans and not something unique for Robson and Safechuck; Aphrodite Jones seeing Robson testify in support of Jackson and wondering what prevented him for telling his story when MJ was alive and much, much more of it.

But when I asked myself what struck me most about the German documentary, the honest answer to myself even surprised me – it is the faces of all these people that make the most lasting effect of the documentary and seem to be telling the whole story.

It is the stone face of Wade Robson who is describing most disgusting things in a somewhat detached and technical manner:  “In the first week I was with him every night there was abuse”.

But there was no ‘”first week”, so consequently there was no “every night” and no “abuse”.

And then it is the smug expression on Ron Zonen’s face who says that “they had a sense of what Michael Jackson did with children when he was alone with them.”

Could someone please tell this person that “having a sense” is not enough for prosecuting someone for decades? And that he could have used his skills to catch real child predators of whom the LA area and particularly Hollywood abide. Or ask him if Corey Feldman gave the law enforcement enough “sense” of what was going on there when he spoke of his own molestation and named his abusers from Hollywood during the police interview about Jackson?

I also recall the amazed Aphrodite Jones who had an amazed look on her face almost non-stop throughout the documentary: “And when he was acquitted I almost couldn’t believe what happened next: the whole media hype was gone in a heartbeat. At least 2000 journalists left the scene and …poof! They were gone”.

And when she researched the Arvizo case herself and realized that there was a conspiracy against Michael Jackson: “He didn’t do anything to these people. He helped them. They were liars, they were just liars. That’s when I had that moment of realizing. The jury got it right, the media was wrong”.

And her amazement at hearing Gavin Arvizo constantly change his testimony: “I was just thinking “You are lying through your teeth!”

And her account of Robson’s testimony: “I was in the courtroom when this man, this Robson, testified that Michael Jackson never did anything to him. He couldn’t wait to be called to the witness stand and testify under oath. And took the oath”.

I also remember the sad face of Thomas Mesereau when he recalled: “Sometimes Michael called me crying at night. Once he begged me not to drop the case if his enemies paid me millions of dollars. He said, ‘Tom, I know they will try it. Everyone wants to see me behind bars. I know, by enemies still try to bribe you”. So Michael did know that all of it was malicious prosecution, that he had enemies and they were ready to pay millions to get him behind bars.

I will also remember the face of Brad Buxer who nearly cried when he spoke of Michael Jackson’s children: “We’ve seen what Paris gone through because of the media. I mean we know what the children have to endure. In 2009 at the Staples Center, when Paris stood up there and told the world how much he loved her father. Jesus Christ, give them a break”.

And also the disturbed face of Taj Jackson who doesn’t worry about “Leaving Neverland” that much because he knows that it is full of lies, but is mostly annoyed that the US media does not report the multiple inconsistencies found there: “They have non-stop uncovered contradictions and inconsistencies and what annoys me most is that the American media have still not printed any of these errors.”

And also the determined face of Brandi Jackson who knows from her own intimate experience with Wade Robson that he is lying: “I just know that he is lying. There are so many lies in 4 hours, there are thousands. I could go through the whole list right now and expose every single lie. And none of these things add up.”

And the slimy face of Dan Reed who has the audacity to claim that he has “followed the rules of journalistic evidence” and that his film is about nothing else but “sexual actions that have taken place behind closed doors.”

But if it was behind closed doors and Reed didn’t see it, how can he be so sure that it is true? Even if he gives the accusers all the benefit of the doubt it will still be a fifty-fifty chance and in no way can be an affirmative statement.

No wonder his film got an award for ‘creativity’ – they couldn’t find any other nomination that could fit Dan Reed’s piece of fiction.

In fact even to the makers of AKTE documentary it is perfectly clear that Robson and Safechuck are liars, and the reason for it is very simple:

“The people who are accusing Jackson today are definitely liars. Now or before, because they tell a different story today than when Jackson was alive.”

And the documentary’s conclusion about the other side is also absolutely true and cannot be disputed:

“And the others who believe in his innocence, tell the same story all their lives.”

Actually, it is not only the same story told by the people who believe in Michael’s innocence which is so convincing, but it is also their faces which make the documentary so memorable.

When you see the Schleiter family and the way they remember Michael Jackson, it is the happiness their faces are radiating which convinces you most.

The Reason for Michael Jackson’s Escapism

$
0
0

Some time ago a reader’s comment arrived here about Elton John’s biography of 2019 and his spiteful description of a lunch with Michael Jackson, which was certainly hailed in the press as another instance of Michael Jackson’s so-called ‘bizarre’ behavior.

First, let me repeat the comment and my answer to it here.

Elton John recalls Michael Jackson

luv4hutch: By the way, here is the specific comments of Elton John about Michael in his memoir entitled “Me”, which doesn’t say Michael was guilty, it just refers to him as “disturbing to be around.” It focuses on a lunch that Elton had when he was first dating his husband, David Furnish, and of course how Elton makes a judgment without knowing all the facts, though Michael would always think of Elton as a friend, especially in his dedications in the HIStory and Blood on the Dance Floor albums, and Elton earlier in the book acknowledges Michael’s role and friendship with Ryan White, who Elton of course also says was a big reason for him to get sober and to start his AIDS Foundation:

“The problem at the lunch party wasn’t really my mum. It was one of my other guests, a psychiatrist, who at the last minute, informed me that his client, Michael Jackson, was in England, and asked if he could bring him along. This didn’t sound like the greatest idea I’d ever heard, but I could hardly refuse. I’d known Michael since he was thirteen or fourteen: after a gig I played in Philadelphia, Elizabeth Taylor had turned up on the Starship with him in tow. He was just the most adorable kid you could imagine. But in the intervening years, he started sequestering himself away from the world and away from reality, the way Elvis Presley did. God knows what was going on in his head, and God knows what prescription drugs he was being pumped full of, but every time I saw him in his later years, I came away thinking the poor guy had totally lost his marbles. I don’t mean that in a lighthearted way. He was genuinely mentally ill, a disturbing person to be around. It was incredibly sad, but he was someone you couldn’t help: he was just gone, off into a world of his own, surrounded by only by people who told him what he wanted to hear.

And now he was coming to the lunch at which my boyfriend was scheduled to meet my mother for the first time. Fantastic. I decided the best plan was to ring David and drop this information into the conversation as nonchalantly as possible. Perhaps if I behaved as if there was no problem there, he might take it in stride. Or perhaps not-I hadn’t even finished nonchalantly mentioning the change in lunch plans before I was interrupted by an anguished yell of ‘are you fucking KIDDING ME?’ I tried to reassure him by lying through my teeth, promising that the reports that he’d heard of Michael’s eccentricities were greatly exaggerated. This probably wasn’t very convincing, since some of the reports of them had come directly from me. But no, I insisted it wouldn’t be as strange as he might expect.

In that respect at least, I was absolutely right. The meal wasn’t as strange as I might have expected. It was stranger than I could have imagined. It was a sunny day and we had to sit indoors with the curtains drawn because of Michael’s vitiligo. The poor guy looked awful, really frail and ill. He was wearing makeup that looked like it had been applied by a maniac, it was all over the place. His nose was covered with a sticking plaster which kept what was left of it attached to his face. He just sat there, not really saying anything, just giving off waves of discomfort the way some people give off an air of confidence. I somehow got the impression he hadn’t eaten a meal around other people in a very long time. Certainly, he wouldn’t eat anything we served up. He had his own chef with him, but didn’t eat anything he made, either. After a while, he got up from the table without a word and disappeared. We finally found him, two hours later, in a cottage on the grounds of Woodside where my housekeeper lived: she was sitting there, watching Michael Jackson quietly play video games with her eleven-year-old son. For whatever reason, he couldn’t seem to cope with adult company at all…”

As if the above piece were not enough for me I read a couple of more pages of Elton John’s bio and came to the conclusion that in this Orwellian world of ours it was Michael Jackson who was the most normal man who, alas, had to live among totally abnormal people around him.

In a classic case of a pot calling the kettle black Elton John pronounced Michael Jackson “disturbing to be around”, “mentally ill” and sometimes “pumped full of prescription drugs” though his own personality is much better suited for these descriptions.

Prescription drugs Michael did take as he had to cope with the never-ending pain after the scalp-stretching operations to cover the burned skin on his head, so he was in a constant medical condition requiring painkillers that later turned into an addiction (which he eventually overcame).

But Elton John didn’t have any medical reasons to justify the use of drugs, however he himself says that he was a horrible cocaine addict for almost two decades. By his own admission after so many years of drug abuse his soul became so black that it was “like a charred piece of steak”.

When asked about regrets, John said it was trying cocaine in 1974. Despite vomiting the first time, John went back for more — and soon, he was hooked.

“It nearly destroyed my soul,” he said. “My soul was black, like a charred piece of steak, until I said “I need help.”

https://people.com/music/elton-john-glad-kids-didnt-meet-his-mom/

Even after he went to a rehab sometime in early 90s he admits in “Me” biography that his life was still ridiculous and his temper remained monstrous:

“I wasn’t afraid about people seeing the monstrous, unreasonable side of me. I’m perfectly aware how ridiculous my life is, and perfectly aware of what an arsehole I look like when I lose my temper over nothing – I go from nought to nuclear in seconds and then calm down just as quickly.”

However he allows for all creative people “to have their moments” as this is a sort of the dark side of being creative:

“My temper was obviously inherited from my mum and dad, but I honestly think that, somewhere within them, every creative artist, whether they’re a painter, a theatre director, an actor or a musician, has the ability to behave in a completely unreasonable way. It’s like the dark side of being creative. Certainly, virtually every other artist I had become friends with seemed to have that aspect to their character too. John Lennon did, Marc Bolan, Dusty Springfield. They were wonderful people, and I loved them to bits, but everyone knows they all had their moments.”

So you get the idea – it is okay for all creative people to have their moments, except Michael Jackson of course, and this is why whenever Michael had his, the media and people who once pretended to be his friends gladly tore him apart like some blood-thirsty vultures .

Did Michael have the right to have his moments and leave the table in search for a better company and more normal surrounding?

Certainly he did. Elton John seems to be deliberately vague about the time of the event so you have to wonder when the visit took place and why Michael didn’t eat, didn’t talk and was so deep in his thoughts.

Well, a little calculation takes us to December 1993, the time of colossal trouble, slander and incredible injustice that Michael Jackson ever experienced in his life.  Indeed, various details point to the fact that the lunch took place when Michael was in a rehab in Britain while the Jordan Chandler scandal was raging in his homeland.

See for yourself: Elton John met David Furnish in October 1993; closer to Christmas Furnish visited his family in Canada where he came out as gay to them; and after that Elton John decided to introduce Furnish to his mother which was obviously also around Christmas, so it leaves us with December 1993 as the most suitable time for the visit.

And this was exactly when Michael Jackson was in Britain and was even known to have met Elton John there.

So Michael Jackson was in the midst of the alleged child abuse scandal and had every reason to be deeply distressed and stay quiet. He accidentally dropped at Elton John’s house obviously hoping to gain some support from a friend, but Elton John was no friend of his, alas.

Moreover, the atmosphere of that lunch must have been extremely hostile to Michael – remember David Furnish’s “anguished” yell at hearing that MJ would be present “Are you fucking KIDDING me?” (What reasons did he have for so much “anguish”? Others would have been honored to meet MJ)

Feeling unwanted and out of place there the polite Michael quietly left the company and went wherever his feet took him. And his feet took him to a small house of a housekeeper on the same premises where he could play video games with the housekeeper’s son while all those others apparently heaved the sighs of relief, enjoyed their lunch and found their guest to be missing only two hours later.

This is probably the way Michael Jackson looked at Elton John’s lunch (screenshot from MJ’s live statement from Neverland, Dec. 1993)

The media routinely uses the ‘bizarre’ word to describe Michael’s behavior, though his behavior was absolutely normal and even super-normal considering the circumstances.

In contrast to that, if you read Elton John’s further revelations, just on the same page, you will realize who was the real nuts there. See how Elton John described the way he was inducted into the Hall of Fame soon thereafter, on January 19, 1994:

“It didn’t take an unexpected visit from Michael Jackson to make the world David was entering seem completely bizarre. I could make it seem that way myself, without any help from the self-styled King of Pop. Rehab had curbed most of my worst excesses but not all of them: the Dwight Family Temper. I was still perfectly capable of throwing appalling tantrums when I felt like it. I think the first time David really saw one up close was the night in January 1994 when I was due to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in New York.
So I went along to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. As soon as I got there, I decided I’d made a mistake, turned round and left, ranting all the way about how the place was a fucking mausoleum. I dragged David back to the hotel, where I immediately felt guilty for blowing them out. So we went back. The Grateful Dead were performing with a cardboard cut-out of Jerry Garcia, because Jerry Garcia wasn’t there: he thought the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was a load of bullshit, and had refused to attend. I decided Jerry had a point, turned round and left again, with David dutifully in tow. I had got out of my suit and into the hotel dressing gown when I was once more struck by a pang of guilt. So I got back into my suit and we returned to the awards ceremony.

Elton John and David Furnish at Elton John’s 50th birthday party (1997)

Then I got angry at myself for feeling guilty and stormed out again, once more enlivening the journey back to the hotel with a lengthy oration, delivered at enormous volume, about what a waste of time the whole evening was. By now, David’s sympathetic nods and murmurs of agreement were starting to take on a slightly strained tone. …This made it easier to decide – ten minutes later – that all things considered, we had better go back to the ceremony yet again. The other guests looked quite surprised to see us, but you could hardly blame them: we’d been backwards and forwards to our table more often than the waiting staff.
I’d like to tell you it ended there, but I fear there may have been another change of heart and furious return to the hotel before I actually got onstage and accepted the award. Axl Rose gave a beautiful speech, I called Bernie up onstage and gave the award to him, then we left. We drove back to the hotel in silence, which was eventually broken by David.
‘Well,’ he said quietly, ‘that was quite a dramatic evening.’ Then he paused. ‘Elton,’ he asked plaintively, ‘is your life always like this?’”

So Michael Jackson is mocked by the media for staying silent during the lunch, while Elton John remains a cute darling despite his repeated tantrums and storming out of the official ceremony five times within an hour – and there isn’t a single media outlet to criticize him for it? Oh, the press is so wonderfully unbiased …

In fact, it is the media’s hypocrisy and horrible double standards that are so disturbing here.

The problem with their coverage is that even non-existent flaws of Michael Jackson continue to be exaggerated and presented to the public as some outrageous misdeeds, while really gross misbehavior of others in the same industry is completely overlooked or reported neutrally. You will never hear as much as the word ‘eccentricity’ about these people while Michael is degraded for everything he does – even as little as staying silent at a lunch table where he was clearly surrounded by no friends of his.

To see how gross the hypocrisy is all you need to do is imagine the opposite – Elton John silently leaving lunch and going to play video games elsewhere and MJ repeatedly storming out from an official ceremony, and then imagine the media reporting it about Jackson.

You would see the worldwide outrage and much more of it. A possible criminal prosecution? Incessant talk about his alleged “grave mental disturbance”? Or would they insist on placing him under medical surveillance and demand taking away his children from him?

In fact, all of the above would have been totally realistic.

But in addition to registering the media hypocrisy there is one more thing to say about Elton John’s ugly essay about MJ who closed his reminiscences by concluding that “he couldn’t seem to cope with adult company at all”.

This statement requires a question – what adult company couldn’t Michael cope with?

NOT ALL ADULTS ARE THE SAME

The closing idea of Elton John’s story smells of a long rotten allegation that Michael Jackson didn’t like the company of adults because he preferred children instead – which the media will naturally present as ‘boys’ only, though this was absolutely not the case.

The fact that Michael Jackson was somewhat uncomfortable in the company of adults is true, only the emphasis here should be not on the children, but on the kind of adults he didn’t want to mix with and why.

Indeed, it is even surprising that no one ever wondered what adult people Michael didn’t like and why he tried to avoid them.

Did he ever avoid the company of Frank Cascio and his family? Absolutely not. Actually it was Frank’s father who Michael Jackson first made friends with, and Michael dearly loved both Cascios parents until his last days and happily stayed in their house whenever he could.

Or was it the Schleiters in Germany? No again, which is proven by the heartfelt way the Schleiters’ father recalls Michael’s numerous visits to his home.

Or was it the company of Elizabeth Taylor whom Michael preferred to all other celebrities? Or the company of Gloria Rhoads Berlin, his real estate agent who later turned into a friend? Or the woman named Glenda whom Michael called from all around the world and whose telephone conversations lasted for so many hours that they sparked the jealousy of her husband who partially recorded them?

Or was it even the company of James Safechuck’s father, now deceased, who very much liked Michael, defended him to the prosecution and who saw nothing strange about Michael’s interaction with their family?

And why does the simple enumeration of these names suggest that Michael Jackson tried to stay away from the Hollywood crowd and preferred ordinary people instead?

Since no one ever asked those legitimate questions, no one got the answers either, though the answer is there on the surface – Michael Jackson didn’t like the people in Hollywood and entertainment industry, and this is why he sought the company of almost anyone who would be outside that business and lived the life of ordinary people.

The problem is that due to his profession Michael had the misfortune to have to mix with the Hollywood crowd, though his religion, upbringing and natural instinct asked for a different kind of people – those with a healthy life style, sound moral values and restrained ways similar to his.

In other words, he was in a huge cultural conflict with his environment. 

And this was also the reason why he felt so lonely even at the noisiest parties. The people surrounding him made him sick and even disgusted – his heart longed for the uncorrupt and pure (children being the obvious choice), for sincerity and real friendship, for true love instead of mere sex, for constraining one’s feelings instead of continuous pleasure-seeking.

And when everything that was precious to him was lacking in his immediate circle, he looked elsewhere and this is why he went into ordinary people’s homes and slept even in strangers’ huts, or turned to nature for healing his loneliness by taking long evening walks at his ranch when no one was watching.

Michael Jackson was indeed increasingly sequestering himself from the world and its reality, but why?

Because the world he lived in was disappointing.

And it couldn’t be any different. There was no way for a man raised as a devoted Jehovah Witness not to come into a strong cultural conflict with the loose morals of entertainment industry with which he had nothing in common except his profession.

The problem is that the views of the Hollywood ‘progressive’ crowd were and are exactly the opposite to Michael Jackson’s outlook on every single thing that ever mattered to him – love, family, moral values, humility as a life style, central place of God in his moral code, his constant need for self-perfection, the urge to help others and much more.

Indeed, what subjects could Michael Jackson talk about with Elton John, for example, except music and the fate of that poor boy Ryan White who died of AIDS?

Nothing at all. Their perception of love and family was the opposite and their core moral values were like worlds apart – look at their attitude towards their own mothers not to mention everything else.

Sir Elton John hated and rejected his mother and after marrying Furnish didn’t see her for the rest of her life (she even had to invite her son’s lookalike for her 90th birthday to somehow replace him) and kept trashing her even after her death.

Sir Elton John’s mother with a lookalike of her son at her 90th birthday

Needless to say that this kind of attitude towards anyone’s mother was unimaginable for Michael Jackson, the loving son, so what could they really talk about at that notable lunch where Elton John brought his partner Furnish to see the mother he actually hated?

None at all.

Or look at other stars in the entertainment industry and ask yourself in all honesty whether Michael Jackson could have anything in common with that party-going crowd who will roll their eyes at the word ‘God’ but will avidly go for drugs, sex and debauchery instead?

There is ample evidence that the Hollywood of Michael Jackson’s times was a den of hedonism, excess and perversion, but here is a fresh example.

SNCTM

SNCTM is pronounced as Sanctum, which means “a sacred place, especially a shrine within a temple or church”. However for Hollywood it is something different.

It is a secret sex club in LA which styled itself after the Stanley Kubrick film “Eyes Wide Shut” – complete with the masks and the participants implementing their wildest sexual fantasies in full view of others who prefer to look sipping their champagne. The idea of the club is to “explore one’s sexuality”, set free “one’s primal urges” and anyone who can afford the entrance fee may attend it to experience “singular and refined pleasures”, even in the Covid-19 times.

Things like that will no longer surprise anyone given the current Hollywood’s reputation, but what utterly amazed me is that the regular participant of the sex club was the Hollywood royalty and sweetheart Gwyneth Paltrow who attended it with her boyfriend Brad Falchuk, producer of Glee and other major TV shows.

Snctm is its name, and sex is its game. Headquartered in Beverly Hills, California, the ultra-exclusive sex club facilitates parties of the, well, sexual nature. Officially pronounced Sanctum, the club caters to the one percent’s wildest and most erotic fantasies, priding itself on guarding the identities and discretion of its members.

Finagling your way into the elite’s sex club’s secret society is no easy feat. This is Hollywood after all. The application process is rigorous. Every application requires a full-length photo, as well as a couple more recent and up-close pics. But this application wants to know more. You must state who you know in the club, what your fantasies are, what turns you on, and what you believe you could contribute to Snctm.

Gwyneth Paltrow

Oscar-winner Gwyneth Paltrow is reportedly a member. The members of the club place a hefty price tag on anonymity, and because of that, members are rumored to provide a “blood oath”, letting Lawner [the owner] know they mean business. The club is reportedly championed by Gwyneth Paltrow and her boyfriend Brad Falchuk. Other celebrities, Rock and Roll Hall of Famers, a New York hotelier, a Moscow billionaire, models from all over the globe, and wealthy couples who have been married for 20 years all frequent the club’s events.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/everything-we-know-about-a-secret-and-scandalous-hollywood-club-that-charges-75000-to-join.html/

The club owner says,

Sanctum symbol

“Our Devotees are like family, we watch over and protect each other.

I began to draw the Snctm icon one evening thinking about a secretive society. I called the symbol oculus dei, the eye of God. It began watching over me and our fledgling society from its inception.”

So the owner challenges even the Heavens and the party goers must be led to believe that they are the gods and goddesses of the Olympus.

By now almost everyone heard about the blasphemous Sanctum as there is a lot of media covering it, which they do – as could be easily expected – in a characteristically neutral, sweet and benign way.

There was even an eight-part TV series titled Naked SNCTM about this Beverly Hills sex club, so there is nothing secret about it anymore, except that its members still remain anonymous.

And this is also the mark of our times, when all those involved openly flaunt their deepest dirt in our faces, however we still don’t know who they are, so a rich neighbor of yours may turn out to be a secret sex pervert – which is actually part of the intrigue.

The girls in the club are not required to pay a fee (the orgies are free of charge for them), so any housewife can also anonymously take part as long as she provides her photo in full nudity and passes the rigorous admission test. The owner of the club claims that women who attend the parties are mostly sexually adventurous “doctors and lawyers.”

The media presents SNCTM in a way that looks much like its promotion rather than – God forbid –well-deserved criticism.

 31 Dec 2019

THE world’s most elite sex club is hosting a New Year’s Eve party tonight in the latest of its famed ultra-VIP orgies.

Private members society SNCTM – whose members are said to include A-list celebs – is charging up to $8,000 a ticket (£6,050) for the X-rated bash in a Los Angeles mansion.

Tonight Snctm is inviting an exclusive guest list made up of the super rich and Hollywood elite to enter a “world of intrigue and sensuality” at its LA Masquerade.

Saucy party-goers are promised “sightings and indulgences of an erotic nature” with a free bar and entertainment from “our fabled erotic theatre”.

But applicants must go through a rigorous vetting process in which they disclose their name, age, occupation, and erotic fantasies.

Only those judged to be sufficiently attractive and “elite” will be accepted.

The guest list is limited to 99 people, who will be emailed the secret address only hours before.

A Snctm insider said: “The festive season lends itself to the bacchanal. From pagan times to now our desire to celebrate the end and new beginnings is timeless. And nothing exceeds like excess.

“Releasing inhibitions isn’t necessarily season specific but our New Year’s Eve tends to be the most anticipated event of the year.”

Speaking to the Sun previously, event founder Damon Lawner said he came up with the idea for the club six years ago after watching the erotic 1999 film Eyes Wide Shut.

In one scene, Tom Cruise’s character finds himself at a satanic sex party held in a mysterious mansion.

“It’s like a very upscale black-tie cocktail party. But you’re seeing very surrealistic, ritualistic performance,” Lawner said. “Then after midnight it seems to evolve into this party where people want to get undressed and make love.”

The club’s etiquette guide says gentlemen are required to wear a proper tuxedo with a bow tie, while ladies must be “elegantly dressed in evening wear or lingerie”. All guests have to wear masks on entry – but can reveal their faces once inside.

Taking photos is strictly forbidden and you can also be chucked out for breaching the golden rule of “consensuality”. “We always ask before we touch,” the club says.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10647946/elite-sex-club-snctm-new-years-eve-orgy-los-angeles/

In contrast to all those anonymous members Gwyneth Paltrow is singularly open about her kinky habits and even offered her “Goop” lifestyle website to SNCTM for an interview with its owner.

In addition to that Gwyneth Paltrow regularly publishes her recommendations of a large variety of sex toys, complete with “a BDSM starter kit” for beginners (bondage and discipline, sadism and masochism in case  you don’t know).

All in the name of health and science of course.

Gwyneth Partrlow being “provocative” (a shot from Glee)

Gwyneth Paltrow has rarely been coy when it comes to tackling taboo sex topics, so by now it should be surprising to few when she publishes yet another risque sex guide.

In her annual Sex Issue, the 45-year-old takes on porn, BDSM, tantric sex, and even threesomes. 

As she usually does with Goop, the star has experts weigh in on all of the subjects, with interviews with doctors and even porn stars inside the pages.  

‘Whether tantra or BDSM or threesomes or vanilla are your thing will never be the point — knowing yourself, all your options, and how to ask for and pursue what feels good to you, is,’ the magazine reads, adding that the issue takes on ‘everything you’ve always wanted to know about sexuality, seduction and desire.’

No filter: Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop products include “This smells like my vagina” candle. [The Daily Mail]

This is certainly not the first time Gwyneth has gotten candid about sex, or even BDSM — she has included advice and expert tips in past issues, and also regularly lists very racy lingerie, sexy toys, and S&M tools in her gift guides.In 2016’s Sex Issue, which was online-online, Gwyneth sanctioned a sex toy shopping guide includes everything from a $535 leather whip to six different vibrators averaging over $200 each. 

Similar products popped up in her holiday and Valentine’s Day gift guides last year, too. Highlights of the Christmas gift guide included 12 different sex toys, $1,500 of S&M jewelry, and a $250 ‘passion-enhancing’ cannabis oil inhaler.

She has published full articles on lube, strengthening the pelvic floor, and even vaginal steaming. In last year’s Sex Issue, she addressed anal sex head-on, consulting an expert to compile a comprehensive guide to the taboo sexual act. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5657311/Gwyneth-Paltrow-tackles-BDSM-porn-THREESOMES-new-Goop-issue.html

Amazed by all of the above and lost for words too, I resorted to people’s comments on the article in search for some help and was relieved to find that it is not me who is mad here and that my old-fashioned illiberal views are shared by many others:

  • Good old California, let them lead us into the future, let’s listen to all these Hollywood Actors, Producers, and film makers for political advice and lifestyle choices. Way to go America. Way to go Media.
  • I think it’s way past time Las Vegas surrendered it’s moniker–Sin City–to Hollywood. That city has rightly earned it. Disgusting.
  • These are the people we are supposed to admire in Hollywood??? Just beyond gross.
  • And these people lecture to us about morality….
  • If you want a taste of Hollywood, go to google MOCA 2013, and look at the photos. Then google “Spirit Cooking”.
  • Any of the other ME TOO ladies in there???

If there was a prize for the best comment I would award it to the last one as it clearly ridicules the hypocrisy of the MeToo movement– remember that it was our sweetie Gwyneth Paltrow who was shattered to pieces when Harvey Weinstein asked her for a massage when she was only 22 (she said she refused it).

Not that I am a supporter of sexual harassment– not at all – but there is a clear dissonance between what Gwyneth Paltrow says and does. And she certainly wasn’t an innocent little thing at the age of 22 as she leads us to believe.

According to Paltrow when she was 15 or 16 a make-up artist Sheryl Berkoff working with her mom, a Hollywood actress too, taught her how to give a blow job and “all the classic stuff” which Gwyneth implemented “in the first chance she got”.

The advice was given to her while the two of them were smoking behind the trailer.

“The 47-year-old actress met Sheryl Berkoff when she was a teenager and the make-up artist was working with her mom, Blythe Danner, and was “immediately obsessed” with her because she was so “cool”.
“And she knew that I was sneaking cigarettes, and she would come smoke with me behind the trailer, and she taught me how to give a blow job, and you know, all the classic Sheryl stuff. It was less about remembering the technique — although I’m sure that I implemented it the first chance I got.”
“It was so cool to have someone treat me like an adult and see me as like a young woman and someone who is sexual. She just made me feel so free.”

Paltrow gushed: “She was so awesome to me. And I was a high school kid”.

https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/thesauce/goop-founder-gwyneth-paltrow-got-sex-tips-from-rob-lowes-wife/

So she was still a kid when she received those valuable sex tips. It seems that Hollywood enjoys treating children like adults, and no one there minds giving them early sexual education. Then these sexualized children grow up and sometimes turn into classy ladies who then serve as role models for the young and guide them in their life choices by recommending wild sex orgies and BDSM.

And so on it goes.

Anyway, I will never watch a single movie with Gwyneth Paltrow’s participation. What’s the point of watching when you know all the dirt behind those innocent looks?

And we haven’t explored the MOCA and “spirit cooking” sessions yet which some commenters recommended us to look into – wait till we do…

WHERE IS THE MEDIA?

In the mix of emotions generated by all this incredibly toxic stuff, there is one thing that struck me most. Knowing how hysterical the media were and are about Michael Jackson, the scarce and matter-of-fact way they report the Hollywood filth seems even unreal.

In fact, their style of reporting is no more emotional than describing some cooking recipes.

The most the media afford themselves is occasional slight irony which can be easily taken for a laughing approval of some people’s “eccentricities”, but even that is extremely rare.

Mind you that all these bacchanals are covered by tabloids only which automatically downplays the importance of their information while the mainstream media pretends not to know and ignores it as if it weren’t even newsworthy.

Where is the NY Times, I wonder? Where is the LA Times in whose vicinity all of the above is taking place? Where are the CNN and all others who reported every salacious detail of false allegations about Michael Jackson but don’t bother to paint a true picture of their best entertainment industry?

And why was there so much media frenzy about Michael for what he did and didn’t do, while they silently eye their Oscar-winning actress suggest a “BDSM starter kit” as a gift idea on Valentine’s day?

And the same media has the audacity to call Michael Jackson “disturbing to be around” just for keeping silent at someone’s lunch? They really want us to think that he was “mentally ill” just because he tried to sequester himself from this world as Elton John is telling us?

But what’s so bad about trying to sequester oneself from these people? Wouldn’t any other normal person do the same in Michael Jackson’s place?

In contrast to Michael Jackson who had to do with Hollywood’s immorality all his life, we have minimally touched upon it and scratched it only on the surface, but even that little was enough to make us – or at least me – sick and nauseated.

And this is when I asked myself a question: What would I do if, same as Michael Jackson, I needed to survive in an environment so alien to me? What could I do not to lose sanity among those whose moral values invariably clash with mine, making life beside these people almost unbearable?

The only answer I could find was that I would try to purify myself in some way – like shut myself from the outside world and toil in the garden where I can talk with the nature and my flowers, or interact with someone who will show me a cleaner, better and lighter side of life…

Oh, I know who I would turn to – children of course!

With children you don’t have to explain anything – when you are with them you just plunge into the sea of light, cleanliness and joy radiating on you through their mere existence, and the only thing that makes you sad is the realization that they are innocently unaware of the dirt awaiting them in the adult world.

But let us brush all sadness away for a time being and enjoy ourselves while we can!

And then came an understanding that this is exactly what Michael Jackson did.

Michael must have been so deeply traumatized by the hypocrisy and cultural decay of the people around him that he minimized his contacts with them and filled the void with hard work in his studio, some indispensable business contacts he couldn’t avoid and a friendship with those few who were a similar kind.

And the only sacred place where he could freely breathe and be totally himself, was the place reserved by him for those little magical people – first the kids of his friends and then his own children. This place was a kind of an inner sanctuary for him into which he escaped at his first opportunity, leaving all the trouble on the outside.

This sanctuary was a place to clean himself in and renew his energy as well as restore some belief in the good of human kind which was so heavily shattered by his real-life experience.

And by the way Elton John was right when he said that MJ “was just gone, off into a world of his own. God knows what was going on in his head” with the only difference that we know why he was gone into a world of his own and what was going in his head.

I wish it hadn’t taken me so long to understand it. Frankly, if it weren’t for that dark journey into the Hollywood underbelly I wouldn’t have been able to feel what children meant to Michael and why he preferred their company to adults.

Association with them was a paradise on earth for Michael Jackson and the only way he could really survive.

Here is just a fraction what he used to say:

I pray a lot. I see a beautiful sunset and I say “God, that’s beautiful…Thank you”, or a baby smile or butterfly wings or anything like that.

~

There have been times in my life when I, like everyone, has had to wonder about God’s existence. When Prince smiles, when Paris giggles, I have no doubts. Children are God’s gift to us. No — they are more than that — they are the very form of God’s energy and creativity and love. He is to be found in their innocence, experienced in their playfulness.

~

When I see children, I see the face of God. That’s why I love them so much. That’s what I see.

~

Love is the human family’s most precious legacy, its richest bequest, its golden inheritance.

~

For me, love is something very pure.

~

Forever, continue to love, heal and educate the children, the future shines on them.

~

Nothing is more important than our children. They are the future. They can heal the world. It is our obligation to be there for them.

~

I see God in the face of children. If there were no children on this Earth, if somebody announced that all kids are dead, I would jump off the balcony immediately. I’m done.

Do I need to explain any further or you already see it?

Which side in CULTURE WARS is Michael Jackson on?

$
0
0

When the news of Elton John’s story about  Michael Jackson arrived here I was reading the works of Professor James Davison Hunter, the American sociologist who coined the expression “Culture wars” and first used it in his book “Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America” published in 1991.

This groundbreaking book is not online, but I read two others by the same author entitled “Death of Character – Moral Education in an Age without Good or Evil” (published in 2000) and “Is there a Culture War? A Dialogue on Values and American Public Life” (2006).

What was remarkable about my reading is that Elton John’s story was a perfect example of the culture war described by the author – the culture division and even polarization between Michael Jackson and his immediate circle in the entertainment industry, in Hollywood and the media serving the interests of one side only, all of which formed an immensely hostile cultural opposition to Michael Jackson.

CULTURE WAR

The Culture war will help you understand why some people in Michael’s homeland are virtually unable to see his innocence – and not so much because of the total absence of evidence to support those baseless allegations, but primarily due their lack of certain personal traits necessary to understand his character and core moral values.

The problem of these people is that due to the realignment of values that took place in the US several decades ago, their own morals became relative and are now deprived of their commanding character. Instead of convictions these people have preferences and “truth has become a matter of taste for them – all provisional, all exchangeable,” often subject to fashion and certainly having nothing to do with the moral imperatives that existed earlier.

These wonderful people are called progressives.

According to sociologist James Hunter the culture war, raging in the US already in the 1990s, began between the ‘progressives’ and ‘traditionalists’ sometime in the 50s when traditionalism came as an answer to the progressive trends that rose at the beginning of the 20th century. Since then progressivism has scored one victory after another.

To see what progressivism is, you actually need not go further than the beginning of Hunter’s book “Death of Character. Moral education in an Age without Good or Evil” with has an introduction with a telling subtitle “Postmortem”:

“Character is dead. Attempts to revive it will yield little. Its time has passed.

Character is formed in relation to convictions and is manifested in the capacity to abide by those convictions even in, especially in, the face of temptation. This being so, the demise of character begins with the destruction of creeds, the convictions, and the “god-terms” that made these creeds sacred to us and inviolable within us.

Both values and lifestyle as a way of living that reflects the accumulation of one’s values bespeak a world in which nothing is sacred. Indeed, sacredness is conspicuous in its absence.

There is nothing there that one need believe, commanding and demanding its due, for “truth” is but a matter of taste and temperament.

The implications are simultaneously liberating and disturbing. There is unprecedented individual freedom that few would be willing to relinquish. But there is also a license that disparages self-restraint and responsibility toward others.

When the self is stripped of moral anchoring, there is nothing to which the will is bound to submit, nothing innate to keep it in check. There is no compelling reason to be burdened by guilt.

Dostoyevsky had it about right: everything becomes possible – every violence, every deed of corruption, every mockery of justice, every act of indifference – because there are no inhibiting truths.”

Moral anchoring is missing now because what used to be a code of universal moral values has morphed into some relative and individual preferences. James Hunter chronicles this process step by step and shows that it brought about so big a conflict between the progressives and traditionalists that it amounts to nothing less than a culture war.

In plain terms, a culture war is a fundamental conflict over what people see as morally right and wrong and Hunter explains how come the new generations cannot tell one from the other and have no idea what a ‘moral value’ actually is.

To those who claim that they don’t notice any cultural war around them he says that it rarely manifests itself in the open – “it is episodic and, very often, local in its expressions” as it actually runs at the deepest and most profound levels of public life.

“While the American public culture was undergoing a realignment that was generating significant tension and conflict, these antagonisms were playing out not just on the surface of social life but at the deepest and most profound levels, and not just at the level of ideology but in its public symbols, its myths, its discourse, and through the institutional structures that generate and sustain public culture. Thus underneath the myriad political controversies over so-called cultural issues, there were yet deeper crises over the very meaning and purpose of the core institutions of American civilization.”

As a result of these profound antagonisms, by early 2000s America divided into two almost monolithic groups – ‘traditionalists’, who roughly made one fourth of the population and another one fourth, initially called ‘permissivists’ with all others somewhere in between.

James Hunter describes the warring parties as follows:

“Traditionalists see the world as one with fixed moral guidelines while the ideal of permissivists is to see the world that offers individuals greater choice.

Traditionalists are, in terms of their commitment to traditional morality, self-sacrifice, and a belief in absolutes, the most conservative people in America today. The traditionalists are overwhelmingly and conservatively theistic in their religious stances.”

Their opponents are so different that he calls them the inhabitants of a fundamentally different moral universe.

James Davison Hunter

Inhabiting a fundamentally different moral universe are the permissivists”, who make up about 27 percent of the American population [in 2000].

These individuals are perhaps the most secular of all Americans, the most lenient toward traditional morality, the most relativistic toward truth, and among the least self-sacrificial in weighing personal interests against the common good.”

The sociologist does not take sides and stigmatizes neither of the parties.

“The traditionalists attracted to orthodoxy, Hunter has always insisted, cannot be dismissed simply as reactionary or backward looking.

Progressivists had noble ideals of their own, holding a view that “idealizes experimentation and adaptation to any innovation with the changing circumstances of our time.” Their goal was “the further emancipation of the human spirit and the creation of an inclusive and tolerant world.”

Given that James Hunter called it a culture war already in 1991, it means that the fight between conservatives and progressivists reached the stage of a war already 30 years ago. Since then things went only from bad to worse resulting in so deep a confrontation in the US now that it is visible with a naked eye even to outsiders.

And though some American scholars still deny the existence of any culture wars whatsoever, contemporary readers of Hunter’s books unanimously agree that not only did it exist thirty years ago, but it explains very well what’s going on in America today:

  • “The struggle to define America” makes sense of battles over the family, law, politics, art, and education. There are especially bitter battles over God’s place in society, abortion, and same-sex marriage. Explains very well what is going on in America today. Highly recommended reading.
  • This book warned America of the coming storm that would be unleashed by progressives/libs. Still a must read. Very informative.
  • Hunter backs it with chronicles of how the culture war has been conducted thus far. First, he says, we are dealing with core philosophic differences over questions to do with ‘how the world should be.’ Thus, both sides have deep emotions on the said issues. Second, the game is about power – the power to get your policy instituted and your other’s quashed. Third, each ‘side’ operates using somewhat incompatible philosophic assumptions. To the anti-abortion-rights activist, it is a child and abortion is murder. To the abortion rights activist, it is only potential life and prohibiting abortion is denying the mother freedom of person. Where one sees freedom, the other sees either servitude or murder. Incompatibilities like these, says Hunter, will ensure that there will be no satisfactory end to the culture war – just a long, tiring, rhetorically charged, and endless, struggle.

Insightful observers noted already in 2004 that the struggle is not so much about Democrats and Republicans, but about Godly America and Worldly America:

“As Simon Schama said of the election of 2004, “not since the Civil War has the fault lines between its two halves been so glaringly clear. . . . It is time we called those two Americas something other than Republican and Democrat, for their mutual alienation and unforgiving contempt is closer to Sunni and Shia, or Muslim and Hindu. How about, then. Godly America and Worldly America.”

But even that description is not quite correct – the editor’s note to James Hunter’s book stresses that the culture war is surprisingly cutting across even the established religious communities, so that conservatives within each tradition are more likely to share values with conservatives from other traditions than the progressives within their own.

To put it plainly, people divide into ‘progressives’ and ‘traditionalists’ even within one creed and tend to form previously unheard of alliances with other creeds or even secularists:

Unlike the religious and cultural conflict that historically divided the nation, the contemporary culture war is fought along new and unfamiliar lines. Its foundation is a profound realignment in American culture which cuts across established moral and religious communities.

“Culture Wars” presents a riveting account of how Christian fundamentalist, Orthodox Jews, and conservative Catholics have joined forces in a fierce battle against their progressive counterparts–secularist, reform Jews, liberal Catholics and Protestants–as each side struggles to gain control over such fields of conflict as the family, art, education, law, and politics.

There can’t be any doubt that at the moment the struggle between the two sides is much more fierce than at the time when James Hunter wrote his first book. But even then the intensity of the conflict was almost as bad as during the Civil War:

Not since the Civil War has there been such fundamental disagreement over basic assumptions about truth, freedom, and our national identity.  

https://iasculture.org/research/publications/culture-wars-struggle-define-america

Remember that the above was said in 1991, so we can only imagine how deep the culture division is now and how deadly the fight is thirty years after it was first described.

WHICH SIDE WAS MICHAEL JACKSON ON?

Which side of the fight was Michael Jackson on, though he certainly didn’t realize that he was at war with anyone, or to be more precise, that the other side was at war with him?

Well, whether progressives like it or not, the awkward truth about Michael Jackson is that he was a conservative.

Americans noticed it themselves and even ask questions on the web like “Why was Michael Jackson so conservative?”

The most obvious answer to that is that his conservative views were formed by his mother and the Jehovah Witness faith, his hard work since early childhood and his overall upbringing, as well as his natural instinct and phenomenal creativity genuinely regarded by Michael as the Heavens’ gift.

Faith in God was central to Michael Jackson’s character and whether he stayed a Jehovah Witness or not is not even important – whatever changes his faith underwent the moral imperatives that come with it still remained intact.

Self-constraint, responsibility, repentance, seeking constant moral guidance from the above were not just shallow words for Michael Jackson – they were his core moral values which served both as an anchor and a huge restraining force.

Progressives certainly don’t know what this feeling is like.

Well, actually it is all about the set of priorities for oneself – “God first, me second” for a believer and the tranquility he feels when he knows that he is trying hard to live the way the higher power expects him to  –  in contrast to “Me first” for a non-believer accompanied by a feeling that he is his own master and can live his life as he sees fit, and there is virtually nothing to restrain him in doing as he pleases as long as it looks proper to others.

Still not clear?

Well, a true believer cherishes his contact with the higher power and voluntarily submits himself to the moral constraints associated with it. He knows that certain things are simply not done as the human wisdom accumulated in thousands of years is telling him, so in a situation when his instincts tempt him to defy it, he will still resist it and the success of his effort will depend on the strength of his character and faith.

And Michael Jackson had both.

At the age of 15 he was found reading the Bible to the two prostitutes sent to him by his father, so instead of having sex with them he was trying to put them on the road of repentance (the girls were said to have left in tears).

In the 1990s when he was no longer a Jehovah Witness, he still cherished his precious contact with the higher spirit:

  • “For me the sweetest contact with God has no form. I close my eyes, look within. The infinity of God’s creation embraces me” (from Dancing the Dream book).

Long after he formally left the Jehovah Witnesses he still praised the Almighty when he did something right:

  • “When I write something that I know is right, I get on my knees and say thank you. Thank you Jehovah!”

And it was this higher power only that Michael relied on when facing all the bullying and media frenzy in 1993, and when he prayed on his knees with Karen Faye before every court session in 2005.

God was obviously Michael’s only hope and was his usual state of mind, and this is why when Conrad Murray recorded him in 2009 expecting to get some incriminating evidence against MJ, all he heard was that even the half-asleep Jackson still spoke of God and said that it was Him who wanted him to help children.

Being aware that for the progressive crowd God is dead, I realize only too well that Michael’s religious views are a sort of an embarrassment to them, a boring inconvenience they have to tolerate and a joke for those who are doubting his faith and innocence too.

However whether they like it or not, the fact that Michael Jackson didn’t imagine his life without God is still there, and by the way, the progressivists should know that it means that Michael always lived with a feeling that the Lord knew each of his thoughts, and this contributed a lot to his moral self-discipline and capacity for restraint.

Actually, for Michael Jackson restraint was a lifestyle and this shows how silly are the conclusions of some psychologists who claim that since he didn’t go for sex with every groupie it means that he was “asexual” or hiding his true sexuality.

These ignorant observations, same as the shameless child-abuse lies about him, are a million years far from the truth as they simply come from a different moral universe than Michael’s.

THE OTHER WARRING SIDE

You will probably be interested to know that progressivism as a force opposing conservatism is painted by James Davison Hunter in a fairly positive light.

It all started in mid 20th century when the traditional  moral values taught to generations through religious teachings and imposing certain constraints on children to help them self-master their character, gave way to the “progressive” understanding of moral values as the old system began to be criticized for “crushing the souls of children” through religious dogmas.

The progressives meant well as they considered that morality should not be imposed from the outside, but should be developed by the young minds through their own personal feelings, self-understanding and empathy to others.

Almost in no time the place of ministers was taken by psychologists who, as James Hunter puts it, established nothing short of a “psychological regime” as their word became decisive in all public discussion while the voices of philosophers and theologians were muted or non-existent.

“There are sociological reasons why psychology has emerged as the framework for understanding the moral life as well. With theology in all its forms discredited as a public language, psychology has offered a seemingly neutral way to understand and cultivate the best qualities of the human personality.

It is “science” after all, and science, we are inclined to believe, is “objective.”

Please note that it is James Hunter who put the words “science” and “objective” in inverted commas, and due to my somewhat psychological background I even know why. Unlike physics or maths psychology lacks precision and wholly depends on the prevailing social ideas and ideology, and therefore almost any ideological construct can find its confirmation in psychology, at least temporarily.

Whatever the case, under the guidance of psychologists the system of moral education in the US was fully reworked. It began to be centered on the children’s feelings, building their self-esteem and on the concept of accepting oneself no matter what.

Hunter says about it:

“The centerpiece of this orientation has been the emotions surrounding one’s own self-concept and well-being captured in the concept of “self-esteem.” We are told that children who feel good about themselves tend to do well in school, are less likely to take drugs, will be sexually responsible, and will be more tolerant of others.

The self-esteem idea was later repackaged into other terms like “emotional intelligence” for example, however its essence remaining the same.

The psychological regime strengthened from year to year, replacing the old system of teaching moral values and growing dominant in every sphere of public life:

“The influence of psychology on our understanding of moral life has, in turn, had an impact on American culture. To whom do school systems turn when they need counseling for their students, or lawyers when they need “an expert” in court to explain the behavior of criminals, or journalists seeking opinions for a story on juvenile delinquency? We summon the psychologist, the child psychiatrist, the psychiatric social worker. The specialized knowledge of such individuals became the common sense and working wisdom of parents, educators, and policymakers alike.”

It may sound incredible but the system of moral education led by psychologists eradicated the idea of values clarification in principle.

Teachers took pains to avoid imposing moral values on their students – the idea was to let children work them out themselves by learning to be conscious of their feelings, clearly express them and project their own emotions onto others who find themselves in similar situations.

But what initially looked like a good idea quickly turned the previously universal moral values into one’s own personal feelings, relative in comparison to others and certainly not absolute or universal in any way. Each worked out his own values, and their difference began to be seen no better or worse than others – they were ‘just different’.

By the late 1980s, many curriculum publishers and practitioners were going out of their way to distance themselves and their agendas from the very idea of values clarification.

The dominant strategy of moral education in the public schools has continued to frame its pedagogy in the same psychological terms: the importance of feelings as a guide to one’s values, an emphasis on individual choice, the centrality of self-regard or self-esteem to the student’s moral maturation.

Bobby McFerrin: “Don’t worry, be happy  Ain’t got no place to lay your head Somebody came and took your bed Don’t worry, be happy….”

For adults this created a little industry of self-help literature that captured the minds of many by its focus on self-acceptance, which somehow reminded me of the satire in Bobby McFerrin’s song “Don’t worry, be happy”.

As to children here is just some of their psychological advice on how to help kids to become morally mature:

  • “Feeling good” about oneself is seen as one of the ingredients of success, so “talk positively about yourself, accept your likes and dislikes, your strengths and your weaknesses, think of ways to reward yourself” .

  • Caring for ourselves also teaches us how to care for others. If we value and respect ourselves, we are better able to appreciate and respect others.”

  • “At every level it is the child’s feelings that are to be understood and consulted, so it is not that engaging in sex outside of marriage is foolish or morally wrong – it is the fact that it may make the child “feel anxious and worried” that matters.”

  • “If you feel good about yourself you will not need drugs; if ever tempted, you will have the moral wherewithal to resist. To this end, the program helps young people to explore and understand their emotions.”

A more specific example comes from the “Growing up Caring” curriculum:

In framing the moral problem of cheating, Growing up Caring shows a picture of a girl looking over the shoulder of another while taking a test. The caption reads, “Cheating, in any form, is bad for your self-esteem.” The moral argument is not that cheating is objectively wrong because it violates a universal value or principle, but that it lowers one’s self-esteem.

 In the chapter “Caring,” “students are told that “listening to our own feelings and trying to meet our own emotional needs can help us meet the needs of others. Becoming a caring person takes practice, and caring for ourselves can become an ongoing lesson in how to care for others.”

Let me interrupt this sweet narration and exclaim that the road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. It can be only in this crazy context that continuous caring for oneself may be regarded as “a lesson in how to care for others”.

In fact, the worldwide wisdom says exactly the opposite – when you constantly care about your own feelings only, it turns into a lesson in indulgence, egotism and self-gratification.

Even when these mantras are wrapped in a slightly more moral packaging (“Why should you care for another? Because it will make you feel better”) the focus still centers on the benefit for one’s precious self rather than the good of others – in contrast, for example, to the simple and golden religious rule: “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you.”

I can’t believe that this complicated psychological mess focusing on personal feelings could replace the simple sharing of moral wisdom on what’s right and wrong that took the human civilization thousands of years to work out.

In fact, just one parable from the New Testament – the one where a mob wanted to stone an adulteress and Jesus said, “Let him without sin cast the first stone” and all of them slowly dropped their stones and left, can teach the absolute moral values better than all those psychological curricula taken together – justice, mercy, compassion, chastity, the need to restrain one’s urges and aggression, remorse, repentance and much more.

No wonder their novel “don’t worry, be happy” approach to moral education quickly brought its first impressive results. James Hunter describes them as a huge disappointment.

“When the Commission of Values-centered Goals for the District of Columbia Public Schools examined the existing value-centered educational programs in 1987 they noted that “The problems of the district were so serious that the commission recognized that young people increasingly perceive that the pursuit of material wealth is more valuable than honesty, integrity or commitment.”

“The commission also noted that 61 percent of all District babies are born out of wedlock each year, 20 per cent of which were to teenagers, nearly 40 percent of all District children are living in families headed by a single mother who is likely to be raising her children in poverty; and that the District’s drop-out rate was more than 15 percent points over the national rate.”

The Commission concluded thatthe district badly needed to find a way to encourage students to develop a sense of self that goes beyond a preoccupation with instant self-gratification.

Thankfully, Michael Jackson missed out on all those innovations and learned his morals the traditional way – he didn’t attend school due to hard work since the age of 5 and had to educate himself on the road. His main teaching book was the Bible and his favorite classmates were the people who attended the Jehovah Witness gatherings.

  • When I was young, my whole family attended church together in Indiana. As we grew older, this became difficult, and my remarkable and truly saintly mother would sometimes end up there on her own. When circumstances made it increasingly complex for me to attend, I was comforted by the belief that God exists in my heart, and in music and in beauty, not only in a building. But I still miss the sense of community that I felt there — I miss the friends and the people who treated me like I was simply one of them. Simply human. Sharing a day with God.” [ Michael Jackson]

When Michael attended those gatherings he was in his element and his positive experience with these people must have led him to believe that those outside his community were basically no different and shared the same moral ideals – which was a very big mistake.

Michael was unaware that the world around him could have no idea what absolute moral values are and what they believed to be ‘values’ was, in fact, catering to their individual preferences and tastes –  the system which they naturally assumed about all others.

If someone had told Michael that people around him were confusing morals with their feelings and the principle of “caring for oneself”, he would have probably not believed it, same as I couldn’t believe it either when I was reading James Hunter.

Due to Michael Jackson’s innocent unawareness of the fluid moral environment around him, coupled with his own inviolable Jehovah Witness views imbedded in him since as long as he remembered it, he was indeed an alien to others, especially in the very specific atmosphere of Hollywood and entertainment industry he had to circulate in.

He wasn’t at war with these people.

He simply couldn’t understand their ways, same as they couldn’t understand his, and his sincere words about his love for children, for example, had a totally different meaning for them and were interpreted the way their own self-gratification system led them to believe.

And there was no way for the two sides to understand each other. To begin with, none of them were even aware of the huge cultural divide separating them as cultural conflicts like that indeed run too deep for people to realize them. And secondly, what was acceptable for them was unimaginable for Michael, and vice versa.

Fluid morality allows people to experiment to satisfy their wishes and desires and they will still consider themselves good citizens worthy of public praise, while Michael’s strong moral backbone, anchored in his faith, did not allow him to explore or even consider those options.

For people like him what is not right is simply never done, otherwise they will lose their cherished contact with the universe, their creativity, their inspiration, their everything.

Actually it’s useless even to try and explain it. A cultural divide like that is impossible to explain. Anyone who knows what I am talking about will understand it without explanations, while those who were brought up in a different tradition will never understand.

EXAMPLE

The only way for them to probably see is look at an example.

This is why let me recall Elton John again and that piece in his biography where he talks about Lady Gaga as a godmother for his sons Zachary and Elija.  Elton John calls her a “great role model” for his children and says that the boys call her “Gaga mother.”

And all of it would be fine, especially now that Lady Gaga seems to be “the soul of the nation” and a great role model for the whole country, if it were not for one small detail – her close friendship with guru Marina Abramovic who instructs her in art, meditation and “spirit cooking” performances.

In case you don’t know what “spirit cooking” is, here is an example of it presented by Marina Abramovic at the annual Watermill Center benefit in 2013 attended by Lady Gaga to honor her friend and guru.

Below is just one of Abramovic’s installations.

Some say that it is a corpse-like cake, but to me it looks like an immobile live model performing the role of a corpse that is served with hot chocolate or some other brown sauce. Lady Gaga is seen tasting it, while people around her look delighted and amused.

Cannibalistic art events are Marina Abramovic’s favorite.

In 2011 the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) hosted a dinner where Abramovic dressed her guests in lab coats and placed the listless-looking heads of live models into the center holes of dinner tables as well as a naked woman with a skeleton on top of her on one of the tables.

For dessert at that dinner several men brought in two life-size corpse cakes fashioned after the images of Marina Abramovic and singer Debby Harry who sang at the party. The two divas personally cut the hearts out of their cake doubles and served them to their guests.

Those who faced this kind of progressive art for the first time felt perplexed and confused, but regular visitors seemed to enjoy themselves – for example, the Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other elite guests seen in this photo:

Celebrities had their pictures taken beside the corpse-like cake and the only thing some of them were displeased with (for example, the MeToo activist Rose McGowan) was that they had to put white lab coats over their evening dresses.

Gwen Stefani beside the half-eaten cake imitating a corpse

Rose McGowan resented the need to put a lab overcoat

The majority of the guests left the event with mixed feelings. However the media unanimously assured them that this is “art”.

There was only one woman who ventured to voice her concern – and not even about the immorality of the event, but about violating the rights of actors who had to stay lifeless throughout the evening. The media ridiculed her for the baseless complaint as according to their sources the actors didn’t mind, so everything ended just fine.

To add to the overall picture, let me say that Marina Abramovic’s art is in hot demand now – in Munich she presented an opera featuring Maria Callas’s seven scenes of dying on stage from the respective seven operas and Abramovic’s only problem was that the corona virus delayed the premiere.

The review said: “Defying the Odds, Marina Abramović Presents the World Premiere of Her First-Ever Opera in Munich. The artist takes to the stage to die seven times in highly anticipated performance about celebrity, love, and inner crisis.”

Abramovic is also a welcome guest at the Royal Academy of Arts in the UK where she regularly arranges her lovely performances and delivers lectures about her art.

I listened to one and found that among the awards showered on her in almost every major European city she was given a prize for her performance in Venice called “The Balcan Baroque” where she sat on a pile of cow bones for a week 8 hours a day “washing blood from the bones” amid the unbearable stench.

To explain the message of the performance she described the way they kill rats in the Balkans – stronger rats eat the weakest until only one is left, after which they “pull its eyes out” and have it eaten by another rat, and this, according to Abramovic, was “her strongest message for her Balcon Baroque art”.

And you know what? The avid listeners at the Royal Academy of Arts survived the lecture very well. In fact, they even behaved as if this was really art and not a case of extreme moral decay and a sordid celebration of rotten ideas and perversion.

The media invariably speak of Marina Abramovic in glowing terms (a new word in art!) while any normal person will tell you that these freak shows are crossing all boundaries, are sick to the core and border on plain cannibalism.

But how come the media and all these people don’t notice the immorality of what they do?

The reason for that is their moral relativism that doesn’t allow them to see the glaring sickness it really is. Their “progressivism” tells them that it is a way to “explore the boundaries of modern art”, so no one has the right to judge it as morally wrong.

What’s interesting though is that when it comes to Michael Jackson, the same progressive media which only a moment ago fell over themselves to glorify Marina Abramovic, will immediately get on their moral high horse and pick at everything that was Michael – his looks and make-up, his loneliness and isolation, and even his silence at a lunch table with Elton John.

And they will do it unanimously thus betraying their deepest secret – that almost all mainstream media are on the “progressive” side now and therefore antagonistic to Michael Jackson. And not because of his alleged flaws and things he never did, but because of their own cultural agenda and ideology, opposite to his.

Even in his death they still regard him as a threat to the triumph of their progressive ideas due to his fantastic ability to unite like-minded people around him, so we can only imagine how much more hostile to him they were when he was still alive.

How would Michael Jackson feel if by some accident he found himself at a spirit-cooking event arranged by Marina Abramovic?

Would he taste the brown sauce spilled over the corpse-like body like Lady Gaga did or would he flee the event to never come there again?

Would he fall ill and vomit in some bushes?

Would he spend sleepless nights and despair over the monsters human beings are turning into?

There are many options for his possible reaction, but one thing is certain – if Michael had seen that cake he would have been abhorred and disgusted by the decay which is now called “culture” by some people.

And this is apparently why they hate him so much. If the people of the world had a choice between this “progressivism” and Michael Jackson, they would certainly choose Jackson.

Because in spite of all the media efforts to prove otherwise, his views were normal while as regards all those others I am not sure.

THE KEY PLAYERS behind ‘Leaving Neverland’ Operation

$
0
0

Three days before the official trailer for “Leaving Neverland” was first released to the public on February 19, 2019, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times wrote her review of the film setting a sort of a standard for other mainstream media to follow.

Maureen Dowd should not be confused with Maureen Orth of the Vanity Fair who dedicated her life to smearing Michael Jackson. Maureen Dowd is the Pulitzer Prize-winning op-ed columnist who is “arguably the most powerful journalist in America thanks to her must-read column in The New York Times”.

To show how powerful she really is it’s suffice to mention that just one column of hers written in February 2007 ruined the chances of Hillary Clinton for presidency and projected the career of Barack Obama as a Democratic nominee who would later win the elections.

Let me repeat – it was Dowd’s just one column that changed the US political climate forever.

And on February 16, 2019 she reviewed the Leaving Neverland film, just several days before some of its footage was to be shown to the public for the first time.

A month prior to that the film premiered at the Sundance festival and those present had already sent shock waves throughout the world, however its TV premiere was to take place only on March 3 and 4, so Maureen Dowd’s opinion of the film was kind of setting the scene.

One would imagine that a journalist whose word people hang on as if it were the gospel, would be wary of making rash conclusions and warn others that unless proven by facts the assertions of two individuals are worthless.

However this was not the case. In the very headline of her column Maureen Dowd denounced Michael Jackson as the King of “perversion”, presented the film as fact and instead of asking appropriate questions about its legitimacy redirected everyone’s attention to “how could we be so blind?”

Her review abounded in words like “lair”, “monster”, “rapist”, “apparent criminality”, “shredded lives of victims”, “tragedy” and the like.

The King of Pop — and Perversion

By Maureen Dowd

Opinion Columnist

February 16, 2019

When Dan Reed ordered up a score for his documentary, he asked the composer to evoke the image of a shimmering sprite leading two boys deeper and deeper into an enchanted forest. The boys don’t notice that the trees grow menacing. And suddenly, the sprite turns into a monster.

As “Leaving Neverland” shows, Michael Jackson spent his life shape-shifting from best pal, father figure and beneficent idol into cruel, manipulative rapist.

It was apparent for decades that Jackson’s cotton-candy lair was sulfurous. But as with other monsters — Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Woody Allen, Jeffrey Epstein and Bryan Singer — many turned a blind eye.

Celebrity supersedes criminality. How can you see clearly when you’re looking into the sun? How can an icon be a con?

It was easier to ignore a landscape designed as a spider web for child sexual abuse than to give up the soundtrack of our lives, the catchy songs that coursed through memories of weddings, bar mitzvahs and other good times.

“With Michael Jackson, you can see how grotesquely his fame, and our worship of fame, distorts and excuses and enables evil — to the point mothers fail to protect their children and literally throw them in harm’s way,” says Maureen Orth, who did groundbreaking stories in the ’90s for Vanity Fair about both Jackson and Allen.

Indeed, the most harrowing part of the new documentary about the shredded lives of two of Jackson’s victims is the complicity of their mothers. Jackson spent as much time grooming the mothers as the sons, to the point where the women saw nothing wrong in letting their children share a bed with a grown man. (The documentary, which left the audience stunned at Sundance last month, premieres on HBO next month.)

Reed is a Brit who made several documentaries about terrorism. He says he became practiced at leading victims gently back to their traumas, so they could use their minds as cameras to bring key moments to life, letting their faces and voices tell the stories.

And that is how the tragedies of James Safechuck and Wade Robson unfold, through the pain in their eyes and the confusion in their voices and the moments where they tear up or swallow hard.

Safechuck, who works as a computer programmer, was raised in Simi Valley. He met Jackson when he was a 9-year-old child actor in 1987, starring with the singer in a Pepsi commercial. Jackson promised to make the boy the next Spielberg.

Robson, a dance teacher who did choreography for Britney Spears and ’N Sync, grew up on the other side of the world in Brisbane. He spent all his time dressing and dancing like Jackson. He won a dance contest in 1987 and got to meet Jackson, who was on tour in Australia, and dance onstage. Then, he was ensnared in the warped fantasy, a 7-year-old being initiated into sex at Neverland by the 31-year-old Jackson.

The mothers, Stephanie Safechuck and Joy Robson, knew that Jackson was ensorcelling their sons, even as he lured the mothers out of the frame with luxurious enticements. But they were stage mothers and fans, so they chose to believe Michael was a kind, lonely little boy at heart, not a heartless pedophile, and they did not dig deeper when their sons said nothing bad was going on.

“He flies you first class, you have a limo waiting for you at the airport, amazing, you know, it’s a life of the rich and famous,” Mrs. Safechuck gushes in the film, adding: “I got to meet Sean Connery. That was big for me. It was like, ‘Oh my God, Sean Connery!’” She also loved Neverland: “He had a beautiful wine cellar, really good wines, champagne, that was just something I enjoyed — it was a fairy tale every night.” After all, as she says, he was a genius and they were “just nobodies.” Jackson bought them a house after James testified on the singer’s behalf in a trial involving another boy.

It somehow made sense to James’s mother when she was told that she couldn’t be near the hotel rooms her son and Michael shared in Europe because the nicer suites she would prefer were farther away.

As Wade Robson puts it, “What you’d think would be standard kind of instincts and judgment seemed to go out the window.”

His mother left Australia and his father and moved to L.A. with Wade and her daughter to be closer to Michael; the father later committed suicide. After Wade finally told a therapist and his wife and family what had happened, he was alienated from his mother for a time. Like James, Wade — who lied in court twice to protect the man he loved — had symptoms of trauma that intensified with the birth of his son. James’s hands shake as he shows a diamond ring that Jackson gave him for a private mock wedding. Wade had a nervous breakdown and stopped dancing for a time.

“I had one job” and messed it up, Mrs. Safechuck says. “My son had to suffer for me to have this life.”

Even with this shocking documentary, the Michael Jackson estate is still demonizing the victims and planning to bring a musical about Jackson’s life to Broadway in 2020.

Reed says he is “agnostic” about it: “Am I going to campaign to have Michael’s name removed from classrooms and his statues removed from shopping malls? No. Is this the right time to celebrate Michael as a legitimate good person you might want to emulate? Possibly not.”

And that is what’s known as British understatement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/sunday/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland.html

That kind of opinion coming from the NY Times, the pillar of American journalism, and from its well-respected columnist, must have sounded like the final verdict for the majority of readers – and many would probably not even go beyond the headline. A few rare voices of protest were heard but were drowned in the almost universal wailing and shaming that ensued.

These rare voices of reason included David Walsh from a socialist site which criticizes liberals from the left. He called Maureen Dowd’s review “disgusting” and expressed his amazement at the universal acceptance of the unsubstantiated claims by the American media. For him Michael Jackson is a tragic victim of the American entertainment industry that went over him like a bone-crashing machine (correct).

Here are some excerpts from David Walsh:

 “A striking feature of the present situation is the almost universal acceptance of the Robson-Safechuck claims by the American media. The word of two individuals, who have been seeking monetary compensation from the Jackson estate for years, is taken as gospel. Why is there so little skepticism, why are so few questions being asked? This is not a reflection of “popular opinion,” as it were.

Everything about Leaving Neverland produces a bad odor. … the film’s “first-hand account” provides no substantiation whatsoever of that claim; those who made Leaving Neverland and those promoting it are morally deplorable and shameless. They are seeking to profit from the film and exploit the events to advance their careers and make money.

They calculate that with money comes wisdom, and their word should be law. The accuser “must be believed” is now the watchword, and presumption of innocence and due process be damned. The allegations of Robson and Safechuck cannot be doubted or even scrutinized, because that would throw the entire #MeToo witch-hunt into question.

Billionaire Oprah Winfrey, who utters another banality every time she opens her mouth, is the spiritual-financial leader of this movement and the New York Times is its intellectual “backbone.”

The Times’ Maureen Dowd, one of the moral pillars of our time, penned a disgusting column denouncing Michael Jackson on February 16, “The King of Pop—and Perversion.”

Dowd writes, “As Leaving Neverland shows, Michael Jackson spent his life shape-shifting from best pal, father figure and beneficent idol into cruel, manipulative rapist.” The film, in reality, does not show anything. It passes on the unsubstantiated, unproven assertions of two individuals. To present Jackson as a “monster” is dishonest and reprehensible.

Jackson was swept up by the American entertainment industry’s bone-crushing machinery. … There isn’t a trace of sympathy or elemental humanity in the media coverage. The creation of “monsters,” sexual predators and the like, has become essential to the operations and agenda of the Democratic Party in particular.

Michael Jackson has been dead for nearly a decade. Now he is being excoriated, trampled upon once more—for what? The whole business has degenerated into a squalid pursuit of money and career advancement. We condemn it.”

Full text: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/06/mich-m06.html

Even a bigger number of sensible voices came from the more conservative spectrum including Piers Morgan, John Ziegler, Razorfist and others. Radio host Mark Davis, for example, looked into the root of the problem and asked for the proof of those claims, saying that without it the film was “no journalism but activist filmmaking” with an agenda to smear Jackson.

The shocking Michael Jackson documentary deserves to be seen, but can it be believed?

By Mark Davis

6:09 PM on Mar 7, 2019 GMT-6

The makers of the new Michael Jackson documentary may not have envisioned the reaction it sparked in me: I am more open to his family’s denials than ever.

…my problem is with the heavy-handed one-sidedness of the entire spectacle. This is not journalism, nor does it pretend to be. It is activist filmmaking with an agenda —  the desire to paint Jackson as a serial child molester.

This is not illegal, or even unethical. Michael Moore had no obligation to film contrary views in his Bush-bashing Fahrenheit 9/11. But no one should rely on Moore for an even-handed assessment of the subject matter.

Leaving Neverland brims with the shocking stories of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, both of whom recanted their charges in the 1990s. Robson even testified on Jackson’s behalf in 2005. This does not mean they are lying today, but nor does it guarantee that their newfound desire to share should be treated as gospel.

The film buries viewers in stories of bizarre scenes and actions, but even those do not mean the victimization described took place.

The accusers are not under oath. They have gone public for money after their lawsuits against the Jackson estate failed. But my biggest obstacle to believing them involves Jackson himself.

There is nothing in the behavioral catalog of pedophilia that includes building an amusement park in the yard. Real child molesters tend to be guarded, insular and so pathologically concealed in their sick aims that they usually look like guys you could see in line at a hardware store. I find it easier to believe that Jackson’s eccentricities were not the product of a man who lusted for children, but a stunted man clinging to his own lost childhood. But again, I have no proof either way.

And ultimately, consider the numbers. The total of mega-rich, famous people who have provably festooned themselves with the trappings of childhood in order to lure kids into sex: zero. Meanwhile, the number of liars spurred by profit motive to fabricate stories about famous people: too many to count.

This is not an argument that the documentary is a pack of lies; it is a suggestion that it is a wholly unworthy basis for a firm conclusion of Jackson’s guilt.

Mark Davis is a radio host and frequent contributor to The Dallas Morning News. The Mark Davis Show airs from 7 to 10 a.m. weekdays on KSKY-AM (660). 

Full text: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/03/08/the-shocking-michael-jackson-documentary-deserves-to-be-seen-but-can-it-be-believed/

So while the establishment media universally condemned Michael Jackson on the basis of stories alone, the rare voices from the outside asked for facts to substantiate the claims, without which the film is no documentary but is just activist film-making with an agenda to paint Michael Jackson as a monster.

The exceptions only prove the rule as they highlight the existence of a rule, and this is how the few voices that contested the official narrative made it apparent that the establishment media is actually heavily biased against Jackson and has exactly the same agenda as the two accusers.

This has been clear to us for a long time already and the only thing that required clarification was the reason why. This post will try to look into that.

THE PERSON WHO DETHRONES KINGS

Maureen Dowd’s right-wing critics are perfectly aware of her one-sided reporting and remind her that journalists are expected “to balance their sympathies and opinions with their obligation to present events in the most accurate way possible” – the reproach that fully applies to Dowd’s headlong accusation of Michael Jackson of things she and no one have absolutely no proof of.

Dowd’s critics point to an interesting episode in her career that sheds the light on the way she ruined Hillary Clinton’s chances and on who was the real driving force behind her column and the political earthquake that followed.

It turns out that the person who dumped Hillary Clinton’s nomination was the same person who, according to Michael Jackson himself sank his career too.

Yes, the name of that person is David Geffen.

From the political point of view Hillary Clinton as Geffen’s victim and his choice of Barack Obama as a new favorite are not that important to us. What is important is the way Geffen handled Hillary’s crash, the gigantic power he enjoys in American media and at the top tiers of American politics, his ability to turn public opinion overnight by his choice alone and his connection with Maureen Dowd who in both cases was a means to achieve his goals.

All these factors are extremely relevant to Michael Jackson’s case too, because if Geffen could overturn the career of politician No.1 just by making a few remarks to a journalist, he could easily do the same to the No.1 star in the entertainment industry too.

Actually, the fact that it was Geffen who busted Hillary Clinton is well known to the American public, but few know the details, so here they are coming from the book “Race of a Lifetime: How Obama Won the White House” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.

The old Jack Warner house sat on Angelo Drive at the top of Beverly Hills. Built in the thirties, it now belongs to the billionaire entertainment mogul David Geffen.

On the night of February 20, 2007, Obama was there for a private dinner in his honor. Earlier that evening, Geffen and his partners in DreamWorks SKG, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, had hosted a $1.3 million fund-raiser for him at the Beverly Hilton, attended by some three hundred members of the glitterati. From the time the event was nnounced, it had drawn notice, signifying that at least a portion of Hollywood, including some longtime backers of the Clintons, was attracted to Obama.

After the fund-raiser, a more intimate group of thirty-five retired to Geffen’s mansion, spreading themselves out across three tables. Among them were Michelle Obama Spielberg and Katzenberg, former Dinsey and Fox studio head Joe Roth, William Morris Agency chairman Him Wiatt, Walk the Line writer and director James Mangold, Sleepless in Seatlle producer Lynda Obst, and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. 

As the dinner wound down, Geffen approached Obama, holding a printout of a Web page with a column by Dowd that would be appearing in the next day’s Times. The piece was all about Geffen’s disenchantment with the Clintons. It contained harsh words, and lots of them, that would reverberate through the political world for months. Handing it to Obama, Geffen said, “I think I should show you this.”

Geffen and Dowd were a colorful pair of friends – a mischievous dyad, each with a long and complicated relationship with the Clintons. Coquettish and flame-haired, Dowd was liberal but never earnerst or doctrinaire [] She had won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1999, for a series of columns that folded, spindled, and mutilated Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Geffen’s relationship with Clinton began to change toward the end of Bill’s White House years. Before that, the mogul and the president had been tight, the former raising millions for the latter and sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom more than once. Clinton would phone Geffen all the time – at home, in the car, late at night – and would often stay with Geffen when he was in Hollywood.

Now, as Geffen showed the text of the column to Obama, he wondered how the candidate would react. Obama read it, gave Geffen a wide-eyed what-have-you-done look, and laughed. This is going to cause some conversation, Obama said dryly. They’re not going to be happy with this.”

The Dowd column was explosive, all right. It went off like an atomb bomb inside Hillaryland.”

Please note that the book calls David Geffen and Maureen Dowd a colorful pair of friends. What followed as a result of that friendly collaboration was described as “a Hillary blaze”:

Dowd started a Hillary blaze in February of 2007 by revealing that David Geffen, the Hollywood record mogul and key Clinton supporter, was switching allegiances to Obama.

At the time Clinton was considered a virtual shoe-in for the Democratic nomination, but the fissures which emerged after Geffen’s comments in Dowd’s column would never close over and heal.

As Patrick Goldstein wrote subsequently in the Los Angeles Times, “When historians start looking for turning points in the trajectory of the Obama campaign for the presidency, they will inevitably turn to February 21, 2007, the day that The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd ran a column where Geffen blasted then-Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton. 

It is worth noting that as usual, Geffen’s involvement in the game is downplayed by all those concerned and he himself plays the role of a modest bystander whose word is insignificant as “no one’s interested in what he has to say”.

In fact, each time I mention David Geffen as the ultimate power behind dumping Michael Jackson’s career and explain it by their difference of opinion over some issues, I am told that a certain dispute between them was too “insignificant” a matter for Geffen to turn his ire and vengeance against Michael.

Well, exactly the same was said about Geffen when he made some remarks for the NY Times column. There was certainly “no danger” to anyone because of Geffen’s “insignificant blip”:

Obama advisers described the Geffen remarks as an insignificant blip and said they saw no political danger in letting them stand.

But the power of that insignificant blip was such that it turned the American primaries upside down and the near-nominee who seemed invincible and even inevitable was replaced almost overnight by a person of Geffen’s choice.

“…back in the winter of 2007, Hillary wasn’t just the front runner–she was considered inevitable. The entire Clinton campaign was based on a sense of her invincibility.

Geffen broke the spell. Having soured on the Clintons after raising huge sums of money for Bill and sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom–twice–Geffen found himself enamored of Obama from the first time he saw him on TV, giving a speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. “I thought he was a remarkable guy,” Geffen told me today. “After I heard him give that speech, I called him up and said, ‘You’re going to run for president and I’m going to support you.’ ” Geffen says Obama laughed and said he was very flattered, but that he wasn’t running.

Cut to two years later. “He called me one day and said with a laugh, ‘ David, I guess you’re right. I am running for president and I’d like your support.’ And of course, I said, ‘You have it.’ “

… how did Dowd get Geffen to finally go public with his complaints about Hillary? Keep reading:

Some time before, Geffen was a speaker at the 92nd Street Y in New York. When someone asked about his take on the Democratic presidential aspirants, the billionaire mogul didn’t mince words. “I said that Hillary was an incredibly polarizing figure and that if she ran, she’d never be elected president,” he recalls.” Maureen was in the audience and afterwards she said to me, ‘We oughta do a column about that.’ “

Geffen says he wasn’t ready. “I said, ‘No, no, no. No one’s interested in what I have to say about the Clintons.’ But she kept after me and finally, when Steven, Jeffrey and I had the fundraiser, Maureen cornered me and said, ‘You have to say what you’re thinking. It could have a real impact on the race.’ So I did.” Geffen sighs. “What can I tell you–I was just speaking the truth.”

His remarks caused a media uproar. The comments were front-page news in Washington, D.C.

https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2008/11/geffen-on-obama.html

Oh, I absolutely love that part about Geffen remonstrations: “’No, no, no.  No one’s interested in what I have to say” as well as Maureen Dowd’s “cornering” Geffen at that fundraiser after which the latter allegedly gave in to her with a “sigh”.

Well, we do remember that there was no need to corner Geffen at that fundraiser as by the time it was organized the article in the NY Times had already been printed and was ready to see the light of day the next morning.

What all of the above amounts to is that when kingmaker David Geffen supports someone, his favorite is sure to triumph. And if he withdraws his support and scams to dethrone the one who fell into his disfavor, the latter will be busted and trampled upon.

And the person who masterminded it all will stay behind the scenes and pretend that he has nothing to do with it or that his opinion does not matter.

So does anyone still think that Geffen would refrain from doing something similar to destroy Michael Jackson in order to get even with him for a slight remark about the Bible (for example), or rejecting Geffen’s passes as rumor has it, or both?

CLOSE FRIENDS

The events regarding Hillary Clinton took place in 2007, and the article below is dated 2010 and while it reiterates everything we already know about those past elections it also confirms that several years later the friendship between David Geffen and Muareen Dowd still flourished.

The article was written in connection with Obama’s inauguration ceremony for his second term of office and it refers to Geffen’s Dreamworks as his top fund-raisers, Geffen being “very close” friends with Obama’s administration, and at some point also quotes Geffen saying that Maureen Dowd is a close friend of his.

JUN 25, 2010 

Let there be no doubt. David Geffen loves the Obamas. The billionaire entertainment mogul, an active Democrat and one of the industry’s savviest strategists, writes that rumors of his disenchantment with Barack Obama are “made-up nonsense.”

As a sign of Geffen’s alleged disenchantment, political wags also note that the mogul was not prominent at the inauguration and did not meet with Obama when he visited California in March.

But Geffen writes in an e-mail response, “There is not a word of truth in what is being said.” He points out that he was not in the country when Obama last visited Los Angeles, and writes, “I was not interested in being there for the inauguration festivities, nor did I attend them when Clinton was there.” Geffen did attend a Dowd party on inauguration eve, because “she is a close friend and I was the guest of honor.” But he adds, “I left that night.” Concludes Geffen: “I love the Obamas,” adding that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel “is a very close friend.”

Andy Spahn, who serves as political adviser to Geffen and his DreamWorks co-founders, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, also calls the speculation “completely off the wall.” He says that during Obama’s presidential campaign, “David, Steve, Jeffrey and I were the President’s top fund-raisers nationally,” and still are.

https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/billionaire-entertainment-mogul-david-geffen-loves-president-obama-article-1.180809

When four years later, on June 10, 2014 Maureen Dowd and a few selected journalists were invited by the NY Times to a special event honoring the most powerful opinion-makers, David Geffen was certainly present to hail his old friend Maureen Dowd there.

Dowd placed the photo of her, Barbara Walters and David Geffen together on her Twitter account:

Previously we knew of only one Maureen – Maureen Orth of the Vanity Fair whose list of anti-Jackson articles is also somehow connected with Geffen as only recently it was decorated with his photo as if with a medal.

Until only recently the collection of Maureen Orth’s articles about Michael Jackson ended with a photo of David Geffen (now removed). Was it a tribute to the sponsor?

And now we are also aware of the long and nice cooperation between David Geffen and Maureen Dowd of the NY Times whose friendhip has spanned at least 13 years by today – which explains very well why she joined the 2019 hate campaign against Michael Jackson and actually set the tone for all other media on how to perceive the “Leaving Neverland” film of lies about him.

However there is one more person to be included in the tight circle of Michael Jackson haters and this time it is Maureen Dowd who is dropping the name.

ANOTHER NAME

Dowd made her revelation in September 2009:

Sep 10, 2009

…Dowd admits her interview with Geffen changed the presidential race forever, and she is grateful to Geffen for standing by his comments.

Dowd rates Geffen as one of the few wise men left in a bleak economic landscape. Recently she asked him his opinion of the current climate.

“I was on business in Los Angeles and I had lunch with David Geffen and Oprah, and he knows a lot about money. He got out before the crash.” She also asked him why he was the only one of his DreamWorks studio partners — Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg the others — not to get caught up in the Madoff scandal, and Geffen said simply because the two others did not call him.

“So he called them and he said, ‘Why didn’t you give me that tip? I would have told you not to do it, but you didn’t give me that tip.’”

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/the-secret-side-to-maureen-dowd-58485922-237658781

Oh, here is another familiar face and this time it is Oprah Winfrey!

In fact, Geffen seeks collaboration with Oprah every time he needs her support over something of extreme importance to him – for example, the documentary film about himself called “Inventing David Geffen”. The caption to this photo of them together says that the documentary was released in November 2012 and that Oprah joined the exclusive dinner after its premiere as Geffen’s date.

“At a Spago dinner after the premiere of “Inventing David Geffen,” some feelings were hurt when organizers apparently kept some of Geffen’s pals off the list. Geffen himself arrived with date Oprah Winfrey and claimed to have nothing to do with the dinner guest list”.

And now Oprah Winfrey amazes us by the fact that she was in close association with Geffen already in 2009, and their friendship that seemed to have flared up only recently is actually long and standing the test of time.

So on some occasion in 2009 Maureen Dowd was on business in LA, coming all the way from New York, and joined Geffen and Oprah at lunch (lunches in Los Angeles and Hollywood are almost solely the only time and place where business is discussed).

The date of the above article is suspiciously close to the time of Jackson’s death and funeral but this is when the article was written, while the visit could be much earlier, of course. The only reliable marker for it is the Madoff financial scandal that took place in mid-December 2008 and lasted well into 2009 and even longer.

So it was quite probable that during that visit the three of them were discussing money with Geffen who apparently advised the two leading media personalities on how to invest it.

And ten years later we see the same trio again, only this time it was Geffen who was seeking the two journalists’ support.

Maureen Dowd has shown hers by powerfully denigrating Michael Jackson in her powerful column. Her part was to stigmatize him as a monster well in advance and influence the minds of millions even before they saw the film or even its teaser. Her business was to distract public attention from the total lack of evidence from the two guys and support their weak stories – that also recanted their earlier versions – and while people were still in shock at what they were told to also focus their attention on “How could we be so blind about him?” instead of asking “Where is the evidence, guys?”

And Oprah Winfrey’s part was to promote the film further which she eagerly did at her show special after the film TV premiere on March 3 and 4, 2019. Her aftershow was broadcast simultaneously by HBO and Oprah’s channel “OWN” and took place the same night as the conclusion of the film. Oprah hosted director Dan Reed and the two accusers who further elaborated on their lies to a big audience of genuine sexual abuse survivors – apparently, for better effect and more emotional impact.

But that was on March 4 while Oprah got familiar with the film much earlier, right after its premiere. And the circumstances under which she first saw it were quite bizarre, to say the least.

The thing is that a couple of days after the film debuted at the Sundance film festival on January 25, 2019 David Geffen invited Oprah Winfrey to his yacht on a three-day visit there. The official reason for the inivitation was Oprah’s birthday (January 29).

For some reason Geffen happened to have his personal copy of “Leaving Neverland” and sometime after the birthday cake he treated his celebrated media guest as well as her associate Gayle King to the four-hour long entertainment movie.

You will agree that the very idea of showing a film about the alleged sexual abuse survivors at anyone’s birthday party sounds ludicrous enough, and the fact that the guests had to enjoy this kind of entertainment for four hours too makes you wonder even more. So the version that this was really entertainment can be ruled out and this leaves us with the only other option that it was common business instead.

Geffen’s part in that business could be connected with its production (otherwise how could he lay his hands on its copy?) besides the general idea and possible inspiration for it, and Oprah’s part, as I’ve already said, was apparently its further promotion and providing her TV show as a platform for the two guys to continue with their story.

Now that we know that each of the trio implemented their roles perfectly well, it is easy to see through the original plan too. And the fact that all three participants are also close friends only adds to our certainty that their coming together for a character assassination of Michael Jackson is not a mere coincidence but a well thought-out operation.

In fact, now I even begin to think that Oprah’s interview with Michael Jackson in February 1993, just on the eve of the Jordan Chandler scandal, could also be part of someone’s plan.

Michael Jackson and his foes: TWO MAJOR WINS BY THE ESTATE

$
0
0

Resuming writing for this blog after a long hiatus is not easy, but I will nevertheless try.  And the first question I ask myself 12 years after Michael Jackson’s death is where we are now as to his legacy and his name?

Judging by the comments here and there, only the inquisitive managed to go beyond the superficial propaganda of that fantasy piece called “Leaving Neverland” and the tall tales told by the media. This does not surprise me because most of the mainstream media has turned into fake news delivering sheer propaganda, and unfortunately the public tends to swallow it uncritically.

And this is no surprise either as millions have proven themselves unable to interpret facts correctly even when flatly facing them and even in much easier cases than the intricate scam around Michael Jackson.

At first the media tested their massive fakes on the poor Jackson and then continued with everything else playing people for fools, alas.

An example of the media duping the public is the way they reported on Anthony Pellicano’s release from prison in March 2019.

DEPOSITIONS

I mention his name because the recent MJ Estate memorandum asking Wade Robson to pay around $113,000 in legal costs now that he lost his civil case against the Estate, listed two Pellicano’s depositions taken in August 2020, which sounds to me as a sheer sensation.

The memorandum of costs to be paid by Wade Robson shows that Anthony Pellicano was deposed twice in his case

A quick reminder of Pellicano’s role in MJ’s life: he was hired by Michael Jackson’s lawyer Bert Fields to investigate the Chandlers’ case in 1993 and agreed to handle it only after warning Michael that he’d better not be guilty or he, being a father of nine children, would “fuck him over”:

Pellicano reveals that when he agreed to work for Jackson during the star’s 1993 child-molestation case, he warned Jackson that he’d better not be guilty.

“I said, ‘You don’t have to worry about cops or lawyers. If I find out anything, I will f–k you over.”

We know that Pellicano didn’t “f—k him over” because he didn’t find a single proof of Michael Jackson’s guilt. Since then Pellicano has never said a negative word about Michael, even when a tabloid offered him half a million to lie about Jackson.

However when reporting Pellicano’s release after he served 16 years in a federal prison on wiretapping charges, every media outlet thought it necessary to reshuffle the old fakes that Pellicano quit “in disgust” when he allegedly found some “dark secrets about MJ” and mentioned that Michael did “far worse things to young boys than molest them”.

A sample of it:

“He was disgusted by truths even darker than those alleged in Jackson’s molestation scandal. “I was offered $500,000 to tell the whole story by a tabloid, and I declined, even though, while incarcerated, I needed the money.”

[the Hollywood Reporter]

Well, the dark truths Pellicano did find, only they were not about Michael Jackson, but about the Chandlers family and this is how it was originally reported by the Daily Beast in 2011 in a chart which is now certainly defunct because it mentions damning information about the accuser’s family:

As to things “far worse than molestation” it is possible that Pellicano did say it, only it is obviously a figure of speech and anyone with a little bit of brains realizes that he didn’t mean murder (the only thing that is worse) but something different – probably the fact that these youngsters were first taken to the top of the world where they basked in the reflection of Michael’s fame, and then felt inevitably frustrated when they had to return to their routine life.  So when other youngsters were only stepping into life in anticipation of all the good awaiting them, those few had to live with a feeling that their best times were over and the future held nothing comparable to their brilliant moments beside Jackson – no more royalty and Hollywood stars to meet …….what a frustration!

And Pellicano did indeed quit the 1993 case and probably even ‘in disgust’, but this was done in solidarity with his boss Bert Fields, who was dismissed and replaced by Johnny Cochran, and any negative feeling Pellicano might harbor was not for Jackson, but for the opportunistic ways of Johnny Cochran and his team, of which his Carl Douglas is an example.

In other words, it is an established fact that Anthony Pellicano was completely, totally and absolutely sure of Michael’s innocence and this is why he wanted the Chandler case to be tried in the court of law. Actually Michael himself insisted on a trial (only imagine insisting on your own trial!), however Cochran was inclined to settle the case from the very moment he was retained. The OJ Simpson trial was looming ahead, so Cochran didn’t focus too much on Jackson. And he was also so much awestruck by Larry Feldman, the Chandlers’ lawyer, that as soon as the Chandler’s case was over, he hired him as his own attorney – all of which was of course disgusting to Pellicano who is known for a rare and exceptionally strict personal code of honor.

This is the real truth about Anthony Pellicano’s take on Michael Jackson. It has been discussed in this blog many times over and is backed up by numerous sources. So when the current media perpetuate lies about Pellicano and MJ, it means that the media propagandists lie about them knowingly, and this alone testifies to their nefarious goals.

One day we will probably have access to the transcripts of Anthony Pellicano’s depositions in Robson’s case and I genuinely look forward to that day.

So if we go back to the question “where we are” at the moment the answer is that on the surface everything is the way it used to be – the media goes on lying, and the lazy and the infantile swallow the toxic stuff spoonfed to them by the official propaganda.

A disgusting sight.

But none of these people notice that the actual environment around Michael Jackson has drastically changed and it happened due to two major wins made by MJ’s Estate in the past few months.

Only those who are masterminding this massive anti-Michael campaign surely took notice of their failures and must be furious at their plan falling flat in its key elements. As to the smearing campaign against Jackson being orchestrated by someone from behind the scenes, this fact cannot be even disputed.

TWO MAJOR WINS

The first massive win is the recent MJ Estate’s victory over the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) which claimed back in 2013 that the Estate owed them $702,000,000 in underpaid taxes. The ludicrous claim forced the Estate to petition the US Tax Court and litigate the case in which they prevailed (here is the document). The Tax Court judge leaned towards the Estate’s valuation of Michael Jackson’s assets, so the sum to be paid by the Estate after the court’s ruling this May should be no more than $50 mln, which is a fraction as compared to the initial IRS demands.

And the second major win is the recent dismissal by the US Superior Court of Wade Robson’s case against Michael Jackson’s companies as having no merit and not deserving of a trial. I place this event second because to me it is indeed secondary to the IRS case.

Though seemingly different I see the two cases as absolutely interconnected as  both pursue the same goal – that of ruining the MJ Estate. In my opinion the financial factor was the crux of both matters, and even Robson’s complaint was meant not only to shred Michael Jackson’s reputation into pieces and enrich the accuser beyond measure, but to also rob the Estate of everything they had.

And I do mean everything as the creditor’s claim filed by Robson’s lawyers with the probate court was reportedly for 1.62 bln Australian dollars (the equivalent of 1.5bln in US dollars). This news was first published in the Australian media, hence the difference in the sum.

Up to today the notorius filmmaker Dan Reed goes around telling the gullible public some nonsense about Robson and Safechuck not seeking any money at all, let alone $1.5 bln. – as they allegedly “just wanted their experience of abuse put on the court record”. If you listen to him any money award in the civil court is just an unintended consequence of litigation 🙂

To be fair to the sceptics, the sum of $1.5 billion claimed by Robson was indeed so stunning that even Michael Jackson’s fans didn’t believe it, thinking it to be a mistake and that Robson’s demands were confused with the gross amount of everything the Estate had earned by that time ($600 mln) plus the cost of Michael’s share in the ATV catalog thought to be worth around $1bln then. 

But it wasn’t a mistake, and I see no reason for doubt that Robson indeed demanded the sum of $1.5 billion.

When on May 1st, 2013 his legal papers for a late creditor complaint were filed with the probate court, everything was very much hush-hush on Robson’s part as the papers were filed under seal and his then lawyer Granstein even said that they did not ask for any specific amount of money, making it unclear why they filed the creditor’s claim at all.

See point 6 of the Claimant’s Notice of filing under seal which says that they filed a Creditor’s Claim, form DE-172

But the sole purpose of a creditor’s claim is to demand a certain amount of money – see the special Judicial Council form DE-172 any such claim requires and taken by me from the official Judicial Council website.

Just one look at this standard form makes it clear that it is impossible to file a creditor’s claim without specifying the sum wanted by the claimant and this means that Robson’s lawyers lied.

A little later Robson filed a civil lawsuit against the Estate and its companies MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, which were named “co-conspirators” responsible for the alleged abuse. At some point the allegations were made public in their most graphic detail, and the huge sum demanded by Robson under the creditor’s claim seemed even instrumental in manifesting the gravity of the accusations.

It was at this point that the media reported that the creditor’s claim was for 1,62 billion Australian dollars:

The Estate’s lawyers did not comment as they discarded the allegations as rubbish from their very start, but occasionally they did mention that both Robson and Safechuck demanded hundreds of millions dollars in their lawsuits.

For example, five years later, on February 7, 2019 Howard Weitzman, attorney for the Jackson estate, wrote a 10-page letter to HBO chief executive Richard Plepler criticizing Leaving Neverland as journalistically unethical and this is where he wrote about the two guys’ demands in black and white:

“Given that they were both seeking hundreds of millions of dollars against the Estate, they had hundreds of millions of reasons for aligning their stories” [from Howard Weitzman’s letter to HBO, Feburary 7, 2019]

“…contrary to Robson’s and  Safechuck’s lawyers’ predictions when they first filed their lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars in 2013, no “flood” of further identifiable “victims” ever came forward beyond these two” [Howard Weitzman’s letter to HBO]

Also remember Robson’s note “It’s time to have mine” and the fact that he was infuriated that the job of directing Michael Jackson’s ONE went to Jamie King (as Cirque du Soleil and John Branca didn’t think him qualified enough for it)

Also remember the amount of money he wanted for his book that was so large that no publisher would accept it.  

All these things testify to Robson’s enormous appetite for money and to his possible desire to take revenge on the Estate, though at his deposition he certainly “didn’t remember” any of it.

  • Q.        BY MS. KLEINDIENST  When I spoke to Mr. Nevins on the phone he volunteered to me that you had demanded a large amount of money for your book. Are you saying that he’s lying?
  • THE WITNESS: Tell me again what he said I said.
  • Q.        That you were demanding a very large amount of money for your book.
  • A. Not true.
  • Q.        The last sentence says, “It’s time for me to get mine!” Do you know what you meant by that?
  • A. I don’t.

To me there is no question that Robson did demand a huge sum and possibly even wanted everything the Estate had, which was thought to be around $1.5 bln at that time, and that he possibly even intended to plunge the Estate into a deep debt.

Actually making Michael Jackson penniless has been the most coveted goal of some people since the moment in early 90s when he made really powerful enemies in Hollywood and entertainment industry.

In other words, I regard Robson’s and Safechuck’s heinous lies not as something separate but as part of a long and multi-faceted campaign aimed at turning Michael’s name and fortune into ashes and attempting to force the Estate into no less than bankruptcy. 

You may wonder who on earth would be so intent on trying to deprive Michael and his Estate of all their money?

As to who is the most probable force behind orchestrating this never-ending anti-Michael Jackson campaign, there are several posts in this blog – here and here and here and also here and here and here are only some of them.

The modus operandi of this person is always the same and is pursuing two goals simultaneously. These are 1) damaging the reputation of the designated victim beyond repair and 2) financial ruin of the victim so that nothing is left of his fortune but a pile of dust. Otherwise the revenge plans are not complete.

And the third notable feature of those plans is that they are always carried out by someone else.

The malice of this operator is legendary and there are numerous examples of his revenge taken on lots of other people, including Walter Yetnikoff, the long-time President of CBS Records under whose guidance Michael Jackson thrived, and Michael Ovitz, the one-time entertainment mogul who had the misfortune to be regarded by this person as an enemy and whose money and success were gone for the only reason that they had different views on family life. And many, many others.

In fact even Anthony Pellicano seems to have also fallen victim to this person’s campaign against Michael Ovitz (which his foe actually admitted). Pellicano was working for Ovitz when he was first sentenced for illegal possession of weapons that belonged to a client and were kept in his evidence safe:

“The FBI guys asked if there was anything in there that could hurt them,” he recalled of the raid.

“I opened the safes and left the lab, completely forgetting about the C-4 and two grenades that were locked in one of my evidence safes. Well, you can imagine the result of that.”

After serving the initial 30-months sentence for possessing those weapons and just weeks before his scheduled release Pellicano was charged with racketeering and wiretapping, and was sentenced to another 15 years in prison.

To see the severity of the sentence, compare it with a similar case of private investigator Ernie Rizzo who openly boasted of exactly the same methods, but was only stripped of his PI  license and even went on working as an investigator after being sentenced to a “work-release program”. Incidentally Ernie Rizzo was also a one-time investigator for Evan Chandler and was Pellicano’s rival.

See how all these seemingly unrelated factors are actually tightened into one knot? Someone wanted to keep Pellicano behind bars until his dying day so that he didn’t tell the real truth about all the rope-pulling done by the powerful few, while the unsuspecting public is fed by the media with kindergarten fairy tales.

Getting back to the main point again let me make a conclusion after 12 years of studying the Michael Jackson case: the life-long smearing campaign of Michael, and now his Estate, is aimed not only at the irreparable damage to their reputation but also at their total and unconditional financial ruin.

This conclusion is also confirmed by the lurid claim made by the Internal Revenue Service right at the time when Wade Robson made his.

THE IRS CLAIM

An extremely interesting point about the IRS claim is not only its timing, which coincided with Robson’s claim almost to the day, but the fact that they also demanded from the Estate a crazy amount around a billion dollars.

According to Tax Court documents IRS wanted $505.1 million in taxes and $196.9 million in penalties plus the accrued interest. All of it totaled $702 million (plus the interest to be added to it).

At some point the IRS claim reached the unholy figure of $1.1 billion and this happened in the course of litigation when Michael’s image and likeness were adjusted upward by $434 million, one of his Trusts by $469 million and the other Trust by $58 million.

In case you are interested in details here is an excerpt from the Forbes article about the IRS whose figures were mostly rejected by the Tax Court judge in May this year:

Michael Jackson’s Estate Mostly Prevails In Valuation Fight With IRS

May 4, 2021

 “Jackson died in 2009 and the Tax Court case has been going on since 2013. The Estate and the IRS narrowed their differences over the years leaving just three assets for Judge Holmes to value. There were two bankruptcy remote trusts NHT II and NHT III and Jackson’s likeness and image. 

In the litigation the Estate valued the likeness and image at $3,078,000, The IRS had likeness and image at $161,307,045. Judge Holmes went with $4,153,912.

 The estate, in Tax Court, argued that NHT II was worthless because of the debt it was buried under. [ ] Judge Holmes [ ] agreed with the estate that there was not enough value to overcome the debt. IRS had NHT II at $206,295,934.

The estate valued NHT III whose principal asset was an interest in a production company called Mijac jointly owned with Sony at $2,267,316. The IRS had NHT III at $114,263,615, Judge Holmes leaned toward the IRS on that one coming in at $107,313,561.

The notice of deficiency that prompted the petition that got the litigation rolling had much more dramatic adjustments. They totaled over $1.1 billion with image and likeness adjusted upward by $434 million, NHT II by $469 million and NHT III by $58 million. [ ]

In short, both IRS claim and Robson’s complaint demanded from the Estate the sums revolving around a billion dollars each

And both came at a time when the Estate must have invested millions in their second Cirque du Soleil show (2013) called “ONE”, and devoted to Michael Jackson same as “IMMORTAL” that opened two years prior to that, in October 2011 (the Tax Court documents say that the ‘Immortal’ show was sponsored by Cirque du Soleil).

‘COINCIDENCES’

To see that something is not right about the various coincidences of that period look at the dates of the events that took place in the highly condensed spring of 2013.

February 21– the Estate of Michael Jackson and Cirque du Soleil announce that “Michael Jackson ONE” directed by Jamie King will start its preview performances on May 23, 2013 and have its official premiere on June 29, 2013.

March 21 – the judge dismisses AEG’s appeal and rules the trial to go ahead.

March 21 – Wade Robson puts his LA house up for sale for $789,000 and enjoys much luck with it as just a week later he sells it for $825,000 at a price higher than the asking price by $36,000.

April 30 – the AEG trial begins. The Estate is no party to the litigation as it is Katherine Jackson’s lawsuit against AEG Live. The media is having a field day with the sum of $40 bln allegedly demanded by Katherine Jackson. During the trial it turns out that the complaint itself never specifies any sums and that the above figure was taken from a draft of the lawyers’ statement that was not even filed with the court and was never seen by Katherine Jackson. The correct sum calculated and claimed by her lawyers was $1.5 bln.

April 30 – Robson’s lawyers sign his late creditor’s claim with a probate court, and it also amounts to the sum of $1.5 bln as discussed above. Following the usual practice the text of the complaint does not specify the sum wanted by Robson and only enumerates the type of damages he requests (“compensatory damages, punitive damages, an award of interest, an award of attorneys’ fees, the costs of suit and further relief the Court deems appropriate). The demand for $1,5 billion was stated only in the creditor’s claim which in Robson’s case was filed with the court.

May 1 – Robson’s lawyers file their late creditor’s complaint.

May 7 – Robson’s allegations go public.

May 10 – Robson files a civil complaint against the Estate.

May 13 – the Internal Revenue Service sends the Estate a “Notice of Deficiency” disclosing the deficiency in the amount of $505,142,894 and intending to charge the additional  $196,910,310 in penalties “plus interest to be computed at the legal rate on the amount due”.  This happens four years after Michael Jackson’s passing.

May 16 – Wade Robson goes on national TV.

May 23 is the date of preview performances for the Michael Jackson “ONE” show, which was first announced at the end of February that year.

In other words, the spring of 2013 is virtually packed with all sorts of coincidences:

  • Robson puts up his house for sale on the day he learns that the AEG trial will go forward
  • his creditor’s claim is signed the same day as the AEG trial starts
  • Robson wants $1.5 billion from MJ’s Estate for the alleged abuse which he vehemently denied only 8 years earlier, same as Katherine Jackson wants $1.5 billion from the AEG for the death of her son
  • in the midst of it all the IRS sends a note of deficiency to the Estate claiming immediate payment of $702,000,000 plus interest in “underpaid taxes”
  • and all of it happens right before the premiere of the new Cirque du Soleil show in which the Estate has surely invested a lot of money.

Impressive, isn’t it?

I remember those events and my disbelief at the intensity of it all, when all those blows kept coming one after another. We can imagine that a similar feeling of a sudden avalanche of unimaginable money claims overwhelmed the Estate executors too. 

Not only did the two complaints amount to the unheard of sum of a billion each, thus wiping away twice the sum the Estate had at that moment, but their timing right before the premiere was putting the show at a huge risk and threatened to deprive the Estate of the future earnings too…

The first impression of this avalanche was that it was a way for AEG Live to intimidate the Jackson family and divert public attention from their trial. However what restrained me from denouncing it as AEG’s foul play was that this company is no fool to expose itself so openly and the fact that both claims were targeted not at the Jackson family, but the Estate.  Besides that the IRS claim also looked like something separate and coming from a seemingly independent US tax agency, so the whole picture was not yet clear.

But as the dust settled all those coincidences as well as the magnitude of those claims began to point to something different.

With AEG Live now gone from the scene, what stood out was Robson’s and Safechuck’s continuous legal saga financed year after year by we-don’t-know-who and the still ongoing IRS fight with the Estate for all the money they had.

On top of that came the ‘Leaving Neverland’ movie which was somehow obtained by no other than David Geffen for a private screening with Oprah Winfrey, done obviously for publicity sake and well in advance before the movie was shown to the general public.

Someone was definitely on a war path against MJ’s Estate so that it would lose all its past and future revenue due to the massive legal claims and bad publicity, same as someone wanted total Michael Jackson’s ruin through legal claims and bad publicity when he was alive.

But could anyone have the power to manipulate and influence the federal agency like the IRS led by the Commissioner appointed by President himself?

At first the idea looked impossible, but only until the moment when the news came that the IRS estimation was based on the appraisal of one person only and this person (Weston Anson) was caught in several lies during litigation, which greatly undermined his credibility.

THE SOLE APPRAISER

Here is another piece from Forbes explaining that in his 271-page memo released on May 3, 2021, Judge Holmes of the U.S. Tax Court didn’t mince words as regards Weston Anson:

The first hint that things will not go well for the IRS comes on page 59 when Judge Holmes discusses the credibility of Weston Anson, the sole appraiser used by the IRS, who had been caught in a lie about whether he had previously worked for the IRS.  Judge Homes indicated that the hit to credibility affected the judge’s factfinding.

That was on page 61. On page 133 Judge Holmes really gives it away when discussing Anson’s valuation of Jackson’s “image and likeness” he wrote “We reject Anson’s analysis as fantasy”. 

Yes, you’ve read it right – the judge rejected Anson’s appraisal of Michael Jackson’s image and likeness as sheer fantasy. Here is a quote from the Tax Court memo:

“We reject Anson’s analysis as fantasy. He:

– valued the wrong asset,

– included unforeseeable events in his valuation, and

– miscalculated the assets’ value.”

Of Anson’s credibility the judge said:

“As the Commissioner’s only expert witness, Anson’s credibility was an especially important part of the case. And it suffered greatly at trial. When asked whether he or his firm had previously been retained by the Commissioner to write an intellectual-property valuation report in Whitney Houston’s estate-tax case, Anson replied: “No. Absolutely not.” That was a lie. [ ]

Anson also testified that neither he nor his firm ever advertised to promote business. This was also a lie. In the midst of trial, Anson touted his testimony in the Hollywood Reporter which called CONSOR Chairman Weston Anson “the expert of the century [that] will be testifying on behalf of the IRS.”

As Anson was touting himself in the Hollywood Reporter, the latter presented the case in the craziest manner possible, leading the public into thinking that the Estate valued all Michael Jackson’s assets at a mere $2,105 while Anson’s estimation was close to $1billion. So no wonder that the original HR source quoted by the judge is actually no longer found on the Internet.

Here is a piece from the Judge’s memo starting with a quote from the Hollywood Reporter:

“The big discrepancy in the value of the Jackson estate will be sure to bring testimony tailor made for a Hollywood blockbuster. While CONSOR valued the intellectual property assets of the Jackson estate at a total close to $1 billion, the estate initially valued the assets at time of death at a mere $2,105.

And in a lecture given before trial Anson referred to his valuation in this case, stating, “I’m sitting today [ ] in a deposition in what’s known as the ‘Billion Dollar Tax Case.’  When asked at trial whether he had in fact referred to this case as a billion-dollar case, Anson replied with his own question: “Would you like to be called the lawyer of the century?”

The judge explained:

“…there is nothing wrong about marketing one’s services or taking on another case for the IRS while working on this one. But Anson did undermine his own credibility in being so parsimonious with the truth [ ], as well as in not answering questions directly throughout his testimony.”

And when the judge stated that Weston Anson consciously overvalued Michael Jackson’s assets the whole thing began to smack of a scam:

We note that Anson’s overbroad description of the asset he was valuing was conscious.

We have his earlier draft report, in which he based his valuations solely on the image-and-likeness rights defined by California law. We conclude from this that he tried to reach a higher number by broadening the rights he valued.

It turned out that not only did Anson broaden the valuation of Michael Jackson’s image and likeness to the point of it becoming a fantasy, but sometimes – when evaluating MJ’s unreleased songs, for example –  his appraisal was based on Wikipedia as his ‘primary source’ in addition to ‘an interview that is two decades old and a book whose own sources are unclear’:

His primary source was Wikipedia though he also relied on a deposition Jackson gave back in 1993, a book, Michael Jackson: For the Record, and a 2015 report from the Estate showing previously unreleased songs at the time of death that have since been released.

So this is how the so-called independent IRS auditor made his evaluations? By studying Wikipedia as his primary source? And it is as a result of these findings that the IRS wanted the Estate to pay more than $700 mln?  What an amazing stuff!

Surprisingly, many of the IRS auditor’s arguments coincide with the constant criticism of the Estate by MJ fans so that it often looks like either Anson repeats the fans’ arguments or the fans echo Anson’s populist declarations.

The latter seems a much more likely scenario and this means that Anson’s ideas were somehow imposed on the MJ fan community so that the unsuspecting and often well-meaning fans would ‘rise as one in their struggle against the horrible Estate executors’ who undervalued the great (truly great) Michael Jackson. Little did they know that someone was deliberately stirring up enmity towards the Estate to minimize the Estate’s chances in defending their case against the IRS and undermine their ability to generate income for Michael Jackson’s children in principle.

In other words, by seeding all that discord some forces used the MJ fan community for their own ulterior motives and this also adds to the list of all those strange coincidences enumerated above.  

ANSWERS TO SOME QUESTIONS

It would be interesting to hear some of Judge Holmes’ answers to the most frequent fans’ reproaches addressed to the Estate on a regular basis. For example:

  • Why doesn’t the Estate release one album after another, though rumor has it that there are hundreds of unreleased songs in Michael’s vault?

Hundreds of unreleased songs is a rumor on which the IRS appraiser capitalized very well – he turned it into millions of dollars which according to his projection the Estate could potentially make and therefore had to pay taxes for.

The judge didn’t agree:

The first major disagreement between the experts is how many unreleased songs Jackson had at the time of his death. The experts came up with two very different numbers.

Anson believed that Jackson had an enormous number of unreleased songs on the day he died. At one point in his review he thought there were more than 153, though he noted that some sources hinted that the actual number of unreleased songs could be much higher — possibly over 200. At another point in his report he said that there were 133 unreleased songs at the time of death. But, in any event, he was sure there were at least 105. [ ]

After Jackson’s death, Sony engaged in an extensive search for unreleased songs to evaluate for possible future release. Jackson was [ ] known to over-record songs on his albums. He kept these unreleased recordings in his personal vaults.

Sony’s corporate spelunkers crawled through these vaults and found 7,000 to 10,000 pieces of tape. These were mostly tailings and very little pay dirt. There were only 2 completed and unreleased recordings and approximately 25-30 full vocals with some music. The Estate has confirmed a total of 83 songs — fragments of lyrics, tunes, and vocals — that were unreleased at the time of Jackson’s death.

They also found that there was often a reason for an unreleased song to remain unreleased, or a “full vocal” not to be a “song”. Sony executive John Doelp credibly testified that once a vocal was identified, Sony had “to take a step back” and ask whether it was commercially viable.

Doelp described the process as follows: “If it’s a demo vocal, it’s very possible that it’s just a bad performance. There could be notes that are flat * * * [or] not well recorded. * * * It could just not sound good, and then the song itself just might not be good or just not up to Michael’s standards.”[ ]

The most compelling reason for this finding is that Jackson was in a dire financial position for the last several years of his life and yet did not release any of these songs. We know that he was searching high and low — even going to usurious lenders — to bring in money. It is inconceivable that he wouldn’t use unreleased songs to boost that income, and we find it more likely than not that he did not do so because he thought the vast majority were commercially nonviable; and we further reason that if Jackson himself thought this, so would hypothetical reasonable buyers and sellers.»

And finally:

“Since we believe that a reasonable investor would believe that there were 22 marketable unreleased songs at Jackson’s death, using the average of 11 unreleased songs per album, we believe there would only be two albums’ worth of posthumously released songs.”

However the biggest reason for the fans’ discontent with the Estate is their estimation of Michael Jackson’s image and likeness at the meagre $2,105.

  • Indeed, how dare they?

Judge Holmes explains it in another thrilling piece of his memo:

The Estate reported Jackson’s image and likeness on its return as worth only $2,105. This might seem absurd when one recalls Jackson’s fame, but the Estate’s position was based on an appraisal from Moss Adams, a large and reputable accounting firm. And Moss Adams did focus entirely on the value of the Estate’s opportunity to license merchandise with Jackson’s image and likeness.

What Moss Adams discovered was that in the years before Jackson died and when he was in dire need of income, he had earned close to nothing from his image and likeness. … [The] allegations had a dramatic effect on Jackson’s ability to win sponsorships and merchandising deals once they became public. The fact that he earned not a penny from his image and likeness in 2006, 2007, or 2008 shows the effect those allegations had, and continued to have, until his death.

Moss Adams did not rely only on this historical financial data. It also looked at Jackson’s scores on the Davie-Brown index — a quantitative measure of a celebrity’s reputation derived from public surveys. Jackson’s Davie-Brown scores showed [] that he was one of the most recognized celebrities in the world but one who ranked among the lowest in trustworthiness as well as other important characteristics that corporations consider when looking to use someone’s image and likeness to promote their products. Taking all this information into account, Moss Adams — using a DCF analysis — determined the value of Jackson’s image and likeness was $2,105.

With this valuation in hand, Moss Adams went to the Estate. The Estate was surprised. Moss Adams was, after all, valuing the image and likeness of one of the best known celebrities in the world — the King of Pop — at the price of a heavily used 20-year-old Honda Civic. Moss Adams nevertheless gave this valuation to the Estate to rely on for the estate-tax return.

When asked if he stood by his opinion at trial — over seven years after the report — Dahl (a former principal of Moss Adams) responded that he “absolutely does.” He emphasized that though Jackson’s image and likeness may have increased in value after he died, all information available at the time of his death showed that [he had] serious significant issues when it came to the issue of licensing image and likeness in a non-music setting.” In the end, the Estate deemed this valuation credible and relied on it while filling out its return.

[ ] in the course of preparing for trial the Estate brought in two more experts to value Jackson’s image and likeness. The main expert was Jay Fishman — managing director of Financial Research Associates. Fishman valued Jackson’s image and likeness at just over $3 million.

The $3 mln was the sum finally used by the Estate in their litigation with the IRS.

  • But still, how come Michael Jackson could sell out 50 concerts nearly instantly but his image and likeness was evaluated at so low a sum?

Judge Holmes explains:

…. even in London, one can see the pattern that had long since marked Jackson back home — a great appreciation for his music and performance, but little for his personal reputation. Despite the near instant sellout of dozens of performances, AEG Live was utterly unable to find a tour sponsor. Potential sponsors did not want to tie their own reputations to Jackson’s …[ ] …which as we learned from credible testimony is a driving force behind the purchasing of branded merchandise, and which caused him to not be able to market his image and likeness.

Historical data shows that in the years before he died, Jackson had no merchandising deals despite his success in selling his music. Anson fails to adequately acknowledge this fact.[ ]

Anson simply glossed over Jackson’s having been accused multiple times of the most heinous acts in his analysis of each supposedly foreseeable revenue stream.

Well, being accused of some acts doesn’t mean that they were committed.

What stands out to me in this last paragraph is the mind-boggling double standard so clearly manifested by the IRS – when the two scumbags fantasize about the ‘most heinous’ acts allegedly done to them, their uncorroborated and contradictory story is considered enough for stigmatizing Jackson for life, but when it comes to levying taxes on Michael Jackson’s Estate the same accusations are simply glossed over and are regarded as insignificant trash.

This is a type of Orwell’s double-think at its worst.

John Branca says about the outcome of the IRS case:

“With years of disputes cleared and a pandemic-forced delay on projects lifting, the estate’s leaders feel like they are in an excellent spot to again start promoting Jackson’s legacy.

“We’re at an absolute turning point,” Branca said. “I think people have come to realize that Michael was innocent of any charges and unable to protect himself. We’ve got a wonderful Broadway play coming, we’ll be reopening our Cirque du Soleil show soon and we’ve got some surprises coming.”

And this is what the Forbes article says about Branca:

….in Judge Holmes’s narrative John Branca seems to be a strong factor in Jackson’s financial success.

The executor faced a challenging problem after Jackson’s sudden and unexpected death [ ]. His executor and team did pretty well. According to this story by Madeline Berg of Forbes Jackson was the highest paid dead celebrity of 2020 at $48 million. He has been on top of the list every year since 2010 except for 2012 when Elizabeth Taylor knocked him down to second place. The great success that the team had in rehabilitating Jackson’s image and monetizing the various pieces is fascinating….”

I fully agree and am glad that the judge and others worded it so clearly. The success of the Estate’s executors is indeed fascinating. And even incredible. Especially when you keep in mind the formidable forces John Branca and his team had to confront.

It is high time all of us grew up and gave the heroes their due. Because Branca, the late Howard Weitzman and all the others in that team did the impossible.

THE FINAL RECKONING -2

$
0
0

This is a continuation of the subject raised in this post.

First a short reminder – when Fortress Capital Group bought Michael’s loans in May 2005, the bulk of the sum was secured by Michael’s half in Sony/ATV. This catalog was in potential danger of being lost to him as it was pledged as collateral for the $200mln loan that was to mature just six months later, on December 20, 2005.

The remaining part of the debt ($72,5mln) was a Bank of America credit line with an outrageous interest rate of 16.5% which was probably secured by MJJAC catalog (according to some sources) or probably not (according to others). But its maturity date was later, so that catalog was not in so much jeopardy though the credit itself was draining Michael of millions.

And it was only the Neverland ranch that was relatively secure as it was only partially pledged or indirectly tied in with the above loans.

That was the status of Michael Jackson’s debts when Fortress bought them and left them as they were, without any refinancing and just waiting for the loans to come due.

But if Neverland was relatively free, how did it turn into collateral under Fortress too?

This matter is a really sore point because Branca’s critics directly connect Michael’s purchase of Branca’s 5% stake in Sony/ATV with his need to mortgage Neverland to be able to pay him.

And to a certain extent they are right.

The thing is that on the one hand Fortress demanded that Michael should buy back Branca’s share, but on the other hand they refused to increase the loan by a mere $13,5mln in order to pay Branca.

Instead, these good Samaritans were ‘’willing to consider’’ a separate loan, which required Neverland as collateral. The money offered by Fortress was $20mln though the estimated cost of the ranch around that time was $33mln (the estimation was done in 2008 by accounting firm Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio and Associates).

The terms on which these $20 million were offered by Fortress were outrageous in my opinion.

Besides the sum of $13,5 mln to buy Branca’s share and $3,15 mln as the “working capital” for Michael, all the rest was to be paid to Fortress including Origination Fee and Closing Costs. Fortress even kindly included into the package an “Interest Reserve” of $3 mln out of which Michael was to pay the interest on the loan.

See the letter regarding Neverland sent to Michael by Fortress on March 15, 2006 and the attachment to it that breaks down their terms and conditions. Again, the letter is provided by Marco Balletta who for some reason sees one thing in these documents while I see another 🙂

Re: Neverland Ranch First Mortgage Financing

Dear Mr. Jacskon:

You (the “Borrower”) have requested that Fortress Credit Corp. (the “Lender”) consider providing financing (the “Loan”) on Neverland Ranch, a 2,675 acre ranch located at 5225 Figueroa Mountain road. Los Olivos, California (the “Property”). The Loan will be secured by a first mortgage lien the property. The Lender is willing to consider providing the Loan substantially on the terms and conditions set forth in the Outline of Proposed Terms and Conditions attached hereto as (the “Term Sheet”). […… ]

Then comes the Term Sheet outlining the proposed terms and conditions:

OUTLINE OF PROPOSED TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Borrower                           Michael Jackson (the “Borrower”)

Lender                                Fortress Credit Corp (“Fortress” or “Lender”) and/or its affiliated and designees.

Purpose                             To provide funds for the refinancing of existing liesn or claims, secured or unsecured by the   Property, as well as proving working capital to Borrower.

Collateral                          The Loan will be secured by first mortgage lien on the Property, and a first priority secutirty interest in all fixtures, furniture and equipment.

Lien Amount                    The fully funded Loan amount shall be $20.0 million (the “Loan Amount”). At closing the Lender will fund $3.0 million of the Loan Amount into the Interest Reserve (as described herein)

Sources/Uses                  Sources    First Mortgage                     $20.00 mln

                                         Uses

                                         Refinancing Existing Lien/Claims           $13.50 mln

                                         Interest Reserve                                      $3.0 mln

                                         Working Capital                                      $3.15 mln

                                         Origination Fee                                       $0.20 mln

                                         Closing Costs                                          $0.15 mln

……………………………………………………………………………………$20.00 mln

Initial Term                     18 months

Extensions [ …..]

Origination Fee               1% of the Loan amount, payable at funding

Interest rate                    30 day Libor + 4,5% (“Total rate”)

Interest reserve               Funded at Closing in an amount of $3 million to pay interest

Another screenshot from Marco Balletta says:

  • “Fortress [ ] agreed to extend an additional $20 Million Dollars. The additional  loan was secured by Neverland (“the Neverland loan”). The purpose of the Neverland Loan was to provide MJ with sufficient cash to pay off the Branca Claim. See US $20,000,000 Loan and Security Agreement dated as of March 31, 2006 […]

A little later Fortress increased the original sum by $3mln, which brought the overall Neverland loan to $23mln.

The way Fortress was twisting Michael’s hand was not only cynical and ruthless. There was something devilish about their approach – only the vile can first demand that Michael purchase Branca’s share and then put the buyer in a situation when he has to mortgage his last asset to meet the demand.

As Randall Sulllivan puts it,

  • “Fortress intended to wring every penny from him that it could”.

Surely their goal was to drive Michael into insolvency after which the acquisition of his assets was a decided matter. These people wanted everything he had, so there can’t be any doubt that if Jackson’s team had not refinanced his debt at the end of 2007, most of his assets would have been grabbed by Fortress Capital Group in no time.

Richard Siklos says that,

  • “the Fortress loans were coming due yet again at the end of December 2007.”

The Tax Court Memo explains what happened in 2007.

The difference between the interest he owed and the income he made forced him into another refinancing in 2007. Jackson got this done in December with a pledge of additional collateral. Now his primary loan was secured not just by his interest in Sony/ATV but by his Mijac Music catalog.

The refinancing was not easy. Jackson’s team contacted dozens of banks, and in the end Barclays Bank and Deutsche Bank offered to fund a loan secured by Sony/ATV, and HSBC and Plainfield Asset Management offered two separate loans secured by Mijac Music. Jackson eventually made the following deals:

Barclays refinanced $300 million of the debt, in the form of bonds fully guaranteed by Sony and issued by a new entity, New Horizon Trust II, a bankruptcy trust,  which held Jackson’s economic interest in Sony/ATV. All of Jackson’s annual distributions from Sony/ATV were redirected to an interest reserve for this New Horizon Trust II debt. None of the loan proceeds went to him personally. 

(A bankruptcy trust allows lenders to isolate collateral securing a loan from personal claims that future plaintiffs or creditors might make against a debtor).

HSBC lent an additional $30 million secured by Mijac Music through New Horizon Trust III, another bankruptcy trust. In addition to Mijac Music, Jackson assigned to NHT III his writer’s share of performance royalties from Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) — after BMI’s recoupment of any advances paid to Jackson — and redirected them through the trust to HSBC to pay the interest on this loan.

Plainfield Asset Management lent $40 million, secured by a second lien on Mijac Music through New Horizon Trust III. This loan did not require current payments of either principal or interest, but interest accrued at 16.5% annually. This interest was added to principal that would be due on the maturity date, December 31, 2011.

Plainfield Asset Management was a hedge fund too, so it is no surprise that their interest rate was so enormous.  The Tax Court judge made a note that “the prime interest rate at the time was 7.25%”, however he still called these deals an achievement:

  • “These deals were, under the circumstances, an achievement.”

Well, an achievement they were only in comparison with a total disaster that awaited Michael if his debts had still been handled by Fortress Capital Group. Now that Fortress was gone and replaced by Barclays and two others, this gave Michael at least an opportunity to repay his loans in the long-term perspective, but in the meantime still left him cash-stripped.

Richard Siklos explains:

The financing was supposed to enable Jackson to settle 13 outstanding lawsuits and still have roughly $11 million on hand for creative ventures. The other loans against Sony/ATV and MiJac were both structured so that Jackson was unable to access any of the money — dividends and profits went directly toward debt payments. And additional money was raised to have “interest reserves” that would make interest payments when Jackson couldn’t.

Jackson was still, according to two people who advised him, running a deficit of $10 million to $15 million a year beyond a similar amount that he would bring in from royalties and new ventures like a special 25th anniversary “Thriller” album.

Besides, the ghost of Fortress was still there. They owned the note on the Neverland ranch and certainly lost no time in trying to sell it at an auction to the highest bidder. So exactly 18 months later, just as their Term Sheet of March 15, 2006 stated it, Fortress Capital Group launched the foreclosure procedure of the ranch.

Sullivan writes,

  • “On October 19, 2007 Fortress Investments filed a $23 million default notice on Neverland Ranch in California, the first step toward foreclosing on the property.”

Dictionary explains that “Foreclosure is a legal proceeding that bars or extinguishes a mortgagor’s right of redeeming a mortgaged estate.”

The follow-up events are known to you:

  • Jermaine Jackson brought in Tohme Tohme to help prevent the foreclosure;
  • Tohme charged Michael with a 10% finder’s fee for finding Tom Barrack of Colony Capital who would pay the required $23,5 mln to Fortress. “Finding” is the wrong word here is Tohme actually worked for Colony receiving a monthly salary of $20,000. Besides that he also wanted 10% from the future sale of Neverland plus $35,000 per month plus the 15% income from services he provided plus interest when applicable.
  • After Tohme “found” the Colony Capital, Tom Barrack took over Neverland for $23,5 million and formed a Sycamore Valley joint venture with Michael which was just a window-dressing project to cover up for Tom Barrack’s full ownership of the ranch and Michael being only its nominal owner.
  • The impressive terms on which this joint venture was created stipulated that when Neverland was eventually sold, Colony would recoup its investment of $23,5 mln plus accrued interest, plus its management and upkeep expenses plus a certain 12% “success fee”. The rest was to go to Jackson’s estate. So the longer the ranch stayed unsold the more losses Michael was to sustain as the expenses on its maintenance only rose.
  • The above means that a simple sale of the ranch to Colony Capital or anyone else would have been much more profitable to Michael (and his Estate).

Given that the ranch remained unsold for more than 5 years since it was put on the market in 2015 and was recently bought by Ron Burkle for $22 million,  if Michael had been alive he would have received zero from this sale and would have also ended up deep in debt to Tom Barrack for the ranch upkeep, accrued interest, success fee and all the rest of it.

This was how Tohme “saved” Neverland demanding for his services 10% first and 10% later.

However it is John Branca who is called a “vampire” and “greedy backstabber” by his critics. The reason why Marco Balletta calls Branca these names is his allegation that Branca wanted $50 million from Michael, but got only $13,5 mln after which MJ’s lawyers gave him “the final kick in his butt”.

Here is how Balletta makes wrong calculations of the alleged Branca’s claims:

16’121.943.73 of principal capital (rejected by MJ)

as well as

14’089,984.33 and additional amounts for the following reasons:

1’621.943.73 representing his percentage on the 300 million Fortress loan then discounted to 589’,894.33

1’032.049.40 representing attorneys fee (rejected by MJ)

13’500.00.000 being the principal balance

Blogger SymOs60 copy-pastes these figures apparently without even looking (as even the punctuation is the same) and is also resentful that Branca allegedly joined “the MJ bankruptcy fansite club”:

The above calculation is based on a document from Marco Balletta’s site which is most probably taken from some lawsuit and is said to be a rough copy of Branca’s initial request. Most of its text is crossed out.

I diligently retyped the document including the punctuation and firstly, need to say that if the paper is genuine and really belonged to Branca, the draft is indeed very rough because some sentences are not only crossed out but are also left unfinished or taken out of context. Some even produce the impression of a cut-and-paste job as they are barely coherent.

After that I studied the paper inside out and you know what I found?

The sums in this paper are not even remotely close to $50 million.  

This document is either misread by Branca’s critics or is deliberately misrepresented by them.

See for yourself:

Settlement Payment. MJ jointly and severally (but specifically excluding New Horizon) agrees to pay to the Firm the principal sum of Sixteen Million One Hundred One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Three Dollars and Seventy Three Cents ($16,121,943.73) $14,089,894.33 and additional amounts due and owing as set forth herein:

a. Concurrent with the closing (the “Loan Closing”) of the contemplated loan transaction (the “Loan”) in the principal amount of Three Hundred Million Dollars ($300,000,000) between Fortress Capital Corp. (“Fortress”) and New Horizon, whose beneficial owners are MJ Publishing Trust and MJ-ATV Publishing Trust, MJ shall pay to the Firm the sum of One Million Six Hundred Twenty One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Three Dollars and Seventy Three Cents  ($ 1,621,943.73) which consists of (i) Five Hundred Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Four Dollars and Thirty Cents ($589,894.33) $589,894.33 representing an agreed upon discount of certain guaranteed advances due to MJ from the Company and ii) One Million Thirty Two Thousand Forty Nine Dollars and Forty Cents ($1,032,049.40) in attorney’s fees and expenses.

Such payment shall be paid directly by the __________________ (“Administrative Agent”) to the Firm pursuant to the Direct Payment Agreement of even date herewith by and among MJ Administrative Agent and the Firm (the “Direct Payment Agreement”), a true and correct copy of hwihc is attached hereto as Exhibit “____”……………..

The 2nd page of the same looks like a cut and paste job:

b. The remaining balance of $14,500,000 (plus interest accruing as described below) as follows:

b. i. The principal balance of Ten The remaining balance of $13,500,000 plus interest in the rate of 6,72% per annum from the date of the Loan Closing until paid in full (the $13.5 Million dollars ($10,000,000) (the “Ten Million Dollar Payment”) shall be due and payable to the Firm immediately upon MJ’s refinance of Neverland Valley Ranch, 4225 Figueroa Mountain Road, Los Olivos, CA 93441 (“Neverland”), but in no event later than [April 15] June 30, 2006 and  2006 which refinancing MJ agrees they are obligated to secure promptly following execution hereof.

Ii                 The principal balance of $4,500,000 (the “4.5 Million Payment”) shall be due and payable to the Firm immediately upon the exercise by Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. and/or its affiliates and successors (“SME”) of SME’s right to purchase up to fifty percent (50%) of the Company Interest (hereinafter the “Call”) pursuant to the Operating Agreement, or upon any other disposition of any part of the Company interest by which proceeds are generated in an amount greater than necessary to pay Fortress any amount then due to Fortress under loan (except that if the Loan is in default, the Firm shall be paid any amounts greater than what is necessary to cover the default) (“Other Disposition”), but in no event later than September 1, 2007 (the “Backup Date”) in the event (a) the Call is not exercised by the Backstop Date, (b) no Other Disposition occurs by the Backstop Date, or (c) the Call, whenever exercised, does not generate an amount necessary to pay the $4.5 Million Payment (plus interest accruing on the $4,5 Million Payment from and after the Backstop Date and any other obligations then due hereunder) to the Firm at the time of the Call, then in addition to any other rights or remedies available to the Firm;…..

Forget about the crossed out text on the second page. Even if Branca claimed the additional sum of $4,5 million, this clause could become effective only if  Sony purchased Michael’s half of the catalog,  which was a scenario apparently not even discussed and therefore crossed out.

As to the rest of this paper it brings us to the following conclusions:

  • The initial principal sum (probably) asked by Branca’s firm was $16,121,943.73 which was later reduced to $14,089,894.33. So one sum is not to be added to the other as Balletta did, but the smaller sum should replace the bigger one.
  • The fee of 1,621,943.73 was reduced by almost two thirds and came to 589,894.33. It has nothing to do with the Fortress loan and is mentioned here only because its payment is to be “concurrent” (occurring at the same time) as Fortress closes their $300mln loan with Michael, which means that the fee should be paid only after Fortress provides money for it.
  • This initial fee of 1,621,943.73 is suspiciously close to what Branca waived his right to in the letter dated December 1998 where his firm agreed not to claim their 5% stake as well as the fee of $1,864,200 for the next seven years (I asked you to memorize this figure in the first post). That fee was “charged with respect to future Guaranteed Advances” and was also discounted then from the initial $2,275,000.
  • Now the new fee of $ 1,621,943.73 also refers to certain “guaranteed advances” and, same as in 1998, is to be paid from the loan proceeds – so both sums seem to be one and the same thing, only adjusted to the situation in 2005 and asking for a less percentage than before. Remember that for seven years prior to that this fee was not collected by Branca’s firm as they waived their right to it.
  • The next page speaks of the principal amount of $13,500,000 (5% interest in the catalog). This sum is not anything separate but is actually part of the $14,089,894.33 amount which the document starts with. If you add up $13,5mln (the principal sum) + $589,894.33 (the fee), the total will be exactly $14,089,894.33

So the biggest amount asked by Branca’s firm was probably $16,121,943, but even that was later reduced to $14,089,894.

Where are the crazy $50 million then?

There are NONE.

Then why are these bloggers telling tales about the gigantic Branca’s claims? Is it poor maths on their part or malicious distortion of the truth?

All of it is so strange that I don’t even want to comment on it, guys.

And besides, does anyone here really think that the sum claimed by Branca and his firm was too much for the services they rendered to Michael in all the years they worked for him? Even if it were $16,121,943, which it was not?

Why do people grudge Branca this perfectly reasonable sum while looking benignly at the outrageous $2,3 mln claimed by Tohme Tohme for ‘finding’ a company where he actually worked? Or the $48 million demanded by Prescient Acquisitions Group for finding the notorious Fortress hedge fund?

Actually, there was no need to ‘find’ Fortress at all – so big was their desire to get Michael’s assets and so sure they were that he would default on his loans, that they would have come running themselves had they received a telephone call from an insider about Michael Jackson’s distressed assets.

What I am driving at is that WE MUST BE FAIR, JUST and HONEST, and give Branca his due. Otherwise Michael’s supporters will be no better than his haters.

And it won’t do to call Branca “greedy” while there was a swarm of advisors around Michael who did nothing for him or brought only losses, but still had the cheek to sue him for tens of millions – remember Dieter Wiesner’s $64 million lawsuit, for example.

Sullivan wrote that

  • “the family of Roc-A-Fella Records cofounder Damon Dash had sued Jackson ten times in the year 2007 alone. Damon’s cousin Darien Dash was the principal in Prescient Capital, and the force behind the massive lawsuit that had nearly forced Jackson into bankruptcy.”

And Branca never sued Jackson. And he also fully restored Michael’s finances providing security for his children. And MJ Estate also managed to steer clear from the outrageous multi-million lawsuits coming at the Estate from every direction possible.

Despite all that I hear that Branca’s critics attack him on suspicion that he is a kind of a double agent working not only for Michael, but also for Sony.

But there is no ground for suspicions here because Branca was open about it himself.

We have an example of it when Branca informed Michael of a potential conflict of interest in a deal to acquire a new catalog for Sony/ATV in August 2002. There he points out that he always represented both MJ and Sony/ATV, but still thinks it necessary to remind Michael of it again.

The letter is found in Joe Jackson’s opposition to Branca’s nomination the Estate Executor (the bold type is mine):

Mr. Michael Jackson

MJJ Productions, Inc.

August 14, 2002

                            RE: Representation of Michael Jackson and Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

Dear Michael:

This letter pertains to the proposed joint representation by Ziffren, Brittenham, Branca, Fischer, Gilbert-Lurie & Stiffelman, LLP (the “Firm”) of you (and your related and affiliated entities) and Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC (herein “Sony/ATV”) in connection with the potential acquisition and/or administration by Sony/ATV of the Lieber/Stoller catalogs (the “Transaction”). Although it does not appear that this joint representation would create an actual conflict of interest, the Firm is obligated to point out to you that there might be the potential for a conflict of interest to develop as between and among you (and your related and affiliated entities), on the one hand, and Sony/ATV, on the other hand, or at least the appearance of a conflict of interest [ ] .

Accordingly, if litigation or any dispute occurs among you and Sony/ATV in the future, and if either of you, Sony/ATV or the Firm is asked to testify in that legal action about communications between you, Sony/ATV and the Firm relating to the Transaction, since these communications are not protected by the attorney-client privilege in that type of joint representation situation, the attorney-client privilige could not be asserted to avoid or prevent that testimony or evidence. However, in any disputes with anyone other than a dispute between you and Sony/ATV, the attorney-cleint privilege would still exist and protect confidentiality of those communications.

The Firm understands that you are willing to waive your right to assert any claim of conflict of interest in connection with the Firm’s representation of you and Sony/ATV in any existing or future disputes (including, but not limited to, formal litigation) by virtue of the fact that the Firm is representing and/or has represented you and Sony/ATV. If you agree to these terms and conditions, you will not be able to use the fact that the Firm has represented you, or your entities, and Sony/ATV as a means of seeking the recusal and /or disqualification of the Firm in connection with any other matter.  

If you agree to the Firm’s representation in light of these circumstances and notwithstanding the potential conflicts of interest, and although a potential conflict could arise in the future and you acknowledge that the Firm has fully disclosed all relevant circumstances upon such representation, the Firm will undertake to represent you in connection with the Transaction.

Before signing this Agreement, you have the right to and should consult with independent counsel to advise you whether it is in your best interests to consent to having the Firm represent you jointly in connection with the Transaction. If you consent to the Firm’s representation after your full investigation of the facts, and after you either consulted or had the opportunity to consult independent counsel but chose not do so, please sign below to indicate your acceptance.

Sincerely,

John Branca

The above is an open, fair and honest approach. Anyone would be happy to have their legal or business advisors to treat them in the same way.

Another point which is driving Branca’s critics is that Michael suspected him of being part of a Mottola-led conspiracy against him at a time when Mottola headed Sony.

But Tommy Mottola was only one in a team of several and wasn’t even the worst villain, and he is no longer Sony, and it’s nearly 20 years since then – however the scope of a conspiracy against Michael Jackson is as big as ever and it is actually Branca who is fighting it now.

Michael Jackson didn’t know where all the malice was coming from, so was suspicious of almost everyone. And he certainly didn’t realize how deep and wide the roots of the vicious campaign against him were. Limiting ourselves to what Michael thought then means going back in circles again and again, and blocking our vision from seeing a wider and darker picture around Michael Jackson which he could not even imagine.

This blocked state of mind is what Michael called conditioning.

People are indeed so conditioned by all those stories about Branca, Sony, etc. that they are trained to look in their direction only, while overlooking everything else. And failing to notice some important details though they are glaring them straight in the eye.

  • For example, a detail like the strange involvement of a certain Myung Ho Lee who seemed to appear from nowhere in MJ’s life, and who arranged those Bank of America loans on terms far from satisfactory to the borrower, and then actually squandered the borrowed money himself on projects like Hollywoodticket.com which went bust together with Michael’s money in it. Following his two disastrous investments for MJ, Myung Ho Lee then called Michael a “financial tickling bomb”, went on Vanity Fair to tell lies about him (voodoo blood-bath and whatnot) and ended up suing MJ for $13 million in back wages threatening to disclose his financial situation to the press (Michael settled, of course).
  • And why doesn’t anyone ask questions about which of Michael’s advisors invested $50 mln of his borrowed money in the purchase of Marvel Comics (Michael’s dream) sometime in the 2000s, which later turned out to be a fraud and pure embezzlement of his funds? This is where all those loans were going into, and not into financing Michael’s “lavish lifestyle”! We know very little of that scam but some details are there in this post.
  • Or look at the sudden decision of Bank of America to get rid of Michael Jackson’s debts in 2003 which strangely coincided with a new onslaught against MJ also beginning in 2003. What I mean is that it occurred not in 2005 when the loans were actually sold and Michael was under trial, but two years before that, when everything was relatively calm. Did someone whisper in the ear of Jane Heller, Senior Vice-President of the bank, that very, very soon Michael will be in very, very much trouble, so isn’t it time to get rid of his debts?

The BOA decision looks even stranger when you realize that Michael’s collaterals were times bigger than the actual loans, so there was no need to panic or hurry up. In fact blogger symOs60 also noticed that something was not right about it:

“Given the loan amount, the asset of Sony/ATV was more than sufficient. There was no need to have Neverland as a pledge, as well as there was no need to have MIJAC as securitization. Bank of America loan guarantees seemed like it was an overkill request. The Sony ATV catalog was worth in between one billion, possibly 1.2 billion, which means the 50% owned by MJ would have an average value of the half. So, why did they need to take all his assets? Something was not right with these loans”.

And something was not right about the BOA hurry to sell MJ’s loans in complete secrecy and behind his back too. Why was it so terribly urgent to sell his loans in May 2005, just weeks before the jury verdict?  Of course the bank could be concerned that in case of a guilty verdict the loans would remain unpaid, however they had Michael’s collaterals which were much bigger than the actual loans – so why the urgency?

This timing can only be explained by someone’s desire to add to Michael’s trouble and deliver him a crushing blow at the worst moment of his life so that he would never rise to his feet again.

When these and other questions remain unanswered and are not even asked by Michael’s supporters while the majority of them are preoccupied with John Branca, it leaves me with a clear impression that someone is deliberately targeting the wrong person in order to deflect people’s attention away from many other things that are of real and tremendous importance to Michael.

[end of part 2]

THE FINAL RECKONING -3

$
0
0

After having a look at Fortress Capital Group it would be interesting to learn how this loan shark came into Michael Jackson’s life and what kind of people ‘helped’ Michael to find it.

Let us see who these remarkable people were.

PRESCIENT ACQUISITIONS

Fortress Capital group was brought in by a certain Prescient Acquisitions company. Prescient is based in New York and is headed by Darien Dash who is the first cousin of hip-hop entrepreneur Damon Dash and so must have connections in the entertainment business.

As is usual with Michael Jackson’s do-gooders Darien Dash filed a lawsuit against him (on July 11, 2005). 

The Prescient case was heard before the federal judge in the Southern District Court of New York and here is the judge’s ruling which states the essential details of the case.

I’ll comment on some excerpts from it:

US District Court, New York (Jul 21, 2006)

PRESCIENT ACQUISITIONS GROUP, INC. V. MJ PUBLISHING TRUST

This is an action by Prescient Acquisitions Group against the recording artist Michael Jackson and certain entities affiliated with him. Plaintiff alleges that it is owed $48 million in fees by defendants MJ Publishing Trust and MJ-ATV Publishing Trust for financial advisory services. Specifically, plaintiff asserts it successfully secured refinancing of an existing $272,500,000 debt owed to Bank of America, as well as $537,500,000 in additional financing to allow the exercise of a “Put Option” to purchase the remaining interest of Sony/ATV Publishing Trust LLC in the library of songs written by the Beatles.

The above sums are the first surprise. So Darien Dash claimed that he found a company that was not only to provide $272,5mln to buy Michael’s BOA loan, but also $537,5mln in addition to the above? The documents don’t confirm it, so even to the judge Darien Dash couldn’t resist exaggerating things!

The biggest offer from the financing company approached by Dash was $537,5 mln which the initiators of the project hoped would be enough to buy Michael’s BOA loans and purchase Sony’s half in the Sony/ATV. Who told them that Sony was ready to sell we have no idea.

It is true that in the winter of 2005/06 a certain “Put” condition in Michael’s agreement with Sony was coming into effect which allowed both parties to “put” their proposal to buy each other’s share for $200mln, however it seems that it was more wishful thinking than reality even from the point of view of increasing Michael’s debt by another $200mln which had to be repaid too, not to mention Sony’s possible refusal and other factors. Most probably the desired purchase of Sony’s share was Randy Jackson’s fixed idea which he somehow managed to impress on Michael. 

The above plan was never realized however Darien Dash still wanted a 9% fee of the prospective $537,5mln which amounted to $48 mln.

The judge continues:

Defendants argue that the parties entered into the alleged agreement on November 17, 2004, and the plaintiff corporation did not exist until early 2005.

Plaintiff alleges that on November 17, 2004, Mr. Dash executed an agreement on behalf of “Prescient Capital Corporation”, an entity that “he intended to incorporate formally in the near future”.

The complaint alleges that Dash was the pre-incorporation promoter of Prescient, that he entered into a written agreement with MJ Publishing Trust on behalf of Prescient, and that the corporation ratified the acts of the pre-incorporation promoter through its performance of the contract and its efforts to enforce the contract.

So Prescient is remarkable in its very special way – it was simply non-existent at the time when it allegedly executed an agreement with MJ Publishing Trust as it was formed only four months later, in March 2005.

Well, well…

Under the alleged agreement, Prescient Group agreed to act as a financial advisor to MJ Publishing Trust and secure financing of debt owed to Bank of America. In exchange for such services Prescient group was to be paid 9% of the principal amount funded or committed and advisory fees [ ] .

The complaint alleges performance of the contract through Prescient’s arrangement of the required financing through Transitional Investors LLC and Fortress Investment Group LLC. Plaintiff also alleges that despite its demands for payment under the agreement, defendants have “failed and refused to pay Prescient” its fees.

Neither MJ-ATV Publishing nor Mr. Jackson are alleged to have been signators to this agreement.”

The above contains two big surprises. The first is that besides Fortress the major investor in the deal was Transitional Investors LLC.  But a much bigger surprise is that Darien Dash’s lawsuit did not even claim that the agreement with Prescient was signed either by Michael Jackson or his MJ/ATV Publishing Trust.

But if even Darien Dash says that Michael Jackson did not sign their agreement then who did? And what document was actually signed?

This is when two new players enter the scene – Perfect Circle Entertainment and Don Stabler.  At least one of them was also part of the Prescient lawsuit, so the judge continues:

 “On March 24, 2006, I granted Perfect Circle Entertainment, Inc. (Perfect Circle) leave to intervene in this action as a plaintiff. Perfect Circle alleges that it is the party who brought together plaintiff and the Jackson interests. It asserts claims against all defendants for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

[..].Perfect Circle moved to intervene in the action. The intervenor complaint alleges that Don Stabler, the authorized agent of MJ Publishing trust, MJ-ATV Publishing Trust, and Mr. Jacksoncontacted Perfect Circle in order to secure refinancing on a debt owed to Bank of America. Perfect Circle alleges that, in response to this request and with the defendants’ knowledge and consent, it secured Prescient Group to assist in the search of refinancing.

Perfect Circle asserts in the Intervenor claim that Prescient group was its agent and partner. It brings no claims against Prescient Group and does not allege that Perfect Circle is a party to the contract with the defendants. Perfect Circle relies upon the agreement between PCC/Prescient Group and Perfect Circle, which states that Perfect Circle is to be  compensated through and under PCC/Prescient Group. From the forgoing, Perfect Circle claims that defendants MJ Publishing trust, MJ-ATV Publishing trust, and Mr. Jackson were unjustly enriched. It also claims to be a third-party beneficiary of the alleged contract between Prescient Group and the defendants. [ ] It alleges that, “but for Perfect Circle’s actions, the refinancing and restructuring of defendants’ debt which took place would not have been possible.”

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591470a3add7b04934360881#

This particular lawsuit went nowhere, but according to Randall Sullivan the Dash family sued Michael Jackson ten times the following year (2007) as a result of which Michael did have to settle 😦 while the legal proceedings resulted in a treasure trove of documents and depositions that will eventually clear this mess for us. 🙂  

It is among these documents that we find a certain “commitment letter” from Transitional Investors which was signed by Don Stabler on February 28, 2006 on behalf of Michael Jackson.

But who on earth is Don Stabler?

DON STABLER

Don Stabler was an associate of Michael’s younger brother Randy Jackson, hired by him in the summer of 2004 to fix Michael’s tax problems. According to Roger Friedman, Randy Jackson turned to Stabler “to bypass Michael’s longtime accountant Allan Whitman.”

Was Don Stabler an authorized agent of MJ Publishing Trust as he claimed he was?

Certainly not. He didn’t have any official position with Michael Jackson’s Publishing Trust, no power of attorney, no nothing, and certainly no right to sign any documents on Michael’s behalf.  

Stabler was just an accountant hired by Randy Jackson who took it upon himself to manage his brother’s business while Michael was fighting in court the Arvizo fraudulent case.

According to Stabler’s deposition (the snippets of which are found on Marco Balletta’s site), he was introduced to Michael Jackson in July 2004. Initially, Michael liked him but later named him as a key villain who coerced him into a dubious deal and led him to a multitude of lawsuits that eventually forced him into a settlement with Prescient.

Roger Friedman reported that Michael settled with Prescient for $5 million which was an enormous sum for him at that moment  – after the 2005 trial he was so cash-stripped that he couldn’t pay some outstanding $300,000 even to Thomas Mesereau. This wasn’t bankruptcy as he still had three enormous assets – two catalogs and the Neverland ranch, but some were pledged as collateral for the BOA loans and he didn’t want to sell them though the sale would have brought him the necessary cash.

Here is the archived NY Daily News article which tells the story of Michael’s relationship with Stabler (slightly shortened):

Singer says his brother and pal tried to cheat him out of fortune

By THOMAS ZAMBITO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Sunday, June 17th 2007, 4:00 AM

Michael Jackson claims he was nearly swindled out of his fortune during his kiddie-sex trial and only the wise counsel of the Rev. Jesse Jackson and billionaire Ron Burkle saved him.

The behind-the-scenes battle over the pop star’s finances is detailed in a sworn deposition he gave for a federal lawsuit scheduled to go to trial this week.

There is a possibility that Jackson himself might even be called to testify.

The seven hours of transcripts obtained by the Daily News reveal that the agitated entertainer was convinced his money woes were fueled by a cadre of disloyal advisers who stole from him while he was busy fighting criminal charges.

The Gloved One even fingered a man close to his older brother Randy as a key villain.

It was an ordeal that left Jackson bitter about the industry in which he’s spent his entire life.

“It’s full of sharks, charlatans and imposters,” he said in testimony taken last summer in Paris.

“Because there’s a lot of money involved, there’s a bunch of schmucks in there,” Jackson said. “It’s the entertainment world, full of thieves and crooks. That’s not new. Everybody knows that.” [..]

But during breaks in the trial, Jackson says he was being pressured to sign off on a multimillion-dollar financing deal by Don Stabler, an associate brought in by brother Randy, his go-to guy on financial matters during much of his career.

Jackson initially took a liking to Stabler after Randy introduced them.

“He reminded me of people that live in mid-America like Indiana,” Jackson testified.

Stabler was persistent, at one point during the trial sending a message through one of Jackson’s Nation of Islam security guards that questioned the singer’s faithfulness to his African-American heritage.

By then, Jackson had turned to Burkle, the billionaire pal of former President Bill Clinton, for financial help. Burkle brought in Jesse Jackson, who’s known Michael Jackson since his Jackson 5 days, to help with the consultation.

Burkle was calling him on the cell phone during bathroom breaks, warning him not to sign anything, Michael Jackson said.

Stabler wasn’t happy, Jackson said.

“[Stabler] said, ‘What’s the problem? You’re not down, you’re with the Jews now. You’re not down with blacks anymore,'” Jackson testified.

“It was unkind,” Jackson added. “It was mean. It was meanspirited. It was nasty. Simply because he couldn’t get me to sign something that he wanted me to sign.”

The next time Jackson saw Stabler “he wanted to take my head off.” And his brother Randy wasn’t too happy, either.

Randy later claimed that Jackson and his staff had run up a $700,000 bill on his American Express card during the trial, which Jackson said he would repay.

It wasn’t the first time that Stabler teamed with Randy in trying to get him to sign off on a deal, Jackson claimed.

At a meeting in a bungalow at the Neverland ranch, Jackson said he had his mother at his side when he fought off another proposal.

“And I vehemently told them, ‘No, I am not signing this,'” Jackson recalled. “And I just remember how angry, the intensity of the anger in the room. And so they marched out.”

Jackson made his comments when he was grilled by lawyers for the Hackensack, N.J., finance company that is suing the singer in Manhattan Federal Court. The firm, Prescient Acquisition, is owned by businessman Darien Dash, who claims Jackson stiffed his company out of $48 million.

According to Dash’s lawyer Steven Altman, Dash was due the money for helping Jackson refinance a $272 million bank loan and secure $573 million in financing to buy out Sony’s half of the Beatles’ song catalogue that Jackson co-owned.

But Jackson claimed he’s never heard of Dash, a cousin of hip-hop impresario Damon Dash, and doesn’t remember signing any agreement.

No wonder Michael said that he had never heard of Dash and never signed any agreement with him – Dash himself didn’t allege it even in his lawsuit.

However Prescient still sued Michael Jackson because Don Stabler claimed he was authorized to represent him and in this capacity agreed to pay Prescient 9 percent of the overall sum if they raised enough money to buy out the BOA loans and Sony’s half of the catalog.

“Stabler agreed to pay Prescient/Dash a nine percent fee for finding financing to replace Jackson’s $270 million at Bank of America. Dash found Fortress, which offered over $500 million to help Jackson buy out Sony in his agreement. That much wasn’t needed, but Dash is asking for his fee on that amount.

CHAIN OF EVENTS

To bring some clarity into this phantasmagoria let us make a short summary of the events already known to us.

  • The maturity date of Michael’s loans from Bank of America was December 20th, 2005. Two years before that Michael asked Charles Koppelman to find a way to restructure his loans. Koppelman was an official advisor imposed on him as a must-have by Jane Heller of BOA (this was her standard practice with others too as this paper shows).
  • Koppelman arranged a deal with Goldman Sachs which envisaged the sale of Michael’s catalogues to repay the loans (probably not in full), as well as the creation of a bigger venture with Goldman Sachs and Sony where Michael would have a 10% share and 2 seats in the 7-10 membership committee. According to Goldman Sachs’s estimation in five years the company would be a multi-billion dollar venture and MJ could sell his share at a very good price if he so wished. Branca worked on bettering the terms of the deal for Michael, but also advised him that he wouldn’t have much control in the venture. Ultimately Michael refused.
  • While the talks over the Goldman Sachs offer were still going on, Randy Jackson decided to bypass Koppelman, Branca and MJ’s accountant Allan Whitman, who was involved in the negotiations with Goldman Sachs, and find an alternative source of financing which would enable Michael not only to buy his loans from BOA, but also acquire Sony’s half of the Sony/ATV catalog. Randy entrusted Don Stabler with the task.
  • Stabler found a certain “Perfect Circle”.
  • “Perfect Circle” went to Darien Dash of “Prescient” and the two of them happily signed an agreement (see the judge’s ruling for that) to find an investment company to finance the project.
  • As an “authorized representative of Michael Jackson” Don Stabler promised Prescient a 9% commission on the money raised. In return Stabler and Perfect Circle expected to get their share of the commission. The deal between Stabler and Dash was based on more than a shaky ground as Don Stabler said he was authorized to sign for MJ (though he wasn’t), and Darien Dash said that he acted as the head of Prescient (though the company didn’t even exist at that moment). 
  • Darien Dash of Prescient made some calls, apparently using his cousin’s connections in entertainment business, and found Transitional Investors LLC who in their turn brought in Fortress Capital Corporation.

At this point let us turn to the documents from another Prescient lawsuit and see what happened next (the documents are provided by Marco Balletta).

TRANSITIONAL INVESTORS

An attentive look at Transitional Investors LLC. documents makes it clear that they were central to the negotiated deal.

This company offered their finances to Michael Jackson in a Letter of Intent which was sent to him on December 30, 2004. Even the name of the document suggests that it was non-binding on the parties as it stated only their intentions.

The intentions of Transitional were to buy $272,5 mln MJ’s loans from Bank of America and provide Michael Jackson with the additional $200 mln to buy out Sony’s share in Sony/ATV (“Sellers”), as well as give him $20 mln in direct payment. The fees and expenses amounted to $45 mln which was about 10% of the deal, and the overall sum came to $537,5mln to be lent to Michael Jackson.

The financing was to be done by Transitional Investors and River Capital Funding (the entity related to Transitional).

The Letter of Intent (LOI) is 6 pages long so is reproduced here only in its key points:

TRANSITIONAL INVESTORS LLC

December 30, 2004

Dear Mr. Jackson:

Transitional Investors, LLC (“TI”) and River Capital Funding, Inc. (“RCF”) are pleased to submit this non-binding Letter of Intent (“LOI”) to provide senior and subordinated debt and equity financing in support of the Michael Jackson Trust’s (“MJT”) refinancing of its existing debt and exercise of its option to acquire the fifty percent (50%) of Sony/ATV which it does not currently own (the “Financing”) from Sony Music Enterprises (“SME”) and Sony Music Enterprises, Japan (“SMEJ”) (collectively the “Sellers”) RCF is a related investment entity of TI.

1. TI currently contemplates that a new, bankruptcy remote, special purpose entity (the “SPE”) shall be formed to hold the entire Sony/ATV music library upon consummation of the Financing. TI contemplated the following loans and investments to the SPE. MJT shall be the sole 100% owner of all interest in SPE subject to any conversion of preferred stock contemplated herein.

a) The Senior Secured Credit Facility: TI contemplated arranging a $420,000,000 Senior Secured Credit Facility to be secured by the entire Sony/ATV music library and all other assets of Sony/ATV (the “Assets”).

b) The 15% Subordinated Notes: TI contemplates providing $80,000,000 of Subordinated Notes to the SPE. The Subordinated Notes shall pay 10% currently (paid quarterly in arrears).

c) Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock: TI further contemplates providing $37,000,000 in Preferred Stock to the SPE. […]

The SPE shall use the proceeds to disburse about $272,000,000 to the MJT and $200,000,000 to the Sellers and to pay fees and expenses associated with the Financing as well as to make a direct distribution of $20,000,000 to Mr. Michael Jackson.

Transaction Sources and Uses ($millions)

Use of Proceeds:

Refinance existing debt of MJT                                               272.5

Exercise option to purchase 50% of Sony/ATV                    200.0

Distribution to Mr. Michael Jackson                                       20.0

Fees, Expenses and Working Capital                                      45.0

 …………………………………………………………………………………537.5

Sources of Financing:

Subordinated Notes                                                                   80.0

Senior Secured Credit Facility                                                 420.0

Preferred Stock                                                                           37.5

…………………………………………………………………………………537.5

TI is prepared to commence detailed negotiations immediately and we are confident we can complete the Financing within thirty (30) to ninety (90) days from the date of execution of this LOI. [ ]

6. BREAK-UP FEE

In the event that TI and its financing partners provide MJT with a Commitment Letter of financing that will provide MJT $537,500,000 subject to specified deliverables required under this agreement within 30 to 90 days of this LOI [ ] and MJT chooses to cancel or withdraw from this financing, MJT shall pay to TI a break-up fee as liquidated damages in the amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000).

After TI has provided its Commitment Letter to MJT to provide the financing contemplated by this agreement and are working to complete all necessary closing conditions, and MJT chooses alternative financing or sale arrangements, including selling its MJT interest in Sony/ATV to Sony or any other affiliated or unaffiliated Third Party, MJT shall pay to TI a total break-up fee as liquidated damages of nine percent (9%) of the entire transaction value contemplated. This break-up fee will be payable at the closing of any alternative financing or sale. This provision will remain in effect 360 days after the expiration or the termination by MJT of this agreement.

MJT may terminate this agreement in writing and without clause, by giving fifteen (15) days notice to TI.

8. CONFIDENTIALITY

TI hereby understands and agrees that MJT and its business relations, records, documents, financial conditions and all related information obtained under this agreement are private and TI shall maintain at all time the complete, full and unfettered confidentiality of MJT’s business and information and shall not disclose any such information to any third party who is not part of this transaction. [ ]

9. CONTACT INFORMATION

Please direct all communications with regard to our Proposal to:

Darien Dash, Managing Director

Prescient AG

Dec.29, 2004

A separate page of the Letter of Intent contains another “clause 9” (a numeration mistake?) and Michael Jackson’s signature.

9. VALIDITY OF THIS AGREEMENT

Other than Sections 1,4,6,7 and 8, this LOI is not intended to constitute a binding and enforceable contract of the parties and may be withdrawn or terminated for any or no reason upon written notice of any party to this LOI. The terms of this LOI are proprietary and may not be shared with any third parties other than financial, accounting and legal advisors, representatives, banking institution, trust and others assisting MJT or the Sellers with respect to the proposed Financing.

We are enthusiastic about the prospect of providing the Financing to MJT. We look forward to receiving your response and to working with you throughout the remainder of the due diligence process. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or comments.

Very Truly Yours,

Transitional Investors, LLC

Stuart Shelly, Managing Director

Understood and agreed to on this 20th day of January 2005

By Michael Jackson

(Michael Jackson’s signature)

https://imgur.com/a/NDjLW?nc=1

You see that the last page of the Letter of Intent is really signed by Michael Jackson. What catches the eye though is that the letter was sent on December 30, 2004 but was signed only three weeks later – on January 20, 2005.

The delay suggests that Michael was not that supportive of the idea to buy Sony’s share and borrow twice as much money for it. Eventually, he did sign, probably to explore this non-binding option or the decision could be even forced on him – after all, we know that the pressure from Stabler and Randy was overwhelming and even nasty, as MJ said.    

However, the Letter of Intent stated the intentions only and the deal could be finalized if Michael signed the “Commitment Letter” – which he never did.

THE COMMITMENT LETTER

The Commitment Letter from Transitional Investors was sent to Michael a week later – with a copy going to Don Stabler.

This second letter contained two important changes – firstly, instead of River Capital Funding named in the Letter of Intent, it now referred to Fortress Capital as Transitional Investors’ partner with whom Transitional managed to create a joint venture during the three weeks pause in their correspondence with MJ.

The other big change was that though the option to buy Sony’s share was still mentioned, no financial commitments were made in this respect. And the sum also changed – now it was $330 mln including 20 mln in direct payment to MJ. The Term Sheet (the paper stating the terms and conditions of the deal) contained an even lower figure — $207,5 mln, but this is probably because the remaining pages of the Term sheet are missing here.  

But what is perfectly clear is that the option to buy out Sony’s share was no longer there.

The Commitment letter is provided below, but first here is another comment from Roger Friedman who offered an explanation why the option to buy Sony’s share in Sony/ATV was no longer an issue:

According to the sketchy information I’ve been able to cobble together:

Last November, Randy hired Prescient to  find someone who would help Michael buy out his $270 million worth of loans from Bank of America. Prescient used another firm, called Transitional, and it located New York debt buyers Fortress Investments.
Here’s the important part: Fortress said it would pony up over $500 million so Jackson could pay off the Bank of America loans and buy the half of Sony/ATV Music Publishing he doesn’t already own.

Two problems came out of this.
One was that Prescient had gotten Michael, Randy or Randy’s lawyer – a guy named Don Stabler who is identified in the lawsuit as the “authorized agent” of Michael Jackson Publishing Trust – to sign an agreement with Prescient [VMJ correction: MJ didn’t sign it].The agreement said that if Prescient found someone to bail Michael out, the firm would get a whopping 9 percent commission on the total amount pledged.
Nine percent of $537 million is $48 million. That’s what Prescient says it is now owed.

But wait: Fortress bailed out Michael from Bank of America for only $270 million. What happened to the other $267 million? Well, it seems someone forgot to tell Prescient that Michael actually can’t buy “the other half” of Sony/ATV Music Publishing just because he suddenly has the money. The 1995 combining of Sony’s publishing division and ATV was just that: a merger. Among other things, Sony has the right to say no to a buyout.
Someone gave Prescient bad information, which it may have passed on to Fortress. So Fortress wound up buying only Jackson’s Bank of America loans.

What happens next? Does Michael even know what’s going on? No one knows.

Well, now we know that Michael knew nothing about it – he didn’t know Darien Dash, he didn’t sign any agreements with his Prescient company and he certainly didn’t know that he would have to pay 9% on half a billion promised by Stabler on Michael’s behalf.

Michael Jackson was too busy with the trial which was at the stage of pre-trial hearings then, and he even attended some of them, for example, the one where Thomas Mesereau questioned Tom Sneddon.

In the meantime, Transitional was waiting for Michael Jackson’s reply to their Commitment Letter.

Here it is:

Transitional Investors LLC

January 27, 2005

Michael J. Jackson

C/O Don Stabler

STABLER &ASSOCIATES

Re: COMMITMENT LETTER FOR BRIDGE FINANCING

Dear Mr. Jackson:

Pursuant to the LOI executed between the parties with respect to the refinancing of certain of the MJ Publishing Trust existing debt and the exercise of the option to acquire the 50% interest of Sony ATV, Transitional Investors LLC (“TI” a joint venture partner of Fortress Investment Group, LLC “Fortress”) is pleased to provide you this Commitment Letter to confirm our intention to provide you the bridge loan for refinancing the entire Bank of America debt.

The bridge financing outlined in the attached term sheets and transaction sources and uses, represents approximately $330,000,000, including $20,000,000 to you. TI and Fortress is prepared to provide you clear evidence of the availability of the funds for this transaction. [ ]

Thank you once again for allowing us to serve you in this very important financing.

Very truly yours,

Transitional Investors LLC                                                                       Fortress            

Stuart Shelly                                                                                

Managing director                                                                                    (no signature)

As I already said the attached Term sheet stated a lower sum of $207,5mln which was to be secured by two Michael’s catalogs and royalties paid to him, with the exception of Neverland.

The duration of the agreement was one year only, so a year later Michael Jackson was expected to repay to Transitional the principal sum of $207,5mln with the addition of 2% funding fee, the interest rate called Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate ), and extra 2,5%  on LIBOR (“250 basis points”).

Here is the attached Term Sheet:

Term sheet

Senior Bridge Loan

AMOUNT                                          $207,500,00

BORROWER                                     MJ Publishing Trust

FUNDING FEE                                  2% (Same as Sources and Uses of Funds)

INTEREST                                         Libor plus 250 basis points

MATURITY                                       One year from funding

COLLATERAL                                    All of the assets of MJ Publishing Trust, including the 50% interest in Sony/ATV owned by the MJ Publishing Trust, the MIJAC catalog, and the BMI royalty rights payable to Michael Jackson

GUARANTOR                                   Michael Jackson

[…]

BREAK-UP FEE                                 As per the LOI

By execution hereof the undersigned represents that he is authorized to act on behalf of MJ Publishing Trust and Michael J.Jackson.

Accepted this 28th of February, 2005

Signed by

Don Stabler

Authorized Representative of MJ Publishing Trust and Michael J. Jackson

So it was Don Stabler who signed the Commitment letter fraudulently calling himself “the Authorized Representative of MJ Publishing Trust and Michael Jackson”.

The cost of the fraud was 3 million dollars as the moment this letter was signed Michael Jackson was already obliged to pay the above amount to Transitional in case he refused the deal.  

What catches the eye again is that the Commitment letter was sent on January 27th, but was signed by Stabler only one month later, on February 28, 2005.

This is more than a clear sign that Michael consistently refused to sign a deal with Transitional, though Stabler surely pressured Michael, up to using the race card against him and calling him during the trial bathroom breaks.

And what a wonderful date was chosen by Stabler for putting his signature under that agreement!

February 28th, 2005 was the date when the trial commenced. On that first day, the prosecution started with reading the Indictment which was followed by Thomas Sneddon’s opening statement. And it was on this day that Stabler was calling Michael Jackson during the breaks.  

WAS THE DEAL WORTH IT?

Now was the deal Stabler insisted on worth all the effort and was it of any use to Michael?

No, it was not. The proposed agreement wasn’t extending the loan to five or ten years, for example, within which Michael could have repaid it little by little but was for one year only, so it didn’t alleviate Michael’s situation in any significant way. In fact, considering the fees it was actually the same as the BOA loan which was to mature also a year later.  

Moreover, this deal was burdened with an additional 9% to Prescient that was to be paid on half a billion dollars which MJ didn’t get and probably didn’t even ask for.  So instead of the original $272,5 mln owed to Bank of America, Michael would owe approximately the same sum plus all the fees and interest rates to Transitional, and also $48 million owed to Prescient.

Even laypeople like us understand the absurdity of the deal, however Don Stabler did sign it, obviously hoping to get a share out of the 9% promised by him to Prescient.

When asked at a deposition about how he came to the idea of a 9% commission Stabler shifted all the blame on… Branca, first bragging that he disclosed the Transitional deal to the competing team of advisors of Koppelman et al. (despite a clear warning from Transitional on strict confidentiality), and then he said that he called Branca to ask him about an average broker’s fee and Branca told him that Bank of America charged Michael Jackson 10% for their loans. Stabler allegedly said “damn” and decided to charge a little less (“only” 9%).

But every sensible person knows that the BANK INTEREST RATE is not the same as a BROKERAGE FEE.

A broker gets a fee for just bringing two parties together, and the usual rate is like 1,2% (though some do it for free just as friends would), while the bank lends money to its clients at an interest rate, and one thing has NOTHING to do with the other.

However, Stabler is obviously taking everyone for complete fools.

Here are some excerpts from his deposition:

Q. What was going on with respect to other proposed sources of refinancing, Goldman Sachs, Mr. Koppelman Bernhard

A. We had a meeting with Charles Koppelman and a gentleman from Goldman Sachs, Allan Whitman, John Branca and myself at John Branca’s office in Century City. And during that meeting, the initial portion of the meeting involved the pitch from Charles Koppelman and Goldman Sachs on the benefits of taking the Goldman Sachs loan. And we discussed Michael’s views on it, and Charles wanted me to see if I could broker a meeting while he was in town with Michael because he had not spoken with Michael in quite some time. And I indicated that that probably would not happen because Michael simply did not wish to speak with him or see him. And following the meeting with Charles and Goldman Sachs, John Branca, Allan Whitman and myself, we sat and discussed the Blackstone or Blackstreet deal that John was proposing and the people that he had spoken with in reference to that deal. And I shared with them this particular deal, and it was the first time that I had actually shared this with Allan or John because Michael did not want them to know that we were even close to getting a deal done.

Q. Why did — did Michael tell you why it was that he wanted to keep that information away from Mr. Branca and Mr. Whitman?

A. As I said, Michael believed that somehow they were part of the conspiracy.

“Michael did not want them to know that we were even close to getting a deal done”???

But Michael didn’t know any details himself as he resisted Stabler’s attempts to involve him in it! And the deal was far from being done as Michael refused to sign anything. And Stabler was not allowed to speak about the deal because this was a condition imposed on him by Transitional. 

Q. What did you say to Mr. Branca, and what did he say to you in the conversation you’re describing about the proposed compensation?

A. Oh, I asked them what kind of fees do people normally charge for this. That’s because nine percent seems kind of high.

Q.   What did Mr. Branca say?

A.   John said – he said, Don, you know, if I’m not mistaken, as I recall, the last time Bank of America redid the loan, they charged ten percent. I remember saying “damn”. So, based upon that, after –   [  ]

Q.   Did Michael authorize the nine percent fee reflected in Paragraph 4?

A.   He authorized my signing of this document.

No, he didn’t.  Stabler’s lies are simply disgusting.

Stabler knew that the deal he proposed was extremely damaging to Michael as he would have to pay $48 million extra for the sole reason that there was a crowd of intermediaries between him and the investment company, each of whom wanted a share for their “services”. So Stabler’s insistence can be explained only by his interest to get his.

In 2009 Stabler sued MJ’s Estate for the invaluable assistance he rendered to Michael Jackson. He claimed that he spent 632 hours “dealing with others on MJ’s behalf” — a service for which he charged $325 per hour.

TMZ reported that Randy Jackson was also in the middle of a creditor’s claim filed by Stabler & Associates against the estate and according to legal docs Randy was on the side of the creditor. Stabler & Associates claimed that the estate owed the company $275,446.08, including a late penalty of $81,946.08.

Well, with friends and brotherly help like that who needs enemies?

No wonder Michael was furious with Stabler and called people like him “sharks, charlatans and imposters” saying that “the entertainment world is full of thieves and crooks”.

“It’s full of sharks, charlatans and imposters,” he said in testimony taken last summer in Paris.

“Because there’s a lot of money involved, there’s a bunch of schmucks in there,” Jackson said. “It’s the entertainment world, full of thieves and crooks. That’s not new. Everybody knows that.”

And it’s no surprise either that Branca said that Michael was surrounded by people who didn’t have his best interests at heart.

“He was surrounded and I had to resign,” he said. “He did not ask me to stay. I resigned amicably.”

However, the question remains how come Michael ended up in a deal with Fortress though he was actually against it?

Oh, it is another thrilling story, but it will have to be saved for another time.

[end of part 3]


THE FINAL RECKONING -4

$
0
0

We left Don Stabler on February 28, 2005 when he signed the Commitment Letter from Transitional Investors LLC claiming to be Michael Jackson’s authorized representative though he wasn’t.

By this signature alone Stabler committed Michael Jackson to a deal with Transitional/Fortress joint venture to purchase MJ’s $200 million loan from Bank of America, give him a new one-year loan at a 15% interest rate and oblige him to pay extra $48 million to the intermediary – Darien Dash of “Prescient Acqusitions”, from which Stabler and “Perfect Circle” expected to get their share (see the previous post for that).

Three weeks later, on March 20, 2005, Stuart Shelly and John Cox, the directors of Transitional Investors, addressed their “Investment Committee Members” with a certain Memorandum where they outlined the benefits of the deal for their company.

This turns it into a document of exceptional interest to us as it opens up the inner workings of the deal and the company’s expectations of it, as well as their independent evaluation of Michael Jackson’s assets.

That particular memorandum was for a $90mln loan to be given to Michael to repay his $72,5 mln credit with Bank of America and provide him with some cash. The loan was to be secured by the MIJAC catalog and Neverland as additional collateral. The Memorandum also assessed Michael’s share in Sony/ATV as Transitional Investors intended to acquire part of it and possibly even the whole catalog (all of them wanted it!).

The memorandum is highly technical but I will nevertheless try to interpret it.

All the documents are provided by Marco Balletta.

Here are some excerpts from it.

THE OPTION

TRANSITIONAL INVESTORS’ MEMORANDUM

To: Investment Committee Members

From: Stuart Shelly & John Cox

March 20, 2005

Opportunity Overview:

DB has the opportunity to make a $90mm stretch senior loan to a special-purpose bankruptcy remote trust established to hold the music library known as MIJAC and the property known as Neverland (the “MJ Publishing Trust”, the “MJPT”) (an “Investment”). In consideration for having made the Investment, Michael Jackson would also grant to DB an option to acquire 51% of his beneficial interest in MJ/ATV Publishing Trust (“MJ/ATV”) at an effective enterprise value of $600mm ($204mm in cash and $102mm in pro-rata share of assumed debt).MJ/ATV is the entity which owns a 50% membership interest in Sony/ATV, the music catalog business operated by Sony which controls over 25,000 titles including: Beatles, Elvis, Willie Nelson, Ray Charles and others. TI currently has an exclusive mandate to refinance both MJ/ATV and MJPT and to provide financing to acquire the other 50% of Sony/ATV which MJ/ATV does not own.

A couple of notes on the above:

  • “DB” apparently stands for the TI company or one of its departments.
  • As already said, the proposed loan of $90mln was to be secured both by the MIJAC catalog and the Neverland ranch.
  • Transitional thought they had an exclusive right to the deal as their Commitment letter didn’t allow MJ to enter into any other agreements and after Stabler’s signing it Michael could withdraw only after paying them at least $3mln as a break-up fee.
  • Based on the terms agreed by Stabler behind Michael’s back, Transitional was getting an option to buy 51% of his share in Sony/ATV or half of his half.  Michael’s overall share in Sony/ATV was evaluated by Transitional at $600 mln.
  • 51 percent of this sum makes $306mln, so if Michael sold half of his share he was to get $204mln in cash, while the debt of $102mln was to be “assumed” by Transitional – most probably returned to them as repayment of the $90mln credit plus fees, interest rates, etc.
  • The deal was to be effective for a year, and after that Michael was either to repay the loans or lose half of his share in Sony/ATV with a little less than a quarter left to him.
  • The sale would bring him enough cash to repay the major $200mln loan and release MIJAC and Neverland from any financial obligations, but he would still owe $80mln + $40mln in “subordinated” loans to which Stabler also signed Michael on February 28, 2005.
  • In addition to that he would also turn into a minority partner in the Sony/ATV catalog with little or no control over its future. 

TRANSITIONAL’S PLANS

The next paragraph of the Memorandum states the annual profits generated by each of Michael’s catalogs ($7mln by MIJAC and $110mln gross by Sony/ATV publishing rights). It also says that Sony charges too much as administrative costs.

Since Transitional Investors are sure that a year later Michael will have to part with at least half of his share in Sony/ATV, they present a program on how to build up its value as if they already own it – they will replace Sony with a less costly manager, or will buy Sony’s share adding it to theirs, or will sell the part belonging to Michael and them (MJ/ATV) at the market.

As to this last option it seems that since Michael would have only a minority stake, he wouldn’t be able to object.

Background:

MIJAC represents the entire personal music library of Michael Jackson, other than a small number of titles he produced through Sony Music. MIJAC generates about $7mm in Net Publisher Royalties (“NPR”), and has an estimated value of about $100mm (@14x). The proposal contemplates a 90% advance against the music catalog assets. In addition, for the benefit of DB as lender and investor, Neverland shall be pledged to MJPT. Neverland has an estimated value of in excess of $25mm (indeed there was a recent offer of in excess of $50mm). Total advance to total collateral is about 70%.

Sony/ATV, LLC was formed in 1998 through the contribution of Michael Jackson’s third party music library (Beatles, etc) formerly ATV, and Sony’s music library. At the time of contribution it was determined that Michael Jackson’s assets were worth $100mm more than those contributed by Sony. Sony paid Michael Jackson $100mm to effectively establish parity between contributed assets, thereby giving each member in the LLC a divisible interest in the entire library.  Sony/ATV generates over $360mm in Royalties annually and about $110mm in Gross Publishers Royalties before administration costs. Administration costs are normally about 4.5-5% of Royalties. Sony as administrator, however charges significantly higher rates. It is believed that in an arms length administration state, Sony/ATV would generate about $90mm in EBITDA. [EBITDA is “Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization” or Gross income].

To create value in the MJ/ATV asset we would be required to either:

1. Acquire Sony’s interests.

2. Remove Sony as manager and replace them with an arms length administrator (at 4.5%)

3. Sell the MJ/ATV at market, or

4. Disband the LLC and retain the MJ/ATV divisible interest in Sony/ATV.

THE TESTIMONY OF O’BRYAN

The next part is difficult to decipher, but since it is highly important, let me try.

First of all, it shows that Transitional’s estimation of Michael’s share in the catalog was drastically different from that of the prosecution witness O’Bryan who right at that time was telling the jury that Michael Jackson borrowed so much against his share in Sony/ATV that his part in it was worth no more than $200mln while the remaining $800mln or so belonged to Sony, and even those $200mln were pledged as collateral to Bank of America.

But we already know that Transitional evaluated Michael’s interest in Sony/ATV at $600 million and this means that if Michael simply sold his share (to the same Transitional, for example) without seeking refinancing for his loans, he would get enough cash to repay the whole debt of $272.5 mln to Bank of America, would keep his MIJAC catalog and Neverland, and would still have $327.5mln (minus taxes) left to him.

Moreover, the experts familiar with the catalog appraised it between $1.5 and 1.98 billion, and in this case Michael’s share would be even bigger than $600mln.

Secondly, the memorandum explains why Michael Jackson didn’t receive from Sony $200mln due to him and this explanation has a direct connection to O’Bryan’s statements.

Sony/ATV was appraised in 1999 at $930mm. Since then, Sony/ATV has incurred about $200mm in “advances” from Sony (offset by artist advance royalty receivables) and has acquired well in excess of $400mm in additional catalogs and titles.

Houlihan, Lokey, Howard & Zukin (“HLHZ”) has indicated a range of EBITDA multiples for Sony/ATV (which catalog they are familiar with) of 16-20x, giving a potential appraised value of between $1.5B and $1.9B. Additionally, Wachovia, an active lender and securitization bank in the entertainment industry has indicated an advance rate against appraised value against this library of 50% at less than 1% up front and 1% over Libor.

The purchase option we are seeking values Sony/ATV at $1.2B, representing a potential built-in gain of between 25% ($300mm on $1.2B) and 60%.

The gain between 25% and 60% would be great of course, but at the moment let us look into another issue.

The way I understand it, after the catalog was appraised at $930 mln in 1999, the Sony parent company invested into its affiliate Sony/ATV $200mln in “advances” to acquire additional music catalogs. The same sum was balanced (“offset”) by Michael’s input, which was taken from the royalties due to him and generated by his share of the catalog, but not paid to him as the money went into the acquisition of new songs.

All in all the new acquisitions amounted to $400 mln. This is how by the time this memorandum was made the value of the catalog had increased from $930mln to over $1.3 billion.  As to Transitional they expected to sell the full catalog at no less than $1.2 billion.

All of the above has a direct connection to O’Bryan’s estimations presented by him at the 2005 trial. According to O’Bryan only Sony was investing money into new music catalogs while Michael was depleting his royalties, so that Sony’s input into their joint venture was growing while Michael’s was decreasing.

Here is what O’Bryan said at a cross examination:

Q.  BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:  You mentioned he doesn’t own half of that catalog today on an asset basis.  In other words, if it’s worth a billion dollars, he doesn’t own half a billion dollars, doesn’t have a half-a-billion-dollar interest in that catalog; is that correct?

A.  Well, he owns half of the catalog.

Q.  Yes.

A.  But his interest in the catalog is not worth half of the catalog value — because of the front-end loading of the cash flow stream that has gone to him and not gone to Sony.

Q.  So if the catalog gets sold, then Sony walks away with more money than Mr. Jackson?

A.  Yes, because he has to repay all of the advances on all of the investments that Sony has made.  Absolutely.

Q.  BY MR. MESEREAU:  Even though they each had a 50 percent interest in something estimated at one billion dollars, you think Sony’s interest is really worth 700 million, correct?

A.  Yes, at least that [] because of the fact that he has taken much more than Sony, Sony is due an equal amount.  Sony is additionally due the investments that they have made, plus interest. 

Q.  Do you know Mr. Jackson was offered 400 million for half of his interest in 2003?

A:  No, I’m not.

Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:  Mr. Mesereau said if Mr. Jackson got $200 million, then Sony would be entitled to $700 million.  I believe we’ve got a math problem there.

A.  Well, the 800.  That’s why I said —

Q.  It would be 800.  All right.  Thank you.

In contrast to the above Transitional Investors tell us that the Sony/ATV catalog was growing in value due to the investments made by both Sony and Michael Jackson.

Actually these supplementary investments on Michael’s side were probably why he complained that Sony was underpaying him. Apparently, they did underpay, only there was a reason for it.

REFINANCING

The next page of the Memorandum starts with a break down of Michael’s income and expenses. It asserts that Michael Jackson was personally illiquid and spent significantly more than he generated in income. The same was said by O’Bryan, only he named a bigger gap between the two.

Transitional Investors assessed Michael’s annual income at about 8,5mln, and the overall expenditure at $22,7mln (including his personal expenditure of $7,9mln a year, $4,4mln on the Neverland upkeep and $2mln in would-be-expenses on the current trial if calculated per year too), plus the loans and debt service on them.

As key issues for consideration Transitional referred to their competitors:

  • “While we are exclusively mandated, Koppelman (ex Chairman of EMI) is an advisor to MJ Publishing trust, with unusual access to the Sony/ATV situation”.

They also noted that according to Michael’s advisors – who must be Don Stabler and Randy Jackson as only they were in direct contact with Michael, MJ preferred to work with Transitional:

  • “Koppelman is perceived by MJ and advisors to be working in conflict with MJ; accordingly, MJ would prefer to work with TI (per advisors).

To alleviate MJ’s cash situation the Transitional contemplated the sum of

  • “$11mm in additional payments to Michael Jackson to support his “adjusted” burn [expenditure] through year end by which time DB will have exercised its option to acquire the Sony/ATV interest and the proceeds for which will be sufficient to repay all the financing at MIJAC.”

So Transitional was absolutely sure that by the end of the year Michael would not be able to repay the loans and they would acquire half of his share in Sony/ATV. But on the other hand the money paid to MJ would be sufficient to repay all the financing at MIJAC and most of his bigger loan.

All of the above is what I imagine to be a true refinancing proposal when certain sacrifices are made on the one side while the other side tries to get their client out of trouble and seeks a solution profitable for both. 

In my layperson’s opinion the Transitional refinancing terms were not too bad, especially when compared with the disaster of Fortress who didn’t refinance anything but just bought all Michael’s debts and raised their interest rates to some 20% per annum (according to Sullivan) waiting for the moment when they could grab all Michael’s assets as the loans came due.

In other words, the deal with Transitional Investors would have probably been acceptable if it hadn’t been for the need to pay $48mln in extra payments to intermediaries. 

However none of these plans were realized.

The thing is that Fortress Capital Group, who were Transitional’s partners in that newly formed joint venture of theirs, decided to dump them and approach Bank of America directly while Transitional continued to work on the proposed deal, unaware that their services were no longer needed.

FORTRESS

Constantine Dakolias, managing director of Fortress Capital Group

We learn of Fortress’s double-cross maneuver from the legal papers in Prescient’s case and the deposition of Fortress managing director Constantine Dakolias which makes a very interesting read.

Dakolias gives all sorts of pretexts why they double-crossed their partner, though it is absolutely clear that they just didn’t want to share the prized MJ assets with anyone else.

This once again proves that in order to find a predatory hedge fund like Fortress no intermediaries were required at all – Fortress would have come running themselves if someone had whistled to them about Michael’s distressed assets.

One of Dakolias’s pretexts for bypassing the Transitional Investors was that their Commitment letter was signed with a delay:

Q. Did that commitment letter expire or was it for some reason no longer valid when you entered into your confidentiality agreement with Bank of America?

A.  – the document states clearly “Please sign and return the enclosed Term Sheets on or before Monday, February 7, 2005”. It appears from Exhibit 4 that the document was signed by Mr. Stabler on February 28, 2005.

Q. Did you communicate in any way in writing to Mr. Jackson that the commitment letter that you signed, that Mr. Shelly signed, that Don Stabler signed, had no force and effect; was that communicated in writing in any way to Mr. Jackson or to anybody else?

A. I don’t recall if it was or it was not.

The real reason why Fortress jumped in to grab Michael’s BOA loans was the fact that Michael approached Ron Burkle and his company Yucaipa to help him sort out the situation with Bank of America, and Fortress felt that they were on the verge of losing the deal.

According to Dakolias this happened at the time when Transitional proposed to MJ their smaller $90mln loan, so the events must have taken place around March 20th, 2005.

Dakolias:  My recollection is that the conversations with Sydow and Stabler on the smaller commitment ceased at the same time that I had learned or I had heard that Yucaipa had gotten involved with Mr. Jackson as one of his advisors.

Q. Who is Yucaipa?

A. It’s an entity either owned or controlled or operated by a gentleman named Ron Burkle. [ ] It was as the conversations had stopped with respect to this $92 million commitment.

The rest of the deposition revolves around the way Fortress hastily arranged a deal with Bank of America. They didn’t say a word of it either to Transitional, or Michael Jackson or anyone in his surrounding, which Dakolias certainly “doesn’t recall” now.

Despite all the haste they had time enough to create three separate entities specially for the purpose of buying MJ’s loans:

Q. Isn’t it true that Fortress did not tell Michael Jackson or anyone on his behalf that it was negotiating with Bank of America to purchase the Bank of America loans?

A. I don’t recall.

Q. It was not said to Mr. Jackson or anyone on his behalf, is that right?

A. I don’t think so.

Q. What is the Fortress Music Trust No.I?

A. It is the entity that purchased the loans from BOA.

Q. Why was it structured that way?

A. I don’t recall why exactly.

Q. Fortress has more than one fund, isn’t that right?

A. Correct.

Q. Therefore, different pockets of money or piles of money is one way to describe it?

A. [ ]  As I said before, there were different funds that had invested in this.

Q. What about Fortress Music Trust I, that is the assignee of the MJ-ATV loan, was that a single-purpose entity also?

A. Correct.

Q. Created solely for the purpose of becoming the assignee of the Bank of America MJ-ATV loan?

A. It was. [ ]  Some of this was driven by tax considerations on advice of counsel.

Q. Any other considerations?

A. I don’t recall specifically as to why we put it in different pockets.

The media claimed that Bank of America was so keen on getting rid of Michael’s debts that they sold them to the Fortress hedge fund “at a steep discount”. However Dakolias says that there was no discount – the debt was simply a little less than $200mln:

Q. Look at Exhibit 14, please. Does it refresh your recollection as to whether or not the full face amount was paid or whether any discount was taken or secured?

A. It looks like an amount equal to 196-odd million, representing outstanding principal and 119,000 representing all accrued and unpaid interest.

Q. So the document confirms your recollection that there was no discount?

A. It seems so.

Q. The payments that are reflected in paragraph 2(b), can you explain that to me?

A. It appears to be a deposit against the purchase price, as of the date of this agreement [ ]

Q. So it’s not a discount?

A. It doesn’t appear to be. It appears to be a deposit.

Fortress and Bank of America were so secretive about their deal that Ron Burkle and his Yucaipa company who approached Jane Heller, Vice-president of BOA on Michael’s behalf, learned about it only post factum. Michael Jackson was totally unaware too:

Q. What was the period of time that Fortress was dealing with Mr. Burkle and the folks from Yucaipa?

A. I don’t think that any conversations with them began until after we purchased the loan from BOA.

Q. Have you seen what we have marked for identification as Dakolias Exhibit 15, sir?

A. It’s the agreement that deals with the smaller loan, the Mijac loan, a sale of that to Fortress.

Q. Mr. Jackson did not know, right, until after you closed?

A. Correct.

Q. And as with the MJ-ATV loan, notwithstanding the commitment letter that had been signed, Fortress did not feel that it had any obligation to inform Mt. Jackson of its discussions, isn’t that right?

A. We were bound by a confidentiality with BOA that governed the purchase of these loans.

Despite working with BOA behind the scenes Fortress was nevertheless “in active negotiations” with their partners on April 17th and 18th, 2005. However on May 3rd their deal with Bank of America was already done.

So all the time while Fortress was supposedly in those “active negotiations”, it was actually pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes.  

Q. What were the factors that motivated Fortress’ business decision to pursue the purchase of the BOA loans from BOA and not continue with any negotiations with Mr. Jackson with respect to a refinancing of those loans?

A. My  recollection is, at the point in time we bought the BOA loans, the parties that we had been dealing with Mr. Jackson were no longer involved with him and that, as I said before, Yucaipa had stepped in to help Mr. Jackson with his financing.

Q. That is why I am asking that because I thought you said that Yucaipa did not come in until after you bought the Bank of America loans.

A. No.

Q. ….you are still in active negotiations with Mr. Jackson and his people with respect to the $92 million loan facility on April 17th and 18th, right?

A. Yes.

Q. But by May 3rd or as of May 3rd, you have executed assignment and assumption agreements, a done deal, with Bank of America, right?

A. Correct.

The next ridiculous story from Fortress is that they “didn’t hear from Mr. Jackson’s people for a week” and only then decided to act on their own.

Q. So your recollection is that the amount of time that you did not hear back from Mr. Jackson’s people or the people were no longer involved was between April 18th and April 25th, 26th, 27th?

A.  It appears to be a week.

These people want us to believe that they managed to analyze the gigantic amount of documents received from BOA, finalized the deal with them and created their three separate trusts just within the next few days:

A. We completed due diligence on all of the information that was provided to us by BOA, which was substantial, including all of the various accounting information from the various trusts, all of the catalog information and a significant amount of information that had never been seen before by us.

Q. So there is a silence for a week and you said, “Well, if we hear from Bank of America, maybe we will just buy this loan directly”? I just want to understand what Fortress’ mindset was at the time, what factors motivated that business decision.

A. BOA indicated they wanted to sell the loan. They told us they were going to sell the loan regardless of whether we bought it. There were others interested in it.

The reply from Bank of America shows that there was virtually a fight among “multiple” interested parties to get Michael Jackson’s loans (or rather his assets).

The role of the BOA bankers is very interesting here.

They must have known about the feasible and well thought-out proposals from Transitional investment fund, but nevertheless chose the nastiest guys – a hedge fund with a predatory reputation that didn’t offer any refinancing, but only bought the loans as they were, charged MJ draconian interest rates and had a clear intention to acquire his assets at a minimal price and within half a year too – on December 20th, 2005 when the loans were to mature.

Q. Wasn’t there some other group that was bidding against Fortress to buy, to pay off, to do some form of refinancing with Mr. Jackson with respect to the Bank of America loans?

A. I don’t recall who it was. I recall that BOA had told us that “If you don’t want to close this, we have other people that are willing to buy this from us.”

Q. Wasn’t there a Goldman Sachs deal that was out there?

A. I don’t recall if they were talking about it at the same time, if it was them or other people. From my recollection, BOA indicated to us that it was multiple parties who were interested in it.

Q. When did BOA tell you that multiple parties were interested in it?

A. At the point in time we were negotiating [….]

Actually we know it for a fact that Jane Heller of Bank of America was perfectly aware of the proposals made by Transitional as she was in negotiations with Stuart Shelly of Transitional when Fortress entered the scene.

Dakolias explains:

A.We mentioned to Jane Heller that we would be interested in looking at it and buying it.

Q. Let’s take a step back. This is a telephone conversation?

A. Correct.

Q. It’s a telephone conversation between you, Mr. Stuart and Ms. Heller?

A. No, just between myself and Mr. Stuart.

Q. What did Mr. Stuart say in that telephone conversation?

A. He said, “I’m having lunch with Jane Heller.[ ] She is involved with a high-profile name, Michael Jackson.”

Q. He identified Michael Jackson in that –

A. I don’t recall if he did or if, in a subsequent conversation, Jane Heller did.  Soon thereafter we entered into a confidentiality agreement with the Bank of America and they proceeded to give us information on the loans.

Q. Did you disclose to Mr. Jackson or anyone on his behalf that you were engaging in those discussions with Bank of America?

A. Not to my knowledge.

THE SECRET DEAL, SUBPOENA and O’BRYAN AGAIN

The secret deal between Bank of America and Fortress was signed on May 3, 2005 – just a month before Michael Jackson’s full acquittal.

This timing makes me think that Jane Heller of BOA was ready to sign a deal with anyone, even the devil, but only before the specific date of May 3rd.

Why so?

Because the prosecution witness John Duross O’Bryan was to testify at the trial about Michael Jackson’s finances on May 3rd, 2005 and there was no way Jane Heller, the BOA Vice-President wanted to be involved in any of it, especially since the outcome of the trial was still unknown.

But why was O’Bryan subpoenaed by the prosecution to testify about MJ’s finances in the first place?

Because the prosecution made a crazy allegation that Michael Jackson “conspired to do criminal acts because of financial concerns”.

Thomas Mesereau said about it during the trial:

The point they’re trying to prove is not what is his financial status today.  They’re allegedly trying to suggest there was a motive in 2003 to conspire to do criminal acts because of financial concerns, which of course we vigorously dispute.

In his “Motion to quash subpoena to Bank of America dated November 3, 2004”, made on February 24, 2005 – three and a half months after the subpoena was served on Bank of America of which the defense had no idea, Michael’s attorney Robert Sanger said:

Counsel for Mr. Jackson have recently been made aware that the District Attorney has served a subpoena duces  tecum on Bank of America seeking Mr. Jackson’s financial records. Mr. Jackson was not served with a copy of the subpoena.

The Court ruled, on January 28, 2005, that the District Attorney cannot use detailed financial evidence to show motive.

None of these materials are relevant to the charges against Mr. Jackson.evidence that Mr. Jackson was financially distressed or in debt is inadmissible to show a motive to commit a crime for financial gain. Furthermore, there is no showing that the materials could corroborate the stories told by the complaining witnesses. The charged offenses are child molestation and a conspiracy to commit false imprisonment, extortion and child abduction. Mr. Jackson’s financial holdings or evidence of potential entertainment contracts are not relevant to these charges under any admissible theory.

The charged offenses were also ridiculous to say the very least. But I really don’t understand how Michael Jackson’s distressed finances could lead to his alleged “abduction” of the Arvizo family.

Do they want to say that Michael “abducted” them to get a multi-million ransom? And who was to pay, I wonder? 🙂 Or did he allegedly commit the crime of “imprisoning” them to make a rebuttal film to get several million from Fox?

Judging by Thomas Mesereau’s question to O’Bryan it seems that the above theory was indeed the prosecutors’ official story, used as a cover-up for their burning desire to dance a death dance on Michael’s finances.  

And not a single sane person stopped them! I wonder if Americans really believed this theater of the absurd?

Q. Mr. MESEREAU:  Let’s assume FOX is doing what is called a rebuttal documentary, okay? That $7 million isn’t going to make much of a difference, is it?

A.  No, it’s not.

Q.  Wouldn’t be worth committing a crime over $7 million in that situation, would it?

MR. AUCHINCLOSS:  Objection; argumentative.

THE COURT:  Sustained.

Despite the craziness of it all, it was on this incredible pretext that on November 3, 2004 Bank of America was subpoenaed to testify about Michael’s finances. The real goal was of course to utterly humiliate Michael and give ample fodder to the media to speculate about his “lavish lifestyle” as a result of which “his finances were in ruins” (Maureen Orth) and Michael Jackson “was staring into the financial abyss” (Mirror.uk).

Jane Heller of BOA did not testify but did provide a statement about Michael’s financial status as of 2004 which the prosecution intended to read out to the jury.

But what intrigues me most is when and for what reason Bank of America suddenly decided to sell Michael Jackson’s loans.

This could happen only sometime around February 2003 because Goldman Sachs’s offer to buy out the BOA loans was made on April 13th, 2003 and their project surely took several months in the making. This means that the decision to sell was taken by BOA around the time when the documentary by that scumbag Martin Bashir aired on American TV, if not earlier.

There were no allegations or charges against MJ yet, but someone evidently whispered in Jane Heller’s ear that if she didn’t get rid of Michael Jackson’s loans then and there, she was in for much trouble with the criminal investigation, bad publicity and future depreciation of MJ’s assets that secured the loans. So while these assets were still worthy of anything “it was time to sell”.  

In fact, the deliberate depreciation of Michael’s assets was probably the big idea of it all. So it is no surprise that O’Bryan made it a point that Michael’s share in Sony/ATV was almost worthless as it “cost no more than $200mln” and even that was pledged as collateral for the loan. As to the MIJAC catalog it wouldn’t be worthy of a dime if no radio station agreed to play Michael’s music in case of a guilty verdict…

In fact, Michael himself thought that the reason for the trial was a financial one. If we are to believe Stabler’s deposition in Prescient’s case, this is what Michael said to him:  

Q. Can you describe generally what Michael Jackson told you about what he believed was happening at the time particularly in reference to your statement that I think that the words — you described a lack of trust or some words to that effect.

A. Michael believed that the major reason that the trial was happening and going forward was because of a conspiracy.

Q. What was the conspiracy? Did Michael Jackson describe that conspiracy to you?

A. Yes.

Q. In what terms did he describe that conspiracy to you?

A. He believed that the conspiracy resulted from a run-in that he had with Tommy Mottola. [ ] One of the things that Michael was extremely concerned about was the fact that he had the potential or he thought that this conspiracy involved the taking of his catalog of music, which referred to as Sony/ATV [ ] Michael believed that part of this conspiracy or the major part of this conspiracy had to do with his ownership of the catalog of the Beatles music.

Well, a conspiracy it surely was. But the goal of it was not only to rob Michael Jackson of the Beatles catalog, but to rob him of everything he had. And the scope of the scam shows that Tommy Mottola could not be the central guy in it as he wouldn’t have enough power to involve the BOA Vice President in it. A scam like that requires an influencer who is much more powerful than that.

Remember that the Bank of America Corporation is not just some mediocre banking institution. It is a private investment bank which is the second largest in the US and the eighth largest in the world, with total assets amounting to $2.819 trillion, so handling Michael’s debt of $272.5mln for just a little longer wouldn’t have been such a big problem for this giant, and their sudden rush to get rid of it as well as its timing look a little strange.

The media naturally ridiculed Michael for suspecting a conspiracy, however the Guardian mentioned that the same idea occurred to Jesse Jackson:

Jackson is not the only one thinking in terms of plots against him. His supporter Jesse Jackson told USA Today that he smelled a rat in the way Bank of America had swiftly offloaded Jackson’s debt to Fortress. “Who was forcing the bank’s hand and what did they stand to gain?” he asked. “That must come under scrutiny. I think the bank sold the loan rather than face the heat.”

Well, I also smell a rat here.

[end of part 4]

THE FINAL RECKONING-5: Michael Jackson and Myung Ho Lee

$
0
0

What do we know about Myung Ho Lee?

We think we know more than enough as the media have rubbed it in that 1) Myung Ho Lee was a Korean advisor to Michael Jackson who in 1998 arranged for him a $140mln loan from Bank of America 2) the millions were gone within a year due to MJ’s “lavish lifestyle”, so the loan had to be increased to $200mln and this was soon gone too, and that 3) Michael allegedly participated in voodoo rituals and took a blood bath in order to curse the enemies on his list headed by David Geffen according to this advisor (the point about Geffen as the top enemy I readily believe).

Actually there was much more from Myung Ho Lee but the above was the main story.

The lead vocal in the media chorus propagating all of it belongs to Maureen Orth of Vanity Fair who savored every detail of this narrative in three of her articles, painting Michael Jackson in the ugliest light possible, unimaginable even for Diane Dimond.

If you brush aside the absurdity of a bath of animal blood allegedly taken by the nature-loving and God-fearing Jackson and dig a little deeper, you will realize that the financial side of the story is no less weird than the blood bath, because there is a huge discrepancy between what they tell us about Michael Jackson’s spending and his actual expenses.

The thing is that even if Michael’s personal expenditure was $8 mln annually (not monthly as the media lied to you) it was simply impossible for him to spend all that money just within a year.

For proof of Michael Jackson’s real spending see the memorandum on his financial situation made by Transitional Investors LLC on March 20, 2005 for their own investment committee with regard to their plans to refinance Michael’s loans.

The memorandum shows that in the year 2005 with the exception of trial expenses and the debt service, Michael spent $660,000 a month on his personal needs, $700,000 on running his business (obviously including recording expenses, fees to his lawyers and advisors, etc.) and $370,000 on the Neverland ranch. All in all it came to $20 mln a year, which was of course much more than he earned at that time but still not too cosmic for a person of his stature and certainly not as “outrageous” as the media claimed it.

Here is an excerpt from the memorandum:

The media tried to spin the numbers but if you ignore their buzzing you will see that the figures don’t add up, and this means that the bulk of the money was spent not on Michael’s personal needs but on something different and the media is muting the key element – where Michael’s money really went to.

The NY Post provided some figures from Myung Ho Lee’s lawsuit but they don’t explain anything if you start calculating:

July 27, 2002 

Lee alleges that in 1998 he helped Jackson borrow $140 million from Bank of America/NationsBank. The loan was made against the value of the $272 million Beatles song catalog Jackson owns.

By the next year, Jackson had blown through the money, Friedman reports. That was big trouble because he had a divorce settlement to pay. Lee arranged another $30 million loan, which Jackson allegedly blew through in a year.

In October 2000, Jackson needed even more money and Lee was able to get yet another $30 million, bringing the total Jackson owed to $200 million.

At the same time, Jackson lived a lavish lifestyle, according to budget figures for the months of October, November and December 2000, which were provided in the suit.

Michael Jackson’s outrageous spending habits and loan debt have left him in financial peril, according to a suit brought by his former business manager, Myung Ho Lee. Here’s a look at where his money went:

* $140 million loan to purchase Beatles catalog, which required he put up his $272 million share of Sony

* $30 million line of credit for divorce settlement

* $60 million loan with provision to use half to pay off credit line

* $12 million owed to Lee in unpaid bills

* $1.5 million paid to ex-wife Deborah Rowe

* $507,443 owed to litigation firms

* $260,000 for music lawyer, including $47,000 in reimbursable expenses

* $250,000 per month to run Neverland

* $340,000 payment to Neverland Rides

* $170,000 payment to Neverland Operations

* $214,000 for limo rentals

* $200,000 running bill for gadgets and stereo equipment from a Sony outlet

* $170,000 settlement for missed concerts following Princess Diana’s death

* $78,451 owed to PR firms

* $25,000 for dermatologist

* $20,000 outstanding doctor bill

* $10,000 pharmacy bill

https://nypost.com/2002/07/27/king-of-debt-suit-jacko-owes-200m/

Even a brief glance at the above shows that the loans are in millions while the expenses are in thousands.

But mesmerized by the insistent media hammering about MJ’s “lavish lifestyle” the public failed to notice the gap between the two, and never asked on what projects those millions were squandered and who is responsible for it.

Of course it was impossible for the media and public to really know as people usually don’t disclose the details of their financial deals unless they are wildly successful, but Myung Ho Lee as Michael’s chief financial and investment advisor did know, however even in his lawsuit he kept mum about those failures and his own role in swindling Michael’s money.

The point that also attracts attention is that according to Myung Ho Lee, the $140mln loan in 1998 was allegedly taken “to purchase the Beatles catalog”. But Michael Jackson’s top advisor was supposed to know that the agreement with Sony didn’t allow either side to sell and purchase each other’s stakes before 2005. So the loan was for a different purpose, and Myung Ho Lee definitely didn’t tell the whole truth here.

Now what does the glaring discrepancy between the loans and Michael’s actual spending suggest?

It suggests that in the years 1998-2001, when Myung Ho Lee advised Jackson and which were critically important for his finances, most of his money went into some major investments that were a disaster and were therefore not disclosed by Jackson.

By his status alone Myung Ho Lee must have put his hand to those investments, but instead of revealing his role in squandering Michael’s money he sued him for “unpaid services” in the amount of about $13mln (more than $3mln a year). The media ran with his story like crazy focusing on Michael’s spending and never questioning the validity of Lee’s claims, and the public easily bought what Lee and the media were selling it.

And no one listened to Michael’s remonstrations that the person who sued him was actually the one who had stolen millions from him.

The excessive media clamor over Michael’s “outrageous lifestyle” and their uncharacteristic disinterest in the personality of Myung Ho Lee made me wonder about the role of this person in Michael’s life –  however any attempt to learn more led to an impasse.

Google brought me hundreds of pages reproducing Maureen Orth’s story and all those unconvincing figures from Myung Ho Lee’s lawsuit, but there was nothing – no information, no photos, no business activity, I mean nothing – about him and his company “Union Finance and Investment Corporation” which he was supposed to be head of.

The conspicuous absence of anything about Myung Ho Lee was puzzling, odd and utterly unusual.  After all, this was a Korean lawyer who got educated in the US, was CEO of a financial and investment company which rendered financial services to the most famous man on the planet, so how come he left no trace of business activity in the US and even South Korea?

Did he materialize from thin air to suddenly advise Michael Jackson on financial matters, and where did he suddenly disappear thereafter? And how could he be a financial counselor to Jackson and arrange multi-million loans for him from Bank of America if no one really knew him?

THE DODGERS

You cannot imagine the effort it took me to get at least some grains of information about this person.

The many hours of searching finally rewarded me with a story published in L.A.Weekly in 2012 about a certain Josh Macciello who wanted to buy the Dodgers baseball team with the help of investor Myung Ho Lee who provided him and his partner Fred Furrow with what the journalist of L.A.Weekly called

  • a single-page “proof of funds”, which purports to show that $10 billion is sitting in an account at HSBC in Hong Kong, under the name of Myung Ho Lee.”   

The journalist was also shown

  • “the trio’s $2.2 billion bid and a curriculum vitae for Myung Ho Lee, including his phone number.”

Fred Furrow, one of the trio, said that it was he who landed the big investor from Korea:

  • “South Korea–based Myung Ho Lee has committed to put $10 billion into his technologies in the very near future. He says he expected to have received some of the money already, but Lee recently came down with a potassium deficiency, which put him in the hospital for a week.”

The Weekly reporter got interested in Myung Ho Lee and introduced him as follows:

 “Myung Ho Lee has a colorful background. He is not on the Forbes list of Korean billionaires, but a quick Google search shows that he used to manage Michael Jackson’s financial affairs before the two had a falling-out in 2001. Lee made a number of headline-grabbing allegations against the pop star, including that he hired witch doctors and paid hush money to his ex-wife. Jackson’s lawyers claimed that Lee stole millions from Jackson. Lee filed a $12 million lawsuit against the singer, which was resolved in an out-of-court settlement in 2003.

Lee re-emerged in March 2011, in a press release from a company called Colorado Rare Earths Inc. According to the release, Lee’s company — Union Financial and Investment Corp. — had agreed to partner with the company to provide precious minerals to Korean companies. But the press contact on the release tells the Weekly the deal never went through.

With Myung Ho Lee now Macciello’s last possible source of billions for the Dodger purchase, and the clock ticking away on the promised money transfer, the Weekly attempted to reach him.

An assistant answers the phone in Korean but switches effortlessly to English and gives Lee’s cell number. Reached on that number, Lee says he’s in a meeting. Asked if he’s involved in the Dodger deal, he says,I’m not at liberty to confirm or deny that at the moment.”

Are you a billionaire?

“Far from that,” he says. “I would not characterize myself in that fashion. Talk to Fred about this, please.”

After Lee heard from a reporter, Furrow says, “He called me and blew up.”

“That money in Hong Kong was not allocated for the Dodgers,” Furrow continues. “If our investors found out we were using that money for the Dodger deal, we could lose $100 billion in international revenue.”

“We are no longer a player. Your call to Myung Ho Lee has caused us to totally drop out with Josh. … Any mention of our names in any future article will force us to take legal action.”

To make a long story short Josh Marcello turned out to be a fraud and convicted drug dealer (see here).

His partner Fred Furrow was no better as his company Full Circle Energy, Inc. offering new technology to “generate clean, renewable electricity from garbage and human waste” relied on someone who said he had access to the owners of the technology located in Russia, but the consultants checking up on Furrow wrote that “Existing commercial examples DO NOT EXIST.” Now Fred Furrow is running a company called Full Circle Energy Therapies and promises “to empower and facilitate his clients’ natural abilities to heal on a personalized basis”.

As to Myung Ho Lee as an investor who allegedly sent them a proof-of-funds paper with $10 billion on his account, he hasn’t been heard of since 2012 and the only piece I found was a short note from the municipal authorities of one of Seoul’s districts offering condolences to his sister Lee So-Yung and stating that he died in 2018 (same as Michael Jackson he was born in 1958).

It is true that Myung Ho Lee’s participation in the above multi-billion fraud isn’t proof enough that he was also a charlatan and hardened rogue like the others. Like any investor he could be gullible enough to have simply fallen under their spell.

However at the very best this scam pointed to him having a penchant for what he himself accused Michael Jackson of – a weakness for “charlatans”, “hangers-on”, “hucksters”, “impostors”, “con artists”, “sycophants” and “swindlers”. And even if this was his only drawback, for a top financial advisor who advised Michael Jackson on his investments, it was a totally unacceptable flaw.

RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EVENTS

According to Myung Ho Lee’s lawsuit he began setting up investments for Michael Jackson in 1997 after being introduced to him by another Korean:

  • According to the suit, Lee began working for Jackson in 1997, giving him business and career advice and arranging loans and setting up investments, after being introduced by another Korean businessman whom Jackson met following a failed charity concert in Seoul.

In the late 1990s Michael Jackson indeed had very close ties with South Korea.  The concert called ‘failed’ in the above piece was a concert Michael wanted to arrange in the demilitarized zone between South and North Korea as a symbol of unity of all Koreans, however it was never realized for obvious reasons.

The Korean “Sad farewell to the King of Pop” reminded of it:

  • He dreamed of a fairy-tale world. He always sent out a message of peace to the world, and wanted to perform in both South and North Korea, since Korea is the only divided country on the planet. When it became difficult to perform in Pyongyang, he decided to perform in the demilitarized zone instead, and on Nov. 18, 1997, he visited Muju resort without any reservations or prior plans to make contact with Kim Dae-jung, who was a presidential candidate at the time. After that meeting, Jackson even appeared at Kim’s inauguration on Feb. 25 the following year.
  • Jackson’s contact with Korea stopped after his “Michael Jackson and Friends” charity concert in Seoul with Mariah Carey and others on June 25, 1999.

Actually the contact with Korea did not stop in 1999 as Myung Ho Lee kept advising Michael Jackson at least until 2001. And when Michael visited the Korean Muju resort in November 1997 Myung Ho Lee was already there.

MJ and Kim Dae-jung

Michael Jackson’s many connections to Korea

 2020-04-24 

Somehow, in late 1997 he began a friendship with Kim Dae-jung who was running for the top office in South Korea.

Jackson, financier George Soros and former U.S. trade negotiator Mickey Kantor took part in an international video conference meant to boost Kim’s chances. “Korea is a country of warmth, love, sincerity and complete innocence,” Jackson proclaimed with considerable grandiosity.

Kim did indeed win, and Jackson was in Seoul shortly thereafter to meet with the president-elect. They had a press conference with handshakes, bear hugs and warm words.

MJ was back two months later to witness Kim’s inauguration ceremony. Photos from that day show Jackson in bright red amid a sea of Koreans wearing black or at least dark clothes.

He returned to Korea in the summer of 1999. This was a short tour that also included a show in Munich.  His concert took place June 25, 1999.

One member of Jackson’s large and ever-changing staff was Lee Myung-ho, a U.S.-educated Korean lawyer. Lee spent a lot of time at Neverland, Jackson’s 2,700-acre estate in southern California. Lee [] filed a $12 million civil suit to compel payment for services rendered. It ended in 2003 when the two sides reached an out-of-court settlement.

Recently there was a fire at the Muju resort hotel where Michael stayed in 1997, and in this connection the Korean press recalled that Michael visited it not only to discuss that concert but also some investments and was accompanied by a “Korean-American lawyer” who was Myung Ho Lee, of course.

Michael Jackson was so much in love with Korea that he named the country “God” and left a message on the hotel nightstand calling on people to love and save children……The hotel was burned down, but room 501 where he stayed miraculously survived the fire.

This article was google translated from Korean:

The Muju Tyrol Hotel burned down… The miracle of Michael Jackson’s old room 501

2021.02.21

The Tyrol Hotel in Deogyusan Resort, Muju, Jeollabuk-do, was completely extinguished in 4 hours and 50 minutes after a fire broke out at 11:40 pm on the 20th = News

This is where Jackson, who visited Korea in 1997 to discuss investment, stayed for 3 days and 2 nights.

There were concerns that the fire that hit the hotel might have burned even the traces of Jackson, but fortunately, the damage to the room he stayed in was reported to be minor.

Jackson came to Korea to discuss investment  in the Mkji Resort Children’s Park owned by SsangBall. According to reports 24 years ago, he visited Muju with three bodyguards and a Korean-American lawyer. The group occupied the entire 5th floor of the hotel, but Jackson stayed in Suite 501.

Jackson left his mark on the wooden nightstand next to the bed in this room. “LOVE and SAVE OUR CHILDREN. KOREA IS GOD AND MUJU IS LOVE.” A picture of a human face was also engraved next to the phrase “LOVE always (Love children and save them. Korea is God and Muju is love. With eternal love)’.

Afterwards, the resort changed the name of the room to ‘Michael Jackson’s Room’ to commemorate Jackson’s stay.

During his visit to Korea, Jackson met former President Kim Dae-jung, a strong opposition presidential candidate, and returned to Korea to attend the inauguration ceremony of President Kim Dae-jung in February 1998. They even submitted a letter of intent to invest in Muju Resort, but no actual investment was made.

https://news.joins.com/article/23996631

What was Myung Ho Lee’s role in those investments? Did he have any money of his own or did he use his connections in Korea to provide funds from third parties for the proposed projects?

No, none of it. From the moment Myung Ho Lee stuck to Michael Jackson he thought of him as an endless source of money which Lee could freely invest here and there, and when he found that MJ had financial problems of his own, Lee was extremely disappointed and it was evidently due to his crushed expectations that the resort investment plans were never realized.

In fact Lee said it directly that he joined Michael only because he thought him to be “incredibly wealthy:

30 May 2003  

Lee’s lawsuit claims that he agreed to represent Jackson in the 1990s, believing that the 44-year-old former child star was “incredibly wealthy” thanks to decades as a pop icon and ownership of a large portion of the Beatles song catalog.

“At the time … there was no clue that Jackson’s extravagant lifestyle had all but bankrupted him,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit charges that Jackson had burned through hundreds of millions of dollars by 2000 and was living on lines of credit arranged by Lee.

How could Michael Jackson plan to make investments if he didn’t have spare money on his hands?

Michael was indeed “cash-poor” but was far from bankrupt – he could sell his ATV and MIJAC catalogs and get hundreds of millions in cash, however he didn’t want to part with them and instead looked for investment projects that would give him good returns and in order to finance them he was ready to take a loan backed by the music publishing rights in his possession.

Who gave him the idea to make those investments? Well, probably Myung Ho Lee did.

But was Lee qualified enough to guide others in their financial planning? Let us have a look.

MYUNG HO LEE’S BUSINESS

The only one article about Myung Ho Lee available on the Korean Internet is dated 1998.

This was a year after Lee began advising Jackson, but even then he was still “a new face on the finance market” in Korea, though a promising and ambitious one whose goal was to become “Korea’s Goldman Sachs”.

The article praised Lee for his successful resale to some foreigners of the $20mln Iranian outstanding debt to Samsung, so that Samsung finally got back their money. The article also explained the way Myung Ho Lee was doing his business.

The essence of it was to borrow money ‘from overseas’ (Michael Jackson, for example), and lend it to domestic or other companies, or provide related advice, and receive a commission in return.

His aspiration was to create Korea’s investment bank No.1 that would rival Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and JP Morgan, however since we’ve never heard of his company again, and it is not listed among any Korean financial institutions and its address belongs to a totally different company dealing in rare minerals, his goal was never realized even in its minimum.

Here is the 1998 piece about Myung Ho Lee – the only one available on the worldwide web, google translated from Korean and slightly shortened:

[Finance New Market New Face] Union Investment Finance President Myung-Ho Lee

“Become Korea’s Goldman Sachs.”

Enter 1998-11-05 19:34 Edited 2009-09-24 20:46

Union is a company that borrows money from overseas on the basis of large-scale projects, trade, and joint ventures of domestic companies, lends them to companies or provides related advice, and receives commissions in return. 

This is what investment banks that are well-known in Korea, such as Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and JP Morgan, do this. It is the No. 1 domestic investment bank.

Lee Myung-ho (40 years old) is the son of the late Foreign Minister Lee Beom-seok, who died in the 1983 bombing of the Aung San Mausoleum in Myanmar (then Burma). 

After working as a lawyer in the United States, he returned to Korea at the end of 1994. At Sonanshine Nas & Rosenthal Law Firm, where he joined after graduating from Chicago Law School, he and three other lawyers went public with Allstate Insurance, the largest in US history ($2.4 billion).

He revealed the reason for the founding of Union.

“The finance business is much more creative than the legal one. You can dynamically do things from $10 million to over $10 billion. It is also an area where Korea can do well, because there are a lot of smart people instead of a lack of natural resources.”

He spends about nine months of the year abroad. As of the 5th, he is on a business trip to Singapore, USA and South Africa on a full-day schedule. His aspirations were revealed through an international phone call from Singapore. “We will create a Korean investment bank that is recognized not only in the domestic market but also in the international market.”

▼ Biography ▼

△ Born in Seoul △ Bachelor of Economics from Yonsei University in 1982 △ Master of Business Administration from George Washington University in 1987 △ Juris Doctor from Chicago Law School in 1990 △ Lawyer at Sonanshine Nas & Rosenthal, a law firm in 1990 △ International affairs advisor to Korea Stock Exchange in 1994 △95 Feb. Established Union Investment

https://www.donga.com/news/Economy/article/all/19981105/7392970/1

With all due respect for Myung Ho Lee’s credentials his goal was not running Michael Jackson’s finances for the benefit of his client as he claimed it was.

His goal was to use Michael as a source of ‘overseas money’ which could be invested elsewhere with profits going directly into his new investment bank, or even investing Michael’s money straight into his start-up project.

In this context this piece from “Losing his grip” by Maureen Orth is seen in a totally different light:

Lee’s $12-million-plus suit claims “Jackson’s extravagant lifestyle had all but bankrupted him… Jackson never intended to put his business and personal affairs in order, but instead wished to continue to spend well beyond his means and to retain and take advice from charlatans and hangers-on.”

Jackson’s lawyers counter that Lee duped Jackson and “stole millions of dollars of Jackson’s money by … authorizing wire transfers from Jackson International to Union’s Korean accounts.”

Robert Silverman, Lee’s lawyer, scoffs at these charges. “Can you believe this guy? My client saves his life and gets him all this new financing. Michael even gives him a $400,000 car. But when it comes time to pay him, he practically denies even knowing him.”

Indeed, can we believe this guy – I mean Jackson – when he says that Myung Ho Lee stole millions from him by authorizing wire transfers from ‘Jackson International’ to his ‘Union Finance and Investment’ company in Korea?

We absolutely can.  

Myung Ho Lee set up ‘Jackson International’ and made himself president of it to be able to handle all Michael’s investments and financial operations. The fact that Lee transferred millions of dollars from Michael Jackson’s pocket to his own company’s accounts is absolutely believable because this was actually the modus operandi he openly proclaimed as the very essence of his business – “he borrows money from overseas and lends them to companies, and receives commissions in return”. 

I am even certain that after transferring Michael’s money to his investment bank he lent it to his clients in Korea and certainly at a bank interest rate. And if those companies went bust with Michael’s money invested into them, the minimal profit guaranteed to Lee was the commission he charged from his Korean clients, same as a commission he took from Michael Jackson for actually borrowing money from him.

What an unbeatable business plan that could never fail!

Myung didn’t risk any money of his own and if the investment went bad and Michael complained about the wasted funds, in the toxic media environment created by Maureen Orth and her ilk no one would believe Michael’s arguments, blaming only him for bad judgment and the grandiosity of plans.

THE DOCUMENTS

To make Michael unable to prove any embezzlement of his funds Myung Ho Lee destroyed all documentation for the whole period of his work for Jackson, except for some months in 1999 the respective papers for which were attached to his lawsuit.

Zia Modabber who represented Michael in that litigation accused Myung Ho Lee of destroying the financial records in order to cover up his misdeeds.

Fri 30 May 2003

The curtain will rise again next month in the long-running drama of Michael Jackson, this time playing out as a bitter court fight between the reclusive entertainer and a top adviser that could offer a rare glimpse into his personal life and finances.

Among the allegations that could spill into a Los Angeles courtroom are that the one-time King of Pop is broke, having squandered his fortune in “bizarre” ways while egged on by a string of “charlatans”, “hangers-on”, “hucksters”, “impostors”, “con artists”, “sycophants” and “swindlers”.

The claims are set out in a lawsuit by Jackson’s former financial advisor, Myung-Ho Lee, and his firm Union Finance and Investment Corp, who seek $US12 million for alleged breach of contract and fraud.

Jackson has counter-sued, claiming that his trusted advisor – whom he called “Lawyer Lee” – and Union Finance stole millions from him and destroyed records to cover up their misdeeds.

The complaint about the destroyed records could be regarded as a mere excuse on Michael Jackson’s part if it were not for the independent opinion of John Duross O’Bryan, the accountant who testified for the prosecution at the 2005 trial and who confirmed that the documents for that period were indeed missing.  

O’Bryan said that he was told by the prosecutors that the financial documents for the 2000s were simply “not available to him”, without an explanation why.

 TESTIMONY OF O’BRYAN May 3, 2005:

 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU:  When you began your examination by the prosecutor for the government, you indicated there was some documents that you had wanted to see if you could, but they were not available to you, right?

A.  That is correct.

Q.  And what documents were they?

A.  Those would be — well, we’d like to see financial statements for 2000 — for 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and all the way through February of 2003.  In addition to that, general ledgers, which are the summation of transactions, which become financial statements. [ ] They were just simply not made available to us.

Q.  Okay.  They were not made available to you by the prosecutor who hired you, correct?

A:  I was simply told that that information was not available to me.

Q.  BY MR. MESEREAU:  Well, you’ve never spoken to anyone on the defense side, correct?

A.  I have not, no. 

Q. Did you see any year-by-year breakdowns about what Mr. Jackson was supposedly spending this money on?

A.  Well, we showed you 1999, which summarized it by four or five different categories.  There was some information in 2000.  There was not — I don’t recall any information in ’01 or ’02. [ ] As I mentioned, we didn’t get all the financial statements and all the documents that we talked about, no.

So it is actually the prosecution witness who proved to us that most of the financial records, kept by Myung Ho Lee in those years, were really destroyed and Michael was telling the absolute truth, only no one believed him as everyone was busy swallowing those lurid voodoo stories from Maureen Orth who hang on each of Lee’s words.

Both Lee and Orth obviously knew that if you want to deflect public attention from something really important, it is enough to tell a big and spectacular lie and run with it, and everyone will follow you without looking back.

According to Maureen Orth and her “Neverland lost boys” story, Myung Ho Lee was assisted in his untiring work for Jackson by his sister So-Yung who worked at Jackson International as the chief legal officer:

  • “Lee’s sister, So-Yung [ ] was the chief legal officer for Jackson International between 1998 and 2001”

Steve Knopper, the author of “MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson” says that during the period of So-Yung’s work for Michael Jackson he gave her a Lexus car worth $50,000 and paid the rent on two Century City condos, including furnishings, utilities and cable bills. As to Myung Ho Lee, his lawyer has already told us that Michael gave him a car that cost $400,000.

Steve Knopper:

  • Eventually, Lee sued Michael, divulging juicy details in his complaint: Michael had wired $150,000 to a Mali bank to pay Baba, a voodoo chief who ritually sacrificed forty cows in a ceremony designed to curse Steven Spielberg and David Geffen. By way of response, Jackson’s attorneys accused Lee of using Michael’s assets to enrich himself in elaborate ways: he paid for his sister’s $50,000 Lexus and the rent on two Century City condos, including furnishings, utilities, and cable bills.

Thus Myung Ho Lee and his sister kept ‘advising’ Jackson for several years, never having to pay for their rent and bills, and charging Michael Jackson a commission for transferring his money to Korea, until Jackson International was finally closed in 2001.

The Celebrityaccess reports that the company was shuttered in June 2001 and this time is suggestive of a moment when Michael Jackson parted with Myung Ho Lee and his sister:

  • “…in June, Jackson shuttered Jackson International, which handled all his money and investments.” 

LAWSUIT

In April 2002 Myung Ho Lee sued Jackson claiming that on September 14, 2001 Michael allegedly signed an agreement with Lee promising to pay him $13mln in back pay.

However, considering that Michael fired him several months prior to the date of agreement, in June 2001, the story was most probably a lie – there was no reason for Michael to sign it at that moment and do it in the absence of a lawyer at that.

In fact, due to the lack of documents Myung Ho Lee could claim anything and according to one of his versions he was fired in August 2001 and then immediately rehired, right in time for the agreement 🙂 The piece where he claims it actually starts with another of his lies – about him arranging “for the $140mln loan for Jackson to buy the complete catalog of Beatles songs”.

Lee said he arranged for $140 million in 1998 for Jackson to buy the complete catalog of Beatles songs. The next year, Jackson told Lee he’d gone through the money and needed more to settle his divorce from nurse Debbie Rowe, according to the lawsuit.

Jackson fired Lee in August 2001, then immediately rehired him. It was unclear when both men went their separate ways, but it occurred sometime between fall 2001 and the filing of Lee’s lawsuit last April.

Whatever the case, Michael’s attorney Zia Modabber discovered that MJ’s signature under that agreement was forged and that Michael Jackson wasn’t even in Los Angeles at the time of its signing:

Jacko’s Defense: Was His Signature Forged?

Tuesday, July 30, 2002
By Roger Friedman

So what does Michael Jackson say about the $13 million lawsuit filed by former business manager Myung-Ho Lee?

He says in a sworn statement included in court papers that he never signed an agreement last September promising that he would pay Lee the money. His assistant says the same thing in another document and another affidavit, by a bodyguard, swears that Jackson was traveling on Sept. 14 and was not in Los Angeles at all.

Lee says that he and Jackson met in Los Angeles on Sept. 14 and that Michael signed a piece of paper admitting that he owed Lee nearly $14 million. No lawyers were present.

First, Jackson:

“I specifically looked at the signature that appears at the end of this document above my typed name. This is not my signature. I did not sign this document and have never seen [it] until a few weeks ago. I would never knowingly sign a document that expressly required me to pay over $13 million to Mr. Lee or anyone else, alone in a room and without review and counsel by one or more of my attorneys.”

If you remember, Jackson was in New York on the morning of Sept. 11, having just completed the second of his two anniversary concerts. When he heard that the World Trade Center was under attack, Jackson and his posse are said to have rented a bus and high-tailed it out of New York. If they drove directly back, they could have been in Los Angeles by the 14th.

Zia Modabber, Jackson’s litigator in this case, includes an affidavit sworn by former Los Angeles Country Sheriff Michael Laperruque, who states that he was with Jackson on Sept. 14 and that they were not in California.[ ]

More interesting, perhaps, is the story of how Michael borrowed the initial $140 million which he backed with his 50 percent ownership of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, aka the Beatles catalog.

According to statements included in Jackson’s opposition papers, a meeting took place in attorney John Branca’s suite at the swanky Waldorf Towers in New York.

Branca met with, among others, Jane Heller, Jackson’s banker from Bank of America/NationsBank since 1993.

Heller does confirm in her new statement what this column reported back in April. “I participated in and supervised perhaps as many as five financing transactions with Mr. Jackson.” What she fails to add is that each one dug his financial hole deeper — until it was so deep he couldn’t get out of it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20020814201341/https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59085,00.html

Oh, so besides forging Michael’s signature Myung Ho Lee also lied that it was him who arranged the $140mln loan?

He attributed it to himself only and though he could indeed sign it as Michael’s then chief financial advisor, now we learn that the loan was arranged by John Branca.

The Guardian confirms it:

On the surface of things, 1998 was an unremarkable year for Michael Jackson. But at the Waldorf Towers on East 50th Street in Manhattan that year – according to court documents only reported by the US media years later – something genuinely remarkable did happen. Jackson’s attorney, John Branca [ ] reportedly hosted a meeting at his Waldorf suite with Jane Heller, Jackson’s personal banker at the Bank of America.

Hence the Waldorf Towers meeting, and its highly confidential outcome. A loan would be made to Jackson from Bank of America for $140m. It was to be secured against the star’s most cherished asset – his half-ownership of the Sony/ATV music catalogue. The loan was the equivalent of at least seven years’ income for Jackson at the time. And yet, by the middle of the following year, his former business manager Myung Ho Lee would later claim, it had been depleted. It was increased to $200m.

Each new loan refinanced the previous one, and this way the $140mln loan repaid the first $90mln (also arranged by Branca) leaving Michael with about $45mln or so of available funds after deduction of the interest paid on the earlier loan. And if Michael invested those funds in some disastrous projects advised to him by Lee, that money could indeed easily vanish just within a year. 

Zia Modabber also brought it to the judge’s attention that Myung Ho Lee was not licensed to provide any financial services in California and on this basis made a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.

Having no license and not being registered by the respective authorities is actually a sure sign that the person engaged in this business is a shady character – banking institutions constantly warn people against trusting unlicensed dealers with their money, especially when the sums at stake are millions of dollars.

So it was no accident that with no license and no right to render financial services, the first thing Myung Ho Lee did after worming himself into Michael’s confidence, was pushing out John Branca and Zia Modabber “any way he could” according to Modabber.

We learn it from Steve Knopper who explains the move by Lee’s desire to “ruthlessly overhaul Michael’s finances”. But in hindsight it is obvious that Myung Ho Lee never even entertained the idea of remedying MJ’s situation – his goal was to enrich himself at Michael’s expense and consolidate his investment bank in Korea, so any lawyers who could check on him and his plans were certainly unwelcome.

According to Steve Knopper,

  • “Lee set to ruthlessly overhaul Michael’s finances. “Michael gave him all kinds of ability and authority and power, and he exercised it to push John [Branca] out, any way he could, and push me out,» says Zia Modabber, one of Michael’s longtime lawyers, who had defended him in a number of cases after the Chandler settlement turned Michael into a legal punching bag.”

Michael as a punching bag… Indeed, by organizing a brutal media campaign in April 2003 via Maureen Orth and spilling more oil into the fire after Bashir’s film, Myung Ho Lee and his other attorney Pierce O’Donnell turned Michael Jackson into a punching bag again. The goal was to present him in so ridiculous a light that no one in his right mind would believe his arguments when Myung Ho Lee sued him for those millions.

For a goal like that anything would do, and the crazier lie the better – hence the lurid 42-cows blood bath story, the voodoo stuff and wire transfers to Mali (instead of wire transfers to Korea in real life).

The name of Pierce O’Donnell in connection with this wild narrative deserves a separate comment.

Maureen Orth names Pierce O’Donnell of O’Donnell & Shaeffer of LA as Myung Ho Lee’s lead attorney, who “submitted voluminous records of Jackson’s expenses and budgets as part of their complaint to the Superior Court of California.”

The CNN article dated 1999 describes Pierce O’Donnell as part and parcel of Hollywood. This trial lawyer takes pride in embodying the skills of a film-maker, a scriptwriter and director of the performance. His main expertise lies in the area of spin and his rhetoric is said to be completely out of proportion to the case he is handling.  Actually it was O’Donnell who called Michael Jackson “a ticking financial time bomb waiting to explode at any moment” – a catch phrase that was picked by the media and circled around the globe several times over. 

This shortened piece about him makes an interesting read:

Lights! Camera! Lawsuit! Hollywood loves courtroom dramas. Pierce O’Donnell knows how to stage them.

October 11, 1999

O’Donnell belongs in the movie industry.”The trial lawyer,” he argues, “has to embody the skills of a great filmmaker. He’s a writer–he writes his own material, he outlines what his witnesses are going to say. He’s the director–he directs the performances. He’s the producer–he has to make all the physical arrangements. And he’s the actor.”

And as for the publicity problem–well, when it comes to manufacturing drama and rallying public opinion, Pierce O’Donnell is the equal of any studio.

But O’Donnell is also an expert at spin, at telling a story that paints his clients and himself in the best possible light. He paints his clients as pawns in the hands of a large, arrogant opponent–a hook that’s nearly impossible for the press to resist.

O’Donnell also has an instinct for the turn of phrase that will make it onto the evening news. His briefs are larded with florid prose that seems calculated to delight courthouse reporters.

Pretty much the only drawback to O’Donnell’s rhetoric is that it can be completely out of proportion to the cases involved.  … The other common critique of O’Donnell: that his technique of trying his entertainment industry cases in the showiest, most public fashion possible is designed to serve him, rather than the law, and has hastened the legal profession’s slide toward celebrity.

Remember, this is a man who talks about his cases in terms of movies, with himself as the filmmaker.

Didn’t all of us feel that there was an element of Hollywood make-believe to all those Myung Ho Lee’s florid stories?  And what could you expect if his attorney regarded the case in terms of movies and himself as the filmmaker???

Despite all these maneuvers the judge was obviously leaning towards Michael Jackson as several media reported that she was pondering over dismissing Lee’s case:

Judge mulls dismissing Jacko lawsuit

Jun 3, 2003

A Los Angeles judge said on Monday that she would consider throwing out a lawsuit against Michael Jackson by a former top financial advisor who claims that he is owed $12-million by the onetime King of Pop.

Superior Court Judge Andria Richey said she would also consider request from news organisations to televise the bitter court fight between Jackson and Myung-Ho Lee if it goes forward as scheduled on June 18.

Jackson’s lawyer, Zia Modabber, urged Richey to ban cameras from the courtroom, citing a worldwide media sensation during his November testimony in a central California court case.

But Kelli Sager, an attorney for CourtTV, argued that the 44-year-old superstar could not “veto” public access to a court case simply because he was unhappy with past press coverage. Jackson was not in court.

During a brief hearing on Monday, Jackson’s lawyer Zia Modabber asked Richey to dismiss the suit on the grounds that Lee was not a licensed financial advisor in California and therefore could not have signed a valid contract with Jackson.

Richey said she would rule as early as Monday afternoon on the issue and decide whether to allow cameras in court.

So the media wanted to televise the trial, same as in the Chandler 1993 case!

This is probably why Michael decided to settle with Lee and for a sum “well into seven figures” according to Randall Sullivan despite the fact that his lawsuit was nearly thrown out:

  • Though Jackson nearly had Lee’s lawsuit thrown out, the Korean’s attorneys successfully scheduled a deposition of Michael Jackson in June 2003, at which the singer’s finances would be fully explored. The day before he was to be questioned, Jackson settled out of court for a sum said to be “well into seven figures.”

And you wonder why Michael Jackson settled with the Chandlers for $15,3mln?

The fact that the Chandler’s civil trial was also to be televised is thoroughly hidden from the public eye but in 1994 the LA Times did report it on the day of Michael Jackson’s settlement with the Chandlers:

  • “Now, those immediate problems have been lifted, and he will avoid the spectacle of a nationally televised civil trial probing the most intimate aspects of his personal life.”
On January 26, 1994, the day when MJ settled with the Chandlers, LA Times revealed that the civil trial was to be televised

History virtually repeated itself. Ten years prior to Lee’s lawsuit Michael had a fight with the Chandlers and would have certainly won it, but he still chose to settle rather than have the civil court proceedings televised too and the photos of his genitalia, fully exonerating him from all allegations, shown to the public.

He just saved himself from the horrible embarrassment of it, same as he saved himself from the embarrassment of disclosing his finances to each and everyone in Myung Ho Lee’s case on national TV.

POST-SLANDER

The surprising fact about Myung Ho Lee is that even after his money problem was settled to his full satisfaction, he still continued going after Jackson.

A year after the settlement, in March 2004, Myung Ho Lee reappeared on Vanity Fair to tell new lies about MJ. The pretrial proceedings were looking into the allegations about Michael treating the Arvizo boys to wine, and Lee was quick to come up with a story that he heard a certain Japanese boy to have been given cans of Jesus Juice which actually contained wine.

Jesus Juice was indeed Michael’s word for wine, meaning that if Jesus allowed himself wine, it was okay for him too – however not to let any children see him drinking it, he ordered it in cans and not in glasses.

Maureen Orth wrote about the new story from Myung Ho Lee:

Lee says he is not surprised at the boy’s allegations. Lee was with Jackson in Tokyo in 1998, when Jackson announced with great fanfare a new venture with a Japanese consortium to open three theme parks and a chain of stores called Wonder World of Toys that would stretch across Japan. The project failed almost immediately, according to Lee, because of what happened to the 13-year-old son of one of Jackson’s Japanese partners: “During this time Michael took [the boy] to a theme park one evening. One of Jackson’s people gave Michael three soda cans full of Jesus juice. Later that evening the boy came back sick. Security informed me that he appeared drunk, and his father was very upset.”

Mind it that Lee was careful enough not to claim that it was Michael himself, but just “one of his people” who allegedly gave those cans, however the media is unable to see such nuances and turned it into another freak show about Jackson.

The wine theme naturally blurred what was apparently the real reason for Myung Ho Lee’s story – to distract attention from the fact that the investment projects under his guidance were invariably a failure and point his finger at Jackson instead.

Myung Ho Lee’s story was fully denounced by the boy. When Richard Matsuura was already 18, both he and his father called it “completely false”. Here is what Richard said on Mike Taibbi’s segment for NBC News:

  • As Taibbi reports, “Matsuura says Jackson never said or did anything inappropriate in the four days he spent in his company.” According to Taibbi, NBC News interviewed Matsuura’s father as well and he corroborated his son’s statements.

The story was just another of those innumerable lies about Jackson, but what makes it so special is that Myung Ho Lee told it and kept slandering Michael after they parted their ways, which makes me think that there is more to this person than meets the eye.  

Add to it that the media and Google are keeping away from the public even the few unpleasant facts about Myung Ho Lee reported in this post.

Indeed, it is extremely strange that any traces about Myung Ho Lee’s activity are completely deleted from the Internet and the few leftovers were found either by the alternative Duckduckgo browser or by translating the search into Korean and back 🙂

Besides, we don’t know yet what particular investments Myung Ho Lee made with Michael Jackson’s money and on what projects he squandered it.

This is really a hard task and it will have to be left for another time.

[end of part 5]

MYUNG HO LEE and HOLLYWOOD MAGIC for MICHAEL JACKSON

$
0
0

The Final Reckoning post about the mysterious Myung Ho Lee, Michael Jackson’s chief financial advisor who mishandled his millions in 1998-2001, didn’t turn out to be final after all.

Despite everything we’ve learned about this character and Michael Jackson’s not so lavish real spending, the question where the millions he borrowed from Bank of America were gone is still there.  

In a rare fit of justice towards Jackson the New York Times acknowledged in 2006 that the most probable reason for Michael’s debt mounting in the late 90s was not his ‘flagrant’ spending, which was Myung Ho Lee’s standard narrative and constant media propaganda, but bad advice from Michael’s financial advisors.  

Reporter Timothy O’Brien actually named Myung Ho Lee as the central figure responsible for Michael Jackson’s growing financial trouble. He assumed, and I fully agree with him, that the leading drain on MJ’s wealth may have been ‘the monumentally unwise investments that produced equally colossal losses’.

Myung Ho Lee

Myung Ho Lee certainly put his hand to it as he was head of “Jackson International” that handled all Michael’s funds and investments in 1998-2001.

Here are some excerpts from O’Brien’s article:

Jackson faces demise of a financial Neverland

By Timothy L. O’Brien

May 12, 2006

….Others close to Jackson say that the performer’s finances have not unwound simply because he is a flagrant spender. They say that until the early 1990s, he paid relatively close attention to his accounting and kept a watchful eye on the cash that flowed through his business and creative ventures. After that, they say, Jackson became overly enamored of something that ensnares wealthy people of all types: bad advice.

“I think after me, there were a lot of people that didn’t care. All they were interested in was what they were getting. And they killed the golden goose,” [said] Frank Dileo, who was Jackson’s manager from 1984 to 1989.

At least one of his advisers from the period contends that Jackson kept a lid on his spending until even the late 1990s.
“I didn’t ever see him take all kinds of people all around the world,” said James Morey, who served as one of Jackson’s personal managers from 1990 to 1997 (when Jackson fired him and replaced him with the Saudi sheik Prince Alwaleed bin Talal).

“Michael is very bright, and Michael pretty much knew – even when he was advised something was too expensive – if he felt it was right for the art, he had the means to pay for it. He wasn’t oblivious to what budgets were.”

Jackson also came under the sway of an assorted rotation of new advisers, who apparently convinced him to make heavy bets on sketchy investments that never panned out.

In late 1996, according to court papers, he met a Korean adviser named Myung Ho Lee who emerged as a central figure in the performer’s debt binge.

Although documents indicate that Lee brought at least two risky investment opportunities to Jackson, Lee still castigated the performer in court papers for a lack of financial discipline in 1999 and 2000. “Jackson became fixated on obtaining expensive possessions and feeding his ego by listening to the advice of hucksters and impostors,” Lee said.

The leading drain on Jackson’s ample resources may have been monumentally unwise investments that apparently produced equally colossal losses.
Malnik estimates that some of Jackson’s advisers squandered $50 million to $100 million on deals that never panned out.

Jackson also invested heavily in a short-lived entertainment Web site, hollywoodticket.com, designed to let fans interact with stars. The site’s founders, Derek Rundell and Gary Casey, became advisers to Jackson in 2000; after he dismissed them the following year, they sued him for $25 million.

It is possible that Jackson’s biggest costs may have shifted in early 2000 away from his shopping sprees to simply shouldering enormous monthly interest payments on his debt. According to one executive involved in his affairs, Jackson was making monthly payments of about $4.5 million in 2005 on $270 million in debt.

Derek Rundell and Gary “Court” Coursey were not associated with Myung Ho Lee and were sort of his rivals, but since they were mentioned here they are worth a note too.

COURT AND DEREK

The point in favor of these two young people is that when sorting through MJ’s business papers they uncovered a big fraud Michael had fallen victim to. He was led to believe that he had obtained the controlling stake in Marvel Comics though the deal was never made. The discovery came in spring 2001 and was a crushing blow to Michael – someone had been lying to him all along.

Frank Cascio describes the scene when Court and Derek told Michael that it was a fraud:

 “In their ongoing study of his financial situation, they had discovered bad news about a deal he thought was nearly complete—the move to purchase Marvel Comics. As with the Beatles catalog, which he had acquired in 1985 in a brilliant business maneuver, Michael predicted the value of Marvel, especially the potential of Spider-Man, before the films based on the comic were made. The Marvel deal had in fact fallen through, but Michael had been led to believe that the company was his. Court, Derek, and I met with him and informed him that he did not in fact own Marvel Comics and never had. Michael refused to believe it, and was angry at me—at us—for delivering this news, but finally, he put his hands over his face and started crying.

“Why do I get used and lied to like this?” he kept repeating.

[“My Friend Michael”, chapter 10]

The Marvel scam is probably where many of Michael’s millions borrowed from Bank of America went into, but it still remains to be seen who were the fraudsters behind the deal. Timewise Myung Ho Lee may be to blame as the scam occurred during his tenure with MJ and being his chief financial advisor he was obliged to know, however there is no proof that he was involved.

Besides uncovering the Marvel fraud Court and Derek helped MJ to get rid of some of his excessive business expenditure. The young and inexperienced Frank Cascio, who was Michael’s assistant then, was exasperated by the mess in Michael’s finances and hoped that Derek and Court would sort it out:

“His talent managers would be doing one deal while his business managers were negotiating a conflicting deal elsewhere. One manager was making grandiose promises to him about the deals he was making, but then he would go MIA [Missing From Action] for up to a month at a time. Michael’s organization was in a state of chaos.

The result of all this chaos was that Michael’s finances were a mess. People were taking advantage of him. His organization had umpteen offices with ridiculous expenses. People on his payroll were crisscrossing the world, flying first class, and we had no idea who was flying where or why their trip was even necessary. Michael was paying five hundred cell-phone bills every month!”

Court and Derek did indeed manage to get rid of some hangers-on in Michael Jackson’s life but they were not above taking advantage of Michael’s name and riches themselves. In fact, their cooperation with Michael started a year earlier when in May 2000 they convinced him to invest at least $2mln in their hollywoodticket.com project and when it fell through Derek’s only comment was that the project was a “disappointment”.  

It seems that most people around MJ took advantage of his generosity and regarded millions they were entrusted with as money to be freely spent without bearing any responsibility for it. Michael Jackson rarely sued of his own free will unless he had to retaliate an attack.

In 2001 Roger Friedman wrote:

Jackson also may not have been as astute as previously described in his choosing of business partners. Last year, he invested $2 million in a L.A.-based Internet outfit called Rundell & Coursey, which was launching something called HollywoodTicket.com. But that venture, conceded founder Derek Rundell yesterday, has been a “disappointment.”

Rundell and Coursey have their own legal problems. They’ve been battling a lawsuit from WebMD, the online medical site.

The NY Post described those legal problems:

WebMD charged the partners with providing false financial information to deceive WebMD into acquiring it. While the two sides settled the lawsuit, WebMD claimed in court papers that Coursey “did little more than travel on first-class airline tickets and incur business expenses for which he claimed reimbursement.”

Internet analysts say HollywoodTicket.com had the right intentions but didn’t execute them well. Idil Cakim, a senior media analyst at Cyber Dialogue, said it is possible that while the business model looked good, it was not implemented in the right way.

And the Venture Capital provided the details of their lawsuit against Michael Jackson:

“Trading on Jackson’s name didn’t save HollywoodTicket.com, which was out of business less than a year after it had launched. Still, Rundell and Coursey managed to sign a deal with Jackson in May 2001 to provide him financial “advice, consultation, and assistance” over a three-year period. The agreement called for the pair to be paid $60,000 a month. It also stipulated that Jackson had just 60 days to back out of the arrangement, which had been made retroactive to April 2001.

When Jackson fired them roughly two months later, on July 3, 2001, they filed a $25 million lawsuit against him.”

In fact, Jackson did back out 60 days later, in full accordance with the agreement but the lawsuit still claimed a breach of contract. The demand for $25 million was outrageous, especially considering that the two guys had earlier mishandled at least $2 million of Michael’s money.

The lawsuit was dismissed but only after the Jackson side countersued them for fraud in January 2002. The dispute seemed to continue until the beginning of 2003 and ended in a settlement for an unknown sum.

Characteristically, the media gleefully reported the $25 million lawsuit against MJ, but didn’t say a word about Michael Jackson’s counter lawsuit. This was no accident – every new complaint was used by the media to portray him as a conceited star who took advantage of his assistants who selflessly worked for him without getting paid. And the crazy sums of those lawsuits were presented as a sort of ‘proof’ of his guilt.

And Court & Derek’s lawsuit was no different. It was strategically filed on the day of Michael Jackson’s concert on September 7, 2001 at Madison square, and the media certainly went into a frenzy over it.

JACKO GETS WACKOED BY $25M SUIT, rejoiced the anonymous ‘Yahoo Travel’ in the NY Post.

KING OF POP MOUNTS HIS WOBBLY THRONE. A GODFATHER, TWO DRAMA QUEENS… AND ANOTHER NASTY LAWSUIT, echoed the Guardian.

A couple of years later a piece in the UK Telegraph headlined INSIDE THE COURT OF THE KING OF POP presented Michael Jackson as a tyrant and his business advisors as his ‘loyal servants’. Everyone who knew Michael personally must have been shocked to read that

“Jackson has long believed in ruling by fear and intimidation. He has hired and fired his way through hundreds of business advisers. Michael Jackson is master of creating uncertainty and discomfort among his entourage.”

No wonder then that in this shameless media environment, which was constantly craving for Michael Jackson’s blood, Myung Ho Lee and many others felt completely safe and even encouraged to waste away his millions, and when their projects invariably failed, sue him for his money after they themselves grossly mismanaged it.

OTHERS

When Myung Ho Lee sneered at the “charlatans, hangers-on, hucksters, con artists, sycophants and swindlers” around Jackson who squandered his fortune in “bizarre ways”, I imagined that he referred to people like Dieter Wiesner, who operated somewhat apart from Myung Ho Lee and over whom Lee seemed to have no control.

Imagine my shock at the news that Wiesner’s licensing project for using Michael’s likeness on German merchandise was endorsed by Myung Ho Lee himself!

This nuance is revealed by Steve Knopper in his book about Michael Jackson’s finances which lists Lee’s help to Wiesner’s company as part of his accomplishments:

With Lee’s help, Michael paid $7.4 million to MJ Net, a German entertainment-memorabilia company, for use of his likeness on products, including a state-of-the-art audio speaker system with photos of Michael on the front panels.

He invested $2 million in a fuel-cell technology company.  

He was «extremely interested» in a company that had engineered a magnetic motor, for use as a high-efficiency generator, and attempted to invest $10 million before reducing his stake to $2 million.  

For all these deals, Lee took a 2.5 percent fee.  

….“Michael gave him all kinds of ability and authority and power, and he exercised it to push John [Branca] out, any way he could, and push me out,” says Zia Modabber, one of Michael’s longtime lawyers.  

[MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson, by Steve Knopper]

So Myung Ho Lee ‘helped’ Michael to invest $2 million in a fuel-cell technology company (Neo-Genesis) and another $2 million in a magnetic motor project, and was instrumental in the creation of Wiesner’s company in Germany.  All three ventures brought only losses but Lee still charged Michael a 2.5% fee for his assistance. And this could be the tip of the iceberg only.

The story about Michael investing $7.4 million in MJ Net is disputed by Wiesner whose lawsuit claims exactly the opposite and says that it was he who paid MJ for the exclusive license to use his name and logo on various merchandise, which definitely sounds more logical to me.

Whatever the case, Myung Ho Lee was still involved in the creation of Wiesner’s company in his hometown Frankfurt, and we even remember Maureen Orth mentioning that Lee travelled there together with Michael Jackson.

The MJ Net was set up on September 30, 2000 which was when Myung Ho Lee still oversaw all Michael’s investments and was supposed to provide legal back-up for his deals. Lee was actually a lawyer trained at the University of Chicago and according to Maureen Orth of the Vanity Fair his sister, So-Yung, was the chief legal officer at Jackson International from 1998 to 2001.

In the absence of John Branca and Zia Modabber, who had been ousted by the two Koreans, the Lees were certainly responsible for the legal side of the MJ Net project same as all other Michael Jackson’s investment deals, at least until June 2001 when Jackson International was dissolved.  

But their legal supervision of the MJ Net deal was so inadequate that it cost millions to Michael.

Wiesner’s complaint said that the contract was giving him the exclusive right to use Michael Jackson’s likeness on various merchandise produced in Germany and worldwide, however it was to come into effect only after Michael Jackson’s written notice that he had terminated his prior merchandising agreement – with Signatures Network, formerly Sony Network.

His lawsuit claimed that:

  • “On or about January 8, 2001, Jackson gave MJ Net written notice of the termination of the Signatures Agreement” but “Jackson knew or should have known that Signatures’ position was that its agreement was not terminated, and that Signatures would take legal action against Jackson and MJ Net to preserve its rights.”
  • “As a result of Jackson’s breach of the Agreement plaintiff has suffered damages in at least the amount of (1) the $1.4 million deposit; (2) the $6 million in initial advances; and (3) lost profits from the exploitation of the Licenses Marks which plaintiff is informed and believes is in excess of $50,000,000.”

All in all, Wiesner sued Michael Jackson for a crazy sum of $64 million, including the $7.4 mln in the initial investment and pay for the license, the $1.6 mln settlement with Signatures (Sony) Network, plus interest, ‘lost profits’ and whatnot.

Dieter Wiesner sued Michael Jackson for $64 milion

The Spiegel article published in 2011 revealed that the lawsuit ended in September 2007 when Michael Jackson signed a confidential settlement with Wiesner and agreed to pay him $3.48 million.

Those interested may have a look at the details:

26.04.2011

Wiesner met Jackson in 1994, when he got the singer interested in a peach-flavored energy drink called “MJ Mystery Drink.” Wiesner eventually became Jackson’s manager.

On Sept. 30, 2000, the Frankfurt-based company MJ Net Entertainment managed to obtain a licensing agreement with Jackson and his company Triumph International, possibly through Wiesner’s intercession. The artist wished to produce and merchandise certain products which bear his name, his symbols, logos, brands, designs and images or photographs of him. MJ Net, as the license holder retained the sole and unconditional right to enter into third-party contracts concerning production or matters relating to licensed products. Any T-shirts or other items bearing the artist’s image would garner royalties for MJ Net, and Jackson himself, according to the company’s business plan, was to have a stake in the company.

That euphoria was short-lived. [ ] It appears that the whole business of royalties was never carried out entirely correctly. Signature Network, an American company, claimed similar rights — apparently Jackson had sold off his rights at least twice.

MJ Net had to be dissolved in 2004 and the district court in Frankfurt declined to open insolvency proceedings against the company due to a lack of sufficient assets. The company had made just €871 ($1,270) in revenue in 2002, according to an expert insolvency review.

The courts were unable to ascertain whether fraud had occurred, but in January 2007, Wiesner was sentenced to a fine of €25 per day for 90 days, for delaying insolvency proceedings.

It’s unlikely the fine caused Wiesner many sleepless nights. After Jackson fired him as an advisor, Wiesner sued the musician and his company Triumph in a Los Angeles court, asserting his right to compensation for unpaid work performed in his role as manager.

To settle the disagreement, both parties signed a confidential settlement agreement and mutual statement, not previously revealed to the public, on Sept. 14, 2007. With his large, looping signature, Jackson agreed to pay Wiesner a total of $3.48 million.

Dieter Wiesner should be given merit for not saying a bad word about Michael in his interviews and book “Michael Jackson: The Real Story”, but his narrative definitely misses a chapter about the MJ Net failure and his lawsuit against Michael all of which Wiesner chose to omit. 

But putting aside Wiesner’s role in this unsavory story and the gigantic sum he claimed from Michael Jackson, let us look at a person who provided Michael with that notorious note terminating his previous merchandising agreement, which set the ball rolling and resulted in all the mishaps.

Who could that person be? Was it Michael Jackson himself who sorted out the legal problem with a company called Signatures Network?

Certainly not, so in search for the responsible party let us go over the facts again.

The termination note was submitted on January 8, 2001, when all Michael’s finances and investments were handled by Jackson International which was dissolved only in June 2001, and even after that Myung Ho Lee claimed that he was still working for Michael.

We also remember Zia Modabber’s comment that Myung Ho Lee exercised the power of attorney given to him to push out both Zia and John Branca “any way he could”.

With these two key lawyers out of the picture Myung Ho Lee remained the only person who 1) supervised that deal and 2) could settle a purely legal dispute with the former Sony Network. Apparently, he never did and instead provided MJ with a fake termination note which eventually made him face a multi-million lawsuit.

So the line in Wiesner’s complaint stating that Michael Jackson “knew or should have known” must be actually read as “he didn’t know” and the fault for misinforming Michael surely rests with Myung Ho Lee. This cannot be proven by documents as Lee actually destroyed all records of his business activity for Jackson (see the previous post for that), but all evidence points to him being the central problem in that situation.

For some reason not a single media outlet reported Myung Ho Lee’s misdeeds – his name has always been mysteriously protected from any criticism. As if following the orchestra conductor all media picked up his lurid stories about Jackson told to Maureen Orth of the Vanity Fair and repeated his every lie, but suppressed the truth about Lee’s personality and business activity – so his huge damage to Michael Jackson’s reputation and finances still remains unknown.

MYUNG HO LEE and MARCEL AVRAM

Despite the media effort to cover up for Myung Ho Lee’s misdeeds, there are some clues indicating that the damage he did to Michael was not accidental and that it was malicious sabotage on his part, done in a sophisticated and seemingly innocent way.

Various incidents here and there suggest that sometime around 2000 Lee began to covertly work against Michael to deplete his finances and undermine his credibility and reputation.

The destruction of financial records, his role in providing the invalid termination note, and his several years of vicious slander against Michael in the Vanity Fair are only some instances of the above.

His method was to let Michael down by disinformation and then make him face the music.

A strange incident confirming this conclusion took place when Myung Ho Lee was in cooperation with Marcel Avram, the promoter of Michael Jackson’s charity concerts in Seoul and Munich in June 1999.

Myung Ho Lee boasted that he was part of the deal. This follows from his lawsuit which says that besides the (failed) Neo-Genesis deal on fuel-cell technology he also made deals for Jackson with Cheil Samsung of Korea:

“Besides the loans, Lee says he made deals for Jackson with Cheil (Samsung) of Korea, as well as with Neo Genesis, a company Lee says was involved in fuel cell technology.”

Neo-Genesis disappeared from the Internet without leaving a trace, while Cheil companies are numerous as Cheil translates from Korean as “best”. However, the only Cheil company under Samsung is Cheil Worldwide Inc., a marketing company that offers advertising, public relations, etc.

Until 2008 it was called Cheil Communications, and Cheil Communications was indeed involved with Michael Jackson – initially they promoted his concert in October 1998 in Panmunjom, the truce village between North and South Korea but that plan was cancelled “due to negative public opinion and complications involving military issues”.  

And a year later Cheil Communications promoted Michael’s charity concert in Seoul, which took place on June 25, 1999, and was called “Michael Jackson and friends”. Myung Ho Lee’s part in the project seems to be nothing much – he just brought together Cheil Communications and Marcel Avram who was producing the concerts.

Two days after the charity concert in Seoul, Jackson was performing in Munich and this is where a tragic accident took place – the bridge on which Michael Jackson was standing fell from a 10m height and this resulted in a heavy injury to his spine. Frank Cascio never understood why they were not allowed to call an ambulance and had to cruise around the city in search of a hospital while Michael was in the back seat in a half-conscious state.

The responsibility for the accident certainly rested with the director of the show Kenny Ortega and concert organizer Marcel Avram.

This German TV video reminds us of the accident and says that Michael crashed at a speed of 20km an hour. However, Marvel Avram shrugged off Michael’s injuries as insignificant. “That’s like football”, he said:

Michael Jackson didn’t sue Avram or Ortega for the irreparable damage to his spine that was revealed only later and the incessant back pain that plagued him forever after. As I’ve already said he rarely sued unless he had to counter other people’s complaints.

Instead, it was Marcel Avram who sued Jackson for his alleged refusal to perform at two millennium concerts that were to take place on December 31, 1999, and were meant to compensate for the losses Avram allegedly sustained at the two charity concerts.

Michael Jackson argued that it was Avram who cancelled the millennium shows for fear that they would not be profitable, but in the media hysteria that followed no one was actually listening.

The BBC reported:

Tuesday, 27 June, 2000

Jackson sued over millennium shows

A German concert promoter is suing pop superstar Michael Jackson for over $20m for allegedly pulling out of two concerts to mark the new millennium.

Marcel Avram, who has promoted Jackson since 1972, filed a suit in the California Superior Court in Los Angeles seeking damages of $21.2m (£14.1m) plus interest.

Avram claims Jackson pulled out of a deal signed in the spring of 1999 for him to perform at the millennium events which were to take place in Sydney, Australia, and Honolulu.

A statement issued by Avram’s company, Mama Concerts & Rau, said he had tried for six months to reach an amicable agreement with Jackson – who is said to have received a $1m (£667,000) advance on the deal – but without success, even though there was no get-out clause in the contract.

Avram last hit the headlines in December 1997, when he was jailed for three and a half years in Germany on 12 counts of tax evasion.

By the way, when Marcel Avram was sentenced to three and a half years in jail Michael Jackson didn’t give up on him and visited him in prison though Avram had been abandoned by many of his other clients. Avram was released after serving only 9 months out of his sentence.  

Though Avram lost many clients during his jail stint, Jackson remained and even visited him in prison. Avram was released in April 1999 after serving nine months of a three-and-a-half-year sentence.

Since Michael Jackson’s concerts took place just two months after Avram’s release his friend Michael was obviously the first person Avram turned to in an effort to mend his dire situation.

Frank Cascio commented that:

“Avram was out of pocket again, and so, not surprisingly, he sued Michael for millions of dollars, blaming him for the millennium concert cancellations, as well as for the resulting damages.”

But even the $21 mln claim wasn’t enough for the grateful promoter.

In January 2002 Marcel Avram filed one more lawsuit against Michael Jackson – this time for the damages never sustained but only ‘anticipated’. Upon hearing that Michael was thinking of a tour to promote the Invincible album, Avram claimed that MJ had broken his promise to let him organize his next tour. The promise was allegedly given to Avram when he sued Michael Jackson the first time.

I know it sounds complicated but Marcel Avram actually sued Michael Jackson three times – the first lawsuit was in 1994 for pulling out of the Dangerous tour when Michael was under much stress over the Chandler allegations, was unable to adequately function and needed to go to a rehab. MTV reported that the sum claimed by Avram was more than $40 mln:

In 1994, the promotion firm sued Jackson for more than $40 million, after he canceled a total of 19 dates of the Dangerous tour. At the time, Jackson faced allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor, although the official reason given for the cancellation was that he was addicted to painkillers. The matter was settled out of court.

Other media said that the claim was $20 million, but this was probably the final sum for which Marcel Avram agreed to settle after making Michael promise that his next series of concerts would be promoted by him. And in 2002 Avram somehow managed to link that old promise with the prospect of the Invincible tour.

Incidentally, the many millions paid by Michael Jackson to Marcel Avram for cancelling the Dangerous dates, coupled with the $15,3 mln paid to the Chandler extortionists, were actually a trigger for Jackson’s further financial trouble.

Here is a summary of all Avram’s litigation against Jackson in case you are still confused:

Marcel Avram: “He had some pain, but that’s like football”

MICHAEL JACKSON TAKES STAND IN MILLENNIUM CONCERT LAWSUIT

JENNIFER VINEYARD  November 13, 2002

Michael Jackson took the stand Wednesday to defend himself against a concert promoter’s lawsuit accusing him of fraud and breach of contract.
Marcel Avram, a European concert promoter who has worked with Jackson since 1972, filed suit in June 2000, claiming the singer cost him $21 million when he allegedly abandoned plans to perform two millennium concerts on both sides of the international date line.

Attorney Louis “Skip” Miller told the court that Avram was left with hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses after Jackson backed out of the shows. Jackson attorney Zia Modabber countered by saying Avram wanted out of the shows after two charity concerts also involving Jackson failed to make a profit. Those shows were held in Seoul, South Korea, and Munich, Germany, in June 1999.

Avram testified that his contract with Jackson called for two for-profit millennium concerts and two charity concerts and that when the charity shows lost money, he expected to recoup his losses with the millennium concerts but could not when Jackson backed out in October 1999. He said he lost even more money on advance event and production costs — about $10 million — as well as a $1.2 million advance paid to Jackson for the millennium shows. The promoter estimated he lost another $10 million in earnings for the two concerts and the worldwide television rights he had secured.

The suit isn’t the first Avram has filed against Jackson.

In 1994 Avram’s promotion firm sued Jackson for $20 million after the singer failed to complete his 1993 Dangerous world tour, claiming fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. Jackson had canceled 19 Avram-promoted concerts.

Avram settled the lawsuit after obtaining an agreement that he would have the rights to promote the singer’s next series of concerts.
So when Jackson allegedly went shopping around for a new promoter when it came time to promote Invincible, Avram sued him again. Though the tour never came to pass, Avram filed a $20 million complaint for anticipatory breach of contract, breach of contract and fraud. That suit is still pending.

As a side note please compare the above with a short piece below – will you notice anything wrong there?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is avram-allegedly-gave-mj-11.2mln-in-advance.-real-figure-1.2mln.-irishtimes.com-3.png
Fake news about MJ claiming that Avram paid Michael Jackson the advance of $11.2 million instead of $1.2m.

Fake news didn’t start yesterday – it started with the media’s massive lies about Michael Jackson. The above was just one example out of many from the Irish times quoting AFP (Agence France-Presse). Look at the easy way they turned the $1.2 million advance into $11.2 million – just by increasing it tenfold!

~

Within a short period around 2000 lawsuits against Michael were piling up in a kind of an avalanche – $25 mln were claimed by Court and Derek, $13 mln by Myung Ho Lee, $64 mln by Dieter Weisner, $21 mln by Marcel Avram and then $20 mln again – and these were only some of the lawsuits filed by 2003.

The media were ecstatic. The very least they lied about MJ was that he was a wildly extravagant spender whose lifestyle allegedly demanded $8 mln per month (another fake as the sum was per year) but didn’t pay to all those wonderful people who did him so much ‘good’.

The jurors are susceptible to public pressure, so it is no surprise that amid all the hysteria in March 2003 the Santa Barbara jury decided against Jackson and ordered him to pay Avram $5.3 million.

Three months later, in June 2003 just as the judge was about to throw out Myung Ho Lee’s lawsuit, Michael settled with Myung Ho Lee for a sum “well into seven figures” though his contract with Michael as a basis for his lawsuit was obviously fake – it was signed in Michael’s absence, had a forged signature under it and was invalid at least due to his lack of license to act as a financial advisor.

But Myung Ho Lee threatened to divulge the secrets of Michael’s explosive financial situation and, same as in the Chandler case, if it came to a civil trial it was to be televised…

This fear-for-bad-publicity trend started in 1994 with a settlement agreement with the Chandlers despite Michael’s complete innocence, and since that time it went on and on until his dying day. Michael found himself in a vicious circle – the bigger the number of lawsuits and the crazier the sums, the less chance he had to win the case. Struck by the sheer number of lawsuits, the huge money they claimed, and guided by the media in blaming MJ irrespective of the circumstances, the jury and public considered him responsible almost by default.

But what about Myung Ho Lee and his part in the Avram drama?

Avram accused Michael of cancelling the millennium concerts, and Michael said that Avram cancelled them himself for fear of no profit. However, Frank Cascio gives away the big secret that it was neither Avram nor Michael, but Myung Ho Lee who misinformed Michael about that cancellation.

Cascio was a direct witness to a conversation with Myung Ho Lee when the latter called Michael at Neverland:

“I was in Michael’s room at Neverland when Myung-Ho Lee called to tell Michael that the shows had been canceled. I never knew whether it was Michael or Avram who called them off—later, in court, each would contend that it was the other—but when Michael took the call, he seemed both happy that he would now be able to spend Christmas with his kids and the family and a bit regretful to be letting down his fans.” [“My Friend Michael”, chapter 10]

The above could be regarded as a chance mishap and unfortunate misunderstanding, but you remember that Myung Ho Lee let Michael down in January 2001 again and in a similar way too – by providing him with an invalid termination note of the earlier license agreement and misinforming Michael about its status.

It seems that misinforming Michael Jackson on some crucial issue and then making him reap the resulting lawsuits became a pattern with Myung Ho Lee and his signature style with Jackson. And each time it could be explained as a mere misunderstanding.

Besides all that Myung Ho Lee devised one more project for Michael Jackson that evidently created a big hole in his budget, but it is totally unknown to the public as there isn’t a single mention of it in the press.

MYUNG HO LEE’S MAGIC

This secret project was launched in May 2000 and was probably Lee’s biggest enterprise that ripped Michael Jackson of the bulk of his money.

The Internet provides zero information about it, and the only clue that it ever took place was left by none other than Maureen Orth.

Her “Losing his grip” article published in April 2003 – which certainly accidentally coincided with the media storm around MJ and Bashir’s film – opened with Myung Ho Lee’s story that David Geffen and Steven Spielberg were on the top of Michael’s enemy list and a crazy description of a blood bath voodoo ritual against these people attributed to MJ.

Maureen Orth was so carried away by Lee’s fairy tales that in her zeal mentioned a certain Tim Nelson who ridiculed Michael Jackson and turned him into a laughing stock in connection with a multitude of his business projects.  

Here is an excerpt:

“In May 2000, Tim Nelson of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, upon hearing that Jackson was taking “the helm of a $100 million Korea-based venture fund that will invest in entertainment-oriented Internet companies,” listed nine other Jackson projects and asked readers to guess which ones were “actually in the pipeline.” His answer: “All of them! Every one! Coming soon to a vacant lot near you!”

Wait a minute, so Michael Jackson “took the helm of a $100 million Korea-based venture fund in May 2000″?

The fact-check confirmed that Tim Nelson indeed used to be a correspondent for St. Paul Pioneer Press, however the respective piece about MJ was missing from his reports.

Maureen Orth also mentioned a certain Kathleen A. Kelly, “an investment banker who in 2000 went to work for Jackson International” who had a mandate from “Magic2 Venture Partners to raise a pool of money to invest in companies and provide Michael an outlet for other ventures he wanted to pursue.”

“[Kelly] lined up as advisory executives Kathleen Kennedy, a co-producer of many of Steven Spielberg’s films, and Casey Silver, former chairman of Universal Pictures. Jackson was supposed to contribute $5 million to the fund, but Kelly says that never happened. She got the salary she was promised, $20,000 a month, only “four or five times.” Kelly, whose $1.95 million lawsuit was dismissed in Los Angeles last December because of venue, is now resubmitting it in New York, the locale where she conducted much of her business.” [“Losing his grip”]

Maureen Orth’s article is the only source available on the Internet regarding the mysterious $100 mln fund that involved Jackson International and its Magic2 partners. Surprisingly, this particular segment of her story was not even copy-pasted by others and was repeated nowhere else.

However the laborious process of translating the search words into Korean and then back did bring some results – it turned out that in May 2000 the Korean media published several articles reporting that venture.

All the articles are Google translated from Korean, so it is not always easy to figure out the details of the project. Some may contradict the other, but if the most informative of them is correct, we may be sure that in 2000 Myung Ho Lee embezzled over $30 million of Michael Jackson’s money.

Below is a guide through the Korean press which reported the story on May 9, 2000:

Magic Square Fund’ worth 200 billion won, created simultaneously in Korea and the US

2000-05-09

A venture fund worth 200 billion won to intensively foster digital entertainment will be created in Korea and the United States at the same time.

Wise-Tomorrow Investment, a start-up investment company, and Union Financial Investment, an international financial advisory company, announced on the 9th that they plan to create a 100 billion won fund each in Korea and the US under the name of ‘Magic Square’.

In particular, the fund created this time attracts attention of Hollywood celebrities such as world-famous pop singer Michael Jackson and ‘Jurassic Park’ producer Casey Silver, Korean producer Joo Cheol-hwan, and writer Jin-na Song [who will] participate as advisors. Among them, Michael Jackson and Casey Silver are known to be pursuing direct investments worth $10 million.

The organizers of the fund plan to establish Magic Square Korea and Magic Square USA respectively to operate the fund locally. In particular, [they] plan to invest mainly in venture companies at the start-up stage before going public.

The first fund formation is by the end of this month, and the second fund is [to be] created in June. Of the funds created, 30% will be cross-invested in Korea and the US, and the remaining 70% will be managed in their own countries.

The Magic Square Fund, with a management period of 5 years, is worth 50 million won or more per share, and more than one subscription is possible. The investment briefing session will be held at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Gangnam, Seoul on the 12th at 4 pm.

https://www.donga.com/news/Economy/article/all/20000509/7533617/1

Let us start with the 200 billion won first.

Today 200 billion won are equal to approximately $170,270,000. In May 2000 the exchange rate was different ($1 =1110 won) and the same 200 billion came to about $180,200,000. So the planned budget of the project was roughly $180 mln.

Now here is the rest of the story.

In May 2000 a startup company named Wise-Tomorrow Investment (now defunct) and the barely unknown Myung Ho Lee’s company Union Finance Investment set up in 1998 (defunct too), created a joint venture called “Magic Square Fund” which was to operate in the two countries as Magic Square Korea and Magic Square USA.

Each was supposed to raise 100 billion won or approximately 90 million US dollars.

30% of the funds were to be cross-invested (the US fund would invest 30% of its money in the Korean fund, and vice versa).

The project attracted several celebrities including Michael Jackson and Casey Silver, former chairman of Universal Pictures, who were to make a direct investment worth $10 million.  Some other people were mentioned but probably as the fund’s potential advisors only.

~

The next article provided more detail.

It said that the main partner of Magic Square USA was Jackson International run by Myung Ho Lee, and that from that moment on Lee would manage Magic Square USA too.  

In fact, Myung Ho Lee looked like the central figure of the whole thing as his own company Union Finance Investment was to act as an advisor to both Magic Square Korea and USA:

Video-specialized fund, established at the same time in Korea and the United States [by] Wise Tomorrow / Union Finance worth 100 million dollars each

2000.05.09 

A video-specialized venture fund in which world-famous pop singer Michael Jackson and broadcast writer Ji-na Song participate as investment advisors will be created at the same time in Korea and the United States.

Wise Tomorrow Investment (CEO Kim Jung-sil and Kim Tae-han), a start-up investment company, and Union Financial Investment (CEO Lee Myung-ho), an international financial advisory firm, are jointly working on a 100 billion won domestic venture fund “Magic Square Korea.”

Wise Tomorrow is in charge of the recruitment and operation of Magic Square Korea.
In the case of Magic Square [USA], Jackson International, in which Michael Jackson holds a 100% stake, will participate as a general partner and manage the fund.
Union Financial Investment will act as an advisor to the two funds.

In particular, Magic Square Korea will invest 30% of the amount raised in Magic Square in the United States, paving the way for domestic investors to indirectly invest in promising venture companies in the United States.

In these funds, Hollywood celebrities such as Michael Jackson, former chairman of Universal Studios Casey Silver, who produced Jurassic Park, and Kassie [Kathleen] Kennedy, who produced Star Wars, Sixth Sense, etc. will not only discover promising digital entertainment ventures in the startup stage and before IPO, but also support overseas expansion of domestic investment companies and strategic alliances between investment companies.

In addition, as these advisors plan to invest directly in the fund, active activities are expected, said Wise Tomorrow.
Wise Tomorrow Investment and Union Financial Investment will hold an investment briefing session at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Seoul on the 12th. On this day, investment management members of Magic Square in the US will visit Korea and introduce activities in the US and the growth of the entertainment industry around the world.
https://www.hankyung.com/news/article/2000050863261

Now we learn that within the mutual program of “cross investments” Magic Square Korea was to invest 30% of its money in Magic Square USA.  Michael Jackson, Casey Silver and Kathleen Kennedy were mentioned as advisors who would “discover promising entertainment ventures” on the Internet and also “plan to invest directly in the fund”.

Kathleen Kelly was mentioned too – among the project organizers as a “member of the fund management committee” who was supposed to come to Korea and hold an investment briefing there.

See here:

The Magic Square Korea Fund has a management period of five years, and Kathryn Kelly, a member of the fund management committee on the US side, and Louis Gillivalty, a consultant in the media field, will visit Korea and hold an investment briefing session at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Seoul on the 12th . 

https://www.mk.co.kr/news/home/view/2000/05/51854/

~

The third article was even more informative and added to the above a crucial piece of news.

It turned out that besides the plan to mutually invest in each other’s funds, Myung Ho Lee’s company Union Finance was also acting separately and had already received its 30%. And the investment came from Jackson International, Michael’s company headed by Myung Ho Lee!

Simultaneous formation of global digital entertainment in Korea and the United States

Issue Date: 2000.05.09

A large-scale digital entertainment venture fund dedicated to investing in entertainment fields such as movies, games, animations, the Internet, and related solutions with the participation of domestic and foreign celebrities will be formed simultaneously in Korea and the United States.

Separately, Union Financial Investment received a 30% investment as a general partner from Jackson International, where global pop star Michael Jackson owns 100% of the shares, and is developing businesses such as licensing and theme park projects, to create a “Magic Square” worth 100 million dollars and plans to link and operate it with “Magic Square Korea Fund”.

The US “Magic Square Fund” to be established and managed will mainly invest in venture companies related to overseas entertainment. The two funds also plan to mutually invest 30% of the total amount raised.

This fund formation is noteworthy in that it is the first case in the United States and Korea to be established with the same name at the same time.

In particular, Hollywood giants such as Michael Jackson, former president of Universal Studios who produced Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List, Kassie [Kathleen] Kennedy, producer of Star Wars and The Sixth Sense, and Carrie Fisher, an actor and writer as the owner of the Hollywood Network. A large number of domestic experts such as producer Joo Cheol-hwan, and writer Song Ji-na have participated in the investment and review advisory committee and are attracting attention.

Wise Tomorrow Vice President Kang Hee-bong said, “Strategic alliances between the companies invested by Magic Square Korea and the companies invested by Magic Square are possible, which will help domestic venture companies to establish a foundation for becoming a global company from the initial stage.” Union’s Dr. Sehwan Lee expected that “Magic Square Korea Fund will contribute to raising the level of the Korean Internet industry and entertainment industry to the next level”.

Meanwhile, it is known that Magic Square and Magic Square Korea Fund’s manager are already conducting investment reviews for 10 domestic and foreign venture companies related to media, content, and solutions, including B2C in the Internet entertainment field, prior to the formation of the fund.

https://www-etnews-com.translate.goog/200005090151?m=1&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=nui

Now it turns out that Carrie Fisher, an actress, writer and owner of the Hollywood Network, was also part of the team, but probably as an advisor only. Two people on the Korean side are said to have participated in the investments.

But the key point in the above piece is, of course, the following part which requires a second look:

Each word in the above is important, so let them sink in: Union Finance – received – separately – 30% – from Jackson International – plans – link with Magic Square Korea – $100 million.

When brought together they mean that Myung Ho Lee, who was head of Jackson International, took 30% of the required $90-$100 mln sum from Michael Jackson’s company as some kind of ‘investment’ and transferred it to the account of his company, and this was done separately, under the pretext of only planning to invest it into “Magic Square Korea Fund”!

30% of the budget of each fund amounted to $30 million or more, and this means that by May 2000 at least $30 million had been stolen from Michael Jackson and transferred to Lee’s account. 

All that time Myung Ho Lee was said to be working on licensing projects (Wiesner’s company?) and the development of some theme parks in an alleged effort to create the Magic Square USA sometime later.

Of course, we remember Kathleen Kelly claiming that MJ didn’t pay his promised share of $5 mln, but one thing does not rule out the other – Michael may have not paid the official contribution same as other US investors didn’t, but $30 million of his money could be still embezzled by Myung Ho Lee, and it is highly unlikely that Lee would have disclosed this fact to his partner Kathleen Kelly.

Actually, the embezzlement of Michael’s money was mentioned even in the “Losing his Grip” article. Despite the absence of financial documentation destroyed by Myung Ho Lee, Michael’s lawyers established that Lee had transferred millions of Jackson’s money to Korean accounts and stolen millions from him that way.

Maureen Orth was reckless enough to let us know about the lawyers’ discovery, but she brushed it aside as some nonsense:

“Lee’s $12-million-plus suit claims “Jackson’s extravagant lifestyle had all but bankrupted him. [ ] Jackson’s lawyers counter that Lee duped Jackson and “stole millions of dollars of Jackson’s money by … authorizing wire transfers from Jackson International to Union’s Korean accounts.”

Robert Silverman, Lee’s lawyer, scoffs at these charges. “Can you believe this guy? My client saves his life and gets him all this new financing. Michael even gives him a $400,000 car. But when it comes time to pay him, he practically denies even knowing him.”

And now we know that this was TRUE.

Apparently, the whole idea of Myung Ho Lee’s project was to steal Michael Jackson’s money by making legal transfers to his Korean accounts and this is probably the real reason why those two funds were created. If tens of millions of dollars were sent from one fund to the other within their so-called program of “mutual investments”, these operations would be subject to no suspicion and could look like perfectly legitimate business.

The transfer of millions from the US to Lee’s company in Korea was also in line with his plans to turn himself into a Korean “Goldman Sachs” by “borrowing money from overseas and lending it to domestic companies at a commission.” 

It seems that no other Americans except Michael Jackson were robbed of their money, otherwise we would have heard of their lawsuits, at least from Casey Silver who was also supposed to contribute $5 million. But there were no complaints, same as there was no sign that the funds ever existed, with one exception though – these two documents from the Delaware official records which are provided below.

One document is for Magic2 Venture Partners and the other is for Jackson Magic 2 Venture Partners L.L.C. Both companies were created on May 3, 2000, were never closed and are still there on the Delaware register:

If we are to believe the above records the two companies have been operating for 21 years already (!), only their address is wrong, status unknown and nobody knows what they do and who is running this business.

In short, the Magic Square project was pure magic, and one more piece from the Korean press added to all this witchcraft the final and somewhat ridiculous touch – it named Cher as one of the Fund’s investment advisors.

Hollywood giants such as Sher [Cher] participated as investment advisors.

http://m.inews24.com/v/4197

Cher may be a ‘Hollywood giant’ but she is definitely no investment advisor. Cher herself made poor financial choices and in 2016 sued her own financial managers, claiming that they defrauded her of $1.3 mln with bad investments.

In other words, now it is absolutely clear that the Magic Square Fund was a sham, which was probably created for the sole purpose of defrauding Michael Jackson.

This reminds me of Project M which was devised by Jeffrey Katzenberg and apparently David Geffen with the sole purpose to mislead Michael Jackson into believing that he was about to get the main role in a Peter Pan movie that was never meant to exist.

The people drawn into this Magic scam – Cher, Carrie Fisher, Casey Silver and Kathleen Kennedy as well as some famous Korean personalities – could be used as pawns in the game to represent a glorious front and give the allure of respectability to the fake project.  

It is a puzzle though how Myung Ho Lee managed to persuade them to participate – of course, if they knew that they were participating.  Was the Korean national no one knew anything about so influential that he could talk the top Hollywood people into investing their millions?

Another puzzle is the choice of personalities for that Magic scheme which really makes me wonder. Each name is associated with at least one of two Hollywood bigwigs – Cher is a great friend of David Geffen, same as Carrie Fisher was; and Kathleen Kennedy and Casey Silver are very close to Steven Spielberg.

This may suggest that Myung Ho Lee had a certain reason for dropping those two particular names to Maureen Orth.

If Michael followed the same trail as we did, he could put those names on his “enemy list” as soon as he realized that he had been swindled out of his money in a scam that was arranged by Myung Ho Lee but was masterminded by someone in Hollywood.

In fact, Myung Ho Lee was no personal friend of Michael Jackson and though Michael did suspect some people in the entertainment business of the intention to ruin his career and deplete his finances, there was no reason for him to confide in Lee regarding his enemies unless Lee disclosed those names himself.

My opinion is that one of the two could indeed be involved or inspire a scam against MJ as Michael named him as his worst enemy, while the other could be a side victim of the other guy’s usual machinations.

But the biggest puzzle of it all is why Myung Ho Lee decided to approach Maureen Orth in April 2003 and start his career with the Vanity Fair with a strange voodoo story regarding Geffen and Spielberg.

The answer to the first question is easy – Lee wanted to drag Michael Jackson through the mud to induce him to settle the lawsuit (the settlement took place two months later, in June 2003).

But the second point is more difficult to decipher. Simple logic suggests that pouring all that voodoo stuff on Michael Jackson’s head was a kind of a preemptive move, meant to restrain Michael from telling the public about the foul play against him and from dropping the names of those big Hollywood personalities and other participants.

Indeed, what if Michael Jackson revealed to the press that he was in a great project with Kathleen Kennedy, Casey Silver, Carrie Fisher and Cher, run by his Korean manager? What could Lee answer to that? That all of it was a smokescreen and nothing was for real?

Hence the need to strike first and tell some insane story to portray Michael as a complete lunatic, to smear and vilify him through and through, and turn him into a laughing stock no one would ever listen to.

Whether Myung Ho Lee thought of it himself or someone suggested to him this idea, this ‘bloodbath’ method did work. It struck people’s imagination, did enormous damage to Michael’s name and image, prevented him from saying a single word in his defense and simultaneously covered up Lee’s and other people’s evil activity against him.

As to the fact that all of it was a deliberate campaign to defame and ruin Michael Jackson, orchestrated by someone on the top of the world hierarchy, it is actually an axiom not requiring any proof.

If you are still in doubt ask yourself a question why the corporate media is suppressing all information about Myung Ho Lee and the damage he did to Michael Jackson’s life, reputation and finances, and why any trace of those Magic funds disappeared from the Internet as if by a magic wand.

GAYLE GOFORTH: What the Maid Really Saw in Michael Jackson’s Bedroom

$
0
0

The woman named Gayle Goforth is a Godsend to those who want to know what Michael Jackson was really like.

She worked as a housekeeper at Neverland for 12 and a half years, from August 1989 to February 2002, and was the head housekeeper there after replacing Mark Quindoy in that capacity.

But it is much more significant for us that for the last 6 years of her tenure at Neverland she was also the one who cleaned Michael’s room.  She was the third in the succession of those maids who took care of Michael’s personal quarters – the first was Blanca Francia, then Adrian McManus, and then Gayle Goforth, so she was in the same proximity to Michael Jackson as the other two.

However, we know nearly nothing about her as the media prefers to keep mum about her existence.

This is all the more surprising since Gayle Goforth was one of the Neverland old-timers – she was the first to join the housekeeping staff there (only Blanca Francia was prior to her) and also one of the last to leave it, so she was a direct witness to many more events than even Francia and McManus taken together.

You wonder why Gayle Goforth left in February 2002?

The thing is that Michael’s lawyer Zia Modabber suspended her from work for several weeks during the inquiry into the unauthorized sale of some surplus Neverland furniture in which she participated on instructions from her then boss Nikki Wimsatt, the ranch manager. Gayle Goforth was so offended by the suspicion of any misconduct on her part that she didn’t wait for the end of the inquiry and left on her own. Nikki was reinstated in her job after the matter was clarified but the proud Gayle never returned.

She didn’t hear of Modabber again, didn’t receive any thank-you notes from anyone at Neverland after her 12.5 years of impeccable work there and the only sign of gratitude she got was Michael waving his hand to her during the 2005 trial.

Technically you may consider her another of those disgruntled employees and also the most knowledgeable of them all however the media decidedly ignores her and never wonders what she has to say about Michael Jackson.

Why so?

The reason for that is obvious – Gayle Goforth consistently refuses to repeat hideous lies about Michael Jackson, and tells about him nothing but the truth which certainly doesn’t fit the fake media narrative about MJ. She has proven herself one of those stoic people who are able to go against the stream no matter what and this quality is certainly not to the media liking.  

And not that she wasn’t asked about what she saw at Neverland – she was asked but, surprise-surprise, her answers were never reported by the press.

Here are some of the dates when Gayle Goforth testified about Michael Jackson:

  • Her first deposition was on December 16, 1993 during the Jordan Chandler civil case. No information about it was made available to the public and none of her statements were leaked to the press.
  • On January 14, 2004 she made a lengthy written declaration prior to the grand jury hearings in the Arvizo case, but it was again ignored by the media. 
  • She also testified at the 2005 trial but her testimony was short and, by her own admission, was reduced to the prosecutor tearing her apart “about being a thief and questioning [her] integrity and everything.” “It was awful, and the media had a field day with it,” she said. So this was the only time when the media did report 🙂
  • And it was only during her deposition on October 10, 2016 to which she was subpoenaed by Wade Robson’s lawyer Vince Finaldi that Gayle Goforth finally had a chance to really speak out.

This was quite an experience for Finaldi and to say that her deposition was a surprise to him is to say nothing at all. Even the transcript conveys Finaldi’s occasional amazement at some of her answers.

I was amazed too – mostly by this woman’s personality, the truthfulness and spontaneity of her answers, and by the shocking fact that no one was ever interested in what she had to say about Michael Jackson until Finaldi came along and intended to trash this woman for the sake of his clients – Robson and Safechuck.

GAYLE GOFORTH’S EXPERIENCE

So who is Gayle Goforth and what does she know about MJ?

Gale Goforth is a mother of four children (three sons and a step-daughter), who despite taking care of so big a family also worked throughout her life. Now she is busy babysitting her grandchildren and caring for her old mother.

One of the astonishing facts about Gayle Goforth is that her own son was sexually abused when he was 14 years old.

This was revealed in the middle of her deposition when Finaldi persistently questioned her if she had received any “training on child sexual abuse” to which she finally snapped that she did know what it was like because her own son Doug was sexually abused when he was a teenager.

And, as any good mother would, she immediately noticed that something was wrong with her child, only she could not place it at the time.

See her examination by Finaldi which gradually escalated to a point when she was forced to make that confession:

Q. Have you ever had any kind of training, any training at all on child sexual abuse?

A. My son was sexually abused. Okay? So I do know about it.

Q. When did you become aware of this?

A. When my son — he was like 14. This was my middle son, Doug, and it was a baseball coach.

Q. I’m sorry that happened to him.

A. So am I.

Q.  Did you find out when it happened or later?

A.  No, I found out later, but then I could recall when it happened because of the way he was acting and stuff. [ ] I drove him there and I picked him up. And I could tell by his demeanor that something had happened, but he wouldn’t tell me that.

Q. By your son’s demeanor?

A. Yes. [ ] It was like ’91-’92, area. He was 14 or 15. I’m not sure exactly. He was playing Babe Ruth baseball.

Q. That’s when the abuse happened?

A. Yes.

Q. And how did you find out about it?

A. I found out because there was an investigator. There were other boys that had come forward.

Q. And what was the outcome of that?

A. He was found guilty.

Q. And put in prison?

A. Yes.

The important conclusion from the above is that Gayle Goforth not only went through the personal trauma of having her son sexually abused, but was also observant enough to immediately notice the changes in her son’s demeanor and see that something was wrong with him just by the way he was acting.

This change in the abused child’s demeanor is actually a very telling sign, so when Safechuck and Robson alleged the abuse but their parents had seen absolutely no change in their children’s behavior it means that there was nothing to notice.

If there had been at least a trace of any misfortune with the seven-year old Wade a watchful mother like Joy Robson would have surely noticed it. But she didn’t and this is because the kid had nothing to hide and no negative or confusing emotions to suppress.

Gayle’s son was abused in early 1990s, right at the time when the ranch was attended by the families of Safechuck, Robson, Culkin, Chandler and others, so the traumatic experience Gayle went through surely made her especially sensitive to anything pertaining to child sexual abuse, but even her vigilant eye didn’t register any misconduct towards children on the part of Michael Jackson.

Gayle Goforth was always adamant that in her almost 13 years at Neverland she didn’t see a single instance of anything inappropriate in Michael’s relations with children or otherwise she would have immediately left. Reported him and then left.

She said it again and again – in 1993, 2004 and then in 2016.

Attorney Liskin who spoke for the MJ Estate in 2016 in Wade Robson’s case against MJJ Productions quoted Gayle Goforth’s 2004 declaration:

Q. And the next line is,

“At no occasions did I observe Michael Jackson touch any child inappropriately.”

Is that true?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you ever see any child behave in any manner at the ranch that made you concerned that they were being abused by Mr. Jackson?

A. No.

Q. And everything that you are saying today is truthful, even though you were not completely happy with the way things ended with you at the ranch, correct?

A. Yes. Yeah. I didn’t have any reason to defend or deny anything. I was doing my best to say what I thought was true.

Q. And you were never asked to lie under oath, correct?

A. Of course not.

Vince Finaldi was much more unceremonious and approached Gayle Goforth with a monstrous provocation:

Q. What if you came around the corner and you saw Mr. Jackson raping a child?

A. Raping a child?

Q. Yes.

A. Oh, my God.

Q. Would you report that?

A. Yes, I believe I would.

Q. Who would you report it to? [ ] Security?

A. Yes, and the office.

Q. Would you call the police?

A. I don’t know if I would or not. I probably would. I don’t know. No I don’t think I would because of being an employee and stuff. I would go through the proper channels, I believe. And like I said, I would try and stop him.

Q. Okay. But why wouldn’t you want to call the police in that instance?

MR. LISKIN: Objection; misstates the prior testimony.

THE WITNESS: I was never faced with that. I don’t know how I would react to it. I am trying to tell you honestly.

Q. Did the policies or procedures at the ranch at the time give you any instruction on whether you are supposed to call the police or not?

A. No, no.

Q. So it’s not true that Michael Jackson could just do whatever he wanted on the property, right, without you reporting something?

A. If I felt myself that it was something like raping a child or beating a child, pardon me, I would  probably quit on the spot. Okay.

Q. Before you report or after?

A. Pardon?

Q. Before you report or after?

A. I would report it first, and then I would leave.

The maid’s obvious shock (“Oh, my God”) at hearing so brutal a theory about Michael Jackson is an absolutely natural reaction of anyone whose memory of the real person is incompatible with the suggestion, even if it is a totally hypothetical one. Think of someone asking you to imagine Princess Diana beating a child and you will understand what I mean.

Similarly, Gale Goforth was taken aback by Finaldi’s suggestion and was lost for words as Michael had never given her any reason to even imagine anything like that. Hence her perplexity (“Honestly I don’t know what I would do”; “I would quit on the spot,” “no, I would report it first, and then I would leave”) and this confusion of hers is another of those sure signs that Gayle Goforth is telling the absolute truth about Michael Jackson.

And the absolute truth is that in her almost 13 years at Neverland she didn’t see a single trace of what Finaldi was talking about.

Clear as her answers are, another big thrill of Gayle Goforth’s deposition is the spontaneity of her reactions as well as a ton of new information about Michael’s lifestyle, revealed by her in so natural a way that you feel like you are opening the real Michael Jackson for yourself only now…

MORE DISCOVERIES

Time and again she drops these revelations as if all of it is known to us, though it absolutely isn’t, so to really enjoy her deposition you need to read it in full. But at the moment and just as an example look at the following lengthy exchange between Finaldi and Goforth and see how one revelation evolves into another and then into one more, and on and on it goes.

This particular piece has to do with the police search of Neverland in 1993 when Gayle Goforth met the sheriffs at the ranch gate. As usual, Finaldi was provocative in his questions:

Q. Did you go and talk to the police to assist them with their investigation?

A. I don’t believe so.

Q. Why not?

A. I wasn’t asked to.

Q. Okay. But you could have done that on your own, though, right?

A: Why would I do that?

Q. Well, didn’t you want to help the police?

A. I wasn’t called to do anything like that. If they needed my help, they would have called for me.

Q. But how would they know?

A. I don’t know. How would I know?

Q. Well, you saw the police going around the area. You knew they were investigating child molestation. Did you feel that it would be important for you to go and tell the police about the things that you knew about Mr. Jackson sleeping in his bedroom with kids, about there being kids underwear on the floor in his bedroom, kids underwear by the Jacuzzi, by the shower, pictures of kids in his closet? Did you feel that it would be important to tell the police about that kind of stuff?

MR. LISKIN: Objection; argumentative and leading. Lacks foundation.

THE WITNESS: When I was finding underwear and clothing on the floor and stuff, I did not think anything of it —

BY MR. FINALDI:

Q. Yeah.

A. — honestly because, to me, it was innocent. There was nothing going on. I would not ever have believed anything was going on. I stated the fact to my husband that if I believed anything like that was going on, I wouldn’t have allowed my children to have been there. I would not have been there. I wouldn’t have worked there. And I still was working there after my son was molested, so I did not see anything wrong with what was happening. And so I had no reason whatsoever to go and contact the police and say, “Oh, I know he has been sleeping with children and there is underwear on the floor and stuff,” because everybody was going in there. They were staying there. They were normal kids. They throw their clothes around.

Q. And you don’t know exactly what was going on in that bedroom —

A. No, I did not. I was not there.

Q. And you never asked any of the kids?

A.No, I did not ask them. I didn’t have any reason to ask them.

Q. And you never even asked them what bed they were sleeping in?

No. I had no reason to ask them.

Q. Well, didn’t you feel — didn’t you feel any kind of duty to these kids to help make sure they are safe or protected?  

THE WITNESS: Like I said, I did not believe anything was happening. I did not believe that I had to protect them. Their parents were on the property. Their parents allowed them to stay in his room. It was an honor to get to stay in Mr. Jackson’s room. All the kids wanted to stay in his room.

Q. Who told you it was an honor?

A. Nobody had to tell me that. It was just kind of a given, you know.

Q. Do you know why he let kids stay in his room?

A: Because he didn’t know how to say no.

Q. Who told you that?

A. I know that for a fact because he never — if he had to tell a child no, he would ask me to tell them that or something. I could use for an instance when they put in the new code, there was some children he didn’t want in his room, and he told me he did not want them in his room but he gave them the code anyway because they asked for it and he couldn’t tell them no.

So Gayle Goforth states it as a given that it was an honor to stay in Michael Jackson’s room and when every child sought that opportunity he simply didn’t know how to say no.

A lot of people who up till now haven’t realized the true nature of Michael Jackson should read the above again and again, until they also see what we realized long ago – Michael was so keen on every child’s happiness and well-being that he could not refuse any of them and was physically unable to say no. And if a child implored him (and all of them did) he could not bring himself to refuse them.

For Gayle Goforth this wasn’t just a supposition – it was the established fact of life as she had to take upon herself the job of driving away children from Michael Jackson’s personal quarters when their insistence on staying with him was too much even for him.  And since she personally had to handle those situations she knew it for a fact that Michael was unable to say no as he was too afraid that his refusal would traumatize a child.

This was the case with Gavin Arvizo who implored Michael to let him stay in his room but Michael was hesitant as if sensing the danger, and Frank Cascio was also arguing against it. However, Janet Arvizo urged him to and how could Michael refuse? How could he refuse a cancer survivor like Gavin? This was totally impossible for Michael, so in the end he agreed but only on condition that both he and Frank would stay on the floor and Gavin would sleep in the bed. And see what trouble it resulted in!

Frank Cascio recalled this ill-fated episode in his book “My friend Michael”:

“Gavin and Star kept begging, I kept saying no, and then Janet said to Michael, “They really want to stay with you. It’s okay with me.” Michael relented. He didn’t want to let the kids down. His heart got in the way, but he was fully aware of the risk. He said to me, “Frank, if they’re staying in my room, you’re staying with me. I don’t trust this mother. She’s fucked up.”

I was totally against it, but I said, “All right. We do what we have to do.” Having me there as a witness would safeguard Michael against any shady ideas that the Arvizos might have been harboring. Or so we were both naive enough to think.”

Or take Amy Agajanian, for example. The little girl considered herself Michael’s best friend and was deeply hurt that she was not so welcome in Michael’s room as her brothers were. She thought it unfair until Michael had to take her aside and explain that slumber parties were not suitable for young girls who should not be left unchaperoned at night.

Here are some of Amy’s memories about Michael Jackson retold by a journalist:

“Her older brothers were allowed to sleep over at the house, but even though she was MJ’s closest pal and spent far more time with him than the boys, she was relegated to a guesthouse with her mother. She was pissed! Michael explained to her it wasn’t proper for little girls to be in his house overnight unchaperoned. Michael’s feelings about this explain completely why it was always boys overnight. But you hear nothing about his little girl pals.”

Michael kept to the same approach with other girls with the exception of those who were his relatives, so all those questions about “small girls in Michael’s bedroom” are completely irrelevant when you learn how mindful he was of the girls’ safety, proper upbringing and ultimately reputation.

Old school, you know.

Vince Finaldi was certainly especially inquisitive about the girls issue:  

Q. So as you sit here today, you don’t think he ever abused any child?

A. I don’t believe so, no. I don’t know that for a fact.

Q. But you never saw a girl, a young girl sleeping in his room, correct?

A. I never saw anybody actually sleeping in his room, other than his son.

Q. But you never knew that a girl, a young girl slept in his room?

THE WITNESS: Like I said, they had slumber parties. I don’t know who slept in his room.

Q. Getting back to your deposition here [of Dec.16, 1993]. Page 79, line 3:

“Did you ever see any children sit in his lap?  

“Answer: Little girls.”

Do you remember little girls sitting in his lap?

A. I remember Amy Agajanian sitting in his lap and I remember — I don’t remember — what’s her name – Marie Nicole Cascio sitting in his lap.

Q. It says:

“Were there any little girls who would spend the night with Mr. Jackson’s bedroom?”

Do you recall that?

A. I remember being asked that question.

Q. Do you recall any little girls ever spending the night with him?

A. Not usually, no.

Q. Do you remember sometimes?

A. I know Simone stayed the night in his room, and I believe Amy Agajanian did also.

Q. Okay. What is Simone’s last name?

A. Jackson.

There is much more that follows that dialog, but let us fast forward to another notable episode where Finaldi, same as us, will make a new astonishing discovery.

This happens when Finaldi reads from Gayle’s earlier deposition of December 1993 and Gayle Goforth comments on it:

Q. Okay. The next page here, page 33. There you go.

“Did you ever have an occasion when you went into the room after Mr. Jackson had spent the night and a child had spent the night in the room?”

Answer: Yes . “

So do you remember that occurring, you going into his room to clean up after a child had slept there with him?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Down at the bottom of 33, line 25:

Question: “Did you ever have an occasion to go into the bedroom after Brett Barnes had spent the night with Mr. Jackson?”

Answer: “Not that I recall. “

Question: “What about Wade Robson?”

Answer: “I think it was after Wade had been in there. I said I thought that it was after Wade had been there at one time.”

Question: “Okay. And on how many occasions did this occur after Wade Robson had spent the night and you came in to clean?”

Answer: “It depended. Adrian McManus is primarily responsible for his room, and she was on vacation so I cleaned his room while she was gone on vacation .”

Do you remember giving that testimony?

A. Yes.

Let me make a short note here. The brainwashed public may think that Wade Robson stayed at Neverland so often that he practically resided there. But the truth is that in the whole period of the Robson/MJ friendship Wade stayed at Neverland together with Michael Jackson on four occasions only.

Joy Robson testified to that at the 2005 trial and even sounded slightly annoyed by the fact her son Wade was so much neglected by Michael Jackson.

For those who forgot it here is an excerpt from the 2005 Joy Robson’s testimony

21       Q.  You were not at the ranch on a number of

22   occasions during 1991?

23       A.  My memory is in the entire time we’ve lived

24   here since 1991, we’ve only been at the ranch with

25   Michael on four occasions in 14 years.

26       Q.  Four occasions?

27       A.  Every other time we’ve been here without

28   him.

Let me clarify in case you are still confused – Robson visited Neverland regularly, at least several times a year, with friends and his family, and for 14 years too, but Michael Jackson was there with him on four occasions only.

So when Gayle Goforth describes cleaning Michael’s room during Robson’s stay there, please keep in mind that it was just one of those four occasions.

Q. Page 35, on line 11, lower left-hand corner, it says:

“On this one occasion at least one occasion when you went into the room after Wade Robson had spent the night, what did you do in order to clean up the room?”

Answer: “I made the beds, cleaned the bathrooms, picked up clothing, wet towels, cleaned showers, you know, the sinks, and the normal housecleaning.”

Q. Is that generally what you did?

A. Yes. [ ] When any guest stayed any room, that’s generally what we did.

Q. Question on line 17.

“And you found clothing around  Mr. Jackson’s bed just sort of thrown on the floor; is that correct?”

And then your answer below on line 23:  

“There was clothing, yes.”

Question: “Yes. And it was Mr. Jackson’s clothing, some of it?”

You answered:

“Some of it, yes.

“And some of it was Wade Robson’s clothing? “

Answer: “Yes.”

Question: And did you find dirty underwear lying on the floor around the bed?

Answer: “That’s part of clothing. “

Finaldi is trying to hammer in that Wade’s clothing was always around Michael’s bed, but Gayle says that it was usually near his suitcase. Finaldi does not give up and makes it a point that the suitcase must have been on the ground floor, so was not that far from the bed after all, however Gayle Goforth doesn’t remember the suitcase to be anywhere around Michael’s bed:

Question: Did you ever find any dirty clothes of Wade Robson around the bed in the upstairs area?”

Answer: “Generally around his suitcase. “

Q. Do you remember Wade Robson’s suitcase being on the ground level of Mr. Jackson’s bedroom by his bed?

A. No, I don’t recall his suitcase being there.

Q. So page 37, line No. 5, it says:

…did you on occasion find dirty clothing from children other than Wade in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom?

Answer: “Do you mean when Wade was there or do you mean when other children were there?”

Question: “When other children were there.”

Answer: “Yes”

So do you recall finding other kid’s clothes in the bedroom other than Wade’s?

A. I don’t recall exactly but when anybody stayed in the room, there was always clothing thrown around, and it didn’t necessarily mean it was around the bed. It was in the bathroom. it was near the shower or the bathtub or whatever. [ ] I saw everybody’s clothing around.

Q. But you saw kid’s clothing by Mr. Jackson’s shower in this bedroom?

A. I believe so. [ ]Usually, I would pick up towels, and clothes, and everything all in one and just take it into the laundry room and wash it.

Q. Did you ever wonder why there’s kid’s underwear on the floor in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom when he was an adult?

THE WITNESS: Well, I assume it was because they were changing clothes. You have to change clothes into clean clothes every day, and after they had taken a shower. I don’t know anything for a fact that, you know, who took showers where, when or how or what bed they slept in because generally both beds would be unmade so I don’t know who slept where.

Q. What do you mean by that? Say it again. So Wade said that he would always sleep in Mr. Jackson’s bed downstairs. He never slept upstairs.

A. Okay.

Q. And the bed upstairs was always made, so —

A. It was always made?

Q. ….do you remember whether the bed upstairs was ever unmade when Wade slept with Mr. Jackson?

THE WITNESS: Okay. I do recall many times going into Mr. Jackson’s bathroom, and a chase lounge there, and there would be blankets there and stacks of books that I had put away the previous day or whatever. And so it was very obvious he had slept there.

Q. Mr. Jackson would sleep in the bathroom?

A. On the chase lounge. It was a large bathroom.

Q. What years was this?

A. I don’t recall what years, but it was more often than not.

Q. You didn’t talk about that in your deposition anywhere.

A. Nobody asked me about anything like that. They didn’t ask me where he slept. I don’t know for a fact. I wasn’t there when they went to sleep.

Q. Did you ever see a sleeping bag on his floor?

A. Yes.

Q. How often?

A. I would take sleeping bags — when there were groups of kids there, I would take sleeping bags and blankets for them, and they would sprawl out wherever.

Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Jackson if he had the kids sleeping in his bed with him?

A. No. I had no reason to ask him that. It was none of my business.

Q. Well, were you ever concerned about the kids?

A. No, I wasn’t.

Q. Why not?

A Because I believed in Mr. Jackson. I didn’t believe anything was going on. I believed that when the children were there, he was the same age as them, and he could act like a kid and be a kid like them. They could stay up all night.

Q. Did you ever wonder why he was always hanging around with little boys?

A. Well, like I stated before []  I believed that it was so he could act like a kid too because he didn’t have a childhood.

Q. Who told you that? Did he tell you that?

A. No, he did not tell me that. That was just my feeling.

Wow, all of it came over us in a sort of an avalanche, so let us stop and take a breath and sort it out a bit.

So Gayle Goforth perfectly realizes that when Michael was with children he also behaved like a child, but seeing and feeling him for what he really was – a kid in a man’s body – she saw nothing extraordinary about it and knew that when he was with kids he was the same age as them.

His lost childhood finally caught up with him and he enjoyed it while he still could.

Gayle Goforth also describes the way she cleaned Michael’s personal quarters and what she saw there after some slumber parties. Personal quarters would be a better word for that bedroom as it was a very spacious family room with another bedroom over it that had a separate entrance to it from the corridor as well as three bathrooms (if we include the Jacuzzi) and two walk-in closets on both sides of the main room.

When some children stayed in those quarters they would sprawl the sleeping bags and blankets she would bring for them, and in the morning would use the bathrooms and take showers throwing their clothing and underwear everywhere around.

Wade Robson would leave his dirty clothes near his suitcase which was on the ground floor, but not anywhere around Michael’s bed, so leaving his underwear near his suitcase was just part of the routine of changing his clothes.

When Gayle said that she gathered the kids’ clothing scattered all over the place in order to wash them in a washing machine, she also accidentally mentioned that she didn’t know who slept where because in the morning both beds – downstairs and upstairs – would be unmade.

And she sounded very much surprised to hear Wade Robson’s claims that this was not the case. Finaldi tells her that according to Robson “the bed upstairs was always made” and Gayle Goforth is so amazed to hear it that she repeats in some disbelief: “It was always made?”

Well, this is what Robson says and Finaldi asks for a confirmation.

Apparently, Gayle can’t recall anything specifically, but what she does recall is that when she would go into Michael Jackson’s bathroom she would often find that he had slept on a chaise lounge there as there would be blankets in the bathroom and stacks of books that she had put away the day before.

It was obvious to her that he had slept on that bathroom chaise lounge and it wasn’t anything unique as it happened many times.

Now it is Finaldi’s turn to be amazed as he asks her in disbelief: “Mr. Jackson would sleep in the bathroom?”

But Gayle Goforth sees nothing strange about it as it was a large bathroom with a chaise lounge there, and adds that it was a regular occurrence as it took place “more often than not.”

The beauty of this hilarious scene is that Gayle Goforth doesn’t even seem to realize that she has just dropped a bomb. And a bomb it really is as we learn that when Michael’s quarters were taken by his child visitors, more often than not he would sleep in the bathroom and it was actually Michael himself, and not someone else, who stayed on that chaise lounge as there were stacks of books near it which Michael apparently read during his frequently sleepless nights.

Finaldi is still incredulous and wryly comments that she never said it in her deposition, to which Gayle Goforth replies that no one ever asked.

Now at this point – if this were a theatrical play – the scenario would require a mute scene with actors frozen in their motionless amazement and the curtain finally dropping while the audience still sits there trying to recover from the spectacular closing scene.

The audience has just discovered that not only did Michael often sleep in the bathroom but also the fact that his visitors routinely occupied both of his beds as well as the floor, and no one ever asked and ever learned any of it because for 30+ years the audience was fed only what the media wanted them to eat.

The audience also recalls that this was what Michael called “sharing his bed with others” which was actually not sharing but giving it away to another person while he himself would sleep on the floor or even in his bathroom.

Macauley Culkin once said to the late Larry King that “Michael was not very good at explaining himself and conveying what he was trying to say, so he didn’t quite understand why people reacted to his words the way they did. He was not a very social person”.

Thus, when Michael said that he was ready to share his bed with children people assumed that he was “inviting” them there, while the situation was exactly the opposite – the kids implored him to let them stay in his room, and when he relented it meant that he would have to sleep on the floor or even in the bathroom.

Well, leaving Michael Jackson there  – I mean sleeping on the chaise lounge – let me wish a very happy New Year to all those who are sick and tired of the media lies about Michael Jackson and want to know the genuine, innocent truth about him.

As Jesus Christ said, “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

GAYLE GOFORTH: What the Maid REALLY Saw in Michael Jackson’s Bedroom. Part 2

$
0
0

Making a follow-up about Gayle Goforth’s deposition in October 2016 was supposed to be an easy task as everything she says about Michael Jackson is a sensation.

But this is exactly where the difficulty is – Gayle Goforth’s account of her many years at Neverland is so novel a story that it should be read in its full 236 pages to be able to see Michael the man he really was.  

Her story definitely opens a new chapter in Michael Jackson’s saga. All this time we were busy refuting false allegations about MJ and involuntarily circled around the lies and hackneyed media scenarios about him – instead of opening the door wide open, breathing the fresh air, and seeing the real Michael Jackson who certainly had nothing to do with the image of him fabricated by the press.

And Gayle Goforth managed to open that door. When deposed by Vince Finaldi in the recent Robson/Safechuck case she somehow broke through the permanent re-enactment of stereotypes about Jackson and all-too-familiar routine of that ‘boys’ issue and showed us the normality of the man who had to live his life through the circumstances that were largely abnormal.

She tells you so many refreshing new details that you cannot believe that her story becomes known only 30+ years later. Her words were never reported by the media, so it is no less astonishing to hear that no one really asked her, and what she says now is literally heard for the first time.

And it is both irony and heavenly justice that it had to be Finaldi to extract all that information from Gayle Goforth.  Besides being the two rogues’ lawyer Vince Finaldi is also a dedicated Michael’s foe who is totally unscrupulous in his ways and means, so it was actually his insistent and often nasty questions that induced the usually reserved Gayle Goforth to really talk.

And Gayle Goforth does have a lot to say. But let me remind you of the basics first.

Gayle Goforth worked at Neverland for 12 and a half years, essentially since the time Michael settled at the Neverland ranch. At first Gale Goforth was a housekeeper, but since mid-1994 when Adrian McManus left and for 6 years thereafter Gayle Goforth cleaned Michael’s room and certainly had firsthand information about everything that was going on in his personal quarters.

Sometime in 1991/92 her 14-year old son – one of her four children – was molested by his baseball coach, so she had sad personal experience in that respect and was certainly not naive. The day it happened she immediately noticed that something was wrong with her son,  just by the way he was acting, so she proved herself to be very observant and sensitive to the smallest signs of trouble with a child.

But even despite her vigilance and sharp eye she never saw anything about Michael Jackson that could give her even the slightest suspicion. Here are only some excerpts from her deposition in 2016:

Q. Did you ever see behavior by kids at the ranch that made you concerned that Michael might be abusing them?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Did you ever have the occasion while you were on the property to observe anyone doing something that you thought was either illegal, or improper, or against the rules?

A. Not that I recall.

The same was said in her earlier testimony:

Q. And the next line is, “At no occasions did I observe Michael Jackson touch any child inappropriately.” Is that true?

A. Yes.          

She was quite definite in her answers, in three of her depositions and one declaration – in December 1993 in the Chandler civil case, in a written declaration in 2004, in her testimony at the 2005 trial over Arvizo’s allegations and then eleven years later in the Robson/Safechuck matter.

This what she said in 2016 about Jordan Chandler’s allegations, for example:

Q. If you had believed the Jordie Chandler allegations, would you have continued to work at the ranch?

THE WITNESS: No, I would not.

Q. But you continued to work there for several years, even after those allegations, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you believe child molestation is a horrible crime, correct?

A. Yes, I do. I would have never brought up my son if I didn’t.

Q. Would you have let your kids stay the night in Michael’s room?

A. Yes, I would have.

Q. Throughout the entire time that you worked there, you would have?

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. Despite the allegations?

A. Yes, despite the allegations.

Her sharp eye enabled her to see Michael’s real motives behind the so-called slumber parties which are the main point of controversy about Jackson.

She says that the kids whose families arrived at the ranch regarded the chance to stay with Michael as an honor for them (no one told her that, she said it was just a “given”), and Michael was so keen on making the kids happy that he was virtually unable to say no.

She knew it for a fact as their insistence on staying in Michael’s room brought him a lot of inconveniences and he often had to ask her to find a pretext and drive the kids away because he himself was unable to do it (see the previous post for details).

Gayle Goforth’s estimate of the occasions when kids stayed in Michael’s room was 40%, but this ratio included regular occurrences of having more than one kid in his room all at once.

See here, for example:

Q. You were asked about prior testimony about how often Mr. Jackson had kids staying in the room. Do you know if there was ever more than one kid staying at a time in his room?

A: Yes.

Q. Yes, there were more than one?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that a regular occurrence?

A. Yes.

While those slumber parties are usually depicted by the media in most sinister terms, Gayle Goforth describes them as a spontaneous congregation of all children in his room where the first thing they did was throwing around their jackets and other things as all children do. A big slumber party followed, a big free-for-all, and kids would be all over the place watching TV, etc.

As usual Finaldi tried to reduce those gatherings to the bed issue – for example, when reading some excerpts from Gayle Goforth’s first deposition in 1993:   

Q. On line 10, it says: When children come to the ranch male and female, they congregate in Mr. Jackson’s room and they leave their jackets here and there, as children do. So it’s not necessarily for male or female.” Do you remember that occurring?

A. Yes. Everybody, it was like a big slumber party, a big free-for-all, because he would let all the children do whatever they wanted to.

Q. So they would be inside of his bedroom on his bed?

A: They would be all over, watching TV and different places.

As to their clothing scattered here and there Gayle Goforth says that it was mostly dirty socks, T-shirts, pants and sometimes underwear that she would pick up and take to the laundry room:

A. The majority of the time, it was like dirty socks that sort of thing, shirts, pants.

“Question: Socks, shirts, pants, underwear?

“Answer: Sometimes, sometimes not.

If any underwear had to be picked up it was generally in the bathroom, and judging by the wet towels there the kids simply took a shower before changing into clean clothes. Finaldi wondered what she thought about it and she said:

…it didn’t necessarily mean it was around the bed. It was in the bathroom. It was near the shower or the bathtub or whatever [..] I saw everybody’s clothing around [..] Usually, I would pick up towels, and clothes, and everything all in one and just take it into the laundry room and wash it.

Well, I assume it was because they were changing clothes. You have to change clothes into clean clothes every day, and after they had taken a shower. 

When I was finding underwear and clothing on the floor and stuff, I did not think anything of it [..] There was nothing going onI stated the fact to my husband that if I believed anything like that was going on, I wouldn’t have allowed my children to have been there. I wouldn’t have worked there. And I still was working there after my son was molested, so I did not see anything wrong with what was happening.  Everybody was going in there. They were staying there. They were normal kids. They throw their clothes around.

As you remember, the icing on the cake was her remark that during the kids’ stay in Michael’s room he himself had to sleep in the bathroom and it happened “more often than not”. She knew it for a fact because she collected his blankets from the chaise lounge in the bathroom that was surrounded by stacks of books she had put away the day before.

This piece from her latest deposition should be put into a frame and hang in the house of every MJ’s foe:

~

Q. Mr. Jackson would sleep in the bathroom?

A. On the chaise lounge. It was a large bathroom.

Q. What years was this?

A. I don’t recall what years, but it was more often than not.

~

Another refreshing new detail is that when only one kid stayed in Michael’s room, in the majority of cases both beds (downstairs and upstairs) had to be made, which means that each slept in his own bed. Or there would be sleeping bags sprawled on the floor.

Some excerpts were already quoted from Gayle Goforth’s 2016 deposition, so here is another one, from her earlier deposition in 1993:

Q. So you were asked about Mr. Jackson’s room and times that you cleaned his room, and you were asked about the beds and whether there was one upstairs. And I am going to read you a little section of your testimony.

“Question: And there was one upstairs?

“Answer: Yes.

“On those occasions after you went to bedroom after a child had spent the night the bedroom, which beds were messed up?

“Both.

“And they both looked like they had been slept in?

“Yes.”

Is that consistent with your recollection?

A. Yes, the majority of the time, yes.

The above makes me ask a couple of questions:

How often did the media tell you that the bed upstairs was “never slept in”?  

The answer is ALWAYS.

And how often did you hear that both beds were slept in, which means that each slept in his own bed?

The answer is NEVER.

In fact, even a hostile witness like Blanca Francia had to admit the same at the 2005 trial (page 5075 of the court transcripts), only the media certainly didn’t notice it:

Francia:  There were times that the other bed was used.

Q. … sometimes there was a bed upstairs that seemed undone, right?

A.  Yeah.

And Gayle Goforth says that it was not just “sometimes” but the majority of the time.

All of it means that the media stories about Michael Jackson were flatly false or at least grossly exaggerated, even though true information was also freely available to them. However, they cherry-picked only lies and fake news in order to promote their own agenda about Jackson.

I wonder how much longer people will ignore the fact that the media consistently worked against Michael Jackson and is manipulating public opinion even now? When will they call the media responsible for the ugly distortion of his image by suppressing the truth and blowing every little thing out of proportion?

And don’t people understand why the media is doing it? Isn’t it easy to connect the dots now, especially now, and see the reason why Michael Jackson has been smeared, vilified, and slandered for so long?

Because all this time the media and the authorities have been diverting public attention from real sex offenders – this is why.

And all the time while they were going after the innocent man, perverts like Sir James Savile and Epstein as well as the prominent visitors of Epstein’s child brothel were very well protected from prosecution and from minimal media attention by their power, connections, and whatnot.

The corporate media was certainly perfectly aware of it and simply laid on Michael’s shoulders the guilt of others whose crimes against children are revealed only now but were hushed up for decades in order to focus on the most vulnerable but innocent person.

The media needed to present a glossy picture of them being a whistle-blower and doing their job, so constant lies about Jackson was an easy coffee-table version of their “vigilance” presented to the public.

This is why it is so important to hear out people like Gayle Goforth.  

When you get familiar with her testimony it becomes absolutely clear that she is telling the truth about Michael Jackson. And that this woman is not only honest, but also has a sharp eye, is capable of great observations, and is very much worth listening to.

So what else does Gayle Goforth say?

One of the first things attracting attention is that though being reserved by nature and benevolent to people Gayle Goforth drops some details here and there that show the essence of other persons like no other. Once you hear her short remarks about certain characters at Neverland their portraits become totally unforgettable.

Look at MARK QUINDOY, for example.

Mark Quindoy was the head housekeeper at Neverland for a little more than a year – from May 1989 to August 1990. His position was taken by Gayle Goforth when he and his wife (a cook at Neverland) left and returned to their native Philippines. 

Quindoy wrote a certain “diary” about Neverland which was a complete fabrication. Among other things he claimed that during  Safechuck’s stay at the ranch Blanca Francia went on a month-long vacation and he and his wife Faye cleaned MJ’s bedroom and found that the “room upstairs was never slept in”.

Mark Quindoy is reading from his “diary” at a press conference in 1993

The first thing the fact-check revealed is that during the specified period in June 1989 Michael Jackson was simply absent from Neverland (see this post for details).  Right at that time, he started recording a new album and according to his studio associates stayed the nights in his city condo not to drive 100 miles from LA to the ranch.

This fact makes it clear that Michael’s absence from Neverland was exactly the reason why his maid Blanca Francia went on a long vacation to her native El Salvador – she simply had no work to do there during that period. 

As to Safechuck and his family, well, they could stay at Neverland while Michael was away but probably only in the guest quarters, so if the bed upstairs or anywhere in Michael’s room was unoccupied, there are no surprises here.

Gayle Goforth confirmed that at first Jimmy Safechuck and his parents came “all the time” and interestingly, the parents stayed at Neverland for long periods even when Jimmy grew up.

See this excerpt from her 2016 deposition:

“When Jimmy first was coming all the time, his parents would always come also. And his parents always came, even later on after he grew up and stuff, they were guests for a long time.

Mark Quindoy referred us to one of those Safechucks’ visits and wanted us to believe that in the absence of MJ’s personal maid, he and his wife were chosen to clean Michael’s room (of all people at the ranch). Let me also remind you that both he and his wife were hired only several weeks before the alleged task.

The idea of immediately assigning the newcomers to Michael’s personal quarters is highly strange in and of itself, but in addition to that Gayle Goforth’s remarks about Quindoy make it clear that he was totally unfit for the job.

Here is why:

Q.    Did you like Mr. Quindoy when you met with him and interviewed with him?

A.    Yes, I liked him, but —

Q.    Was there anything that made you uneasy about him?

A.    Not at first.

Q.    But later on?

A.    Later on working with him, yes.

Q.   Later on, what kind of things made you uncomfortable?

A.    Well, he was very — well, I am opinionated now. This is just my feeling.

Q.    Sure.

A.    He was Filipino, and he was very arrogant in that status.

Q.    What do you mean?

A.    Well, I don’t know. I may be putting words there, but he believed that women’s work was different. He didn’t really do anything other than just oversee everybody else.

Q. Seemed a little chauvinistic, maybe?

A.       Yes.

The above remarks are short but telling. It turns out that Mark Quindoy was so arrogant and even chauvinistic that under no circumstances would he do any “women’s work” like cleaning, for example. He was a lawyer by profession and all he did at Neverland was just “overseeing everybody else.”

A nice little touch was added to that by Gayle Goforth recalling another episode:

Q.  Do you remember the reasons why he left Neverland employment?

A.   I don’t remember specifically. I remember I was on vacation at the time that he left, and I don’t know exactly what took place.

Q. Here it says – do you recall an employee named Karen Edder Dobbin?

A. Yes.

Q. She so told you that there was an incident that occurred with Sophia Loren, Chris Tucker and Mr. Quindoy not wanting to bring them coffee?

A. Yeah. I kind of remember the instance. There was something that went on while I was gone.

Q. And was it your understanding that he quit or that he was fired over it?

A. I believe he quit.

Q. Okay. As far as you are concerned, that’s the only reason why they left?

A. As far as I know, yes.

And this arrogant guy is telling us that he regularly cleaned Michael’s room, changed his linen, and even handled someone’s underwear there?

In reality, Mark Quindoy was so overbearing a person that he refused to do as little as bringing coffee to Sofia Loren and Chris Tucker!

That incident was actually the reason why he quit. Or had to go, which is a much more likely scenario as he was surely reprimanded for his misconduct and the rebuke was also too much for this haughty guy.

By way of revenge Quindoy and his wife demanded $283,000 for their alleged overtime during the year they worked at Neverland (i.e. approx. $20,000 per month for the two of them), and when the demand was not met he wrote a fabricated diary about Michael Jackson and called a press conference in the Philippines to present it to potential buyers.

Despite the vast attention given to it by Diane Dimond, the rest of the media and the Santa Barbara DA Tom Sneddon whose “Prior bad acts” motion in 2004 was partially based on that fake, no one was willing to buy it for the millions asked and the Quindoys’ plan to make a fortune on lies about Jackson ultimately failed.

However, all of it still did enormous damage to Michael’s reputation because the media presented to the public only Quindoy’s outwardly respectable façade. And it is only due to Gayle Goforth that we know now the true measure of this guy.

~

Or look at the way Gayle Goforth describes BLANCA FRANCIA, for example.

When Mark Quindoy left, Gayle Goforth was promoted to the post of the head housekeeper at Neverland and became a supervisor of the entire housekeeping staff including Blanca Francia.  

Here is what it resulted in:

 BY MR. FINALDI:

Q. Before she left … did you get along with her?

A. No.         

Q. For what reason?

A. She didn’t feel that she had to answer to me because she was Michael’s personal housekeeper.  

BY MR. LISKIN:

Q. Did you consider Blanca to be an honest person?

A. No.

Q. And I believe you had mentioned or testified about a time, an issue with the timecards or with something getting ripped up. Can you explain to me your recollection of what happened?

A. It was a notice of a write-up to one of the other employees. And I asked who had torn it up, and I was told that Bianca had torn it up.

Q. And did you have an argument or discussion with Bianca about that?

A. I believe so. … I told her she didn’t have any right to do that. It was given to Vangie [Evangeline] and not to her, and it wasn’t her right, and we got into an argument. I don’t remember exactly. I remember the argument and stuff and it was, basically, “I don’t have to listen to you. I work for Michael. I don’t work for you and I don’t have to listen to you.”

Q. And is it your understanding that you were her supervisor?

A. Yes. I was told that I was supervisor of the whole entire housekeeping staff.

BY MR. FINALDI:

Q. Bianca said she didn’t tear it up; she found the papers on the floor in there or on the table [] and she put them in the plastic bag and pinned them up for someone to find. Do you know if Blanca actually tore up the papers?

A. I don’t know that for a fact. That’s what I was told.

BY MR. LISKIN:

Q. … did Blanca ever deny that she tore up the notice?

A. Not to me. The first I heard of her saying that she didn’t — I’m sorry, I forgot.

Q. Mr. Finaldi?

A. Yes.

Q. I just want to read into the record from Blanca Francia’s deposition in January 1994 in the Chandler litigation:

“Question: That Gayle later found out it was you who had torn up the time card and that Vangie got fired for something you had done and that Vangie was innocent; isn’t that correct?

“Answer: I ripped it up?

“Question: Yes.

“Answer: But I didn’t put it on the bulletin board.

“Question: But you tore it up, right?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: And you saw your friend, Vangie, get fired for doing this, right?

“Answer: Yes.”

 You hear that she testified that she did, in fact, tear it up?

A. Okay. I didn’t remember Vangie being fired over that fact, though.

Q. But it sounds that she was fired for something that Blanca did?

A. Yes.

BY MR. FINALDI:

Q. Did you ask her why she ripped it up?

A. I don’t recall if I did nor not.

Q. Was that important to you? Knowing why she ripped it up.

A. I think she was doing it as a sign of defiance. That’s what I felt.

Q. That was your speculation, right?

A. Yes, that was my speculation, that it was a sign of defiance against me.

Let us make a short pause at this point – we’ve just found that Gayle Goforth had even more reasons to consider Blanca Francia dishonest than she initially thought.

Francia ripped that write-up paper herself, apparently as a sign of defiance against her supervisor, but told everyone that she had found those papers on the floor. And the worst part of it is that her friend Evangeline was fired for insubordination soon thereafter and most probably wasn’t even aware that she lost her job due to her “best friend” Blanca Francia.

The latter always denied anything to do with it except her deposition in 1994, but the deposition wasn’t disclosed to anyone and was revealed only recently, during the Robson/Safechuck case.

Here is an excerpt from that deposition where she initially admitted it:

“Question: The question is did you tell Norma that —

“Answer: No.

“Question” — that you had done it?

“Answer: No.

“Question: And Vangie got fired for this, right?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: And you never said a word to help your friend, right?

“Answer: No.”

Incidentally, when Blanca Francia left her job sometime after Evangeline’s dismissal, Evangeline arranged for her best friend a deal with Diane Dimond and the Hard Copy program where Francia was paid $20,000 for going on TV and telling numerous lies about Michael Jackson.

Blanca Francia on Hard Copy in an interview with Diane Dimond

If you want to know why Blanca Francia left her job at Neverland, here is the reason:

BY MR. LISKIN:

Q. And so to the best of your recollection, she quit after you guys had a dispute over the incident with the write-up?

A. Yes. I think. I’m not sure.  — oh, I know what it was. I recall it now. I was trying to schedule her to come in at certain times to help out with the housekeeping, you know, like when we had guests and stuff like that. I was trying to get all the girls on a schedule to make it fair to everybody … And so I was told, I believe by Norma, that I needed to have all of the girls involved in this, and so I was trying to discuss with her that I needed her to be on the schedule. And she told me she didn’t — she wasn’t going to be on the schedule; that she was Michael’s personal and that she wasn’t going to be on the schedule. And so that’s what we were arguing about, and that’s when she up and quit.

BY MR.FINALDI:

Q. Did you do anything to inquire as to whether she actually worked, indeed, for Michael directly or not?

A. Yes. I spoke to Norma about it [..] She said “She is part of the housekeeping staff.” That’s what she told me.

Q. And that you are her boss, basically, or you are her supervisor?

A. Yes; otherwise, I wouldn’t have pursued it.

Q. And did you tell Blanca that afterwards?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did Blanca say?

A. That was part of our argument, she kept telling me, “No, I work for Michael. No, I work for Michael.”

Q. Did you ask Michael what his opinion was on the issue?

A. No. I spoke to him about it after the fact.

Q. What did he say?

A. He said, “That’s okay, Gayle. Don’t worry about it.” And Norma had stated to me that she figured she was going to — Bianca was going to go crying to Michael figuring that he would beg her to come back.

Gayle Goforth was respectful of Blanca as she knew that she worked for MJ even at Havenhurst and thought that she had stayed with him for fifteen years. The actual term of Francia’s work for MJ was much shorter of course and was five years only (from 1986 to 1991).

But during that time Blanca still became extremely possessive of MJ and even affectionately called him “my Michael” which she readily admitted in one of her earlier depositions:

“Question: Did you refer to Michael as ‘my Michael’ around the house there when you worked there?

“Answer: Yeah.

“Question: When you said ‘my Michael,” would other people start laughing when you would say that?

“Answer: Yeah.”

Simple logic suggests that she regarded herself as someone special to Jackson, was probably even in love with him (everyone was), and didn’t accept any other authority over herself except her Michael. This is why she was so resentful that Gayle Goforth treated her like all the others and quit after she apparently complained to MJ and was disappointed that he didn’t implore her to come back.

But Michael was still very appreciative of Blanca Francia as he gave her a letter of recommendation that helped her find a new job just within one or two days. Finaldi asked Gayle Goforth if she knew about it:

Q. Do you know that she got a letter of recommendation?

A. She did? I had no idea.

However, despite all Michael’s goodwill and their perfectly amicable parting in 1991, two years later Blanca Francia went to Diane Dimond, and following their story on TV all media gleefully presented Francia as the maid who “quit in disgust” after “she saw naked boys at Neverland”.

The media gleefully reported Blanca Francia’s lies about Michael Jackson. To be precise she never spoke of any “disgust” and never saw MJ “naked with boys”.

Imagine a teary embrace with your boss, getting a letter of recommendation from him, and then going on TV to tell abhorrent lies about him?

No, I cannot imagine anything like that – even for $20,000.

In the meantime, Gayle Goforth’s deposition moved on to other subjects where time and again she made other remarkable comments.

THE PURSE, CLOSET, PICTURES AND VIDEOS

BY MR. LISKIN:

Q. Are you aware that Blanca acknowledged under oath in multiple depositions that she also went through your purse?

A. My purse?

Q. To look at your check?

A: That doesn’t surprise me.

BY MR. FINALDI:

Q. So other than this paper incident and her not wanting to listen to you because she said that she doesn’t answer to you, any other reasons you didn’t like Blanca?

A. No. That’s basically it. She did her job.

Then she reveals that Blanca Francia didn’t like her either:

Mr. Jackson’s fax machine wasn’t working properly and I went and asked her if she would check it. And she came out and she looked at me and then walked out towards the door and she turned around and said, “Mr. Jackson’s fax machine is working properly.” And she turned around and stalked out the door. So it was a mutual. She didn’t like me either.

Q. So Mr. Jackson had a fax machine inside his bedroom?

A. It was in the closet.

Q. On the right-hand side, is that where he had the boy’s pictures and everything, the same one?

A. The boys’ pictures?

Q. Yeah. In one of closets they testified that there were pictures of Emmanuel Lewis, Macauley Culkin, maybe 40 different pictures of kids in frames. Do you remember that?

Oh, so according to Finaldi someone claimed that MJ had 40 pictures of kids in frames in his closet? See what Gayle Goforth says about those pictures:

BY MR. LISKIN:

Q. …I believe there was testimony that there was a framed picture of Macauley Culkin; is that correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. And also Emmanuel Lewis?

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. And also Muhammad Ali, correct?

A. Yes. I believe there was a picture of Muhammad Ali. There was several pictures there. He had all kinds of posters and pictures and all kinds of memorabilia. He had a pair of boxing gloves from Muhammad Ali that were signed in a case, too, with his picture.

Q. And did you think it was at all odd for Mr. Jackson to have framed photographs of Mr. Culkin and Mr. Lewis?

A. No. I just assumed that they had given them to him.

Q. And there was some discussion about photographs or stacks of photographs which included kids and adults, correct?

A. Yeah. I read over — the lawyer is the one that mentioned stacks. I never mentioned stacks.

Q. But you never saw any nude photograph of a child?

A. No.                                                                                         

The photo of Emmanuel Lewis with Michael Jackson in 1988. Lewis is 17 years old here (he was born in 1971)

BY MR. FINALDI:

Q. Did you ever wonder why Mr. Jackson had pictures of children up in his closet?

A. I never questioned it. They were friends of his.             

Q. Didn’t seem weird to you?                                                                                                     

A. No.                                                                                                                                              

Q. Let’s go back to your deposition. …Page 67, line 5:

“And they’re in frames stacked up or frames hanging up?

“Answer: They are sitting on a shelf.

“Question: So are they flat or propped up?                                         

“Answer: They are propped up.

Do you remember him having frames with children in them propped up inside of his closet?

A. Like I said, there were all kinds of pictures in there. There were adults. There were kids. There – I don’t recall other — who exactly was in there, but there were a lot of pictures on the shelves. And then there was another big shelf across the top where those clothes were hung up that had things on them.

Q. Page 67, line 24, at the bottom, and it says:

“Okay. And how many pictures? Estimate?

“Answer: I don’t know. 25, 30.”

Do you remember that there was about that many pictures in there?

A. Probably.

Q. The next page says:

“There is just pictures of movie stars in there also. It’s not just children.

“Question: Okay. How many of the pictures are pictures of adults rather than children?

“Answer: I would say half.”

Is that your understanding about half of them were pictures of kids?

A. Yes.

The above is a classic case of a glass half-full or half-empty. For Gayle Goforth half of the pictures were those of adults, and for Finaldi half of them were kids.

Okay, but how many framed photos of children were there on the closet shelves?  

Finaldi read in Gayle Goforth’s earlier deposition that her estimate of the whole number was 25-30, so half of that would be 12-15. Incredible, but only a minute ago he claimed that the number of kids’ pictures was 40!  

Finaldi also spoke of “stacks “of photos and the media added to it that the kids were also “naked”. Nothing could be further from the truth though – the kids were in their best outfits, their photos were in frames and probably even with signatures on them.

So when someone tells you in sheer horror that “the police found a photo of young Macauley Culkin in his closet!” remember that it was this kind of a photo that was propped up on one of the shelves there:

Finaldi hoped that at least the videotapes stored in Michael’s closet would give some grounds for suspicion – what if MJ recorded something incriminating there? Hence all those questions to Gayle Goforth if they were commercial or non-commercial, and their titles were typed or handwritten.

Q. Okay. Page 68, line 10:

“Are there videotapes anywhere in his bedroom?

“Answer: They are in the other closet.”

Do you remember giving that testimony?

A. I don’t remember giving any of this testimony but I do recall there being videos in that closet, now that I think of it.

Q. It says:

“Question: How are they stored?

“Answer: On shelves and there is some in boxes .

“Question: Okay. Are these commercial videotapes, like ‘Dancing with Wolves’ or popular movies, or are they just videotapes where someone has taped something?”

What kind of videotapes do you remember seeing in the bedroom?

A. I don’t remember any titles of anything. I remember them being black.

Q. Like blank videos?

A. I don’t think they were blank, no. I think they had titles on them, but I didn’t sit down and look at them and say “Oh, this is such and such and this is such and such.”

Q. Page 69, line No. 5, and it says:

“That just says ‘VHS Sony.’ And then if you go and spend and you buy a movie, then it says ‘Dancing with Wolves’?

“Answer : Yes. They are marked.

“Question: They are marked?

Answer: Yes.

“Question: And so when you say they are marked, what do you mean by that? Marked in handwritten notations?

Answer: No. Most of them are typed, I believe.”

Do you recall what kind of videos they were? Were they the kind you buy in a store?

A. I thought they were betas. I’m not sure.

Q. Okay.

A. I remember later on, we put in, off of the upstairs bedroom, there was another room off of that that we made into a library, and the tapes were all moved to there at that time. And then later on, they changed the gym into the video library, then everything was moved there.

Oh, this is something Finaldi didn’t expect. At first, Gayle Goforth’s description of the tapes was somewhat vague and left room for interpretation, but when she added that they moved all of them into a special video library she definitely nailed it down – the videotapes were certainly commercially produced and there was certainly nothing inappropriate about them.

They were there in the open and anyone could go to the library and pick anything to their liking.

Moreover, her answer suggests that she was also involved in the move as she says that “we put it in”, “we made it into a library”, so most probably she was the one who personally handled those videotapes and took care of their move.

Finaldi makes another try and asks a point-blank question:

Q. Okay. Did you ever see any pornography at Neverland?

A. No.

Q. Never saw any videos, magazines, anything of that nature?

A. No, I don’t recall seeing anything like that.

Q. When the police executed the search warrant [ ] they found some pornography, some videos, magazines, things of that nature. Do you have any idea where those were kept on the property?

THE WITNESS: I have no idea. I never witnessed any myself.

Finaldi is certainly asking about “child porn” but in case you don’t know all the police found in Michael’s house were commercially produced magazines like Playboy and some adult videos involving women (plus two art books with boys on the beach that were in possession of the police since 1993).

Q. How about any books that contained nude images that might not have been pornography? Like art books, stuff like that, photographs and stuff?

A. He had all kinds of art books.

Q. Where were those located?

A. All over the house, in the libraries.

Q. Did you ever see any art books with pictures of naked kids?

A. Naked kids, no. They were all like statues. He had several statues in the home.

Q. Of kids and things.

A. Kids, but not naked. Like cherub-type things.

Q. Bronze statutes of kids all over the property, right?

A. Yes. But they had clothes on and there was like cherub kids.

Finaldi’s last hope was Michael’s tiny secret room – the one when you go inside of the closet on the right, you can kind of push a door and there is an inner like room”.

This small walk-in closet was built by the previous owner of the house to keep his wife’s furs and jewelry there, but when it comes to Michael Jackson the media regularly implies that this hiding place was specially created by him for “molesting children” there.

Well, Gayle Goforth was in that room on two occasions and says that it contained books, a lot of books, a safe and a file cabinet and her description makes it clear that this wardrobe-like structure was so crowded that even one person could hardly move there.

The first time she saw that closet was quite by chance when plumbers came in to fix the shower adjacent to it.

Q. How did you find out about it?

A. I was when I was taking care of his room, the maintenance were coming in to do some shower work in one of the bathrooms and they went in through there.

Q. And what was in there?

A. Books, a lot of books. A safe. I believe a file cabinet. ….There was a file cabinet, so I didn’t look in the file cabinets. He sent me in there one time to retrieve a watch that was in the safe.

Q. What else was in the safe?

A. I don’t know. I was looking for the watch. []

Q. Okay. — how did he know that you knew where it was?

A. He told me.

Q. What did he say?

A. He told me that in his closet behind the clothes, that there was a door.

Q. And it was behind his jackets with the sequins and stuff, right?

A. Yes.

Oh, so the file cabinet mentioned by Gayle Goforth was in that tiny room?

Michael Jackson wanted his own children to be as happy as these kids

The file cabinet in the closet seems to be the file cabinet in which the police found those two art books with “naked” boys on the beach mentioned above.

One of them was presented to Michael Jackson with love and kisses by a certain “Rhonda” (if we are to believe the inscription) and the other was inscribed by Michael himself who wrote that he hoped for a similar happy childhood for his own children and then signed it as if intending to give it back.

But the two books landed in the file cabinet and remained locked there until 1993.

Incidentally, when the police raided Neverland Michael Jackson was on the Dangerous tour and was reported to be surprised when he heard of some books found in his file cabinet.

In Michael’s absence neither Adrian McManus, nor Gayle Goforth had a key to it, so the police summoned the only person who could open it and that was Blanca Francia, the maid who had long left Neverland but kept the key to it for two years as if waiting for a chance to open it one day.

We always wondered how come the police knew whom to approach to open the file cabinet and why Blanca Francia kept the key for so long, but it never occurred to us to ask why she had that key at all. 

Now that we know that the file cabinet was in the inner closet, next to the safe there, and even Gayle Goforth, Michael’s personal maid of six years, went there on two occasions only, how come Blanca Francia visited the closet on her own and had a key to the locked file cabinet where Michael apparently kept his most important documents?

Imagine the absurdity of you supplying the cleaning woman who comes to your apartment with a key to your safe where you keep your money, documents, and other valuables – so how is it different from Blanca Francia’s case?

Blanca Francia with Victor Gutierrez. Screenshot from his book

Think what you like about this strange occurrence while I will just remind you that Blanca Francia was friends with Victor Gutierrez, a NAMBLA person who was so grateful to her for I don’t know what that he even placed a picture of them together in his fiction book about MJ.

Another person Blanca Francia cooperated with was Tom Sneddon, the Santa Barbara District Attorney who provided her with a free lawyer from his own staff to start litigation with Michael Jackson and help Blanca Francia to obtain a $2 million settlement from him for the alleged “tickling” of her son, apparently in exchange for her and her son’s testimony against MJ (see this post for details).

All those dark secrets of the ugly 1993 case will be disclosed one day, but now let’s have one other look at Gayle Goforth’s deposition.

THE JACKET

The memorabilia subject raised by Finaldi led him to more amazing discoveries about Gayle Goforth. At some point, she said that like many others at Neverland she was given gifts for Christmas and other occasions and this is how we learn that those gifts were quite comparable with those given to Jordan Chandler or Wade Robson, for example.

The gifts to her included a video camera, a DVD player, a basket with candies and movies, lots of other memorabilia and also ….. a “Bad” jacket.

Michael Jackson gave a replica of his “Bad” jacket to Gayle Goforth, his maid

Q. All right. Were you ever given any kind of memorabilia, or items, or autographs, or pictures by Michael Jackson?

A. Yes. Not specifically by Michael Jackson, but he gave me gifts every year for Christmas and that.

Q. What kinds of gifts?

A. He gave me a video camera. He gave me a DVD player. He gave me a whole basket that had a bunch of movies, pardon me, and candy and stuff like that. It was just a movie basket.

Q. And did he ever give you anything autographed, or any jackets or the hats he wore?

A. I got a — shoot, what is it called? Was it a “Bad” jacket.

Q. You still have it?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. All right. Have you ever sold any of the gifts or autographs?

A. No, no. I have never sold anything.

Or Michael’s present could be this jacket from “Bad”

In contrast to all the drama created by Dan Reed and the media over a similar “Thriller” jacket presented to Wade Robson, Gayle Goforth didn’t see anything special about the jacket given to her.

My guess is that Michael Jackson presented her with a replica of “Bad” jacket with the idea to give it to one of her three sons, probably the one who was molested by his baseball coach, in a gesture of support for the poor kid and in order to lift the boy’s spirits that way.

It was actually customary for Michael Jackson to give the most cherished gifts to his friends as well as sick or distressed children who were sometimes hardly known to him.

In 1984, for example, he presented the red jacket he wore in “Beat it” to David Smithee, the terminally ill 14-year old boy whose dying wish was to see Jackson.

The original “Beat it” jacket was Michael Jackson’s gift to a terminally ill boy
It was the dying wish of the 14-year old David Smithee to meet Michael Jackson. MJ presented him with the original “Beat it” jacket and a rhinestone glove he wore for the American Music Awards in 1984.

Michael Jackson’s other present to him was a black rhinestone-embedded glove worn by him to the 1984 American Music Awards where he won a record eight awards.

Michael met him only once, but when the boy died 6 weeks later he left a dedication to him on the cover of the Jacksons’ Victory album.

You wonder why the media didn’t tell you any of it during their hoopla over the Wade Robson “Thriller” jacket and made it out as if it was something unique? And Robson also tried to convince us that he burned a present that costs tremendous money these days, lol? 

Well, ask them about all their clownery.

Let me end part 2 at this point because long as it is, Gayle Goforth’s story is still far from finished and will certainly require another post.



                       

Protect Ukraine Now

$
0
0

Here is an appeal of a Russian-speaking American citizen to his compatriots in the USA.

Beginning with 00:34 he addresses other Russian-speaking Americans and asks them to contact their elected officials with the request for their support for an immediate transfer of Soviet made fighter planes to Ukraine.

Please go to Youtube to watch the video (for English subtitles press “Settings”, choose “Russian” and then “Translate”)

Here is the text of the appeal.

The Future of Ukraine

Depends on You

Take Action

sharethis sharing button

We are very encouraged and grateful for the overwhelming support following Volodymyr Zelenskyy address to U.S. Congress on March 16th.

But Ukraine has a dire and immediate need that has not yet been addressed – protecting Ukrainian civilians from the air attacks. Ukraine needs fighter planes to protect civilians from the air raids.

At the time when Zelenskyy was speaking to Congress, Russian plane dropped a powerful bomb on a theater in the besieged city of Mariupol sheltering over a thousand civilians. It happened because there was not a single Ukrainian fighter jet in the sky over Mariupol which could prevent this horrible tragedy. This is happening all over Ukraine on a daily basis. Fighter planes is the essential thing that can save Ukrainian civilians lives!

A satellite of the Mariupol theater from Monday, before it was bombed. The word "Children" is written in white on the pavement. Satellite image ©2022 Maxar Technologies
A satellite of the Mariupol theater from Monday, before it was bombed. The word “Children” is written in white on the pavement.Satellite image ©2022 Maxar Technologies

We are asking for you to please contact your elected official with the request for their support for an immediate transfer of Soviet made fighter planes to Ukraine.

There are 2 ways to get in touch with your representatives:

  1. Copy the text of the letter below and email your representative.
    To find your representative in U.S. Senate follow this link www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member
  2. Use an easy to follow bot to get the message to your elected official
    TEXT SIGN PDRQYD TO 50409or visit resist.bot/petitions/PDRQYD
  3. After you are done please share this site with your friends, family and on social networks.Together we can save Ukrainian lives.

facebook sharing button Share https://www.protectukrainenow.com

sharethis sharing button
sharethis sharing button

Send the following letter to your representative in U.S. Congress

Dear [name of the representative],

Today I am urgently asking you to actively support immediate delivery of Eastern European fighter planes to Ukraine. The brave Ukrainian army and the country’s heroic citizens are winning the war on the ground. The problem is that Ukrainian cities are being destroyed and citizens are being murdered from the air. I am requesting your urgent help in convincing the White House that immediate delivery of MIG planes to Ukraine should be the highest priority in support of a free Ukraine. What we are witnessing is a genocide against the Ukrainian people. We have an ability in this country and allied bases in Europe to stop these murderous attacks from the air. We have a moral obligation to do so. Our words are meant to reinforce President Zelenskyy urgent demands for fighter planes. Ukrainian cities are laying in ruins and thousands of civilians are dead and will keep dying because Ukraine is denied fighter jets. These planes are defensive, NOT offensive weapons: they will protect Ukrainian sky from Russian air raids.

There are MiG 29 warplanes sitting at allied bases in Europe, ready for an immediate transfer. Ukrainian pilots are well-trained on these warplanes and can use them to stop these murderous attacks from the air tonight!

We can no longer stand back and watch schools, hospitals, homes, apartment buildings, bomb shelters, every day people of all ages being mass murdered on a daily basis. The news that mother in labor and her unborn baby died after a maternity ward was bombed in Mariupol broke my heart. It is a tragedy that could have been prevented if Ukraine had the planes to defend its sky. I give you my word, I am about to become a single issue voter. My support in any upcoming election will be based on your immediate action to address this gap in Ukraine’s defense. I know, you deal with many requests, but this is an existential need – Ukraine will not survive without your support. Nothing matters more to me at this moment.

Sincerely,

[your name]

WSJ Opinion - Why Not Victory in Ukraine? Zelenskyy challenges Biden to do more to defeat Russia's invasion.
WSJ Opinion – Why Not Victory in Ukraine?
Zelenskyy challenges Biden to do more to defeat Russia’s invasion.”The hang-up in providing these seems to have been U.S. reluctance to provoke Mr. Putin with certain high-profile weapons, as with President Biden’s refusal to assist with the transfer of 28 Polish MiG fighters to Ukraine.

===========

Mariupol has been under seige for more than two weeks and is blocked from all sides. Besides its full blockage it is also heavily bombed to break the will of its people.

90% of them are Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

This is a city where no building has been left undamaged. Its maternity home and children’s hospital were also bombed.

The pregnant woman looks calm because she is in deep shock. Her pelvis had been crushed and her right hip detached.

By now almost everyone has seen the photo of this pregnant woman who was heavily injured during the bombing of the maternity home. The next day she died. Her baby was stillborn.

The woman’s pelvis had been crushed and her right hip detached.

Please sign the appeal and help Ukrainians to protect themselves.

Don’t watch in silence.

Michael Jackson’s Highly Likely Friendship With Donald Trump

$
0
0

It is Michael Jackson’s birthday today, and perhaps the best present to him and his memory would be another portion of truth about him and his friends.

By Michael Jackson’s friends I mean Donald Trump and the whole of the Trump family.

The Vulture article published in 2019 called Michael’s friendship with Donald Trump “unlikely”, however the many years of their companionship and the recent developments around Trump occurring after Michael’s death suggest to me exactly the opposite.

I mean that their friendship was highly likely.

Both of them were somewhat unpredictable and followed their own individual path, both didn’t go with the trend and were on their own, both were not easily bent and manipulated by the world establishment and its agenda – and this last point was probably the gravest of their sins in the eyes of the establishment, never to be forgiven.

Whatever the case, despite extreme pressure from the outside, Trump never wavered in his support of Michael Jackson during the most critical moments in Michael’s life – in the 1993 Jordan Chandler crisis, during the 2005 trial over that fake Arvizo case, and then forever after following Michael’s death.

Below are some excerpts from the Vulture article about that “unlikely” friendship. The sly hints dropped by its author that Trump has withdrawn his support of Michael after the “Leaving Neverland” film fantasy are certainly present there as a routine element of media poison about both guys, however those drops were mostly redacted by me due to my current zero tolerance towards such characteristically “ironic” but completely unsubstantiated suggestions.

Trump is probably too busy with his own harassment campaign to speak up for Michael Jackson at the moment, however something tells me that if he were given a chance to investigate the smear campaign against Michael, he would get down to the bottom of it because besides sharing an independent way of thinking both he and MJ seem to be sharing common enemies too.  

So here we go with the article published in “Vuture” in 2019, some of which should be taken with a grain of salt.

MAR. 6, 2019

Michael Jackson’s Unlikely Friendship With Donald Trump: A Timeline

By Kenny Herzog

“Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, there were few more famously wealthy Americans than Donald Trump and Michael Jackson, so it’s unsurprising they’d find themselves moving in similar circles, stepping out publicly at the same fashionable fundraisers and photo ops, and relating to one another’s lavish tendencies, be it gold toilets or private amusement parks. Their friendship continued into the 2000s, and despite the two men’s rapidly diverging paths, Trump continued to publicly support Jackson up through his 2009 death and beyond, painting the late King of Pop as “misunderstood” as recently as the lead-up to the 2016 election.

Again, President Trump has not commented publicly on Leaving Neverland; but the renewed controversy surrounding Jackson’s history inevitably reopens the book on one of his most curious grown-up companionships. Here, then, is a select, annotated timeline of the friendship of Michael Jackson and Donald Trump.

March 3, 1988: In the midst of Jackson’s marathon tour for Bad, the successor to his record-shattering Thriller, he swung through New York for a benefit concert and wowed thousands at Madison Square Garden. It was a performance the New York Times called a “mammoth pop-soul Halloween party.” A then-41-year-old Donald Trump was among those in attendance, and as he recalled to Larry King in 2009, “I spoke to him for a little while. He was low-key, and I’d think, ‘There’s no way this guy is going out to that stage to perform.’” It’s fair to assume Jackson likewise wouldn’t have assumed his new acquaintance would one day be president.

Unknown dates, 1989: In Ivana Trump’s 2017 memoir, Raising Trump, she detailed how Jackson, then 30, was a regular (supervised) playdate hang with Ivanka, Don Jr., and Eric. (Ivana alludes to Jackson having lived in Trump Tower at that time). According to Mr. Trump’s first ex-wife, Jackson and her three children would watch MTV or play video games or, naturally, “build Trump Tower in Legos.” And don’t even get her started on that time M.J. popped in for Ivanka’s school performance of The Nutcracker.

April 6, 1990: Today, Trump’s Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City is essentially a glorified way station for seniors shuttling from bus depots to all-you-can-eat buffets. But when it opened on April 2, 1990, the fervor was intense, as if Trump had successfully airlifted the glamorous heyday of mid-century Las Vegas to a sleepy seaside town on New Jersey’s shoreline. Then, on April 6, Trump welcomed to the premises his ace in the hole, Michael Jackson himself, for a guided tour that just happened to be captured by media throngs and screaming fans. Jackson’s VIP glimpse was capped off with a meal at a made-to-order Taj restaurant, with Jackson “flanked by tiny fans.”

April 8, 1990: While Jackson was occupied at the Taj, he received news that Ryan White — an Indiana teenager whose struggle to survive the AIDS virus, which he contracted from a blood transfusion, made him a subject of national attention — had passed away. In a surreal scene, cameras captured Jackson, with Trump in tow, arriving at the White family home to pay condolences, with Jackson even climbing inside Ryan’s Ford Mustang — which had been a gift from M.J. — as a copy of Bad played on the stereo. When asked by a reporter why the two men had appeared together, a Trump spokesperson answered, “Mr. Jackson spent the weekend at the Taj Mahal as Mr. Trump’s guest, and Michael Jackson asked him to come along.”

Winter 1994: When Jackson began dating Elvis Presley’s daughter, Lisa Marie, they apparently got more familiar with each other in the cozy confines of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. In Trump’s own telling, Mar-a-Lago helped surface the pair’s simmering chemistry, having written in his book The Art of the Comeback, “I was there, and the magic of Mar-a-Lago brought it out, because after they left, it didn’t work so well. I can tell you, for at least a period of time, these two folks were really getting it on.”

May 26, 1994: That fine spring day, Jackson and Presley wed in what was widely viewed as a hasty matrimony between two pillars of music royalty, if not an outright effort to draw attention away from mounting accusations of child molestation against Jackson. The marriage did indeed dissolve less than two years on, which must have been crushing to their biggest supporter: Donald Trump. As Trump shared with media after they’d tied the knot, “Those two really get along great, and they’re very happy.” He also sneaked in the factoid that they were “at the top of the Trump Tower now.” Turns out the super-couple had been hunkering down in the glistening monolith for an undisclosed length of time leading up to their secret exchange of vows.

June 16, 1995: This was the day Jackson released HIStory, a provocatively titled collection coming on the heels of aforementioned molestation accusations and related settlements. One track, “Money,” is a fairly rote calling out of soul-selling haters and frauds, though for years fans have debated whether Trump is among a roll call of names Jackson mutters in the background just over three minutes in. (You be the judge.) Though his intention in doing so could also be argued, as the name-checking is preceded by a message to earn “with dignity.” All evidence points to Jackson believing Trump was an exemplar of such an ethos.

December 18, 2003: On this day more than 15 years ago, Jackson was formally charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent. From that point until Jackson was acquitted in June 2005, the performer was presumed guilty across large swaths of public opinion. Trump, however, never wavered in his support, telling Larry King and others throughout that period some version of, “I’m gonna stick up for him because nobody else is, and I don’t believe it.” His remarks would frequently be punctuated with reminiscence about how much Jackson enjoyed his time in both Trump Tower and at Mar-a-Lago.

Unknown date, mid-2000s: Shortly after marrying Trump in 2005, third wife Melania at last crossed paths with the gloved one. In a 2016 interview with DuJour, Melania recollected how Jackson invited her and her new husband over for dinner at New York’s historic Pierre Hotel. In a snippet that got DuJour plenty of online referral traffic, the soon-to-be First Lady revealed that while Donald excused himself to commiserate with an art dealer, “Michael said to me, ‘Hey, when Trump comes back, let’s start kissing so he will be jealous!’” Alas, there was no smooch, Melania assures (lest you were concerned) but, “We were laughing so hard.”

June 25, 2009: The day Michael Jackson passed away at the age of 50. Almost immediately obituaries and reflections walked the tightrope of touting his artistry, rehashing a challenging childhood and insulated life of superstardom, and being candid about the allegations that swirled around him and his relationships with young children. Trump, at the peak of his Apprentice popularity, was widely available for comment, and was quick to maintain that Jackson was “not a molester” and merely “loved children.”

February 19, 2016: During a CNN town hall hosted by Anderson Cooper, then-presidential candidate Trump spoke of Jackson, opining, “He lost tremendous confidence because of honestly bad, bad, bad surgery,” and that under such circumstances, “you can even lose your talent.” Michael’s brother, Jermaine, was not pleased, tweeting that “friends don’t pay tribute by peddling b.s. theories.” A couple of years later, while a guest on London-based Heart Radio, Jermaine addressed the question of whether Michael would support President Trump today by saying pointedly, “What he was saying in his music are all the problems we are facing now, and his music, especially Donald Trump, he really needs to listen to ‘Man in the Mirror.’”

August 27, 2017: Maybe it’s fitting that Jackson’s daughter Paris got the final word in regarding this unlikely friendship. At that summer’s MTV Video Music Awards, Paris proclaimed from the stage, “If we were to stand up all united as one, our impact, it would be huge. And that’s not fake news.” She underscored her meaning later that night with a (now-deleted) tweet reading, “Step up donny boy @realDonaldTrump.”

https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/michael-jackson-donald-trump-friendship-timeline-leaving-neverland.html

Now here is the picture of Michael Jackson in Donald Trump’s own words, without the little drops of venom dropped here and there in the previous piece.

“He was a very good friend of mine. He was an amazing guy, but beyond all else, he was the greatest entertainer I’ve ever known. He had magic. He was a genius. He was also a really good person, and when you got to know him, you realized how smart he was. He was brilliant.

 We were at the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. There were thousands of people literally crushing us. We had 20 bodyguards, but it was really dangerous. He dropped to his knees and started crawling to the exit. He did it so routinely, I thought he fell. And I said, “Michael, is it always like this?” He goes, “Yeah, this is nothing. Japan is much worse.”

Now, Michael wasn’t the same Michael for the last 10 years. He was not well. He had a lot of problems, a lot of difficulties. But Michael in his prime — there’s never been anybody like him. His life was different than anybody I’ve ever known. But he had a very rough 10 years. He was embarrassed by it. He was embarrassed by what was happening to him. But he’s not going to be remembered for the last 10 years; he’s going to be remembered for the first 35 years.”

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1907409_1907413_1907487,00.html

And here is another testimony from the Trumps – this time it is the reminiscences of Michael Jackson by Donald Trump Jr. and his mother Ivana (recently deceased).

Donald Trump Jr. Looks Back at His Time Playing with Michael Jackson as a Kid and the ‘Shock’ of Abuse Allegations

By Adam Carlson 

Published on November 6, 2019 03:44 PM

Early in Triggered, President Donald Trump‘s oldest son, now 41, opens up about his family’s connection with Michael Jackson, when the three oldest Trump children — Don Jr. Eric and Ivanka — were all young and Jackson was then one of the most famous performers on Earth.

“Jackson lived in Trump Tower,” Don Jr. writes. They played video games together.

In Triggered, Don Jr. recalls that “one day in Eric’s room, my father saw how much Michael enjoyed playing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles with us on Nintendo and told him he could take the game home. My game! To this day, Eric says it was his game because it was in his room, but I know whose game it was. I’d worked a summer job to pay for it! And here was Michael Jackson, probably a billionaire at this point, and he took it!”

This playful anecdote quickly darkens in Don Jr.’s book as he writes, “The recent revelations about Jackson came as a shock to me. My experience with Michael does not include any of what he’s been accused of.”

Still, much as his father responds to his many critics, Don Jr. immediately circles back on the defensive.

“Oh, and by the way, given all the things my father has been called, particularly a ‘racist,’ it sure sounds odd that he’d let his son vacation with a black man or hang out with Michael Jackson doesn’t it?” he writes of the president. “If he’s a racist, he’s sure not very good at it.”

Triggered isn’t the first time the Trumps have talked about their relationship with Jackson.

Ivana Trump, the president’s first wife and mother of his three oldest children, wrote in her 2017 memoir Raising Trump about how the singer was the “only person who had an open invitation to come to the Trump Tower triplex for playdates whenever he wanted.”

“He’d stop by and chat with Donald and me for twenty minutes, and then he’d go up to the kids’ floor to hang out with them for hours and hours. They’d watch MTV, play Mario Brothers or Tetris, and build Trump Tower in Legos,” she wrote, adding, “Michael was a 30-year-old kid. He could relate to Ivanka and the boys better than to us.”

Ivana, 70, wrote that she “never believed the accusations that he molested those kids” and that there were nannies with her kids and Jackson during their playtime.

https://people.com/politics/donald-trump-jr-playing-with-michael-jackson-new-abuse-allegations/

Ivana Trump had a good chance to get to know Michael well – in contrast to all those fake accusers of Michael Jackson like Terry George or Micahel Jacobshagen who met Michael just once (see here) but nevertheless turned the event into a life-long career for themselves, Ivana saw Michael on almost a daily basis for 10 months while he lived in the Trump Tower in 1994.

And after observing him that long she allowed Michael to be the only person who could be around her children whenever he wanted.

Ivana Trump on Michael Jackson

July 21, 2022

https://www.mjvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Ivana-Trump-copy-696x464.jpg

The Model, Socialite and ex-wife of infamous US President Donal Trump, Ivana has passed away on July 14 from a fall down the stairs at her New York home.

But did you know Ivana Trump fully supported Michael and here what she wrote in her 2017 memoir ‘Raising Trump’, she revealed: “The only person who had an open invitation to come to the triplex for playdates whenever he wanted was Michael Jackson.”

She went on to explain Jackson had a home in Trump Tower in Manhattan – where he lived for around 10 months in 1994 – and used to visit the family’s apartment to “hang out” with the kids.

Ivana added: “The King of Pop lived in Trump Tower and was a good friend of our whole family,” she explained, adding, “He’d stop by and chat with Donald and me for twenty minutes, and then he’d go up to the kids’ floor to hang out with them for hours and hours.”

She explained the ‘Thriller’ star used to love playing video games with the youngsters, adding: “They’d watch MTV, play Mario Brothers or Tetris, and build Trump Tower in Legos. Michael was a thirty-year-old kid. He could relate to Ivanka and the boys better than to us.”

Ivana said she or the children’s nannies were always in the room during the playdates — but that she “never believed the accusations that he molested those kids” anyway.

“He was a child himself in a man’s body, tender, sweet and gentle … there’s no way he could have hurt anyone.”

Ivana also recalls how Jackson, at the peak of his fame, went to see young Ivanka perform in The Nutcracker.

“Michael told me that she looked like an angel that night,” Ivana recalls.

Donald, Jr also spoke about Jackson’s visits to the Trump home in a 2019 appearance on Fox News, saying: “Michael Jackson used to come up and he was our neighbour at Trump Tower. So I was playing ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles’ with Michael Jackson! You know, this is in the early 90s – maybe even in the late 80s. Peak Michael.”

He also revealed his dad Donald once gave away one of his video games to the singer, adding: “We’re playing Nintendo and Michael really likes the game. So my dad walks in and says, ‘Well, why don’t you take the game, Michael?’ I’m pretty sure Michael could’ve called Nintendo and said, ‘I want one of those’. It wouldn’t have been a big deal, but he just took it.”https://www.mjvibe.com/ivana-trump-on-michael-jackson/

But the most detailed of all is Mike Smallcombe’s story about the friendship of Trump and MJ. Here it is, slightly abridged:

It may come as a shock to Jackson’s daughter Paris that her father spent a significant amount of time in Trump’s company in the 1990s, with Trump going so far as to call Jackson “a very good friend of mine”.

As many Americans struggled to come to grips with a Donald Trump presidency in the wake of his election, Paris took to social media to share a picture of a man staring at a noose, revealing that she had a “feeling of impending doom” surging through her entire body. She also made the point that those who voted for Trump were defying her entire family.

The story of Donald Trump and Michael Jackson begins in March 1988, when the pair met backstage at a concert at New York City’s Madison Square Garden. Trump recalls: “I spoke to him for a little while, he was low-key, and I’d think, ‘There’s no way this guy is going out to that stage to perform’. And then you see him moonwalk across the stage and the place would go crazy.”

The two became properly acquainted in 1990, when Trump opened what was then the world’s glitziest casino, the Taj Majal in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Trump and MJ goof around at Taj Mahal in Atlantic city

On Friday, April 6, 1990 Jackson travelled to Atlantic City to assist Trump with the grand opening, and stayed in the hotel’s $10,000-a-night ‘Alexander the Great Suite’. “If I ever needed him for something, he’d always be there,” Trump later said. “He was very loyal to his friends.”

Jackson’s arrival at the Taj that afternoon caused pandemonium; thousands of screaming fans and dozens of photographers chased the pair as Trump gave his star guest a guided tour of the facilities.“There were thousands of people literally crushing us,” Trump said, recalling the bedlam. “We had 20 bodyguards, but it was really dangerous.

“He dropped to his knees and started crawling to the exit. He did it so routinely, I thought he fell. And I said, ‘Michael, is it always like this?’ He goes, ‘Yeah, this is nothing. Japan is much worse’.”

The next day [April 7, 1990] Trump gave Jackson a tour of the Historic Atlantic City Convention Hall arena, adjacent to his Trump Plaza casino hotel. On the Sunday [April 8, 1990], Jackson was due to leave for Indiana to be at the bedside of his close friend, 18-year-old Ryan White, who was losing his brave five-year battle with AIDS.

As he arrived at the airport, Jackson was told that Ryan had passed away.

The pair flew to Indianapolis together aboard a private jet provided by Jackson’s record label, before travelling the 20 miles to Ryan’s hometown of Cicero in a motorcade of three limousines and several police vehicles.

After arriving at the home, a grieving Jackson sat briefly in the back of a red Ford Mustang GT, which he had given to Ryan as a gift a year earlier. He told the waiting media: “He was a personal friend. It’s sad.”

Trump and MJ before flying to Indianapolis

After extending his condolences to the family, Trump returned to New Jersey. Jackson remained at the house until the evening, reminiscing and looking through scrapbooks with Ryan’s mother, Jeanne.

Jackson spent the next 18 months working on his Dangerous album, which celebrates its 25th anniversary this month. He and Trump crossed paths again in June 1992, at a charity gala held at the iconic Tavern on the Green restaurant in New York. Trump and his future wife, Marla Maples, accompanied Jackson as he collected an award for his efforts in helping economically disadvantaged children.

The Trump-Jackson friendship was at its strongest in 1994. In March that year, with a gruelling world tour and damaging child molestation accusations behind him, Jackson relocated to New York City to work on his next album, which became HIStory.

Jackson reportedly paid $110,000 a month to rent a four-bedroom apartment near the top of Trump Tower, high above Fifth Avenue in midtown Manhattan. The apartment, which offers spectacular views over Central Park, was put on the market earlier this year for a cool $23 million.

Jackson’s friend, Frank Cascio, recalls the stay: “Michael’s apartment at Trump was over the top, with dramatic views and gold fixtures in the bathrooms. On the second floor there were three bedrooms. He transformed one of them into a mini dance studio by having all the furniture removed and putting in a dance floor.”

Jackson was living just a few floors below Trump’s own $100m penthouse, where the pair would often spend time together. “He’d come into my apartment and we’d talk a lot about business,” Trump said. “He was actually a very, very smart businessman.”

One night, they went for dinner at Manhattan’s Le Cirque restaurant. “It was as if he had never seen a menu before, and we carefully went over each item,” Trump recalls.“But what was most amazing were the looks on the distinguished faces in the room as they came over to our table practically begging for an autograph. These are people who had probably never asked for anyone’s autograph before, and I can guarantee you, it was not easy for them to do. They would always start by saying, ‘I have a son who is a big fan of yours, Mr Jackson. Could you give him an autograph’?“

But I believe it was for them, not their sons. One woman, one of the most socially prominent in New York, known for her attitude approached our table trying to look cool, then slightly tripped. She grabbed the table for support and asked in the same breath, ‘Mr Jackson, can I have your autograph’? It was amazing to see this woman, whom I have known for years, so flustered and nervous.”

Trump says he was surprised when Jackson told him he had a new girlfriend. “I congratulated him and asked, ‘Who is it’? He was very shy and looked down into his napkin, then put the napkin over his face and said, ‘Trump, Trump, I don’t want to talk about it, I’m so embarrassed’. I chided him. When he finally looked up, he said that it was a girl named Lisa Marie [Presley, Elvis’s only child].”

Michael Jackson holds Trump’s daughter Tiffany 1994

A couple of weeks later, Jackson asked his host if he could bring his new love interest to Trump’s sprawling Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.

“We flew down in my plane together,” Trump said. “On the flight down, he asked if it would be possible for his girlfriend to come over and stay. I said absolutely, I looked forward to meeting her. He said she would be arriving sometime around eight o’clock, about an hour after we got to the house.”

Trump said that when Lisa Marie arrived, Jackson ran to the living room and greeted her with a hug, before they took off to look at the ocean. “When they came back, holding hands and hugging, they seemed very much in love,” Trump said. During their week-long stay, Jackson and Lisa Marie spent nearly every evening in a part of the mansion called the Grand Tower, and left the house together just once.

“He was up there one week with her, and he never came down, so I don’t know what was going on, but they got along,” Trump said.“People often ask me whether or not the relationship was a sham and I give them an emphatic no. I can tell you, for at least a period of time, these two folks were really getting it on.”

Mar-a-Lago estate was recently raided by more than 30 FBI agents in Trump’s absence. Thus the record of 70 officers raiding Michael Jackson’s Neverland in November 2003 has not yet been beaten

~

Jackson married Lisa Marie in a secret ceremony in the Dominican Republic in late May 1994, but they divorced 20 months later. Meanwhile, in December 1994 Jackson finally checked out of Trump Tower after a nine-month stay and returned to California to complete the HIStory album.

At this stage, it would have seemed like the two were good friends. But then Jackson decided to subtly include Trump in the lyrics of one of the HIStory album’s tracks, ‘Money’, which is an attack on greed and ruthless and unethical individuals.

At one point the background vocals feature the words, ‘If you want money, then earn it with dignity’, before Jackson speaks the names of several American industrialists and business magnates, including Trump, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and J. Paul Getty.

Somewhat surprisingly, the lyrics were subtle enough to avoid any major headlines in the media. It would appear that although the pair shared a business relationship, Michael’s true feelings about Trump came to light through those lyrics.

But Brad Buxer, who worked on the song as a producer and musician, says there was never a falling out between the pair and that the lyrics were not meant as a personal attack on Trump.”I was around Michael Jackson constantly, and we talked about everything,” Buxer said.

“There was no falling out between him and Donald Trump; Michael thought the world of him. Michael loved and greatly admired successful people, and was truly inspired by Trump. He thought he was an amazing businessman, respected him greatly and liked him very much.

“He would have called out Donald Trump’s name out of respect and admiration. Sometimes in Michael’s music his lyrics and their meaning would be misunderstood. ‘They Don’t Care About Us’ is an example where some people thought his lyrics were racist.”

One of the individuals Michael admired included Thomas Edison, an American inventor and businessman with links to Morgan, Vanderbilt and the controversial motor company founder Henry Ford, who Michael also once praised. When discussing the notion of not giving up in the face of adversity in a recorded conversation with a friend in 2004, Michael said of Edison and Ford: “Some of the greatest men who have made their mark on this world were treated like that – you know, ‘You’re not gonna do it, you’re not gonna get anywhere’.”They laughed at the Wright brothers. They laughed at Thomas Edison. They made jokes about Henry Ford. They said he was ignorant. These men shaped and changed our culture, our customs, the way we live, the way we do things.”

Either way, Jackson and Trump met again half a decade later, which would indicate that there was no fallout. Jackson called Trump when he was staying in New York to record his Invincible album, and invited the businessman and his partner Melania for dinner at the luxury Pierre Hotel.

Melania, who married Trump in 2005 and will become the next First Lady of United States, recalls how she hit it off with Jackson. Melania said: “Just after dinner, we were chatting on the sofa and my husband went into another room to see some art somebody wanted to show him. And Michael said to me, ‘Hey, when Trump comes back, let’s start kissing so he will be jealous’!” The two didn’t kiss. “But we were laughing so hard,” she says.

In 2004, Trump publically defended Jackson ahead of his child molestation trial. “I’m going to stick up for him, because nobody else is,” Trump told Larry King. “But I don’t believe it.“

“He lived in Trump Tower. I knew what was happening with Michael Jackson. You know what was happening? Absolutely nothing. I had many people that worked for me in the building, and believe me, they would tell me if anything was wrong.“

And if you look at the mother of this young man [Gavin Arvizo], she has had plenty of experience at going after people. And she goes after them viciously and violently, and I saw a story and I read another story about some of the things she’s done.“It’s tough to win [a trial]. But I have a feeling he is going to win.”

Trump later reiterated his point, and said his young children were often in Jackson’s company when he was living in Trump Tower in 1994. “Michael would spend a lot of time with my kids,” Trump said.

“Michael would come, play with the kids. He just loved children. He was not a child molester and I am certain of that. He’d play with my son Eric and my son Donald and he’d just play with them forever.”

In February 2016, Trump was criticised by Jermaine Jackson after claiming Michael lost self-esteem due to “bad surgery”.

Trump said: “He lost tremendous confidence because of, honestly, bad-bad-bad surgery. He had the worst. He had people that did numbers on him that were just unbelievable. Believe it or not, when you lose your confidence in something, you can even lose your talent.”

But Trump also paid tribute to his friend.  “He was an amazing guy, but beyond all else, he was the greatest entertainer I’ve ever known,” he said. “He had magic. He was a genius. He was also a really good person, and when you got to know him, you realized how smart he was. He was brilliant.“

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/14648953-donald-trump-and-michael-jackson-the-full-story-behind-a-mysterious-fri

And this is what most commenters say about the friendship of Michael Jackson and Donald Trump which some media call “unsettling”.

  • There’s nothing “unsettling” about Trump and MJ’s friendship. I respect Trump for always defending Michael, even when it was unpopular. That took courage. Trump is loyal to his friends. Not many people were defending Michael during his trial, but Trump did, vigorously. MJ did have an apartment in Trump Tower, and he also spent time at Mar-a-Lago. Also, during the 1993 allegations against MJ, Trump put Michael up at his Plaza Hotel and told reporters, “If anyone wants to mess with Michael, they’ll have to go through me.” When MJ was arrested and handcuffed in 2003, Trump called in to CNN and said that he was confident that Michael would be acquitted. And after MJ died, Trump said many nice things about him, and also stated, “He was NOT a child molester. I’m certain of that.”
  • Trump’s constant DEFENSE of Michael is one thing that I deeply appreciate about him.
  • I have never really liked Donald Trump but the one thing I appreciate is he has always defended Michael Jackson even till this day. I remember when Trump called CNN LIVE on the air and said MJ was 100% innocent and the Arvizo mom is a con-artist and that MJ should sue her and she should be in jail. I watched/listen to the whole thing LIVE. This says a lot about Donald Trump and that he knows the media will lie and go after the true difference-makers as the media lies about Trump all the time and also lies about MJ all the time. Their goal is to brainwash people against the truth. MJ was never ashamed of God and definitely inspired countless people around the world to get closer to the divine, including myself. Michael Jackson changed my life by inspiring me so many times to never give up and to be a champion like he is.
  • He’s actually a good dude, do some research you’ll see. Mainstream media did him just like they did Michael, dirty.
  • Trumps a real one. Always has been and always will. Like MJ he’s the opposite of the media portrayal of him.
  • Media destroyed MJ, Mike Tyson, and Tiger Wood. Trump defended all three of them 100%.
  • Trump is a true man, I don’t care what people say about him! he is not two-faced or a snake-like so many people in Michael’s life who took advantage of him. I respect Trump so much for standing up to the truth and being a real friend to Michael. Shame on Paris for being so rude… to one of a very few that supported her father. I am sure if Michael was alive he would have been supportive like Trump was to him.
  • I never heard DJT being a racist until 2017. They had a building on Flatbush ave. People there talk positive about him. 70’s, 80’s. I was gone in the 90’s. He hired blacks, and rented apts to blacks at a time when apt discrimination was high. Super rich blacks couldn’t buy an apt in Manhattan.
  • Trump did more for black people in 2017, than Obama did in 8 years. If the US had an honest media, you would already know that.
  • The same people in the media that lied about Michael now lie about Trump. What does that tell you?

This last statement I whole-heartedly agree with.

It is the same people.


The Michael Jackson Case for Innocence Podcast. THE CHANDLER ALLEGATIONS

$
0
0

Let me introduce to you a new podcast series made by relative newcomers to researching the Michael Jackson story – a teenager named June, a fan of Michael Jackson, and her mother Sheryl, who is no fan but is an exemplary mother who didn’t want to leave her daughter alone to deal with the “Leaving Neverland” mess and its aftermath, and who undertook a thorough investigation of the allegations against Michael Jackson to see whether they are true or not.    

Here is the lovely June who first talks about why she became a Michael Jackson fan and how confused and upset she was by the “Leaving Neverland” film – especially when everyone believed the allegations so quickly and turned their back on Michael Jackson, and even her favorite counselor in a summer camp said to her about Michael: “Great music, horrible man”.

That was like a punch to a gut for June and this is when her mother Sheryl came to her rescue.

With a background of a Master’s and Doctoral degrees behind her she always taught her daughter to do research before believing anything she heard from others, but considering the graphic nature of the allegations and numerous legal matters involved, the mother took it upon herself to do the investigation.

June says,

“…when my mom sat down with me to talk about these recent allegations, I trusted her warnings. My mom explained to me that I hadn’t researched enough about these recent allegations to be confident in Michael’s innocence. She said that confidence needed to be earned through fact checking each of the claims of the accusers.”

“If the evidence my mom found had pointed towards his guilt, I would have stopped supporting him. I could never be a fan of someone who committed such crimes.”

But to the girl’s great relief the deeper her mother looked, the more evidence accumulated to point to Michael Jackson’s innocence.

June and her great Mom

In fact the hard-working Sheryl found the evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence overwhelming. And mind you, she did not only look into the stories of the two “Leaving Neverland” characters but also into the 1993 and 2005 cases, thus covering four accusers all in all.

I personally was especially struck by the fact that Sheryl went exactly the same road I stepped on 13 years ago when I  first started researching the allegations against Michael Jackson and that she underwent the same metamorphosis as I did – from being cautious about Michael Jackson and (half) believing the allegations against him to a big shock and astonishment at discovering that the evidence of his innocence was indeed overwhelming, and that it was all there, in everyone’s view, and all you needed to do was just look, but most people didn’t notice it or didn’t want to know.

To make the long story short here is a 20-minute introduction to Sheryl’s and June’s podcast series called “Mom and the Michael Jackson Fan” without which their story about Michael Jackson would be incomplete:

https://www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com/home-1/episode/7cb40ad2/mom-and-the-michael-jackson-fan

And next comes the first part of the Chandler series. The authors describe it as follows:

“In this episode, you’ll hear how the Chandlers begin and develop their friendship with Michael Jackson. The accounts presented in this case primarily come from the Chandlers themselves. The Chandler family first visits Neverland Ranch in February 1993, and Jordan will later say the abuse began a few months later. The controversy over the reliability of Jordan’s confession is detailed and his father’s questionable motives and behavior are explored. The episode concludes in August 1993 with the surprise raids on Neverland Ranch and Jackson’s L.A. apartment.”

Website: www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com
Twitter: @Case4Innocence
Content Advisory: Sex abuse allegations involving minors are discussed in this episode.

https://www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com/home-1/episode/7b2d9887/the-chandler-allegations-part-1-the-confession

Let me say that the Chandler story comes in 5 parts and in my view it is a pretty good and comprehensive summary of the case.

Those who are deeply involved in the MJ studies could certainly find something to add here and there, but to all those who are new to the subject it is the most up-to-date summary of the case which is also presented in a very compact and concise way.

P.S.

The first part was recorded on 10/18/2022 and it is only due to my tardiness and current lack of focus that I am bringing it to your attention only now (sorry for that). New episodes are presented weekly and by now the two authors are already well into the Arvizo case. They are so fast that I myself have a hard time keeping up with them.

P.P.S.

On second thought I decided to post here the links to the remaining parts of the Chandler story here too, just to keep them in one place. So here is PART 2 of the Chandler case: 

https://www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com/home-1/episode/794195b1/the-chandler-allegations-part-2-the-settlement

In part 2 of the Chandler allegations, you’ll hear about the media frenzy after Jordan’s allegation becomes public.  District Attorney Tom Sneddon and police are convinced of Michael Jackson’s guilt before any real investigation begins, which biases their later interviews with children who knew Jackson. The Chandlers and their lawyers take thoughtfully planned steps to pressure Jackson into settling the civil lawsuit that’s filed in September 1993. The episode concludes by covering the steps that lead to Jackson’s settlement with the Chandlers.

PART 3: https://www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com/home-1/episode/79b21024/the-chandler-allegations-part-3-the-psychiatrist-interview

This episode focuses on the psychiatrist interview of Jordan Chandler from October 1993.  As arranged by their lawyer,  Jordan and his parents flew to New York from Los Angeles to be interviewed by Dr. Richard Gardner, who was known at the time as an expert in false allegations of abuse. This step was likely taken to help the Chandlers prepare for questioning if their civil case went to trial. Highlights from the interview are detailed, including direct quotes from the exchanges between Jordan and Dr. Gardner.

PART 4: https://www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com/home-1/episode/7be3ab40/the-chandlers-part-4-the-sex-tape

In this final chapter on the Chandler Allegations timeline, you’ll hear about how District Attorney Tom Sneddon takes his criminal case against Michael Jackson to 2 grand juries. Despite  failing to get an indictment, Sneddon doesn’t close the case against Jackson, and continues to make media appearances where he lets it be known that all he needs is a willing victim to come forward. Hard copy reporter Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez are involved in promoting the scandal that there is a secret tape of Jackson abusing a boy. Evan Chandler continues to try and litigate against his own family and Michael Jackson.

PART 5: https://www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com/home-1/episode/7ce67347/the-chandler-allegations-part-5-summing-up-the-evidence

In this final episode of the Chandler Allegations series, the cumulative evidence from the past 4 episodes is combined and sorted to make the case that the evidence supports Michael Jackson’s innocence in this first sex abuse claim against him.

All  source material can be found on our podcast website: www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com

MICHAEL JACKSON and PROGRESSIVE SCIENCE. Parts 1 and 2

$
0
0

Before I write anything else in this blog there is a certain stumbling block that needs to be overcome. At first sight it does not have a direct connection to Michael Jackson but my deep conviction is that he would very much want me to say it – because it concerns protection of children in the first place.

The issue of my concern is grooming children done under the guise of acting in their interests.

Last December someone sent me a message accusing me of “ultimate hypocrisy about keeping children safe and sexuality”.

The email was full of straw man rhetoric against me reminding me of a person who wrote here under different names, but whether it is the same person or different doesn’t matter as all progressives speak and think in stereotypes, as if in copy-pasted clichés, typically throwing at their counterparts tons of straw man declarations.

Note: “Straw man” means pretending to know what another person thinks and then fiercely fighting these ideas though they have nothing to do with what the person ever said or even thought (me in this case).

To explain what I really think I will answer that straw man message, and will even claim that my views are echoing those of Michael Jackson.

Part 1. SCIENCE ?

The message alleged the following:

  • You didn’t even TRY to understand or grasp the fact that everything you spout about trans people is the product of misinformation and smear campaigns.

My alleged ‘spouting’ amounted to a few surprised comments made a couple of years ago when I first learned that progressive science claims that genders and biological sexes are many and come in a spectrum, and that transition to the opposite sex is solely a matter of one’s choice even for children – in case they feel they were born in “the wrong body” (gender dysphoria) .

Previously I had heard only of babies who had the misfortune to be born with the genitalia of both sexes. In evolutionary terms hermaphrodites are a dead end as most of these people are sterile. Usually some surgery is performed on them, however not so much for making them fit certain social expectations but because being “neither this, nor that” gives them enormous mental suffering that needs compassion and as much help as only possible.    

It is not true that 1.7% of the population is ‘born between the sexes’. The proportion of people with DSDs (‘intersex’ conditions) is 0.018%.

But gender dysphoria is not physical but a mental problem – when a male thinks that he is a female and vice versa. Currently the wildly popular trend is to press the fluid gender spectrum on youngsters and encourage them to explore their feelings for their “right” gender. Even preschoolers are offered the game of finding their true selves within this spectrum.

                               Where on a spectrum might your gender identity be?

When you come to think of it, the purpose of the game may be fun but pointless. So what if a girl finds that she is a tomboy? Or if a boy learns that manhood also comes in a variety of versions – some are tender and emotional like Michael Jackson, while some are rowdy and aggressive like one of his brothers?

The only good this spectrum can do is make everyone feel at ease that it is not mandatory to look like the extremes on both ends – a macho or a Barbie-like woman, and it is perfectly okay to be the way you are. Besides this simple idea, universally accepted around the world, there is no reason whatsoever to focus children’s attention on it any further.

However, when gender self-exploration becomes the centre piece of the educational process is when problems really arise. Instead of studying Maths, writing and reading the minds of schoolchildren are gripped with the incessant game of “exploring their sexual identity” and are much more preoccupied with their gender feelings, correct pronouns for their ever-changing personality and developing their instincts rather than their intellect and cognitive abilities which are incomparably more important at a stage when a kid’s brain is still maturing.

And the game totally ceases to be fun when as a result of these gender experiments kids begin to think that they were born in the wrong body and need to “transition” to conform to the gender feelings they currently feel, and the medical community enthusiastically supports them in this decision.

In fact, EVERY part in the above formula is wrong. Firstly, the biological sex cannot be changed – it is a hard science fact. Secondly, children with gender dysphoria tend to grow out of the problem over time in about 85% of cases.  And thirdly, the medical community is not really medical if they offer puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone treatment and even gender surgery to children claiming that it is completely normal to “re-assign” one’s sex.

This type of science is not evidence-based, and it is far from being ‘settled’. In fact, science is almost never settled as each new wave of research may overturn the previous scientific dogmas and new breakthroughs are even expected of real science.

Lobotomy and Thalidomide were also considered “settled science” only several decades ago but both turned out to be medical disasters. The lobotomy pioneer even received the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1949, which made the popularity of lobotomies spread like wildfire. Before-and-after photos were publicly circulated, showing a “manic-looking” person followed by a photo of the same person looking calm, or even smiling.

Are you depressed? Do you suffer from anxiety and migraines? You May Need a Lobotomy. Before and After. Only takes 10 minutes!

And it took more than 50,000 lobotomies in the US alone, hundreds of deaths and decades of practicing this monstrous procedure for the medical community to finally realize that in the “after pictures” the patients were more zombies and vegetables than human.

Does the gender medicine want to repeat that “success”?

The current situation suggests that the craze around gender dysphoria and transition has every sign of being a social contagion and is totally man-made, whether intentional or not.

The District of Columbia has three and a half times more people who identify as trans than any State in the US, per head of the population.

Only 20 years ago, the number of those who sought cross-sex surgery was 1 per 30,000 adult males and 1 per 100,000 adult females (according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Jan.1, 2000). The transitioners were predominantly middle-aged males. 

But in the past few years the number of those seeking transition has suddenly soared by 1,460% among males and 5,330% among females.  The profile of transitioners also drastically changed and is now overwhelmingly adolescent girls. All of a sudden young girls decided they don’t want to be girls anymore!

Again, until the year 2005 children under 12 did not even make any noticeable presence among those seeking transition – you won’t be able even to find them on this graph that spans 1975-2015. But in 2005 transgenders suddenly appeared in a sort of a bang, affecting mostly girls under 12 years, and their number has been sky-rocketing ever since.

Trans women and trans men in 1975-2015

If any other malady spread at such a high speed, this would be a reason for grave concern, but not in this case, as transitioning is hailed by the medical industry, media and the establishment, and gender dysphoria itself is now declared a norm. Progressive science is quick in progressing….

But the same progressive science keeps silence when those who transitioned want to go back and reverse their sex change. When de-transitioners tell their gruesome stories, they suddenly face a wall of silence from the same media, establishment, and medical institutions.  Or worse, they meet a massive angry backlash from the gender activists.

Caelie is a transitioner. Her video is no longer there

The stifling of de-transitioners’ voices is so aggressive and so immediate that today you may see their anguished testimony on Youtube, but tomorrow it will be gone with only some remnants left of the original (here is an example).  

But why are detransitioners denied the right to speak if the gender medicine is as good as it is said to be?

Because there is an agenda behind it and the sad real-life experience of detransitioners hinders further promotion of this practice.

Because all is not clear there, otherwise there would be no need to suppress.

Because the problem itself is not so much about medicine but about politics.

Actually, the very fact that the voices of detransitioners are so effectively silenced betrays the ulterior motives of those who want to set other children on the road to transitioning and do it without informing their parents at that.

To me the big idea is obvious, though people hardly realize it yet and mostly think that the race for more profit is the only one to blame here. This factor is certainly at play, however the ultimate goal of the game is still under the public radar.

To see where this trend is taking you all you need to do is make a logical projection of its consequences, and this will show you the really troubled waters we are heading for.

Currently we are already in stage one of the project. The idea is to turn innocent kids into sexual beings through mandatory “comprehensive sex education” (mostly in US public schools) and make everyone think that kids are “sexual beings from birth”. Children should become sexually active and uninhibited since early age and at the same time extremely vulnerable and confused, so that they can’t tell left from right and are unable to see where this path will lead them.

Simple logic is taking us to stage two – the inevitable proclamation of children’s right to have the “autonomy over their bodies” and “freedom of choice” in matters of sex, as it is an inseparable right of every human being. Children are human beings, aren’t they, so how can anyone deny them these sacred rights?

Simultaneously parents will be shifted aside and intimidated into thinking that if they don’t comply with their children’s sexual fantasies, feelings, preferences and choices they will lose them to imminent suicides. 

You’ve probably guessed what the ultimate goal is.

Yes, some lobby which is powerful enough to have turned the civilization upside down, is set to reach the goal of pedophilia acceptance, only from the back door this time – by corrupting children and neutralizing their parents’ influence, and teaching the sexually disturbed children that they should take their life choices into their own hands.

Incredulous of this gigantic shift even since Michael Jackson’s times I rarely allowed myself a comment as I hoped that the new craze would die out of itself or would be curbed by responsible physicians and parents concerned with their kids’ future.

And until only recently there was no sign of recovery – the subject is still heavily politicized and everyone who dares ask questions is stigmatized, ostracized and accused of ‘hate speech’.

Even those who used to be transgender activists themselves but later began doubting the new religion, are similarly intimidated by a small, but vocal lobby that immediately labels them ‘transphobic’, bans their activity and approaches them with threats.

An LGBT activist is branded politically incorrect

James Caspian, for example, is an LGBT activist who has been campaigning on transgender rights for years.

But when he noted that the increasing number of young people changing their gender might regret it, he was branded ‘politically incorrect’ and his respective research with Bath Spa University was blocked.

James Caspian signaled of a growing calamity with detransitioners already five years ago, in 2017:

‘I’m not anti-trans. I’ve helped hundreds of people while they were transitioning, but when I started to do preliminary research I was taken aback by what I discovered,‘ he says. 

‘Traditionally, people had always thought the regret rate among those who transition is between 1 and 5 per cent, so the general attitude was it was so low that it wasn’t really important. 

But that was based upon old research from the Eighties and Nineties [when transitioners were few and predominantly middle-aged males]

‘You just need to look at the increasing numbers of those reversing their transition on websites and in blogs. There are many posts on the internet from those who regret changing gender. Each of them makes for desperately sad reading.

‘When people talk about young people transitioning, perhaps they don’t quite understand what a huge thing it is to do.

‘It involves treatments that can be impossible to reverse, such as hysterectomies, mastectomies and genital surgery. You need hormones for life. You change everything — the pituitary gland, the brain, everything — and there is always a risk of side effects.’

‘Many of the younger people who present at gender clinics have a history of mental health issues such as self-harming, social anxiety, eating disorders and so on. They see transitioning as their panacea. In addition, the proportion of people attending gender clinics who are on the autistic spectrum is approximately six times higher than the general population.’

‘The activist line is, ‘Oh that’s because they’re trans so if they weren’t discriminated against and could just be themselves and transition they wouldn’t have mental health issues’.

‘ That’s far too simplistic.’

He chooses his words carefully. He fears he has to be cautious about what he says for fear of being ‘slaughtered’ by the vocal minority.

Fear seems to define the debate surrounding trans rights, he says. Challenge the extremists and you’ll be accused of being transphobic — prejudiced against transgender people.

‘The problem is that the activists feel only they have any right to say anything.’ 

‘Discussion is being suppressed by a small, but vocal, minority in the LGBT community who seem to have an agenda to push the boundaries of trans rights whatever the cost.’

‘I honestly felt I was the only person in the world who was carrying the interests of people who had transitioned and regretted it.’

 It seems almost absurd James should find himself in this position, as he’s one of Britain’s foremost transgender experts. This has all become a kind of Kafkaesque weird tangle. Somebody needs to call it out.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4979498/James-Caspian-attacked-transgender-children-comments.html

Well, some courageous people have begun to call it out and this gives me the first sparks of hope that common sense will finally enter the picture. Here are only some.

  • The defiant movement of Gays against groomers has emerged.

    An interview with Gays against groomers founder

    These people are looking into the root of the problem and seem to realize the danger of sexual indoctrination of children best of all. Their motto is ‘Gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children’ and if they don’t succeed in curbing this process no one will. Let me say BRAVO to these people and wish them every success possible despite the terrible vilification and suppression policy they are facing.  
  • The parents’ outrage flares up here and there at learning that sexual and transgender ideology is part of the school curricula in public schools in the US now.  Numerous detransitioners also speak up, supported by doctors and pediatricians like Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians. She qualifies the effects of transgender ideology as large-scale child abuse and occasionally gets bans from Youtube for telling the truth.  
  • A growing number of Western European countries did their own research of the gender medical practice, were abhorred by what they saw and recently revised their “gender-affirmative” model of care in favor of psychological (not medical) interventions. Finland was the first, and Sweden, which is among the most LGBT-affirming countries, followed suit. Sweden found that adults who underwent sex reassignment have a suicide rate nearly 20 times greater than that of the general population, so sex reassignment was not the solution to their problem.
  • An international group of 100+ top clinicians formed The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) which gathers in-depth studies from all over the world. They were also amazed to find that transgender medicine is based on self-serving data and is lacking quality evidence.

The SEGM clinicians say it point-blank that the current gender narrative is fallacious and is deeply flawed, and that gender clinics have taken an activist stance instead of upholding the solemn oath to “first, do no harm.” 

 “Insistence by the gender medicine community that demanding rigor in research is akin to “science denialism” or “transphobia” places the field at risk of becoming one of the biggest medical epidemics of harm.

Currently as many as 1 in 10-20 high school and college youth in the U.S. self-identify as transgender. This self-identification, “affirmed” by healthcare professionals, puts them at risk for what has been demonstrated to be a largely irreversible “gender-affirming” medical treatment pathway which results in irreversible changes and is expected to lead to infertility or sterility.

Thousands of harmed young detransitioners are already speaking out, and recent studies indicate medical detransition rates of up to 30%.   Prior research suggests there is roughly an 811 year gap between gender reassignment and the emergence of long term regret and markedly increased morbidity and mortality. 

Medical societies and scientific journals that suppress debate in gender medicine, while uncritically promoting the fallacious “settled science” narrative by publishing deeply flawed studies, are contributing to this crisis.   

https://segm.org/Dutch-studies-critically-flawed

Several people who used to work in youth gender clinics are also ready to tell the truth about what’s going on in those clinics even at a risk to their personal lives and professional careers.

Jamie Reed is one of these people. She herself is a queer woman married to a transman, but despite her progressive views she warns that “What’s happening to children is morally and medically appalling”.

She was the main intake person at The Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital and says that the clinics like the one where she worked are creating a whole cohort of kids with atypical genitals.  

Here are some excerpts from Jamie Reed’s testimony to Missouri’s attorney general (see the full text).

I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle.

…Until 2015 or so, a very small number of boys comprised the population of pediatric gender dysphoria cases.

Then, across the Western world, there began to be a dramatic increase in a new population: Teenage girls, many with no previous history of gender distress, suddenly declared they were transgender and demanded immediate treatment with testosterone. 

I certainly saw this at the center. One of my jobs was to do intake for new patients and their families. When I started [in 2018] there were probably 10 such calls a month. When I left there were 50, and about 70 percent of the new patients were girls. Sometimes clusters of girls arrived from the same high school. 

The girls who came to us had many comorbidities: depression, anxiety, ADHD [Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder], eating disorders, obesity. Many were diagnosed with autism, or had autism-like symptoms.

To begin transitioning, the girls needed a letter of support from a therapist—usually one we recommended—who they had to see only once or twice for the green light. The next stop was a single visit to the endocrinologist for a testosterone prescription. 

That’s all it took. 

When a female takes testosterone, the profound and permanent effects of the hormone can be seen in a matter of months. Voices drop, beards sprout, body fat is redistributed. Sexual interest explodes, aggression increases, and mood can be unpredictable. Our patients were told about some side effects, including sterility. But after working at the center, I came to believe that teenagers are simply not capable of fully grasping what it means to make the decision to become infertile while still a minor.

How little patients understood what they were getting into was illustrated by a call we received at the center in 2020 from a 17-year-old biological female patient who was on testosterone. She said she was bleeding from the vagina. In less than an hour she had soaked through an extra heavy pad, her jeans, and a towel she had wrapped around her waist.

We found out later this girl had had intercourse, and because testosterone thins the vaginal tissues, her vaginal canal had ripped open. She had to be sedated and given surgery to repair the damage. She wasn’t the only vaginal laceration case we heard about.

Other girls were disturbed by the effects of testosterone on their clitoris, which enlarges and grows into what looks like a microphallus, or a tiny penis. I counseled one patient whose enlarged clitoris now extended below her vulva, and it chafed and rubbed painfully in her jeans.

There are rare conditions in which babies are born with atypical genitalia—cases that call for sophisticated care and compassion. But clinics like the one where I worked are creating a whole cohort of kids with atypical genitals.  Yet all it took for them to permanently transform themselves was one or two short conversations with a therapist.

Another disturbing aspect of the center was its lack of regard for the rights of parents—and the extent to which doctors saw themselves as more informed decision-makers over the fate of these children.

In 2019 one of our doctors testified in a custody hearing against a father who opposed a mother’s wish to start their 11-year-old daughter on puberty blockers. The father adamantly disagreed, said this was all coming from the mother, [but] after the hearing where our doctor testified in favor of transition, the judge sided with the mother. 

Sometimes the parents’ understanding of what they had agreed to do to their children came forcefully: 

Jun 9, 2022

Please be advised that I’m revoking my consent for this course of medical treatment. Grades have dropped, there’s been an in-patient behavioral visit and now he’s on 5 different medications. Lexipro, Trazadone, Buspar, etc.  [..] is a shell of his former self riddled with anxiety. Who knows if it’s because the hormone blockers or the other medications. I revoke my consent. I want the hormone blocker removed. Thank you.

In 2019, a new group of people appeared on my radar: desisters and detransitioners. Desisters choose not to go through with a transition. Detransitioners are transgender people who decide to return to their birth gender. 

The one colleague with whom I was able to share my concerns agreed with me that we should be tracking desistance and detransition. We thought the doctors would want to collect and understand this data in order to figure out what they had missed. 

We were wrong. One doctor wondered aloud why he would spend time on someone who was no longer his patient. 

My concerns about what was going on at the center started to overtake my life. By spring 2020, I felt a medical and moral obligation to do something. So I spoke up in the office, and sent plenty of emails. 

Things came to a head at a half-day retreat in summer of 2022. In front of the team, the doctors said that my colleague and I had to stop questioning the “medicine and the science” as well as their authority. Then an administrator told us we had to “Get on board, or get out.”

I gave my notice and left the Transgender Center in November of 2022. 

…Then I came across comments from Dr. Rachel Levine, a transgender woman who is a high official at the federal Department of Health and Human Services. The article read: “Levine, the U.S. assistant secretary for health, said that clinics are proceeding carefully and that no American children are receiving drugs or hormones for gender dysphoria who shouldn’t.”

I felt stunned and sickened. It wasn’t true. And I know that from deep first-hand experience. 

Two weeks ago, I brought my concerns and documents to the attention of Missouri’s attorney general. He is a Republican. I am a progressive. But the safety of children should not be a matter for our culture wars. 

Given the secrecy and lack of rigorous standards that characterize youth gender transition across the country, I believe that to ensure the safety of American children, we need a moratorium on the hormonal and surgical treatment of young people with gender dysphoria. 

In the past 15 years, according to Reuters, the U.S. has gone from having no pediatric gender clinics to more than 100. A thorough analysis should be undertaken to find out what has been done to their patients and why—and what the long-term consequences are.

There is a clear path for us to follow. Just last year England announced that it would close the Tavistock’s youth gender clinic, then the NHS’s only such clinic in the country, after an investigation revealed shoddy practices and poor patient treatment. Sweden and Finland, too, have investigated pediatric transition and greatly curbed the practice, finding there is insufficient evidence of help, and danger of great harm. 

The doctors I worked alongside at the Transgender Center said frequently about the treatment of our patients: “We are building the plane while we are flying it.”

No one should be a passenger on that kind of aircraft.

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids

The countries that are also reversing their transgender practices are Australia, New Zealand and France where researchers made their own studies and as a result called for psychotherapy to be the first line of treatment for gender dysphoria in youth.  Even the Netherlands hears the first critical voices.

Why “even” the Netherlands?

Because the Dutch were the first to start gender transitioning of minors and it was a single-site study of theirs, later named The Dutch Protocol that launched this practice worldwide.  

On January 2, 2023, just two months ago, a damning review of the Dutch protocol was made by several independent (non-SEGM) clinicians under a telling title “The Dutch Studies and The Myth of Reliable Research in Pediatric Gender Medicine”.

The authors thoroughly examined the protocol, and were shocked to find that the Dutch research was critically flawed. 

A new open-access publication, “The Myth of Reliable Research in Pediatric Gender Medicine,” demands urgent attention from the medical community.

It focuses on the Dutch studies that gave rise to “gender-affirmative” care for youth worldwide. The authors convincingly demonstrate that rather than “solid prospective research” or even the “gold standard” in research, as these studies are frequently described by the proponents of “gender-affirmative care,” the Dutch research suffers from profound, previously unrecognized problems.

What was found is that the so-called Gender-Affirmative model consisting of……..

  • Puberty blockers
  • Lifelong cross-sex-hormones
  • Mastectomy or breast implants
  • Removal of ovaries or testes
  • Hysterectomy (removal of the womb (uterus)
  • Surgical removal of sex organs

……..is based on a single Dutch study of:

  • 55 subjects (only 40 with complete data)
  • Only 1.5 year post-surgery follow-up at an average age of under 21
  • No control group
  • No physical health effects evaluation
  • Unchanged or worsening gender dysphoria while on puberty blockers, especially among adolescent females
  • Under-reported negative outcomes. One adolescent died as a result of post-operative complications, several others could not pursue treatment due to new health issues after hormonal administration (obesity and diabetes)

The authors conclude that the Dutch studies are of unacceptably low quality by today’s standards.

Had the Dutch studies been published today for the first time, the “innovative practice” of using hormones and surgery to gender-transition children and young adults would never have been permitted to enter general medical settings due to the very low quality of the research, and problematic outcomes.

What happened is that the gender medicine mistook a small innovative experiment for a proven practice and rapidly extended it as if it were a “gold standard”.

Unfortunately, since the publication of the final Dutch study in 2014, the practice of youth gender transitions underwent what’s known as “runaway diffusion”— a not uncommon phenomenon whereby the medical community mistakes a small innovative experiment as a proven practice, and a potentially non-beneficial or harmful practice “escapes the lab,” rapidly spreading to general practice settings.”

On January 26, 2023 the Amsterdam Youth Gender Clinic, where the Dutch protocol originated, prided itself on its first 20 years of practicing the protocol and boasted of success (here). However, the critical analysis that followed made an incredible discovery – it turned out that the positive conclusions of the clinic were not supported by the data presented by the clinic itself.  

Here is the SEGM review of that analysis: 

February 2, 2023

New “20-year” Study from Amsterdam’s VUmc Youth Gender Clinic: A Critical Analysis

The study’s conclusions and “clinical implications” are not supported by the data presented

…. to date, the entire model of “gender-affirming” care is based on the Dutch experience. The seminal importance of the Dutch studies is evidenced by the fact that the Endocrine Society Guidelines, and WPATH “Standards of Care 7” under which the practice proliferated, refer only to the Dutch experience as proof of “benefits” of the practice.

However, these newer studies, which purport to have definitively proven that puberty blockers and cross sex hormones are “as benign as aspirin, as well-studied as penicillin and statins, and as essential to survival as insulin for childhood diabetes” are even more flawed than the original Dutch research.

Below are only some of the flaws highlighted by SEGM researchers in the conclusions of the Amsterdam clinic which claimed that it followed up on its patients for 20 years:

  • While it is technically true that the study data span over 20 years, in terms of patient-level treatment trajectories, the median follow up is only 4.6 years from the first intake appointment. For 25% of the sample, follow up is less than 3 years.
  • To properly evaluate outcomes, follow up consisting of months to a few years after starting medical treatment is insufficient. Prior research suggests that health problems and regret often do not peak until a decade later
  • Only best-case scenario outcomes were included in the studies’ results.
  • The studies only focused on potential benefits and failed to evaluate risks.
  • The conclusion that gender dysphoria disappeared after “affirmative” treatment is wrong.
  • The study claims that “detransition was very rare”—but the authors never attempted to evaluate the rate of detransition.
  • The study overlooks the earlier study of 879 Dutch children conducted at the same Amsterdam clinic before the advent of the Dutch protocol which initially found that 6% of the young children were considered “gender variant,” but 24 years later none had chosen to undergo medical transition despite being eligible for gender reassignment as mature adults.
  • The same earlier study reported that remarkably, 80% of the gender-dysphoric youth who were rejected from gender reassignment in adolescence were no longer interested in gender transition as adults and found other ways to address their gender dysphoria.
  • However, the patients who transitioned even under the strict version of the Dutch Protocol appear to have substantial reproductive regret, body shame, and sexual dysfunction
  • The Dutch studies ignore the well-documented phenomenon of “peer contagion” spreading through social circles for conditions like eating disorders and self-harm. In the context of gender, the theory of peer contagion has been named “ROGD” and endorsed by a growing number of clinicians and detransitioners. Thus, the study’s conclusion that “ROGD subtype likely does not exist,” is unreliable. The time has come to acknowledge the possibility that the ROGD theory may hold the key to explaining some of the surge in gender dysphoria in adolescents.
  • The Dutch studies are best described as a “case series”—the lowest and least reliable level of evidence.

How could it happen that no one noticed that those studies were so flawed? SEGM explains that busy clinicians often rely on abstracts only, which are trumpeting success, and seldom look inside to critically appraise the studies or lack the methodological skills to do so:

“Few busy clinicians have the time and skills to engage in an in-depth critical appraisal of this and other studies, and thus, they rely on abstracts.”

SEGM calls on the medical community to reevaluate the Dutch experience using rigorous research that will be made by experts with no conflict of interest in this area, and to not rely on the conclusions of gender clinics themselves which, fighting for the survival of their practices, have increasingly assumed a politicized and activist stance.

 “The Myth of Reliable Research in Pediatric Gender Medicine” mounts a formidable challenge to the claim that the Dutch studies’ conclusion that psychosocial benefits arise from “solid prospective research.”

Far from having perfected previously flawed research methods, the researchers have perfected the art of spin—misrepresenting weak, uncertain, or even negative findings as strong and positive.

The authors remind readers that medicine is adouble-edged sword, and that the history of medicine is replete with examples of “cures” that turned out to be far worse than the “diseases” they purported to treat.

They also note the gender-clinicians’ relentless political activism. Rather than engaging in reflection and improving research methods, many gender-clinicians-turned-advocates are instead trying to quell the ongoing scientific debate by calling it “science denialism” motivated by ignorance, religious zeal, and transphobia.

Newer studies suffer from even more significant limitations than do the Dutch studies. This point is illustrated by three recent studies where the studies’ weak or even negative findings were spun into favorable results.

https://segm.org/Dutch-studies-critically-flawed

What could Michael Jackson say about all that if he were alive?  About the new fad that warps the minds and bodies of children who are unable to grasp that they will be mutilated for life as a result of an experiment that doesn’t even have any solid science behind it?

Would he go with the crowd and support the craze? Or would he try to protect at least his children from it, and join the voices of those parents who don’t want to have their kids’ lives ruined?

And what do you think?

MJ’s kids

Part 2.  SCIENCE !

If you are still undecided look at the young man who lost his manhood forever and the woman who suffers from a severe genital pain and became bloated as a result of hormonal treatment (usual condition after females stop taking testosterone).

Both spoke of their regret to transition to a filmmaker Charlotte Fantelli in her film “No Turning Back.”

12 October 2022 

‘I should have never done this’

Ritchie detransitioned after spending nearly a decade as a trans woman. 

After feeling ‘different’ as a young boy, he discovered gender dysphoria while browsing online forums in his early 20s. When he explained his feelings to other forum users he was told he was ‘100 per cent trans and should act on it’.  

In 2014, Ritchie went to an NHS gender clinic in Brighton. 

 “They wanted me to have surgery more than I wanted to have surgery – it was really bizarre. I refused it in 2015, I refused it in 2016, then in 2017 the psychiatrist said to me ”you’re established on your hormones, if you don’t want surgery we’ll discharge you”.

Ritchie described the surgery he went through to transition from male to female as ‘extremely brutal’. 

 ‘I think I’ve made a really mad decision’.  ‘I would go back every month and at every session say I feel the same, ”This is f*****g mental, I should have never done this’.

The 35-year-old said, ‘This is not reversible, the experiment is over for me, there really really isn’t any turning back’.

In powerful testimony to the film No Turning Back, Ritchie (left) and Amber (right) bravely reveal their regrets at going through sex change operations

Amber – who is in her early 30s, also first went to a private gender clinic, where after just two appointments she was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and received cross sex hormones. She then had surgery to remove her breasts on the NHS.  

After three years on testosterone she said she began to question her decision but found the medics at her private clinic were not supportive. 

‘About two and a half years on testosterone I started to experience a lot of severe pain in my genital region. I have facial and bodily hair – female hormones don’t remove the hair that we’ve grown on testosterone. I also have genital changes that are permanent and of course I had a double mastectomy’. 

Taking testosterone for a long period had caused her internal female organs to begin to atrophy. Amber said the usual pathway at this point would have been full hysterectomy but she refused and came off the testosterone.  

‘I think I regret the speed at which I approached transition, especially the medical side. ‘I wish I’d have explored in therapy the feelings I was having’.

Filmmaker Charlotte Fantelli told MailOnline she had never covered transgender issues before but decided to, following her own personal experiences.   

‘My children were aged 11 or 12 when they came home after a sex education session in which they’d talked about transgender ideology and how they could potentially have been born into the wrong body. I questioned why a group of pre-pubescent teenagers would be taught that kind of ideology.’

Ms Fantelli said she had always been ‘very openly liberal’, but felt children ‘were being given answers to questions that they had never asked’. 

She added: ‘Children should be allowed to explore their own identities in an innocent way, but what I thought was wrong was adults starting to put seeds in their minds that came from a very adult, sexualised and gender orientated place. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11302085/Patients-detransitioned-sex-change-operations-reveal-regret.html

Same as Ms Fantelli I also wonder who and why presses transgender ideology on children and why kids are given answers to questions they have never asked.

All of it amounts to sexual indoctrination of children.  On how early sexualization affects kids, I refer you to a psychotherapist from Perth, Australia who speaks about the harm of an infinitely lesser form of sexualization, which is done by parents when they simply dress their kids as ‘mini-adults’.

Loss of Childhood and Sexualisation of Children

 By: Richard Boyd Copyright © 2022 [excerpts]

The old saying that the person who grows up too soon spends the rest of their life as a child is full of wisdom.

Nothing is more vulnerable than childhood and it’s never been more under threat. The trend in our society is that childhood is being devalued so much that many parents seem increasingly restless to get their children’s childhood over as quickly as possible.

Parents, mass media marketing, peer pressure, are all propelling our children into premature adolescence as if innocence, magical thinking, wonder and make-believe are detrimental and should be replaced with “the realities of life” as soon as is possible.

Psychiatrists define sexualisation of children as the imposition of adult models of sexuality on children and adolescents, and categorically state it creates psychological harm to children.

Studies of children have confirmed that many children feel pressure to grow up too quickly and to dress, act and behave as “mini-adults”, often to impress parents, or have parents impress friends by parading them out like Barbie dolls or spunky, cool little dudes.

In many childhood and teen programmes we are being bombarded with the notions and images of children having intimate partners or relationships, troubles with boyfriends or girlfriends, concerns over appearance, popularity and desirability.

Unfortunately now in therapy we are seeing as a result more teenage and early twenty something people who have lost their innocence early, who are street wise, have tried it all by age 18, and are jaded, burnt out, depressed, disillusioned, lost, and have no reason why they feel this way.

This disillusioned generation is angry, and now experiencing higher rates of Depression, Anxiety, Drug and alcohol addictions, and anti-social behaviours. Suicide rates are rising in this affected 18-29 age group and there is entrenched hopelessness, pessimism and a sense of being lost.

Childhood is the only safe psychological foundation and process for children to experience if they are to become secure and healthy adults. Full text here: https://www.energeticsinstitute.com.au/articles/sexualisation-of-children/

It was incredible to hear the psychotherapist echo the exact words of Michael Jackson who also spoke of the need to maintain the kids’ innocence, their magical thinking, wonder and make belief, however the cynics scorned them as something naive.

With the knowledge Michael Jackson gained a hard way in his own childhood he was like a psychotherapist himself and always talked about the need for a trouble-free childhood, the harm of losing it too soon and the disastrous effect of placing adult responsibilities on a child’s shoulders.

The burden of having to work for a living and be a breadwinner for the whole family since age 5 did Michael tremendous harm, which is still underestimated by many, but as the old saying says, “The person who grows up too soon spends the rest of their life as a child”, it explains why he remained a child in a man’s body almost to his dying day. This old wisdom perfectly applies to MJ himself and child stars like Macauley Culkin, for example, and it was their loss of normal childhood that bonded them together like no other.

But if a child loses his childhood in a different way and is indoctrinated with sexual matters at a young age, the effect is even more disastrous.

To quote that psychotherapist again, these kids are “street wise, have tried it all by age 18, and are jaded, burnt out, depressed, disillusioned and lost”. They are “angry, experiencing higher rates of depression, anxiety, drug and alcohol addictions, and anti-social behaviours”, are often on the brink of suicide and have “no reason why they feel this way”.

The ruinous effect of sexual corruption of children has been well known since long ago and is the real reason why responsible parents restrain their children from early sex – this is a way to protect children from their risky selves in the first place, and ensure a safe foundation for their healthy and secure future.

But what was new to me in the above piece was that a seemingly innocent parading of girls as mini-adults in high-heeled shoes and padded bras may also be part of an early sexualization of children and may even hamper their natural maturing process.

But if this is true, how much more damaging to a child psyche would be parading a boy in the same attire? And encouraging him to wear dresses on a near permanent basis – like this mum does who makes a name for herself by placing the photos of her 5-year old on the net?

Mum photographs five-year-old son in dresses to inspire other parents to be more accepting

The mother claims that her son wants to wear those dresses himself, but it is still she who keeps buying them, so her motives in promoting her son that way are somewhat questionable.

Walt Heyer, a male who lived as a woman for 8 years and then detransitioned, says that his gender confusion started with exactly this type of fun when he was 4 years old and his grandmother put on him a cute little purple dress.  He says that it began ‘a creepy psychological and emotional destruction that starts within a 4-year old boy who doesn’t know what the consequences of it are going to be’.

‘That dress set in motion a life filled with gender dysphoria, sexual abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, and finally, an unnecessary gender reassignment surgery. My life was ripped apart by a trusted adult who enjoyed dressing me as a girl’.

Walt Heyer in 1977, 1984 and now

The grandma kept her little secret from the boy’s parents for nearly two years during which time the boy ‘grew accustomed to wearing that purple dress and became sort of addicted to hearing the affirmation how cute he was.

Walt Heyer tells his powerful story in “I Was a Transgender WomanandHormones, surgery, regret: I was a transgender woman for 8 years — time I can’t get back” , in this Youtube video and here too  – in short, whenever he is given an opportunity to speak up.

His story starts with a crucial question that haunts him even today: Why didn’t his grandma love him the way he was?

 “Would you love me if I were a boy?” The boy in that glowing documentary about parents raising transgender kids dared to voice a question I always wanted to ask. Why didn’t she love me the way I was?

My grandmother withheld affirmations of me as a boy, but she lavished delighted praise upon me when I was dressed as a girl. Feelings of euphoria swept over me with her praise, followed later by depression and insecurity about being a boy. Her actions planted the idea in me that I was born in the wrong body. She nourished and encouraged the idea, and over time it took on a life of its own.

Eventually, my parents found out, and my unsupervised visits to Grandma’s house ended. I thought my secret was safe, but my teenage uncle heard about it and felt I was fair game for taunting and sexual abuse. I wasn’t even 10 years old.

That abuse caused me to not want to be male any longer. Cross-dressing gave me an escape. I lay awake at night, secretly begging God to change me into a girl. In my childlike thinking, if I could only be a girl, I would be safe.’ 

… I was never homosexual; I was interested in dating girls. In my early 20s and engaged to be married, I confided to my fiancée about my cross-dressing. She figured we could work it out. We got married and had two children.

In my work life I was successful, but the girl persona still occupied my thoughts. With weekly travel away from home, I easily indulged in cross-dressing, fueling the desire to be a woman.

By the time I was 40, I couldn’t take the pressure of living two separate lives. I felt torn apart, wanting to be a good husband and father, but in severe torment about needing to be a woman.

The seeds sown by Grandma developed deep roots.

I sought out the top gender specialist at the time, Dr. Paul Walker, who told me that sex change was the only solution. Thrilled that I could finally attain my lifelong dream, I underwent a surgical change at the age of forty-two. My marriage ended shortly before surgery.

…At first, I was giddy with excitement. It seemed like a fresh start. I could sever ties with my former life as Walt and my painful past. But reality soon hit. It’s hard for me to describe what happened next.

The reprieve provided by surgery and life as a woman was only temporary. Hidden deep underneath the make-up and female clothing was the little boy carrying the hurts from traumatic childhood events. Being a female turned out to be only a cover-up, not healing.

I knew I wasn’t a real woman, no matter what my identification documents said. I had taken extreme steps to resolve my gender conflict, but changing genders hadn’t worked. It was obviously a masquerade.

It was all so puzzling. What was the point of changing genders if not to resolve the conflict? After eight years of living as a woman, I had no lasting peace.

I was once again experiencing gender dysphoria, but this time I felt like a male inside a body refashioned to look like a woman. Emotionally, I was a mess. Feeling lost and depressed, I drank heavily and considered suicide.

…Rather than going to gender-change activist psychologists like the one who had approved me for surgery, I sought the opinions of several “regular” psychologists and psychiatrists who did not see all gender disorders as transgender.

They agreed: it was apparent that I had developed a dissociative disorder in childhood to escape the trauma of the repeated cross-dressing by my grandmother and the sexual abuse by my uncle.  

That should have been diagnosed and treated with psychotherapy. Instead, the gender specialist never considered my difficult childhood or even my alcoholism and saw only transgender identity.

With expert guidance, I dared to revisit the emotional trauma of my youth. It wasn’t easy, but it was the only way to address the underlying conditions driving my gender dysphoria.

In 1996, at the age of 55, I was finally free from the desire to live as a woman and changed my legal documents back to Walt, my biologically correct male sex. I am on a hormone regimen to try to regulate a system that is permanently altered.

You will hear the media say, “Regret is rare.” But they are not reading my inbox, which is full of messages from transgender individuals who want the life and body back that was taken from them by cross-sex hormones, surgery and living under a new identity.

Had I not been misled by media stories of sex change “success” and by medical practitioners who said transitioning was the answer to my problems, I wouldn’t have suffered as I have.

After de-transitioning, I know the truth: Hormones and surgery may alter appearances, but nothing changes the immutable fact of your sex.  Genetics can’t be changed.  Feelings, however, can and do change. Underlying issues often drive the desire to escape one’s life into another, and they need to be addressed before taking the radical step of transition.

Changing genders is short-term gain with long-term pain. Its consequences include early mortality, regret, mental illness, and suicide. Instead of encouraging them to undergo unnecessary and destructive surgery, let’s affirm and love our young people just the way they are.

“Why didn’t she love me the way I was?” is actually the key to Walt Heyer’s sad story. Persistent cross-dressing of a boy at a whim of his grandma did take root early in his mind but became visible only many years later. To prevent a similar tragedy from happening to other children Walt Heyer is now calling on parents not to repeat the same mistake and love their kids just the way they are.

However the problem is that gender activists also call for loving and accepting children the way they are, but advise parents to do exactly the opposite – to follow the transgender feelings of their children and help them realize their dreams of being the opposite gender.

The two paths are mutually exclusive, so where is the truth?

Those who are familiar with Michael Jackson’s nature, mind-set and real motives (and not those proclaimed by the media) know that he could have given the answer.

Despite the nasty allegations against him, he loved and cherished the children’s innocence, and called on families to protect their kids from the world of adulthood in its every aspect – until they grew up and were ready to face adult life in its full entirety. Including sexual matters of course.

MJ and his kids

Michael’s own sexuality was often questioned by those who noted his tenderness and gentle ways. They called him feminine-looking, gay, asexual, whatever, because his appearance and behavior didn’t fit their stereotypes of masculinity.

Indeed, his looks did dramatically change – but that was due to vitiligo, which made him porcelain white, and lupus that was destroying his hair and skin on the nose (after only two nose operations, by the way). The make-up was just a way to cover up the spots and scars, and add a little color to his fully discolored face.

Another case of vitiligo and black skin turning white

But as to his maleness Michael never questioned it and initially laughed at those who were in doubt, and was later extremely upset when the media called him nasty names where “a poor black boy who grew up to be a rich white woman” was just one of the kindest.

His gender was never an issue for him, and his sexual orientation was the same as his father’s, same as his sex drive and love of women in his later years.

And just like his father it is impossible to imagine Michael Jackson to encourage his own or anyone’s children to explore their ‘true gender identity’ and let them transition to the opposite sex.

Raising Paris as a tomboy or Blanket as a fragile long-haired wonder was okay for Michael, but questioning their gender? No way. The idea itself is a sure way to confuse the young minds, arouse their fantasy and sow the seeds of doubt and distress that they might be born in the wrong body. And distress was the last thing he wanted for any child.

He wanted every kid’s childhood to be undisturbed.

Add to it his tendency to refrain from discussing sexual matters with anyone at all – even with adults, not to mention young children, and his strict adherence to biblical principles of chastity in his early years, as well as his aversion for any cross-dressing he explicitly expressed in those taped conversations with Rabbi Schmuley, and you will get an even clearer picture of MJ’s views.  

Just as a reminder:

“Madonna laid the law down to me before we went out. “[She said]: “I am not going to Disneyland, OK? That’s out.”

I said: “I didn’t ask to go to Disneyland.”

She said: “We are going to the restaurant. And afterwards, we are going to a strip bar.”

I said: “I am not going to a strip bar, where they cross-dress… Guys who are girls, and girls… I said, “I am not going there.” “If that’s how it is, forget this whole thing.” 

 

Michael: She said, “I love spanky books”. Why would I want to see that?”

The King and Queen of Pop’s relationship ended abruptly. One of the purported causes of the fallout was divulged by producer Kenneth “Babyface” Edmonds during a 2020 Verzuz online rap battle with Teddy Riley, who co-produced MJ’s “In The Closet”.  

Babyface, can you believe she [Madonna] wants me to dress like a girl?” Edmonds recalled Jackson saying. “He was like, ‘I’d never do that.’ He said, ‘She was trying to change it all up. It was crazy.’ He was really mad about it.”

https://news.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/09/08/22/inside-michael-jackson-and-madonnas-failed-relationship

No, Michael Jackson was definitely old school in matters like these.

Some claim that MJ could become much more ‘progressive’ as time went on. But they forget that Michael was over forty when he had his own children (his third child Blanket was born in 2002 when MJ was already 44), but even at that age he was still known to paste pieces of paper on the pictures of nudes in his friends’ homes, when he resided there with his children, so that nothing could disturb their innocent minds and distract them from playing their innocent games – until it was the right time for them to enter the life of adults.

Would Michael Jackson have felt love and compassion for transkids if he had met any? He certainly would, however he wouldn’t have supported their transition until they grew up, and knew how much they were giving up if they agreed to a medical intervention.

Having love and compassion for troubled kids vs. stopping their normal development by administering puberty blockers, changing their body chemistry by cross-sex hormones and then mutilating them by severing some of their healthy parts (out of much love of course), are too different things for both to be considered “love and compassion”. So it still remains to be seen where real compassion in – in allowing children to be mauled or restraining them from it.

Michael Jackson was very much into medicine and was very well read in this field too as he himself suffered from a burn on his head, vitiligo, lupus, sleeplessness, and whatnot, so I am more than sure that if Michael had encountered a case of “gender dysphoria” among his loved ones, he would have done massive research and found the thing that I’ve found which is shattering the gender medicine into pieces.

What is it?

Neuroscience and its brain scans tell us that the frontal lobes of the brain, which are responsible for “higher order cognition” like judgment and impulse control, mature by the mid twenties only, so any decisions taken by a young person before that age are relatively infantile and lacking in maturity almost by default.

The frontal lobes are involved in problem solving, spontaneity, memory, language, initiation, judgment, impulse control, social and sexual behavior.

Michael himself was an illustration of that ironclad neuroscience fact – by the age of 20 his music skills were already superb (Thriller was released when he was 24), but in the emotional sphere, social behavior and making judgments he was sometimes more of a child than a grown-up person.

So the big question is, given that the brain matures only by the mid-twenties, can young people give really informed consent to changing their gender?

Consider these facts from the The National Institute of Mental Health and similar sources:

  • For girls, the brain reaches its largest physical size around 11 years old and for boys, the brain reaches its largest physical size around age 14.
  • Although the brain stops growing in size by early adolescence, the teen years are all about fine-tuning how the brain works. The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s.
  • The brain develops somewhat unevenly. The part of the brain behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for planning, prioritizing and good judgment, is the last to mature. It is also responsible for the ability to control impulsive behavior and focus on long-term goals. Because the prefrontal cortex is still developing during the teenage years, this explains why teenagers sometimes show poor judgment and are so driven by emotion, excitement and short-term reward.

To put it simply, reason, long-term planning, good judgment and the ability to see cause and effect – all of them come last in the brain maturity process. But what comes first then?

  • The parts of the brain to develop first are those that control physical activity (cerebellum), emotion (amygdala) and motivation (nucleus accumbens).

The strange word amygdala [əˈmiɡdələ] stands for that part of the brain which is responsible for emotions and regulates fear/stress and reward/ pleasure as the basic emotions necessary for survival – the baby feels safe and smiles at seeing his mother, and cries with fear when facing the unknown. Not surprisingly, amygdala starts developing immediately after birth.

The prefrontal cortex as the “voice of reason” is able to regulate emotions, but its full development is lagging behind amygdala by nearly 20 years and before it finally matures teenagers are driven mostly by feelings and may have emotional outbursts, like yelling at their parents and stomping out of the room, and slamming the door.

Amygdala also undergoes changes and in early adolescence the fiery emotions of risk and reward fuse into a dangerous combination when the brain starts perceiving rewards from risk.

Psychologist Laurence Steinberg, a giant in the field of adolescent development, likens this period to engaging a powerful engine before the braking system is in place. To be more exact, the teenagers’ impulsivity isn’t so much because of lack of brakes, but because of planned and enjoyable pressure to the accelerator.

This explains why adolescents are more prone to risky behaviors than are children or adults, and why teens in mid-adolescence take more risks than older teens.

More about it here. 

Now that we know some basic facts from neuroscience let us answer the questions we encountered earlier:

  • Can children give informed consent to changing their gender if their brains reach their normal physical size by the ages of 11 to 14 only?
  • Should adolescents go on a transgender adventure guided by their feelings only when the brain center for emotions (amygdala) is still having full rein and the voice of reason is lagging behind?
  • Can teenagers have good judgment about the risky game of trying the opposite sex hormones when their brain even derives pleasure from risk-taking and perceives the joy of pressing the accelerator as a reward for discarding fear?
  • Should adults encourage young children to cross-dress and show delight at seeing them ‘so cute’ and thus reward them for the masquerade during the period when emotions are the first to develop in a child’s brain? Given that children generally don’t hear any delighted exclamations when they wear their usual clothes, and the emotional reward they get from cross-dressing may be interpreted by a little child’s mind as ‘This is a correct thing to do” or “If I put on a dress they will love me more” and may develop into a habit to elicit more love and attention from their parents?

Neuroscience gives a definite NO to all these questions.

 

Drag kid Desmond on ABC’s Good morning America (owned by Disney)

But even that is not all. Another nuance should be added to the whole story as it may become the decisive factor in shaping an adolescent’s future.

The thing is, during early adolescence the brain increases in size and in late adolescence it (surprisingly) decreases again. This is done at the expense of white matter – bundles of nerve fibers that help the brain areas to communicate and sort of “chat” with each other.

You might think that this kind of pruning is a bad thing, but it is actually the process of fine-tuning the brain as it cuts weak connections and reinforces strong ones. This allows the brain to focus energy and resources on the connections that are used most and discard the unused ones in order to increase its overall efficiency.

Neuroscientists call this phenomenon synaptic pruning (“the process by which extra neurons and synaptic connections are eliminated in order to increase the efficiency of neuronal transmissions”).

The rule at work here is a “Use it or Lose it” principle.

Use it or Lose it!

In practical terms it means that when adolescents spend their free time reading, or playing sports, or focusing on academics, or training management skills, the respective “neuron connections will be reinforced as parts of the brain that are responsible for those behaviors are physically going to be strengthened.” 

“But if they spend most of their time watching TV and sitting on a couch and procrastinating, that’s what’s going to be strengthened instead”. And at some point the door of opportunity will be closed.

“A kind of scary implication of this is that what we do during our teenage years might be literally shaping our brains for the rest of our lives.”

If you are still incredulous of this mind-boggling fact, watch this short video from Khan Academy from which the above statements were quoted:

There is no need to panic yet – the brain also has compensatory mechanisms to make up for some of its lost functions, but the importance of the above “pruning” cannot be overestimated.

With regard to gender ideology the “Use it or Lose it” principle means that if children lose the period which is best suited for intensive learning and use it on exploring sex, their “gender identity” and their deepest “feelings” about it, the latter brain connections will be strengthened first – and in the current atmosphere of gender craze there is no doubt that the gender issue is what is occupying their minds most.

Everything else that is not that important and is therefore less exercised by the brain will be cut by it as simply unnecessary and what remains will literally shape the children’s character and their future.

If the worst comes to the worst we will have sexually obsessed youngsters, who are burnt out and mentally unstable, deeply confused and unable to realize what happened to them because their brain is lacking the “higher order cognition” mentioned above and is not used to looking into cause and effect of what they’ve been doing. 

In fact psychotherapists are already registering much distress and depression among young people as well as a growing rate of their suicides.

This pruning seems to be the biological explanation why children are so susceptible to the disastrous practice of indoctrinating them with various ideologies – be it political like militarizing their minds (in my part of the world) or sexual and transgender indoctrination (in your part of the world), both of which imprint on children things that are incompatible with the young innocent minds and are antagonistic to their natural maturing process.

All they need to do to indoctrinate children with a certain ideology is flood them with respective rhetoric while their brain is still immature and is highly emotionally responsive, and all the rest will be simply cut by the brain itself.

Are those who press transgender ideology on children aware that they are doing them immense harm by warping their young minds with disputable theories that are not even based on quality evidence and have absolutely no place in a school curriculum?  

Do they know that their narrative goes counter to neuroscience which proves that children cannot give informed consent to any experiments with their gender because their brain is simply not ready for it?

It may come as a surprise but they do know, as they openly admit that the biggest danger to gender medicine comes from neuroscience.

Being unable to dispute it, they pick on anything they can get their hands on – some insignificant details like, for example, the age of 25 which is sometimes mentioned in scientific journals as the average age of brain maturity.

Consider this article of September 2022 in Slate, for example.   

It doesn’t dare confront neuroscience directly and just makes fun of the “myth of the 25 year-old brain” calling it “bunk” (Why 25? It’s a nice-sounding number? It’s divisible by five?), while 25 is merely a median between early and late twenties, and in real life the brain maturity may certainly occur earlier or later.

But see what tremendous conclusions are made from the above and how the blame of political indoctrination is shifted from the guilty to the innocent:

The real-world consequences of the “brains are fully mature at 25” myth are only beginning to emerge. As people continue to cite this factoid, it has the power to create serious societal change. Anti-trans activists cite this as evidence that young people should not be allowed to access lifesaving, gender-affirming care. The ultimate trajectory of this growing belief is impossible to know, but it’s clear that neuroscience has and will be deployed to shape policy.

Let’s translate it from newspeak into common language. Neuroscientists (not “anti-trans activists”) caution youngsters from taking life-altering (“lifesaving”) decisions on changing their sex (“gender-affirming care”) until they grow older because this reprieve may indeed be lifesaving for them. But according to gender activists this scientific evidence will be used to shape (bad) policy while it is perfectly okay for them to shape the policy they like.

Perhaps the whole enterprise needs a reframe. It’s naive to believe that scientific evidence won’t be weaponized for political purposes.

Again, scientific evidence is not meant to be “weaponized” by anyone. It is simply scientific evidence – no more, no less. But gender activists make it clear that they are not going to allow any scientific evidence to stand in the way of their political purposes. In the face of neuroscience unbeatable facts they feel that they are somewhat losing ground, so now they suggest that “the whole enterprise” should be reframed.

It feels inevitable that people will gravitate toward a neat, simple story that feels intuitively true: We’re adults at 25. But rather than using that factoid to defend bad decisions, why not use its lessons to reframe youth as an opportunity? As the brain develops in adolescence and early adulthood, it stays open to change; that’s what allows us to learn. And while adolescence is typically a time of big changes, reaching adulthood doesn’t mean the end of that growth. You can make good or bad decisions at any age.

Sly statements like “you can make good or bad decisions at any age” are tongue-in-cheek arguments that require clarification – the decisions of kindergarten children may be good or bad for their age, but they are no comparison to good or bad decisions taken by an adult.  Children and adults will never think the same.

But nothing is impossible for our gender activists. Instead of accepting the objective biological limitations of the brain at each stage of it maturity they are set to mold the kids’ brains according to the brave new world they are creating for them, which is sexually free, gender-fluid and totally devoid of any oppression from their parents, of course. 

They openly call it an “opportunity to reframe youth” which is actually a public declaration of their ideology and intentions.

The only reasonable explanation for their dogged effort to impose sex and gender ideology on children – in open defiance of hard scientific facts – is the agenda to turn children into deeply disturbed sexual beings and then promote sexual relations between children and adults.

Logically speaking, this will probably be done under the pretext that it is going to be “beneficial” for children. Indeed, “Who can guide the poor young soul better than an adult partner? No one can” – this is the same old argument that was used by aristocracy in ancient Greece to institutionalize pedophilia with young boys as a way to educate them and ensure their success in life.  

And it is already being done in the name of “love and compassion” for troubled kids though it is they who first confuse them with their theories and then pretend to be helping them with the resulting problems.

All of the above does not mean that true gender identity disorders don’t exist – they do, but the genuine cases are rare and many of them border on autism and other mental disorders. Whatever the reason, they certainly require much attention, sophisticated medical care and a whole lot of love, patience and compassion.  

But apart from that, the present epidemic of child transgenders seems to be wholly man-made and driven by a very, very specific agenda.

Gays against groomers were the first to notice it and are completely spot on in their diagnosis.

We’re saying NO.  

There are millions of gays within the community that want nothing to do with this Alphabet religion and join the fight with parents and concerned people everywhere to protect children. We also aim to return sanity and reclaim the community we once called our own. 

The gay community is not a monolith. Those pushing this agenda do not represent or speak for us all, nor do we want to be associated with them in any way. What we are witnessing is mass scale child abuse being perpetrated on an entire generation, and we will no longer sit by and watch it happen.

It is going to take those of us from within the community to finally put an end to this insanity, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/about

If Michael Jackson had lived to see it, would he have joined these people? No doubt, he would.

He worshipped children like others worship God and was all about letting kids enjoy their innocent childhood.

He constantly spoke about the need to build family-oriented parks and called on parents to spend more time with their children and care for their needs.

He himself was a wonderful father and would have certainly been among those parents who fiercely object to their kids’ corruption.

And considering his enormous popularity all over the world, he could have done a lot to prevent or reverse the current trend.

And this is most probably why they struck him where it hurt most, and why they were so set on destroying him.

Prince, Paris and Bigi (former Blanket) in December 2022

WHAT’S WRONG WITH VINCENT AMEN, a one-time associate of Michael Jackson?

$
0
0

Vincent Amen, a one-time associate of Michael Jackson, has recently surfaced with some very strange tweets.

His primary target was Joe Tacopina, the former attorney of Donald Trump who is now accused by the New York DA Bragg of paying some money to a porn star. Vincent Amen tweeted that since the Government has problems beating Joe Tacopina, he will do the job for them:

You see… Tacopina May Beat NY District Attorney Bragg for TRUMP. The Government has problems beating Joe Tacopina. But.. I beat Him, Tacopina. Ci Vediamo! Ma che Scemo o Ma che Schemo! An espresso toast! Un Doppio..

Translated from Italian:

“We will see each other! What a Fool or What a Scheme! An espresso toast! A double

The above looks like some incoherent drivel, but what is clear from it is that Vicent Amen is determined to do away with Joe Tacopina. He continues in an even more pompous fashion:

This is the link to the article on Joe Tacopina’s website. Let me say something: God, The Universe brings you to a crossroads sometimes. One chooses Good or Evil. Guess what I choose, Good, Children. Tacopina chose Evil. It’s locked in @DiDimond

So on his noble mission to sink Joe Tacopina Amen claims that he” chose Good” while Tacopina “chose Evil”, and then he refers us …to the Twitter profile of Diane Dimond whose whole career was built on demonizing Michael Jackson. Does all of it mean that Vincent Amen is ready to throw Michael Jackson under the bus in order to sink Joe Tacopina?

It does, because all of sudden Amen claims that Tacopina “covered up” for Jackson:

Listed on Notable Case, is that he represented “Jackson Associates”. That would be me and Frank Cascio. I’m the one who paid Joe Tacopina, hired him. It’s unfortunate how it turned out with Tacopina deciding the cover up for Michael.@DiDimond

This lie from Vincent Amen is something new on the horizon – when Michael Jackson was alive he never said anything even remotely close to the above. But the more he tweets now the worse it grows:

Trump Lawyer Joe Tacopina Previously Called Stormy Daniels HushMoney Scheme Illegal Tacopina was the 1st attorney I hired for the Michael Jackson Trial. He possesses Michael Jackson’s Child Pornography Magazine. I Changed Attorneys @DiDimond

The story gets “sick-er”. After Tacopina saw the child pornography magazine with “Little Naked Boys”, Tacopina goes on TV calling Michael Jackson Innocent, Michael would never would do that. I watching Tacopina sway Public Opinion. Then it gets “sick-er”, the story @DiDimond

Now that is completely outrageous. Vincent Amen claims that Joe Tacopina allegedly possesses a “child pornography magazine with Little Naked Boys”, which initially belonged to Michael Jackson, and despite that Tacopina still called Michael innocent, and this is when and why the outraged Vincent Amen changed attorneys?

But the whole thing is a pack of lies from beginning to end!

The lies are indeed outrageous, but also somewhat desperate and pathetically stupid, I would say, which will work only for those who are unable to put two and two together, don’t go beyond the headlines and have no idea who Vincent Amen is.

It is even interesting what made Vincent Amen fall so low, and this required in-depth research as a result of which I am making this post now. Here is just a fraction of what I’ve found.

WHO IS VINCENT AMEN?

Vincent Amen on Twitter

Few people know who Vincent Amen is, and from his tweets they may get an impression that he was someone important in Michael Jackson’s life.

The journalist Roger Friedman, for example, thinks that Amen worked for Michael Jackson “since 1993”.

This is wrong as Vincent Amen had not even met Michael Jackson until 1996 when he was 16.

Vincent Amen got acquainted with MJ through Frank Cascio and it was Frank Cascio he associated with since 1993.

Cascio and Amen are the same age, both were born in 1980 and lived in New Jersey, both are of Italian origin and have been school friends since the 8th grade. In 1996 Vincent Amen used to hang out with Frank at the Cascios’ house in New Jersey and on one of the occasions when Michael Jackson stayed there Amen met Jackson for the first time.

He was 16 then, but he went to Neverland and began working for Michael Jackson only in 2003 when he was 23.

Amen speaks about it himself:

“My name is Vincent Amen and I worked for Michael in 2003 – together with Frank Cascio, his personal assistant back then. I got to know Michael as a very cordial and friendly person who never missed a chance to let us know how much he appreciated our hard work.

Me and Frank were childhood friends and since Frank was also good friends with Michael, I first met him back in the 90s when he would visit Frank’s house where Frank and I would be hanging out together. When I first met Michael, I said “Nice to meet you Mr. Jackson”, and he quickly said “Call me Michael, no need to address me by my last name.” Michael wanted us to be casual around him, he was very nice and open to meet Frank’s friends, like me, even though he was a superstar and I had to be a teenager of 16 years at the time.”

In fact there is no record that he had ever been to the Neverland ranch until the moment he was hired by Michael Jackson in 2003 to work on a video special for Fox. His job was to select some clips from Michael Jackson’s home videos and show them to a Fox producer for further compilation.

Besides that Michael Jackson asked him and Frank Cascio, who for professional reasons went as Frank Tyson at the time, to entertain the Arvizo family while they stayed at Neverland and waited for the media storm from Bashir’s  documentary film about Jackson to die out (Bashir himself didn’t call it a documentary and said to District Attorney Tom Sneddon that it was a “cultural-affairs program”).

What’s also important is that Vincent Amen’s tenure with Michael Jackson lasted for one month only.

We know it from the transcript of Amen’s taped conversation at the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office on December 30, 2004.

Item 230

Vincent Amen Interview

Partial transcript

12-30-04

Present: Vincent Amen, John Jay Fahy, Jeff Klapakis, Steve Robel, Gordon Auchincloss

Robel: …Once we get started ….we’re gonna listen and let you take us from the beginning you know, when you first were employed by Michael, how that happened and just take us through you know, your month of being employed by Michael.

Amen: Okay.

 

So Vincent Amen was employed by Michael Jackson only for a month, and only in 2003, and I am specifically stressing this point not to let Amen lie about Jackson any further – like him appointing himself, say, “a witness of MJ’s inappropriate behavior” sometime in the 1990s, for example.

During that month in February-March 2003 Cascio and Amen took care of the Arvizos’ every need – drove Janet and children to shops, spas, movies, to restaurants and medical facilities, and even to her lawyer William Dickerman (twice), and throughout that time the Arvizos never complained about anything.

However it didn’t prevent the Santa Barbara DA Tom Sneddon from calling Amen and Cascio the “co-conspirators” in the alleged abduction and imprisonment of the Arvizo family and threatening to bring charges against them.

Frank Cascio described the experience in his book “My Friend Michael”:

Just before Christmas, on December 18, 2003, Michael was officially charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent, that is, the Arvizos were claiming that he got Gavin drunk in order to molest him. According to the legal documents, these crimes had occurred in February and March 2003, when we were all at Neverland following the Bashir fiasco.

Not long after the official charges were filed, Vinnie and I started getting calls from the district attorney’s office saying they wanted to speak to us because we’d been staying at Neverland during the time in question.

«Frank», Vinnie said. «Look, I don’t know our position, but I think it’s time we got an attorney.»

After meeting with a few superlawyers, Vinnie and I walked into Joe Tacopina’s office in Manhattan..

 Joe spoke to the district attorney’s office. They indicated that they were going to a grand jury which meant they believed they had enough evidence to warrant a trial. Their story was that Michael and I had formed a conspiracy in which I helped him gain access to Gavin, then covered up various nefarious activities and tampered with witnesses.

Over several meetings, Vinnie and I gave Joe a detailed history of our interactions with the Arvizos. Joe thought that we had considerable evidence showing that there had been no conspiracy, but this was a high-profile case with, as he put it, «a rabid prosecutor with a clear agenda.» He worried that Vinnie and I would be dragged into it because the idea of there having been a conspiracy made the case sound even more sinister.

Later in January 2004, when Michael was arraigned, Vinnie and I were named as unindicted co-conspirators. As Joe explained the co-conspirator charge, it meant that we weren’t being charged with any crimes and that the prosecutors had no evidence against us. We were safe ”for now” but if Michael was convicted, they would probably charge us.

The fact that I hadn’t been charged at the arraignment meant that I wasn’t about to be subpoenaed or arrested, but Joe still didn’t want me to be in touch with Michael. Against his advice, I flew to L.A. with my father and Eddie to visit Michael for a couple of days at the ranch.

When we walked into the main house, my father greeted Michael by reassuring him that we were all there for him and the kids ran up to us and hugged us. Once the kids were out of earshot, we talked about the upcoming trial ”we had to” but then we tried to have some fun.

… we didn’t want to talk about the looming allegations, and we couldn’t come up with any other subject to discuss. I wanted to say, «I told you so,» but I didn’t. And Michael wanted to ask, «How did this happen?» but he didn’t. Instead, we were mostly quiet, and every so often I would say, «Can you believe this fucking family?»

«I can’t believe this shit,» Michael would respond. We would look at each other and shake our heads. It felt like a bad dream.

 After that trip, both my lawyer, Joe Tacopina, and Michael’s lawyer, Tom Mesereau, firmly instructed me not to have any further contact with Michael. If I was called to testify, and the DA asked, «When was the last time you spoke to Michael?» they wanted me to be able to say that we hadn’t spoken since the charges were filed.

 I had confidence that our attorneys would reveal the truth, but our trial in the court of public opinion was a separate matter. A journalist named Roger Friedman was covering the trial for a Fox News entertainment blog called FOX411. I had never spoken to the press about Michael before, but this Roger Friedman was writing daily stories and his information was wrong. Now, frustrated with what I saw in his columns, I decided that if they were going to write about me, they might as well have accurate information. I wanted to get the truth out.

 Vinnie and I met Roger at a coffee shop on Seventy-sixth and Broadway. Vinnie put a big metal briefcase on the table and unsnapped it. He opened it wide, and Roger leaned forward for a closer look. Inside were piles of receipts. We explained to him that these were receipts from everything we had spent money on when we were taking care of the Arvizos during their stay at Neverland. There were receipts for hotels, movie theaters, restaurants, and spas. The press had been accusing us of kidnapping her, but, as was instantly clear to Roger, these were not the expenditures of kidnappers and their hapless victim. We had kept her comfortable and entertained while waiting for the media surrounding the Bashir video to die down.

Roger Friedman remembered it too:

“When those guys — Frank Cascio and Vinnie Amen– came to me in 2004 with a huge metal briefcase filled with records of what had gone on, the first thing I remember saying to them was, “Are you sure the Arvizos didn’t kidnap you?”

Frank Cascio says that before MJ’s April indictment Tom Sneddon spoke to Joe Tacopina and warned him that Frank was on a sinking ship and would “go down with the ship”.  Sneddon offered him their “lifeboat” – the immunity, in case Frank came to the DA’s office and testified against Michael Jackson.

This was actually an official invitation to lie about Jackson and Frank didn’t even consider it, but there can’t be any doubt that the same “lifeboat” was also offered to Vincent Amen and the latter accepted it. To give Amen his due he didn’t lie about Michael Jackson then.

Vincent explained his decision by saying that he would prove to the District Attorney that he and Frank had nothing to hide and the truth he would tell the prosecutors would help to escape jail time in case of a false charge. Knowing Tom Sneddon’s ways the danger of their indictment was indeed real, though Joe Tacopina was sure that even if they were indicted they would be acquitted as the DA had zero evidence against them.

Frank Cascio continues:

That spring, before the indictment, Joe spoke to Tom Sneddon, the district attorney of Santa Barbara County.

«Listen,» Sneddon said, «Frank’s on a sinking ship. He can take our lifeboat or go down with the ship.» He offered me immunity if I came into the DA’s office to testify against Michael.

I know people who watch shows like Law & Order are used to thinking that the DAs are the good guys, but this time they were on the wrong side of the case. Even if I were to be completely honest, they would look for ways to use whatever I said against Michael.

Joe explained to me that this was a common prosecutorial ploy. He had met with these people, and was certain they had no evidence against me. They were bluffing. Still it was Joe’s duty to remind me that I stood to be charged with a serious felony, and that in such a situation plenty of people would run straight to the DA. It was a no-brainer for me. I told him I stood by Michael and wanted to stay the course.

…I was lying in bed, with Valerie beside me, when the phone rang. It was Joe Tacopina. He said that Vinnie had gotten his own lawyer. I couldn’t believe it. Joe told me not to worry about it, but I was hurt. Why would Vinnie do this? Weren’t we in it together? Part of why I wanted to stick with Vinnie was that I felt horrible about and responsible for his situation. I had known him since I was thirteen years old. I brought him into Michael’s world, and now he was in this unthinkable situation because of it.

I called Vinnie, who tried to calm me down.

«Frank, you have nothing to worry about. We’re still working together. Legally, it’s just better if we have different attorneys. »

I didn’t like the idea, but it was what he preferred, so I went along with it. But then Vinnie decided to talk to the DA. He had done some reading on other cases in which people had been falsely accused, and he and his lawyer decided it made sense to tell his side of the story. There was so little evidence to support the conspiracy charge that Vinnie thought he could show the DA that they didn’t have a case without implicating anyone else.

He explained that he had not held Janet Arvizo hostage, that when he drove her around to various appointments, she had ample opportunity to ask for help or «escape.» He thought this was a good legal move on his part and that it showed the public that we had nothing to hide. Understandably he was tired of being stuck in legal limbo, of being trashed and slandered by media sharks.

As much as I accepted his logic, talking to the DA was like talking to the devil in my eyes. They were building a case against Michael and against Vinnie and me. They were already going to trial. The truth was irrelevant to them now; what mattered to them was building their case and winning.

I couldn’t believe he had done this. I felt betrayed. I thought we would go through this together, but for the rest of the trial, and afterward, I wouldn’t speak to Vinnie. Eventually I understood that Vinnie didn’t have the same history with Michael, or the same loyalty to him. Whereas I was willing to sacrifice anything for Michael, Vinnie wanted to make sure he didn’t see any jail time and if talking to the DA ensured that, then he would talk to the DA. I was so pissed at Vinnie that I didn’t speak to him for years. …

Now let us fit the above into the timeline of the events. More details were provided by our David Edwards in this post, so here I will select only some milestones which led Vincent Amen to an eventual deal with the Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon.

  • Bashir’s slanderous “cultural-affairs program” about MJ was shown on February 3rd in the UK and on February 6th, 2003 in the US.
  • Since the moment it aired the Arvizos were relentlessly sought after by the media and found shelter at Michael’s Neverland to avoid the media’s frenzy. According to Sneddon their stay at Neverland began on February 7th, 2003.
  • On February 8th, 2003, the 60 Minutes journalist Ed Bradley arrived at Neverland to shoot an interview with Jackson about the Bashir film and found the Arvizo family at the same table with him having meals. They offered nothing but praise for Jackson.
  • On February 20th the Arvizos were interviewed by the DCFS social workers and again spoke of MJ in glowing terms. Incidentally, in late March 2003, Janet ran into one of those DCFS social workers while shopping and didn’t say a word of complaint to her again.
  • On the same day of February 20th the Arvizos shot the rebuttal video. Janet Arvizo and her children vehemently defended Michael by making statements such as: “Daddy Michael rescued us. Took us into his fold, became the surrogate father.” “God’s grace as God works through people, so does the devil. But God elected to work in Michael to breathe life into Gavin and to my two other children, and to me a much necessary love in a very traumatic time in our life.”

The Arvizo rebuttal video (screenshot)

  • On February 21st and 25th Janet Arvizo met with her attorney William Dickerman regarding the furniture put in some storage, and again didn’t mention the family being “abducted” and kept at Neverland against their will.
  • Despite all that and lots of other factual evidence Sneddon claimed that the Arvizos were “imprisoned” at Neverland from February 7th to March 10th, later changed into March 11th and then to March 12th 2003. This and other shifts in the timeline had to be made by the District Attorney because it turned out that Michael stayed at Neverland on occasions only and was not present when the alleged “molestation” of Gavin Arvizo allegedly began. Initially they claimed that it happened much earlier but as a result of the adjustments the prosecution scenario ended up with a version that MJ decided to “molest” Gavin right before the boy’s departure from Neverland.

The final tale was so absurd that Matt Taibbi of the Rolling Stone magazine called it circular, fantastic and downright mad. See page 6 of his book “Smells Like Dead Elephants”:

It was only after the filming of this so-called rebuttal video … and after the authorities had begun an investigation into Jackson’s relationship with the boy, that Jackson allegedly molested the child, in early March.

The prosecution’s case therefore boils down to this: in a panic over negative publicity, Jackson conspires to kidnap a boy and force him to deny acts of molestation that in fact never happened, and then he gets over his panic just long enough to actually molest the child at the very moment when the whole world is watching.

Thomas Mesereau was also amazed by the absurdity of Sneddon’s claims:

“The sexual abuse is supposed to have taken place when Mr. Jackson was under intense scrutiny because of the documentary by the news media, law enforcement and child welfare authorities, Mr. Mesereau noted.

“In the middle of all this is when they say the child molestation occurs,” he said. “Can you imagine a more absurd time for it to happen?” 

The timeline of the allegations is indeed sheer madness and is actually all you need to know about the Arvizo case, but let us continue with this craziness to see when Vincent Amen and Joe Topicana came into the picture.

  • When the Arvizos left Neverland nothing else happened, but by the summer of 2003 the family realized that they had missed a chance to extort Michael Jackson for money, so they made up a crazy story of “molestation” and took it to Larry Feldman, who was Jordan Chandler’s attorney ten years prior to that.
  • However, due to the changes in the legislation a civil lawsuit could no longer precede a criminal case as it did in 1993, so to their great disappointment the matter had to be taken to the prosecution first. This is when the DA office renewed their criminal investigation of MJ which was initially opened immediately after Bashir’s film but was closed a couple of months later due to total lack of evidence against MJ.
  • Then the Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon waited until November 18th, 2003, the exact date of releasing Michael Jackson’s Number Ones album, and sent about 70 policemen to raid the Neverland ranch. Diane Dimond was waiting at the gate ready to report it. The police seized every piece of evidence from the ranch including computers, photos, books, magazines, bed linen, empty bottles, and actually every scrap of paper that could be found on MJ’s property. By the way, Michael Jackson and his children had been away from Neverland for at least 3 weeks by that moment, but the question who drank what and who left their belongings where during his absence was never asked.
  • A month after the raid, in December 2003 the press began talking that a conspiracy charge would be brought against Jackson, and this is when Vincent Amen suggested that he and Frank Cascio should retain an attorney just to be on the safe side. This is when attorney Joe Tacopina came in.
  • On April 21, 2004 Michael Jackson was indicted by a grand jury on multiple charges, including conspiracy involving child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion. The case was to go to a criminal court now.
  • And a month later, on May 19th 2004 some sources revealed to Roger Friedman that Vincent Amen was already in secret negotiations with the prosecutors.

So by mid-May at the latest Vincent Amen had already flipped everyone off, changed Joe Tacopina for another attorney (John Fahy) and the new attorney had already approached the District Attorney’s office to make a deal for Amen.

Roger Friedman says that Vincent Amen began panicking “in the last few months” before that moment in May 2004 and this means that the coward began panicking almost immediately after the first rumors in December 2003 over just a theoretical possibility of being indicted on a conspiracy charge.

Both Frank Cascio and Vincent Amen were in a status of “unindicted co-conspirators” and Joe Tacopina explained that they were safe ”for now” but could be indicted if Michael Jackson was convicted (MJ was acquitted on all charges in case someone doesn’t know it).

But May 2004 was still one year off from the date of the acquittal, so on May 19 Roger Friedman reported that Vincent Amen’s was in separate meetings with the prosecutors:

“[Tyson and Amen] seemed to be on the same page for a while. They even shared an attorney. But in the last few months, Amen is said to have panicked because he might have big legal problems facing him thanks to the scandal. He changed attorneys and started making his own plans.

It didn’t help that Jackson’s team did nothing to reach out to Amen, my sources said. This was probably a huge strategic mistake. Nevertheless, sources say that Amen’s visit with prosecutors may have had an unintentional effect. At the meeting, Amen finally was able to explain many of the episodes recounted in grand jury testimony and in this column.

For example, Amen told the district attorneys how the accusing boy’s urine sample was ruined on a drive to the medical lab. The boy’s mother said Amen dumped it out, but Amen claims it fell over in his car. I’m told the prosecutors were persuaded that his stories were truthful. That causes a problem for them, however.

In associated testimony, the conspiracy part has taken a beating thus far. Tyson and Amen were said to have held the family for a week in a hotel in Calabasas, Calif. But this column reported exclusively that the family went on wild shopping sprees, to the movies and to many local restaurants. The mother even had a full body wax and a manicure. None of this is considered standard fare during a kidnapping. The family also made dozens of phone calls to friends and family, never mentioning once that they were in any peril.

The family’s attorney, William Dickerman, dealt the conspiracy part of the trial a fatal blow when he was cross-examined by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau yesterday. He admitted to writing several letters to Michael Jackson’s then-attorney Mark Geragos after the family left Neverland for good on March 11, 2003.

The letters, which concerned the return of the family’s meager possessions from a storage vault, were called a “series” by Dickerman. But the lawyer never mentioned in any of them that the family had been “held hostage” or made to do anything they didn’t want to do. At the same time, Dickerman indicated that during his many meetings with the family, none of them mentioned their “kidnapping” either.

In fact, Dickerman revealed that his first two meetings with the family were on Feb. 21 and 25, 2003. Amen drove the mother to the meeting on the latter date. On the same day, he and Tyson took the family on their seven-day shopping trip in Calabasas.”

In short the kidnapping story was a farce and after Janet Arvizo spoke at the trial of the need to escape from Neverland by a hot air balloon no sane person could believe it. However Vincent Amen was frightened out of his wits and worried about everything – even about the unfortunate urine sample that was spilled when he took Gavin and Janet Arvizo to a hospital in 2003.

The appointment with doctors was scheduled for March 10th in order to see if Gavin’s kidney was functioning properly, and Janet Arvizo later accused Amen that he had intentionally spilled the bottle in an attempt to prevent the alcohol in the urine from being detected by doctors and thus ruin her allegation that MJ “plied Gavin with alcohol  before molesting him” at Neverland.

Star and Gavin Arvizo

But I see absolutely no problem for Vincent Amen here – Gavin could have provided a fresh sample of urine upon his arrival at the hospital and if there was any alcohol to detect there it could have been detected anyway.

Most probably Gavin didn’t want to produce a fresh sample himself as numerous witnesses testified that the behavior of Gavin and his younger brother at Neverland had been brash and brazen, and they had broken into Jackson’s wine cellar and drunk alcohol on their own volition.

THE DEAL

Now we know that Vincent Amen and his new attorney contacted the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office already in May 2004.

But for some reason Tom Sneddon and his people recorded a 3-hour interview with Vincent Amen only half a year later, on December 30, 2004. This is when he was finally offered the so-called “use immunity”, on condition that he told them everything about Jackson.

The frightened Amen told them everything he knew, but the interview didn’t produce anything to bolster the prosecution case against MJ and even “some inconsistencies” contradicting the Arvizos’ story emerged, so the prosecutors decided against calling Vincent Amen as their witness.

This alone is proof enough that Vincent Amen didn’t have any incriminating evidence against Michael Jackson (or Joe Topicana for that matter).

Amen was in so much panic that he was willing to give Sneddon anything he wanted, just to save his skin, however he had nothing bad to say, and at that time he didn’t want to lie about Jackson.

And this means that there was no “child pornography magazine with little naked boys” that allegedly belonged to MJ and is in possession of Joe Tacopina now.

In fact, a thing like that was even technically impossible – Tacopina was retained by Amen and Cascio a month after the police had searched the Neverland ranch and there was nothing for Topicana, or anyone else, to pick up there. Also, Topicana’s line of business was to defend Amen and Cascio in case the prosecution charged them with a conspiracy, so he wasn’t in any way connected with any evidence concerning that fictional “molestation”.

The story about a magazine was simply made up by Vincent Amen and used by him as an explanation why he changed his attorneys. In reality he gave up Tacopina in order to make a deal with Tom Sneddon.

In fact, we needn’t have done any research into this subject as child pornography magazines are not on sale in the US, so even in theory no such magazine could be in Topicana’s possession. And in Michael Jackson’s possession either.

The whole thing is just a malicious invention on Vincent Amen’s part.

You can examine the full list of items seized at Neverland all by yourself  here and you will see that the policeman who reviewed each book, magazine, periodical, photo and every scrap of paper that was in any way connected with children, specifically noted that “none of them would meet legal requirements to be considered child pornography”.

The only periodicals that could probably show nude children and their parents on the beach was a collection of nudist periodicals of 1934/35 and the 1960s, presented to him by his make-up artist Karen Faye.

People wonder why she made that present, and my opinion is that when observing Michael’s skin problems and seeing him exceptionally shy about his looks, Karen Faye wanted Michael to be less inhibited, more relaxed and more confident of his looks.

The nudist movement was a non-sexual philosophy of harmonizing oneself with nature, no matter how you look and of what shape or size you are, young or the sagging old, and it was wildly popular back in the 1960s.

Nudism was not a taboo even in the puritan Soviet Union – both for adults and little children even more so. Nudists didn’t pay attention to each other’s nudity and seeing another person naked on the beach did not sexually arouse anyone.

By the 1990s and 2000s the trend had become more a curiosity than a common activity. A collection of nudist periodicals has turned into a rarity and when you now look at their covers you are amazed to see how innocent those times were, especially in comparison with today’s depravity when nudity has been replaced with pornography.

The nudist magazines mostly showed naked girls on the beach (and not children), so if MJ did see them it does not speak to anything unusual in his behavior.

Actually, nowadays it is hard to find anything comparable to the virgin purity of those periodicals. And it was only the perverse logic of the prosecution that could turn those magazines into something sinister which they actually weren’t:

Searches of Neverland turned up sexually explicit DVDs and magazines, including 1960s-era nudist periodicals with pictures of naked children, Sneddon said. 

Here is  a photo of a “naked child” in a nudist magazine and the general way kids were shown there:

But let us go back to Vincent Amen again.

WHEN THE DEAL IS WITH THE DEVIL

It is clear why the prosecutors didn’t want Amen to testify at the trial – he didn’t say anything bad about Jackson and was therefore of no use to Tom Sneddon. But this is exactly the reason why his testimony was needed by the defense side – it could be helpful to refute the Arvizos’ allegations that they had been “kidnapped”.

So in May 2005, or half a year after the December 2004 Amen’s interview with the prosecutors, the MJ defense attorneys asked the court whether the immunity granted to Amen by Tom Sneddon would apply to his testimony if he testified for them. The defense attorneys asked for the immunity guarantees for Amen in case he was still fearful to testify.

Their motion said:

The prosecution and law enforcement interviewed unindicted alleged co-conspirator Vincent Amen on December 29, 2004. Prior to this interview, District Attorney Sneddon agreed to confer “use immunity” upon Mr. Amen pursuant to Penal Code Section 1324. The agreement was that Mr. Amen be granted “use immunity” in exchange for his truthful statements and testimony concerning his involvement in this investigation.

Mr. Amen submitted to a detailed interview with law enforcement and the prosecutors, in the presence of his attorney. The interview lasted several hours. Much of what Mr. Amen told the government contradicted the statements of the Arvizo family and defeated circumstantial evidence inferences which the prosecution has made. As a whole, Mr. Amen’s statements were exculpatory. The District Attorney did not call Mr. Amen as a witness.

The defense intends to call Mr. Amen as a witness and expects that this Court will honor Mr. Amen’s deal with the government. The Court should clarify that as long as Mr. Amen lives up to his end of the deal and testifies truthfully his testimony is protected by the use immunity already granted by the government.

May 9, 2005

But the prosecution absolutely didn’t intend to honor their deal with Vincent Amen. Gordon Auchincloss’s reply was devastating.  It turned out that their meeting with Vincent Amen had been “informal” and their agreement on immunity was “verbal” only and since they didn’t wish to summon Amen as a witness there were no grounds for granting him any immunity.

Here is the prosecutor’s reply:

On December 30, 2004, Vincent Amen, his attorney John Fahy, District Attorney Thomas W. Sneddon, Jr., Senior District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss and Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Lieutenant Jeff Klapakis had an informal meeting at the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office. The meeting was arranged after Mr. Fahy contacted the District Attorney’s office and expressed his client’s desire to cooperate with law enforcement in an interview. During this meeting, Mr. Fahy expressed the opinion that his client was not culpable for any criminal wrongdoing but was concerned about statements his client might give during testimony at trial that could be used against him in some future prosecution.

It was verbally agreed among those present that, should Mr. Amen be called as a witness to the stand by the People, the People would petition the court for a grant of use immunity. A recorded interview of Mr. Amen was subsequently conducted and provided to the defense. Due to time constraints this interview was never completed.

Several material inconsistencies emerged during Mr. Amen’s partial interview and it was decided that the People would not call Mr. Amen as a witness. The People do not intend to call Vincent Amen and therefore will not be requesting that the court grant use immunity to this witness.

Dated: May 18, 2005

Signed by Gordon Auchincloss

 

In their objection to the above reply the defense attorneys referred to the transcript of Amen’s interview which didn’t say anything about any conditions set by the prosecutors:

Amen: And again the full story I — nothing can be sued against me?

Robel: Well, what we’ve done is, this is a proffer of — we mentioned it—, a proffer of when you’re aware. Nothing can be used against  you directly, it can be used against you for cross-examination or any fruits coud, they could check ot any fruits or check out any leads. That is …

Auchincloss:  And ths is the agreement, in California we call it “use immunity”, so nothing you say in this interview can be used against you. If we just — something Jay said is — we can go out and obtain fruits from this interview. Ah, but the fruits of that interview cannot be used against you. And if we obtain, find something as a result, direct result that we wouldn’t have found otherwise of this interview, we can’t use that against you. Okay, so it protects you for purposes of what you say here today. Alright.

Amen: Okay.

 

But Tom Sneddon’s cold reply dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s – the deal was valid only in case Vincent Amen was called to testify by the People, but since they decided against using his testimony, any claims for immunity for him as a witness for the Defense were groundless. No word was said that the original agreement stipulated nothing of the kind.

Here is Tom Sneddon’s reply:

Actually, the agreement was that Mr. Amen would be granted “use immunity” if he were called by the People to testify in this matter, and he was assured that his statements to the prosecutors and investigators in the course of the interview would be used against him in any later prosecution of him.

Defendant’s apparent belief – that the informal assurance of immunity given Mr. Amen to encourage him to discuss his role in the events surrounding the Arvizo family’s interaction with Defendnat Jackson obliges the prosecutor to petition this court for a grant of formal immunity to Mr. Amen so that he might testify for the defense at trial – is groundless.

DATED: May 20, 2005

THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR.

District Attorney

 

In other words, the prosecution promised immunity to Vincent Amen if only he spoke against Jackson and agreed to tell lies about him, but since he told them the innocent truth, the prosecution was no longer interested and even indicated that if Vincent Amen spoke for the defense, he could still be charged as an accomplice in a “conspiracy” plot against the Arvizos.

Though they perfectly knew that the plot was non-existent as Amen’s interview had proven it to them.

Thus the prosecution effectively neutralized Amen as a witness by forcing him to make a choice between the immunity in exchange for lies about Michael Jackson and no immunity and the danger of going to jail for telling the truth about Jackson.

At that time Vincent Amen chose to withdraw from the scene of battle by refraining from telling lies about Jackson, but not testifying for the defense either. However today he decided to reenter the scene, and this time on behalf of the devil.

Why so?

THE REASON FOR VINCENT AMEN’S LIES

If we put aside the highly likely but uninteresting scenario that Vincent Amen is simply doing it for big money or other benefits offered to him by Jackson’s detractors, the only other possibility is that Vincent Amen’s U-turn is connected with the danger of jail time again – only not for himself but for his wife Rina Oh now.  

When Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex-trafficking activities were investigated it was found that Rina Oh was Jeffrey Epstein’s enabler and facilitator. In 2020 she was recognized as Epstein’s recruiter by several of his numerous victims, so in theory Rina Oh may be even charged with being complicit in his crimes.

Vincent Amen’s wife Rina Oh

In these circumstances Vincent Amen and Rina Oh could easily receive an offer they couldn’t refuse – they are to malign, vilify and slander Michael Jackson, and discredit Joe Tacopina on the way, and in exchange the authorities will close their eyes on Rina Oh’s own crimes against the young victims of Jeffrey Epstein and will grant her immunity.

History seems to be repeating itself – they already did it to Vincent Amen once, so it was no problem for him to go down the familiar road again.

The deal may explain Vincent Amen’s sudden activity against Jackson right at the time when the investigators were looking for Ghislaine Maxwell’s enablers.

First there was a rumor about his teaming up with Diane Dimond sometime in 2019.

The same year he obtained the publishing rights for an alternate juror’s notes made at the Arvizo trial and published them in September 2020 (see a reader’s review of the book) suggesting that people read it and come to their own conclusions about the verdict – though the juror’s notes are very fragmented, disjointed, taken out of context and can provide a screwed view of the trial.

And in the same year 2020 his wife Rina Oh spoke to a journalist and somewhat out of the blue mentioned Michael Jackson in connection with Jeffrey Epstein and his victims, leaving us with a vague feeling that she knew something sinister about Jackson but didn’t disclose it.

She even said that it was her husband Vincent Amen who “inspired” her to speak.

When you pick up these and other loose ends you get the impression that both of them are on a mission to stigmatize MJ further in order to get a deal with the authorities – to buy leniency for themselves as well as the media’s loyalty towards Rina and her doings. Otherwise it would be impossible to imagine why Vincent Amen would encourage her to speak.

Most probably someone’s big idea is to use Rina Oh’s scandal as a prelude to a new scandal about Jackson and present her as a victim of a predator by invoking the name of Michael Jackson and making a direct link between the innocent man and the real sex offender.

However it’s no use pretending that Rina Oh was a mere victim.

Epstein was her patron and “boyfriend” to whom she brought other girls who were her friends and who were unaware of what was awaiting them, and the extent of Epstein’s gratitude to her was so big that he rented her a flat and gave her a scholarship to take classes at the School of Visual Arts.

Epstein’s main accuser Virginia Giuffre wrote in the draft manuscript of her memoir, used at Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial, that Rina Oh even participated in sexual abuse and was especially intent on “bondage, whipping, hitting and cutting her sex partner with little sharp knives” which left Virginia with a 6-inch long scar on her leg.

Rina Oh and Virginia Roberts-Giuffre

Virginia and other Epstein’s victims were outraged that Rina presented herself as another of Epstein’s victims.

“Rina — if you read this I hope you live in shame for the rest of your life,” Virginia wrote. “You don’t intimidate me any longer & the physical & mental scars you left me with should be enough to put your a– in jail,” she added, along with a #LockHerUp hashtag.

She called Oh’s podcast interview “pathetic excuses from a deranged woman who was NO victim & should be sitting in jail next to #GhislaineMaxwell.”

“Rina — woman to woman, now that I am a woman, U disgust me,” Giuffre tweeted, calling her “an oxygen thief” and “a virus on humanity” who “procured & partook in the abuse of minors” with Epstein and his madam, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Isn’t it amazing that those who accuse Michael Jackson invariably turn out to be sex offenders themselves or at least their accomplices? The NAMBLA attendee Victor Gutierrez, the convicted pedophile Rodney Allen, the unscrupulous Diane Dimond for whom Gutierrez was “the best source” and now a sex-offender’s recruiter Rina Oh and Vincent Amen who is covering up for his wife…

And isn’t it all the more amazing that the law enforcement consistently turn a blind eye on these people while focusing on the innocent Michael Jackson instead?

Epstein ‘recruiter’ admits bringing girls to him and shopping with sex slave Virginia Roberts for schoolgirl outfit

Jessica Kwong

Published: Oct 28 2020

Rina Oh, 41, confessed in the podcast Broken: Seeking Justice that she dated Epstein and that he requested she bring him good-looking women including former model Marijke Chartouni.

However, Oh denied allegations from Chartouni and Virginia Roberts—another accuser who mentioned Oh in her memoir—that she perpetrated or directly participated in any sexual abuse they experienced.

In the podcast reported by the Daily Mail on Wednesday, Oh admitted that she participated in numerous activities involving Epstein, the American financier and convicted sex offender who died in August 2019.

Oh opened up about Epstein apparently asking her to take Roberts, then 17, on a shopping trip to find a “little school girl outfit.” When podcast host Tara Palmeri asked Oh if she thought it was strange that Epstein wanted a 17-year-old young woman dressed like a school girl, Oh responded, “I wasn’t asking questions. I just did as I was told.”

The mystery recruiter said, “I’ve brought three people to, to that place,” referring to Epstein’s mansion in New York, and that “when I’m, ready to talk about it, I’m gonna I talk about it.”

But Oh insisted: “My side of the story is I did not abuse anyone, period. People that knew about him wanted to meet him. And I brought those people there, period.”

A draft manuscript of Roberts’ memoir that was among court documents that became public last August stated that Epstein met Oh at an art gallery where he bought some of her pieces. The memoir alleges various sexual encounters, including that Epstein asked Oh to help Roberts massage him.

Oh, at the time about 21 years old, “loved bondage, whipping, hitting and cutting her sex partner with little sharp knives until they subdued (sic) to her punishment in agonizing pain,” Roberts wrote in the memoir. 

In addition, the manuscript states that Epstein was “absurdly taken” with seeing Oh use whips and toys on Roberts, and rented an apartment for Oh. 

Roberts said that Oh “fit into the subservient category” that Epstein liked and that she had a “bubbly persona.”

Oh is married to Vincent Amen, who worked and lived on Michael Jackson’s Neverland ranch, and it is he who inspired her to speak.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1706966/epstein-recruiter-admits-bringing-girls-shopping-schoolgirl-outfit/

~

…The interview with Oh came about after Marijke Chartouni found her: she has become the unofficial private investigator for Epstein’s victims and has helped to find their recruiters.

Through intensive online research Chartouni tracked Oh down to her home in New Jersey and she agreed to speak.

She said her reason for talking is that her husband is Vincent Amen who worked for Michael Jackson and lived on the Neverland ranch. Amen was named as one of the five alleged unindicted co-conspirators in the unsuccessful 2005 prosecution against Jackson for molesting minors. Amen denied the allegations.

Amen told Oh that getting his story out there saved his reputation and she decided to do the same.

Oh became evasive when pressed about why she didn’t raise the alarm [when she learned of Virginia Roberts’ abuse].

She said: ‘And you’re asking me, well, what was she doing? I was like, well, she was there to serve a purpose. She was brought in to serve a purpose. Like she was groomed to do this……at an early age’.

Oh has asked lawyer Brad Edwards to help her apply for compensation for the Epstein’s victims’ fund, which will be paid for from his $640m estate.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8885837/Mystery-recruiter-Epstein-admits-bringing-girls-pedophile.html

It seems that Amen thinks that his deal with the prosecution “saved his reputation” in 2003,  so now he encourages his wife to follow his steps.

Rina Oh decided to play a victim card and even alleges now that she “had to be victimized to understand what happens to victims”. She says she went to Epstein “for a reason”, same as her husband Vincent was involved with Michael Jackson also “for a reason” (?)

October 30, 2020

 “I wish I didn’t bring anyone there. I wish I didn’t go there. But I went there for a reason.

“My husband was involved with Michael Jackson, for a reason. Between the two of us, we know everything that we need to know,” she said.

“I had to be victimised to understand what happens to victims. Between the two of us, we do talk about it all the time,” she said.

Despite Ms Oh’s denials, Ms Giuffre on Wednesday tweeted that Oh is a “virus on humanity”.

Just look at this Rina Oh’s wild gibberish.

So she went to Epstein for a reason. Meaning what? Meaning that she wanted to be victimized to understand what happens to other victims? What an absurd idea!

And according to her, Vincent Amen was also involved with MJ for a reason. What reason, I wonder? Money, basking in the limelight of Michael’s fame, enjoying himself at Neverland or wanting to make a career at Michael’s expense? Did I forget anything to mention?

And why is this enigmatic talk about what “they know between the two of them” and discuss “all the time”? Give free rein to your wildest fantasies, don’t restrain yourself and think the worst about MJ that you can only imagine!

In 2020 Rina claimed that the two of them keep talking about “it” all the time, but in 2022 she revealed that her sufferings at the hands of Epstein were so horrible that she kept them a secret for 20 years and didn’t speak about them even with her husband.

So what did they talk about all the time then?

“I knew I was a victim after that last incident, but I was in so much shock and trauma that I sort of suppressed what he did for decades,” Oh says. “For two decades I never talked about it. I kept it as a secret, nobody knew. My husband didn’t even know.” 

Now she is shedding crocodile tears over her misfortune and the media is certainly ready to offer her a sympathetic shoulder to cry upon.  Within the last two years the tone of their publications has drastically changed and a whole series of articles to portray Rina as an ordinary victim has appeared.

And this could be easily expected.

Rina Oh thought Jeffrey Epstein was going to be her art patron. Two decades later, she’s coming to terms with being among his victims.

Ashley Collman

Jan 20, 2022

….Maxwell’s recent conviction brought little more closure for Oh, who says she doesn’t think the pain “will ever really go away.”

“I think I’ll always be scarred by what they did to me,” she says.

During the sex-trafficking trial, Oh says she was struck most by the words of one of Maxwell’s accusers, Carolyn, who said her soul had been “broken.”

“It made me break down because I know what that feels like,” Oh says. “I feel that that was their agenda. That’s what they did. They fed off the pain of others.”

https://www.insider.com/rina-oh-jeffrey-epstein-victim-others-accuse-her-enabling-abuse-2022-1

As you know Rina Oh has applied for a compensation from the fund created to support Epstein’s victims and is also suing Virginia Roberts-Giuffre for 10 mln claiming that she had “falsely accused” her.

And Vincent Amen is tweeting one thing after another trying to demean Virginia and kill two, if not three birds with one stone:

  • Firstly, he declares Virginia Roberts-Giuffre to be a scammer and money grabber. Rina Oh’s own application for a compensation for her activities and her own multi-million lawsuit against Virginia are certainly not mentioned.

“The Giuffre’s don’t work.. what does that mean.. they sue people for a living…how egregious.. The Giuffre’s can keep suing enriching themselves.. million here.. few million there.. Through hard work.. The Amen Family is worth more money than Giuffre’s and generates more money.”

  • Secondly, Amen is still at war with Joe Tacopina.
  • And thirdly, he keeps defaming Michael Jackson with some vague but dirty hints and pompously declares that his children know how to correctly fight back from “him with Jackson” and “how to Win in the US”.

“This all can be attributed to Virginia Giuffre’s false accusal in her manuscript she didn’t write, false accusations in the media; Twitter, Print, TV by Giuffre. One good, it shows to the children how you fight back correctly. They know this from me with Jackson. How to Win in US”

Maybe he does know some crooked ways how to win in the US, but despite all his pathetic self-aggrandizing he actually never fought, at least for the truth.

He proved himself a coward who betrayed both Michael Jackson and his friend Frank Cascio, who bargained with the authorities for separate immunity for himself and sheepishly followed their lead even when they didn’t honor their deal with him, and he still allows himself to be manipulated by others in the interests of those who are consistently working against Michael Jackson (and against Joe Tacopina and even Trump).

In fact, he produces the disgusting impression of a sleazebag who is ready to say anything about anyone in order to save his skin, and do it in the name of “justice”, “helping  victims” and “working for the benefit of people”.

By appropriating all those noble goals he is now telling outrageous lies about Michael Jackson – the man he praised and spoke highly of when he still thought that it was profitable for him to be on Michael’s side.

THE CHARITABLE EFFORTS OF MJ

by Vincent Amen, USA

“Michael, I saw first hand  your work and your wish to make this world a better place – and you truly excelled. I saw you charitable efforts and they made and make a difference for so many people. I also saw first hand what Janet Arvizo tried to accomplish and she truly failed in front of the world.”

But now he is singing another tune. You are already familiar with his tweets, but here are some screenshots from his August 2021 interview with the Alpha publishers who published his book with the alternate juror’s notes.

In this interview he says that the book was published for “educational purposes” so he hopes that the juror’s trial notes “will help the legal system”.

He claims there that he is “compassionate to victims” and doesn’t want to criticize the Arvizo boy because there is a possibility that “the child was victimized” after all.

He declares that now he has a political side to him which he hasn’t realized before. And he learned “how to fight”.

He says that he loves to do what his wife does. She is a creator.

He reveals that he “deals with media” and “works with reporters” and it is “another side project that he does”. He does it “on a local level, as well as on an international level”, which means that he uses international media to spread his stories there too.

He elaborates in much detail on how he works on “helping victims and standing up for them” and “revealing information to benefit people”, and he would like to be known as “someone that works to benefit people who have been victimized”.

And all of this was said in August 2021 when it was already perfectly clear that his wife Rina Oh was Epstein’s facilitator who had recruited for him her friends, thus betraying their trust and ruining their lives, and who possibly even participated in their abuse.

This doesn’t stop Vincent Amen from proclaiming her a victim, so he is now working for her benefit, together with reporters from the local and international media, and is standing up for her rights.

And in doing so he does not forget about his mission to vilify, slander and betray his former friend Michael Jackson too.

Virginia Roberts-Guiffre called Rina Oh and Vincent Amen “2 sick peas in a pod”. By saying it she meant something different but in the long run she was right.

These two people deserve each other, and one is no better than the other.

Michael  Jackson’s Friend Brett Barnes Speaks With Charles Thomson. TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW

$
0
0

On another sad anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death probably the best tribute to him would be the interview of Michael’s lifelong friend Brett Barnes with journalist Charles Thomson.

The interview took place already a year ago, in June 2022. It is very long, more than two hours in duration, and it covers lots of details and questions anyone would want Brett Barnes to talk about. And considering that his accent strikes me as very Australian and sometimes nearly incomprehensible, this is how long it has taken me, on and off, to transcribe it.

This post will offer you the first part of the transcript. Occasionally it may require some comment but over here there will be a minimum of interruption on my part – the comments, analysis and even some new findings will come in a separate post. Today we need to listen to first-hand information from a sincere, honest and honorable man who knew Michael Jackson for more than 19 years, associated with him almost until his dying day, and still remains his true friend well after it.

The MJCast 145: Vindication Day Special with Brett Barnes

June 20, 2022 

Part 1

NO QUESTION AND TOPICS ARE OFF LIMITS

Charles Thomson: So Brett Barns, this is the first time you’ve given an interview since 1993. Is that right?

Brett Barnes: That’s correct.

CT:  And is that 1993 interview the only interview you’ve ever given?

BB: Yeah, that would be correct.

CT:  So why now?

BB: That’s a very good question. And to tell you the truth, I don’t really have an answer. It’s something that I’ve wanted to do for a little while having the right outlet has definitely been an important part of that. And, um, just the way that the media has their spin on things it’s really important to have my version of the story, or my story told on a proper forum for that and I believe that this is the one.

CT:  There’s a lot of accusations made on Twitter that you are not Brett Barns (Brett laughs) and that you’re some sort of imposter (laughs again). I can confirm that we did have a video call together to talk about recording this interview. And you definitely are you.

BB: Thank you. (laughs)

CT: And during that conversation, I said to you, is there anything that you don’t want to talk about? And you said, no, no, you can ask me anything you like. Correct?

BB: That’s true.

CT: Okay. Great. Buckle up.

(music)

The following is a presentation from the MJ cast, the Internet’s premier podcast on all things Michael Jackson.

Michael Jackson’s voice:

“I’m a black American. I am proud of who I am together. We can make a change in the world.” “I like to take sounds and put ’em on the microscope.” “There’s a driving base. You become the base. Let the music write itself. I don’t sing it if I don’t mean it. “

Welcome to the MJ cast – your source of news, discussion and interviews on the King of Pop.

HBO TOLD HIM TO GET LOST

CT: Hello and welcome to the MJ cast. I’m Charles Thomson and you’re joining me today for our 2022 Vindication Day episode marking 17 years since Michael Jackson was acquitted after his trial in 2005.

My guest today is Brett Barnes, a long time friend of Michael Jackson, who was thrust into the spotlight in 2019 when a number of assertions were made about him in the TV show Leaving Neverland. He’s chosen the MJ cast as the outlet for his first interview since 1993.

So Brett, I don’t think there’s much question that one of the factors in your decision to speak to us now is the impact that Leaving Neverland had three years ago when it was aired, produced by Channel 4 and HBO, and there were some very strong insinuations in that TV show about you and about your relationship with Michael.  So I just want to check, we just want to get on record with you really. Did anybody involved in that production contact you to offer you the opportunity to reply to any of the insinuations in that show…

BB:  No. Not at all.

CT:  …before it aired?

BB:  Not at all.

CT:  Did anybody contact you to forewarn you that it was going to be airing anywhere?

BB:  Yeah, the only people that did were the fans from Twitter.

CT:  So nobody from Leaving Neverland ever contacted you before it came out?

BB:  No.

CN:  What do you think of that?

BB:  It’s very unfair. It’s very unfair. I don’t understand why, because I guess the argument for them is that it’s not really involving me, but it is involving me because it’s naming me. It’s showing my image. Not only that. My name was used in promotion for the movie. And so without my opinion being involved in it it’s very unfair. Because it’s a one-sided piece with no rebuttal.

CT: And after it aired or after it premiered, I should say, at the Sundance film festival, there was a lawyer called Allen Grodsky who wrote a letter to HBO on your behalf. I’m just going to read an excerpt of that letter. So he said,

 “As a result of the early screenings of the film and the false and exceedingly hurtful impression it leaves, Mr. Barnes has already suffered tremendous stress and emotional pain. Mr. Barnes and his family have received unwanted inquiries and visits from the press and strangers wanting to speak to him about Mr. Jackson. This pain and stress will be dwarfed by the torment he will have to endure if the film is broadcast worldwide.”

So can you tell us a bit about the unwanted inquiries that you received in the visits from the press and from strangers? What happened after Leaving Neverland aired at Sundance?

ANY WORDS THAT I WOULD SAY WOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT

BB:  I had numerous contacts from the Australian press really. The international press was handled, the inquiries were all sent to my lawyer, and so he would funnel them to me to let me know if there are any things happening, so I had a bit of a barrier from the international press. But the Australian press definitely came to my house to try organize an interview. It was Channel 7, Channel 9 here. Both of them tried to contact me on social media as well.

I’m offering the same sort of thing but, my, I have a very, very big distrust of media because of the way that they treat, they will take your words and twist them and, and have their viewpoint and their angle of the story. And so any, any words that I would say would be taken out of context, I’m just very fearful of that.

It’s been demonstrated in the way that they approached me for those couple of specials that they were airing for both of those channels over here. And it was pitched to me to try and get me to do the interview as being a positive piece. But they used, um, in both of those shows… they said that some of the Jackson family members were involved to try and sell it to me to do the interview. Of course I turned it down.

But, um, the specials that they had were totally the opposite of that, so it’s been demonstrated to me how untrustworthy the media is, so I’d really try not to be a part of it.

CT:  So these would be the specials, I assume, you’re talking about the ones I remember – there was an Australian special after Leaving Neverland debuted with, um, Adrian McManus (here is a post about her).

BB:  Yeah, that’s one, that’s one of them.

CT: These are the specials that you’re talking about?

BB: That’s correct.

CT: Yes. So they approached you and they told you that that was going to be a pro-Michael Jackson special to try to get you to participate in it?

BB: Yeah, of course. Of course. I’m sorry to jump. But when back … when the trial was happening and I was called to be a witness, so this is the type of thing, this is type of history that I’ve personally had.

So a newspaper from over here came to my door. They knocked on the door, I didn’t know who it was, opened the door, and there was a reporter there and a cameraman and a camera in my face.

Now I’m just a regular human being and so to have that happen is very, very … in my past being around the press on that side of things has always been expected. But not for someone away from that life, and the life I am talking about is with Michael, so back here when I’m home, it’s a completely private life. And so to open the front door to have a camera in your face is very confronting.

Anyway, so they tried, I’d close the door in their face and they got my home phone number. I was living with my parents at the time. They got my home phone number and were calling me relentlessly. They stayed out, they left the cameraman outside of my house for over an hour. It’s very encroaching on my private life and I don’t like that. And then they ended up spinning a story and putting a little article in a newspaper saying that I spoke to them which I never did. It was just them harassing me over the phone.

There was a time, even earlier, when my dad, my dad (laughs) was just in the yard taking out the bins or something, because it was midnight and a tabloid magazine had a photographer in my neighbor’s yard leaning over the fence. He took a photo of my dad when he was taking the bins out, and then they spun a story saying that they had an exclusive interview with him. The way they have conducted themselves has not made me very trustworthy of the press.

CN: These approaches that you received on the doorstep after Leaving Neverland aired, how would you characterize them? Would you say that they were respectful?

BB: No. No.

CT: Okay. So talk me through that.

BB: They were very, very pushy. They were relentless. It’s like they are hungry for blood. The person that came after Sundance, that came to the door … because we have an Intercom, my wife answered and she said there was a gentleman, he asked if Brett Barns lived there, so she said “No, sorry, I haven’t heard of that person”. So he’s like, “Are you sure? “ “Yeah. I’ve been living here for a couple of years, there’s no one by that name living here”. And so he’s walked away and then he’s come back. He says, “Well, Brett Barnes is listed on the electoral roll as living here”.

So they were doing checks. You can’t check on the electoral roll, you have to go into wherever the roll is held to have a look at who’s there. So you can’t just be at home and be checking up on it. So it’s the lengths that they go to as well, to try and get a story, and to know then that the story that they’re going to get, isn’t going to be putting me in a positive light, is untrustworthy to say the least.

CT: Yeah. And you know, you just mentioned your wife who is involved. You have your own family, so how does it affect them when that happens?

BB: Because they don’t have….. Well, I’ve got a very young, young family, so my oldest child is almost going to be five, so they don’t understand. They haven’t had to go through too much because my youngest daughter was younger at the time, so she had no idea what was going on. But my wife, on the other hand, she is just from a normal family as well. It’s a regular family, they don’t know anyone famous (laughs), so she is not used to it at all, and it’s very confronting for her as well because it is such an invasion of privacy.

CT: To this day has anybody involved in Leaving Neverland contacted you to offer you any kind of right of reply?

BB: No. No.

CT: If they had, would you have spoken to them?

BB: That’s a good question. (pause) I’m very conflicted on that. And then that’s the thing as well is that if I would want to, but is it the right platform for me to do it? It would give credits to the movie. Because for whatever viewpoint up, they have their perspective on the situation, let’s say. So, no matter what I would say, they’ve had the history of to not really care about me as an individual or what I have to say, and it’s not going to go along with their story, which is obviously their own cash cow. It wouldn’t benefit me or anything, I don’t think to be part of whatever they have to produce.

NO ONE’S EVER REALLY ASKED ME TO TELL MY STORY

CT: I’m just going to read you another line from the letter that your lawyer sent to HBO. It says,

 “Mr. Barnes has conspicuously avoided the public eye and has not mentioned his friendship with Mr. Jackson to those close to him. His employer, his co-workers and many close friends are totally unaware”.

Why have you kept the fact that you had this friendship with Michael Jackson, even from some of your close friends?

BB: Well, there’s my close friends, I’ve got a very, very close circle of friends who I’ve been friends with for a very long time. There is like a circle of knowledge, so there’s people within the circle that obviously know, so people that have been around for a long time. 

But there are people who have come into my life later on. If they have any idea, then they haven’t said anything to me, but for the most part, most people are unaware. It’s not something that I flaunted. Because of the way (pause) … high school was a little bit rough for me, because that’s when the first allegations came out.

Not only that, with people knowing that you know someone famous, especially on that level, people treat you differently, let’s say. You can’t really trust a lot of people that are around you because there is a lot of money to be made from knowing him and anything surrounded by him. Any story sells, which’s been proven. Any salacious story sells, should I say.

CT: And have you ever been offered money by the media to talk about Michael?

BB: The story that I mentioned about the photographer and the newspaper coming to my house – they offered me money for it, but there’s not really been any payment. So the truth, no one’s ever really asked me to tell my story, and I guess it’s because it’s not going to sell any stories for them. It’s not the viewpoint that they’re going for.

CT: And when people were waving money at you, was there any suggestion that they wanted you to say anything in particular in order to earn that money? You know, if you’ve got something negative to say we’ve got some money for you, or was it not that overt?

BB: No, it wasn’t that overt.

THE RIDICULE

CT: Okay. So I think from what you’ve just said, essentially, you’re saying that you’ve been wary of mentioning your connection to Michael for two reasons. The first of which is that because of the allegations that were made it became sort of embarrassing. And the second is that you are concerned that people could try to profit from their association with you.

BB: Yeah, fake friends. But I need to clarify that first point.

CT: Sure.

BB: It’s not the embarrassment of those allegations. It’s the ridicule that I received because of those allegations. I’ve never been embarrassed to be friends with him and I never would be. It’s the ridicule I received because of those allegations. If that makes more sense.

CT: And are you talking about ridicule, you know, in your personal life or are you talking about ridicule in the media?

BB: No, in my personal life.

CT: So what kind of ridicule?

BB:  Just you know [how] kids could be mean? There was a lot of ridicule about that for mom, in the school yard.

The Barnes family

CT: Have you ever experienced people around you trying to profit from their association with you and your association with Michael?

BB: Um, no. No, we haven’t. Not that I’m aware of, but I think it’s because we have tended to keep a close circle. So like a lot of people in my life don’t know, it’s because we are not the type of people to flaunt anything. And so we keep those around us that we trust a lot more.

ARE YOU THE REAL BRETT?

CT: Is that part of the reason that your Twitter account is kind of quasi-anonymous (Brett laughs) in the sense that you never post any pictures of yourself or anything like that? Because you’re trying to keep a separation between Twitter Brett Barns and real world Brett Barns?

BB: Well, it actually started after he passed because I’ve got a profile on Facebook. So after he passed a lot of people, a lot of fans requested friendship on Facebook, so I didn’t want to, um, just ignore it, but I didn’t want to add them on my personal Facebook. So I created a Facebook with that same original picture. and so that’s when I started adding all the fans and then all the fans started adding on that. And then I branched out into Twitter and then Instagram which I don’t really use, so I’d say it’s an evolution of the Facebook page for the fans to separate my personal life from that.

CT: I mean, you are frequently challenged by people on Twitter to post a photograph or something to prove that you are the real Brett Barnes (Brett laughs) and you always refuse to do that. So why do you always refuse to do that?

BB: It’s a privacy thing. I still want to maintain my privacy.

CT: So I think it’s fair to say you’ve used your Twitter account over the years to try to set the record straight a bit. when things are reported that involve you, or, you know, when Leaving Neverland came out, that kind of thing, but you’ve never given an indepth interview of the kind that we’re doing today.

One of Brett’s tweets in response to the “Leaving Neverland” fiction story

WE WENT DOWN TO THE AIRPORT

CT:  So why don’t we just rewind to the very beginning of your story with Michael? So, as I understand it, Michael was in Australia on the Bad tour and you as a fan and your mum and your sister went down to the airport. You were too young to go to concert. Is that right?

BB: Yeah. Yeah. It’s a funny story about that. So it was actually Tullamarine [a suburb of Melbourne]. That’s the way the universe works sometimes (laughs). So I was at the airport. Do you want me telling the story?

CT: Yes, go ahead. Tell us the story.

BB: Because it’ll add on to it as well for what I am.  What I told you, I was five years old. I’ve got an older sister of course, and my mom, and my whole family really, we’re all fans of him. And he was coming down for the Bad tour. So it was either my mom or my auntie, someone had suggested that we all go to the airport just to catch a glimpse of him off the plane, as fans around the world do, which I’ve seen multiple times.

So it’s funny. Yeah, so we went to see him. And mom came up with the idea of writing a letter, just at some chance that it gets to him, which I’ve seen happen in later years as well. So my sister wrote both of our letters actually, because I was a bit shy to write. So I just said, “Hey, I’m Brett, here’s my phone number. Um, I’m a really big fan of yours. Give us a call.” That sort of thing.

We went to the airport and so my mom, my sister, myself, my auntie, and my two cousins, we went to the airport to have a glance, and his dancers were up where all the fans were, the dancers for the show. So we handed it to… it was Eddie that we handed the letter to.

While we were there, and this is the actual part, while we were there, there were show bags, Pepsi show bags, because of course it was a Pepsi tour. So Pepsi show bags. And so in the show bags, it was like cans of Pepsi and I think there might have been like tour T-shirts and stuff, but in random ones there were show tickets

So my sister (laughs) went, grabbed a couple of show bags for her and one for me. She brings them back, she gives me one of the bags. Inside my bag there was a couple of the show tickets, but of course me being five years old, I was too young to go. So my mom and auntie, I think, ended up going.

CT: Oh, that must have been gutting!

BB: (laughs) Yeah, it was. But it was just funny how me of all people ended up getting show tickets as well. Yeah, so then we saw him, we went on and we were like far away where all the fans were, and we saw him go from the plank to a van. And then, that was a couple of weeks later, a week or so later, we get a phone call at home and my sister answers the phone and I’m at the front plane, so I wasn’t actually there when the phone rang. So this whole story being told to me, but apparently my sister answers the phone. Someone says, “Hi, can I speak to Brett please?”

So she puts the phone down because I was outside playing, so I think my mum was there, she’s like, “Who is on the phone?” My sister’s like, “Someone looking for Brett, sounds like it’s Michael Jackson” (laughs). So mom was shocked, she picked up the phone, and indeed it was. And so I went inside to talk to [him], but I was a bit shy so I didn’t really say much on that first phone call. That’s how the friendship started.

CT: And you were five, did you say?

BB: Yeah. It was like ’87, end of ’87, start of ‘88.

  • Note: The Bad tour started on September 12, 1987. The concert in Melbourne was on November 13, 1987. On that tour Australia was followed by North America, Europe, North America again and Asia. The tour ended a year and a half later, on January 27, 1989 after MJ touring North America for the third time.

THE COUSINS ARE GIRLS BY THE WAY

CT: What do you remember about that first phone call?

BB:  Yeah, I don’t actually remember much, unfortunately, because I was really, really, really shy, like I really didn’t want to. I didn’t like being put on the spot even at a very early age.  So I didn’t really want to speak, so I just remember like my mom was holding me, so I remember I kept turning my head every time the phone was trying to be put to my ear.

CT: What happened then? So you have that first phone call.

BB: Yeah.

CT: And then how did things develop from there?

BB: He just kept calling and we kept talking. Sometimes it was weekly, he just kept calling and keeping in touch, speaking to us all.

CT: Speaking to the whole family?

BB:  Mm-hmm, even my cousins too. He would call my cousins.

CT: Oh, really? (laughs)

BB:  Yeah. I forgot to mention my cousins were there on that day too when he first called. They are girls by the way. So they gave him their numbers. So he called them as well.

CT: Did you ever find it strange? You know, he’s the biggest, most famous celebrity in the history of the world. And in his spare time he rings you and your family. Did it ever seem weird to you?

BB: (laughs) Because I was so young, I don’t know if it ever really transferred that the person that I was seeing on TV was the same person that I was speaking to on the phone. So to me he was just a regular person because it wasn’t part of the concerts and the video clips and stuff. So from the very start he has been a regular person for me. And it’s probably why I got (laughs) such a skewed perspective on life.

CT: What do you mean by a skewed perspective on life?

BB: Because of being exposed to that side of things, like seeing, going around the world, seeing the energy of the fans, when the concerts are going on, just seeing the mayhem of people everywhere, the adoration, just that side of life – and then coming back here to just be a regular person, going to school and just living a normal life.

CT: So you mean you have like a unique outlook.

BB: Very unique outlook.

CT: Yeah. Most people have not experienced what you’ve experienced.

BB: It’s wild. It’s wild.

CT: So you said he would talk to you and your sister and he would talk to your cousins who were girls. Did he talk to your parents also?

BB: Yeah. Yeah, of course.

CT: And so essentially it was a friendship with the whole family.

BB: Yeah, the whole family.

  • Note: Everyone who wonders what Michael Jackson talked with little children about, should listen to Michael’s conversation with little Megan, daughter of Glenda Stein, whose husband recorded Michael Jackson’s calls to their family for a period of two or three years (apparently for selling them, which they eventually did).
    Michael Jackson called the little girl from Italy on July 6th, 1992 during the Dangerous tour and patiently listened to her account of the movie she was impressed with, the fireworks she saw at Disneyland, Michael’s T-shirts, her dream of becoming an actress, Michael’s poems, the film Moonwalker and how they made a ponytail on the main villain’s head stick up in the air, the nightmare she once had, the scary Chucky doll from a movie and Michael reassuring her again and again that it’s just pretend and make-believe. The tape lasts for 13 minutes and leaves the listeners in awe of Michael’s patience and kindness to children. The typical comments are: “The way he interacts and listens to this child is endearing. Such patience and kindness”, “I can’t believe he had thirteen minutes of patience to hear that little girl talk, and he’s a man making millions of money per minute. Damn! I won’t have five minutes of that patience” and “After listening to this there’s no way the allegations about him are true no f***ng way”. Try the tape here
    and see for yourself.

NEVERLAND AND NICKNAMES

CT: So was the first time you met him in person, would that be when you were invited to Neverland for the first time?

BB: Correct.

CT: So I think from court transcripts, that was in December, 1991. Does that sound right?

BB: Yeah.

CT: Okay. So tell us about that first. Well, tell us about the first time you actually clap eyes on him and meet him in person. How vividly do you remember that?

BB: Yeah. To me it sort of plays out more like a movie, like I’m watching the situation. It was, yeah, it was really, really, really cool. It was really cool.

Because we’ve just been speaking for a long time over the phone and it was… he was waiting to finish the Dangerous album before we would fly out. Going to Neverland for the first time was so amazing. And, it’s funny because every single time that you go there, that magic is just …. it would still be there. That same magic of being there for the first time.

But yeah, because music is playing… when you first go through the gates music is everywhere. Just classical music, Disney soundtrack just playing everywhere, so it’s like a real experience. And then he was in his bedroom which is the whole house, whole apartment within itself. And so the whole family went in, because we actually …

No, first off, we were in the library, we had to go to the library first. Library was really cool. Books everywhere, a massive chess table, and then his manager came back, nice manager’s secretary assistant, she was the one that picked us up from the airport and took us to Neverland. And she was like, “Mr. Jackson is ready to see you now”, so we all go in there and I just ran up and hugged him. It was really cool. 

CT: Just tell me more about that moment. So you meet him for the first time, is he bigger than you expect him to be? What’s… what’s that like meeting Michael Jackson?

BB: Yeah, I am still a little kid, so he is… he’s obviously larger than life, but still like real frails, real funny.

CT: Frail.

BB: Yeah, well, not frail, but just because he was a lot skinnier than a lot of people. Frail is, sorry, frail is a really wrong word to use. Because he’s still powerful of course, because of the dancing, like his body was just pure muscle. But there wasn’t a lot of him.

But for me, as I was saying, from a young age he’s always been a regular person to me, so it wasn’t so much as meeting Michael Jackson for the first time, it was the first time meeting Applehead, if that makes sense.

CT: Applehead. So he told you that that was his nickname.

BB: It was everybody’s nickname. I was Applehead. No, actually he called me Doo-Doo more so. But he was always, he was always Up for me. For most people who recall, like some people call him Doo-Doo, for the most part I called him Up.

CT: Was there ever any explanation given as to the origins of these names? Because they are a bit… they’re not flattering, you know. Doo-Doo (both laugh), so where does that come from?

BB: It was just… I’ve never actually got the explanation for it, but it’s just something that, something that we rolled with, I guess, it’s one of those things where it’s like a cheeky way of showing love and appreciation. Like Australians are well known for it. So it makes total sense to me without having to understand it.  

Like we call each other over here, we call each other the C-word. We frequently use the C-word and it’s a term of endearment for a lot of people. So I understand that aspect of it. But Applehead, I know the origin of, well, the way that he told me was that it was him and Mac watching Three Stooges and I think it was Moe called Curly Lord said to both of them – you Appleheads and that sort of stuck from there.

CT: And just to clarify, Mac, presumably is McCauley Culkin.

BB: Yeah.

“Michael on the set of Captain EO showing one of his favorites: the Three Stooges. Contrary to what some pathetic media personalities who made a sorta-kinda career trashing MJ, “Applehead” is not a code name for any crime. Simply one of the Three Stooges’ signature catchphrases.” 
 https://twitter.com/MikeSalazar777/status/1234165503666593792
I agree with the comment: “The only thing dafter than the Three Stooges are Wade Robson, James Safechuck and Dan Reed.”

THE TRAIN STATION CAME LATER

CT: Okay. So Neverland was a work in progress at that time. What do you remember being there and not being there in December 91?

BB: Um, some of the amusement rides, um, some of the animals weren’t there, it’s only from later, things that I never really thought about, like what was there and what wasn’t. The flower clock and the train station – actually yeah, they came later. Because the big train wasn’t there. It was only the little train.

CT: Were there animals there, did you say, was there a zoo?

BB: Yeah. There were some animals, but some animals weren’t there. Like there was a petting zoo that came later, the tigers came later. He had only one elephant then. Gypsy.

CT: And so what were those first days at Neverland? Like, did you get to spend a lot of time with Michael or were you more left to your own devices on the property?

BB: No, he was waiting, as I said, he was waiting to finish Dangerous, so he could have a lot of free time, so he was around for most of it.

CT: And so what kind of stuff were you getting up to?

BB: It was the arcade. The game house was the best. So it was just a house filled with arcade games. It was literally a two story building filled with arcade games. Jukebox. There was fridges filled with sodas. It was candy everywhere. The movies, [we] went to the theater to watch movies. Of course the rides. It was wild.

 We were staying in the guest houses. My sister and I were sleeping in one of them together, in separate beds. So we went to bed the first time and woke up the very next morning, and he comes into the room and he’s got a chimpanzee. So this was the very first morning after we got there. We were greeted in the room with a chimpanzee. Wow.

CT: (laughs) Was it Bubbles? Was it one of the other chimps?

BB: It was Max. Bubbles wasn’t there.

CT: In terms of your first visit there, I think, didn’t you go to other places? You went to Disneyland, you went to LA, you went to Vegas. Was that all during that first trip as well?

BB: Because I was so young my memories didn’t distinguish what places we went. We definitely went to those places, but I don’t know if it was in that trip. From my memory we were going across pretty often, from my grade 5 – 6, my years in school, grade 5, grade 6. I was actually there for like half of them, because we were going, like we went over on tour, and we were going back and forth to the States.

THE PERSON I WAS SEEING ON TV WASN’T THE SAME PERSON I WAS SPEAKING TO

CT: And being inside Michael Jackson’s private world, what impact does that have on you as a fan? Does Michael Jackson the pop star start to lose the mystique? Does he start to become more of a human and less of a pop star? What, how does that relationship change?

BB: Of course. Like I said, from the very start I was too young to differentiate between the person I was speaking to and I mean, not young to differentiate, it was differentiated. The person I was seeing on TV wasn’t the same person I was speaking to. There were sort of two separate beings. So being around him, there’s a moment where the pop star creeps in, but for the most part he was just outward.

CT:  And how does that happen when you say there’s moments where the pop star creeps in? What would be an example?

BB: Obviously the concert, so as soon as he stepped out on stage…. but like there’d be times where we would go in, like, we’d go to Toys R Us, but it will be shut after hours, but they would open the store for us. Like the very first time we’re at the ranch we went to Toys R Us and he’s like, “Get whatever you want”, so we filled up a couple of carts… sorry, I’m saying that real so blasé like it doesn’t matter, but it was amazing times. But for me they’re just sort of story, so please forgive me.

So we filled up a couple of carts and get to the register (laughs), I turned to my mum, I was like, “Is he going to be able to afford all these toys?” He’s like, yeah, don’t worry about it, don’t worry about it, he’s got it.

So there’s one time we’re in Vegas and he’s like, “Let’s go get some candy”, so Karlee and I, my sister and I, we went with him to get some candy without real security or anything. We were just going there when… we did it a few times at different places but it’s all like a virus. One person will see and then all of a sudden everyone sees, and you start off with, like, you think you’re by yourself, then you turn around, and there’s a hundred people around, so anyway there was a [matter of a cry?].

We went to the shop and he’s like “You choose all your candies that you want and fill up a bag”. So we filled up. I spent time choosing my favorite, all the favorite candies that were there, but then we got too many people, so we had to leave. So we’re running back to where we were staying, like there was a whole heap of people chasing us too. You know, as I’m running back shaking, and then the bottom of the bag falls out and all my candy just spread out across, across the car park (laughs).

I was gutted, I was gutted, so I saved what I could, but we had to keep running. When I got back what I could save, I was very disappointed.  So things like that you’d see that’s what I mean by the star, the pop star that will creep in. You are like, oh yeah, this isn’t a regular person.

CT:  And when that would happen, did you ever have moments where you just thought to yourself, how did I end up here?

BB: Oh, all the time. All the time.

CT: How do you deal with that? I mean, you were a young kid, it’s a huge change in your life, that sudden scrutiny and the restrictions that that imposes on your ability to just do what you want to do.

BB: Well, I wasn’t really, I guess I wasn’t really consciously thinking about it. Because to me it was just always more live in the moment, like whether I was over there experiencing all that stuff or being over here, living a regular life, it was just what was happening there and now.

CT: Were your family with you on these excursions?

BB: Yeah. For the most part. Yeah, they were there.

CT: How did they find it? I mean, particularly your parents, you know, were they ever worried about your safety or anything like that?

BB: No, their biggest concern… this is really weird, you can see that’s the thing about this, when I talk about this, like, to my wife, because she obviously wasn’t a part of all of this, so to her they are just stories when I’m telling them, even though it happened to me, when I tell them they just seem so wild… their biggest concern about it all was that, like, I was missing too much school. That was their main concern.

CT: So when you went in December 91, how long do you think you were there that first time?

BB: Uh, maybe a month.

CT: Yes, so that is quite a while. Were you there for Christmas then?

BB: Yeah, but I really can’t remember. I would assume so.

CT: And then you were going back fairly regularly after that. Did you have a tutor or anything like that or were you just missing school?

CT: One of the tours we had a tutor, a family friend. He’s a teacher over here. So he came across on the tour with us.

CT:  I mean, did it catastrophically affect your schooling or did you pretty much survive it?

BB: Yeah, survived it (laughs). It was my later schooling years when my grades started failing (laughs).

CT: How come? What happened in the later years?

BB: Yeah. I just really didn’t… I got too bored at school. I didn’t really enjoy school, so I did the very bare minimum.

CT: Yeah. I mean, it’s not quite the Dangerous tour, is it?

BB: No, not exactly. And I guess that’s what happened when I, when I was saying that my, my perspective on life is a bit different, is a bit unique. My values that I place on things aren’t uncertain things I should say. A little bit different to what others do.

IT’S BEEN SUCH AN INSIGNIFICANT PART OF IT!

CT: It would be remiss of me not ask you about the sleeping arrangements, given the intense scrutiny which has been focused on that issue. I mean, when you testified in 2005, you said that it was during that first trip to Neverland that you first stayed in Michael’s room. So how did that end up happening?

BB: Well, it’s not, it’s not something that I actually, that I actually remember, like, I don’t remember specifics about it. It’s just something that always was. The thing is that he is, oh sorry, he was such a magnet for all people – like everyone just wanted to be around him all the time because that’s just the type of person he was. So it just would’ve been that fact of just never wanting to leave his side because of the power of him. Just everybody wanted to be around him 24/7. So it just would have evolved from that.

Because the sleeping, the thing with the sleeping arrangements to me is that it’s never been something to concern myself with. I’ve never seen the problem with the sleeping arrangements because the focus has never been on the fact that it was just sleeping arrangements. It was just to sleep. There was nothing, there was nothing more than that. And so why so much focus on?  It’s just sleeping arrangements. It’s just for sleep! I don’t see why, if you’re going with the understanding that nothing ever happened, why can’t it be understood that it was just nothing but sleep.

It was just a sleep.

CT: Well, I mean, clearly the issue for a lot of people is that there were allegations that were made. So people feel that there is cause to question whether it was just sleeping arrangements, which is why, you know, you’ve ended up in a courtroom and so on. I think the other thing is that a lot of people find really difficult to understand, and I’d be interested to understand your perspective of it as a parent now yourself, whether or why parents were not concerned by it, if you see what I mean. I mean, you are now a parent. Would you find it concerning? If one of your kids you discovered had been sleeping in a room with another adult?

BB:  (sighs) When it’s put like that, that does sound concerning, but that’s oversimplifying things.

It’s not a fact of later finding out about it, turning around and saying, oh, this happened. It’s not that at all. It’s hurtful for people to think that my parents wouldn’t have seen something if something was off, even the slightest thing, if something was off, that they would let it happen, for anybody, regardless of who it is, that they would stand aside and let something happen to their child.

That to me is very hurtful to think that they would do that. So me being a parent, being in a situation where something happens, you had better believe that I’m going to be a hundred percent on point. Having a look at the situation and making decisions off that, there’s no way that I would put my child in harm’s way or let anything happen to them.

So for me, if I was in their situation and the exact same thing would have played out, I would have done exactly the same thing.

CT: And too on that front, did they ever ask you any questions about it? I mean, particularly after the Chandler allegations…

BB: Of course.

CT:  …were made public. Did they ever sit you down and ask you questions about it?

BB: Of course. Of course they did because they are parents, they’re not going to let anything happen to me.

CT: Did other people sometimes stay in the room with you?

BB: Of course. It wasn’t, it wasn’t …. the door is closed and no one can come in.

CT: So who else would be there on occasion?

BB: Um, his cousins were around, friends were around. Uh, my sister was there.

That’s another thing with me is that it’s never been the focus of my memories because it’s been such an insignificant part of it. Like who cares about sleeping? Do you remember all the times that you were sleeping? Do you remember your sleepy situations all those times? No, because it’s not the focus of what you … what you would think of, what memories you would want to keep.

CT: Yeah, and it must be, it sounds to me like it’s frustrating to you that this has become essentially the focus, that essentially you had a long, a decades-long friendship with Michael Jackson, but because of allegations that were made, essentially they have been defined by something that to you was an irrelevance.

BB: So insignificant! So insignificant! And that’s what it has boiled down to. The friendship was so much, so much more than that, than sleeping arrangements.

CT: Yeah, of course. You understand, the reason I want to talk to you about it is because of the various allegations that’ve been made.

BB: Of course.

CT:  I think it’s important that you have the opportunity to actually answer those allegations. I’ll park that there for a minute, because we have gone slightly off topic.

BB: (laughs) OK.

ON A TOUR

CT: So talk to me a bit more about, so you go to Neverland the first time, but then I think when the Dangerous tour starts in ‘92  you were on a lot of that tour. Is that right?

BB: Yes, that’s correct.

CT: Okay. So, well, that’s a different experience to being at Neverland. So when you’re at Neverland with Michael, it’s a fairly quiet, sedate experience, I would imagine. What’s the difference when you go on tour with Michael?

BB: That’s also more when the superstar person comes out. The tours were hectic. There was a lot, a lot going on from traveling. This is also why I hate talking about it is because it makes me sound so, uh…. I’m absolutely grateful for everything that I’ve experienced. I’ve probably come across as being full of myself or whatnot, but that’s definitely not the case.  So for me to tell these stories so flippantly sometimes is, I don’t know …. It might make me come across a little bit … whatever, but I was just being a part of it all, so again, living in the moment. So for me to say that all the chaos of just having to travel and stuff… it’s nothing to what others on the tour were actually working and doing, doing what they did. It was definitely a lot harder than what I was experiencing, but yeah, it was just pure chaos.

Fans everywhere you would go, there would be people there. The fans, man! They’d be there waiting for us … not for us, for him at the hotel when we were arriving into town and they’d be at the show, then they’d be at the hotel afterwards. Then we’ll be going to the next city and they’re already there. And then going, like, you’d see the same fans, especially a group of fans that went over around Europe, you’d see them every show at the front too.

It became a sort of game to try and spot them, and see where they are, because they weren’t always necessarily in the same spot. But they would always be up at the front. So you’d always pick them out of the crowd.  So we ended up calling, especially one of them was Waldo, from the “Where is Waldo?” books. We called him, where’s Wally here, but I believe I didn’t know where (illegible). So we ended up calling him Waldo. Then another one was there too in that group. He was Waldo too.

(laughter)

You see the same group of fans every, every show at the front, so get back to him as a person so he would be (illegible) off stage, but man, as soon as he went on stage, he was a different being.

For most of the shows I would come out at Heal the World when all the kids would come out. After the big globe was getting, was inflated on stage. A bunch of kids would, from wherever we were at, would come out. And I was always part of that too.

You’d feel the energy coming off the crowd, man. It’s something else to see, just you stand on the stage and you just look out to a sea of people. And this was before mobile phones, of course, so people had cigarette lighters, so you’d see it like it was almost like a galaxy or just looking at the night sky, just all in front of you from all the flames, and the crowds and all these people, and the energy coming off it. And you can see how someone would be able to feed, being up on stage, be able to feed off the energy it could give to you at every show, the same amount of… because to watch these shows were amazing. So to be able to do it at night after night, you can see how the energy of the crowd really pumps you up, because it’s something different. So that’s the things, like, I experienced all these things, and then coming back home to be a regular person, it’s a real contrast.

CT: Would you always be watching the shows from backstage or would you ever be out in the crowd watching them as a fan?

BB: I never really sat out because there was a sound stage in the middle of… If you see any photos or videos of the concerts, there’s a sound stage in the middle of the crowd, that’s where VIPs would sit, like my family would be always sitting there, but I would always sit side stage at the back, so if you were looking at the stage, I was always, always in the back, to the right.

Ashamedly, probably really bad that I admit it, but I’d be there night after night after night, and then I started getting a bit (remember I’m young back then), I started getting a bit bored. So they ended up setting up Sonic the hedgehog, Sega Genesis backstage, and I’d be playing that (both laugh) and then they would call Heal the World would be coming on, so they call me and then I’d get up and go on and heal the world and go back to play Sonic hedgehog.

CT: Well, in fairness to you, I mean, Michael’s shows were not known for their spontaneity. I mean, they were basically, everything was rehearsed, so once you’ve seen the show, you’ve seen it, you know, you get a bit like it’s like watching the same movie over and over and over again.

BB: (laughs) Man, I feel so bad, I feel so bad looking back and saying that now, like what an idiot!

(both laugh) 

CT:  Tell me about the “Jam” video. How did that come about?

BB: Um, I think it was just because we were around, it was coming up, so we thought it would be cool and it really was. I wasn’t part of it. I was just there, behind the scenes. Yeah. Mom and Karlee were there too. We were just there as guests.

CT: Oh, I see. Is that the only time you were on set with him?

BB:  Uh, no, I was, I was at the one with Slash that was filmed over in Europe.

CT: “Give in to me”?

BB: “Give in to me”, yeah, I was there for that one too.

CT: Is it kind of, I mean, you know, maybe it’s not, is it kind of boring being on a video shoot or is it actually exciting?

BB: “Jam” was not so much because there was like … naughty by nature, Chris Cross was there obviously, um, Heavy D came through, Jordan was there of course. So that was pretty exciting to see, but it is very repetitive. It’s the same song played the whole time, and it’s not like the whole song will play because they’ll cut and bring it back, bring it back. So you’re not hearing the complete thing all the time, so it can be very tedious and boring as an onlooker. But it was cool like looking back at it, it was really cool to have to see the process of it, to see how it was done. Because you only see the finished product when you’ve seen it on TV. So to see how it was all done was really cool, like that was a really cool experience.

Oh, we also visited “Ghosts”, how it was filmed. It was supposed to be before Addams’ Family.

CT: Yeah.

BB: We were there at the original filming of it.

CT: Oh wow.

BB:  So we saw that part, so yeah, that was cool. With Stan Winston.

CT: Yeah. This is kind of what I was guessing at earlier about the sort of peering behind the curtain of Michael Jackson, the superstar. So I think a music video probably looks very different when you were there watching it being filmed because you are remembering, you know, 20 hours you were stood around in a cold room, you know, (Brett laughs), bored or whatever, so  it doesn’t quite look the same.

So I guess over time, Michael becomes less of a …. the mystique melts away, and he becomes more of a person. In that time, I think, from your 2005 testimony, it said that you traveled with Michael around South America, North America, Africa, Australia and Europe. Now, when you were on tour visiting these places, would you get to see much of those places or would you, because of the circumstances you were traveling in, would it basically be car, hotel, car, hotel, you know, airplane? What, how much of the world were you seeing on these tours?

BB: Me personally, not so much, because I’m not really that type of, and that’s another one of those unfortunate things that, uh. Yes, I was so young and it wasn’t like I really could… like my family would go out and they went and saw a lot of the stuff, but for me it was …I just couldn’t be bothered. I’m just type of person that likes to even today stay at home and just relax.

So I could have done it, but I chose not to. As I’m saying, this is why I don’t like sharing these stories because it makes me look like a bit of an asshole sometimes, excuse my language. I had the chance to go and see the Sistine chapel, but you can’t wear hats in the chapel, so because I was always wearing a hat, I didn’t want to take my hat off. So I was like nah, I’m not going to go (laughter).

Mind you, I’m like 11, I am 11 or 12. It wasn’t so spectacular to me. That was my viewpoint. I don’t want to take my hat off, so I’m not going to go and see the Sistine chapel. Some of the greatest works of art known to mankind, and I don’t want to take my hat off.

CT: Do you feel like the kind of being in the Michael Jackson superstar world maybe turned into a bit of a diva?

BB: (laughs) That’s exactly what I’m coming across as and apologizing. Please, please believe me, this is not… I’m not that type of person. I’m not that type of person. Well, at least I believe I’m very humble even though the way I’m telling these stories does not come out that way (laughs). 

CT: Do you remember Bob Jones?

BB: Yeah.

CT: So he wrote a book and you were mentioned, as is often the case with Michael Jackson, you pop up in lots of places. So he wrote in his book that you used to be, when you were on tour with Michael, you would be smuggled around in suitcases so that the press would not know you were with Michael. Was that true?

BB: (laughs) Did he put that?

CT: Yeah, yeah he said that, yeah.

BB: Why would I be in a suitcase?

CT: Well, that’s what I was going to ask you. I was going to ask you why you were in a suitcase.

BB: I’ve never been in a suitcase! I would not even …  I’m not claustrophobic, but being in a suitcase is not something that I would want to do.

CT: Okay. Well, I suspected you might say that, but I just wanted to, again…

BB: In a suitcase! (laughs)

CT: You’ve not given an interview since 93. So there’s been a lot of stuff said about you, which you’ve not had the opportunity to comment on. So, it would be untrue for Bob Jonas to say that you were smuggled in suitcases?

BB: Absolutely. Ab-so-lu-te-ly.

CT: OK. And as far as, um, addressing things that have been claimed, I’m just thinking back to Leaving Neverland and the stories that they tell about being on tour with Michael, did you ever feel that there was any effort by Michael or those around Michael to separate you from your family?

BB: No, not at all.  I never experienced that. There was never any time where if I wanted to see my family I wasn’t able to. There was never any time, they were always accessible to not only me – to him as well. It’s not like I was locked away or anything like that at all. At all.

CT: And you never saw that happening to anyone else?

BB: No, not at all.

I WAS AT NEVERLAND WHEN IT WAS RAIDED

CT: Now it was right in the middle of this time, it was in the middle of the Dangerous tour that Neverland was raided. And it has been published in the past that you were actually at Neverland when it was raided. Is that true?

BB: Yeah, that’s true.

CT: Wow. Okay, so what do you remember about that?

BB: (sighs) Again, I was young at the time, so it’s not anything like … nothing profound, really, I remember about it. To me it was just an annoyance because I wasn’t able to carry about my day. I remember …I think it was the sheriffs. One of them obviously wanted to interview me to see if it was uh….obviously to do an interview, make sure nothing’s going on. So I remember having to sit down with him and him just asking questions, but it was just taking up my time. I wanted to go and just enjoy life.

CT: What do you remember about your interaction with that officer? Was it polite?

BB: Yeah, he was real polite.

CT: Okay. So you didn’t have a problem?

BB: No, no. He was just asking questions and it wasn’t like he was, he was threatening or he was intimidating. I seem to remember sitting down, like we are both just sit down, he was just sitting next to me asking these questions, like it was real relaxed, and as I guess you would treat a child that’s potentially being in that …so not having something happen to them.

In case someone forgot it: The police seized all photos, videos, books, journals and computers from Neverland, but didn’t find anything incriminating Jackson. See the LA Times report published after the raid” “There is no medical evidence, no taped evidence”.

 

CT:  Was it frightening seeing all those police all over the ranch?

BB: I don’t remember it being, but I’m going to assume that it’s because there was always people around, whether it be gardeners, workers, maids, everything. There was all the security, there was always like people in uniforms were around all the time, so to me it’s nothing that really stood out.

It’s not like they were… like I don’t remember, I don’t recall there being any rough housing or anything like that. Nothing stands out in my mind, in my memories about it, but from what I remember is just as I said, more so like I couldn’t go and do certain things because I would do whatever they were doing, so it was just more of a hindrance to me rather than anything scary.

CT: And did you understand why they were there? Did you understand what it was that they were investigating?

BB: No. I didn’t really understand the concept of what the allegations were. It was just more so like I’d better be told that he’d done some… that there was some bad things that said about him. That is pretty much the extent of it.

CT: Do you remember how, and when you did come to understand what was actually being alleged?

BB: Uh, well, it was a little bit later. It was more so the impact of everything surrounding it, like the understanding of the physical act of anything inappropriate happening. That I understood, that there’s things that shouldn’t happen.

Like so when the cop, when the sheriff was asking me all those questions, I understood that though there’s certain things that shouldn’t be happening, would be taking place, but to understand the impact of that came at a later stage, if that makes sense.

CT: Yeah. And you say that after that raid and when these allegations, you know, became known, your parents did sit down with you also and talked to you and asked you questions.

BB: Uh huh.

CT: Okay. So did you know Jordan Chandler?

BB: Yeah. He was around a little bit.

CT: Did you understand at that time that he was at the center of all this?

BB: Yeah.

CT: What was your opinion of that?

BB: I couldn’t understand why. It was a lot of confusion as to why, because of the fact of, as I said, my understanding of Applehead being accused of something so bad. So it was a little bit hurtful that he was accused of doing something bad at that point in time, it was just, yeah, it was confusion.

CT: At that time, I think when the raid happened Michael was not on the ranch.

BB: No.

CT: But you were on the ranch.

BB: My mom and Karlee were there too.

CT: When did you next see Michael?

BB: Because of everything was, for lack of a better term, heating up, we decided… Well, I didn’t decide anything of course, I was only a kid. Mom and dad, I think, decided that we shouldn’t come back home. Because everything was sort of getting a little bit… not out of control, but interest in us, let’s say, was pretty high, so we ended up staying over.

We went to, like, Hawaii, the Disney world. Dad came over as well. And so we were like away for a little while, after a couple months when the next time we saw him. The truth is, I can’t really remember. Might have been, um, back on tour.

CT: So maybe on that second leg when he flew out of the country and then Neverland was raided a couple of days later? And I think that was actually the South American leg.

BB: Yeah.

CT: So if you were traveling around South America with him it must have been then.

BB: Yeah.

CT: Because I think ‘93 he did Chile, he did Mexico.

BB: Yeah. We were definitely there.

The tour of South America (Wiki)

~~~

Well, we are not even past the first half of Brett’s interview yet, but some details already need to be clarified and a number of puzzles need to be solved.  

For example, what North American tour did all of them talk about if the American cities were never visited by Jackson on both legs of the Dangerous tour?

And why did Bob Jones say that Brett was smuggled in suitcases “to avoid being seen by the press”? So the press didn’t see him much on the Dangerous tour with Michael? But why?

And given that Brett’s sister Karlee roughly calculated that her brother spent 365 days with MJ just within two years how much time did Brett spend with Michael Jackson in reality?  Is there a way to determine it?

The answers to these and other questions will be given in a separate post. Hopefully, the next part won’t take long 🙂

MICHAEL JACKSON’S FRIEND BRETT BARNES. Some notes on his interview with Charles Thomson

$
0
0

The first half of Brett’s interview with Charles Thomson definitely needs some comments, clarifications and answers to a couple of questions. However, the matter of “sleeping arrangements” in Michael Jackson’s room is absolutely not among them.

Brett’s fiery monologue about those sleeping arrangements makes it clear that they are simply not an issue.

His exasperation that the 20+ years of his friendship with Michael Jackson were reduced to sleep only is very telling, and shows that the public focus was deliberately misplaced by the media and prosecution from really meaningful things in their friendship to the less or not significant ones.

THE MAGNET

Let us recall what Brett said about the sleep issue:

It’s not something that I actually remember… The thing is that he was such a magnet for all people – like everyone just wanted to be around him all the time because that’s just the type of person he was.

So it just would have been that fact of just never wanting to leave his side because of the power of him. Just everybody wanted to be around him 24/7. So it just would have evolved from that.

Because the sleeping, the thing with the sleeping arrangements …to me it’s never been something to concern myself with. I’ve never seen the problem with the sleeping arrangements because it was just to sleep. There was nothing, there was nothing more than that. And so why so much focus on?  It’s just sleeping arrangements. It’s just for sleep!

I don’t see why, if you’re going with the understanding that nothing ever happened, why can’t it be understood that it was just nothing but sleep? It was just a sleep.

Another thing with me is that it’s never been the focus of my memories because it’s been such an insignificant part of it. Like who cares about sleeping? Do you remember all the times that you were sleeping? Do you remember your sleepy situations all those times?

No, because it’s not the focus of what you would think of, what memories you would want to keep.

[It was] so insignificant! So insignificant! And that’s what it has boiled down to. The friendship was so much, so much more than that, than sleeping arrangements.”

Indeed, the whole thing evolved from Michael being an irresistible magnet to all people, especially children. Everyone wanted to stay 24/7 with him, and this isn’t something said by Brett only.

June Chandler had to admit the same in her testimony at the 2005 trial:

Q. Do you remember telling Michael Jackson, “You’re like a magnet?”

A. I don’t recall.

Q. Do you remember telling Michael Jackson, “You’re like Peter Pan. Everybody wants to be around you and spend 24 hours”?

A. Yes.

Q. You told him, “Lily would too, except she’s not old enough”?

A. Yes.

Lisa Marie Presley also remembered that children loved Michael so much they even followed him into the bathroom.

Actually lots of other people said exactly the same about MJ. Close friends and newcomers alike noted that Michael was a singular magnet for people, especially children, so any discussion why Michael was often seen with kids around him should start with a fact that it is the kids who wouldn’t leave him alone and were attracted to him like bees to honey.

Therefore the question everyone repeats like parrots, “Why would a 35 year old man sleep with children?”, should be reversed into “Why did children want to be by his side non-stop, at all times of the day and never want to leave him alone?”

Children at Neverland

In other words, it is totally wrong to assume that it was Michael’s intention – vice versa, it is the children who wanted to stay with Michael day and night, constantly pleaded with him to please, please let them stay, and Michael had a big problem saying no.

Michael was too gentle, soft and yielding to many people around him, but refusing a kid was his worst nightmare. Remember the long discussion Frank Cascio had with Michael whether he should relent to the Arvizos’ entreaties to let them stay in his room just for once, and the compromise they worked out that both Frank and MJ would be in the room, just to be on the safe side (which didn’t help though, as you remember).

Knowing of Michael’s inability to refuse kids the problem had to be often handled by other people. See what Michael’s personal maid Gayle Goforth said to Finaldi (Robson’s and Safechuck’s lawyer) who deposed her in 2016:

A. THE WITNESS: All the kids wanted to stay in his room.

Q. Do you know why he let kids stay in his room?

A. Because he didn’t know how to say no.

Q. Who told you that?

A. I know that for a fact because he never — if he had to tell a child no, he would ask me to tell them that or something.

On most occasions Michael probably didn’t even understand why he should refuse them if they wanted to stay. He and his siblings were raised in a house the size of a two-car garage, where all six boys were crammed into one room and shared their beds, and all girls slept in another room. So Michael learned at his mother’s knee that girls should sleep separately from boys, but it is perfectly normal for boys to spend the night together. In other words, the kids’ requests were well in line with his own habit of sleeping arrangements acquired by him in early childhood.

So the first thing people should realize that the reason for those sleepovers was not Michael Jackson who didn’t “invite children to sleep with him” as the ignorant would claim it.

The real reason was the kids’ insistence on staying with Jackson and his total inability to refuse them, especially since he didn’t understand why he should do so.

Friends and cousins alike agree with Brett Barnes that sleeping at Neverland was a completely casual thing.

Macaulay Culkin, for example, had to rebuff the prosecutors’ questions who pedaled the sleep issue probably a hundred times at the 2005 trial, and each time shrugged his shoulders at the super monumental importance they attached to it:

Q. … had you ever spent the night alone with Mr. Jackson?

A. How do you mean “spend the night”?

Q. Did you ever share a bed with Mr. Jackson []?

A. Yeah, I mean, I’d fallen asleep in the same bed as him.

Q. Did you ever do that, fall asleep in the same bed as Mr. Jackson [ ] where none of your brothers or sisters were present?

A. It’s possible. But like I said, usually my brother was tagging along with me.  But I fell asleep basically everywhere in that ranch, or anywhere else when I was hanging out with him. I would just flop down on the floor half the time.

Q. All right. On how many of those occasions were you there by yourself without any sibling, alone, without any sibling at all?

A. I don’t really remember. But most every time I was there, I was there with my siblings.  And most every time I was with my siblings, they were, like, with me the entire time.

Q. All those occasions did you sleep in his room?

A. I couldn’t really say that I slept there every single time that I was there or anything like that. … I slept in his room about as often as I fell asleep anywhere. Like, I fell asleep — I would flop down — we’d fall asleep in the movie theater.  He has beds in the movie theater.  I’d flop down and fall asleep there.  I’ve fallen asleep in the video game machines before.  I mean, I would go and play there basically until I’d just run myself out, and I would just flop down wherever I needed to.

…On occasion, the other kids there that — like, cousins or family friends and stuff like that.  And they’d bring their kids there, and then — same as me.  They would play with me, and we’d fall asleep anywhere, sometimes his bedroom, sometimes in the theater, sometimes anywhere.

Q. Did you ever have a conversation with your mother about whether or not it’s appropriate for a 10-year-old boy to be sharing a bed with a 35-year-old man on a regular basis?

A. No. We didn’t share a bed on a regular basis.

Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever talk to you about other boys who shared his bed with you?

A. Not really, no. Like I said, it was a casual thing, so it wasn’t necessarily something that was, like, talked about.  I’d fall asleep there, I’d fall asleep anywhere.  People just kind of fell asleep wherever they wanted to.  That was kind of the fun of the place, was that there was no rigid rules about when or where you should fall asleep.”

So same as Brett Barnes who is adamant that those sleeping arrangements were nothing special, Maucalay also testifies that the whole thing was so casual that no one really took it into their head where they were going to sleep and how.

At Neverland everything was based on the idea of freedom and no rigid rules, sleep included, and the ranch offered a multitude of variations in this respect, and it was only during Michael’s tours that the circumstances were more or less predetermined and asked for a somewhat different arrangement.

HOW DIFFERENT?

Firstly, during the tours Michael was literally confined to his hotel room. He rarely went outside, had a crowd of fans under his window, the journalists and camera men in the hotel corridors, and the security team behind his door, and all of it left very few choices for MJ’s friends other than stay in the same room as Michael.

A separate and a cheaper room on another floor could of course be reserved for his companions but it was mostly useless and superfluous as all of them ended up with MJ anyway.

Dangerous tour, Argentina

Secondly, Michael Jackson couldn’t sleep after the concerts and his tremendous outburst of energy on stage, so he didn’t need companions to “sleep with” but needed someone to stay awake with him well into the night.

Few adults would go for it, and I imagine that only kids with their bursting and never-ending energy were glad to hang out with him until the wee hours of the morning.  So staying with MJ on a tour wasn’t actually about sleeping – it was about keeping him company after the shows and then sleeping their time away until the next afternoon.

Unfortunately, Michael had to keep to that regimen for months during his tours.

And when a crowd of Michael’s companions went out sightseeing in various cities, he was again forced to stay alone in the hotel room, and it was apparently at those moments that he hung on the phone for hours with people from all over the world.

Yes, he did call Jordan Chandler approximately once or twice a month (what a big deal!) in  autumn 1992 and Michael spoke to him “from maybe 10 minutes to an hour, or an hour and a half” as June Chandler remembered it. But Jordan was absolutely not the only one whom Michael called.

Among many others Michael Jackson regularly called Glenda Stein, her husband and their daughter for example, and spoke to them for hours on end (here are some of the tapes). In the same way Michael called Brett, his sister, his mother and father, and Brett’s two cousins, who were girls by the way, when Michael was on the Bad tour – several years before he met the Barnes family in person.

Given all these tour limitations, Brett was probably one of the best companions for Michael. He didn’t like to go out, wasn’t much into museums, and being a private person even in his childhood, preferred to stay in the room and relax. Remember the funny episode about the Sistine Chapel in Rome he mentioned in his interview to Charles Thomson:

I was so young and it wasn’t like I really could like my family would go out and they went and saw a lot of the stuff, but for me it was …I just couldn’t be bothered. I’m just type of person that likes to even today stay at home and just relax.

So I could have done it, but I chose not to. As I’m saying, this is why I don’t like sharing these stories because it makes me look like a bit of an asshole sometimes, excuse my language. I had the chance to go and see the Sistine chapel, but you can’t wear hats in the chapel, so because I was always wearing a hat, I didn’t want to take my hat off. So I was like nah, I’m not going to go.

Mind you, I’m like 11, I am 11 or 12. It wasn’t so spectacular to me. That was my viewpoint. I don’t want to take my hat off, so I’m not going to go and see the Sistine chapel. Some of the greatest works of art known to mankind, and I don’t want to take my hat off.

No, Brett doesn’t look like an asshole. From what I know the above is a typical boyish approach to museums, and this is another of those reasons why teenagers like Brett were much better companions for MJ than adults.

THE INTRICACIES OF OUR MEMORY

There is one thing about Brett’s memories which somehow stands out in his interview with Charles Thomson. It is interesting that the incident with the Sistine chapel Brett does remember but any details of his so-called sleeping arrangements with Michael he doesn’t.

This is an extremely telling and meaningful sign which shows that there was nothing special for him to remember.  

From your own childhood you know that you remember only its most striking moments, usually connected with strong emotions, whether good or bad, and all the rest simply fades away. The bad accident you once had, the big fright you once experienced, or the great joy at being presented with a doll or a puppy – this is what your childish memory will retain, while all the rest will remain blurred, unless molestation happened to you, because the experience like that divides your life into before and after, and is never forgotten.

This is why Brett’s question whether we remember all the times when we sleep is funny, but very much to the point. Our memory will certainly retain nothing about sleep, especially in our childhood, unless something out of ordinary happened.  And if Brett remembers nothing about it, this means that in his childhood he didn’t experience anything extraordinary either.

From the matter-of-fact way Brett speaks about his sleep in Michael’s room, it becomes clear that this arrangement was just a matter of convenience for him. When you are at Neverland, and you hang around deep into the night, it is simply convenient not to leave, and to not have to walk in the dark and tiptoe into the guest unit where your parents are asleep. And there is no need to run back in the morning, fearing that you have already missed some of the fun.

Brett’s mother was in a similar situation herself when she watched videos and talked with Michael until very late and it started raining, so it was more convenient for her to remain in Michael’s room rather than go to the guest unit, and she even stayed there for a while:

“…we were watching videos and talking, and he just suggested, “Well, why don’t you stay; stay here,” because it was raining outside. And he said, “Well, you can stay here.”  And I stayed for a little while, but then I went back to my room.  It was just more comfortable.”

(from Mrs. Barnes’s testimony at the 2005 trial)

It is indeed super unfair that all we know about Brett Barnes is his sleep in Michael’s quarters.

Without being aware of it, people repeat stories about Brett that were invented by the notorious Victor Gutierrez who actually built his career on slandering Brett Barnes (and fantasizing about Jordan Chandler). His dirty fiction about Brett was taken by the media for real and was swallowed by many hook, line, and sinker. If only they had known that those fabrications sprang from the fantasies of a real pehophile who was actually writing about himself….

As to Michael Jackson’s supporters, there isn’t anything novel for them in Brett’s words. People who did their research and got familiar with Michael’s way of thinking realize that he was not able to do harm to any child. Michael was a kid in an adult’s body and his interaction with kids was completely innocent, though misunderstood by many.

However even Michael’s supporters are in for some surprises in Brett’s story.

And one of them is the real duration of Brett’s travels with Michael Jackson which is not the way it is described by the media, prosecution and even by the Barnes family themselves.

SO HOW LONG WAS IT?

Indeed, how long did Brett spend with Michael on tours or elsewhere, and are there any grounds to say that Brett “slept with Michael for 365 days in two years” as the folklore has it?  Even if Brett and his sister say so?

The child’s memory isn’t too reliable here. Brett was around ten when he first met Michael Jackson and his memory didn’t retain much of the specifics of his travels with MJ. All he remembers is the blurred chain of the countries and cities visited and he cannot distinguish which was when and how long.

Even by the time he testified at the 2005 trial, fourteen years had already passed since he met Michael Jackson, and by 2022 when Brett spoke with Charles Thomson, seventeen more years had passed. And this 30+ year lapse in time certainly didn’t make Brett childish memories any clearer (though with Wade Robson it is the opposite as we know :)).

So in order to find out the real duration of Brett’s travels with Michael Jackson it is better to rely on the memory of a grown-up person, for example, Marie Lisbeth Barnes, Brett’s mother, who also testified at the 2005 trial. Her recollections could be a starting point for restoring the full and true picture of the events.

The Barnes family

For example, Brett says that their first visit to Neverland in December 1991 lasted for a month. But his mother remembers it more precisely and says that the whole family, including Brett’s dad, stayed at Neverland for about three weeks. The difference may not look that critical, but when it comes to details it grows rather meaningful.

See how Mrs. Barnes described to the prosecution their first three weeks with Michael Jackson:

Q. And your first visit to Neverland was when, what year, if you know?

A. December 1991.

Q. Okay. And who did you visit Neverland with?

A. Our family. My husband, my two children.

Q. Okay. And how long did you stay there?

A. About three weeks. Well, we stayed with Michael for three weeks.  He took us to Disneyland, to Las Vegas, and, yes, we were together for three weeks.

Q. I believe that you said it was when your son was about nine years old. How much older was your daughter?

A. I said ten, actually. Nearly ten. … He was going to be ten in January, so it was December, so he was nearly —

Q. Close to his tenth birthday?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And your daughter was how old at the time?

A. 12.

Further questioning addressed Brett “sleeping with Jackson” of course, and Mrs. Barnes said that Brett did sometimes stay in Michael’s room during the first visit, but she couldn’t remember the first time it happened:

A.…No, I didn’t say by the fourth night he was sleeping in his room.

Q. What night was it, then?

A. I’m not sure what night it was.

Q. Was it within the first week?

A. It could have been. It may have been.  It may not have been.  I don’t remember.

Q. But he was sleeping with your son in the same bed before this trip was over; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. All right. Was he sleeping in the same bed with your son for an extended period of time?

A. On — no, not — not continuously, no. Just on-and-off basis when they were — the times when my son would fall asleep when we were there, and he stayed there and — rather than having to go back to — outside into the [guest] unit.

……

Q. All right. Would it be fair to say that most of the time that you were there, you were at Neverland; is that correct?

A. Not quite. Not really, no, because we spent a few days in Las Vegas.  We spent a few days at Disneyland.  And when we were in Disneyland, I know we went to Century City, so I’d say — I wouldn’t say most of the time, no.

Q. Well, a few days in Century City?

A. A hotel there. There’s a hotel in Century City.

Q. Was that across the street from his condominium?

A. That’s correct.

Q. When you were at the hotel in Century City, was your son staying with Mr. Jackson in his condominium?

A. No, he stayed with us.

Q. He stayed with you for the entire time?

A. I believe so.

Q. When you were at the Las Vegas hotel, did your son stay with Mr. Jackson?

A. We were all together.

Q. In Mr. Jackson’s room?

A. Well, we shared a villa, so there were several rooms in the villa. It’s like a —

Q. And in which room did your son sleep?

A. With my daughter.

Q. Your son slept with your daughter?

A. Yes.

…..

A. We were at The Disneyland Hotel.

Q. For how long? More than one night?

A. Probably four, five nights, I would say.

Q. Four or five nights?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. At Disneyland Hotel?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And did your son stay with Mr. Jackson while —

A. We were all, again, in the same —

Q. Suite?

A. Yes.

Mrs. Barnes’s testimony definitely leaves us with the impression that during that first visit in December 1991 Brett stayed with Michael on rare occasions only. Here is a rough calculation:

  • The first four days or more were spent at Neverland, but Mrs. Barnes is not sure that Brett shared a room with MJ during that time.
  • Then came a few days in Las Vegas where they stayed at a hotel and Brett slept in one room with his sister.
  • Four or five more days were spent at Disneyland where the family stayed in one suite with Michael Jackson.
  • They also went to Michael’s Hideout in Century City in L.A. where the family stayed at a nearby hotel for another few days and during that entire period Brett was with his parents and not Michael Jackson.

Thus out of the three weeks with MJ at least half the time was spent in various hotels, where Brett stayed with his parents and sister, and sometime in-between they went to Neverland, where he stayed in Michael’s room occasionally only, and most probably only closer to the end of the vacation.

Mrs. Barnes testified that their follow-up visits to Neverland were on average two or three times a year. For the most part she and her daughter travelled too. Sometimes her husband joined them, and on some occasions Brett went on his own.

Mrs. Barnes said about it:

Q. Did you allow your son to travel with Mr.Jackson?

A. I allowed him, yes.

Q. Why was that?

A. Because, to me, it was a learning experience, and — visiting other countries, and I couldn’t — you know, I was — it didn’t bother me at all.

And from what we know the first occasion when Brett was on his own came two months later when Michael Jackson took him on a short visit to Africa. This was solely a tourist trip where MJ didn’t perform.

NINE DAYS IN AFRICA

The journey started on February 10, 1992 at the invitation of the son of Bongo, president of Gabon, and extended to several other African countries. Michael Jackson covered 30,000 miles according to the official statistics.

The trip lasted for 9 days and was a learning experience all right for Brett – besides doing sightseeing they visited various dignitaries, schools and institutions for mentally handicapped children, and the whole trip was so crammed with events that those nine days in Africa must have seemed like a long marathon to Brett.

Brett Barnes and MJ in Africa Feb.1992

For example, just on one day in Côte d’Ivoire they visited the huge old Catholic Basilica of Our Lady of Peace, the up-to-date Peace Research Foundation building used for congresses where speeches could be simultaneously translated into 8 languages, then they went to see a lake with caimans and fed them there, then they met the mayor of the city and attended a show of folklore dancers. And it was also in Côte d’Ivoire that Michael Jackson was crowned the Prince of the Anyi people.

The following video report of the African trip in February 1992 is in French  (other languages are available via the Youtube “translate” option) and in case you are wondering about Brett Barnes, you will see the 10-year old beside Michael Jackson in almost each of its shots.

On February 19th MJ and Brett left for London (the photos of that visit are also abundant in the media) where among other places they visited the hospital where the comedian Benny Hill had been taken after a heart attack.

Michael adored Benny Hill and discussed with him a sketch or a music video, where according to Hill’s biographer, “Michael Jackson does a dance move and then Benny Hill copies it, and then they speed up the tape so that Benny Hill is actually dancing faster than Michael Jackson”.

That was the last time they saw each other because several weeks later Benny Hill died.

On February 23rd MJ and Brett flew back to LA and that was it.

The media not only left us with a myriad of photos of Brett and MJ in Africa and London, but also with a multitude of speculations about MJ, but these 13 days in February 1992 is all we have as far as Brett’s tour of Africa and London is concerned.

THE “TOUR” OF NORTH AMERICA

Then there is constant talk about Brett and MJ touring North America. But this tour is quite a mystery because it actually never happened – Michael Jackson did not tour North America with or without concerts either in 92’ or 93’.

If you don’t believe me check up the itinerary of the Dangerous tour yourself (here). All Michael’s visits to the US cities took place during the earlier “Bad” tour but this is when Brett was five, was still in Australia and there was no way he could accompany MJ then. And after the Bad tour Michael didn’t tour the US cities ever again.

So what’s presented to us as the “tour of North America” was actually an occasional visit to a city here and there that took place within the many years of Brett’s friendship with Michael Jackson.

Mrs. Barnes could remember only the journeys to Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Disneyland in California’s Anaheim, already mentioned here, then a visit to New York where Brett was on his own, and also a visit to Chicago where Michael Jackson was filming the Jam video and where the Barnes were present as guests.

And even if she forgot something this can hardly be called “the tour of North America”.

Prosecutor Zonen either didn’t look up the Dangerous tour itinerary or deliberately created the impression that Brett accompanied MJ on a fictional tour through the United States, so as a result their conversation with Marie Lisbeth Barnes in 2005 went as follows:

Q. BY ZONEN: … how often did your son travel to Neverland?

A. Several times.

Q. More than twice a year?

A. Probably, on average, about two, three times.

Q. Two or three times a year. On how many of those occasions did you accompany him to Neverland between the ages of 10 and 13?

A. Most of the time I did.

Q. So you’ve done tours with Michael Jackson in Europe, in South America, and in the United States?

A. Well, I didn’t actually tour with Mr. Jackson in the United States.

Q. Were you present when he traveled through the United States with your son?

A. To some places I was present, yes.

Q. Which places were you present?

A. Chicago, Las Vegas. I’m not really sure. There were several occasions where I was present.

Q. … All right. You just said Las Vegas and Chicago.  Do you remember any of the others?

A. I know that he’s been to New York with Mr. Jackson.

Q. He went to New York. Okay. [ ] Did you travel to Chicago with your son and Mr. Jackson?

A. I did on one occasion, with — when he was filming the video for the song “Jam” with – with Mr. Michael Jordan in that video. Yes, that was the occasion I traveled with —

Q. Where did your son stay in Chicago during that trip?

A. He stayed with — with me at times and —

Q. With Mr. Jackson?

A. — with Mr. Jackson at times, yes.

Q. Yeah. How long did that tour go on?  Was he actually on a tour?

A. No, that was just a few days that we went to Chicago, and then we had to come back. We had to go back again.

What I am driving at is that the incessant talk about Brett’s “tours with Jackson” is half-fiction and half-exaggeration, even if Brett himself has huge memories of them. Even a short trip with Michael was so packed with adventures that it must have looked like a full-time holiday for Brett. In fact, every traveler will testify to the same effect – a week of intense travelling seems like a lifetime as compared with the same week at home.

So what do we have of Brett’s travels by now?

  • We have approximately ten days spent in Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Disneyland, where Brett stayed mostly with his parents or sister
  • and the remaining time at Neverland where Brett stayed with Michael “on and off”.
  • Then there were 13 days in Africa and London.
  • There was also a visit to New York which couldn’t be longer than several days.
  • And then came a few days in Chicago during the shooting of Jam, where Brett stayed with Michael “at times” and alternated it with staying with his mother and sister.

All in all it is far less time that we previously thought.

According to Wiki “Jam” was filmed on April 20, 1992, but the directors of the video recall it to be longer than that:

“A classic example of Michael’s way of working is on one of our shoot days, I called to say, “Michael, we need you on the set,” and his people said, “Well, he won’t be there until later.” And I said, “Oh, OK, well we can probably fill the morning with some work, but what time do you think he’ll be here?” And so they said, “Well, he’ll probably be there in a couple of days.”

I said, “Wait, we’re in Chicago. He was here just yesterday. What happened?” They said, “He had a lunch appointment.” And I said, “Oh, OK, can he cancel it because [the video setup is] expensive?” And they said, “Oh, it’s with the President.” [George Bush at the time.] So I was like, “Oh, OK” [laughs]. His schedule is a lot more out of my realm.  We shut down just for Michael to have that lunch, and we went back to L.A. until he returned to Chicago”.

Jam was interrupted by a visit to meet the President 1992

The episode is lovely and shows that Michael’s schedule was indeed out of anyone’s realm.

Thus shooting “Jam” was spread over several days, and involved some flying back and forth for Michael Jackson, while the Barnes apparently remained in Chicago.  And after that the family returned to Australia, as Brett’s mother said: “And then we had to come back.  We had to go back again”.

Prosecutor Ron Zonen probably regarded those several trips as a full-time tour through the US, but in reality this is all we have of the alleged tour. However from the number of times Zonen mentioned it, the impression is that not only did the tour take place but it also lasted for a century.

Well, creating this impression was actually the whole idea of it.

A SIDE NOTE ABOUT JIMMY

Incidentally, in was on that visit to Chicago that James Safechuck who also attended the set of “Jam” as a guest, went hysterical when he learned that Brett Barnes was allowed to stay with Michael while he (Jimmy) was not “invited”. He must have created quite a scene because the next day the head of security Bill Bray had to put him on a plane and send him home to LA.

But there was no need for James Safechuck to create so much drama. Brett and his family had come from Australia for just a few days in April 1992, so they did have a lot to catch up with, while James Safechuck lived close by and could visit Michael Jackson at any time.

The problem with James Safechuck is that in contrast to Brett Barnes he did turn into a diva that not only made demands on Jackson, but also felt that he “appropriated” him and didn’t tolerate any new friendships Michael Jackson formed with other people besides him.

This corresponds with what Michael Jackson’s maid Gayle Goforth remembers about the Safechucks. In her deposition to Finaldi she recalled that while Wade Robson was a nice kid, James Safechuck was spoiled and too demanding, just “like his parents”.

She also noted that the parents were guests for a long time even when Safechuck grew up:

THE WITNESS: When Jimmy first was cominq all the time, his parents would always come also. And his parents always came, even later on after he grew up and stuff, they were guests for a long time.

Q. BY FINALDI: … when you first met Wade when he was little, you said he was a nice kid, good kid, something like that?

A. He was a nice kid all the way through.

Q. How about Jimmy Safechuck?

A. He was a nice kid. He was spoiled.

Q. And what things would he do?

A. Well, it was just he was like his parents. He expected — it was like he would snap his fingers and “I want this” and “I want that” and “I want the other.”

Q. Okay. Not a bad kid, just a little demanding?

A. No. He wasn’t a bad kid. He was just, you know, he was wasteful with things and —

Q. Like with food or something?

A. Yeah. Michael had a special drink that he drank. It was called Dr. Tima at that time. It was an orange. And he would get one and he would take one drink of it and throw it in the bushes and stuff like that.

So the little angel would snap his fingers and send people to bring him a drink to only throw it away just after one gulp? Doesn’t the above piece throw a little light on James Safechuck’s character and behavior, same as his parents’ ways?

And why does the public think that those who snapped their fingers and sent people running on their errands then, wouldn’t snap their fingers and send the MJ Estate to bring them hundreds of millions dollars now?

SOUTH AMERICA

Ron Zonen’s questions to the Barnes family at the 2005 trial also concerned South America, but over here the situation is even funnier than with the alleged North American tour.

Let us recall that the Dangerous tour consisted of two legs. One was in 1992 (more about it in another post) and the second was in 1993 when it fully coincided with the Jordan Chandler scandal.

The second leg began on August 23 with a concert in Bangkok and ended on November 11 in Mexico, after which the remaining dates of the tour were cancelled.

Michael Jackson had already left for Bangkok when on August 21 and 22 the Neverland ranch and Michael’s condominium in the Century City were raided by the police. At the time Brett Barnes, his mother and sister were on the ranch, were witnesses to the raid and Brett and his sister were interviewed by the sheriffs.

Brett doesn’t remember when exactly they joined Michael Jackson in South America after those events, and vaguely speaks of “a couple of months” later.  As to Mrs. Barnes she recalls that they stayed with Michael in South America for two or even three months, and said that they were there “for the entirety of the tour”:

Q. BY ZONEN: Now, your son traveled with him extensively in South America, did he not?

A. No, we were present, my family. My husband, my daughter and I were present when we toured South America.

Q. All right. And how long of a tour was that?

A. I don’t quite remember. Couple months maybe.  I’m not sure.  I don’t remember.

Q. Did you travel for the entirety of that tour?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And your son was there as well the entire time?

A. That’s correct. And my daughter and my husband.

Q. That was a couple months?

A. I would say probably — it could be – could have been three months. I don’t remember.

Q. Your husband was able to take three months off from work?

A. Yes, because he had long service leaves.

Q. He had what?

A. Long — in Australia, after you work for, say, ten years, you’re entitled to long service leave, so you have three months every ten years. And he had two lots of long-service leave that he was able to take.

Q. And is it true that during the entirety of that trip your son slept in Mr. Jackson’s room with Mr. Jackson?

A. I wouldn’t say during the entirety.

Q. Most of it?

A. I would say at times.

Q. At times?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Your son was how old at that point, the time of the South America trip?

A. 12, I would say.

As to Brett’s sister Karlee, she goes even further than her mother and says that they toured in South America for as long as half a year.

Q. Have you ever traveled with Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And how many times have you done that?

A. Well, I’ve been to, like — well, in my first — in seventh grade, I spent half of the year over in Europe with him. And in the eighth grade I spent half of the year over in South America.  And I’ve been to Chicago.  And we’ve been to Las Vegas. So I’ve been, you know, lucky, very fortunate. When he came to Australia for his “History” tour, he took us to South Australia and to Western Australia.  So I’ve been on many, many trips with him.

Part of Karlee’s story is correct – same as Brett she went to Chicago and Las Vegas. They also travelled to Europe in 1992 and various parts of Australia in 1996.

But saying that they spent half a year in South America is a decided exaggeration.

I mean, how could they stay with Michael in South America for half a year, if the South American part of the Dangerous tour lasted only for a month?  It started on October 8th and ended on November 11th, 1993!  

Here is the South American tour itinerary, so see for yourself:

Dangerous tour in South America (Wiki)

Someone will say that the alleged “half a year” in South America took place during the first leg of the Dangerous tour.  But no, it didn’t, because South America was not even on the list then. Neither was it included into the History tour.

So that one month in Buenos Aires, São Paulo, Santiago and Mexico was the only time Michael Jackson and the Barnes family stayed in South America, and it certainly didn’t last for two or three months as Mrs. Barnes recalled it, or half a year as her daughter did.

But why do they remember it in so strange a way, and why is there so big a difference in their recollections?

REAL DURATION

In case of Brett’s mother the matter is more or less clear. Her memory of that period is based on just one reference point – the fact that her husband took a three months vacation during those turbulent times and they travelled to various places together with him.

The times were indeed turbulent. They went through the Neverland raid, interviews with the police and the Department of Children and Family Services, and then Brett’s appearance on TV where he vehemently defended Michael Jackson but innocently declared that when he slept in MJ’s room he slept on one side of the bed and Michael slept on the other – it was a really big bed – which only added more fuel to the fire.

To avoid the heat the family decided to go to Hawaii and it was only on October 8, 1993 that they finally flew to Argentina to join Michael Jackson there. So the August-September-October-part-of-November period is what Mrs. Barnes remembers as “two or probably three months” allegedly spent with MJ in South America.

Remember that she had to recall it twelve years later.

As to Brett’s sister Karlee, she is apparently talking about the overall time spent in the USA, and same as any school child will, she remembers their stay with Michael Jackson in terms of how much school they missed in 1992, and then in 1993.

And how much school did they miss in the summer of 1993?

It is difficult to say because schoolchildren in Australia go on a summer holiday in winter time (December and January), and what is a summer holiday in the USA is actually the middle of school year in Australia.

But we can be sure that at least at the beginning of August 1993 the Barnes were already in the US as Brett remembers being on the set of shooting of “Is This Scary?” video which had been filmed for 12 days before the Jordan Chandler scandal broke after which the filming was wrapped up.

The period from early August to November 11th will make exactly four months of that “half a year” recalled by Karlee, out of which Brett could be with Michael for some two weeks in early August and then for a month in October-November, when he stayed with Michael’s room “at times” only, according to Mrs. Barnes.

As to the remaining two months of that “half a year”, they must have been spent in January-February 1993 when the Barnes children were at Neverland and were on their Australian summer school holiday.

Remember Victor Gutierrez’s description of the famous scene when Michael Jackson picked up the Chandlers on February 19, 1993 to take them to Neverland for the second weekend, and Brett was already in the limo heading for the ranch too? According to Gutierrez, upon arrival at Neverland the Chandlers were invited to a guest unit, and Brett’s suitcases were allegedly taken into Michael’s room (meaning that he had just arrived from Australia and was all alone).

However, according to Gutierrez, the very next day Jordan, Brett and their sisters attended Michael’s private zoo and they threw stones at the poor lion in a cage, etc. etc.

But how come Brett’s sister was already there? Had she been staying on the ranch by the time Brett arrived?

Victor Gutierrez accidentally revealed that the whole Barnes family was at Neverland when the Chandlers went there in Feb.1993

As usual, nothing adds up in Gutierrez’s stories, but since June Chandler remembers Brett on that drive too, it’s obvious that the Barnes family was on the ranch that winter, and consequently, this period should be added to what Karlee remembers as “half a year” with Michael Jackson in 1993.

To me this discovery was a bit of a surprise, because the Chandlers never said a word about the Barnes staying at Neverland at the time, as according to their allegations all attention was focused solely on Jordan Chandler then.

However, this isn’t the only surprise awaiting us here.

HE WAS NOT ALONE

An even bigger surprise is that during the Barnes’ tour with Michael Jackson over South America, Brett was absolutely not the only kid who stayed with MJ there.

There were two other kids on that tour – Frank and Eddie Cascio, who stayed with Michael in his hotel room, had joined the tour much earlier and had initially accompanied Michael Jackson together with their father.

Of course, Frank Cascio did tell us in his book “My Friend Michael” that he and his younger brother Eddie were on a tour with Michael Jackson during the Chandler scandal and thus tried to bring some normality back to his life.

But the account of their stay with Michael Jackson is virtually unknown as it is almost totally ignored by the press, while the stories about Brett are overwhelming, exceed all limits in their nastiness and produce the impression that Brett stayed with MJ forever.

So the experiences of those two families seemed to be so widely apart, that even we didn’t realize that the Cascios and the Barnes were staying with Michael Jackson at exactly the same time on the South American part of the tour.

Why didn’t Frank Cascio mention Brett in his book? Probably because it was meant to be a story of his personal interaction with Michael Jackson only. Or because he didn’t know whether Brett would agree to being described in his book. Or because of many other factors, significant or not.

Anyway, now that the fact of Brett Barnes being together with the Cascios is finally clear, it is worth refreshing Frank Cascio’s recollections about their stay there, because they surely spent much time together with Brett and Brett certainly also stayed with them in Michael’s room, at least at times as his mother told us.

Brett Barnes and Eddie Cascio with Michael Jackson in Argentina

But before you read a rather long excerpt from Frank Cascio’s book, please remember that the Cascio brothers were not with Michael since day one of the tour either.

At the beginning of the tour Michael was in the company of his three nephews – Taj, Taryll and TJ, as well as Liz Taylor and her husband Larry Fortensky.

See this private 1993 video from Singapore where Michael is seen with his young nephews in his hotel suite, listening to Claude Debussy and looking rather cheerful and carefree, and then with his adult friends Liz Taylor and Fortensky looking sad, frozen and deep in thought:

Michael Jackson with Liz Taylor and Larry Fortensky in Singapore, September 2, 1993

Michael Jackson talking to Liz Taylor, Singapore, Sept.2, 1993

As to the Cascios, their travels with MJ began only after Michael’s first companions left, and Michael stayed all alone, after which Bill Bray finally called the Cascios and invited the whole family to join Michael.

Frank, Eddie and their father flew to Tel-Aviv on September 19, 1993. By then Michael Jackson had already performed in Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan and Russia.

This is what Frank Cascio recalls:

“….only a week or two after the school year began, an unexpected phone call came from Bill Bray. He told my parents that Michael wanted to invite the whole family to join him on tour in Tel Aviv.

My mother was busy with my brother Dominic, who was six years old; my sister, Marie Nicole, who was three; and my baby brother, Aldo. There was no way she was flying to Israel. …Eddie and I would miss school [] but first and foremost, what mattered was that we had a friend in need. So, the day after we got the call from Bill Bray, my father, Eddie, and I boarded a plane. We flew first class to Israel.

…I gave my friend a big hug and said, «Don’t worry, we’re here for you, we’re going to get through this together». Eddie and I hung out with Michael in his room, distracting him, giving him support, and watching old movies on laser disc. My dad came and went, checking in on us and spending time with his buddy Bill Bray.

As far as what was going on with Jordy’s family, we only talked to Michael about it when he brought it up. When he did speak about it, it was often in a wistful tone, and I could tell that he was still trying to comprehend the fact that this horrible thing had occurred.

«I did so much for his family», he’d say. «I don’t blame Jordy. It’s not his fault. It’s his father’s fault.»

Michael was clearly upset about the circumstances he found himself in, but he always kept his composure when he was around us, remembering that we were kids. He was sensitive to what we would take away from this experience and to the effect it would have on our lives as well as his.

Frank and Eddie Cascio with Michael Jackson in Tel Aviv, September 19-20, 1993

The boys’ father had to go back to work a week later, but seeing that Michael would remain all alone after they left, he relented and allowed his sons to stay with MJ.

People might question my parents’ judgment in sending two young boys off to spend time alone with a man who had been accused of molesting another boy. But to us, the suggestion that we were in any danger was completely absurd. My parents knew that Michael was innocent.

To us, Michael was the funniest, nicest, and most playful friend imaginable. With my parents, his behavior was that of a humble, kind, and mature adult, a brilliant, well-read man with interesting, thoughtful opinions. My parents spent entire evenings talking with him, learning from him. They saw him as a good influence on their sons.

Above all, my parents knew Michael’s true heart. I want to be precise and clear, on the record, so that everyone can read and understand: Michael’s love for children was innocent, and it was profoundly misunderstood.

…Michael craved the simplicity and innocence of the youth he had never fully experienced. He revered it, he treasured it, and, especially through Neverland, he tried to offer it to others. People had trouble understanding all this, and many assumed the worst. This misunderstanding was the greatest sorrow of Michael’s life. He carried it with him to the end.

I am here to say that I knew the real Michael Jackson. I knew him throughout my childhood. In all that time, he never showed himself to be anything but a perfect friend. Never did he make a questionable advance or a sexual remark.

Teachers at their school agreed that schoolwork could be made with a tutor, however they didn’t know that this role would be performed by no other than Michael Jackson.

…Eddie and I had to do the schoolwork that we’d been sent. We were supposed to complete the assignments and return them to the school. The teachers were under the impression that we had been provided with a tutor, and we did, in fact, have one, but we kept his identity under wraps. We were pretty sure that the school wouldn’t buy the idea of Michael Jackson as a traveling tutor.

The truth was, he was genuinely committed to the job. Sure, we didn’t exactly keep regular school hours – lessons happened in the middle of the night sometimes – but Michael was the one who regularly sat down with me and my brother and went through our assignments with us. When we had to read books, he would read chapters of them aloud to us, then have us recap what we had heard, asking: «So who were the main characters? What did they want? What does it mean?»

In addition to the assignments our school gave us, Michael insisted that we keep journals of our trip.

«Document this trip», he’d keep telling us, «because one day you’re going to love to look back on it.» In every country he had us take pictures of what we saw, do some research about the customs, and put what we’d seen and experienced in our books. We explored the different cultures. We visited orphanages and schools. Eddie and I started to have a greater awareness of our place in the big, wide world. Only later was I wise enough to be thankful to my parents for permitting us to have this experience.”

Before going to South America Michael and the Cascios relaxed for a week in a chalet belonging to Elizabeth Taylor in a small and secluded place called Gstaad in Switzerland.

“Gstaad was a perfect escape from the rigors of touring. It was such a small town, and so remote from the rest of the world, that – in the beginning at least – Michael could walk freely down the streets, undisguised, without being bothered. This was a rare joy for him.

One thing I’ll always remember about our time in Gstaad was Michael introducing me to new music. We’d always listened to music together, and anytime we were in a record store together, I’d walk right next to Michael to see what albums caught his fancy.

Back at the chalet, we sat rapt, listening for hours as Michael played DJ, saying, «You have to listen to this song. Now you have to hear this group.» He introduced me to all types of music – country, folk, classical, funk, rock. Michael liked to go to sleep to classical music, especially the works of Claude Debussy.”

Brett Barnes, Frank and Eddie Cascio arrive in Santiago, October 23, 1993

Upon arrival, Frank and Brett run for their lives into the van awaiting them on the airfield, with Eddie falling a little behind

Frank’s story continues:

“Michael may have been our tutor, our father figure, and our friend, but onstage, he became another person. We went to every single concert in every single city.  …I loved watching the fans from the side of the stage, a sea of people screaming, crying, fainting, hanging on their idol’s every move. I’d sit there and think, This godlike being they’re worshipping is the guy who’s helping me with my homework. As Michael warmed up his voice, which could take up to two hours, Eddie and I played games, watched cartoons, and ate candy in the greenroom. When it came time for him to perform, we usually watched from chairs on the side of the stage.

Often I wondered how it was that I saw the same people in the front row for show after show in city after city. How could they afford to leave their jobs and their lives and follow an entertainer from one place to another? Those of us who were part of the tour had the luxury of speeding around in private jets, but how did these fans make it to each city in time for the show? There was one fan, Justin, whom we called Waldo, after the character from the Where’s Waldo? books, because if we looked hard enough we could find him in every audience.”

(from “My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man” by Frank Cascio).

If anyone had any doubts about Brett and the Cascios being involved in the same activities during their stay in South America, the above detail about Waldo will remove the last doubts. Brett Barnes also describes the fun of searching for Waldo, so it’s clear that the quest was shared by the whole gang.

And the video games mentioned by Brett (Sonic the hedgehog, Sega Genesis, etc.) were set up backstage not only for him but for Frank and Eddie too, only Frank said that had played them before the show, while Brett admitted it was his pastime during the show.

And contrary to Bob Jones’s lies that Jackson “smuggled Brett in suitcases to avoid being seen by the press” (the lie told to explain why the boy wasn’t seen during the tour, who simply wasn’t there at the time), Michael didn’t make a secret of Brett’s stay at all, and arranged a whole photoshoot for them in Buenos Aires, during which all four of them pushed each other, made faces and acted ridiculous as all kids do.

 

This video will give you the idea of how much fun they had together and what a kid Michael Jackson himself actually was.

 

It’s obvious that Michael Jackson needed company while on his tours, especially during that extremely difficult part of his life, and those cheerful kids gave him the strength to go on with it. And Michael treated those kids as his own and literally made no difference between them and his own children.

So when you once again hear those pathetic stories about “Michael and boys” you will know that those allegations are not only flat and boring lies, but are also a far cry from the real life of Michael Jackson which was both much more complex, colorful and also simpler than anyone could imagine.

~

(stay tuned for the transcript of the second part of Brett’s interview with Charles Thomson and further comment)

Viewing all 233 articles
Browse latest View live