IPSO rejects complaint from Michael Jackson's nephew over '£134m hush money' claim

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Michael Jackson’s nephew has had an accuracy complaint against the Daily Mirror over a story headlined “*****’s £134m hush money” rejected by press regulator IPSO.

The story reported that two men allegedly abused as children by Jackson were seeking to bring new civil cases against the late singer’s estate in which they would introduce “damning evidence”.

It included claims that Jackson had paid “up to £134m” to silence his alleged victims. It also included a comment made by Jackson’s sister LaToya in 1993 saying she did not want to be “silent collaborator in my brother’s crimes”.

Taj Jackson complained to IPSO that the story was inaccurate.

He said the story did not provide a source for its claims and that the quotes from LaToya were later retracted by her. He also said the Jackson estate was not approached for a comment.

The Mirror said the information about “hush money” had been widely reported. Before republishing, its journalist contacted an American journalist who originally reported the information.

The US journalists declined to reveal sources but said they were “impeccable”.

The Mirror said its reporter attempted to contact a representative of the Jackson estate by telephone and had not received a response.

The Mirror offered to change “damning evidence”, to “potentially damning evidence”, and to say that LaToya Jackson has since retracted her comments in the online version of the article. It also offered to publish a clarification and follow-up article setting out the Jackson family’s position.

IPSO said the Mirror was entitled to report the claims, provided that they were clearly presented as such.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/conte...l-jacksons-nephew-over-£134m-hush-money-claim
 
Idiots! IPSO should be called "Idiotic Press Stupidity Opressionists" because they're stupid to think Daily Mirror's infos are accurate, but they're NOT!
 
The Mirror said the information about “hush money” had been widely reported. Before republishing, its journalist contacted an American journalist who originally reported the information.

The US journalists declined to reveal sources but said they were “impeccable”.

As usual journalists are hiding behind the shield law to be able to slander people. The so called "impeccable journalist" is none other than a known tabloid hack Paul Barresi, who made a living of lying. What an "impeccable" character indeed. I somehow expected it (didn't expect much from IPSO), but it is still upsetting.

And the Shield Law is so effed up. Basically a pass for journalists to slander anyone in any way they want. You only have to claim that you got the info from a "source" that you are not obliged to reveal (and which may not even exists - after all there is no way to check it out) and that's it. Game. Set. Match. Basically that's what happened here as well.
 
Last edited:
I dont know but I believe it is easy really to prove the estate is suffering loses because of such stories. I mean everyone says MJ lost his popularity due to such allegations yet when it comes to litigation they will tell you prove it.

They should put a budget for suing. Get MJ's kids on board and sue on their behalf for emotional damages. Prince is no longer a kid and if he is willing to support his grandmom in her plans to snatch money from corporations why not go after corporations who are spreading lies about his dad. People sue and get millions for things far less serious than those done by the tabloids . Even that asshole Victor. If MJ's team were decent and cared about him, they would have made an example of Victor. But the lawyers got their money and that's it.

Leonardo De Caprio won a lawsuit against a french tabloid for merely claiming he was expecting a baby with Rihanna.
 
The Mirror said the information about “hush money” had been widely reported. Before republishing, its journalist contacted an American journalist who originally reported the information.

The US journalists declined to reveal sources but said they were “impeccable”.


If there is any justice in this world, I hope Stacy Brown is struck by the bus or something.
 
No surprise. the organisation is run by the newspapers. Next! only option is to sue. not waste time with toothless lion organisations
 
I dont know but I believe it is easy really to prove the estate is suffering loses because of such stories. I mean everyone says MJ lost his popularity due to such allegations yet when it comes to litigation they will tell you prove it.

They should put a budget for suing. Get MJ's kids on board and sue on their behalf for emotional damages. Prince is no longer a kid and if he is willing to support his grandmom in her plans to snatch money from corporations why not go after corporations who are spreading lies about his dad. People sue and get millions for things far less serious than those done by the tabloids . Even that asshole Victor. If MJ's team were decent and cared about him, they would have made an example of Victor. But the lawyers got their money and that's it.

Leonardo De Caprio won a lawsuit against a french tabloid for merely claiming he was expecting a baby with Rihanna.

It's not about losses and it is not about emotional damages. It is simply about the Shield Law which is basically a pass for US journalists to get away with slander. (Well, the original purpose is of course not that, but that's how it gets abused by some of the media.) The Shield Law is a US law and since the journalist the Mirror claims they got their info from is American that journalist in turn could hide behind it. The American "journalist" is clearly none other than Paul Barresi. Here you can see in this 1994 documentary what he actually is - in his own words (30:14-35:35 and 36:55-37:10):



I don't think he had any further "sources" - all the documents used by The Mirror can be traced right back to him - but he does not need to reveal his sources as per the Shield Law. The only thing he needs to do is to claim that he got the info from a source which he thought was reliable and that's it. He cannot be forced to reveal that source and so it might not even exist (and I am sure it doesn't in this case). And that's exactly what The Mirror and Barresi pulled here - hiding behind the Shield Law.

The Mirror doesn't have to prove the story is true. All they have to prove is that they had a source for it. Then the story becomes the source's responsibility and the source here, Barresi could simply hide behind the Shield Law and refuse to reveal his alleged "sources". Game. Set. Match.

The thing with the Victor Guiterrez case is that there VG was stupid enough to claim himself to be the first hand informant - someone who saw the alleged tape. That's how he became vulnerable and could not hide behind the Shield Law. Dimond however could because she could refer to VG as her source, so the credibility of the story all became basically VG's responsibility.
 
^^ I thought the source of the article was Stacy Brown. I see, and correct my previous post, I hope this Baressi guy gets stuck by bus.
 
Here's the ruling from the IPSO:

Summary of complaint

Decision of the Complaints Committee

02475-15 Jackson v Daily Mirror

1. Taj Jackson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mirror had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “*****’s £134m in hush money”, published in print and online on 6 April 2015.

2. The article reported that two men who had allegedly been abused as children by Michael Jackson were seeking to bring new civil cases against the late singer’s Estate, in which they would be able to introduce “damning evidence” which had not been heard at his trial in 2005. The article included claims, which it indicated were from lawyers, that Mr Jackson had paid “up to £134m” to silence alleged victims. It also included a comment made by Mr Jackson’s sister LaToya in 1993 in reference to one of the individuals seeking to bring the new case. She had stated that she wished “not to be a silent collaborator in my brother’s crimes”.

3. The complainant, Michael Jackson’s nephew, said that the article made a number of claims for which it was not able to provide evidence or sources. He noted that the article had not indicated which “lawyers” had claimed that his uncle had paid £134million to alleged victims of abuse, or provided a source for its assertion that “damning evidence” had been omitted from his uncle’s trial in 2005. He considered that the description of the evidence as “damning” was conjecture on the newspaper’s part, and had not been clearly distinguished as such. An individual who had claimed he had been abused by the complainant’s uncle had recently sought to bring a new case in relation to these allegations. A judge had not allowed this case to proceed, because it was out of time. Furthermore, the complainant objected to the inclusion of the comments made by LaToya Jackson, which he said had been made under duress and which she had later publicly retracted.

4. The complainant also said that the newspaper should have sought comment from his uncle’s Estate, or his family. He considered the fact that they were not contacted prior to publication to be a breach of Clause 2.

5. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the information relating to the money paid to alleged victims by Mr Jackson had been widely reported in the press. Before re-publishing, the newspaper’s reporter had contacted the American journalist who had originally reported the information, to ask for further details on the source. The American journalist declined to reveal the sources, for reasons of confidentiality, but maintained that they were impeccable, and included an advisor to the grand jury, a prosecutor and a sheriff’s investigator. The £134m figure included money paid to legal representatives and investigators, as well as to alleged victims. The “damning evidence” mentioned in the article referred to evidence omitted from Mr Jackson’s trial in 2005, as detailed in press court reports at the time. Specifically, it referred to the evidence of one alleged victim identifying intimate details about Mr Jackson’s body, which may be allowed to be considered in any future civil trial. Prior to publication, the reporter had attempted to contact a representative of the Estate by telephone, and had not received a response.

6. LaToya Jackson had made the comments attributed to her in 1993, and these were not inaccurate.

7. In order to resolve the complaint, the newspaper offered to make some amendments to the online article, changing “damning evidence”, to “potentially damning evidence”, and adding the following phrase after LaToya Jackson’s comments, “a statement LaToya has since retracted”, and placing the following footnote beneath the article:

Jackson’s nephew Taj would like to make clear that the family disputes the claims that £134m was paid in hush money and that there is potentially damning evidence that could be introduced in the upcoming civil trial against Michael Jackson’s estate.
It also offered to publish the following clarification on page 2 of an upcoming print edition, and to publish a follow-up story, making clear that the case referred to in the article had not been allowed to proceed:

Under the headline “*****’s £134m in hush money” dated 6 April we published claims that Michael Jackson had ‘paid of 20 of his child sex-abuse victims’ and that there is a possibility that new ‘potentially damning evidence’ may be introduced in an upcoming civil trial against his estate. Jackson’s nephew, Taj, would like to make clear that the family dispute these claims.

Relevant Code Provisions

8. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence and - where appropriate - an apology published.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply)
A fair opportunity to reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.
Findings of the Committee

9. The Committee acknowledged that the complainant disputed the accuracy of lawyers’ claims that his uncle had paid £134m to alleged victims of abuse. It noted, however, that the case which the lawyers had sought to bring had been disallowed by a judge as it was out of time. Any claims which formed part of this case had not therefore been placed into the public domain. The complainant was not in a position to dispute that the claims in the article had been made by lawyers in relation to this case, nor could the Committee reach a conclusion on whether such claims had been made by lawyers. The newspaper was entitled to report the claims, provided that they were clearly presented as such. In this case, the references to this sum were clearly presented as “claims” made by lawyers, rather than as fact established by a court or other authority. The Committee welcomed the newspaper’s offer to publish a follow-up story, making clear that the case in question had not been able to proceed.

10. The complainant had not disputed that at the time of publication two individuals were seeking to bring a civil case against his uncle’s estate in relation to allegations of historic abuse, and that they were hoping that the court would take into account evidence not previously considered. The newspaper was entitled to present the belief of those seeking to bring this evidence that it was “damning”, and doing so did not raise a breach of Clause 1.

11. The newspaper was free to report comments made by LaToya Jackson in reference to one of the individuals seeking to bring a civil claim against the Estate. Where it was not in dispute that she had made these comments, it was not inaccurate to publish them. Nonetheless, the Committee welcomed the newspaper’s offer to clarify that these comments had subsequently been retracted.

12. The terms of Clause 2 do not include an obligation to seek comment prior to publication; rather they provide an opportunity to reply to published inaccuracies. In this instance, the newspaper had offered to publish the family’s position that the claims in the article were not accurate. There was no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusions

13. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial Action Required

N/A

Date complaint received: 04/06/2015
Date decision issued: 16/09/2015

https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/rulings/IPSOrulings-detail.html?id=228

The reaction from Taj and Charles Thomson:

21854598530_90676aedf7_z.jpg

21419947024_faa1d376f4.jpg

22042762905_7072f3da9a.jpg


My reaction is that this is disgusting. The fact that the shield law can be used to allow the press to worm their way out of having to take responsibility for what they write or get stories properly fact checked is abhorrent. What this tells people is that it's ok for the press to write things that have no factual basis and you don't have to care and won't be punished for it.
 
Yes it is disgusting, nauseating actually, but I'm not surprised to be honest. Their hardly independent and hardly unbiased and are going to back their own come hell or high water. And they sure as hell don't want to admit to falsehoods against MJ because god forbid that they should ever admit that. More attention needs to be paid to the positive/unbiased articles, when they do surface, than the negative. Only when they see the $$ isn't in the negative will they begin to turn around. After all this really isn't about truth for them or fact checking anything, its money.
 
^^And it's the whole absence of malice thing. I agree with Soundmind. The guardian ad litem for the kids and/or the Estate needs to start suing for emotional damages, pain and suffering.
Especially these stories debunked by reputable news outlets like CNN and PBS' Frontline.
Just because something is widely reported doesn't make it true-especially when they're all just cutting and pasting globally.
 
just a fyi - to sue for emotional distress there actually needs to be provable emotional distress. In other words it's not enough to say for example "this negative stories cause me emotional distress", you need to show hard evidence of such distress such as a doctor report showing the person experiencing anxiety and seeking treatment due to emotional distress.
 
OK, so Bubs was right, this was about the Stacy Brown article from 2015, not the one from 2013.

Disgusting. There are so many wrongs with the reasoning.

The Committee acknowledged that the complainant disputed the accuracy of lawyers’ claims that his uncle had paid £134m to alleged victims of abuse. It noted, however, that the case which the lawyers had sought to bring had been disallowed by a judge as it was out of time. Any claims which formed part of this case had not therefore been placed into the public domain. The complainant was not in a position to dispute that the claims in the article had been made by lawyers in relation to this case, nor could the Committee reach a conclusion on whether such claims had been made by lawyers.

So the committee was unable to reach the lawyers or why were they unable to reach a conclusion about that? My guess is they probably did not even want to reach them.

Moreover, they act like this alleged evidence have not been introduced because the case was thrown out on statutes. While the probate cases have been thrown out in the current cases the civil ones are still going on. Court papers are available for anyone who wants to read them. The accusers need to establish, among others, that Michael Jackson's companies knew about Jackson abusing kids before them. To prove that an evidence of Michael Jackson paying £134m to 20 alleged victims would be crucial evidence in that which should be brought up NOW and not some time in the future if the case goes to trial. It is NOW when these accusers badly need such an evidence. But there is not one mention of such an evidence or claim by the accusers who filed the current complaint. This could have been easily established by the IPSO if they had wanted to establish that.


The £134m figure included money paid to legal representatives and investigators, as well as to alleged victims. The “damning evidence” mentioned in the article referred to evidence omitted from Mr Jackson’s trial in 2005, as detailed in press court reports at the time. Specifically, it referred to the evidence of one alleged victim identifying intimate details about Mr Jackson’s body, which may be allowed to be considered in any future civil trial.

This is highly manipulative. While Jordan Chandler's description has not been introduced to trial in 2005 but Jordan Chandler doesn't make 20 alleged victims. He is one alleged victim - the one everyone knows about from 1993. And even if something is not introduced to trial there are court documents, motions etc. which show the prosecution's attempt at introducing it. Those court documents are freely available for everyone at http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/. There is absolutely no attempt by them to ever introduce evidence of MJ paying off 20 alleged victims. Not even a mention of any such thing.

Basically the ruling means that any journalist can make any slanderous claim they want, if they cleverly use the Shield Law they can get away with it. Shame on the IPSO for enabling such unethical "journalistic" practices and also shame on them not doing their best to actually get to the bottom of this case.
 
Oh the irony of charles thompson been upset.

i wouldnt even bother worrying about this. it was totally to be expected. the organisation is run by the press. it and its predecessor (sp) have had noting but complaints and critizism in the Uk because of its toothless and one sided rulings.
 
I wouldn't worry about Daily Mirror either, as it is the lowest form of the tabloids in UK and circulation is very small, so people who reads and believes their stories are deranged as much as Mirror's source. The only worry is that if the story is as outraged as Mirror's story, other tabloids will copy it, so it spreads.

I seriously don't understand that why the heck Taj is not going after the source, which is Stacy B?
Taj'd, with help from Jermaine, better take on SB and sue his arse, and my special thank you's to Latoilet. Her attempt to crap some media attention is still haunting Michael.
 
I guess it would upset rebbie if they went after brown
 
I seriously don't understand that why the heck Taj is not going after the source, which is Stacy B?

This is what confused me into thinking it was about the 2013 issue. For that the initial article was published by the Mirror. But in this case I don't think the Mirror was even the initial reporter of this story. Didn't Brown first publish it in the NY Daily News or some other US tabloid? And the Mirror was just one of the countless other tabloids reprinting it?
 
This is what confused me into thinking it was about the 2013 issue. For that the initial article was published by the Mirror. But in this case I don't think the Mirror was even the initial reporter of this story. Didn't Brown first publish it in the NY Daily News or some other US tabloid? And the Mirror was just one of the countless other tabloids reprinting it?

Stacy' NY Post article was first although Stacy B and Daily M article came out the same day - 5th of April 2015.

Taj logged his complaint on 4th of June 2015. Unfortunately Taj should have gone to source if he wanted to action against somebody.
Mirror got off the hook because they say they got their information from "reputable" journalist:puke:

@Elusive,I honestly don't know why they (family members) are on tip toes what comes to Stacy B?
 
Well, I'm confused. I always thought this was from the 2013 article which was a copy job from the story in the Tabloid Truth doc.

Reebie and Stacy Brown might have been "friends" back in the day but I highly doubt there's any friendship now. Obviously this friendship stuff comes from Stacy's claims and he's a proven liar.
 
When she was doing shows not that long back (last few years?) he was there and she was calling him her manager. did they fall out after that as he started writing articles bashing the family instead of mj for a change
 
^^I don't have anything saved, but that's my recollection of it. I haven't seen or heard anything about the so-called friendship/friend of the family except from SB.

Personally I think any friendship in the past was probably fed by money needs. And that's all.
 
Reebie spoke about her friendship with him back in the day (mjs trial when mj basically told him to shut up and he didnt speak for the family she said he speaks for me. he was talking crap about mj. and later on what i mentioned above when he was at his peak of writing nasty articles about mj. mainly calling him a u know what. rebbie kept her friendship with him when she was trying to restart her carreer after his death.

later on he started to write stories about the family. implying he had fallen out with her i presume
 
^^i assume so too. He's just riding on that old past relationship. I don't know why she thought he could help her, but at least that's over.
 
just a fyi - to sue for emotional distress there actually needs to be provable emotional distress. In other words it's not enough to say for example "this negative stories cause me emotional distress", you need to show hard evidence of such distress such as a doctor report showing the person experiencing anxiety and seeking treatment due to emotional distress.

suicidal attempt should work? Is it hard for any reasonable person to believe that a kid would not be very glad to hear that his father was accused of paying 130 millions to silence victims? Ivy you act like it will be hard to prove the kids are suffering emotionally from such claims ! Wade was able to get three reports from doctors for fictional emotional distress, why MJ's kids wont be able to do so?

It is not hard really to prove the kids are suffering nor it is hard to prove the estate is losing income. I mean we heard countless testimonies during the 2003 and AEG cases on MJ's finance suffering due to the allegations.
 
suicidal attempt should work? Is it hard for any reasonable person to believe that a kid would not be very glad to hear that his father was accused of paying 130 millions to silence victims? Ivy you act like it will be hard to prove the kids are suffering emotionally from such claims ! Wade was able to get three reports from doctors for fictional emotional distress, why MJ's kids wont be able to do so?
exactly what I was thinking. Very public and documented suicide attempt as well as a stint in a special boarding school should prove there is extreme pain and suffering here.
We are talking about young teenagers who haven't developed rhino skin. Who knows what they went through at Buckley?
I remember their cousins being horribly harassed in 93 and 2003.
Now with social media, it's coming from all sides, not just classmates.
 
Back
Top