Latest on MJJC

Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

And neither is characterising emotions as facts.

Regardless of how any of us feel about the songs there is a process that all parties must precede through.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

There were no emotions in that post. Simply saying such does not make it so.

I explained why it was surprising and it remains so. That explanation listed facts that others may prefer to disregard.

Just another circular discussion when one(s) cannot accept that another holds a different view.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Tygger said:
Just another circular discussion when one(s) cannot accept that another holds a different view.
Click to expand...

It is a two way street. Why not take your own advice and let people to have an opinion different than yours? By now you should have realized forcing your opinions on others like they are better, superior or correct doesn't make you any favors.

Also this section has an active mod that wouldn't allow the threads to be derailed. So everyone made their point and it's time to move on.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Actually where I'm coming from is not so much opinion but the legalities and the process, to me that's black and white.

At the moment all we know is that the settlement negotiations so far have failed but we don't know how hard either side were pushing for a settlement so it's hard to make judgement.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

ivy said:
It is a two way street. Why not take your own advice and let people to have an opinion different than yours? By now you should have realized forcing your opinions on others like they are better, superior or correct doesn't make you any favors.

Also this section has an active mod that wouldn't allow the threads to be derailed. So everyone made their point and it's time to move on.
Click to expand...

Purposefully argumentative response.

Ah well.

Adding: Last Tear, if you indeed prefer discussion, state where I posted an emotion instead of a fact. Then, I can speak to that.

Simply stating the post is emotional is dismissive which means you may not prefer discussion and simply prefer to dismiss a view you do not share for whatever reason.

As you can see from the post below, discussion is not preferred; sport is.
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Tygger said:
Purposefully argumentative response.

Ah well.
Click to expand...

Rather amusing how it's "argumentative" when others respond.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Allow me to be very very clear

After I post a mod warning any post that disregards that warning, any post that questions moderation will be deleted and the members would be given an infraction.

Threads on Trials and Tribulations will be kept on topic and no derailment, off topic talk or attempts to belittle others opinions will not be allowed.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

SheilaMJFan4Ever said:
I avoided the entire album due to the rush job to release it and rumblings that someone was faking Mike's voice on some of the songs. Iattempted to listen to "Breaking News" today and had the same reaction you did... (barf)

What. The. F*CK!
Click to expand...

KOPV said:
^ just wondering, why stay away from the entire album when there are non cascio tracks? there are some gems on there!
Click to expand...
I did the same. I hadn't found MJJC at that point yet, but I was signed into Michael's official web site. I was there when they teased the "This is It" song and within seconds people were writing that this was an old song written by Paul Anka-talk about a weird experience-especially since I had never been in a chat room.

Albums aren't something I just buy lightly-I usually like to hear a song or two or three before I buy, to see if I want it. Then they teased the first song of Michael-and it was "Hold My Hand"-and I HATED it. Way too much of Akon and I don't care for his voice. Then the next was "Breaking News"-even more HORRIBLE-it all sounded like cut and paste and just horrendous. I just hated the production-period.

By then I had heard that either 50 Cent or Kanye West were on the album too-so I just decided this wasn't for me. And of course, the Cascio rumours started around then too.

Speaking of the Cascio tracks, I realized the other day that I never heard the other ones-so I pulled up "Keep Your Head Up" on YouTube the other day-and I'm kinda sorry that it isn't Michael because I thought that song was rather good.

And I do feel sorry for Branca in all of this-he was with Michael long before the Cascio family was and he watched as they entered Michael's life, and he knew exactly how close Michael was to that family. So I don't think he would ever doubt them in any way or think that they would backstab him and/or lie like that about songs. This must have stunned him. I even had doubts about this, until they always had excuses for the proof-so this saddens me too.

My only regret in not owning the album is that "The Way that You Love Me" is on it, because I truly love that song.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

ivy said:
^^
This case is no where near the defense or rebuttal phase. Cases always start with the dismissal request - demurrer. It's what's going to happen here too. demurrer combined with anti-slapp.
Click to expand...



I understand that. That's why I said if that's their only rebuttal, not saying it is. I just found that slight explanation or demurrer, funny.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

WhoIsIt89 said:
I understand that. That's why I said if that's their only rebuttal, not saying it is. I just found that slight explanation or demurrer, funny.
Click to expand...

Humorous for you, surprising for me.

Attempts at settlement, while not acceptable for some during the AEG civil trial, is acceptable here and tis fine. Anti-slap however is not a form of settlement. In other words, settlement negotiations are a form of mediation between parties; anti-slap is not a form of mediation between parties.

If anti-slap is unsuccessful, the parties, most likely, return to settlement talks before a pursuit of trial.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Do we know who initiated the settlement? I don't think it makes sense in this case for the Plaintiff to initiate it, since the point of of the lawsuit on her part is not money, but the integrity of MJ's art. So I would imagine it is more likely that the Estate initiated it. If that is the case then it is very different from the AEG trial where it was the Plaintiff who wanted a settlement.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I remember some crazy settlement offers by Plaintiffs back in the day. (Our response: Yeah, that's not going to happen.). Judges though encourage good faith settlement talks.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

No errors in my statement.

The law does not favor the initiator of a settlement so that ideal is incorrect. Tis no matter if plaintiffs or defendants initiate settlement discussion and tis no matter if it is a wrongful death trial or what could be a ruled a slap.

The terms of the settlement discussions and/or offers in the AEG civil trial were not made public so that is also incorrect. The fact that there were two attempts was made public. Those attempts are encouraged by the State of California despite discussion at the time (and now) that there may have been another, erroneous reason(s) for the settlement offers.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Well, in both cases Plaintiffs are supposedly out for justice and to learn what really happened. In one case, the Plaintiff actually IS looking for justice and declines a settlement offer from the Estate in favour of justice. In the other case the Plaintiff is the one seeking a settlement (money) before justice. So to me these two situations and the Plaintiffs' behaviour in each case are actually the complete opposite.

I did not claim anything about the law favouring the initiator of a settlement.
 
Tygger;4124669 said:
Attempts at settlement, while not acceptable for some during the AEG civil trial, is acceptable here and tis fine.
Click to expand...

You are comparing to apples to oranges. In that case plaintiffs made statements that their goal was truth and justice and then offered settlements. Settlement offer went against the truth and justice goals there.

Here Sony/Estate/Cascio is the one being sued so there's nothing surprising for them to entertain a settlement. It was discussed before a settlement could be even less costly than a lawsuit.

Given the settlement did not happen here, I agree with respect77. Completely opposite situations.

Tygger;4124733 said:
The terms of the settlement discussions and/or offers in the AEG civil trial were not made public so that is also incorrect.
Click to expand...

KJ's lawyers told media they made two offers and that even insurance would pay and nothing would come out of AEG's pocket. So it's a fact that KJ offered settlements where as AEG had no intention to settle. Terms of the lawsuit and the settlement were money. That was the only demand on the lawsuit and hence the settlement.

Michael Jackson's family offered to settle lawsuit, lawyer says
May 21, 2013|By Jeff Gottlieb

A lawyer for Michael Jackson’s family said they offered to settle their wrongful-death suit against concert promoter Anschutz Entertainment Group, but that they never got an answer.

Kevin Boyle, an attorney for Jackson’s mother and three children, said the family made the offers in January and March.

Boyle would not provide details but said AEG’s insurance would have paid, “which means they could have settled the case without them paying a dime of their money.”

He said AEG has never offered to settle “and they haven’t apologized.”

Marvin Putnam, an attorney for AEG, said it was inappropriate to discuss settlement discussions.

“We don’t settle matters that are utterly baseless,” he said. “We believe that is the case in this matter. I can’t see why we would consider a settlement as anything other than a shakedown.”
Click to expand...

-------

Also please consider this a friendly warning to wrap up AEG trial comparison discussion and focus on this lawsuit. While short unrelated discussions are okay, let's not turn this into a ongoing back and forth derailment. Kindly make your point, move on and focus on the thread topic.
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

No errors in my statement.

The State of California does not make a distinction between plaintiffs offering a settlement or defendants. Nor does the State of California make a distinction in the type of civil trial where there are settlement discussions; wrongful death suit or possible slap.

While members here have relied (and continue to rely) heavily on their shared emotions to explain why particular parties offer settlements, the State of California is devoid of such emotion.

Again, the terms of the two settlements offered during the AEG civil trial was not made public.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

^^ As usual you're arguing against things no one's actually stated (strawman) to attempt to deflect the point they've actually made.

But back to the topic, given this Plaintiff's motive I'm not surprised settlement talks went nowhere. Unlike KJ, it's not about personal enrichment.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Defendants have filed their anti-slapp motions to try to get the case dismissed.

Short summary defendants are arguing that they were exercising their freedom of speech when responding to a public interest issue (Cascio song controversy.) with a noncommercial speech. They argue as freedom of speech is protected, there is no cause of action. Plaintiff will most probably argue that this was a commercial speech .

Document here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/298495674/Sony-MJ-Estate-Antislapp-Motion

I also have a more detailed post at my blog
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Ivy, is this kind lawsuit that people can add their names to it if they want to join in with plaintiff?
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

^^

It's a class action. but you don't add your name to it. If the plaintiff wins other people can ask for refunds too.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

The same group are salivating about this motion
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

^ These people (TheMJAP/Samar Habib, Marco Baletta, Syl Mortilla etc.) are known extremists who harass and slander people because they believe - among other things - forums are controlled/manipulated by Sony/Estate, nicknames would belong to business people disguised as fans, the 2002 will was faked, MJ was deliberately killed and much more narrow-minded, uneducated thoughts.
They are fueled by despair and hatred in such a way that it's ironic they are listening to "Man In The Mirror" or "Heal The World".

You just have to take a look on their Twitter accounts where they regularly rant against Branca [the "evil" executor, you know]/Sony/Estate/Cascio and individual people (including fans). Just reading their reaction to the defendants' lawyers arguments shows they cannot separate between default legal tactics and actual statements. Not to mention they don't even understand much regarding legal aspects, otherwise they wouldn't go viral about something neither Sony nor Estate have stated, namely they misunderstood the recent argument by the defendants' lawyers (they obviously think the Cascio songs would have been declared as fake as of now - which is not the case at all).

D.S., C. Thomson and TheMJCast are also close to some of these people.



Let me just copy-paste from MaxJax:

It doesn't help the plaintiff's cause if things are taken out of context by other people. Most people - including the usual suspects - are obviously misunderstanding why and what exactly the defendants' lawyers' intention at the current stage of the case is (and you actually expect good lawyers to do this). These tactics serve one evident purpose only, namely to eliminate any accountability if the plaintiff's case succeeds.

Regarding the specific argumentation the defendants' lawyers' used:
1) Both the "Making of 'Michael' " and the Cascio/Riley appearances on Oprah are closely tied with commercial purposes and cannot be dissociated from their main purpose to boost sales and appease actual and potential consumers during the crucial phase (of the product life cycle) of their then-current product, the album "Michael". And most people were most likely paid for their appearances in either the video or the show.

2) Consumers can expect a Michael Jackson album (or album of any other artist known for singing/performing vocally) with 10 (x) songs/tracks to actually have lead vocals by MJ (or of said artist), especially when it has been an established practice that a typical album of MJ (or of said artist) would contain songs with lead vocals by the artist - which is the case for MJ albums.
This is known as the principle/doctrine of utmost good faith.
On top of this the prominent disclaimer on the back of the physical album "... performed by Michael Jackson" contradicts the defendants' lawyers' argument and further establishes for consumers what they can expect: from experience & historical data alone consumers can indeed expect 10 songs performed by Michael Jackson.
Then we also have the fact that "Breaking News" has specifically been used to tease the album and in no way was it not used to actually showcase a Michael Jackson song to the public, a song that they were about to sell shortly thereafter. If this wasn't an indication of a performance of MJ, then what else was it?

The defendants' lawyers' argumentation that - in theory - 7 of 10 songs would be enough to market the album as an MJ album is BS: it qualifies as misleading consumers.

On a side note: Consumers CANNOT expect that "This Is It" would always show MJ (eg shots in the dark with a double) or that it would give a 100% correct representation of eg MJ's physical condition, since a) it's an established practice that doubles/stand-ins are used for minor edits/shots and b) any type of film is subject to the aim of portraying a certain angle/point of view or focus on certain aspects (eg creativity) only. That's why the whole "This is NOT it" fan movement was ridiculous: The movie has never been about showing any sort of issues MJ had/allegedly had, it has always been about the art he was known for.



At the current stage of the case this is a battle of both parties' lawyers. The Estate/Sony/Cascio would come into play once the case reaches discovery phase.
As of now, the plaintiff's lawyers have to "wash away" the various arguments by the defendants' lawyers.


The defendants' lawyers' are doing their job but fortunately I don't see any valid points they have made here.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

^^

perhaps some juvenile stuff should be better left on twitter especially if they bring nothing to the discussion. MJJC is a place for intelligent discussions. I personally prefer people to contribute to the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

OnirMJ said:
From twitter:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ca8xOM_XEAA4688.jpg
Click to expand...
That argument, 7 out of 10, seems pretty lame to me. First misstep I've seen the Estate really take in lawsuits.
I don't know why they just didn't say they had them authenticated, and therefore, believed they were Michael.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

This is a demurrer stage in which they are tying to dismiss the case arguing there is no legal basis. It is not the defense stage. In this stage judge makes a decision assuming everything in the claim is true. and that's basically what they are saying. "Even if we assume those three songs weren't MJ, the remaining 7 are MJ without a dispute hence it's not false to call it a MJ album" So it's not really "Estate logic", that's how demurrers work : "even if we accept this claims true, there is still no legal basis because...."
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

ivy said:
^^

perhaps some juvenile stuff should be better left on twitter especially if they bring nothing to the discussion. MJJC is a place for intelligent discussions. I personally prefer people to contribute to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Hahaha. I know, but that picture was so funny.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

ivy said:
This is a demurrer stage in which they are tying to dismiss the case arguing there is no legal basis. It is not the defense stage. In this stage judge makes a decision assuming everything in the claim is true. and that's basically what they are saying. "Even if we assume those three songs weren't MJ, the remaining 7 are MJ without a dispute hence it's not false to call it a MJ album" So it's not really "Estate logic", that's how demurrers work : "even if we accept this claims true, there is still no legal basis because...."
Click to expand...
I see now. I didn't realize it was the demurrer stage where we are back to (like Robson and Safechuck) we assume everything to be true (even if it's not) and do they even have legal basis for a case.
I thought that was part of the defense, and I thought "huh?" Because I remember they authenticated the songs-of course, experts will say one thing and other experts will say another.
So, thank you.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

It always start with the demurrer phase. the only difference in this case fist there was some settlement talks. When it failed, the case is on normal schedule now. First starting with demurrer. In this case they started trying dismissal with anti-slapp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top