Dieter Wiesner-Channel on YouTube

[Bubs]

Re: Dieter Wiesner-chanel on youtoube

The irony when the Estate/Branca-targeting folks always say "MJ sued Branca for embezzlement!!!" when infact they neither do understand MJ was being lied to and manipulated to fire and exchange most of his legal team back then nor do acknowledge there was zero evidence against Branca...
Just like these fans don't understand and acknowledge the will is authentic and legal.

They don't understand and acknowledge the will, because they haven't received personal letter from Branca, in which he explains how it was possible for Michael to be in two place at the same time:doh:
These people don't know how to use Google.

Secondly, they use Cry babe Sullivan's book as their bible. Cry babe Sullivan interviewed some these crooks in his book, and of course their rolled the whole blame on others, and twisted facts to portray themselves as Michael's knights in shining armour (just like Dieter portrayed himself in his book). Then these people claim that fans (Branca plants) tried to bury Sullivan's book because it tells the "truth" about Branca and his shady actions. They do not understand the real reason why fans didn't want Cry babe's book to see light of the day, and it was all because the things what he wrote about Michael.

 

[Electro]

Re: Dieter Wiesner-chanel on youtoube

I don't think it's genetics - more like learned behaviour. The Jackson family do seem to have this tendency of buring their heads in the sand over problems. I will never forget when Katherine was asked about Michael's rehab in 1993 during the AEG trial and she said she did not want to know about that because she did not like bad news. That was so shocking to me. Bad news or not, but that is your son, for god's sake! And another one that sticks out to me is that interview that LaToya gave a couple of years ago in which she was asked wheter she and Michael ever talked about that crap she pulled on him in 1993 and her answer was "No, that's not the Jackson family way." Something like that. Here @2:45

As spoiled by the life long entertainmeint world participation as these family members may be, don't you think that things they knowningly say in INTERVIEWS don't necessarily reflect their complete personal view on delecate topics?
They want to be in the limelight, but at the same time they try to avoid publicly washing dirty family laundry. At least that seems to be the official family guideline. That's why you always only get to hear wishy washy replies from them on topics like this. And that's because we are not their personal family friends. We are the public.

Stay objective on every detail.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Dieter Wiesner-chanel on youtoube

As spoiled by the life long entertainmeint world participation as these family members are, don't you think that things they knowningly say in INTERVIEWS don't necessarily reflect their complete personal view on delecate topics?
They want to be in the limelight, but at the same time they try to avoid publicly washing dirty family laundry. At least that seems to be the official family guideline. That's why you always only get to hear wishy washy replies in topics like this. And that's because we are not their personal family friends. We are the public.

Stay objective on every detail.

What are you talking about? Even if you think LaToya did not tell the truth in this interview (and I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe), Katherine talked in a court, under oath. So are you accusing her of lying under oath? For what purpose did she lie about that particular detail? And that trial that this same family pursued (AEG) did "wash dirty family laundry" and they did not care.

 

[Electro]

Re: Dieter Wiesner-chanel on youtoube

What are you talking about? Even if you think LaToya did not tell the truth in this interview (and I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe), Katherine talked in a court, under oath. So are you accusing her of lying under oath? For what purpose did she lie about that particular detail? And that trial that this same family pursued (AEG) did "wash dirty family laundry" and they did not care.

I was referring to the public interviews bit.
You said "The Jackson family do seem to have this tendency of buring their heads in the sand over problems.", backing it up with things they say in public interviews. Which i think are genereally not a solid basis to judge anyones personal view or opinion on anything. That's all.

I have not really followed Katherines AEG trial. But i would guess that everything she said followed a stratigic plan (in whatever clever or not direction) thought out by her legal team.
So again this should not be taken as a solid basis to judge her true opinion / feelings on family matters. They are all real life actors.

I'm not on any Jacksons side, nor am i the biggest experct on all of this. I'm just looking at whats getting written here.




ps: I've actually watched that LaToya interview now that you posted. So what you wrote makes more sense now.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Dieter Wiesner-chanel on youtoube

I was referring to the public interviews bit.
You said "The Jackson family do seem to have this tendency of buring their heads in the sand over problems.", backing it up with things they say in public interviews. Which i think are genereally not a solid basis to judge anyones personal view or opinion on anything. That's all.

I have not really followed Katherines AEG trial. But i would guess that everything she said followed a stratigic plan (in whatever clever or not direction) thought out by her legal team.
So again this should not be taken as a solid basis to judge her true opinion / feelings on family matters. They are all real life actors.

I'm not on any Jacksons side, nor am i the biggest experct on all of this. I'm just looking at whats getting written here.

What is your point exactly? You do not think that Michael often buried his head in the sand over problems rather than facing them? Or you do not agree that this seemed to be a family trait? Which part is it that you disagree with?

I brought two examples of that (on top of all the examples we know about Michael himself) and you are trying to discredit that by suggesting that on both occasions the family members probably lied for PR purposes. While of course it is not impossible for them to lie, but on this occasions I do not see the point. How does what LaToya said serves the family's good image? If anything, it serves the contrary because it gives the image of a disfunctional family and disfunctional relationships in the family.

And how does what Katherine said under oath serves a better image for her or for her family? Again, on the contrary - it showed disfunction within this family and these people - esp. Katherine herself.

So if you give a theory about lying then you should at least give a good reason for why they would lie about these particular issues and why they would make up these particular lies? And what is the truth instead, in your opinion? None of these claims served a better image for the family, so IMO what you say about them lying for PR does not make sense in this case.

I have not really followed Katherines AEG trial. But i would guess that everything she said followed a stratigic plan (in whatever clever or not direction) thought out by her legal team.
So again this should not be taken as a solid basis to judge her true opinion / feelings on family matters. They are all real life actors.

So yes, you are basically accusing Katherine of lying under oath. I hope you realize that testifying under oath is not like a media inerview. To lie under oath is illegal. Of course, that does not mean people do not lie under oath all the time, but again, why would Katherine make up a lie that shows her in a rather bad light? I don't get the logic behind your theory.

 

[Electro]

Re: Dieter Wiesner-chanel on youtoube

What is your point exactly? You do not think that Michael often buried his head in the sand over problems rather than facing them? Or you do not agree that this seemed to be a family trait? Which part is it that you disagree with?

I brought two examples of that (on top of all the examples we know about Michael himself) and you are trying to discredit that by suggesting that on both occasions the family members probably lied for PR purposes. While of course it is not impossible for them to lie, but on this occasions I do not see the point. How does what LaToya said serves the family's good image? If anything, it serves the contrary because it gives the image of a disfunctional family and disfunctional relationships in the family.

And how does what Katherine said under oath serves a better image for her or for her family? Again, on the contrary - it showed disfunction within this family and these people - esp. Katherine herself.

So if you give a theory about lying then you should at least give a good reason for why they would lie about these particular issues and why they would make up these particular lies? And what is the truth instead, in your opinion? None of these claims served a better image for the family, so IMO what you say about them lying for PR does not make sense in this case.

So yes, you are basically accusing Katherine of lying under oath. I hope you realize that testifying under oath is not like a media inerview. To lie under oath is illegal. Of course, that does not mean people do not lie under oath all the time, but again, why would Katherine make up a lie that shows her in a rather bad light? I don't get the logic behind your theory.

*insert my last reply again*

I can't stand when fans appear overly opinionated, judging other peoples characters when they can't know anything for sure, especially with a overly messed up family like the Jacksons. Thats my "point".

 

[HIStory]

*insert my last reply again*

I can't stand when fans appear overly opinionated, judging other peoples characters when they can't know anything for sure, especially with a overly messed up family like the Jacksons. Thats my "point".

I simply quoted what LaToya said and what Katherine themselves said. It's you who keep insisting that they aren't telling the truth about this. You can have that opinion, but then it's up to you who should provide some kind of reason for why they would make up these particular "lies" and how these supposed "lies" serve family PR? Because that is your position, not mine.

Putnam later asked Jackson's mother if she liked to "shut your ears to bad things."

"I don't like to hear bad news," she said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/23/showbiz/jackson-death-trial

and

On Monday, she seemed unfamiliar with some of the details of Michael’s life. She told the court she didn’t know her son's "Dangerous" tour had come to an early ending in 1993 when Elizabeth Taylor flew to Mexico City to take the singer to a rehab program in London.
Katherine Jackson testified that she’d she heard that Taylor had said something about her son going into rehab but didn't seem particularly curious about it.
“Nobody came to me and said anything about it," she said. "My children probably didn’t want me to worry.”

She said she didn't know that her son’s worldwide tour had been cut short."I don't like to hear bad news," she said.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/22/local/la-me-ln-katherine-jackson-asked-about-son-20130722



When different people in a family talk about different situations in which they show themselves rather ignoring or running away from problems and conflicts rather than facing them and talking about them (and we aren't talking about minor issues but serious ones), don't you think there is a pattern there and that it did not just suddenly appear in one member of the family (Michael) without any reason but it somehow comes from the environment he grew up in and it's a learnt behaviour? It's what he saw from Katherine and from his family. Don't you find that likely?

 

[Tygger]

Since the thread is a bit off-topic, allow me to add:

If any documentation addressed to Michael regarding Siegel removing himself as co-executor in 2002 or so is available online I would appreciate a link.

 

[Electro]

I simply quoted what LaToya said and what Katherine themselves said. It's you who keep insisting that they aren't telling the truth about this. You can have that opinion, but then it's up to you who should provide some kind of reason for why they would make up these particular "lies" and how these supposed "lies" serve family PR? Because that is your position, not mine.

Again you're jumping to conclusions.
Guessing is not insisting. I'm not accusing any Jackson of anything, because i am well aware that i am not close enough to these people to judge them.
And that's what i'm missing in your and some other fans point of view.

Back on topic please......

 

[HIStory]

Again you're jumping to conclusions.
Guessing is not insisting. I'm not accusing any Jackson of anything, because i am well aware that i am not close enough to these people to judge them.
And that's what i'm missing in your and some other fans point of view.

What do you miss? I simply relied on what they themselves said. I did not make anything up. I did not assume anything about them. LaToya said their way of handling issues and conflicts is not to talk about them. Katherine too basically talked about that buring her head in the sand attitude under oath. I did not claim to be close to them, I am simply relying on what they themselves said about themselves. You are the one who is challenging what they said in this case, not me.

ETA:

ps: I've actually watched that LaToya interview now that you posted. So what you wrote makes more sense now.

I'm glad you watched it at least in the hindsight.

 

[morinen]

Since the thread is a bit off-topic, allow me to add:

If any documentation addressed to Michael regarding Siegel removing himself as co-executor in 2002 or so is available online I would appreciate a link.

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/jackson_will.pdf
His resignation letter dated August 26, 2003 on page 7.

 

[Tygger]

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/jackson_will.pdf
His resignation letter dated August 26, 2003 on page 7.

Apologies again for the off-topic post.

Morinen, thank you for the link.

Tis very interesting. Is there any documentation that shows how Michael responded to Siegel's resignation as co-executor? If I am understanding this correctly, Michael, through Weisner, terminated Branca, Siegel, and others. I saw the previous post with Weisner stating his version of how Michael responded to Siegel's letter and hoped there would be something stating his response to this as well. Should I assume Siegel was terminated before his resignation as co-executor?

 

[ivy]

^^

As mentioned before Siegel, Branca, Green etc were all terminated February 2003.

This is Siegel's termination letter. Branca's is very well known and circulated.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, thank you for the Siegel letter.

Again, apologies for the off-topic requests however; if there is any documentation (especially from Wiesner) that shows how Michael responded to Siegel's resignation as co-executor, I would appreciate it.

 

[morinen]

Tygger, Wiesner doesn't talk about it in his book. After the chapter I posted he jumps straight to the Bashir documentary and its consequences. As far as I know, he never elaborated on this exchange any further. His narrative is sketchy overall: he jumps from one topic to another, oftentimes without giving the full story - which to me further shows that he either isn't a very consistent person or chooses to pull facts out of context to support his version of events. Either way, this does him no credit.

 

[AliCat]

Michael seems to have lost his confidence from the allegations of August of 1993. He's out promoting his new album, "Dangerous" by touring. He begins to lose business deals and more legit offers, like Pepsi. He lost money on the HIStory tour. So by the late 1990's, Michael's money troubles began.

Weisner is trying to portray things differently than they are. I'm still trying to scratch my head over what happened with the state of the art speakers that just sat in a warehouse and somehow were tied in with the "Invincible" album.

They were other business ventures that went nowhere fast. Michael worked with the Prince from Saudi Arabia and had a business manager that oversaw things for Michael, but when the HIStory tour lost money, that relationship terminated. Michael began living off his assets, the Sony/ATV catalog, Neverland, his own songs. He maxed these out and why he ended up going back to work by 2009. Thanks to Dr. Conrad Murray and his negligence, Michael never got to realize how he would have been on top once again and have gained people's respect as the King of Pop.

Deiter Weisner isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart. He's always been ambitious for a buck. Dishonest or not.

 

[OnirMJ]

Michael seems to have lost his confidence from the allegations of August of 1993. He's out promoting his new album, "Dangerous" by touring. He begins to lose business deals and more legit offers, like Pepsi. He lost money on the HIStory tour. So by the late 1990's, Michael's money troubles began.

Weisner is trying to portray things differently than they are. I'm still trying to scratch my head over what happened with the state of the art speakers that just sat in a warehouse and somehow were tied in with the "Invincible" album.

They were other business ventures that went nowhere fast. Michael worked with the Prince from Saudi Arabia and had a business manager that oversaw things for Michael, but when the HIStory tour lost money, that relationship terminated. Michael began living off his assets, the Sony/ATV catalog, Neverland, his own songs. He maxed these out and why he ended up going back to work by 2009. Thanks to Dr. Conrad Murray and his negligence, Michael never got to realize how he would have been on top once again and have gained people's respect as the King of Pop.

Deiter Weisner isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart. He's always been ambitious for a buck. Dishonest or not.

HIStory Tour didn't lose money. Michael did. HIStory Tour was a giant success. The Tour grossed US $165,000,000 ($242,403,607 in 2015 dollars). It's 5th highest grossing tour of the 90's only after The Rolling Stones' Voodoo Lounge Tour & Bridges to Babylon Tour, Pink Floyd's The Division Bell Tour and U2's Popmart Tour. Notice how they are all huge Rock stadium bands and not Pop stars. It is also Michael's second highest grossing tour ever only after Bad Tour which grossed US $125,738,964 ($250,734,957 in 2015 dollars).

The problem with the HIStory Tour was that there were no huge sponsor deals (Pepsi) like it was on Victory, Bad & Dangerous Tours. But even then, the main problem with HIStory (and Dangerous Tours) were Michael's expenses and production costs (3 different stages being transferred all around the world at the same time, a tank, huge stage and huge team of people...). Also his personal expenses were big problem, he was giving too much money to charity (YES, he DID!). You can't give $100 million to charity and expect to earn money to support your lifestyle. But he knew all that. He knew what were all the production costs, he knew that all those extra expenses will be paid out of his share of the money (he agreed to pay them again on This Is It Tour!), he knew that he would end up touring the world (which he hated) for 1,5 years and come home with nothing. He knew all that, but artistic value of his shows and helping the children and the ones in need was more important to him than making billions of dollars. But you can't have both, the king-like lifestyle and being the most giving human being in the world without working every day. And he didn't work (perform) for 8 full years!

 

[Tygger]

Tygger, Wiesner doesn't talk about it in his book. After the chapter I posted he jumps straight to the Bashir documentary and its consequences. As far as I know, he never elaborated on this exchange any further. His narrative is sketchy overall: he jumps from one topic to another, oftentimes without giving the full story - which to me further shows that he either isn't a very consistent person or chooses to pull facts out of context to support his version of events. Either way, this does him no credit.

Morinen, thanks. I do not view Wiesner as a trustworthy character. While I do not know if his tale of Michael’s reaction to Siegel’s letter is accurate, the emotions are plausible and the reaction can be substantiated where tales from some other employees cannot be characterized as such. Regardless of how Michael reacted, we know for fact these team members were released. It is a bit baffling that Michael would release this team and not question two team members remaining as co-executors while Siegel resigned. It could be Wiesner did not tell him; I do not know. Tis interesting.

 

[AliCat]

HIStory Tour didn't lose money. Michael did. HIStory Tour was a giant success. The Tour grossed US $165,000,000 ($242,403,607 in 2015 dollars). It's 5th highest grossing tour of the 90's only after The Rolling Stones' Voodoo Lounge Tour & Bridges to Babylon Tour, Pink Floyd's The Division Bell Tour and U2's Popmart Tour. Notice how they are all huge Rock stadium bands and not Pop stars. It is also Michael's second highest grossing tour ever only after Bad Tour which grossed US $125,738,964 ($250,734,957 in 2015 dollars).

The problem with the HIStory Tour was that there were no huge sponsor deals (Pepsi) like it was on Victory, Bad & Dangerous Tours. But even then, the main problem with HIStory (and Dangerous Tours) were Michael's expenses and production costs (3 different stages being transferred all around the world at the same time, a tank, huge stage and huge team of people...). Also his personal expenses were big problem, he was giving too much money to charity (YES, he DID!). You can't give $100 million to charity and expect to earn money to support your lifestyle. But he knew all that. He knew what were all the production costs, he knew that all those extra expenses will be paid out of his share of the money (he agreed to pay them again on This Is It Tour!), he knew that he would end up touring the world (which he hated) for 1,5 years and come home with nothing. He knew all that, but artistic value of his shows and helping the children and the ones in need was more important to him than making billions of dollars. But you can't have both, the king-like lifestyle and being the most giving human being in the world without working every day. And he didn't work (perform) for 8 full years!

I like your details, pretty efficient. Here's why I said what I said about the HIStory tour:

Michael Jackson lost $26 million on HIStory tour's 1st leg, exec says

May 31, 2013

Michael Jackson lost $26 million on the first leg of the HIStory tour in the mid-1990s and was in debt for sound, lighting and other expenses, according to testimony Friday in the wrongful death suit his family has filed.

Paul Gongaware, now co-CEO of AEG Live/Live Nation, testified he was brought as tour executive for the 40 concerts that made up the second leg of the world tour.

“I had to go in and cut a lot of expenses," Gongaware said. "There was so much excess."

Gongaware said HIStory, at the time considered one of the most ambitious tours ever, eventually broke even.

He said Jackson’s performances were "sensational" and he saw no evidence the singer was using drugs. Gongaware did not start working for AEG until 2000, when the entertainment firm bought his company, Live Nation.

Gongaware, in his fourth day on the stand, also testified that in 2008 Jackson met in Century City with Colony Capital, a group of investors, that held the mortgage on Jackson's Neverland ranch, which was threatened with foreclosure.

“Whoever held the note before … was about to foreclose on Neverland and Colony came in, I think at last-minute, and took on that obligation," Gongaware said.

He said Colony was trying to figure out a way to hold a Jackson exhibit or museum at the Las Vegas Hilton, which the firm owned. But nothing came of the discussions.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/31/local/la-me-ln-jackson-history-tour-20130531

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

He's posted another video, in which he says MJ visited The Queen at Buckingham Palace in 2002, I have a very hard time believing that.

 

[ivy]

^^

and why would Wiesner have alleged gifts from Queen to MJ?

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

He claims MJ gave it to him to take to Germany to get the shield changed to his logos. So if Michael gave this to him to get it altered, wouldn't it actually belong to the Estate.

 

[barbee0715]

I have to admit that I'm irritated with myself for even watching this-he seems like a real "scum ball"-showing us Michael's make up and stuff. I had to laugh a little when he showed the camera the makeup pad to the camera and said "Michael's DNA was on it." Maybe he can start a joint venture with some scientists to create a clone of Michael. LOL.

 

[myosotis]

He's posted another video, in which he says MJ visited The Queen at Buckingham Palace in 2002, I have a very hard time believing that.


He seems to be saying that Michael 'asked for' the silver crest when he visited the Queen, and she gave it to him? I find that even harder to believe. I don't think anyone would visit royalty and casually ask about one of their decorative items' Can I have that? It doesn't look like the kind of thing that is used as decoration in any of the palaces anyway...more a 'tourist gift shop' item. As is the Golden anniversary plate. I wouldn't be surprised if both were for sale in the palace gift shop.

Edit: The Golden Jubilee was in 2002, and there were lots of official commemorative royal items for sale, as there are now eg. here:
http://www.historicroyalpalaces.com/collectables/official-royal-china.html

 

[Mechi]

We shouldn't give any attention to this youtube channel! There's someone with no dignity trying to make money with Michael (who wasn't his friend anymore for some time when he was killed) and also with our attention! We should be smarter than this.

 

[Glanni]

how long can someone talk about such boring things like Michaels makeup or this "queen" logo? I mean, nice to hear... but 6 minutes!???

and the logo doesnt show a hat, a glove, his socks or microfone at ALL. see:

 

[elusive moonwalker]

I bet the only hits hes got are from fans!! *facepalm*

 

[myosotis]

how long can someone talk about such boring things like Michaels makeup or this "queen" logo? I mean, nice to hear... but 6 minutes!???

and the logo doesnt show a hat, a glove, his socks or microfone at ALL. see:

No it is still based on the UK one, with triple lions for England, a single lion for Scotland and a harp for N Ireland.
http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/idPaJ34np][/URL]

 

[marc_vivien]

http://www.inquisitr.com/1849453/ne...-come-out-despite-millions-spent-to-block-it/


A company in Basel, Switzerland has today announced they have successfully obtained exclusive rights to market a book by Michael Jackson’s business manager and confidant, Dieter Wiesner.

Many books have been written and published since Michael Jackson died. In fact there are currently at least 227 books published and available and apparently even more are forthcoming.

However, the latest book, to be financed and handled by Artlima AG, is something different. It is written by the one person who managed Michael Jackson during the last decade of his life. Wiesner was responsible for the hiring and firing of people around Jackson and was privy to much confidential information on his boss and the people who surrounded him. He worked as his business manager from 1996 to 2003.

Wiesner has access to a large amount of exclusive and unreleased material on the King of Pop, material that is apparently making some people nervous. Because of this, more than a million dollars has been spent in legal fees in Germany by Michael Jackson’s estate, trying to block this book.

Following a battle covering three years in the German courts, finally that country’s highest court has ruled in Wiesner’s favor, giving him full rights to publish his book, not only in German, by in any language worldwide. The book is to be published in both paperback by Random House and also as an audio book which will contain voice messages.

On top of this, Wiesner has started a channel on the popular video sharing platform YouTube, where he intends to share exclusive material with Michael’s fans. He will also share his own, more personal experiences with Jackson on that platform.

A spokesperson for Artlima Ag said it is time for everyone to know who Michael Jackson actually was and what happened to him.

“It is time for the public to know, first hand, who Michael was, what actually happened. Not only from Mr. Wiesner but also directly from Michael! Artlima stands behind freedom of speech and information. We are happy to financially support this project.“

Besides the book, Artlima AG has something really unique for any art collectors out there. They have the original working paper for the song “Smooth Criminal” by Michael Jackson. The company bought the paper from Wiesner and it is apparently a unique document, containing the ideas Jackson scribbled down for his magna opus song “Smooth Criminal.”

According to the company, it is possible to observe firsthand how Jackson formed the words of the song, played with the ideas in his mind and presented the music on paper, including the crescendo and rallentando moment of the song. Apparently Jackson’s fingerprints are still in evidence, all over the document.

Collectors would need quite a bit of money behind them to make the purchase, however, as according to Artlima AG the minimum bid for the paper is U.S.$3 million. The website offers photos of the document.

Artlima AG is an international business company, based in Switzerland, who have a focus on financing, licensing and the management of art.

Wiesner has a website with many images of himself with Michael Jackson over the years, that he is now able to share with the public. In the following video from his YouTube channel, Dieter Wiesner speaks of a gift Michael Jackson received from Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain

 

[barbee0715]

LOL. Each and every one of Michael's "friends" always say this:



A spokesperson for Artlima Ag said it is time for everyone to know who Michael Jackson actually was and what happened to him.
“It is time for the public to know, first hand, who Michael was, what actually happened. Not only from Mr. Wiesner but also directly from Michael!



So now we know the hidden agenda for the YouTube site.