Latest on MJJC

Motions to exclude certain topics at Katherine Jackson vs AEG Trial

Status
Not open for further replies.
Petrarose said:
I don't think he sold out because it was a rarity to see him on stage, but I will leave it as your idea. If we look into the history of Michael Jackson the artist & those who were trying to get him to make deals, we will see that he sold out because he was a phenomenal artist on stage & a great entertainer. It is true that the less you see of someone the more hightened an interest is in that person, but this is not the major reason TII sold out. If that was the case The Jackson 4 would have sold out at every venue and we wouldn't see all those cancellations and empty seats. There are even other artists who have not performed in 10 years and cannot sell out the O2.

This is going to be my last defense for Michael in relation to those who want to see him as an artist that could not make a deal to tour and make substantial money after 09.
Click to expand...

"who want to see him as an artist that could not make a deal to tour and make substantial money after 09"

THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID!!! Please don't distort what I said! I am talking bout YEARLY INCOME ESTIMATES!!!
 
corlista said:
Thank you so much for this, Ivy. What a lot of effort to make sure MJ fans are informed about what's is going on. I understand many things much better now but at the same time find so much of this disturbing - the alcoholism, the implant, the questioning of the children's parentage, etc. AEG would do anything to get out from under this. It never ends.
Click to expand...

Well said...and i agree with Ivy on that:

BFr-ItACIAAXeT_.png:large
 
I have read as much as I can about this and I have not been able to find any indication that AEG was going to bring up the paternity of PPB. Did I miss it? Why did Katherine feel the need to bring this up because I never got the feeling AEG was going to go there. What do you guys think?
 
I agree Peta, There would be no reason for them to go there it doesn't mean diddly squat and is pointless as far as this case goes. AEG isnt going to try and hurt their image and case by going after the children. Its the Jackson's that are bringing unnecessary attention to it, by even bringing it up .. just to try and make AEG look bad .. IMO.
 
corlista said:
Thank you so much for this, Ivy. What a lot of effort to make sure MJ fans are informed about what's is going on. I understand many things much better now but at the same time find so much of this disturbing - the alcoholism, the implant, the questioning of the children's parentage, etc. AEG would do anything to get out from under this. It never ends.
Click to expand...

Paris78 said:
Well said...and i agree with Ivy on that:
Click to expand...
Actually Ivy didnt say what Corlista the post you quoted did.
but yes she is doing us a great service here :)

But IMO There is no indication AEG is going to bring these points out in the trial . In fact AEG said whether MJ was drinking or not on the day of his press release doesn't factor in to the case becuase MJ didnt die of alcholism. So they wont use that. AEG also has no reason to attack the chilldren's paternity, that would harm them not help. It doesn't have anything to do with this case and it would cause them more harm them good to go there. Just because Kat's attorney say they don't want these things mentioned .. doesn't indicate AEG planned to mention these things. Notice they said AEG May or might .. not that they would. But both sides will use whatever they can, Kat to win and AEG to defend themselves, even if its is not favorable to MJ .. even the Jackson's want to portray MJ as a drug addict to say AEG was aware and should have known Murray could be enabling him. But neither side is coming out squeeky clean here as far as using negative things about MJ to win. ... It's MJ who will be thrown under the bus. BY both sides .... This case is all about Money. All AEG can be held responsible for is negligent hiring and supervision. Not any criminal activity or conspiracy in MJ's death. The case is pointless in serving any Justice for Michael ... It will do his legacy more harm than good. And No matter who Win$ there will be no Justice served for Michael. IMO
 
Bonnie Blue said:
Mj wanting to buy marvel seemed to have been in 1999/2000 - that's when he toured the studios and was in negotiation with stan lee media to take over marvel. But the deal fell through because the owner wanted $1bn, i think they were expecting it to go for alot less. So i'm casting a side eye on wiesner's claim it all fell through because of the arvizo allegations, as they were 03 and i'm doubting that he had any role in the deal at all. 09.
Click to expand...

In 2003 he was going to buy a movie studio company in Montreal, Marvel was as you said in '99/'00.
 
^^Well they need to stop requesting the coverage form the judge, because it does not seem that she will budge.
 
both sides are opposing to each other's motion to exclude except

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (unredacted dfts opposition to pltffs motion in limin eno. 1 **not scanned** )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs preliminary opps to defdts motion in limine no. 6 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (unredacted defdst opposition to pltffs motoin in limine no. 4 **not scanned** )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Miscellaneous-Other (defdts statement of non opposition to ptlffs motion in limine no. 9 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (DEFDTS OPPOSITION TO PLTFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (defdts opposition to pltffs motion in limine no. 2 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (DEFDTS OPPOSITION TO PLTFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs opposition to defst motion in limine no. 2 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (DEFDTS OPPOSTION TO PLTFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Miscellaneous-Other (DEFTS STATEMENT OF NON OPPOSITION TO PLTFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs opposition to defdts motion in limine no. 4 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Proof of Service (re: opposition to motion in limines, non oppositions, and redacted opposition )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (redacted defst opposition to pltffs motion in limine no. 4 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (REDACTED DEFTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs opposition to defdst motion in limine no. 5 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs opposition to defst motion in limine no. 3 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (defdts opposition to motion in limine no. 7 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (redacted defdts opposition to plaintiffs motion in limine no. 1 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

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

AEG files 2 non opposition statements to Katherine's motions to exclude 3 and 9. Katherine's motion 3 is about marital discord between Katherine and Joe, Katherine's motion 9 is about the biological parents of the minor kids.

Given that AEG has filed non opposition statements, it shows they had no intention to mention them and they will be excluded.
 
ivy said:
both sides are opposing to each other's motion to exclude except

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (unredacted dfts opposition to pltffs motion in limin eno. 1 **not scanned** )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs preliminary opps to defdts motion in limine no. 6 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (unredacted defdst opposition to pltffs motoin in limine no. 4 **not scanned** )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Miscellaneous-Other (defdts statement of non opposition to ptlffs motion in limine no. 9 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (DEFDTS OPPOSITION TO PLTFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (defdts opposition to pltffs motion in limine no. 2 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (DEFDTS OPPOSITION TO PLTFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs opposition to defst motion in limine no. 2 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (DEFDTS OPPOSTION TO PLTFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Miscellaneous-Other (DEFTS STATEMENT OF NON OPPOSITION TO PLTFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs opposition to defdts motion in limine no. 4 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Proof of Service (re: opposition to motion in limines, non oppositions, and redacted opposition )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (redacted defst opposition to pltffs motion in limine no. 4 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (REDACTED DEFTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs opposition to defdst motion in limine no. 5 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs opposition to defst motion in limine no. 3 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (defdts opposition to motion in limine no. 7 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (redacted defdts opposition to plaintiffs motion in limine no. 1 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

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

AEG files 2 non opposition statements to Katherine's motions to exclude 3 and 9. Katherine's motion 3 is about marital discord between Katherine and Joe, Katherine's motion 9 is about the biological parents of the minor kids.

Given that AEG has filed non opposition statements, it shows they had no intention to mention them and they will be excluded.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly they were irrelevant to begin with. the Jacksons just wanted to create a sensation specially about the kids paternity. I honestly could not see how that would have played into their case.

but the money problems of the jacksons are extremely relevant. it shows the kind of pressure MJ was under to sponsor his family despite his own finiancial problems. plus, it shows even now that it is the sole reason the jacksons are prosecuting AEG.
 
Thanks Ivy.
How about these, are they going to be included:

Exclude the mention that Katherine and MJ’s kids did not sue Murray
Katherine’s lawyers state that they expect AEG to argue that Katherine could have sued Murray but choose not to because she was looking for a deep pocketed defendant and they want the judge to exclude such claims.

Exclude benefits Katherine and MJ’s kids receive from MJ Estate
Katherine’s lawyers state that they expect AEG to argue that Katherine and MJ’s kids are receiving money from MJ Estate and they will use this to reduce the any amount of damages the jury might award so they want the judge to exclude such claims.

Exclude the argument that Michael’s siblings have financial problems
Katherine’s lawyers state that they expect AEG try to introduce evidence that Michael’s siblings suffer or have suffered from financial woes and says that this is irrelevant and it should be excluded.

Exclude that Michael Jackson Estate did not file a lawsuit against AEG or anyone else in regards to Michael’s death
Katherine’s lawyers say that they anticipate that AEG will argue that MJ Estate did not join Katherine’s lawsuit to demonstrate that Katherine’s lawsuit lacks merit or based on baseless allegations. They want it to be excluded.

Exclude that Katherine was kidnapped to Arizona
Katherine’s lawyers say that AEG may try to introduce evidence that Katherine was kidnapped to Arizona to cast the Jackson family in a bad light and it should be excluded as it is irrelevant.

Ps. so Jackson's agree that after all, Katherine was kidnapped, and she wasn't there for rest:)
This should be included to lighten up the trial:)
 
Questions please: Did the plaintiffs have 9 exclusions or 10? If 10, what was the tenth exclusion being opposed?

The defendants had 7 exclusions right? Oppositions to defendants exclusions 1 (damages) and 7 (Gongaware/Segal) were filed too?
 
ivy said:
both sides are opposing to each other's motion to exclude except

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (unredacted dfts opposition to pltffs motion in limin eno. 1 **not scanned** )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs preliminary opps to defdts motion in limine no. 6 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (unredacted defdst opposition to pltffs motoin in limine no. 4 **not scanned** )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Miscellaneous-Other (defdts statement of non opposition to ptlffs motion in limine no. 9 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (DEFDTS OPPOSITION TO PLTFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (defdts opposition to pltffs motion in limine no. 2 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (DEFDTS OPPOSITION TO PLTFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs opposition to defst motion in limine no. 2 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (DEFDTS OPPOSTION TO PLTFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Miscellaneous-Other (DEFTS STATEMENT OF NON OPPOSITION TO PLTFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs opposition to defdts motion in limine no. 4 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Proof of Service (re: opposition to motion in limines, non oppositions, and redacted opposition )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (redacted defst opposition to pltffs motion in limine no. 4 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (REDACTED DEFTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs opposition to defdst motion in limine no. 5 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (pltffs opposition to defst motion in limine no. 3 )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (defdts opposition to motion in limine no. 7 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

03/18/2013 Opposition Document (redacted defdts opposition to plaintiffs motion in limine no. 1 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

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

AEG files 2 non opposition statements to Katherine's motions to exclude 3 and 9. Katherine's motion 3 is about marital discord between Katherine and Joe, Katherine's motion 9 is about the biological parents of the minor kids.

Given that AEG has filed non opposition statements, it shows they had no intention to mention them and they will be excluded.
Click to expand...

So from both sides only these two motions are not opposed? KJ and co are opposing the exclusion AEG want regarding Michael being 'drunk' during TII announcement? Her side are wanting to bring that in and think it's relevant?
 
The paternity angle is now covered by TMZ, Gawker, Roger Friedman, Vanity Fair, The Telegraph, etc

Most outright saying this confirms he isn't their father.

Thanks a lot Jacksons, for more bullshit.

I wish the kids could speak up. They're the ones who have to deal with fighting these lies and now they have more and more lies to fight, created by their own family.
 
Jacksons just filed those motions to make aeg look bad and to gain sympathy imo. as its irrelevent and aeg have showed they have no intrest in such thing.

how do these motions show they arent mjs kids lol according to the press. causr aeg would realky have knowledge on such stuff lol
 
^^^^ Possibly, but to be fair AEG do have Debbie Rowe on their list. But, having said that, it would be totally irrelevant to this case and I highly doubt any judge would allow any trial to be steered completely off course. It's very sad it has unnecessarily been brought up, and that the press are reporting it as proof and not to mention certain 'fans' blowing and twisting it out of proportion. SMH
 
i would think debbie is on the list cause of her being a nurse and being with him on the history tour
 
LastTear said:
So from both sides only these two motions are not opposed? KJ and co are opposing the exclusion AEG want regarding Michael being 'drunk' during TII announcement? Her side are wanting to bring that in and think it's relevant?
Click to expand...


For the sake of winning this case, Jackson's want Michael to be stark raving drug addict as well alcoholic.
 
la_cienega said:
The paternity angle is now covered by TMZ, Gawker, Roger Friedman, Vanity Fair, The Telegraph, etc

Most outright saying this confirms he isn't their father.

Thanks a lot Jacksons, for more bullshit.

I wish the kids could speak up. They're the ones who have to deal with fighting these lies and now they have more and more lies to fight, created by their own family.
Click to expand...

They are well and truly horrendous "family"! It just shows how far they are ready to go.

It is outrageous that it is the only thing tabloids picked up from all of the motions :angry:
When I do google search in MJ, that is all that comes up.

PPB are not safe or protected by Jackson's and for the love of the God, wake up Debbie Rowe!
Anyone can say what ever they like about her, but she is starting to look better than any of the Jackson's, hell Lizzie Borden is starting to look like angel to compare Jackson's.

This is what kids needs now, from 0:24

They need someone like her around them, ready to kick some ass for them.
 
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker said:
i would think debbie is on the list cause of her being a nurse and being with him on the history tour
Click to expand...

Yes of course, but realising that takes common sense, I suspect the Jacksons were expecting AEG to behave how they would. Ie anything goes no matter how low.

Bubs said:
For the sake of winning this case, Jackson's want Michael to be stark raving drug addict as well alcoholic.
Click to expand...

Yes it certainly appears that way. *sigh* I just wanted to highlight that point.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
Jacksons just filed those motions to make aeg look bad and to gain sympathy imo. as its irrelevent and aeg have showed they have no intrest in such thing.

how do these motions show they arent mjs kids lol according to the press. causr aeg would realky have knowledge on such stuff lol
Click to expand...

It's because the Jacksons made this motion that the press think it's proof, as though they're hiding something.

That's currently the way the media has the story, as though these are "paternity secrets" the Jacksons are seeking to keep covered.

Bubs said:
They are well and truly horrendous "family"! It just shows how far they are ready to go.

It is outrageous that it is the only thing tabloids picked up from all of the motions :angry:
When I do google search in MJ, that is all that comes up.

PPB are not safe or protected by Jackson's and for the love of the God, wake up Debbie Rowe!
Anyone can say what ever they like about her, but she is starting to look better than any of the Jackson's, hell Lizzie Borden is starting to look like angel to compare Jackson's.
Click to expand...

Debbie can't speak up, she's bound by her confidentiality agreement. She can't say anything like that about the kids/MJ.

But Debbie's already said before they are his bio kids, and her custody lawyer also said that again after he died.

People are going to need to deal with the weird animosity they have with allowing these kids to be his.

Bubs said:
For the sake of winning this case, Jackson's want Michael to be stark raving drug addict as well alcoholic.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing because of the claims of MJ being drunk before the TII announcement, so they can show AEG knew MJ had all these problems, didn't care.

The whole thing is going to be really disgusting.

Anyone else remember how one of the points of 2005 was that MJ would get too off his face on drink/drugs and didn't know what he was doing to these kids? I mean, ugh.

This family is disgusting.
 
Bubs said:
Thanks Ivy.
How about these, are they going to be included:
Click to expand...

Katherine and AEG filed oppositions for the rest, that means that a judge will hear both sides and make a decision to allow or exclude them. we need to wait and see for it.

Tygger said:
Questions please: Did the plaintiffs have 9 exclusions or 10? If 10, what was the tenth exclusion being opposed?

The defendants had 7 exclusions right? Oppositions to defendants exclusions 1 (damages) and 7 (Gongaware/Segal) were filed too?
Click to expand...

The numbers for reference

AEG

Motion 1 - AEG's financial position
Motion 2 - Gongaware & Segal's personal relationship
Motion 3 - Irrelevant interactions between AEG and Michael
Motion 4 - Hypothetical evidence of TII cancellation or postponement
Motion 5 - Murray's character as it pertains to his personal life
Motion 6 - Speculative Damages
Motion 7 - Michael being drunk before 02 Press conference

Katherine Jackson

Motion 1 - Molestation charges
Motion 2 - Benefits received by KJ after MJ's death
Motion 3 - Marital discord between Katherine and Joe - non opposed
Motion 4 - Michael's siblings have or had financial problems
Motion 5 - Allowing electronic presentations on opening statements (I omitted this one)
Motion 6 - David Fournier Testimony
Motion 7 - MJ Estate did not sue AEG or anyone else in Michael's death
Motion 8 - KJ did not file a suit against Murray
Motion 9 - Biological parents of minor children - non opposed
Motion 10 - Katherine being kidnapped to Arizona

la_cienega said:
Debbie can't speak up, she's bound by her confidentiality agreement. She can't say anything like that about the kids/MJ.
Click to expand...

Confidentiality agreements does not apply to testimonies. In other words confidential agreement means that you can't talk about it publicly but if you are called to testify you can't use a confidentiality agreement as a reason to not answer questions.

That being said we have no idea what was asked to Debbie Rowe and what she said or not said. Debbie Rowe was just a possibility. On the other hand I also think this biological parents could be totally Katherine's lawyers doing. Why? For example in their motion 3 when they ask the judge to exclude marital discord between Katherine and Joe , they refer to the deposition of Tito, it shows such question was asked to Tito. At the motion to exclude biological parents there's no reference to any deposition.
 
ivy said:
Confidentiality agreements does not apply to testimonies. In other words confidential agreement means that you can't talk about it publicly but if you are called to testify you can't use a confidentiality agreement as a reason to not answer questions.

That being said we have no idea what was asked to Debbie Rowe and what she said or not said. Debbie Rowe was just a possibility. On the other hand I also think this biological parents could be totally Katherine's lawyers doing. Why? For example in their motion 3 when they ask the judge to exclude marital discord between Katherine and Joe , they refer to the deposition of Tito, it shows such question was asked to Tito. At the motion to exclude biological parents there's no reference to any deposition.
Click to expand...

Oh I was addressing why she doesn't say anything publicly. I can't imagine it could be based on anything Debbie said... I mean, not to sound like a rabid fan, but Debbie's answer doesn't change about this, whether in private/public.

Sounds like Katherine's lawyer just bringing it up.
 
@Ivy. It's the final order tomorrow, all the loose ends will be tied up? Unless the judge throws it all out of course. :praying
 
la_cienega said:
The paternity angle is now covered by TMZ, Gawker, Roger Friedman, Vanity Fair, The Telegraph, etc

Most outright saying this confirms he isn't their father.
Click to expand...

Yep, that ish is all over the place, first thing I saw when I logged onto the computer this morning. Any minute I'm sure we'll be seeing Diane Demon on some news show, confirming it was always known.

It's utterly ridiculous this was even mentioned in a civil trial about who hired Murray.
 
What those websites say mean nothing to me. They can say what they like because Michael's word was good enough for me. And let us all keep this in mind. The same way the Jacksons couldn't care less about Michael they care even less about his kids. The key holders.
 
Justthefacts said:
What those websites say mean nothing to me.
Click to expand...

Totally agree! Been There - Done That.

This particular subject coming up AGAIN, is like beating a dead horse. Whether you love or hate Michael, this subject has been dissected as many times as a dead frog in science class.
 
Justthefacts said:
What those websites say mean nothing to me. They can say what they like because Michael's word was good enough for me. And let us all keep this in mind. The same way the Jacksons couldn't care less about Michael they care even less about his kids. The key holders.
Click to expand...
It may mean nothing to you, but it means something to his kids and to MJ. How hurtful it would be to have to endure these lies, which is what they are, all the time. I know he's not here but I know these stories about this hurt him while he was. Now once again in the future when PPB say again they are his bio kids, they will be laughed at and considered delusional and stupid. This feeds the culture of making it acceptable to not believe they're his and to degrade them for it.

Yes, I can see Diane running to her computer happy now. I figured the reason Vanity Fair ran with this story was because one of their original trashy stories from Maureen Orth involved of course that MJ was not the father - so this to them is some kind of "vindication." They didn't say it, but they don't run every story about MJ, let alone about this trial.

The contempt I have for the Jacksons right now is beyond reason.
 
Why are so worried about what Diane Dimond is doing? No, this is no kind of vindication for fools like her. And if they want to act like it is the hell with them. The kids know who their father is and as you have seen on twitter they will tell it to anyone who comes at them sideways.
 
la_cienega said:
It may mean nothing to you, but it means something to his kids and to MJ. How hurtful it would be to have to endure these lies, which is what they are, all the time. I know he's not here but I know these stories about this hurt him while he was. Now once again in the future when PPB say again they are his bio kids, they will be laughed at and considered delusional and stupid. This feeds the culture of making it acceptable to not believe they're his and to degrade them for it.
Click to expand...

I agree. MJ's kids have been out there publicly now for almost 4 years, and look like they are developing thick skins, but to have classmates and peers seeing this stuff billboarded all over the place would affect anyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top