Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
The thing is, we here know all about that guy and guys like Bob Jones, we know it's nonsense. But many people that watch that trash go "these men worked for him, they can't all be lying." sadly I know at least two people that react like that. And that's all because they don't know the full story, the things Mesereau revealed about them, the actual facts and necessary research.

But meh, I'm done care about trying to make these people see how twisted they have got it.
Click to expand...

Brown didnt work for him. He has no connection to mj other than been buddies with rebbie.
 
analogue said:
Some people are still using the ''He was rich enough to buy his innocent'' argument, while ignoring the fact that being rich didn't help Harvey Weinstein. And Weinstein was being protected by the mainstream media for decades.
Click to expand...
No, MJ money helped his get a lawyer than was not going to allow our system to lock him up over lies as they like to do when it comes to black men. As i say, MJ got treated worst than someone who has no money. So that arguement does not work. MJ had to go through a trial, DA, judge, jury, FBI, etc. did he pay all of them? NO. People say that nonsense to make themselves feel good because they can not handle the truth that MJ was innocent.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
The Guardian is covering it too, lol. "a dark truth behind MJ" or whatever nonsense. About how this Peretti investigates bla bla bla, man that turd ain't investigating shit.
Click to expand...
These media people in UK are putting the nail in their own coffins. This is only helping MJ and proving the lies the media tell. The UK media already look stupid to the rest of the world after Harry and Megan left due to the treatment
 
I knew the BBC were making a documentary but I had no idea it was being aired until I saw a fan posting about it on Twitter. I followed the hashtag and it seemed to be mostly fans posting. I also saw someone saying they previously thought he was guilty but now think he's innocent... if the media or anyone wants to take MJ down they are making a fine mess of that lol
 
elusive moonwalker said:
Brown didnt work for him. He has no connection to mj other than been buddies with rebbie.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I mixed him up with Jones.

I've done some more reading on Jones and Brown on Vindicatemj.wordpress.com and read stuff I didn't know yet. It's insane how much there is to actually read up on. It's just crazy the lengths people go to for money, the constant lies and total fabricated stories, it's just insane what Michael had to deal with.

And it's those two pieces of trash that this Peretti turd gets his information from. All debunked, proven to be false in court stuff. Some people are downright sad and shame on BBC for not bothering to actually research things. Why would they care? They know negativity draws viewers.

And the idiots I spoke to yesterday on Twitter claiming to be CSA survivors all eat it up as facts, when the whole "documentary" is no worse than the worst tabloid you can imagine.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
A documentry going on about bleeching skin and using stacy brown as a source😂😂😂😂😂😂 no wonder they aired it in the middle of corona. What an imbarrassment.
Click to expand...

The fact that they aired such thing during the recent circumstances when there really are much more important things going on in the world is unbelievable (they could at least postpone it). It would be low even from tabloids but coming from the BBC, backed by The Guardian and the likes is stomach-turning.

I have a slight hope though that due to the timing, the overdoing, the hypocrisy and the unnecessarity of the whole thing some in the general public will see it the same way (perhaps even start thinking...).
 
It was supposedly due out last summer but was delayed. It was comissioned when L.N was aired with a different title. Trying to take advantage of what they hoped was the end of mj.prob showed it now cause its such a mess so would go mostly ignored as it has.if i paid the uk t.v licence hater or not id be questioning as to why tax payers money was been spent on such rubbish
 
elusive moonwalker said:
It was supposedly due out last summer but was delayed. It was comissioned when L.N was aired with a different title. Trying to take advantage of what they hoped was the end of mj.prob showed it now cause its such a mess so would go mostly ignored as it has.if i paid the uk t.v licence hater or not id be questioning as to why tax payers money was been spent on such rubbish
Click to expand...
Exactly! Thanks for the info, I suspected something like this as it's so out of place and pointless.

But why, BBC, why? :shutup:
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Well we can safely say this BBC doc was a total flop, only trended at #20 in the UK for about 10 minutes with 1000 tweets, largely from fans, before falling off entirely. People are ****ing tired of these tired ass docs when Youtube with real docs are right there.</p>&mdash; caramella (@Caramelicedtea) <a href="https://twitter.com/Caramelicedtea/status/1244744975025426435?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Well, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TheRealMichaelJackson?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TheRealMichaelJackson</a> was a one-sided shitshow of a &#8220;documentary&#8221; which failed to mention rebuttals in detail.<br><br>I then worry that there&#8217;s going to be more MJ backlash; I open twitter, click the hashtag and 9/10 tweets are pro-MJ.<br><br>The media are not winning. Propaganda.</p>&mdash; Doctor Who (@WhoDiscussions) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhoDiscussions/status/1244752298250833926?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Last edited:
ozemouze;4285126 said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Well we can safely say this BBC doc was a total flop, only trended at #20 in the UK for about 10 minutes with 1000 tweets, largely from fans, before falling off entirely. People are ****ing tired of these tired ass docs when Youtube with real docs are right there.</p>&mdash; caramella (@Caramelicedtea) <a href="https://twitter.com/Caramelicedtea/status/1244744975025426435?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

It was trending at #5 last night when I was twitter.
 
Probably the fans who highjacked it with the real mj hashtag. 10,20k ppl talking about something on twitter when the countries population is 65mill.... the over importance of twitter
 
ozemouze;4285126 said:
Well we can safely say this BBC doc was a total flop, only trended at #20 in the UK for about 10 minutes with 1000 tweets, largely from fans, before falling off entirely. People are ****ing tired of these tired ass docs when Youtube with real docs are right there.
— caramella (@Caramelicedtea) March 30, 2020​
<script src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8" async=""></script>

Well, #TheRealMichaelJackson was a one-sided shitshow of a “documentary” which failed to mention rebuttals in detail.

I then worry that there’s going to be more MJ backlash; I open twitter, click the hashtag and 9/10 tweets are pro-MJ.

The media are not winning. Propaganda.
— Doctor Who (@WhoDiscussions) March 30, 2020​
<script src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8" async=""></script>
Click to expand...
Really, it was not much backlash on MJ last year when you look totally at the big picture.
 
That piece of s:censored: is dying a whole lot faster than LN, they might us well flush that down the toilet.
 
I really don't care about this doc to be honest. did it fail? i live in the US so i didn't care and didn't aired here anyway.
 
NatureCriminal7896 said:
I really don't care about this doc to be honest. did it fail? i live in the US so i didn't care and didn't aired here anyway.
Click to expand...
I don't know what the ratings were, but I can't imagine too many people were interested, even with everyone shut inside from the lockdown. Most people have already made their mind up about Michael by now anyway.
 
Weinstein reached a settlement before his conviction. Why? Because he was guilty. No amount of $$ will change that.
With MJs extortion settlement nothing stopped the Chandlers from prosecuting in the criminal case. If sneddon had evidense he would of used it.
 
Robbsaber01 said:
Weinstein reached a settlement before his conviction. Why? Because he was guilty. No amount of $$ will change that.
With MJs extortion settlement nothing stopped the Chandlers from prosecuting in the criminal case. If sneddon had evidense he would of used it.
Click to expand...

Exactly! This is what I always say when people argue that a innocent man wouldn't settle. But then I give these details and they call you a pedo apologist, obsessed or you just straight up never hear from them again, lol.

What do you all think, should MJ have fought against it like he did with Arvizo or was it a wise decision? I can definitely understand that he didn't want a long drawn out situation like how the trial was, but at the same time I wish he had declined to settle at all.
 
TheGuardian and BBC are posting articles like "How Jackson Got Away With It All" and "We Didn't Need A Documentary - We Already Knew".

Gag me.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Exactly! This is what I always say when people argue that a innocent man wouldn't settle. But then I give these details and they call you a pedo apologist, obsessed or you just straight up never hear from them again, lol.

What do you all think, should MJ have fought against it like he did with Arvizo or was it a wise decision? I can definitely understand that he didn't want a long drawn out situation like how the trial was, but at the same time I wish he had declined to settle at all.
Click to expand...
The people like that are just ignorant and dont care about the truth. They want to believe he did these things which is sick.
Mj didnt want to settle. He didnt want to give in to Evans demands. Unfortunately Mj lost several notions/judgements that he should have won easily. His insurance company ended up paying the extortion but Mj was still against it. I think he regretted how the 93 case ended later on for sure.
 
There was no choice but to settle because of the several motions that he lost that went against the constitution. The law was then changed afterwards to give people protection from a civil case happening before a criminal one.mj had no protection. it would have allowed the civil case to happen before the crim one therefore allowing sneddon to sit in the courtroom,hear mjs defence and build a crim case around it. We saw how he did that with the arvizo case. Changing the timeline several times when he realised mj was not even there to carry about abuse.

Ray chandler openly admitted they only wanted money and had no intrest in going to criminal court
 
DangerUs'91 said:
TheGuardian and BBC are posting articles like "How Jackson Got Away With It All" and "We Didn't Need A Documentary - We Already Knew".

Gag me.
Click to expand...
They do not nothing. Amazing with all the lies revealed in COURT, these low life UK media not think that was the truth but some lying idiots, they believe it. The TRUTH is these media in the UK never liked MJ for whatever reason. I was in London in 1992 and they treated MJ like trash that year and this was BEFORE the accusation. They are also the ones who labeled MJ that racist name "W**** J***** so what they say means nothing.
 
L (and I cannot emphasize this enough..!!) OL :devil:

Doc Makers Dan Reed & Nick Broomfield Threaten Legal Action As Their Films Feature In Kew Media Fire Sale

EXCLUSIVE: Two of the UK&#8217;s best-known documentary makers, Dan Reed and Nick Broomfield, are locked in an increasingly ugly dispute with the collapsed Kew Media Group over the international rights to their biggest films.

Kew Media Group&#8217;s sales house, Kew Media Distribution, represented Reed&#8217;s Leaving Neverland &#8212; HBO and Channel 4&#8217;s Emmy-winning film on historic sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson &#8212; as well as a catalog of 30 Broomfield documentaries, including his BBC and Showtime film Whitney: Can I Be Me.

The Canadian production and distribution empire crumbled in February and administrator FTI Consulting was called in to sell off the company&#8217;s assets, including Kew Media Distribution&#8217;s library of content. Prior to the collapse, Reed and Broomfield took action to terminate their contracts with Kew Media Distribution after it failed to pay them royalties on international sales, but Deadline understands that FTI is insisting that the deals are still valid.

As such, the administrator is selling Kew Media Distribution&#8217;s catalog of 1,000 titles with Leaving Neverland and Broomfield&#8217;s projects included. Deadline has been told by four sources that final bids were accepted last Friday, with a number of interested parties circling. One person said the library was initially valued at up to £2M ($2.5M), but this has dropped significantly during the sales process, which has been fraught with complication due to rights disputes with producers.

With FTI expected to make a decision on the sale imminently, Reed and Broomfield have told Deadline that they will not allow their work to be included in the deal. Both said they would be prepared to go to court if whoever buys Kew Media Distribution&#8217;s library tries to exploit the global rights to their films.

&#8220;Way before Kew went into administration, we terminated the Leaving Neverland distribution contract for non-payment. They owe us a really significant chunk of money,&#8221; Amos Pictures boss Reed said. &#8220;We terminated that contract under English law, so I&#8217;m flabbergasted that the administrators now consider that that title is theirs to sell.&#8221;

He added: &#8220;I want to put them on notice that they are not entitled to sell that film. It&#8217;s outrageous that having fallen down on their obligations and following a notice of termination, issued in accordance with the law, that they&#8217;re still pressing on with pretending they&#8217;re entitled to sell the program.&#8221;

&#8220;We&#8217;re a small company and Leaving Neverland is a big title. I&#8217;ve gone to considerable personal risk by going up against the Jackson estate. That is not something that you do lightly. I&#8217;m not going to let somebody take it away from me.&#8221;

In a message to the companies bidding on the Kew Media Distribution library, Broomfield said: &#8220;This is my life&#8217;s work and I will strenuously defend that. We have terminated with Kew. Don&#8217;t think that you&#8217;re going to be able to buy my library because you can&#8217;t&#8230; I will do whatever I need to do to protect my rights on my work. My lawyer is already handling negotiations and we will take this as far as we need to.&#8221;

Both Reed and Broomfield are arguing that Kew Media Distribution&#8217;s failure to pay royalties represented a &#8220;repudiatory breach&#8221; of contract, a legal term that means the breach is deemed so serious that the aggrieved party can simply end the arrangement. Both have consulted with their lawyers in reaching this conclusion. However, Paul Hastings LLP, the law firm representing FTI, disagrees and has made clear that FTI intends to continue commercial discussions regarding distribution arrangements.

An FTI spokesman said: &#8220;The joint administrators, alongside their legal counsel, are in the process of considering all the distribution and licensing arrangements in place including between various producers and Kew. Any claims to termination or otherwise will be dealt with in accordance with the terms of the relevant distribution agreements. We appreciate the continued patience of producers and customers, as we continue to work through a complex situation with over 1,000 titles.&#8221;

Reed and Broomfield said they intend to find new distribution partners for their work. Reed said he is also continuing to chase the money he is owed for the sales of Leaving Neverland. &#8220;We will get together and if necessary combine with the other creditors to fight and recover as much as possible from the sale of Kew and its assets,&#8221; he said.

Broomfield argued that it was Kew Media Group, rather than the distribution arm, that was at fault for the payment issues, which he said stretched back to autumn last year. He was waiting on a &#8220;big payment&#8221; from Netflix for the Whitney Houston documentary, but it did not materialize for months. Other money did not arrive at all, meaning he had issues funding films including his latest project: a follow-up to 2002&#8217;s Biggie & Tupac focusing on Suge Knight, the former head of Death Row Records.

In an in-depth report on Kew Media Group&#8217;s collapse, Deadline revealed that the company was dipping into the accounts of its distributors, Kew Media Distribution and TCB Media Rights, to cash flow the business when it ran into financial difficulty last year. The empire is currently being broken up piece-by-piece, with producers including Essential Media Group and Collins Avenue exiting. TCB, the profitable UK distributor, is on the brink of an exit, while Alex Gibney&#8217;s Jigsaw Productions is another asset that will be sold.

https://deadline.com/2020/04/dan-re...ction-kew-media-distribution-sale-1202897389/

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

Edited to add a small footnote, to say that Kew Media doesn't seem to be getting much for the sale of some of its component parts;

eg. TCB Media Rights has secured its exit from the collapsed Canadian TV empire Kew Media Group. The deal apparently valued TCB at under $2.6M.
Heaney sold the business to Kew Media Group for £6.3M ($7.8M) in cash and shares in 2017....

So that's a sale price of over $5m less than the acquisition price only 2-and-a-bit years earlier. So the overall 'Kew Media' pot of money that Reed hopes to be paid from won't be very big.

https://deadline.com/2020/04/tcb-media-kew-media-beyond-international-1202892997/
 
Last edited:
myosotis;4285209 said:
L (and I cannot emphasize this enough..!!) OL :devil:

Doc Makers Dan Reed & Nick Broomfield Threaten Legal Action As Their Films Feature In Kew Media Fire Sale

EXCLUSIVE: Two of the UK&#8217;s best-known documentary makers, Dan Reed and Nick Broomfield, are locked in an increasingly ugly dispute with the collapsed Kew Media Group over the international rights to their biggest films.

Kew Media Group&#8217;s sales house, Kew Media Distribution, represented Reed&#8217;s Leaving Neverland &#8212; HBO and Channel 4&#8217;s Emmy-winning film on historic sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson &#8212; as well as a catalog of 30 Broomfield documentaries, including his BBC and Showtime film Whitney: Can I Be Me.

The Canadian production and distribution empire crumbled in February and administrator FTI Consulting was called in to sell off the company&#8217;s assets, including Kew Media Distribution&#8217;s library of content. Prior to the collapse, Reed and Broomfield took action to terminate their contracts with Kew Media Distribution after it failed to pay them royalties on international sales, but Deadline understands that FTI is insisting that the deals are still valid.

As such, the administrator is selling Kew Media Distribution&#8217;s catalog of 1,000 titles with Leaving Neverland and Broomfield&#8217;s projects included. Deadline has been told by four sources that final bids were accepted last Friday, with a number of interested parties circling. One person said the library was initially valued at up to £2M ($2.5M), but this has dropped significantly during the sales process, which has been fraught with complication due to rights disputes with producers.

With FTI expected to make a decision on the sale imminently, Reed and Broomfield have told Deadline that they will not allow their work to be included in the deal. Both said they would be prepared to go to court if whoever buys Kew Media Distribution&#8217;s library tries to exploit the global rights to their films.

&#8220;Way before Kew went into administration, we terminated the Leaving Neverland distribution contract for non-payment. They owe us a really significant chunk of money,&#8221; Amos Pictures boss Reed said. &#8220;We terminated that contract under English law, so I&#8217;m flabbergasted that the administrators now consider that that title is theirs to sell.&#8221;

He added: &#8220;I want to put them on notice that they are not entitled to sell that film. It&#8217;s outrageous that having fallen down on their obligations and following a notice of termination, issued in accordance with the law, that they&#8217;re still pressing on with pretending they&#8217;re entitled to sell the program.&#8221;

&#8220;We&#8217;re a small company and Leaving Neverland is a big title. I&#8217;ve gone to considerable personal risk by going up against the Jackson estate. That is not something that you do lightly. I&#8217;m not going to let somebody take it away from me.&#8221;

In a message to the companies bidding on the Kew Media Distribution library, Broomfield said: &#8220;This is my life&#8217;s work and I will strenuously defend that. We have terminated with Kew. Don&#8217;t think that you&#8217;re going to be able to buy my library because you can&#8217;t&#8230; I will do whatever I need to do to protect my rights on my work. My lawyer is already handling negotiations and we will take this as far as we need to.&#8221;

Both Reed and Broomfield are arguing that Kew Media Distribution&#8217;s failure to pay royalties represented a &#8220;repudiatory breach&#8221; of contract, a legal term that means the breach is deemed so serious that the aggrieved party can simply end the arrangement. Both have consulted with their lawyers in reaching this conclusion. However, Paul Hastings LLP, the law firm representing FTI, disagrees and has made clear that FTI intends to continue commercial discussions regarding distribution arrangements.

An FTI spokesman said: &#8220;The joint administrators, alongside their legal counsel, are in the process of considering all the distribution and licensing arrangements in place including between various producers and Kew. Any claims to termination or otherwise will be dealt with in accordance with the terms of the relevant distribution agreements. We appreciate the continued patience of producers and customers, as we continue to work through a complex situation with over 1,000 titles.&#8221;

Reed and Broomfield said they intend to find new distribution partners for their work. Reed said he is also continuing to chase the money he is owed for the sales of Leaving Neverland. &#8220;We will get together and if necessary combine with the other creditors to fight and recover as much as possible from the sale of Kew and its assets,&#8221; he said.

Broomfield argued that it was Kew Media Group, rather than the distribution arm, that was at fault for the payment issues, which he said stretched back to autumn last year. He was waiting on a &#8220;big payment&#8221; from Netflix for the Whitney Houston documentary, but it did not materialize for months. Other money did not arrive at all, meaning he had issues funding films including his latest project: a follow-up to 2002&#8217;s Biggie & Tupac focusing on Suge Knight, the former head of Death Row Records.

In an in-depth report on Kew Media Group&#8217;s collapse, Deadline revealed that the company was dipping into the accounts of its distributors, Kew Media Distribution and TCB Media Rights, to cash flow the business when it ran into financial difficulty last year. The empire is currently being broken up piece-by-piece, with producers including Essential Media Group and Collins Avenue exiting. TCB, the profitable UK distributor, is on the brink of an exit, while Alex Gibney&#8217;s Jigsaw Productions is another asset that will be sold.

https://deadline.com/2020/04/dan-re...ction-kew-media-distribution-sale-1202897389/
Click to expand...

Wah! Wah! Wah! Now Robotnik Reeks is suing Kew Media over distribution being dead? Waaaaah! Waaaaaah! Why don&#8217;t you ship your sorry lying f:censored:king @$$ where crybabies like you belong...to Montreal!

giphy.gif
 
terrell;4285203 said:
They do not nothing. Amazing with all the lies revealed in COURT, these low life UK media not think that was the truth but some lying idiots, they believe it. The TRUTH is these media in the UK never liked MJ for whatever reason. I was in London in 1992 and they treated MJ like trash that year and this was BEFORE the accusation. They are also the ones who labeled MJ that racist name "W**** J***** so what they say means nothing.
Click to expand...
So was I but I normally live in Sweden. I remember the Mirror ran a story about his face falling apart. A picture by a Ken Lennox I think which looked really manipulated but they said it wasn&#8217;t and before that it was the rasist name like you said. Actually that was my first impression of MJ at about 1985 (I was 11) . Defended him from how the press treated him before I seriously became a fan of his music then the Bad album came out. But here we still are in 2020.
 
La74;4285219 said:
So was I but I normally live in Sweden. I remember the Mirror ran a story about his face falling apart. A picture by a Ken Lennox I think which looked really manipulated but they said it wasn&#8217;t and before that it was the rasist name like you said. Actually that was my first impression of MJ at about 1985 (I was 11) . Defended him from how the press treated him before I seriously became a fan of his music then the Bad album came out. But here we still are in 2020.
Click to expand...

Ken Lennox- "This is the nose" ...June 1992 - Ugh still haunts me to this day

a scarred phantom whose face is covered with scar tissues, with a hole in his nose, one cheek higher than the other and an oddly sagging chin''
Michael was 33 and beautiful when he sued lennox.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
There was no choice but to settle because of the several motions that he lost that went against the constitution. The law was then changed afterwards to give people protection from a civil case happening before a criminal one.mj had no protection. it would have allowed the civil case to happen before the crim one therefore allowing sneddon to sit in the courtroom,hear mjs defence and build a crim case around it. We saw how he did that with the arvizo case. Changing the timeline several times when he realised mj was not even there to carry about abuse.

Ray chandler openly admitted they only wanted money and had no intrest in going to criminal court
Click to expand...

Did ray say that in his book? We know the facts. 93 was an extortion plot. Plain and simple.
 
Dan Reed comments prove this was money making scheme. Nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top