Latest on MJJC

Hamid Moslehi posts pictures of Michael Jackson and his kids

Bonnie Blue said:
It's a fact that the arvizo rebuttal video was not shown on the fox documentary and that was down to hamid refusing to hand over his copy. Hamid allowed some of 'his' footage to be shown, eg the bashir excerpts, but withheld what would probably be the most important evidence that mj was innocent of anything untoward with gavin. It's tragic in retrospect.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do notice that it's not on there. But maybe it was decided that it was best to keep them out of it. They have filmed the footage in '03. They could simply have filmed it again, should Hamid refuse to hand over the footage... it's not like they died or moved to the moon after it was filmed. But at the time they tried to keep the Arvizo family out of it. Maybe that thinking was a mistake, but I doubt that it had much to do with Hamid.


There seems to be some controversy as to whether bashir ahd the right to do that - whatever, mj's lawyers failed him bigtime over that doc but in any case it's a different example as the tv company clearly had copyright.
Click to expand...

True. Michael alluded to that in LA at the fan club party. But had there been a strongly worded contract, that leaves no loopholes, I doubt that Bashir would have risked a lawsuit for breaching the contract. And it's not really that much of a difference. It shows that his people (his lawyers or whoever responsible) most likely were sleeping when they wrote up the contracts.


With hamid, i would need to know what his contract actually said - he was used alot, as you seem to be aware of, and i find it totally bizarre that mj would allow his personal videographer all the rights and copyrights over material he shoots of mj and his family.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I agree, and for me it goes against everything that I consider to be right and just. People get paid to do their work and that should be the end of it. But I do not know what kind of contract Hamid had. Obviously though he had one that allowed him to retain copyrights. Otherwise he wouldn't have claimed so in his suit, as it is really easy to prove, should he be misrepresenting the truth.
 
Prometheus77 said:
Yes, I do notice that it's not on there. But maybe it was decided that it was best to keep them out of it.
Click to expand...
Why are you speculating that maybe 'they' wanted to keep the arvizos out of it? The most important thing to rebut from that bashir doc is the suggestion of inappropriate behaviour against gavin. Not that mj spends alot of money in shops, not that berlin zoo was packed with too many fans and he didn't look after his children properly and not all the other things that was rebutted in that doc. One of the main reasons why the arvizos were at neverland for that crucial feb/march period was so that mj's legal and pr team could get the arvizos on the record saying nothing bad had happened to gavin.

They have filmed the footage in '03. They could simply have filmed it again, should Hamid refuse to hand over the footage... it's not like they died or moved to the moon after it was filmed. But at the time they tried to keep the Arvizo family out of it. Maybe that thinking was a mistake, but I doubt that it had much to do with Hamid.
Click to expand...
It was all to do with hamid. The arvizo segment was filmed 19th feb and the doc was aired on 23rd feb, so there was no time to film it again. And they may not have moved to the moon, but 3 weeks later they moved out of neverland and threw their lot in with sneddon, that's the moon as far as mj is concerned.

But I do not know what kind of contract Hamid had. Obviously though he had one that allowed him to retain copyrights. Otherwise he wouldn't have claimed so in his suit, as it is really easy to prove, should he be misrepresenting the truth.
Click to expand...
No obviously about it, people claim all sorts in lawsuits, so i suppose we'll have to see a copy of his contract.
 
Bonnie Blue said:
Why are you speculating that maybe 'they' wanted to keep the arvizos out of it? The most important thing to rebut from that bashir doc is the suggestion of inappropriate behaviour against gavin. Not that mj spends alot of money in shops, not that berlin zoo was packed with too many fans and he didn't look after his children properly and not all the other things that was rebutted in that doc. One of the main reasons why the arvizos were at neverland for that crucial feb/march period was so that mj's legal and pr team could get the arvizos on the record saying nothing bad had happened to gavin.

It was all to do with hamid. The arvizo segment was filmed 19th feb and the doc was aired on 23rd feb, so there was no time to film it again. And they may not have moved to the moon, but 3 weeks later they moved out of neverland and threw their lot in with sneddon, that's the moon as far as mj is concerned.
Click to expand...

And why are you speculating, that Hamid kept it from them?? Don't quite remember the dates, but they kinda sound familiar (and I believe that you're not misrepresenting dates ;) ). So really, there was only little time between shooting and airing. So, it's hard to believe that the problem between Hamid and MJ arose in those 4 days for him to withhold the footage and still expect that by doing that everything will be resolved, quite to the contrary, that would only worsen things. But, as I said before, he sued Michael 10 months later, suggesting that the problem arose later. So that accusation of yours is unfounded and not less of a speculation than mine.


No obviously about it, people claim all sorts in lawsuits, so i suppose we'll have to see a copy of his contract.
Click to expand...

True. But if there is a contract, stating that it was work for hire, then he can claim things all the way to the moon, it won't change the existing contract.
 
Petrarose said:
I wonder if the kids have any copies of these photos of themselves? It is always a delight to see children's photos.

Question: If Hamid was being paid to take these photos, does that mean the photos belonged to Michael? Michael paid him to take pictures & video tape him, & yet the pictures and tapes belong to Hamid? How does this work?
Click to expand...

Depends. You can either purchase just specific pictures from a photographer without the rights to your own reproduction or you can purchase the rights as well.
Done at every Sears and photographer these days. Depending on their agreement it wouldn't necessarily be wrong for him to have the pictures.
 
I thought the Arvizo's started demanding money for the rebuttal footage involving them?

Oh okay, Hamid's testimony at the Grand Jury:

Q Okay. Finally, the — at some point you refused to deliver the tape to Mr. Schaffel, is that correct?
A The interview?
Q Yes.
A Yes. That’s correct.
Q And why was that?
A The night we shot this interview he wanted to take the tapes with him. I mean, his people.
Q Uh-huh.
A To Marc Schaffel. And I refused because I told him I have to make a copy of it.
Q And then did you later refuse to provide a copy to Mr. Schaffel?
A Yes, I did.
Q And why was that?
A There were a lot of inconsistency between Mr. Schaffel’s conversations and me regarding some other issues. And I felt like I should keep these tapes ’til my matters are dissolved [sic].
Q Did they have anything to do with this case, with the [Arvizos]?
A It was about that rebuttal documentary.
Q Okay. Can you be more specific?
A There were some money issues, that my invoices were not being paid for a year and a half with Mr. Jackson.
Q Okay. Okay. So it was over a — trying to be repaid for –
A They promised me that once this rebuttal documentary is aired that they, after that they will pay me full.
Q Okay. Can you explain why this film was done at — after midnight? Why this film of the [Arvizos] was done after midnight? Was there a reason for that?
A I guess that’s how it happened to come.
Q Was that odd to film a family with young children after midnight?
A Yeah. It was odd.
Q Was there any sense of urgency to get this — this video done of the [Arvizos]? Were you aware of any urgency on behalf of Marc Schaffel or Mr. Jackson to get this video done?
A Well, if I remember correctly, in order to put this video on that rebuttal, we had a deadline.
Q I see.
A With Fox.
Q Yes.
A And if I remember correctly, that was the 19th.
Q Uh-huh.
A So we missed the deadline.
Q Okay. And who was responsible for preparing the rebuttal? I mean, I shouldn’t say that. Who was behind the rebuttal? Who was the driving force behind that? Who was making sure it happened, paying for it, et cetera?
A Marc Schaffel, and I believe Dieter and Ronald, because they’re the ones that they took over the management, and they were running the show.
Q Okay. Running the show. Mr. Jackson’s show, is that what you’re –
A Mr. Jackson’s management affairs.
Click to expand...

http://smokewithoutfiremichaeljackson.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/the-grand-jury-hamid-moslehi/
 
Last edited:
I am confused. Is this person a good guy or using Michael now? I have a hard time telling anymore.
 
^^Ah, make no mistake. He's an ass. You probably could say that if he wasn't getting paid, he had a right to insist on it, but the way he did it, suing when everything was about to go to hell was just low.
 
So based on what Lacienga just posted, he was not being paid for his invoices within a 12 month+ period. Obviously he felt this was a good time to get paid when everyone else was suing, and he explains he held on to the footage because some issues had to be clear between him & Shaffel. The testimony makes it quite clear.^^

He is a good photographer, but a type that kicks someone when they are down.
 
I dont think he is a bad guy. He hasn't done anything wrong. He did a lot of great work for MJ. He is not an angel or devil either. Just a man that wanted paid for his work. Being MJJ productions company settled with him and paid him shows he was indeed owed. It was actually him that was being shafted by MJ's managers as far as I can see. Not the other way around. The only reason he didn't turn over the Arvizo film was because they were shafting him and not paying him. He used it for leverage and they still didn't pay him. I see it this way, Had Weisner and Konitzer paid him as they should they would have had the Arviso film to present in the rebuttle. So in reality it is their fault. Even after they promised to pay him in full they didn't. He finally had to sue the MJJ Production COMPANY and Marc shaffel the producer to get paid and they settled with him. Hamid had been working with MJ since 1996 and he didn't seem to have any problems getting paid until Weisner and Konitzer came into the picture to manage MJ.
 
^^I think he should be paid too & I am glad he was, but to do what he did at the time he did it, you have to find that was really low. He states right there ^^ why he held onto the video, & I am sure people who have something & know a man's freedom/reputation is at stake would give the video after a copy is made. He knew he could sue anytime and get paid. He did not sue after 6 months, 12 months, but right when crap was going down. I can't get over that bad feeling I have that he held it due to a situation with Shaffel, when he knew how important it was. I don't like his character, but I find his work has value.
 
Petrarose said:
^^I think he should be paid too & I am glad he was, but to do what he did at the time he did it, you have to find that was really low. He states right there ^^ why he held onto the video, & I am sure people who have something & know a man's freedom/reputation is at stake would give the video after a copy is made. He knew he could sue anytime and get paid. He did not sue after 6 months, 12 months, but right when crap was going down. I can't get over that bad feeling I have that he held it due to a situation with Shaffel, when he knew how important it was. I don't like his character, but I find his work has value.
Click to expand...

Yeah that. But then again, he said they missed the deadline. Did they miss the deadline because he was holding the footage back or did he hold the footage back because they missed the deadline anyway? It's not quite clear from the testimony.
 
I understand about being paid for his work. Michael's managers at that time didn't have his best interests at heart it seems. But if this guy has known and worked with Michael for years before the allegations and trial happened that he should have helped him. At that time I think anything big or small could have helped Michael. I don't know this guy or heard of him before. The pictures were nice though.
 
Prometheus77 said:
Yeah that. But then again, he said they missed the deadline. Did they miss the deadline because he was holding the footage back or did he hold the footage back because they missed the deadline anyway? It's not quite clear from the testimony.
Click to expand...

No he says they missed the deadline which is a reason why they taped at midnight. He clearly states why he held back the video--1st he wanted to make copies, the 2nd time was because of the money. That is why I say I agree he should have been paid, but to hold back after making the copy when you knew this was a critical situation is bad. What type of human does a thing like that, especially when you can sue even after you hand in the video. You can still sue for payment, if you have your documents showing you were not paid. All the time, construction workers fix people's properties and after it is finished and they do not get paid, they sue and get paid. So, he could still give the video & sue for payment. To hold it is reprehensible. Then he sues during the mess. Anyway I am glad he was paid.
 
Just thinking how different things would have been if that footage was allowed to be shown to the public on time, makes me very sad. Would have made a HUGE difference. MJ got screwed over in the end intentionally or not here. :ermm:
 
Also to be fair .. at the time Hamid held back that footage, he had no way of knowing the Arvizo's would accuse MJ and Michael would be charged with a crime. It was just a rebuttle to show Bashir Doc was not fair. Not a matter of life or death.

In hindsight had he known he probably would have provided the footage for the Take 2 rebuttle. But had he done that Sneddon wouldn't have made the huge mistake of using wrong dates in his first charges which showed Arvizos didnt have their story correct. It was only after that tape came forward that Sneddon corrected the dates. but his first claims were still on record causing doubt. So maybe it was to MJ's advantage it was witheld untill the trial, where it was most useful and not the rebuttle Doc .. just saying ..
 
Ha interesting


Ivy posted the photos for us to enjoy, and look where we have taken this. It just makes me laugh....
 
The photos wont show up for me :( is there another site i can see them?
 
Knowing Sneedon nothing was gonna stop him from prosecuting MJ regardless and nothing did, he changed the timeline simply because he could and he had the power to. But, having the public more on MJs side would have been nice and seeing that footage would have helped that.
 
My Facebook friends are posting them ... too many people are accessing his site and hot linking
to his photos .. so that is causing his bandwidth to exceed. It should slow down in a few days
 
Ok i have just seen pics on another mj forum and they are so gorgeous
 
bluetopez said:
Just thinking how different things would have been if that footage was allowed to be shown to the public on time, makes me very sad. Would have made a HUGE difference. MJ got screwed over in the end intentionally or not here. :ermm:
Click to expand...

I don't think it would have made much of a difference. People believe what they want to believe. Regardless of some glowing words. Cynics would have thought he paid them to say this. Especially Sneddon would still have believed what he wanted to believe (and really, he's the one whose opinion mattered regarding prosecuting this). I mean, he saw that footage and the fool still insisted that while the recording of that footage happened Michael molested that boy. It still boggles the mind that anyone could believe this.


qbee said:
Also to be fair .. at the time Hamid held back that footage, he had no way of knowing the Arvizo's would accuse MJ and Michael would be charged with a crime. It was just a rebuttle to show Bashir Doc was not fair. Not a matter of life or death.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I thought about that too... at the time it was mereley a pr crisis... few thought that it would snowball into what it eventually did. It was still low though.
 
ivy said:
mj24.jpg
Click to expand...

Is this pic mirrored?
 
Wow beautiful pictures.

Does anybody else find it really hard to see new images of Michael? They give me a huge sense of loss all over again and the tears just flow. :cry:
 
Thank you for posting the pictures Ivy . Thank you for sharing them with us Mr Moslehi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top