Latest on MJJC

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

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

ChrisC said:
What has Korgnex got invested in this to be so defensive? Strange.

Whether fans have pushed anything or embellished anything is not that important when considered alongside doing what is right by Michael. Attention should be drawn to this. Nobody should be quiet about it.
Click to expand...

He thinks they're real. Also, I think it's important for the facts to be presented, Sony has not admitted anything and if anything are trying to put the blame solely on the Cascio family. I agree as much attention should be brought to the issue as possible, though.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

SmoothGangsta said:
He thinks they're real.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be rude, but how embarassing.

If they're trying to blame anyone it does acknowledge something has gone wrong. I really don't care who coughs up or gets the blame, I just want those tracks withdrawn from sale and an apology to Michael.
 
Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

BadTour87 said:
MJ fans forever proving themselves as law specialists
Click to expand...

No..it's called reading carefully on what's already put down on court papers,and not media articles
 
Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

SoCav said:
Same difference. The only MJ on those songs are the copy/pasted samples from acapellas of previously released, actual MJ songs.
Click to expand...

Already released actual MJ songs? Refresh me on where that is please..
 
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

ChrisC said:
If they're trying to blame anyone it does acknowledge something has gone wrong. I really don't care who coughs up or gets the blame, I just want those tracks withdrawn from sale and an apology to Michael.
Click to expand...

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

stephenvalek said:
Already released actual MJ songs? Refresh me on where that is please..
Click to expand...

Monster has whole words copy and pasted from some songs on Invincible. It's quite incredible the effort they went.
 
Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Can someone post the actual court docs with these quotes from the estate. Are they available. This would solve the argument.
 
Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

I'm so sick of the media deliberately misreporting the news. Every. Single. Day.

When you discuss issues with people and you constantly have to correct them, on what they read on the news it gets boring quickly for both of you. But I won't have people talking to me about the stuff apparently found at Neverland, or the stuff people said they saw etc. Won't stand for it. Perversely I'm quite sure that people have a negative opinion of me because I won't "accept" the "facts". Like I'm making stuff up or living in a dreamworld. So frustrating.

as for this specific piece of fake news? I don't care one way or the other if they admitted it or not. The tracks are fake anyway. Sony should delete the album from the catalogue and re-release it minus Cascio tracks as a gesture of goodwill to the fans. They don't have to admit anything, except that the questionable nature of the tracks means they are not suitable to be included in the MJ catalogue. A short statement to that effect will suffice IMO. If they did re-release it I'm sure it wouldn't sell well - Michael wasn't a great seller anyway - but I'd sure buy it.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Can this thread be merged with the other in gen discussion please. Same convo going on in two diff places
 
Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

"Faking the news".


Some MJ fans are like Trump now, spreading factually incorrect things and thus disappointing their fellow fans who rely on them being truthful.
You can see the damage that is being done with that when people who hardly know anything about it come back to forums/social media, read something that isn't true but sensationally presented as such, believe it and then the time will come they might realize they have been misinformed. I've already seen dozens of fans falling for this.

Not the way MJ fans or any person should address an issue.

These fans claim to do their stuff for preserving Michael's legacy or whatever. You don't achieve this by spreading fake news all over the internet. It's a desperate attempt for media attention which can even clearly be seen in some of these people's comments on social media. They are really that desperate.
 
Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Pentum said:
Here you go, buddy

https://instaud.io/2AX1
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Shows you how they copy/pasted ad-libs and words from genuine MJ songs, to make it sound more like Michael. Besides those copy/pastes, there is no Michael on those songs. It's Malachi.
 
Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Korgnex said:
"Faking the news".


Some MJ fans are like Trump now, spreading factually incorrect things and thus disappointing their fellow fans who rely on them being truthful.
You can see the damage that is being done with that when people who hardly know anything about it come back to forums/social media, read something that isn't true but sensationally presented as such, believe it and then the time will come they might realize they have been misinformed. I've already seen dozens of fans falling for this.

Not the way MJ fans or any person should address an issue.

These fans claim to do their stuff for preserving Michael's legacy or whatever. You don't achieve this by spreading fake news all over the internet. It's a desperate attempt for media attention which can even clearly be seen in some of these people's comments on social media. They are really that desperate.
Click to expand...

I agree in a general sense that after all mj went through with lies and agendas been pushed non stop in an attempt to brainwash the masses that we as mj fans should be sticklers for the facts when it comes to discussing stories.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Well, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the situation:

It's true that what's being debated in court now is not whether they committed fraud or not - there's not even a trial yet. Rather, Sony/The Estate are trying to wriggle themselves out of the lawsuit using anti-SLAPP laws, specifically by arguing that they did not engage in commercial speech when they told us that it was Michael on the album. That's what they've been trying to convince the judge of in court (they failed initially and have been appealing that decision).

However, in the process of doing so they have not only said something like "it does not matter if the vocals are fake or not, what matters is that it's non-commercial speech." I do not see why they could not have just said that. But look at what Zia Modabber (representing Sony/The Estate) said in court on December 7, 2016, referring to the original complaint:
aavfox.jpg


Now some may argue that Sony/The Estate just say this for the sake of argument and overly eager fans are making something out of nothing. But the judge also picked up on this. Look at what she said after Modabber finished the remainder of his statement, when she gives the word to the lawyer for Cascio and Porte (Mr. Hardy):

2ujh9mp.jpg


The Sony/Estate lawyers also repeated this later during the proceedings (Andy Demko is another Sony/Estate lawyer):

312tun6.jpg


The judge would not let this go:

33jhkl1.jpg


So yeah, some of the headlines coming out at the moment are a bit misleading, as Sony/The Estate have not made an official admission in a trial about the vocals' authenticity. This is also not a new development, as the court proceeding mentioned above took place in December 2016. Still, it IS noteworthy that they did not hesitate to openly say the tracks are/may be fake and to throw their (at the time) co-defendants (Cascio/Porte) under the bus - the judge certainly also seemed to think this was noteworthy.

In the end it is good to see the case get attention again. But we are not there yet by any means. Let's hope the judge rejects the appeal, so that this trial can get started.
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Why should their lawyers hesitate? It is ABSOLUTELY(!) NORMAL to say that as the law actually requires you to make such statements if you want to make a certain argument.


What people don't get due to things being taken out of context is that it is all legal talk by their lawyers discussing HYPOTHETICAL scenarios.
When the MJCast folks refer to one of their friends as an "legal expert", it's rather unlikely they would mistakenly report false news. There are comments in social media by these people (MJCast, D-a_mien S-h_ields, James Alay / "A Truth Untold" and their buddies) that they are doing this on purpose. They are openly showing their frustration, desperation and unprofessional way of trying - in their own words - to correct history "for Michael"...
Also, their friend has won a few awards for investigative journalism which he likes to brag about but then again he did not understand and wrote completely false things about the AEG trial and in the Cascio case he lacked knowledge about certain legal aspects, too. These people tend to give self-adulation to each other and think they are all so good in what they are doing.


That is just not a little bit misleading, it is ENTIRELY(!) misleading, to be honest, excuse me (not angry at you, to be clear).


For several years, "A Truth Untold" was being presented as being objectice until the dude (mentioned above) who runs it, started publicly showing that the true agenda is to make noise and that all of the people involved have been biased and unwilling to accept anything else.
That's low and that's not the way to be taken seriously and achieve something.
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Korgnex said:
Why should their lawyers hesitate? It is ABSOLUTELY(!) NORMAL to say that as the law actually requires you to make such statements if you want to make a certain argument.

What people don't get due to things being taken out of context is that it is all legal talk by their lawyers discussing HYPOTHETICAL scenarious.


That is just not a little but misleading, it is ENTIRELY(!) misleading, to be honest, excuse me (not angry at you, to be clear).
Click to expand...
Well, can you explain in what way the law requires them to say that? Why can't they just say "it's irrelevant whether the songs are fake or not, what matters is whether we engaged in commercial speech." They could have said that and not taken a position one way or the other, but they actually state that they may well be fake. And clearly the judge found that eyebrow-raising as well, no?
 
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

SoCav said:
Well, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the situation:

It's true that what's being debated in court now is not whether they committed fraud or not - there's not even a trial yet. Rather, Sony/The Estate are trying to wriggle themselves out of the lawsuit using anti-SLAPP laws, specifically by arguing that they did not engage in commercial speech when they told us that it was Michael on the album. That's what they've been trying to convince the judge of in court (they failed initially and have been appealing that decision).

However, in the process of doing so they have not only said something like "it does not matter if the vocals are fake or not, what matters is that it's non-commercial speech." I do not see why they could not have just said that. But look at what Zia Modabber (representing Sony/The Estate) said in court on December 7, 2016, referring to the original complaint:
aavfox.jpg


Now some may argue that Sony/The Estate just say this for the sake of argument and overly eager fans are making something out of nothing. But the judge also picked up on this. Look at what she said after Modabber finished the remainder of his statement, when she gives the word to the lawyer for Cascio and Porte (Mr. Hardy):

2ujh9mp.jpg


The Sony/Estate lawyers also repeated this later during the proceedings (Andy Demko is another Sony/Estate lawyer):

312tun6.jpg


The judge would not let this go:

33jhkl1.jpg


So yeah, some of the headlines coming out at the moment are a bit misleading, as Sony/The Estate have not made an official admission in a trial about the vocals' authenticity. This is also not a new development, as the court proceeding mentioned above took place in December 2016. Still, it IS noteworthy that they did not hesitate to openly say the tracks are/may be fake and to throw their (at the time) co-defendants (Cascio/Porte) under the bus - the judge certainly also seemed to think this was noteworthy.

In the end it is good to see the case get attention again. But we are not there yet by any means. Let's hope the judge rejects the appeal, so that this trial can get started.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Thats what we needed.. i agree some of the healines are misleading.i guess the estate is running a fine line between trying to cover themselves interms of if there was a loss putting the theory out there that it wasnt us who created the songs but the cascios and we are just as much a victim. All hypothetical at the mo but putting the feelers out there. certainly not an admission like the articles have spun it
 
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

SoCav said:
Well, can you explain in what way the law requires them to say that? Why can't they just say "it's irrelevant whether the songs are fake or not, what matters is whether we engaged in commercial speech." They could have said that and not taken a position one way or the other, but they actually state that they may well be fake. And clearly the judge found that eyebrow-raising as well, no?
Click to expand...

Their lawyers said that because they made the argument that them having only been the distributor of said material should make them unliable.
That argument would come into play if commercial speech was not a factor.

Serova's lawyers have failed to bring the bona fide rights protection of consumers into play. This would not require to even discuss about commercial speech.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Their lawyers said that because they made the argument that them having only been the distributor of said material should make them unliable.
That argument would come into play if commercial speech was not a factor.
--------------------

I agree. Its all about testing out theories and legal aguments. Ie even if they were fake we arent liable as we only distrubuted them and had no reason other wise to think they werent due to the cascios connection to mj.thats very diff to the headlines been posted
 
stephenvalek;4228786 said:
No..it's called reading carefully on what's already put down on court papers,and not media articles
Click to expand...

I think you’re confused on what side I’m on.

My stance was fairly vague from my post though, so I apologise.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Some of the language used in these hearings can be easily misrepresented by the press. I've seen it numerous times.


At least in this case it's not actually doing any damage to anybody except Sony, porte, Cascio etc.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Korgnex said:
Their lawyers said that because they made the argument that them having only been the distributor of said material should make them unliable.
That argument would come into play if commercial speech was not a factor.
Click to expand...
I get that they are trying to get out of being sued for fraud and therefore throw Angelikson under the bus (as the judge calls it). It's still not clear to me why the law would require them to concede that the tracks are fake.

elusive moonwalker said:
very diff to the headlines been posted
Click to expand...
I agree, unfortunately not all journalists are being diligent. The Hip Hop N More article I initially saw had a somewhat deceptive headline but did state correctly in the article that lawyers said this for the purpose of their legal argument. But I'm now seeing the Vibe article, which unfortunately gives a false impression of the state of affairs.

I'm happy that this entire affair is getting attention for the first time in almost 8 years, but the facts should be reported accurately and that's not happening everywhere at the moment.
 
Last edited:
BadTour87;4228816 said:
I think you’re confused on what side I’m on.

My stance was fairly vague from my post though, so I apologise.
Click to expand...

I probably was..no worries..all good and apologies back x
 
Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

I did not read these documents but what Vibe is saying is not true? Summary of all that is true here?
 
Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

^Vibe makes it seems as if they have admitted in court that they released fake songs. In reality there is no trial yet, and they have conceded that the songs may be fake as part of their legal argument. We're discussing it in more detail here:

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...el-quot-Album-Vera-Senova-Class-Action/page96
 
Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

SoCav said:
^Vibe makes it seems as if they have admitted in court that they released fake songs. In reality there is no trial yet, and they have conceded that the songs may be fake as part of their legal argument. We're discussing it in more detail here:

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...el-quot-Album-Vera-Senova-Class-Action/page96
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. I see. Well it remains to be seen what the outcome of this will be then. If it's proven or if they admit I hope something will happen to these MFers. Not a second have I believed in those songs. It's crystal clear to me.
 
Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Thanks for this. I see. Well it remains to be seen what the outcome of this will be then. If it's proven or if they admit I hope something will happen to these MFers. Not a second have I believed in those songs. It's crystal clear to me.
Click to expand...
Same here!
 
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

MJTruth said:
Some of the language used in these hearings can be easily misrepresented by the press. I've seen it numerous times.


At least in this case it's not actually doing any damage to anybody except Sony, porte, Cascio etc.
Click to expand...

Thats true on all counts. We saw how court motions etc got twisted when it came to mj
 
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

It's still not clear to me why the law would require them to concede that the tracks are fake
---------

Im prob wrong here! But to me its more about them trying to to cover themselves. Ie even if it came out (in which ever way) that it nots mj then they are basically saying you cant shoot the messenger. We didnt create the songs we were given them in good faith so even for the sake of argument if we admit its not mj we still arent liable cause we didnt create them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top