Latest on MJJC

[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe

There's quite a bit more online. These comments from @MJJRepository:

"Regarding discovery of LN: The defense anticipates a wide range of subpoenas and requests and anticipates many objections as part of this process.Tom mentions the Hage Convention process to compel U.K. based discovery. This came up in 2020 when Amos & Channel 4 contested it."
(N.B. Hague)

"Throughout the filing, it is emphasized how crucial the plaintiffs' credibility is given the lack of any evidence or other witnesses beyond themselves to these supposed crimes.It is still made complex by how their case is "theory of liability" rather than proving actual abuse."


https://twitter.com/x/status/1771322941998801127
 
Last edited:
@MJJRepository

"The complexity of trying this case is that they aren't suing MJ or his estate, but using MJ's companies as "proxies" to claim six causes relating to negligence.Tom notes this should constrain trial to "theory of liability" of the companies—not against MJ directly or the estate."


GJT2XfpWYAAXii1
 
Excerpt:

"Thomas Mesereau has filed a 14 page questionnaire which will grill former Neverland Ranch Security Guard who previously claimed to have seen Michael Jackson touching accuser Wade Robson.

Charli Michaels, former employee at the Neverland Ranch, claimed to have witnessed the inappropriate behaviour and came to light in 1993 during the Jordan Chandler trial."

www.mjvibe.com

Thomas Mesereau to grill Former Security Guard in Robson/Safechuck case - MJVibe

Thomas Mesereau has filed a 14 page questionnaire which will grill former Neverland Ranch Security Guard, Charli Michaels.
www.mjvibe.com www.mjvibe.com
 
1/8

FYI

from @andjustice4some

"I am literally begging you not to click on TMZ about the genitalia pictures. Finaldi sought them before, and it was rejected.
Clicks = revenue. Don't give them what they want. #TabloidJunkie

I read that court document. There are probably 100 things that Carpenter was seeking to get from the MJ estate attorneys. But TMZ had to publicize that ONE request. This was intentional and meant to humiliate. Infuriating.

Always remember that this is exactly what they are looking for, our outrage. Outrage sparks people to actually read this trash. They are betting that we are less smart than they are. Outsmart the media algorithm.

Re any release of genitalia pictures, the LA Police Department in 2013 deemed them exempt from release because they are privileged and confidential. Apparently TMZ wasn't going to tell you that."
 
Last edited:
2/8

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775734677745336323

from @MJJRepository
"Right. The headlines once again imply the defense is trying to block or hide "evidence."Despite these exact requests already playing out for MORE THAN A DECADE and rejected by LAPD, LA D.A. and the court itself.But the press loves to spin it into a guilty-looking narrative."
 
Last edited:
3/8

@andjustice4some

"From a court document filed by Tom Sneddon Jan. 20, 1994:

"Though observations were made and photographs of Movant's (Michael's) person were taken in obedience to the search warrant, no personal property of his was seized which could be 'returned' to him even if a properly-conceived motion were to be filed, litigated and found to have merit. Be that as it may, Movant is again assured that the photographs in question will be maintained in confidence pursuant to the existing court order, and they will be disposed of pursuant to further direction of the court." Read the underlined part again. Sneddon assured Michael that the photographs would be remain confidential and would be disposed of at some point."


GKSwdFGa4AA9vk7



GKSwjmgbsAALFC8
 
Last edited:
4/8

from @JuliaBerkowitz1

"They know that the introduction of these pictures would be unconstitutional. They are just filling for them so that they then are able to leak to the press MJ's side opposing it and act like they are trying to hide something."
 
Last edited:
5/8

from @MJJRepository

"Once again TMZ distorts reality in it's guilt promo over the defense's motion to quash what is now the 3rd attempt since 2013 for the men to get MJ's body pics.Back in 2013 LAPD itself had already declined the subpoena requests indicating they are exempt from public disclosure."

GKSdbQIWQAAJLRU
 
Last edited:
6/8

from @MJJRepository

"Yes, the defense also filed a motion to quash these subpoenas as part of their own in-depth justifications as to why the request should be court-denied. Just as they did back in 2017-2018.A hearing has been reserved for June 6 at 8:30 to discuss this motion with the judge."
 
Last edited:
7/8

from @MJJRepository

"Defense argues the subpoenas are invalid as:A) Identical to previous ones quashed in 2018.B) Unreasonable, oppressive, fundamental privacy rights.C) Improper circumvention of Chandler protective order.D) Never served consumer notices about affecter personal information."

GKSk5jvXkAAZMsl
 
Last edited:
8/8

from @MJJRepository

1 - "Keller calls their requests "beyond the pale" and against privacy rights (including of the deceased).She adds how the photos are already sealed by a separate court-entered protective order from Santa Barbara.When confronted with the deficiencies, Wade/James persist anyway."

2 - "In fact, this marks the FOURTH time they have requested this information according to the motion.March 2014, May 2014, December 2017 and now.All prior attempts have failed for various reasons. Foundationally with regard to the body pics specifically—it was also LAPD-rejected."

3 - "The defense notes how the only difference now compared to the prior attempts is that the new attorney also submitted the identical requests to Santa Barbara Sheriff Department. But since they seek the same materials as the repeatedly quashed subpoenas, this shouldn't be allowed."

4 - "Keller: "Plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain this sensitive, private, and irrelevant information over this Court’s prior order to quash is particularly egregious... Plaintiffs cannot now ignore the July 2018 Order just because they do not like it.""A grotesque violation of privacy."

5 - "It has been well established through repeat motions since 1994 that the photos are bound to the Chandler-related protective orders, as Sneddon himself reiterated."Plaintiffs have willfully ignored that protective order and are persisting in their efforts to circumvent it."

6 - "The defense reiterates how these very requests were already deemed "exempt from public disclosure" by both the LAPD and LA district attorney's office."Despite being aware—plaintiffs frivolously ignored this issue & served these subpoenas without the required consumer notices."

7 - "Despite being put on clear notice, plaintiffs ignored a prior court order quashing identical subpoenas, a prior protective order, and California's procedural requirements for obtaining consumer information."Defense seeks costs relating to this motion, should they prevail."

8 - "[...] Chandler along with Lily and Tabitha all have various forms of protective orders to assure they are not part of this case.It's effectively a repeat of Sneddon in 2005 where he knew the photos could not ever come in but still filed salacious motions about them."
 
So im guessing y'all heard bout james & wade wanting mj's strip search pics....how dispicable of them
 
8701girl said:
So im guessing y'all heard bout james & wade wanting mj's strip search pics....how dispicable of them
Click to expand...
Yeah. I just posted a ton of stuff about it. MJE legal team are all over it, hopefully it will get knocked back - again!
 
8701girl said:
The judge better not grant them this
Click to expand...
I think it's unlikely.

from @JuliaBerkowitz1

"They know that the introduction of these pictures would be unconstitutional. They are just filling for them so that they then are able to leak to the press MJ's side opposing it and act like they are trying to hide something."
 
What do they gain from obtaining these pictures anyway? It's been well documented that apparently Michael had distinctive markings (barber shop pole) on his private areas so it's not like it's a secret?

If they get the pics, what can they prove? Nothing as it's already out there. Feels like an attempt to ridicule Michael.
 
wendijane said:
Doubt they gain anything. They are grabbing at straws and i'm quite confident this won't play out in their favour. Wade is such a numpty.
Click to expand...
YOU ARE SO FUNNY!! True.
Thriller_MJ said:
It's so obvious they are asking for the genitalia pictures so they can modify their story and be like "Oh yes, thats EXACTLY what Michaels penis looks like. It's all coming back to me now"
Click to expand...
Looks like it.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
What do they gain from obtaining these pictures anyway?
Click to expand...
Two possibilities, I guess. One is this:
from @JuliaBerkowitz1

"They know that the introduction of these pictures would be unconstitutional. They are just filling for them so that they then are able to leak to the press MJ's side opposing it and act like they are trying to hide something."

And the other one might be this:
from @DriveTimePoll

"{...} Get those pics of MJ, give the info to other alleged 'victims' who would describe what is in pictures and claim, 'u see, other people could describe his privates' leak it to media, who run the story"

Blues_Away2023 said:
It's been well documented that apparently Michael had distinctive markings (barber shop pole) on his private areas so it's not like it's a secret?
Click to expand...
Most people in the general public will have forgotten this, if they ever even knew. Most people aren't studying this stuff carefully bc it's not so important to them. Not criticising anyone, I just mean, they only know about this story bc of what they read in msm. That's it.
 
zinniabooklover said:
Two possibilities, I guess. One is this:
from @JuliaBerkowitz1

"They know that the introduction of these pictures would be unconstitutional. They are just filling for them so that they then are able to leak to the press MJ's side opposing it and act like they are trying to hide something."

And the other one might be this:
from @DriveTimePoll

"{...} Get those pics of MJ, give the info to other alleged 'victims' who would describe what is in pictures and claim, 'u see, other people could describe his privates' leak it to media, who run the story"


Most people in the general public will have forgotten this, if they ever even knew. Most people aren't studying this stuff carefully bc it's not so important to them. Not criticising anyone, I just mean, they only know about this story bc of what they read in msm. That's it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info, unfortunately that's probably the reasons why they would want then released.

I agree they would 100% leak.

I had always assumed Chandler in 93 was the first one to accuse Michael. However from snippets I've seen online was there a few who had accused him in 92 and then even before that in the late 80s? It just didn't come out in public?
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
Thanks for the info, unfortunately that's probably the reasons why they would want then released.
Click to expand...
What shocked me when I read all this stuff this morning is how many times they've tried this. I know I shouldn't be shocked. This is absolutely what they do. But it still blew my mind and not in a good way. For example, these two quotes that I posted upthread, I'm still trying to get my head around them:

"It has been well established through repeat motions since 1994 that the photos are bound to the Chandler-related protective orders, as Sneddon himself reiterated."Plaintiffs have willfully ignored that protective order and are persisting in their efforts to circumvent it."

6 - "The defense reiterates how these very requests were already deemed "exempt from public disclosure" by both the LAPD and LA district attorney's office."Despite being aware—plaintiffs frivolously ignored this issue & served these subpoenas without the required consumer notices."

I mean, how can this even happen? Rhetorical question. I'm not a lawyer but people just wilfully ignoring legally established protective orders ... like I said, my brain can't process it.

Blues_Away2023 said:
I agree they would 100% leak.
Click to expand...
:(

Blues_Away2023 said:
I had always assumed Chandler in 93 was the first one to accuse Michael. However from snippets I've seen online was there a few who had accused him in 92 and then even before that in the late 80s? It just didn't come out in public?
Click to expand...
I've never had time to properly look into the 1980's thing. I do know a claim was made that the FBI investigated Michael over this but I've also seen stories saying that the FBI have looked and can find no trace of any such investigation ever taking place. I've seen the name of Victor G. linked to this story but don't really know the details. There is a piece on this on the vindicatemj.wordpress.com blog but I've only skim read it (ages ago) so can't say much about it. I think the vindicatemj blog is a good resource and have read tons of stuff on it, just not that particular story.
 
Have any of you watched Leaving Neverland from start to end? I know all of our fan facts and the „lies, this documentary has destroyed my fan life since yesterday I’m very mixed up I’m a fan since 1991 (very hardcore) the fact that his friends was selected in the same way like all of this friends. And then replaced with new friends and again the vacations etc like a new love relationships I’m understanding now Omar!? C‘mon guys it has nothing to do with he had no childhood

When MJ was alive we always Sayed „nooooo he has never ever a drug problem

Nooooo he is able to perform 50 concerts

Nooo he is god…. I’m crying while I’m writing this
 
Last edited:
Harun said:
Have any of you watched Leaving Neverland from start to end? I know all of our fan facts and the „lies, this documentary has destroyed my fan life since yesterday I’m very mixed up I’m a fan since 1991 (very hardcore) the fact that his friends was selected in the same way like all of this friends. And then replaced with new friends and again the vacations etc like a new love relationships I’m understanding now Omar!? C‘mon guys it has nothing to do with he had no childhood

When MJ was alive we always Sayed „nooooo he has never ever a drug problem

Nooooo he is able to perform 50 concerts

Nooo he is god…. I’m crying while I’m writing this
Click to expand...
I can understand being emotional, but understand that it's 4 hours of very meticulously crafted narrative. The scenes were shot, and re-shot over a year's period to maximise the emotion and the story they were trying to tell.

When you factor in all that effort went into it, kept completely hidden and secret, and it was still debunked instantly...it should tell you everything.
 
It's a truly horrific watch, the amount of detail and explicit images it puts in your head makes you sick.

I watched it and had to cover my face several times. It did question my loyalty because it was so convincing.

It took a while for me to dismiss it, despite all the stuff I was already familiar with.

Even thinking about it now gives me a touch of anxiety.

I believe he is innocent but his relationship with children should have been kept to a minimum to protect his image.

There's a few pictures of him and Safechuck holding hands which I don't agree with. It looks odd and there is no getting away from that.
 
Last edited:
dam2040 said:
can understand being emotional, but understand that it's 4 hours of very meticulously crafted narrative. The scenes were shot, and re-shot over a year's period to maximise the emotion and the story they were trying to tell.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, LN heavily builds on that psychological narrative to manipulate its viewers, by purposely making their stories as graphic as possible (especially with James Safechuck, whose story has some of the most salacious and bizarre claims). No doubt, it would make more uninformed people sympathetic with the accusers.

HOWEVER, just because their stories are highly detailed and graphic, it does not make it evidence that their allegations are true. Grown men like they are are perfectly capable of making up such stories. And because there is no real substantial evidence (their motives, contradictions, and depositions in court especially show this), they rely on only the psychological and emotional factor instead.

This is why for fans who have watched it beginning to end, I don't totally blame them for feeling conflicted afterward, even if they are aware that their stories are untrue. They want you to feel conflicted. That was their whole intention from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
DJs_Doodles said:
Not to mention, LN heavily builds on that psychological narrative to manipulate its viewers, by purposely making their stories as graphic as possible (especially with James Safechuck, whose story has some of the most salacious and bizarre claims). No doubt, it would make more uninformed people sympathetic with the accusers.

HOWEVER, just because their stories are highly detailed and graphic, it does not make it evidence that their allegations are true. Grown men like they are are perfectly capable of making up such stories. And because there is no real circumstantial evidence (their motives, contradictions, and depositions in court especially show this), they rely on only the psychological and emotional factor instead.

This is why for fans who have watched it beginning to end, I don't totally blame them for feeling conflicted afterward, even if they are aware that their stories are untrue. They want you to feel conflicted.
Click to expand...
U know the Problem is I’m very informed very very well … one thing makes me very mixed up Omar’s behavior after LN

ibb.co

IMG-4673 hosted at ImgBB

Image IMG-4673 hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co
ibb.co

IMG-4671 hosted at ImgBB

Image IMG-4671 hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co
ibb.co

IMG-4672 hosted at ImgBB

Image IMG-4672 hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co
ibb.co

IMG-4674 hosted at ImgBB

Image IMG-4674 hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co

What would u think about it when he never ever post something about mj (before that on every birthday and on 25th June) - when he posted about Lisa Marie Presleys dead he was CUTTING MJ out of the picture!!! He removed his mj tattoo , because of his children he sayed nothing but when this guy says one day something about abuse - sorry then I’m out!! Something happened!!!

And after LN he posted a very long posts about his father and how much he loves him after 1-2 days he deleted it
 
Harun said:
What would u think about it when he never ever post something about mj (before that on every birthday and on 25th June) - when he posted about Lisa Marie Presleys dead he was CUTTING MJ out of the picture!!! He removed his mj tattoo , because of his children he sayed nothing but when this guy says one day something about abuse - sorry then I’m out!! Something happened!!
Click to expand...
I don't really follow Omer Bhatti nor do I know much about him (other than that he was someone very present in Michael's life when he was a child), but if he did make allegations of abuse, ESPECIALLY around the time of LN, I wouldn't just take them at face value.

Around the media frenzy of LN, other people besides him also came out with allegations (even though they had always previously defended Michael), such as Michael Jacobshagen, an obsessed German MJ fan who also made several contradictions and his allegations were even more easily debunkable than the more well-known accusers. Especially with the timing, it was a very obvious attempt for him to gain his 15 minutes of fame and try to piggyback off of LN's success (or, I should probably say "success" since LN was actually a ratings flop in most places where it streamed/aired, despite film critics routinely hyping it up as "impactful"). And it didn't surprise me at all, considering Jacobshagen had a history of capitalizing on MJ long before 2019, such as selling off fake autographs and exaggerating a one-time meeting he had with MJ into a decades-long friendship (and even writing a whole book about it).

If Omer Bhatti started switching things around around/after LN, it's very plausible he fell into the same boat as Jacobshagen and the rest of Michael's accusers: Someone who hungers for relevance and believes that making allegations towards Michael is the way to achieve that. That, or it's probably too mentally exhausting for him to deal with the allegations and the chaos of LN, so he decides to put himself aside from speaking out against it and/or disassociates himself from MJ altogether to the public. For me, I'm hoping it's the second possibility and not the first. Michael has had to deal with too many betrayals. He does not need another.
 
Put yourself in Omer Bhatti's shoes.

It's not unreasonable or hurtful to suggest that he would have questioned his own relationship with Michael after Leaving Neverland.

There are massive similarities between him and all the other kids, they all become special friends , dress up like MJ, hang out with him, stay with him, become literally mini clones of the man himself.

To distance himself or simply no longer attach himself to Michael publicly to avoid scrutiny or ridicule himself is no way a guilty mind to suggest that anything inappropriate happened.

If it was me, I'd want to keep as far away as possible for my own mental health and to live my life as normal as possible without being labelled as another 'victim'

He is still friendly with Michael's children so that's a positive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top