Latest on MJJC

"Michael", a biopic about Michael Jackson, is officially happening.

kelley said:
We still don't know this. Stacy brown backtracked and asked some hater on twitter "who said they claimed abuse?" or something like that. I'm paraphrasing.

So we still don't know what happened for sure.
Click to expand...
The Financial Times article clearly states that’s what it was about. The FT isn’t a tabloid and it directly quoted John Branca, who could have sued them if they just made it up. It was published to head off what would have been a disaster if that particular family member had gone public.

Stacy Brown is irrelevant as he isn’t the original source.
 
StellaJackson said:
The Financial Times article clearly states that’s what it was about. The FT isn’t a tabloid and it directly quoted John Branca, who could have sued them if they just made it up. It was published to head off what would have been a disaster if that particular family member had gone public.
Click to expand...
The stuff they quoted Branca of saying makes no sense though. They quoted him saying he filed a report against the cascios with the feds, but theres no record of a case being filed.

There's also no record of this "deal" with the cascios in any of the estates financial records.

And no branca would not necessarily sue them right away. Because number 1 it would draw more attention to the story and 2. The estate seems to move quietly, like how they did with the HBO lawsuit. We still don't know the outcome of that, we only know that LN was taken off most streaming platforms all of a sudden.

I woudn't be suprised if the estates real dispute with the Cascios has something to do with the fake songs. And Financial times just fabricated or twisted brancas words to make it about allegations. It wouldn't be the first time the media has done this in regards to Michael.

StellaJackson said:
Stacy Brown is irrelevant as he isn’t the original source.
Click to expand...
Brown also claims he spoke to the Branca though. So you could make the same argument of why didn't Branca sue Brown if he lied?

Something is fishy about that whole story.

And Brown backtracking and suddenly impying the cascios didn't make allegations just solidifies that for me.
 
kelley said:
The stuff they quoted Branca of saying makes no sense though. They quoted him saying he filed a report against the cascios with the feds, but theres no record of a case being filed.

There's also no record of this "deal" with the cascios in any of the estates financial records.

And no branca would not necessarily sue them right away. Because number 1 it would draw more attention to the story and 2. The estate seems to move quietly, like how they did with the HBO lawsuit. We still don't know the outcome of that, we only know that LN was taken off most streaming platforms all of a sudden.

I woudn't be suprised if the estates real dispute with the Cascios has something to do with the fake songs. And Financial times just fabricated or twisted brancas words to make it about allegations. It wouldn't be the first time the media has done this in regards to Michael.


Brown also claims he spoke to the Branca though. So you could make the same argument of why didn't Branca sue Brown if he lied?

Something is fishy about that whole story.

And Brown backtracking and suddenly impying the cascios didn't make allegations just solidifies that for me.
Click to expand...
The estate would have refuted it if it was false. The whole thing about filing a case with the feds was pure hyperbole. The point was to make a public statement about it before Cascio potentially came out with his allegations. They needed to get their side of the story out first.

There is no reason why such a settlement would appear in financial statements that can be seen by the public. It would be done privately.

Brown may well have spoken to Branca. He has ties to the estate as he was a vip guest at Mj One and has interviewed Branca. He also isn’t that reliable though. The original FT source is the accurate one.

It’s also worth pointing out that the Cascio’s sold their restaurant and disappeared from social media at the same time that this settlement happened.
 
Last edited:
StellaJackson said:
The estate would have refuted it if it was false. The whole thing about filing a case with the feds was pure hyperbole. The point was to make a public statement about it before Cascio potentially came out with his allegations. They needed to get their side of the story out first.
Click to expand...
This is pure speculation on your part. It's not based on any evidence. You can't prove Branca meant to say that as hyperbole anymore than I can prove he didn't say it at all.

StellaJackson said:
There is no reason why such a settlement would appear in financial statements that can be seen by the public. It would be done privately.
Click to expand...

The estate doesn't have the right to pay out Michael's money without reporting it. Its not their money to do as they please.


StellaJackson said:
Brown may well have spoken to Branca. He has ties to the estate as he was a vip guest at Mj One and has interviewed Branca. He also isn’t that reliable though. The original FT source is the accurate one.

It’s also worth pointing out that the Cascio’s sold their restaurant and disappeared from social media at the same time that this settlement happened.
Click to expand...

It's not even a settlement since there was no lawsuit filed. It's allegedly a deal for their life rights, so the fact that branca is quoted as calling it a settlement is also suspect. He's a lawyer and understands legal terms. But a corrupt journalist trying to slander michael would certainly call it a settlement.

Also the FT article claimed that part of the deal was that the Cascios would defend Michael publicly but they never did, so........

Once again something is not adding up about that story.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Meaning the estate made some kinda deal with the cascios. But theres no reason to believe it had anything to do with allegations vs something to do with the fake songs.

It's very possible that it does have to do with the fake songs, which is why Stacy tried to backtrack, because he and FT tried to spin the real story to be about allegations.
 
Last edited:
kelley said:
This is pure speculation on your part. It's not based on any evidence. You can't prove Branca meant to say that as hyperbole anymore than I can prove he didn't say it at all.



The estate doesn't have the right to pay out Michael's money without reporting it. Its not their money to do as they please.




It's not even a settlement sense there was no lawsuit filed. It's allegedly a deal for their life rights, so the fact that branca is quoted as calling it a settlement is also suspect. He's a lawyer and understand legal terms. But a corrupt journalist trying slander michael would certainly call it a settlement.

Also the FT article claimed that part of the deal was that the Cascios would defend Michael publicly but they never did, so........

Once again something is not adding up about that story.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Meaning the estate made some kinda deal with the cascios. But theres no reason to believe it had anything to do with allegations vs the something to do with the fake songs.

It's very possible that it does have to do with the fake songs, which is why stacy tried to backtrack, because he and FT tried to spin the real story to be about allegations.
Click to expand...
It was never part of the deal to defend Michael. They were asked to defend him publicly following LN, but they wanted payment. When that was rejected, they threatened to go public with allegations of their own and a settlement was drawn up. One individual tried to break that settlment in exchange for more money so the estate decided to head it off by giving that story to the Financial Times, which is a reputable publication and are not in the business of making a piece like that up. The fact that the estate have never refuted statements that were attributed directly to them should tell you all you need to know.

I can assure you it has nothing to do with the fake songs at all.
 
StellaJackson said:
It was never part of the deal to defend Michael. They were asked to defend him publicly following LN, but they wanted payment. When that was rejected, they threatened to go public with allegations of their own and a settlement was drawn up. One individual tried to break that settlment in exchange for more money so the estate decided to head it off by giving that story to the Financial Times, which is a reputable publication and are not in the business of making a piece like that up. The fact that the estate have never refuted statements that were attributed directly to them should tell you all you need to know.

I can assure you it has nothing to do with the fake songs at all.
Click to expand...
Yes it was. Read those articles again, allegedly the cascios agreed to defend Michael as part of the deal.

"In 2020, the estate quietly struck a previously unreported settlement worth $16.5mn, under which the man and the other accusers agreed instead to defend Jackson’s reputation.

Now, the people managing Jackson’s music and image rights are accusing the man of fabricating his earlier claims while seeking to extract $213mn more in a new settlement with the estate, according to an arbitration claim. They have reported the matter to the US Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles."


Also once again it was not a settlement(despite what the ft reporter says, it literally is not) and I have a hard time believing branca used that term.


I know FT is supposedly a "reputable" source, but it's still a part of the mainstream media and we all know the "reputable" mainstream media has been telling and spreading lies about Michael for decades so I don't know why people are sure FT would not engage in the same behavior when it comes to MJ.

The New york times is being exposed for very corrupt behavior in the Justin Baldoni case.

People give mainstream media too much credibility.
 
kelley said:
Yes it was. Read those articles again, allegedly the cascios agreed to defend Michael as part of the deal.

"In 2020, the estate quietly struck a previously unreported settlement worth $16.5mn, under which the man and the other accusers agreed instead to defend Jackson’s reputation.

Now, the people managing Jackson’s music and image rights are accusing the man of fabricating his earlier claims while seeking to extract $213mn more in a new settlement with the estate, according to an arbitration claim. They have reported the matter to the US Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles."


Also once again it was not a settlement(despite what the ft reporter says, it literally is not) and I have a hard time believing branca used that term.


I know FT is supposedly a "reputable" source, but it's still a part of the mainstream media and we all know the "reputable" mainstream media has been telling and spreading lies about Michael for decades so I don't know why people are sure FT would not engage in the same behavior when it comes to MJ.

The New york times is being exposed for very corrupt behavior in the Justin Baldoni case.

People give mainstream media too much credibility.
Click to expand...
The FT article, if untrue, is directly attributing words to John Branca about a settlement for allegations of sexual abuse that never happened. It’s the definition of libel and yet the estate never once responded to it, which of course they would have done if it were made up. I can assure you that it was the estate that pushed for that article to be published and certain members of the Cascio family did make those allegations.
 
Last edited:
StellaJackson said:
The FT article, if untrue, is directly attributing words to John Branca about a settlement for allegations of sexual abuse that never happened. It’s the definition of libel and yet the estate never once responded to it, which of course they would have done if it were made up. I can assure you that it was the estate that pushed for that article to be published and certain members of the Cascio family did make those allegations.
Click to expand...
Haven't you wondered why the rest of the media didn't pounce on that story?

Even with the belloni's guys hit piece which mentions it briefly, the media did not pounce on there being new accusers.

Dan Greed also mentioned it once and then hasn't really brought it up since, even though he's was begging for new accusers,

Like I said, something is off about that story. I look at the big picture.
 
kelley said:
Haven't you wondered why the rest of the media didn't pounce on that story?

Even with the belloni's guys hit piece which mentions it briefly, the media did not pounce on there being new accusers.

Dan Greed also mentioned it once and then hasn't really brought it up since, even though he's was begging for new accusers,

Like I said, something is off about that story. I look at the big picture.
Click to expand...
Will they pop up in LN 2
 
kelley said:
Haven't you wondered why the rest of the media didn't pounce on that story?

Even with the belloni's guys hit piece which mentions it briefly, the media did not pounce on there being new accusers.

Dan Greed also mentioned it once and then hasn't really brought it up since, even though he's was begging for new accusers,

Like I said, something is off about that story. I look at the big picture.
Click to expand...
Because it shows it for what it is - that it's all about money, which goes against the mainstream narrative. If it was just 'five new accusers" then it would have blown up everywhere.
 
But the FT article only mentioned that MJ 'had acted inappropriately with some of them when they were children' right..? 'Inappropriately' can mean a lot of things, especially these days..(?)
 
Victorious said:
But the FT article only mentioned that MJ 'had acted inappropriately with some of them when they were children' right..? 'Inappropriately' can mean a lot of things, especially these days..(?)
Click to expand...
Yeah. For example, leaving a stink bomb in an elevator would also be inappropriate behavior. The word "inappropriately" could mean anything. But of course they hope that people will just assume it means child molestation.
 
etoile 37 said:
Yeah. For example, leaving a stink bomb in an elevator would also be inappropriate behavior. The word "inappropriately" could mean anything. But of course they hope that people will just assume it means child molestation.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it could also be something like the 'smoking weed' story of Aaron Carter: inappropriate with kids? Perhaps. But not having anything to do with child abuse
 
Victorious said:
Exactly, it could also be something like the 'smoking weed' story of Aaron Carter: inappropriate with kids? Perhaps. But not having anything to do with child abuse
Click to expand...
Lol that never happened either. It's was made up by Aarons mother and sister way back in the early 2000s at a time when Aaron was estranged from both. So There's no way that they got that story from him. They made it up, sold it to the media and Aaron denied it at the time.

Fast forward years later when he's in the throes of a drug addiction and needed money he decided to claim the old tabloid story it for himself.

Same s***, different liar.
 
kelley said:
Lol that never happened either. It's was made up by Aarons mother and sister way back in the early 2000s at a time when Aaron was estranged from both. So There's no way that they got that story from him. They made it up, sold it to the media and Aaron denied it at the time.

Fast forward years later when he's in the throes of a drug addiction and needed money he decided to claim the old tabloid story it for himself.

Same s***, different liar.
Click to expand...
😲😳😲😳😲😳😲😳what!?
 
wonderouzmj said:
😲😳😲😳😲😳😲😳what!?
Click to expand...
The media has made lying about Michael Jackson an entire industry.

Make up a lie to defame him and they will pay you tens of thousands of dollars and many times even more than that.

That's where basically all the "evidence" guilters use against MJ comes from. Literal bought and paid for fake news.
 
Last edited:
Not really sure how that link is confirmation of a delay?

anyway, can't wait for the most annoying people on the internet to start saying they were right and this movie is never coming out etc etc etc :sleep:
 
Spidey said:
Pulled from 2025 calendar!
www.boxofficemojo.com

Domestic Release Schedule Changes

www.boxofficemojo.com www.boxofficemojo.com
Click to expand...
??? I still see an Oct 3, 2025 listing as the new date.

YmpuYP5.jpeg



Rue6gAs.jpeg
 
It's weird they've shifted the date back and forth (removed, replaced, removed again). Only.hope would be for them to do a limited release before the wide release but there is a very minor chance of that being the case. Mostly likely it will get further delayed. Ugh.
 
Now that I've checked the site again. It was removed as "limited" release and added as a "wide" release. This ***could*** mean a limited release around TIFF (film festival) for critics and reviewers, which would be late september. Followed by the wide release early October. This change could also have been done today in advance of a possible Superbowl teaser (yes I'm still hoping for that) which would come with a firm date advertised.
 
Last edited:
They're having issues already but I hope they get everything situated for release or we'll be waiting longer than Taj's documentary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top