Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

You've been hit by, you've been struck by the estaaaaaattteee!!! :devil:

Sorry I'll get my coat. :tongue:
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

AlwaysThere said:
Okay, question for anyone in the legal world:

Do non-disparagement agreements hold up after death? I haven't been able to find anything yet, but if not, the Estate doesn't have a chance.
Click to expand...

Surely they would have looked into this before even filing it?
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Soooo happy with the estate. Everyone keep your arms and legs crossed and keep spreading the truth about MJ!!
 
AlwaysThere;4242205 said:
Okay, question for anyone in the legal world:

Do non-disparagement agreements hold up after death? I haven't been able to find anything yet, but if not, the Estate doesn't have a chance.
Click to expand...

Somebody said in Variery comment that the Estate signed a contract for the documentary and believes they had no case because Michael’s gone, but I disputed that comment.
 
AlwaysThere;4242205 said:
Okay, question for anyone in the legal world:

Do non-disparagement agreements hold up after death? I haven't been able to find anything yet, but if not, the Estate doesn't have a chance.
Click to expand...

There are not too many people who are commercial entities after death, but MJ is one of the biggest. I'd say a non-disparagement clause is worthless if it doesn't apply after death for a big star like MJ, so lets hope that it does. The Estate Atty's are tip top, so it's unlikely there's a mistake here.

I've just re-read the Estate's original letter to HBO, and enjoyed this section in retrospect:

Notably, HBO’s reputation is being used as one of the main reasons that the
“documentary” should be taken seriously. The producer of this program, Dan Reed, is telling
the media that one of the principal reasons the documentary is credible is because of HBO’s
reputation. When asked whether an attorney had vetted the film, he responded, “that’s what
happens on every single film I make or, to my knowledge, that anyone makes, certainly for
HBO.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

aqwsz said:
You've been hit by, you've been struck by the estaaaaaattteee!!! :devil:

Sorry I'll get my coat. :tongue:
Click to expand...

Oooooh....don't get my creative juices flowing again for another parody!!! LOL! "The Estate came into the court room...HBO hid in the bathroom"....:hysterical:
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Just got back from the movie theater (Alita: Battle Angel) and before the movie started the theater was playing music like they always do. And the last song before the movie began was Billie Jean. This naturally brought a smile to my face.

Good stuff!
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

SmoothGangsta said:
Surely they would have looked into this before even filing it?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking, but I skimmed through their legal filing and it's pretty suspect.

Part of me is beginning to suspect that this is just a power play to get them to delay the documentary long enough find something legitimately incriminating that they can use against HBO, Reed, Robson, or Safechuck. But at the same time, I don't know much about the ins and outs of this end of the law!
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Delete
 
Last edited:
nextbigthing56;4242224 said:
Can Wade also be sued for ‘lieing’ under oath?
Click to expand...

Michael is beneficiary of this, The Estate has no benefit from doing this.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

AlwaysThere said:
That's what I'm thinking, but I skimmed through their legal filing and it's pretty suspect.

Part of me is beginning to suspect that this is just a power play to get them to delay the documentary long enough find something legitimately incriminating that they can use against HBO, Reed, Robson, or Safechuck. But at the same time, I don't know much about the ins and outs of this end of the law!
Click to expand...

It looks very comprehensive. The clause refers to 'harm, disparage or cause to lower in esteem the reputation or public image of performer, or any person, firm or corporation related to or doing business with performer.'

Oh Dear, HBO! I think you Have to Back Out.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Do any of you have quick links of proof that Jardans desription of michaels body ws inaccorate? legal docs/videos.. anything? aside from the autopsy report..
 
Last edited:
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Confirmed: HBO's still airing it.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

AlwaysThere said:
Confirmed: HBO's still airing it.
Click to expand...
That was always going to happen. This suit will legitimise the claims against the doc for being a hit piece though.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

AlwaysThere said:
Confirmed: HBO's still airing it.
Click to expand...

Who's paying for the likely financial damage....?

Also, do you have a reference please? I can't see this info coming through online?


Edit: I've found it, on NBC.

HBO defended the documentary, saying in a statement that "despite the desperate lengths taken to undermine the film, our plans remain unchanged." The channel said it still intends to air the four-hour documentary over two nights in early March.
Click to expand...

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture...leaving-neverland-n974166?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

We might equally ask 'Why is HBO going to desperate lengths to air this film?'

What is all the urgency?
 
Last edited:
Anybody who has HBO should cancel their subscription. According to TSCM they had just shown a trailer for another documentary (a real one) and the ones who did that one had spent 4 years going through court documents. I mean make money on a lot of people watching this crap is exactly what they want to do. The fact that they are going through with showing this with two proven liars does not ”change what I think of Michael Jackson” it changes what I think about them.
 
Last edited:
I think it still is a good idea to take it to court though. That way they can ONCE AGAIN show all the lies and contradictions and that they only ”realized they were abused” in their 30s after Wade didn’t get the job for a tribute show. And then if the media will not print that we can get spread it in social media as much as we possible can and also ”what does this say about HBOs credibility”.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

myosotis said:
Who's paying for the likely financial damage....?

Also, do you have a reference please? I can't see this info coming through online?


Edit: I've found it, on NBC.



https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture...leaving-neverland-n974166?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

We might equally ask 'Why is HBO going to desperate lengths to air this film?'

What is all the urgency?
Click to expand...

They were never going to cancel it, it's a given that it's gonna get great ratings that's all that matters for them. They love the controversy, it generates interest. But it's good the estate acted, we 'll see what happens.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

aqwsz said:
They were never going to cancel it, it's a given that it's gonna get great ratings that's all that matters for them. They love the controversy, it generates interest. But it's good the estate acted, we 'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

Great ratings = money, but Estate claim = huge loss. I don't see the advantage to them financially, and even some of the press are calling this film one-sided now. If they have open arbitration, everyone will see exactly 'what ' is on each side, evidence wise.

So the audience they hope to impress is ???? Must be a very 'sus' audience at the least.

EDITED to add: Discussion online is indicating that the 'will continue with screening on March 4/5' might refer to HBO's response to the Estate's original letter to HBO, and not the new legal claim.

Edited again to add: CNN has confirmed the broadcast will go ahead:

(CNN)HBO is standing by its decision to air a four-hour documentary detailing the stories of two men who accuse Michael Jackson of molestation in the face of a suit filed by Jackson's estate that claims airing the film would be a breach of contract.

Despite the desperate lengths taken to undermine the film, our plans remain unchanged," the network said in a statement to CNN. "HBO will move forward with the airing of 'Leaving Neverland,' the two-part documentary, on March 3rd and 4th. This will allow everyone the opportunity to assess the film and the claims in it for themselves."
The claim, obtained by CNN, cites a contract that HBO allegedly agreed to in order to air a Jackson concert in 1992.
"HBO breached its agreement not to disparage Michael Jackson by producing and selling to the public a one-sided marathon of unvetted propaganda to shamelessly exploit an innocent man no longer here to defend himself," a statement from Jackson estate attorneys read.
The estate argues that HBO had allegedly agreed to "not make any disparaging remarks" concerning Jackson or "any of his representatives, agents, or business practices or do any act that may harm or disparage or cause to lower in esteem the reputation or public image" of Jackson, as part of the contract.
In "Leaving Neverland," Wade Robson and James Safechuck, now 41 and 37 respectively, allege they experienced years of sexual abuse by Jackson in the late '80s and early '90s, which they describe in graphic detail.
The Jackson estate immediately criticized the film after its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival last month, calling it a "public lynching" and Jackson's accusers "admitted liars," in reference to sworn statements made by both Safechuck and Robson while Jackson was alive that he did not molest them.
Robson made statements in support of Jackson to investigators first in the '90s and testified in support of Jackson at his 2005 trial, where he was acquitted of child molestation and related charges. Safechuck at one point also denied he was molested by Jackson to investigators.
The two filed separate civil lawsuits against Jackson's estate that were dismissed on technical grounds and remain under appeal.
"HBO could have and should have ensured that 'Leaving Neverland' was properly sourced, fact checked and a fair and balanced representation," the statement from the Jackson estate attorneys read.
Robson addresses his past testimony and statements in support of Jackson in the documentary, saying, "I wish I was at a place where I could tell the truth ... I just wasn't ready. I wasn't able when I was 11 and when I was 22."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/21/entertainment/leaving-neverland-hbo-suit/index.html
 
Last edited:
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Two things that came to my mind....

1. I wonder if anyone in the family or The Estate is still in contact with Jane Fonda..? Fonda is an activist and not afraid to open her mouth to speak up and HATES injustice....and she was friends with MJ....AND...most importantly she is still very good friends with Ted Turner. So I wonder if she could pull some strings to help stop this mockumentary?

2. Since The Estate can't sue the maid McManus for defamation on MJ's behalf.....but since John Branca was working for MJ ages ago, including the time McManus is suggesting that "they threatened they'll hire a hit man to slit my throat if I talk"....Since Branca was MJ's lawyer and still IS ALIVE...and that pretty much is a direct personal attack against him and defaming Branca among others.....could Branca (and Weitzman too since I believe he too has been working for MJ this whole time so that attack would also include him)...could THEY sue Adrian McManus for defamation? If Evvy and Norma are still alive, maybe they could join Branca and Weitzman to also sue McManus if they were the key MJ team during that time? And ask Mesereau to join them in the defamation suit as a bonus since he was the head of MJ's legal team during the trial so it is also an attack on his reputation if she claims that. Because if she doesn't specify who, then that claim equally affects them all because people can assume it is any or all of them. And that way it is an attack against ALL of their reputation thus defaming them. That way they could shut that maid up once and for all and if she for once would get to taste her own medicine and would get to see that what she says WILL have legal consequences you can watch how quickly she will shut up and publically apologize. That should set some kind of sign that while these fools think they can say WHATEVER they want now that MJ is dead.....they're wrong. And we WILL be watching what they say and there WILL be legal consequences. Also....100%sure that she had to sign a NDA when she started working with MJ so she can get sued for breaching HER contract too. Just like HBO. If she goes to the media to talk about what she saw at her workplace when she knows she signed a contract to keep quiet...the Estate should be able to sue her for that ALSO. Not to mention, I saw in the 60 Minutes preview there was a video of MJ's bedroom which looked like a home made video....so if this maid also secretly FILMED Michael's BEDROOM that is the BIGGEST VIOLATION OF PRIVACY there is and that DEFINITELY breaches any confidentiality agreement!!! Not to mention MJ's right for privacy so since it was filmed during a time she worked there (if it was her video) then could the Estate sue her for all kinds of things now still if it was done while MJ was alive and while she was working there and legally not allowed to film anything, especially MJ's bedroom? I'm sure there are all kinds of great legal loopholes one could use. :innocent:
 
Last edited:
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

myosotis said:
Great ratings = money, but Estate claim = huge loss. I don't see the advantage to them financially, and even some of the press are calling this film one-sided now. If they have open arbitration, everyone will see exactly 'what ' is on each side, evidence wise.

So the audience they hope to impress is ???? Must be a very 'sus' audience at the least.

EDITED to add: Discussion online is indicating that the 'will continue with screening on March 4/5' might refer to HBO's response to the Estate's original letter to HBO, and not the new legal claim.

Edited again to add: CNN has confirmed the broadcast will go ahead:

(CNN)HBO is standing by its decision to air a four-hour documentary detailing the stories of two men who accuse Michael Jackson of molestation in the face of a suit filed by Jackson's estate that claims airing the film would be a breach of contract.

Despite the desperate lengths taken to undermine the film, our plans remain unchanged," the network said in a statement to CNN. "HBO will move forward with the airing of 'Leaving Neverland,' the two-part documentary, on March 3rd and 4th. This will allow everyone the opportunity to assess the film and the claims in it for themselves."
The claim, obtained by CNN, cites a contract that HBO allegedly agreed to in order to air a Jackson concert in 1992.
"HBO breached its agreement not to disparage Michael Jackson by producing and selling to the public a one-sided marathon of unvetted propaganda to shamelessly exploit an innocent man no longer here to defend himself," a statement from Jackson estate attorneys read.
The estate argues that HBO had allegedly agreed to "not make any disparaging remarks" concerning Jackson or "any of his representatives, agents, or business practices or do any act that may harm or disparage or cause to lower in esteem the reputation or public image" of Jackson, as part of the contract.
In "Leaving Neverland," Wade Robson and James Safechuck, now 41 and 37 respectively, allege they experienced years of sexual abuse by Jackson in the late '80s and early '90s, which they describe in graphic detail.
The Jackson estate immediately criticized the film after its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival last month, calling it a "public lynching" and Jackson's accusers "admitted liars," in reference to sworn statements made by both Safechuck and Robson while Jackson was alive that he did not molest them.
Robson made statements in support of Jackson to investigators first in the '90s and testified in support of Jackson at his 2005 trial, where he was acquitted of child molestation and related charges. Safechuck at one point also denied he was molested by Jackson to investigators.
The two filed separate civil lawsuits against Jackson's estate that were dismissed on technical grounds and remain under appeal.
"HBO could have and should have ensured that 'Leaving Neverland' was properly sourced, fact checked and a fair and balanced representation," the statement from the Jackson estate attorneys read.
Robson addresses his past testimony and statements in support of Jackson in the documentary, saying, "I wish I was at a place where I could tell the truth ... I just wasn't ready. I wasn't able when I was 11 and when I was 22."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/21/entertainment/leaving-neverland-hbo-suit/index.html
Click to expand...

If HBO STILL plans o go ahead and air it it is becoming more and more obvious and clear that this is an arranged and purposely done attack and that they have an agenda against MJ. This absolutely proves it. If they are not even CONSIDERING to "take a closer look and reconsider" it is CLEAR they have an agenda if they are THIS hell bent on airing it. As someone else already mentioned about starting to believe in the conspiracy theories that MJ kept talking about....I'm starting to see it now too. There is someone behind all this. Or there is something bigger behind all this. I'm just trying to figure out what it is and who it is. Could the reason be the 10% that Sony still wants that the Estate has of the EMI publishing thing or is it David Geffen who supposedly hates Branca's guts? I watched Lisa Marie's Oprah interview today that she gave after MJ died and she too mentioned how MJ told her that there are people who are after him and he's afraid they will kill him and she also said that MJ told her the names. I hope the Estate can get in touch with her and ask her who MJ thought were after him so the Estate can start looking into it all and get people to investigate it and expose them once and for all.

I agree that open court would be great for this. HBO would have to prove that the bullshit in the film is true and bring evidence and the Estate could expose all of Wade and James' AND Dan Reed's lies. They could ask Dan Reed to testify and ask him about his research and then present him with the interviews he has given to the media and then show him all the court documents that he failed to read and BOOM.....Dan Reed's credibility as a diretor will be history. If us fans are able to find all that info with minimal research (took me literally 2 minutes to find court documents, the FBI files and Safechuck's civil complain etc. online), he has no excuses to not know every detail about the case IF HE CLAIMS HE DID RESEARCH and as he claimed in the Variety interview that he is "obsessed with factual accuracy". If you claim that then in that case you have no excuses for the lies in your shitty mockumentary. Also, anyone notice how Dan Reed only mention having interviewed THE PROSECUTION and the investigators for his film? And how he also mentioned in the interview how MJ's legal team is "so powerful" that even the law enforcement was afraid to speak, or something along those lines and that's why he didn't use the footage or that's why people were reluctant to speak. Wow...again...defaming MJ's lawyers much?
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Goddamn, I was scrolling through the pages and hoped one post would say HBO was either reconsidering or backing down but of course that was just too good to be true. They are hell bent on airing this filth eh? Quite a backstab move at MJ too, I totally forgot about that Bucharest concert.

Can someone explain to me what the statement by the estate exactly means? I have no idea what is meant with disparagement. I was really hoping they had sued them for defaming a dead person by using two perjurers in a "documentary". But I guess that's not how it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top