Michael Jackson's Sony/ATV Sale Gives Him Largest Celeb Payday Ever

[barbee0715]

^^The image thing was blatantly wrong but the rest was an opinion by professionals. IRS has it's own professionals and they're definitely going with different figures since Michael has been has been raking in the money since his death. I know it's supposed to be DOD, but it's obvious it was worth more by what's happened.

(I do think the IRS claims are pretty outrageous tho).

 

[LindavG]

^^The image thing was blatantly wrong but the rest was an opinion by professionals. IRS has it's own professionals and they're definitely going with different figures since Michael has been has been raking in the money since his death. I know it's supposed to be DOD, but it's obvious it was worth more by what's happened.

(I do think the IRS claims are pretty outrageous tho).

I do too but that doesn't mean that the lawsuit itself is unfounded. Wealthy people/estates get enough tax breaks as it is so the least they can do is actually pay what they owe and not try to cheat their way out of it. It's the principle that matters to me, even if I agree that the amount the IRS came up with is ridiculous.

 

[barbee0715]

I do too but that doesn't mean that the lawsuit itself is unfounded. Wealthy people/estates get enough tax breaks as it is so the least they can do is actually pay what they owe and not try to cheat their way out of it. It's the principle that matters to me, even if I agree that the amount the IRS came up with is ridiculous.

Oh me too, definitely. They already paid estate tax, but that doesn't mean it was the proper amount. They probably went as low as they could and IRS went as high. It'll have to be a meet in the middle.

 

[ILoveHIStory]

The King of Pop earned $825 million pretax over the past year, landing him the No. 1 spot on our Halloween-spooky list of highest-paid dead celebrities.
Here’s a deeper look inside the numbers.

Jackson’s payday–the largest annual gain for an entertainer, living or dead–comes courtesy of the $750 million sale of his half of the Sony/ATV publishing catalogue. He paid $47.5 million in 1985 to buy the original Beatles-packed ATV; ten years later Sony paid him $115 million to partner up; including annual distributions, the final sale earned him an annualized 30% return.

The King of Pop also continues to cash in on his Mijac Music publishing catalogue–which contains his own hits and a handful of copyrights to his favorite songs by other artists–and a Cirque du Soleil show in Las Vegas.

He has earned over $3 billion pretax during his career (before and after his death), and closer to $4 billion if one accounts for inflation.

For more on the business of entertainment, sign up for my email updates and check out my books on Jay Z and Michael Jackson, as well as the new Hip-Hop Cash Kings anthology.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackoma...ns-earnings-825-million-in-2016/#6121782c2302

 

[ivy]

I'm glad they sued though.

Just to make sure that you are aware : Estate sued IRS.

The Estate did understate the value of Michael's image and they should be made to pay their fair share in taxes. Would you really be defending tax evasion by a multi-million dollar estate if it wasn't MJ's? Now I don't think the Estate owes 700 million but the IRS is probably hoping for a settlement.I'm not going to automatically side with the Estate in every case when they are clearly in the wrong. And scheming to avoid taxes (which will have to be compensated for by ordinary citizens) when you're raking in millions of dollars is wrong.

Let me clarify something else too. Estate (and Michael back in the day) pays income taxes. It's around 3-40 percent. Estate tax is a second taxation that happens when someone is deceased and their assets change hands to their beneficiaries.

Estate tax have always been a matter of great debate. In 2015 House of Representatives voted to repeal it. Trump's tax plan plans to repeal it. There are other people who support Estate tax. There are ways to avoid it and/or reduce it. I'm not saying what argument is right or wrong, it is just a second taxation is debatable issue.

Finally for the valuation for some assets is subjective and there are more than one acceptable method to value the assets and yes the different valuation methods come up significantly different numbers hence the large discrepancies. That doesn't equal to "tax evasion" though. For example for image and likeliness one method allows you to look to last 10-15 years of the person's life and calculate future image and likeliness (in other words use past income to calculate potential future income). In Michael's case that calculation method would give the lowest number. Another method allows you to consider future changes -such as increase in popularity after death - and that would result in the highest amount. Both are acceptable and legal calculation methods and it wouldn't be considered tax evasion. Tax court tends to cut the baby in half and settle the case in the middle. So both Estate's as low as possible and IRS's as high as possible could be a tactic to settle in the middle ground at the end.

 

[LindavG]

^ I know tax "evasion" is not the proper legal term but I hope it was clear from my post what I meant. The Estate knew full well that Michael's image was worth more than a few thousand bucks, come on now. He sold out 50 shows in a row not long before he died! This kind of trickery that wealthy people or their estates get away with just rubs me the wrong way and I don't mind the IRS going after them to retrieve some of that money. They should do it more often.

Btw, Trump's tax plans would add 5 trillion dollars to the national debt over the next decade. Who do you think is going to foot the bill for that? If this weren't Michael's Estate but some random rich person, would we really be arguing that this kind of behaviour is OK even if it is technically legal?

I haven't looked into the case too deeply so I don't know all the details, I just disagree with redfrog that the IRS' claim is unfounded and biased against MJ. I hope everything turns out well for the Estate though.

 

[Bubs]

it doesn't matter how many million or billions the estate have made since 2009, the point is what was the values of assets at the time of his death.
I have no opinion of value of image and likeness as I don't know how it was calculated and based on what, but other stuff is most likely inflated by IRS and not the first time.

"The dispute centers on the value of estate assets at the time of Jackson's death on June 25, 2009. Some assets, such as the star's image and likeness, are extremely difficult to value for tax purposes."

 

[ivy]

The Estate knew full well that Michael's image was worth more than a few thousand bucks, come on now. He sold out 50 shows in a row not long before he died!

that's not image and likeliness though. and yes I agree his image and likeliness worth more than $2,000 but they used some sort of method/calculation for that. My guess is they used past income to predict the future income and as Michael didn't have any successful sponsorship or any merchandise etc since 1993 and technically did not really work after 2001 that's how they came up with that number.

This kind of trickery that wealthy people or their estates get away with just rubs me the wrong way and I don't mind the IRS going after them to retrieve some of that money. They should do it more often.

Btw, Trump's tax plans would add 5 trillion dollars to the national debt over the next decade. Who do you think is going to foot the bill for that? If this weren't Michael's Estate but some random rich person, would we really be arguing that this kind of behaviour is OK even if it is technically legal?

I didn't mention Trump and/or house of representatives to argue about tax plans. I only mentioned it to tell that estate tax is a debatable issue. While I agree that everyone needs to pay their taxes - and Michael/ Estate did/does- personally I don't agree with a double taxation. So you might approach to this as "rich and the famous and MJ Estate should pay hundreds of millions of dollars", I approach it it as "40% income tax and then 40% estate tax is unfair". Again I'm not arguing which position is right or wrong. Just trying to express that not everyone will think like you. I would agree that everyone should pay their fair share. But I want to emphasize fair. If you think the amount IRS asking is too much then there is nothing fair in that.

furthermore technically speaking if there weren't loans on the main assets and the ownership were transferred to "Michael Jackson Family Trust" in Michael's lifetime as the will intended, there wouldn't be any Estate taxes to pay right now.

would we really be arguing that this kind of behaviour is OK even if it is technically legal?

BTW the sentence above is exaggerated IMO. It's not like Estate/ Michael isn't paying any taxes, they paid/pay income taxes. So let's not act like they paid 0 in taxes. They paid proper income taxes, the dispute is limited to Estate tax amount.

 

[barbee0715]

^Not only did they vote to repeal the estate tax in 2015, but they had voted to reduce it by 2010. Michael's estate is being taxed at the old rate.
A lot of states impose Estate tax too. I read Minnesota has a 50% rate.

 

[LindavG]

that's not image and likeliness though. and yes I agree his image and likeliness worth more than $2,000 but they used some sort of method/calculation for that. My guess is they used past income to predict the future income and as Michael didn't have any successful sponsorship or any merchandise etc since 1993 and technically did not really work after 2001 that's how they came up with that number.

It's an indication of his popularity and that's partly what the value for his image and likeness was based on.

I didn't mention Trump and/or house of representatives to argue about tax plans. I only mentioned it to tell that estate tax is a debatable issue. While I agree that everyone needs to pay their taxes - and Michael/ Estate did/does- personally I don't agree with a double taxation. So you might approach to this as "rich and the famous and MJ Estate should pay hundreds of millions of dollars", I approach it it as "40% income tax and then 40% estate tax is unfair". Again I'm not arguing which position is right or wrong. Just trying to express that not everyone will think like you. I would agree that everyone should pay their fair share. But I want to emphasize fair. If you think the amount IRS asking is too much then there is nothing fair in that.

It doesn't matter whether we think the estate tax is fair or not, it is the law. You are mischaracterising my position, I didn't say anything about "the rich and famous" since the estate tax wouldn't apply to most celebrities anyway (it applies to less than 1% of the US population). I'm talking about really wealthy people and estates and Michael happens to be one of them. It's also not a matter of double taxation because a significant portion of estate assets have appreciated over time and have never been taxed before. Anyway, we're going beyond the scope of the image/likeness question and whether or not the Estate deliberately undervalued it to avoid paying higher taxes. I believe they did and I believe it's wrong, even though it may be a smart business move. Like I said, it's a matter of principle for me and I'm not going to make an exception for Michael's Estate just because I like them.

furthermore technically speaking if there weren't loans on the main assets and the ownership were transferred to "Michael Jackson Family Trust" in Michael's lifetime as the will intended, there wouldn't be any Estate taxes to pay right now.

And that wouldn't be right either... but I digress.

 

[ivy]

It doesn't matter whether we think the estate tax is fair or not, it is the law.

you are showing a double standard. Here you mentioned "it's the law", previously you asked "technically legal but is it okay.". Those are conflicting statements. Whenever it suits your opinion you bring up the law and whenever it doesn't you ignore the law and argue morals. If the approach to it is "it is the law" then people should pay Estate tax but also using any legal method (calculation, deduction, exception) that allows them to pay less or no tax should also be totally acceptable. You can't argue "they need to pay estate tax because it's the law" and "taking deductions , reductions is wrong despite it's legal" positions simultaneously.

You are mischaracterising my position, I didn't say anything about "the rich and famous" since the estate tax wouldn't apply to most celebrities anyway (it applies to less than 1% of the US population).

In 2009 people having assets worth over $3.5 Million was supposed to pay the Estate tax. That number would apply to many celebrities, rich and the famous.

I'm talking about really wealthy people and estates and Michael happens to be one of them.

Not really IMO. really wealthy people would be like Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffet, Bezos who worth $50+ Billion. While Michael had decent value assets he also had significant debts. That again brings me to the fairness issue. Let's do a little math. Michael had $500 Million debt when he died, IRS also asked for $500 Million in Estate taxes (not considering penalties). So you tell me what was Estate's value and how would the Estate pay this in total $1 Billion debt +taxes?

To be clear, it's all about fairness to me. Of course everyone should pay their fair share and I understand any disappointment towards low valuation but you also need to show the same level of disappointment towards a unfair high valuation as well.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Personally id be quite happy for the estate to screw the U.S goverment/establishment etc etc as much as possible after the way it screwed mj over for 25 plus years. Call it abit of equality.?

 

[MJMarty]

Even deducting the $750 million from the ATV sale MJ would still be #1 with around $75 million earning.

It'd be even higher, wasn't the payment of $750M including 2016 earnings from the catalog? If so it'd likely be $90M+

Next year the $250M extension Sony bought to release MJ music expires, so presumably there will be another extension and that'll make the Estate a fresh set of 9 figures?

 

[Psychoniff]

I'm glad the estate sold their share in the catalogue. All these emotional think-they-know-it-all fans can just take a seat (or several seats) and learn how business works.

 

[Annita]

Next year the $250M extension Sony bought to release MJ music expires, so presumably there will be another extension and that'll make the Estate a fresh set of 9 figures?

It`s my understanding the Estate did not get the 250 Mio. in one number but a portion from it each year over time of the contract.
Sure they will make a new contract but it`s not a realistic that it will near to 250 Mio. in my opinion.

Did any other living or dead artist have a contract near to this number?

 

[redfrog]

The Estate did understate the value of Michael's image and they should be made to pay their fair share in taxes.
Would you really be defending tax evasion by a multi-million dollar estate if it wasn't MJ's? Now I don't think the Estate owes 700 million but the IRS is probably hoping for a settlement. I'm glad they sued though. I'm not going to automatically side with the Estate in every case when they are clearly in the wrong. And scheming to avoid taxes (which will have to be compensated for by ordinary citizens) when you're raking in millions of dollars is wrong.

Far be it from be to support Branca or Weitzman but I find it perverse that first American government agencies (state and federal alike) do their best to ruin MJ himself and his image by branding him as a serial molester (frankly the value of a real serial molester's image is zero, not even 5000 bucks) then after they de facto torture him to death they demand hundreds of millions, money that came from the fans who didn't fall for their lies and dirty tricks, most of them outside the US. Most ordinary citizens in America joined the lynch-mob, I remember the polls after the verdict, so frankly I wouldn't feel sorry for them if they didn't get their share of MJ's money,
tax laws or no tax laws.

The IRS's demand is ridiculous no matter how much the Estate understated the value of MJ's image.

If this weren't Michael's Estate but some random rich person, would we really be arguing that this kind of behaviour is OK even if it is technically legal?

Random rich people were not persecuted by American state and federal agencies like MJ was. Random rich people
were not branded by the American plebs as a serial molester. I hate the idea that any of that 700
million would go into the salary of the coward congressmen and senators who refused to honor MJ after he died or
finance the FBI which spent taxpayer money to report on Terry George, for god's sake.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Yeap yeap and yeap.

 

[LindavG]

you are showing a double standard. Here you mentioned "it's the law", previously you asked "technically legal but is it okay.". Those are conflicting statements. Whenever it suits your opinion you bring up the law and whenever it doesn't you ignore the law and argue morals. If the approach to it is "it is the law" then people should pay Estate tax but also using any legal method (calculation, deduction, exception) that allows them to pay less or no tax should also be totally acceptable. You can't argue "they need to pay estate tax because it's the law" and "taking deductions , reductions is wrong despite it's legal" positions simultaneously.

These are two different issues though. You argued that some politicians believe the estate tax is unfair, which in the context of this conversation I can only assume to mean that you think it's debatable whether the Estate should have had to pay taxes or not. That's a different point than I was making. If the estate tax was not part of the law, you would never hear me argue that the Estate is wrong for not paying it. My issue is rather with the Estate deliberately understating the value of Michael's likeness and image so they can avoid paying more in taxes. I understand why they did it but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Consider the post I initially responded to, that said the IRS was wrong and biased for pursuing the Estate. That is really where my disagreement lies and I honestly doubt many people here would be saying that if it was another wealthy person/estate who did this.

In 2009 people having assets worth over $3.5 Million was supposed to pay the Estate tax. That number would apply to many celebrities, rich and the famous.

The estate tax only applies to people who have passed away. I honestly doubt many celebrities still own millions of dollars in assets by the time they are in their 80s. At least, that is not where the bulk of the tax revenue comes from.

Not really IMO. really wealthy people would be like Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffet, Bezos who worth $50+ Billion. While Michael had decent value assets he also had significant debts. That again brings me to the fairness issue. Let's do a little math. Michael had $500 Million debt when he died, IRS also asked for $500 Million in Estate taxes (not considering penalties). So you tell me what was Estate's value and how would the Estate pay this in total $1 Billion debt +taxes?

We have a different definition of wealth then. I don't think you need to be a billionaire to be considered wealthy. If you're making $500,000 a year, which is about 10 times more than the average American, you are wealthy in my book. The average American would not even be able to rake up $500 million in debt so that is actually a sign of Michael's wealth. I already said the amount the IRS came up with is ridiculous so don't expect me to defend that, lol. I said, just as you did, that the IRS is probably counting on a settlement for a lower amount.

To be clear, it's all about fairness to me. Of course everyone should pay their fair share and I understand any disappointment towards low valuation but you also need to show the same level of disappointment towards a unfair high valuation as well.

True, but I made it clear from the start that I don't agree with the IRS' calculation either.

 

[LindavG]

Far be it from be to support Branca or Weitzman but I find it perverse that first American government agencies (state and federal alike) do their best to ruin MJ himself and his image by branding him as a serial molester (frankly the value of a real serial molester's image is zero, not even 5000 bucks) then after they de facto torture him to death they demand hundreds of millions, money that came from the fans who didn't fall for their lies and dirty tricks, most of them outside the US. Most ordinary citizens in America joined the lynch-mob, I remember the polls after the verdict, so frankly I wouldn't feel sorry for them if they didn't get their share of MJ's money,
tax laws or no tax laws.

Your anti-Americanism is getting a bit tiresome. I don't believe there is some grand conspiracy on the part of the US government and state agencies to persecute Michael and ruin him. To what end? There were some unscrupulous actors but you can find those in any country. At the end of the day, the FBI exonerated Michael and he was acquitted on all counts by an American jury. For the most part, justice took its course. But you're the same person who keeps complaining that the judge in the Wade Robson case won't just throw the case out so I understand why this goes way above your head.

The real blame for the public's negative perception of Michael lies with 1) the accusers and 2) the media and how they reported on the allegations. You can't fault ordinary Americans who weren't MJ fans for believing the verdict was wrong when they had been fed a steady diet of lies and one-sided coverage for months.

 

[ivy]

INext year the $250M extension Sony bought to release MJ music expires, so presumably there will be another extension and that'll make the Estate a fresh set of 9 figures?

It`s my understanding the Estate did not get the 250 Mio. in one number but a portion from it each year over time of the contract.
Sure they will make a new contract but it`s not a realistic that it will near to 250 Mio. in my opinion.

I saw some details of the Sony deal at Quincy lawsuit. Estate wasn't paid $250 Million up front. They were to get paid $20 - $25 Million per project.

Forbest isn't a proper accounting. They pay attention to the news and follow the project and make estimations. So any event they hear in 2016, they count it in 2016 earnings. However in reality that might not be the case.

I can only assume to mean that you think it's debatable whether the Estate should have had to pay taxes or not.

I already clarified that it was to show you that not everyone would agree with your position. Estate tax is a debatable issue.

If the estate tax was not part of the law, you would never hear me argue that the Estate is wrong for not paying it.

Still the same problem. If it's legal to use lower calculations, take deductions etc then why are you arguing they are wrong to take advantage of it?

I honestly doubt many people here would be saying that if it was another wealthy person/estate who did this.

If we are being honest, no one would have cared what other people did and do. All of the examples I have given (Zuckerberg, Bezos, Gates etc) have used several methods (charities, LLCs, trusts, transfer at their lifetime) to reduce their taxes. Have you lectured Zuckerberg for putting 99% of his wealth to a LLC as stock and avoiding not only estate tax but also sale/income tax? I assume no. So only reason any of us is talking about this is because it's Michael. Neither one of us including you care about other people.

I honestly doubt many celebrities still own millions of dollars in assets by the time they are in their 80s. At least, that is not where the bulk of the tax revenue comes from.

they do actually and there are many information about celebrities estate and the surrounding disputes including Estate tax. Furthermore if you value and tax image and likeliness based on higher calculations you would see that most celebrities expected image and likeliness would be over the threshold to be taxed. In other words if Michael's image and likeliness is $400 Million, most celebrities can account to the $3 to $5 Million image and likeliness value and hence taxed for Estate tax.

We have a different definition of wealth then. I don't think you need to be a billionaire to be considered wealthy. If you're making $500,000 a year, which is about 10 times more than the average American, you are wealthy in my book. The average American would not even be able to rake up $500 million in debt so that is actually a sign of Michael's wealth.

You emphasized really wealthy and to me sorry that's not Michael. While he had valuable assets he also had significant debt , financial burdens to the point that his houses were being foreclosed and he could have gone bankrupt.

True, but I made it clear from the start that I don't agree with the IRS' calculation either.

yes but you don't show any outcry about their calculation though. IRS overcharging people should also be something problematic.

that brings me back to my question that you couldn't answer, let me repeat again

Michael had $500 Million debt when he died, IRS also asked for $500 Million in Estate taxes (not considering penalties). So you tell me what was Estate's value and how would the Estate pay this in total $1 Billion debt +taxes?

If you are unable to explain or defend IRS's calculation why should anyone think that IRS's calculation is more correct or more moral than Estate's calculation? If one side is deliberately understating the value to pay less taxes and the other side is deliberately overstating the value to collect more taxes, can we really argue that either side is morally superior?

So the reality becomes this is all tactics both by the Estate and IRS.

 

[LindavG]

I already clarified that it was to show you that not everyone would agree with your position. Estate tax is a debatable issue.

But it's not relevant to this discussion. There is no debate on whether the estate tax applies to MJ's estate or not.

Still the same problem. If it's legal to use lower calculations, take deductions etc then why are you arguing they are wrong to take advantage of it?

Because the Estate deliberately undervalued Michael's image to get out of paying taxes. I understand why they did it but I also understand why the IRS went after them. I just don't agree with the other poster's comments that the IRS claim is entirely unfounded and biased. We can argue about the specific amounts but it seems like we agree that the Estate undervalued Michael's image/likeness and the IRS overvalued it. Let's hope they come to a reasonable settlement then.

If we are being honest, no one would have cared what other people did and do. All of the examples I have given (Zuckerberg, Bezos, Gates etc) have used several methods (charities, LLCs, trusts, transfer at their lifetime) to reduce their taxes. Have you lectured Zuckerberg for putting 99% of his wealth to a LLC as stock and avoiding not only estate tax but also sale/income tax? I assume no. So only reason any of us is talking about this is because it's Michael. Neither one of us including you care about other people.

This is a different discussion but you'd be wrong to assume that I don't care when other wealthy people avoid paying their fair share of taxes. And I think the effective tax burden on the wealthy, especially in the US, is outrageously low. In practice, CEOs often contribute less in taxes (proportionally) than their secretaries because they can afford expert accountants to exploit every loophole and deduction in the tax code there is. But I know there are many Americans who think this is just a matter of smart business and a reward for success so there's no point in arguing over this. I have my opinion and you have yours, let's leave it at that.

You emphasized really wealthy and to me sorry that's not Michael. While he had valuable assets he also had significant debt , financial burdens to the point that his houses were being foreclosed and he could have gone bankrupt.

But Michael's assets outweighed his debt. If he had sold everything except for Mijac, he still would have had a steady income of a million+ dollars per year, which is more than 99% of Americans. If the top 1% of one of the wealthiest countries in the world is not "really wealthy" to you, I'm not sure where you draw the line.

that brings me back to my question that you couldn't answer, let me repeat again

Michael had $500 Million debt when he died, IRS also asked for $500 Million in Estate taxes (not considering penalties). So you tell me what was Estate's value and how would the Estate pay this in total $1 Billion debt +taxes?

If you are unable to explain or defend IRS's calculation why should anyone think that IRS's calculation is more correct or more moral than Estate's calculation? If one side is deliberately understating the value to pay less taxes and the other side is deliberately overstating the value to collect more taxes, can we really argue that either side is morally superior?

So the reality becomes this is all tactics both by the Estate and IRS.

I'm not sure how you expect me to answer this? I'm not a tax expert but I don't have to be one to know that Michael's image and likeness was worth more than a few thousand dollars at the time of his death but not nearly as much as the IRS is asking either. I never said the IRS is 'morally superior' in this, I just challenged the other poster who implied that the Estate did nothing wrong and was treated unfairly.

I think I've made my point and I don't really have much else to add. People can agree or disagree but let's move on

 

[ivy]

why the IRS went after them.

again Estate has sued IRS. It was basically Estate filing an Estate tax return, IRS saying nope you should be paying more and Estate saying let's take it to court and challenging IRS at US Tax court.

I just don't agree with the other poster's comments that the IRS claim is entirely unfounded and biased.

yet all through this discussion you couldn't defend or justify IRS's calculation, admitted it's unfair and overstated. So despite your moral arguments, actually you do agree that IRS's calculation is biased and unfounded.


That being said I agree that we are going in circles.

 

[redfrog]

Your anti-Americanism is getting a bit tiresome. I don't believe there is some grand conspiracy on the part of the US government and state agencies to persecute Michael and ruin him. To what end?
There were some unscrupulous actors but you can find those in any country.
At the end of the day, the FBI exonerated Michael and he was acquitted on all counts by an American jury.

For the most part, justice took its course.

This whole thing is off topic but just to be clear I'm not against all Americans. This site wouldn't exist without Americans. Tom Mez is American so was Scott Ross, Susan Yu, the people who testified for MJ etc. I know there were Americans who hated what was done to MJ. But it's also a fact that it was Americans, inside and outside of the government, who made MJ's life a living hell and they enjoyed every minute of it. Americans boosted Court TV's ratings Americans bought papers with "Sweat, Freak!" on the cover. It was more
than just some unscrupulous actors.

No need for a GRAND conspiracy. The LAPD, SBSD, two DAs offices, a couple of judges and the FBI were enough.

To what end? What about burying the biggest black icon ever under the worst possible stigma?

MJ was relentlessly investigated, harassed, humiliated, indicted, dragged through a trial,
driven from his home, his rights were repeatedly violated by judges, policemen and DAs
without any measurable outrage from the American public
I wouldn't call that justice it was a travesty of justice. It was evil. It showed America's ugly side.

But you're the same person who keeps complaining that the judge in the Wade Robson case won't just throw the case out so I understand why this goes way above your head.

It's a question of right and wrong not legal technicalities. It's wrong to allow a pack of obvious lies and absurdities go on in the court system for years and it's wrong to raid someone's home with 70 policemen just because some crook walked in and said he was molested. It's also wrong to strip search someone then have the photos of his genitalia stored for years especially when the photos actually prove his innocence. Just two of the many abhorrent actions against MJ done by American government officials and approved by millions of ordinary Americans.

The real blame for the public's negative perception of Michael lies with 1) the accusers and 2) the media and how they reported on the allegations. You can't fault ordinary Americans who weren't MJ fans for believing the verdict was wrong when they had been fed a steady diet of lies and one-sided coverage for months.

Sneddon, Dworin, Garcetti, Weiss, Zonen, Robel, Zelis, Thomas, Birchim, Neglia, Linden and everyone who participated in this witch-hunt is responsible for making it possible for the media to cover up for the Chandlers,Francias and Arvizos in the first place instead of telling the truth that the accusers had no credibility, period.

I would fault anyone who thinks articles in the New York Post or Nancy Grace's tirades give an accurate picture
of what goes on in a courtroom during a 3-month long trial.

And exactly who were the market for that one sided coverage?
Joe and Jane Q. The American plebs, they sure found that one sided coverage very entertaining
and those running Fox, NBC, ABC, Court TV, HLN knew it.

 

[FlyMeToTheMoon]

MONEY - Michael Jackson, recorded 1995, ´HIStory - Past, Present and Future´

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Just to add im sure every american fan was disgusted by the actions of the establishment over the last 25 years.it has nothing to do with being anti anything.anyway this is going way OT

 

[KOPV]

IT baffles me how entities belittle and underestimate the power of Michael Jacksons image/music and what it can be valued at... Just because he was not selling 30 million + in the 00's does not mean he does not have enormous demand...

I mean look at This Is It.. within 24 hrs almost 1 million people registered for PRE-SALE ticketswhich is where the demand of 50 shows came about.. 1 million people equated to 50 shows. Morethan 1.5 million fans caused 2 sites to crash for pre-sale tickets withinminutes of going online. In 2 hrs 190ktickets were sold, 2 million people tried to buy pre sale tickets within18hrs.. That says that the concerts couldhave sold out just in pre-sale and there was another 1 million people trying topurchase (amount for ANOTEHER 50 shows) it became the fastest ticket sale inhistory. Once the tickets finally wentto sale for the general public everything that was blocked out for the generalpublic was sold in 4 hrs for those 50 dates. Tickets were on Ebay at that pointfor over $11,250!
Keep in mind this was at 1 singular location so that means most of these people were willing to travel to another country... for most they were going to Michael, Michael was not traveling to them... That's big!