|
Post by ghost on Sept 23, 2020 19:12:12 GMT
Not great news:
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Sept 23, 2020 20:19:43 GMT
Yeah id rather he not but tbh its pretty pointless as he cant really film anything of intrest. Just another example of the joke that is the U.S justice system
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Sept 23, 2020 20:52:14 GMT
I saw someone on the comments saying that MJs legacy won't survive another documentary. It survived the first one, plus 25+ years of sleaze and innuendo, I don't see how a second documentary focusing on the shitshow of Robson/Safechuck would make much difference at this stage. Fans need to stop worrying. MJs legacy is set in stone and it ain't going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Sept 23, 2020 21:01:37 GMT
You'd think Taj would want to film proceedings given his project is supposed to deal with the allegations primarily. TSCM made a similar point......
|
|
|
Post by SmoothGangsta on Sept 23, 2020 23:22:28 GMT
This is a big oof. It's weird to me that he's just allowed to do this. It's clear what he's doing and why he's doing it.
|
|
|
Post by SmoothGangsta on Sept 23, 2020 23:27:36 GMT
I did see someone in the comments say that he is very limited on what he's actually allowed to film though. So it seems rather pointless that he's doing it.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 24, 2020 3:14:06 GMT
I saw someone on the comments saying that MJs legacy won't survive another documentary. It survived the first one, plus 25+ years of sleaze and innuendo, I don't see how a second documentary focusing on the shitshow of Robson/Safechuck would make much difference at this stage. Fans need to stop worrying. MJs legacy is set in stone and it ain't going anywhere. Agree. I don't like that he's so obsessed and I wish the Estate was more proactive in terms of public relations (ie. having their own cameras in the court room, just in case because we KNOW that nothing by Reed will be unbiased, he's now essentially acting as PR for Wade and James) but let's not forget witness testimonies are videotaped anyway. I also think the potential success of such a documentary will very much depend on how far the cases go and whether they win or lose. Them winning and amplified with a supportive documentary of course would be very bad for us. Of course even if they lose they can twist that into somehow being "celebrity justice" or something, after all that's what the media did in 2005. Still I think this now feels like them milking it and that wouldn't necessarily be well received by the general public. Also, this lawsuit is against the companies. We know Reed will try to twist things, but I feel like if the general public really knew what their lawsuit is about (try hard ways of somehow trying to implicate MJ's companies in order to be able to sue them for money, blaming people like Jolie Levine and Norma Staikos instead of their own parents etc) that would actually raise some red flags in people. Of course, Reed will try to put this into a different light, for sure, still it might backfire on them. And BTW, this is nothing new. We have known for months now that he will be filming.
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Sept 24, 2020 13:57:38 GMT
I saw someone on the comments saying that MJs legacy won't survive another documentary. It survived the first one, plus 25+ years of sleaze and innuendo, I don't see how a second documentary focusing on the shitshow of Robson/Safechuck would make much difference at this stage. Fans need to stop worrying. MJs legacy is set in stone and it ain't going anywhere. Agree. I don't like that he's so obsessed and I wish the Estate was more proactive in terms of public relations (ie. having their own cameras in the court room, just in case because we KNOW that nothing by Reed will be unbiased, he's now essentially acting as PR for Wade and James) but let's not forget witness testimonies are videotaped anyway. I also think the potential success of such a documentary will very much depend on how far the cases go and whether they win or lose. Them winning and amplified with a supportive documentary of course would be very bad for us. Of course even if they lose they can twist that into somehow being "celebrity justice" or something, after all that's what the media did in 2005. Still I think this now feels like them milking it and that wouldn't necessarily be well received by the general public. Also, this lawsuit is against the companies. We know Reed will try to twist things, but I feel like if the general public really knew what their lawsuit is about (try hard ways of somehow trying to implicate MJ's companies in order to be able to sue them for money, blaming people like Jolie Levine and Norma Staikos instead of their own parents etc) that would actually raise some red flags in people. Of course, Reed will try to put this into a different light, for sure, still it might backfire on them. And BTW, this is nothing new. We have known for months now that he will be filming. I don't know, the whole thing makes me feel very uneasy. I just hope the estate/Taj are prepared this time, there are no excuses for no timely rebuttal this time around. Reed is clearly pressed and I can't help but suspect that the only reason he's interested in doing a LN part 2 is because he was brought to task so feverently by the fanbase with the first one. Basically, this is personal for Reed now, and he won't stop. It makes me feel very nervous about the further damage he is going to try and cause.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 24, 2020 17:18:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 25, 2020 3:44:19 GMT
Good day in court yesterday. Manly and Finaldi have been disciplined and sanctioned to pay fine by the Court. (Thread)
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 25, 2020 4:43:29 GMT
LOL. Wouldn't surprise me.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Sept 25, 2020 12:23:52 GMT
Thanks to myosotis at mjjc for this
Plaintiff (Finaldi and Co) subpoenaed Jonathan Spence, Marion Fox, Lily Chandler, and Tabitha Rose Marks seeking to depose these parties. Non-parties Jonathan Spence and Marion Fox filed separate motions for protective orders on August 31, 2017, and October 20, 2017, respectively. Non-parties Li ly Chandler and Tabitha Rose Marks filed their joint motion for a protective order on June 12, 2017.
....Here, Wade Robson's deposition subpoena is silent as to the information it seeks from Jonathan Spence. The deposition subpoena for Marion Fox contains two document requests: (1) "Any and all photographs in your possession. custody or control of your son. Jonathan Spence, taken while he was 3 through 18 years age;" and (2) ''Any and all photographs in your possession, custody or control depicting Michael Jackson." (See Ex. 1 to Hardman Deel. ISO Marion Fox's motion for protective order.)
....In the oppositions to the Spence and Fox motions, Plaintiff Robson states that he seeks information related to whether Spence knew or interacted with Michael Jackson during childhood and onward, including alleged sexual interactions. This information is constitutionally protected.
The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that the information sought is directly relevant to a claim or defense and essential to the fair resolution of their lawsuit. (See Alch. 165 Cal.App.4th at 1426-1427, 1433; Brit, 20 Cal.3d at 859.)
The Court sustained all objections to the Finaldi and Reilley declarations based upon hearsay, lack of foundation, lack of personal knowledge and speculation. As such, Plaintiff fails to present admissible evidence demonstrating that he seeks information from these witnesses that is directly relevant to his own claims. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden as to information sought from Spence and Fox. Even if this evidence was admissible, however, the Court would still conclude that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he seeks information directly relevant to his own claims of sexual abuse. Plaintiff's do not contend that these witnesses are percipient witnesses or have direct knowledge of his sexual abuse, but are seeking evidence that would corroborate his own allegations. This is an insufficient basis to compel third parties to discuss such highly sensitive and protect ed private information. The Court is hard pressed to identify information that is more sensitive or private than childhood sexual abuse. Even if the evidence submitted by Plaintiff was admissible, the Court would still grant Spence and Fox's motions for a protective order because the stated desire for corroboration of Plaintiff's own sexual abuse is not directly relevant to his claims or essential to the resolution of his case.
Here, non-parties Spence and Fox have shown good cause to prevent their depositions from covering topics that infringe upon their rights to privacy. Since Plaintiff has failed to show that the information sought is directly relevant, and since Fox and Spence demonstrated that Plaintiff seeks to discover information that is constitutionally protected, the motions for a protective order as to Spence and Fox are GRANTED. Fox is not required to produce the documents request in the subpoena since those requests are overly broad and irrelevant. Plaintiff may not inquire into any matters that are protected by Fox or Spence's constitutional rights to privacy, including but not limited to their medical, psychotherapeutic, and sexual histories.
...............Fox's motion for sanctions is GRANTED and Spence's motion for sanctions is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the reduced amount of $3,135.00 to Fox and $3,135.00 to Spence within 60 days of this order.
Non-Party deponents Lily Chandler and Tabitha Rose Marks ("Chandler and "Rose Marks") seek a protective order precluding their depositions. Chandler and Rose Marks argue that Plaintiff served them individually with subpoenas and seeks to depose them concerning the whereabouts of Jordan Chandler, Jordan's interactions with Michael Jackson in the early 1990's, and with respect to Chandler and her families' interactions with Jackson.
...nearly four years have passed since Rose Marks and Jordan Chandler were engaged. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to depose Rose Marks as to the location of Jordan Chandler, Plaintiff cannot possess a reasonable belief that Rose Marks has information relevant to this inquiry. Furthermore, there is no dispute that Rose Marks has no direct knowledge of any conduct involving Michael Jackson and either Jordan Chandler or Plaintiff.
...Chandler declares that she is the half-sister of Jordan Chandler. (Chandler Deel. ~ 3.) She also states that she has no specific memories of any interaction with Michael Jackson even though she has seen picture of herself. Jordan Chandler, and their mother with Michael Jackson. (Id.~ 5-6.) Chandler has no memory of any individuals that might have been employed by Michael Jackson when she was a child.
....The ultimate goal appears to be for Plaintiff to find and depose Jordan Chandler for the purpose of using evidence of Jordan Chandler's sexual abuse to assist in proving his own case of sexual abuse. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to admit character evidence, it would be inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1102(a).
....The Court has balanced the privacy rights of Chandler and Rose that implicate their familial relationships as well as Jordan Chandler's alleged childhood sexual abuse history along with the inherent intrusiveness of these lines of inquiries, against the interests of Plaintiff in obtaining this information from nonparties who have no direct knowledge of any sexual abuse, including alleged abuse of Plaintiff and Jordan Chandler. As a result, the Court determines that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the compelling need for their depositions.
The motion for a protective order is GRANTED. Plaintiff cannot depose Lily Chandler and Tabitha Rose Marks in this matter
In March 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order regarding the conduct of defense counsel during the deposition of third party Leroy Whaley.
Plaintiff (Finaldi and co.) seeks $8,194.38 in monetary sanctions against Suann Macisaac and Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump & Aldisert LLP.
(Either the document is incomplete, or a ruling on this is awaited....)
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 25, 2020 16:37:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 28, 2020 5:11:52 GMT
First hand information from the courtroom from a fan who was there. Thread.
I find this remark by the Chandler lawyer interesting. Not exactly the kind of support you see victims of the same predator in other cases giving each other. It's kind of unique to this case as well that alleged victims aren't really keen to help each other, they are all just out for themselves, even making such remarks, which is very telling to me.
ETA:
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Sept 28, 2020 14:10:43 GMT
First hand information from the courtroom from a fan who was there. Thread. I find this remark by the Chandler lawyer interesting. Not exactly the kind of support you see victims of the same predator in other cases giving each other. It's kind of unique to this case as well that alleged victims aren't really keen to help each other, they are all just out for themselves, even making such remarks, which is very telling to me. ETA: Yes, it is indeed unprecedented behaviour for "victims." Look at the Epstein victims, Weinstein victims, Savil victims, they all banded together. Not even Arvizo wants anything to do with this bullshit.
|
|