|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Sept 23, 2024 10:58:38 GMT
I agree. I dont think frank etc were about to go public. I presume this second request for money was quite recent? So they were waiting for a responce and this is the response the estate gave.if i were them i would be worried about the legal ramifications, something they prob didnt think of in their greed.Dont want to temp fate but maybe the mainstream arent reporting it much because they are waiting for the cascios to speak ( hopefully they wont as they are worried about the legal side) as reporting the estates version makes the cascios look look extortionists and the media dont want that. In the uk the media are obsessed with al fayed and his supposed crimes. So good timing in that aspect
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 23, 2024 11:22:52 GMT
I agree. I dont think frank etc were about to go public. I presume this second request for money was quite recent? It was in January. Around the time the Estate was negotiating the catalog sale with Sony. Apparently the Cascio's extortion was that they would go to Sony and tell them about their allegations so the risk attached to MJ's name then would undermine the deal. (Again, perfectly normal victim behavior, I guess.) Someone on X dug up some legal website about extortion and apparently it's only punishable in California if you already paid money to the extortionist, not before, which is quite surprising to me. I mean why is the threat and intent, if probable, not enough? Anyway, maybe that they are reporting now has to do with that first they needed to collect the proper evidence, and maybe even pay them something, to be able to report them. ETA: Here are the legal requirements of criminal extortion charges. It does say you actually have to hand over the money: www.chamberslawfirmca.com/what-is-extortion/
|
|
Suki
Wondering Who
Posts: 50
|
Post by Suki on Sept 23, 2024 11:27:05 GMT
I wonder if the estate released the story to pip them to the post? My guess is they were trying to deflate the impact of them going public by getting the story out first. Which means they will almost certainly do something public now the story is out, like an interview or joining the LN bozo's. Reed didn't seem to know before the news broke, so I doubt they went to him. IMO they didn't go to anyone but the Estate, which is another giveaway. I mean if you say your trigger was LN to suddenly realize you were abused isn't the more natural next step would be to contact the other accusers' lawyer? If you go to the Estate that's with one and only one purpose in mind: extorting them. Of course, I think that Wade and James are also extortionists at the end of the day, but they are playing it much smarter than the Cascios. I can't help but thinking what the Cascios pulled here is incredibly stupid and gives more ammunition to the Estate to fight them and in fact it can even end up very badly for the Cascios (jail) if the extortion can be proven and it stands. Regarding why the Estate chose to go public with it, if the Cascios were already in the process of going public and they head to beat them to it? That's one possible explanation, but there are others. Like for example that the Estate reportered the extortion to law enforcement and started the civil arbitration process, so it would have been out sooner and later now and they wanted it to be out on their own terms. Maybe I'm completely wrong but I somehow don't think the Cascios were in the process of going public, in fact I think what the Estate pulled here might have caught them completely off guard. The Financial Times tried to contact them for their article, but they declined. Frank was still selling MJ memorabilia on an auction website less than a month ago, dubbing himself as a close friend of MJ. This doesn't show me that they were preparing something. Absolutely. They were testing the estate’s bluff and never anticipated Branca would go public. This must have caught them completely off guard.
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Sept 23, 2024 12:34:15 GMT
I agree. I dont think frank etc were about to go public. I presume this second request for money was quite recent? It was in January. Around the time the Estate was negotiating the catalog sale with Sony. Apparently the Cascio's extortion was that they would go to Sony and tell them about their allegations so the risk attached to MJ's name then would undermine the deal. (Again, perfectly normal victim behavior, I guess.) Someone on X dug up some legal website about extortion and apparently it's only punishable in California if you already paid money to the extortionist, not before, which is quite surprising to me. I mean why is the threat and intent, if probable, not enough? Anyway, maybe that they are reporting now has to do with that first they needed to collect the proper evidence, and maybe even pay them something, to be able to report them. ETA: Here are the legal requirements of criminal extortion charges. It does say you actually have to hand over the money: www.chamberslawfirmca.com/what-is-extortion/But they did already pay money in the original settlement from 2020? Could there be legal ramifications from them threatening to speak out and breaking the agreement of the original settlement? There must be some grounds for a case, otherwise the settlement wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.
|
|
|
Post by abbeycodi on Sept 23, 2024 13:44:38 GMT
Is it possible that none of this is true… the fact that something huge like this isn't getting picked up is highly unlikely… I know there is other drama going on (Janet’s Guardian interview) but god, I can't imagine why the mainstream media isn't using this as more fodder for anti-MJ/Jackson family propaganda. Idk something just seems off about the way the news was dropped and never gained traction. Could it be because it's not legit?
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 23, 2024 14:31:55 GMT
Is it possible that none of this is true… the fact that something huge like this isn't getting picked up is highly unlikely… I know there is other drama going on (Janet’s Guardian interview) but god, I can't imagine why the mainstream media isn't using this as more fodder for anti-MJ/Jackson family propaganda. Idk something just seems off about the way the news was dropped and never gained traction. Could it be because it's not legit? It's legit. The Financial Times is not a rag and they did talk to the Estate according to this disclaimer at the end of their article:
|
|
|
Post by abbeycodi on Sept 23, 2024 15:15:50 GMT
Is it possible that none of this is true… the fact that something huge like this isn't getting picked up is highly unlikely… I know there is other drama going on (Janet’s Guardian interview) but god, I can't imagine why the mainstream media isn't using this as more fodder for anti-MJ/Jackson family propaganda. Idk something just seems off about the way the news was dropped and never gained traction. Could it be because it's not legit? It's legit. The Financial Times is not a rag and they did talk to the Estate according to this disclaimer at the end of their article: hmm… only time will tell i guess. I just hope this doesn’t lead to the new accusers doing some sort of high profile exposé or a dramatic sit down interview. I know NDAs were signed, but given the estate broke the story does that make them moot?
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 23, 2024 16:16:25 GMT
They broke the story on the extortion and that they are related to allegations of inappropriate conduct by MJ, but not about what the actual content and details of those allegations are or even who the accusers are (although those in the know could guess from the hints).
|
|
|
Post by kelley on Sept 23, 2024 20:37:18 GMT
Is it possible that none of this is true… the fact that something huge like this isn't getting picked up is highly unlikely… I know there is other drama going on (Janet’s Guardian interview) but god, I can't imagine why the mainstream media isn't using this as more fodder for anti-MJ/Jackson family propaganda. Idk something just seems off about the way the news was dropped and never gained traction. Could it be because it's not legit? It's legit. The Financial Times is not a rag and they did talk to the Estate according to this disclaimer at the end of their article:
What if they didn't talk to the estate, but someone pretending to be from the estate?
This reddit thread makes a lot of good points.
Like the part about Branca claiming they lost a deal with Nike and 2 Banks. When did they ever have a Deal with Nike? Maybe I just missed it, but I don't recall there ever being a connection there or with any banks.
Also, the financial times claims The estate was reporting how much they've made since Mjs death for the first time. That is NOT true. The amount has been told several times before, every year actually when the estate reports their figures for the year.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 24, 2024 2:26:26 GMT
It's legit. The Financial Times is not a rag and they did talk to the Estate according to this disclaimer at the end of their article:
What if they didn't talk to the estate, but someone pretending to be from the estate?
This reddit thread makes a lot of good points.
Like the part about Branca claiming they lost a deal with Nike and 2 Banks. When did they ever have a Deal with Nike? Maybe I just missed it, but I don't recall there ever being a connection there or with any banks.
Also, the financial times claims The estate was reporting how much they've made since Mjs death for the first time. That is NOT true. The amount has been told several times before, every year actually when the estate reports their figures for the year.
I don't think most of those are good points at all. 1. I have no idea why MJVibe deleted the article that he obviously wrote based on the article by Brown and/or the FT, but it's a site by a fan (Pez), not someone with inside or firsthand knowledge, so it bears no significance that he deleted it. 2. Roger Friedman is a Cascio pal, it's pretty understandable that he's not the journalist the Estate chose to leak this to. 3. Most of the points are about how Stacy Brown is not credible, which I do agree with historically, however recently he seems to have switched sides and be in communication with Branca. I have no idea how and why that connection came about but I noticed it a few weeks ago when he published another article on the Estate which was very positive and as if fed by Branca. Probably because it was. Here's the article from September 4: www.washingtoninformer.com/michael-jackson-estate-surpasses-2-billion/4. It's not just Brown who confirmed it. The Financial Times has a disclaimer at the end of their article saying they talked to the Estate. I don't know about the Nike stuff and whether that's a mistake in the article or something that was worked on but we don't know about because it fell through or something. The article wasn't straight up written by the Estate, just information given about the matter. It probably has parts that the journalist herself filled in based on her own "research" and some of those parts might be wrong. So it's possible that's how that Nike thing came about. Or indeed it was something that was in the works at the times but fell through. But in any way I don't think that in itself undermines the claim that they did talk to the Estate. And if they did and if Brown's article (based on which the FT seemed to have contacted them) was fake news then the Estate would have said so. They obviously haven't. Skepticism in the media is generally warranted, however a newspaper of the FT's status isn't likely to make up claims about having talked to the Estate if they haven't. There's also an argument in that fan comment on Reddit about how the sum is not in Estate accountings. With all do respect to Seany (as he is the writer): how does he know? Has he actually seen the Estate accounts of late? Because I haven't seen one since Ivy hasn't posted them which was many, many years ago. Also one argument compares this deal of $16 million to the $600 million catalog deal with Sony and says that if that had to be approved by Court so this $16 million deal should have been. First of all we don't know if it was or wasn't. Secondly it's not the same level as the catalog deal, the Court's attention will not be the same level either. Thirdly according to the article the deal under which the payment was hidden is a deal about buying "life rights" and consulting. I doubt the Court micromanages such deals. But again, how does Seany even know what's in the accounting or what was discussed with the Probate Court regarding this? We only know about what is discussed re the catalog sale because Katherine challenged it in litigation. Another thing to point out that when journalists want to make up fake news about new allegations (as Brown indeed has done in the past) they will refer to phantom victims, not easily identifiable real people who could come out and refute it. This story is way too concrete to be fake, IMO. I feel that some fans are just desperate to be in denial about this, but I prefer to face the problems than be in denial about them.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Sept 24, 2024 5:09:37 GMT
If Eddie and Frank had no morals and qualms to profit off Michael selling fake MJ songs or selling forgotten underwear, what would stop them from making up false allegations of abuse to pursuit millions of dollars? The only thing that surprises me is that their parents didn't try to stop them (unless they're just as amoral and twisted as Eddie and Frank) from going to the dark and greedy side betraying the very person they considered part of their family for so long in the worst possible way.
Michael was one of the kindest and sweetest human beings that ever lived in this world and I can't believe the amount of evil, greed and cruelty he still gets in return, it's so unfair and ironic. I'll never understand it even if humans have shown time and time again the pieces of shit they truly are. He doesn't deserve any of it.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Sept 24, 2024 7:26:06 GMT
What if they didn't talk to the estate, but someone pretending to be from the estate?
This reddit thread makes a lot of good points.
Like the part about Branca claiming they lost a deal with Nike and 2 Banks. When did they ever have a Deal with Nike? Maybe I just missed it, but I don't recall there ever being a connection there or with any banks.
Also, the financial times claims The estate was reporting how much they've made since Mjs death for the first time. That is NOT true. The amount has been told several times before, every year actually when the estate reports their figures for the year.
I don't think most of those are good points at all. 1. I have no idea why MJVibe deleted the article that he obviously wrote based on the article by Brown and/or the FT, but it's a site by a fan (Pez), not someone with inside or firsthand knowledge, so it bears no significance that he deleted it. 2. Roger Friedman is a Cascio pal, it's pretty understandable that he's not the journalist the Estate chose to leak this to. 3. Most of the points are about how Stacy Brown is not credible, which I do agree with historically, however recently he seems to have switched sides and be in communication with Branca. I have no idea how and why that connection came about but I noticed it a few weeks ago when he published another article on the Estate which was very positive and as if fed by Branca. Probably because it was. Here's the article from September 4: www.washingtoninformer.com/michael-jackson-estate-surpasses-2-billion/4. It's not just Brown who confirmed it. The Financial Times has a disclaimer at the end of their article saying they talked to the Estate. I don't know about the Nike stuff and whether that's a mistake in the article or something that was worked on but we don't know about because it fell through or something. The article wasn't straight up written by the Estate, just information given about the matter. It probably has parts that the journalist herself filled in based on her own "research" and some of those parts might be wrong. So it's possible that's how that Nike thing came about. Or indeed it was something that was in the works at the times but fell through. But in any way I don't think that in itself undermines the claim that they did talk to the Estate. And if they did and if Brown's article (based on which the FT seemed to have contacted them) was fake news then the Estate would have said so. They obviously haven't. Skepticism in the media is generally warranted, however a newspaper of the FT's status isn't likely to make up claims about having talked to the Estate if they haven't. There's also an argument in that fan comment on Reddit about how the sum is not in Estate accountings. With all do respect to Seany (as he is the writer): how does he know? Has he actually seen the Estate accounts of late? Because I haven't seen one since Ivy hasn't posted them which was many, many years ago. Also one argument compares this deal of $16 million to the $600 million catalog deal with Sony and says that if that had to be approved by Court so this $16 million deal should have been. First of all we don't know if it was or wasn't. Secondly it's not the same level as the catalog deal, the Court's attention will not be the same level either. Thirdly according to the article the deal under which the payment was hidden is a deal about buying "life rights" and consulting. I doubt the Court micromanages such deals. But again, how does Seany even know what's in the accounting or what was discussed with the Probate Court regarding this? We only know about what is discussed re the catalog sale because Katherine challenged it in litigation. Another thing to point out that when journalists want to make up fake news about new allegations (as Brown indeed has done in the past) they will refer to phantom victims, not easily identifiable real people who could come out and refute it. This story is way too concrete to be fake, IMO. I feel that some fans are just desperate to be in denial about this, but I prefer to face the problems than be in denial about them. And if this was false. And although they arent named,but obviously them. You think they would be inclined to denie it. I did wonder at the begining consodering browns involvement but tbh wishful thinking
|
|
|
Post by ShadowDeeps on Sept 25, 2024 23:36:42 GMT
x.com/i/broadcasts/1yNGagRWQzgxjSo, Stacy Brown has made a new video about the latest development. He talks about it for 20 minutes or so before moving onto Janet Jackson’s ill-informed comments about Kamala Harris. Stacy makes several erroneous and contradictory comments which may call his coverage of the legal battle into question. In the original story, it was said the Cascios threatened the Estate with salacious stories in 2019, which is why they immediately paid them. In this version, he says the Estate (or Branca) happily paid them $15 million for positive publicity which never truly surfaced. No mentions of any threats were made until *recently* with the $213 million extortion claim, which contradicts the original story. He also mentions Michael only being acquitted on 13 charges instead of 14 including the misdemeanors but that’s an easy error to make I suppose. He also claims he broke the original story - wasn’t it the Financial Times, or they both talked to John Branca and basically broke it simultaneously? He does confirm in a round-about way the accusers are the Cascios, says he’s not here to defend Michael and has no problem with people believing or disbelieving the allegations, extends sympathies to Safechuck for whatever reason and goes on an odd tangent about James never publicly defending Michael despite the sworn declarations defending MJ’s innocence and all the other inconsistencies in the allegations, and makes another big contradiction - he says Prince Jackson requested the Estate stop the payouts to the Cascios. Doesn’t that contradict the original story of no one knowing about the settlement? And he also tries to make a point about it being about the beneficiaries - Michael’s three children - and not Michael. Honestly, I don’t know what to think at this point. Stacy Brown was pro prosecution, anti-Jackson for a long time and has been known to exaggerate claims. For someone who has been posting positive articles recently, he doesn’t sound like he’s in MJ’s camp based on this video. Not that I harbor a great deal of concern as to whether or not Stacy Brown likes MJ or not, but I’m wondering about whether his coverage of the story can be trusted based on his history and contradictions. He also says John Branca should be “applauded” based on his financial success with the Estate as executor. Or does the Financial Times have the more accurate take? They probably know no more than Stacy does. I find it bizarre the mainstream media and tabloids, known for their intense inclination to peddle anything and everything anti-MJ (regardless of its merit), haven’t really picked up on it. Do they need “more information” ? Do they want the plaintiff’s side of the story and only the plaintiff’s side? They had no problem peddling Janet’s “guilty by association” comments before the Janet documentary was released. They practically do that with any anti-MJ information (valid or not), but not this. If none of this is actually true, perhaps the Estate and the Cascios haven’t denied it so as to not draw more attention to it. Of course that’s wishful thinking, and it’s more likely than not a true story.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 26, 2024 2:43:31 GMT
I don't know if the details of the story as reported by Stacy Brown are completely accurate. Like for example about what the original contract was about. Obviously he can't be fully trusted based on his past, however he does seem to be in contact with Branca. You said it, he's praising Branca, that was also the main point of his other article on September 4. That's a dead giveaway that they are in contact. All these articles in the past fed by Branca, for example in the Forbes, have this pattern: praising Branca about how he turned the Estate around.
And this extortion story does seem to be fed by Branca as well. Has Brown twisted some details of it (like what the contradiction about what the original contract was for)? Possible. But I doubt he made it all up and this story has nothing real to be based on. So probably there's an extortion going on. As to the details, we will see.
I have to admit the way it came out is odd and especially Branca's choice of an outlet. I don't know why Branca chose SB and what it means, but he does seem be the source of the article. I really hope Branca isn't throwing MJ under the bus here to save his own face. What I mean is, that if, for example, the extortion isn't about CSA at all but the songs. That the Cascios threatened Branca to go to Sony to tell them he knew the songs were fake and Branca is making it about something else in public in order to deflect from his own fuck-up. This crossed my mind, but I treat it as very conspiracy level stuff for now. With such an extortion the Cascios would admit that the songs were fake and incriminate themselves as well. (Although since Jason Malachi's attorney already admitted Jason's involvement, maybe that wouldn't be a big step any more.) But I wouldn't be surprised if somehow the fake songs issue is also involved in this and is at least a part of the extortion.
Oh, and yes, Stacy Brown broke the story, not the Financial Times. The FT only went after it after Brown published his article. And I don't think they made it up that they too talked to the Estate. A FT level paper wouldn't make something like that up. So again, that confirms the core story is real, or at least, let's put it this way then, that Branca did confirm this story.
As to why the media hasn't jumped on it. They usually only jump on stories that come from sides hostile to MJ, not on stories that come from his own Estate. I have to say it's again telling about the incompetence of the Estate's communication that they don't have high profile, decent media contacts. Roger Friedman and Stacy Brown are their go to journalists. Says it all... 🙄
|
|
|
Post by butterflies2 on Sept 26, 2024 2:51:45 GMT
I don't know if the details of the story as reported by Stacy Brown are completely accurate. Like for example about what the original contract was about. Obviously he can't be fully trusted based on his past, however he does seem to be in contact with Branca. You said it, he's praising Branca, that was also the main point of his other article on September 4. That's a dead giveaway that they are in contact. All these articles in the past fed by Branca, for example in the Forbes, have this pattern: praising Branca about how he turned the Estate around. And this extortion story does seem to be fed by Branca as well. Has Brown twisted some details of it (like what the contradiction about what the original contract was for)? Possible. But I doubt he made it all up and this story has nothing real to be based on. So probably there's an extortion going on. As to the details, we will see. I have to admit the way it came out is odd and especially Branca's choice of an outlet. I don't know why Branca chose SB and what it means, but he does seem be the source of the article. I really hope Branca isn't throwing MJ under the bus here to save his own face. What I mean is, that if, for example, the extortion isn't about CSA at all but the songs. That the Cascios threatened Branca to go to Sony to tell them he knew the songs were fake and Branca is making it about something else in public in order to deflect from his own fuck-up. This crossed my mind, but I treat it as very conspiracy level stuff for now. With such an extortion the Cascios would admit that the songs were fake and incriminate themselves as well. (Although since Jason Malachi's attorney already admitted Jason's involvement, maybe that wouldn't be a big step any more.) But I wouldn't be surprised if somehow the fake songs issue is also involved in this. Oh, and yes, Stacy Brown broke the story, not the Financial Times. The FT only went after it after Brown published his article. And I don't think they made it up that they too talked to the Estate. A FT level paper wouldn't make something like that up. So again, that confirms the core story is real, or at least, let's put it this way then, that Branch did confirm this story. As to why the media hasn't jumped on it. They usually only jump on stories that come from sides hostile to MJ, not on stories that come from his own Estate. I hope it remains an underreported story. Mj doesn’t need to be dragged further
|
|