Wrong again, Michael didn't cross collateralize his publishing. Sony Music and Sony Music Publishing are two seperate entities. Michael's performance sales-wise, has no bearing on his ownership of the catalog.

Bashir plans to broadcast damaging new film on 'Michael Jackson's Secret World'
By John Hiscock in Los Angeles13 February 2005


British television interviewer Martin Bashir, whose documentary Living With Michael Jackson led to the current molestation charges against the entertainer, is putting the finishing touches to another film which is reported to be equally damaging to Jackson.

Called Michael Jackson's Secret World, it is being kept under close wraps by the ABC network, for whom Bashir now works, but is said to contain video footage showing Jackson with young boys, including the one at the heart of the current criminal trial. Not surprisingly, Jackson did not provide a new interview. The two-hour programme, described by insiders as "still a work in progress" is due to be shown in the US on Thursday.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old former cancer patient, giving the boy alcohol, and conspiring to hold him and his family captive. He faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. Jury selection in the case continues tomorrow.

On Friday ABC broadcast a much-publicised television interview by Bashir with the former child actor Corey Feldman, who talked about visiting Jackson's home when he was a young teenager and seeing pictures of naked men and women. Feldman, who, like the interviewer, has been subpoenaed by prosecutors to testify against Jackson, told Bashir on the ABC news programme 20/20 that he went to the singer's home when he was 13 or 14 and saw a book on the coffee table with pictures of naked men and women.

"The book was focused on venereal diseases and the genitalia," he said. "And he sat down with me and he explained it to me, showed me some different pictures and discussed what those meant.

"I was kind of grossed out by it," he told Bashir. "But I didn't think of it as a big deal, and for all these years I probably never thought twice about it. But in light of recent evidence, I have to say that if my son was 13 or 14 years old and went to a man's apartment and I knew they were sitting down together talking about this, I would probably beat his ass." Feldman, whose fee for the interview - if any - is unknown, said he hoped the allegations against Jackson were proved false, but felt compelled to speak out.

The former child actor's statements are inconsistent with previous comments he had made, such as when he told CNN interviewer Larry King in November 2003 that he had never seen Jackson "act in any inappropriate way to a child. Never with me." Feldman, 33, who starred in the 1980s films Stand By Me and The Goonies and was arrested for heroin possession in 1990, said he was coming forward now because he started "looking at each piece of information ... and with that came this sickening realisation that there have been many occurrences in my life and in my relationship to Michael that have created a question of doubt."

He stopped short of accusing Jackson of molesting him, saying: "He never harmed me and he never harmed any children in front of me." He told Bashir that he defended Jackson in an interview with the police investigating molestation allegations that involved another boy in 1993. "I did what I believed was right as a friend," said Feldman. "I defended him up and down. I said, 'No, he's not gay. No, he's not a weirdo.'"

The new ABC film will reportedly use film taken when Bashir was allowed prolonged access to the star's life. That 2003 programme showed Jackson admitting sharing his bed with young boys and holding hands with Gavin Arvizo, now his chief accuser. Its broadcast and the reaction to it prompted the investigation that has led to the current case.

Last week, Geraldo Rivera told his US viewers that Jackson now concedes that sharing his bed with children was wrong. He also said that Jackson plans to "unmask" his three children for the cameras at some point during the trial.

The defence also intends calling former child stars Macaulay Culkin, who stayed with Jackson when he was a boy, and Oliver! star Mark Lester. He, like Jackson, knew fame at an early age, and the pair have been friends for many years. Jackson is godfather to all four of Lester's children.

http://news.independent.c...ory=610600

SquarePeg said:

He's just doing it so he doesn't have to testify in court...

Theirs gotta be a stop to these documenteries, their tampering with the Jury settings...

Its bad enough the first one led to this mess,

He's going to make a second one, to Tamper with Jury Proceedings, c'mon now...

this is getting sickening...

God i hate Journalist, those Slimey serpants...

Luv4oneanotha said:

I don't think MJ should be talking to the press right now either. He can't have it both ways. If he's gonna be out there trying to influence potential jurors (it's not improper per se, I know he's fighting for his freedom), then his detractors are definitely going to do so as well.

I doubt much can be done to stop Bashir.

What a joke this case is.


http://www.foxnews.com/st...48,00.html

Jackson 'Kidnap' Victims Lived It Up

Yesterday there were reports that Michael Jackson's band of "kidnappers" held a mother and her three kids (two sons and a daughter) "hostage" at the Country Inn and Suites in Calabasas, Calif., in February, 2003. Calabasas is a beautiful, verdant suburb of Los Angeles, replete with million-dollar homes and gated communities. It's not exactly a back alley in South Central.

Several weeks after their expulsion from Neverland and Jackson's world, the family told a lawyer that the elder son, 13, had been molested by Jackson and that he had also held the family hostage.

Prosecutors may have trouble with this episode if they ask the mother or kids exactly what they did during their "hostage" period. I have seen receipts that show the family had a telephone in their hotel room and used it constantly during their five-night stay. They also went to at least one movie at the Calabasas Edwards Cineplex 6, ate ice cream at a Cold Stone Creamery, and had several meals at an Outback Steak House.


They walked to all these places, during which time any of the four family members could have asked for help if they were in trouble.

"The mother loved Outback and wanted to eat there all the time," my source says. She also patronized Anchor Blue (a chain store) and shopped almost continually at stores such as Robinson-May, Banana Republic, Wilson's Leather and Pacific Sunwear. She may have also scored a hostage first when she got a manicure and pedicure for herself and her teenage daughter ($51) before dining at Panda Express.

The Calabasas Country Inn adventure took place between Feb. 25 and March 2, 2003, away from Neverland and Michael Jackson. This would certainly cut almost a week out of District Attorney Tom Sneddon's accusation that Jackson molested the then-13-year-old boy between Feb. 20 and March 10.

Why did the family go along to Calabasas in the first place? After they were featured in the Martin Bashir documentary "Living with Michael Jackson," the family experienced a firestorm of bad publicity. For two weeks they stayed with Jackson, safely away from prying eyes behind the gates of Neverland. During that time the mother evidently quarreled with Jackson's manager, Dieter Wiesner. She was incensed that her kids were featured in the Bashir piece without her signing a release, and angry that they were never paid for it. She wanted some kind of remuneration. She told Jackson she wanted him to buy her an apartment in Solvang, which is near Neverland and far from the grubby East Los Angeles flat she had abandoned.

But Jackson had a different idea. My source says that he preferred to have the whole family leave, and asked his partner and videographer Marc Schaffel to take the mother apartment-hunting closer to L.A. Schaffel, who has still never met the mother or the children, assigned Frank Tyson and Vincent Amen, two slightly built and amiable 22-year-olds, to chauffeur them and buy whatever they needed. (As far as anyone knows, no complaint or charge has been filed alleging that either of these men carried a weapon of any kind. Just a charge card.)

According to the meticulous receipts kept during the adventure, most of the week was spent outside the hotel. The receipts show the group moved constantly during the day, and real estate hunting was mixed with eating and shopping, which are activities not generally associated with kidnapping.

But even that wouldn't have been so bad. Room 300 of the Country Inn, where the family stayed, is a duplex with two bedrooms, a loft and a kitchen. It also had a big-screen TV, and they watched three pay-for-view movies.

On most days, the mother made more than a dozen calls to her children's school, five to her parents and others to her boyfriend (a U.S. Army major who worked in Westwood, about 30 minutes away). They were not short calls, either. Several of them — all to the L.A. area — cost $24 or more, with one hitting the $46 mark. Presumably, if the mother had mentioned that she and the children were being held hostage or against their will, someone might have alerted the authorities.

The family's schedule was a tight one during their "kidnapping." On the afternoon of March 1, for example, the day consisted of a meal at 4 p.m. at Johnny Rockets ($33), followed by a 5:14 p.m. stop at Anchor Blue to buy knit tops (two for $24). Later, a 5:55 p.m. snack stop at the Topanga Canyon Mall (coffee, water, Snapple) was followed by a 6:40 p.m. appearance at Baskin-Robbins ($9). And at 7 p.m., the mother and her kids took in the movie "Old School" at the theater across from the hotel, racking up $32 in concessions. They topped the night off with another visit to Johnny Rockets ($26).

Jackson’s lawyers will try to portray him as trying to relocate the family to be rid of them, paying through the nose all the way. How else to explain a $415 charge at Banana Republic on Feb. 26, the same day the mother also spent $454 on Jockey underwear and $450 at the Jeans Outlet? On that night, the family also managed to dine for $175 at the Black Angus Restaurant in Woodland Hills before they were "forced" in a "conspiracy" to return to their plush digs.

The family — which at the time had made no allegations against Jackson and considered him their friend and "daddy" — was brought to Calabasas for a few days to do errands in Los Angeles. The charges were made to a credit card belonging to Schaffel, and are clearly evidenced on credit card bills, which may be significant.

"It's not like they used cash for a stealth mission," my source continued.

They had two missions during their stay in the Los Angeles area. One was apartment hunting. The other was procuring passports for a trip to Brazil. The prosecution will probably claim in its case that Schaffel and his team were going to spirit the family to Brazil and keep them there against their will. But my sources say the family was keen to go on a short vacation out of the country, where the mother would be far from journalists' questions about the Bashir documentary, and that the mother could have easily vetoed the trip by simply saying no. And her boyfriend (who is now her husband) could have called the police if he thought something was wrong. He did not.

Indeed, apparently at the passport office the mother cut a long line, saying, "Don't you know who we are? We're friends of Michael Jackson!"

namepeace said:

In my personal opinion i believe he shouldn't be able to do anything, and neither Should the Prosectuion...

cause it tips the balances of a fair trial...

And the media is turning into a Circus...
everyone wan'ts a piece of the action...
it doesn't matter if it disrupts the fairness...

This is the very same Reason Melville won't allow the media in court

Because they don't know how to behave themselves!
Especially when its about Michael Jackson,

Snap said:

1. Corey Feldman is not a reliable source, cause well...
He's Corey Feldman, it doesn't matter if he's telling the truth
He's probably just trying to get back at His "Megaloman" because of the 9/11 incident.
2. They weren't Dirty Pictures, IT WAS A MEDICAL BOOK!, of MALE AND FEMALE VD victims, Mj was always one of the Medical and Germ Freaks..., Feldman never referred to playboy or Penthouse, a source of CJ, claimed that Jackson showed feldman playboys, Feldman Specifically said a VD Book, now i dunno what twisted freaks you know of, but i don't know of any cases of pedophiles using medical books for seducing minors, lol
3. Corey Feldman, was paid and anonymous sum to give that interview...
and he's also being paid to be a wittness...
but Judge Melville is skeptical of letting him testify because HE's a POOR witness...

Snap said:

Take a breath. I was trying to temper the story with a few factors. I'll elaborate.

First, Corey Feldman is a running punch line, and regardless of whether he is telling the truth, people will invariably look at this as his attempt to grab the headlines, maybe some quick cash, and settle an old score. You know that. Whether he's telling the truth has nothing to do with it.

Second, it IS a different story. I heard excerpts of the tape the other day on MSNBC (in an unholy alliance with Celebrity Justice, LOL), and Feldman was adamant that nothing inappropriate happened during his time w/MJ. But apparently he omitted a key fact from his convo with the cops that could have extended the investigation. Maybe he "blocked" it out of his mind until recently. But it is a different story because it could have given the DA more ammo to proceed with the case back in '93.

Third, I don't disagree with you, but the fact that it was adult literature gives MJ some plausible deniability. "Sure, I had some Playboys around, (subtly emphasizing his heterosexuality), but he found them on his own, etc." Of course, the DA will say exactly what you said to prove a pattern and practice of inappropriate conduct with young boys.

The story is disturbing, but these are things to think about when weighing the story, because of course, a jury will hear all this stuff when Feldman gets on ths stand.

from MJEOL.com

lilgish said:

As for the last part, maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the website is referring to a ruling regarding whether the prejudicial effect of the testimony outweighs its probative nature. I'm not a criminal attorney, but if I were the DA, I would argue that Feldman's testimony is relevant in that it shows a pattern of conduct in conformity with the alleged wrongdoing, and I would let the jury evaluate his credibility. It is the jury, not the judge, that is the finder of fact. If the DA wants to put a witness on that could potentially prejudice his own case, that's up to him.

Does anyone remember the thread about this British guy who has met MJ several times when he was a teenager in the early 80s ( there are pictures) and has revealed that Jackson, during a phone conversation, talked to him about masturbation?

Does anyone remember that MJ wanted to float (sp?) his house with soda water?

jn2 said:

i believe that would be Terry George...
Terry george who i believe was 6 years younger than Jackson, interviewed Jackson several times, this was early 80's mind you
Terry told a story about i believe a 3 minute conversation which involved Masturbation...
Unfortunately the Tabloids got a hold of it, and blew everything way out of proportion claiming Jackson was Masturbating during the phonecall etc... and other nasty things...

Terry claims that the Convo was innocent because Jackson though of him as a friend, and friends are allowed to have conversations of that nature,
I believe he was 15 and jackson was 21 at the time,
Terry has been summoned by the courts, but is undecided if he will testify or not

MSNBC.com reports that Kobe Bryant, among others, are on MJ's witness list.

That could be a mistake. There not as many Kobe fans out there as there were 3 years ago.

namepeace said:

Well, according to some sources over 400 witnesses are listed, with quite some star power present. Here's a priliminary(sp?) list:

Defense

Michael's own children
Kobe Bryant
Liz Taylor
The Carter Brothers
David Blaine
Ed Bradley
Marlon Brando relatives
Jay Leno
Stevie Wonder
Barry Gibb
Diana Ross
Chris Tucker
Larry King
Maury Povich
Deepak Chopra
Quincy Jones
Rita Cosby
Frank Tyson
Thomas DS Sneddon
Mark Geragos
Uri Geller
Serena Williams
Steve Wynn
Brett Ratner

Prosecution

Debbie Rowe
Mark Geragos
Ben Brafman
The Chandler Family
Jason Francia


Other witnesses (most likely on both lists)

Martin Bashir

And some pictures from monday in court:

finally a decent picture.that one can look at..and he's using prince's stylist.

Pepina said:

Michael Jackson currently half-owns a percentage of the publishing rights for nearly allthe Beatles' songs.

You only had to do a quick Google to check your facts, you know.

In any case, Yoko Ono and Paul Mc.Cartney never "owned" all the songs to begin with, so there was never anything to "steal".

When the Beatles' publishing company, Northern Songs was created, it was owned by Beatles manager Brian Epstein, music publisher Dick James and the four Beatles.

In 1965, the Beatles were making so much money that they were getting taxed nearly as much as they earned. They were advised to sell some of their share in their publishing company. Lennon and Mc.Cartney each retained 15% of Northern Songs whilst Harrison and Starr kept hold of 1.6% between them.

The common misconception is that only the publishing company makes money from licensing songs - this isn't true. The publishing company receives 50% but the songwriter still receives 50% regardless of whom owns the songs.

The chairmen of Northern Songs publishing, Dick James and Charles Silver later sold their share of the company to the Associated Television Company in 1969. Both Lennon and Mc.Cartney had tried to buy this share of the company at this time. The head of ATV was Sir Lew Grade who later went on to produce The Muppet Show in the late seventies.

When ATV sold their (majority) share of Northern Songs to Jackson, he paid $47,000,000. Speculation persists that Mc.Cartney and Ono failed to bid because Mc.Cartney wanted to retrospectively change the songwriting credits (giving him a bigger share of royalties) and Ono wouldn't comply. Lennon and Mc.Cartney had an agreement that whenever a song of theirs was published by Northern Songs, that the song would be credited simply to "Lennon & Mc.Cartney" regardless of how much input the other had - even solo compositions like Mc.Cartney's "Yesterday" or the Lennon/Ono collaboration "Because". Whatever the reasons, both Mc.Cartney and Ono failed to purchase the controlling share of Northern Songs. The ATV sale not only included Northern Songs but around 4,000 other non-Beatles songs which Sir Lew Grade had acquired over the years.

Jackson later loaned exactly half the ATV music catalogue to Sony to raise (a reported) $100,000,000 in 1991. In 1995, a new agreement was formed, creating Sony/ATV Music Publishing which let Jackson keep his half and let Sony keep the other. Sony Publishing paid Jackson $95,000,000 to retain the share which they'd already given Jackson around $100,000,000 to "loan", four years earlier.

As the majority shareholder, Sony/ATV Music Publishing can use the music as it wishes but bear in mind that not only will Mc.Cartney receive his 50% in songwriting royalties but he'll also still receive 15% of publishing fees.

The British media has never inferred that Jackson "stole" the Beatles song catalogue away from Mc.Cartney and have certainly never made slurs against Jackson's purchase, because of his race.

The comparison between Roman Polanski and Michael Jackson is misleading too. Polanski was charged with under-age (consensual) sex with a teenager - not child molestation. If you want to make a comparison regarding how black and white celebrities are treated by the press (with regards to the Polanski case), a more suitable comparison would be R. Kelly.

Michael looked HOT YESTERDAY!!!!!

Is that True, Legal minds please explain, if so, that's good news for mike if he needs only one person for acquittal on charges.

lilgish said:

Well, it is true that they do need all 12 jury members for a conviction. They also need all 12 jury members for an acquittal. In case of a 'hung' jury, it's a not-guilty verdict, but he can be trialed again for the same charges in the future.

(or at least that's what i've read. Someone please correct me if i'm wrong)

Yeah, guys, someone plz explain. I don´t get it. If they need all 12 for guilty verdict or all 12 for innocent one, what are they gonna do if it ends up like half thinks he´s guilty and half innocent?

http://www.contactmusic.c...son%20plea

CULKIN'S EMOTIONAL JACKSON PLEA

MACAULAY CULKIN

Former child actor MACAULAY CULKIN has made a public plea in defence of his pal MICHAEL JACKSON - instead of testifying at the THRILLER singer's child molestation trial.

HOME ALONE star Culkin was one of five children named in a 1993 abuse investigation who were said to have slept in Jackson's bedroom.

And although Culkin, who is godfather to Jackson's first child PRINCE MICHAEL I, has been advised against defending the singer in court, he has issued a statement in which he insists people wrongly construe Jackson's innocent actions as paedophilic.

He says, "Nothing ever happened when I stayed there, we just played video games. Michael's bedroom is on two floors. Yeah, I slept in his bedroom, but you have to understand the whole scenario.

"He's not very good at explaining himself and he never has been, because he's not a very social person. When he says something, he doesn't quite understand why people treat him the way they do.

"I think he likes young people because they don't know who he is. I talked to him like he was a normal human being."

09/02/2005 14:07

Monday, February 14, 2005
By Roger Friedman

MJ's Straight, Says Singer Aaron Carter

Despite rumblings from his mother to the contrary, 17-year-old pop singer Aaron Carter says Michael Jackson is straight and that nothing inappropriate ever happened between them.

Carter, who is estranged from his mother, also told me that his brother Nick Carter of the Backstreet Boys did indeed hit pop tart Paris Hilton , as was intimated in many tabloid reports late last year.

"He hit her," Aaron told me on Sunday night at the big Grammy celebration party following the awards show, "and he hit me."

Aaron Carter plays BB King's in New York this Friday, and has all the aplomb and polish of a kid who's been working since he was five years old.

Sporting blond highlights and a 42-carat diamond-studded watch popular with rap stars, Carter also told me that he continues to be estranged from his mother and former manager, Jane Carter . He's just finished a new single for release later this month and is working on a new album due in June.

I liked Aaron Carter, which was unexpected. Being forced into the adult world at an early age has made him self-assured, opinionated and not a bit clueless. He told me that he did complete his G.E.D. for high school, but that brother Nick "is a drop-out."

He said of Jackson that the charges against him are false.

"He lives in isolation," Carter said. "He would never touch anyone."

However, Carter insisted that he thought Jackson liked women.

"He'll see a girl and comment on her," Carter said, "or want to touch her [bottom]. He likes girls."

Meantime, at Clive Davis's pre-Grammy party, Brett Ratner and star Chris Tucker reconfirmed for me that they will testify in Jackson's behalf.

"I will tell the truth," Tucker said, when it comes to his knowledge of Jackson's alleged victim and his family. Both men got to know the family well over a period of a couple of years.

I'm told, in fact, that Tucker was recently deposed for the case. His ex-girlfriend, who's also the mother of his son, has also been subpoenaed. She often babysat the alleged victim and his siblings when the mother "dumped" them with her so she could be with her then-boyfriend, now husband.

http://www.foxnews.com/st...94,00.html

namepeace said:

It doesn't matter how many "fans" he has. All that really matters is the "fan" that is known 2 us as the accuser.

BinaryJustin said:

Why are you quoting me when I didn't say that?

namepeace said:

Very funny.

Looking at the long-ass numbers in that long-ass post somewhere up there, makes me wish I owned the publishing rights to one single Beatles song.





...some day...

Say what you want about MJ...I said here on the org a couple of years ago and I'll still say it again..the beginning of the media backlash against Mike started with the acquisition of the Beatles catalog. It has nothing to do with what he is going through now with the trial and accusations.It should be apparent to anybody with a pulse that
the man got some serious mental problems, however the backlash from the
mainstram media started in 1985 when he picked up the rights to the
Beatles catalog.

I commend Mike for this...the Beatles catalog is an asset and Mike did
what he had to do to secure this investment. Notice the word INVESTMENT.
A lot of rappers and r&b artist who go out and buy all of these things
that DEpreciate can learn a thing or two from MJ.

If Mike would have gone out and bought 20 cadillacs and millons of dollars
worth of jewelry all would have been good after all that's what most black
artists do who have "made it".There's nothing per se wrong with that.
But nah Mike flipped it and got something
of true value...the catalog of The Fab Four. Hey that's good for him.

Black artists have been getting ripped off and their publishing and
catalog rights have been "owned" for years by white record company
managers, executives and the like. Mike outbidded everyone else.
and that's the way it is. Okay so he allowed "Revolution" to be used
in a Nike commercial, he who is the owner gets to call the shots.
The mainstream media and Beatles fans had a hissy fit back in the
1987 when those Nike's Revolution commercial aired. Yet, they don't
raise cane when they see James Brown songs used or Parliament
songs used in a commercial. People say John Lennon and Paul
McCartney never intended the lyrics to be used in the manner they
were used in the Nike commercial. Wonder how James feel seeing
his song "I Feel Good(I Got You)" in every doggone commercial(it seems) with
someone feeling good or elated about something..see where I'm
going with this.....



Brother 9/15

BRO915 said:

Thank u 4 ur Dr. Phil.