Skip to main content

Now, this topic is NOT to debate over irrelevant shyt such as his skin color, plastic surgery, or even his lifestyle...
...But PURELY the EVIDENCE!

I am gonna give you shyt from a defense standpoint - if you wanna play "prosecutor", cool! ...I'll have something for rebuttal!

...But let's just keep this on the "evidence" tip!

**************************

In favor of the defense (consider the 1993 and 2004 case):

The mother initially professing Michael as not being a "molester": [\b] Regarding the accuser, the mother of the boys CLEARLY supported Michael Jackson and made it known that she did not believe him to be any sort of child molester clear reference to fallout from the Bashir documentary, the boy's mother told investigators that "she believed the media had taken everything out of context," ...She now claims to now been co-hearsed by Michael's "crew" to say deny any that her child was being molested.

[b] The mother in the 1993 case rejecting the accusation of Michael molesting her child: [\b] From the beginning, the mother has declared not believing Michael to have molested her child, nor has she supported her ex-husband.

[b] Chandler, the father (1993) not being a neglectful dad: [\b] It is reported that Chandler owed over $50,000 in child support, and was never really even interested or involved in his son's life until his son met Michael Jackson.

[b] The relationship between Chandler (the dad) and Michael going sour: [\b] Michael became very much a part of the family's life, and was even seen as a "father figure" in the life of the boy and his mother - somewhat replacing Chandler ...Chandler also developed a "relationship" with Mike, trying to get Mike to build him a new home close to his (so they could be closer), and even attempting to work on projects with Mike (movie projects, since Chandler aspired to be as screenwriter rather than a dentist)), although Mike refused him. Chandler was audiotaped in a phone call (unknowingly) by the boy's stepfather (Schwartz) saying: "I had a good communication with Michael," Chandler told Schwartz. "We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want."

[b]The 1993 father's "plot" against Michael, and what was caught on tape:
Mr. Chandler (the boy's biological father) didn't realize he was being taped by the boy's stepfather, Mr. Schwartz:

Admitting to Schwartz that he had "been rehearsed" about what to say and what not to say, Chandler never mentioned money during their conversation. When Schwartz asked what Jackson had done that made Chandler so upset, Chandler alleged only that "he broke up the family. [The boy] has been seduced by this guy's power and money." Both men repeatedly berated themselves as poor fathers to the boy.
Elsewhere on the tape, Chandler indicated he was prepared to move against Jackson: "It's already set," Chandler told Schwartz. "There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I've paid them to do it. Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy [his attorney, Barry K. Rothman, presumably] is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I've given him full authority to do that."
Chandler then predicted what would, in fact, transpire six weeks later: "And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]...and Michael's career will be over."
"Does that help [the boy]?" Schwartz asked.
"That's irrelevant to me," Chandler replied. "It's going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want."

The 1993 boy refusing to testify: Chandler's son refused to testify (and that refusal lead to Sneddon making it now where children MUST testify in molestation cases in Santa Barbara)...

Both boys in the 2004 case inititially claimed to NOT have been molested in any way by Michael: when the child was questioned in February by a social worker assigned to the Sensitive Case Unit of L.A.'s Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS), he "denied any form of sexual abuse" by Jackson and said that he never "slept in the same bed as the entertainer." ...The memo notes that the boy, now 14, and his 12-year-old brother--who also denied sexual abuse--expressed "a fondness for the entertainer and stated they enjoyed visiting his home, where they would often ride in the park, play video games, and watch movies." The pair's sister, now 17, told a social worker that she accompanied the boys on "sleepovers at the entertainers home," but had "never seen anything sexually inappropriate between her brothers and the entertainer."
In the 1993 case, the boy answered "No" when questioned the first 2 times on whether or not Michael had done anything inappropriate to him ...It was only when the child was in the psychiatrist's chair (a psychiatrist that was "linked" with his father, Chandler), that the boy gave a story of being molested ...It was also said that the boy was administered a drug that was proclaimed illegal to use in dentistry, a drug known for causes folks to "lie", or "fabricate stories"...

DCFS Finding NO FINDINGS of molestation: The joint probe by DCFS and the Los Angeles Police Department ran from February 14-27 and, the memo states, the "investigation by the Sensitive Case Unit concluded the allegations of neglect and sexual abuse to be unfounded both by the LAPD-Wilshire Division and the Department." For more detailed info on the memo, go to: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dcfsmemo1.html
When an investigation is closed, child welfare officials can summarize their findings in one of three ways. If evidence is found to support abuse charges, the case is marked "substantiated." A case is termed "not substantiated" when evidence discovered is not sufficient to support allegations (though the charges may, in fact, be true). Finally, a matter is branded "unfounded" when officials determine there is no merit to the allegations.

Sneddon and his "personal vendetta" against Michael : The defense lawyers have asserted that Mr. Sneddon is "blinded by his zeal to convict Michael Jackson" and that the personal bias and conflict he has in prosecuting this case is "so grave it is unlikely that Mr. Jackson will receive a fair trial." Mr. Jackson's defense team, led by Thomas Mesereau, accuses Mr. Sneddon having a vendetta because the prosecutor was unable to file child molestation charges against the entertainer a decade ago. That case crumbled when the young accuser's family accepted a multimillion-dollar settlement in a simultaneous civil suit and then refused to testify.
Mr. Jackson's lawyers "claim the District Attorney has had a nearly decade-long grudge against him because he received 'sharp criticism' for not filing charges against the defendant resulting from the 1993-1994 investigation," Mr. Matthews stated. "But (Mr. Jackson's lawyers) merely speculate that any of the District Attorney's ˜zeal' was in fact a long-delayed reaction to any 'sharp criticism' he may have received. In fact, such zeal is much more likely attributed to the deep and abiding conviction of the District Attorney in the strong evidence supporting defendant's guilt in this case."
He also pointed out: "A District Attorney's general feelings of personal antagonism toward a defendant do not necessarily establish a reasonable basis for recusal of a prosecutor. To warrant recusal, the personal feelings of the prosecutor must be so intense and personal that they present a real danger that he is unable to perform his duties effectively in an objective fashion."
The defense also accused Mr. Sneddon of misconduct during grand jury proceedings, saying he "bullied," "threatened" and intimidated witnesses - allegations the defense listed when asking Judge Melville to set aside the indictment against Mr. Jackson.
In the most recent case, Sneddon begged the family to not file a civil suit, as the first family did, but a criminal suit ...

Prosecution's evidence being perhaps "contaminated": Much had been made from prosecution sympathizers about the fingerprint of the accuser being found on a magazine along with Jackson's. First, you can't date fingerprints so just because a fingerprint of the accuser may have been found, it doesn't mean Jackson showed it to him.
But the second and probably most important thing is that the magazines reportedly weren't tested for fingerprints until after the accuser physically handled them while he was testifying in front of the grand jury. From the Feb 1 2005 CJ article:
"Based on what we've seen, this evidence may have been compromised," Levin observed. "We know when this accuser testified before the grand jury he handled these magazines. At one point, one of the grand jurors asked, 'Have these magazines been fingerprinted?' And the sheriff said, 'No.' That leaves the door wide open for the defense to argue, 'How do you know when the boy touched the magazine? At Neverland? Or before the grand jury?'"
(see Could Jackson Prosecution Evidence Be Compromised? - CJ)
So if this kid is touching these magazines while he is testifying in front of the grand jury, and the mags are later tested for fingerprints, of course a fingerprint of his would have been found. It doesn't mean Jackson showed him anything.
What this has done is take a somewhat weak argument and made it a possible catastrophe for prosecutors. It seems common knowledge to check for fingerprints to confirm the accuser's story.

The timing of the accusations in the 2004 case: The accuser claimed to have been molested AFTER the taping of the Bashir documentary, and it would be hard to believe that Michael would be so "desperate" to do such a thing at a time when he is trying hard to declare his "innocent" relationship with children...

The mother's credibility in this case, and her history of "lying", and how she uses her children in lies : The mother once accusing her ex-husband of sexually molesting the accuser and falsely imprisoning them ...And of course, there's the JC Penney scandal -Read it all here:
http://site.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1070

How the mother was irresponsible with her children: It was reported that the mother in the 2004 case would repeatedly leave her children for days at the Neverland Ranch while she was with her boyfriend

Claims on how the mother was on "watch": After Michael's arrest in 2004, and it was known who the accuser was, there were many calls made to authorities from people who had also been at the ranch at the same time as the accuser's family, claiming that she (the mother) had to be on "watch" by Michael's security, being that her behavior was "suspicious" and she was not very much "trusted" (the knowlege of her past drug usage may have lead to these "suspicions") ...Those who telephoned authorities also said that nothing "wrong" ever was witnessed between Michael and her children.

Reports that the MOTHER allowed the children to drink alcohol - Not Michael Jackson - in 2004 case: Explosive new information in the Michael Jackson "case" involved the accuser, his family, and alcohol.ABC News is reporting that there are witnesses who saw the accuser's mother allowing her children to drink alcohol at Jackson's Neverland Ranch when Jackson was away from the premises.These witnesses are also willing to testify to as much.This speaks to the heart of the allegations leveled against Jackson since prosecutors will actually claim the accuser would be plied with alcohol in order to be molested. The ABC report states: In addition, these sources told ABC News that there are witnesses who can testify that the alleged victim and his siblings were often seen drinking at Neverland when Jackson was not on the premises. They told ABC News that the alleged victim's mother was often present when the children were drinking and did nothing to stop it.

Boy's reaction to being humiliated: After Bashir's documentary on Neverland aired (which showed the accuser holding hands firmly with Michael and with his head rested on Michael's shoulder affectionately, it was reported that the boy was made fun of and harrassed in school, and this very much affected the young boy - which is HIGHLY understandable, and this could've greatly affected his feelings towards Jackson, even leading to negative feelings.

How both parents first went to lawyers instead of authorities, and what she (the 2004 accusing mother) told Bashir: Both the parents in the '93 and '04 case first went to attorneys instead of authorities, and it is highly unlikely that a parent (who's child has been molested) would first go to an attorney over the authorities ...You go to attorneys when there is something more in "pursuit" - not when you just want justice! ...It was also reported that the mother in the 2004 case went to Bashir (the British guy that did the documentary with her and Michael) saying something to the effect of "You'd better take care of me, OR ELSE!", when her son was being made fun of in school after the documentary aired...

The small amount of molestation accusations made against Michael, compared with the pattern of molesters/pedophiles: As any psychologist would know, pedophiles/molesters are not "picky-choosy" ...As we see with the many molestation cases against priests, etc., when one child comes out, you are highly guaranteed to see many more following ...And in comparison, Michael has been in contact with THOUSANDS of children, and there have only been 2 cases that have firmly stood by their accusations of molestation (not including the case with the former maid, where the mother was actually the accuser - not the child) - even children he has kept in CLOSE contact with (MacCauley Culkin, Emmanuel Lewis) have absolutely no story of being harmed or molested in any way ...This is highly unlikely for child molesters/pedophiles...

The testimonies of former child friends and associates, claiming his innocence (Debbie Rowe, Emmanuel, McCauley, and EVEN Corey Feldman): Initially, all of these associates mentioned have professed to NEVER seeing or knowing of Michael doing ANYTHING inappropriate with children, and most STILL stand firm by what they initially declared.

Claims of "kidnapping" and being "held hostage" appearing to be bogus: What the hell kind of kidnappers would allow their hostages to contact the office of the District Attorney of Santa Barbara about anything?? And why wouldn't the family have told the current DA that they were being threatened and held hostage? Remember, the prosecution won't be able to get out of this fact by claiming the alleged molestation hadn't began yet and somehow that's why they didn't say anything.

Accuser's DNA Not Found - The DNA is NEGATIVE : Results in the DNA testing which took place in the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Case have returned a result of negative.
In favor of the defense (consider the 1993 and 2004 case):

The mother initially professing Michael as not being a "molester": Regarding the accuser, the mother of the boys CLEARLY supported Michael Jackson and made it known that she did not believe him to be any sort of child molester clear reference to fallout from the Bashir documentary, the boy's mother told investigators that "she believed the media had taken everything out of context," ...She now claims to now been co-hearsed by Michael's "crew" to say deny any that her child was being molested.

The mother in the 1993 case rejecting the accusation of Michael molesting her child: From the beginning, the mother has declared not believing Michael to have molested her child, nor has she supported her ex-husband.
Chandler, the father (1993) not being a neglectful dad: It is reported that Chandler owed over $50,000 in child support, and was never really even interested or involved in his son's life until his son met Michael Jackson.
The relationship between Chandler (the dad) and Michael going sour: Michael became very much a part of the family's life, and was even seen as a "father figure" in the life of the boy and his mother - somewhat replacing Chandler ...Chandler also developed a "relationship" with Mike, trying to get Mike to build him a new home close to his (so they could be closer), and even attempting to work on projects with Mike (movie projects, since Chandler aspired to be as screenwriter rather than a dentist)), although Mike refused him. Chandler was audiotaped in a phone call (unknowingly) by the boy's stepfather (Schwartz) saying: "I had a good communication with Michael," Chandler told Schwartz. "We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want."

The 1993 father's "plot" against Michael, and what was caught on tape: Mr. Chandler (the boy's biological father) didn't realize he was being taped by the boy's stepfather, Mr. Schwartz: "I had a good communication with Michael," Chandler told Schwartz. "We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want."

[color:red]

[color:red] "I had a good communication with Michael," Chandler told Schwartz. "We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want."
Admitting to Schwartz that he had "been rehearsed" about what to say and what not to say, Chandler never mentioned money during their conversation. When Schwartz asked what Jackson had done that made Chandler so upset, Chandler alleged only that "he broke up the family. [The boy] has been seduced by this guy's power and money." Both men repeatedly berated themselves as poor fathers to the boy.
Elsewhere on the tape, Chandler indicated he was prepared to move against Jackson: "It's already set," Chandler told Schwartz. "There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I've paid them to do it. Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy [his attorney, Barry K. Rothman, presumably] is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I've given him full authority to do that."
Chandler then predicted what would, in fact, transpire six weeks later: "And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]...and Michael's career will be over."
"Does that help [the boy]?" Schwartz asked.
"That's irrelevant to me," Chandler replied. "It's going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want."

The 1993 boy refusing to testify: Chandler's son refused to testify (and that refusal lead to Sneddon making it now where children MUST testify in molestation cases in Santa Barbara)...

Both boys in the 2004 case inititially claimed to NOT have been molested in any way by Michael: when the child was questioned in February by a social worker assigned to the Sensitive Case Unit of L.A.'s Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS), he "denied any form of sexual abuse" by Jackson and said that he never "slept in the same bed as the entertainer." ...The memo notes that the boy, now 14, and his 12-year-old brother--who also denied sexual abuse--expressed "a fondness for the entertainer and stated they enjoyed visiting his home, where they would often ride in the park, play video games, and watch movies." The pair's sister, now 17, told a social worker that she accompanied the boys on "sleepovers at the entertainers home," but had "never seen anything sexually inappropriate between her brothers and the entertainer."
In the 1993 case, the boy answered "No" when questioned the first 2 times on whether or not Michael had done anything inappropriate to him ...It was only when the child was in the psychiatrist's chair (a psychiatrist that was "linked" with his father, Chandler), that the boy gave a story of being molested ...It was also said that the boy was administered a drug that was proclaimed illegal to use in dentistry, a drug known for causes folks to "lie", or "fabricate stories"...

DCFS Finding NO FINDINGS of molestation: The joint probe by DCFS and the Los Angeles Police Department ran from February 14-27 and, the memo states, the "investigation by the Sensitive Case Unit concluded the allegations of neglect and sexual abuse to be unfounded both by the LAPD-Wilshire Division and the Department." For more detailed info on the memo, go to: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dcfsmemo1.html
When an investigation is closed, child welfare officials can summarize their findings in one of three ways. If evidence is found to support abuse charges, the case is marked "substantiated." A case is termed "not substantiated" when evidence discovered is not sufficient to support allegations (though the charges may, in fact, be true). Finally, a matter is branded "unfounded" when officials determine there is no merit to the allegations.

Sneddon and his "personal vendetta" against Michael : The defense lawyers have asserted that Mr. Sneddon is "blinded by his zeal to convict Michael Jackson" and that the personal bias and conflict he has in prosecuting this case is "so grave it is unlikely that Mr. Jackson will receive a fair trial." Mr. Jackson's defense team, led by Thomas Mesereau, accuses Mr. Sneddon having a vendetta because the prosecutor was unable to file child molestation charges against the entertainer a decade ago. That case crumbled when the young accuser's family accepted a multimillion-dollar settlement in a simultaneous civil suit and then refused to testify.
Mr. Jackson's lawyers "claim the District Attorney has had a nearly decade-long grudge against him because he received 'sharp criticism' for not filing charges against the defendant resulting from the 1993-1994 investigation," Mr. Matthews stated. "But (Mr. Jackson's lawyers) merely speculate that any of the District Attorney's ˜zeal' was in fact a long-delayed reaction to any 'sharp criticism' he may have received. In fact, such zeal is much more likely attributed to the deep and abiding conviction of the District Attorney in the strong evidence supporting defendant's guilt in this case."
He also pointed out: "A District Attorney's general feelings of personal antagonism toward a defendant do not necessarily establish a reasonable basis for recusal of a prosecutor. To warrant recusal, the personal feelings of the prosecutor must be so intense and personal that they present a real danger that he is unable to perform his duties effectively in an objective fashion."
The defense also accused Mr. Sneddon of misconduct during grand jury proceedings, saying he "bullied," "threatened" and intimidated witnesses - allegations the defense listed when asking Judge Melville to set aside the indictment against Mr. Jackson.
In the most recent case, Sneddon begged the family to not file a civil suit, as the first family did, but a criminal suit ...
FINGERPRINTS ON NUDIE MAGS:
Prosecution's evidence being perhaps "contaminated": Much had been made from prosecution sympathizers about the fingerprint of the accuser being found on a magazine along with Jackson's. First, you can't date fingerprints so just because a fingerprint of the accuser may have been found, it doesn't mean Jackson showed it to him.
But the second and probably most important thing is that the magazines reportedly weren't tested for fingerprints until after the accuser physically handled them while he was testifying in front of the grand jury. From the Feb 1 2005 CJ article:
"Based on what we've seen, this evidence may have been compromised," Levin observed. "We know when this accuser testified before the grand jury he handled these magazines. At one point, one of the grand jurors asked, 'Have these magazines been fingerprinted?' And the sheriff said, 'No.' That leaves the door wide open for the defense to argue, 'How do you know when the boy touched the magazine? At Neverland? Or before the grand jury?'"
(see Could Jackson Prosecution Evidence Be Compromised? - CJ)
So if this kid is touching these magazines while he is testifying in front of the grand jury, and the mags are later tested for fingerprints, of course a fingerprint of his would have been found. It doesn't mean Jackson showed him anything.
What this has done is take a somewhat weak argument and made it a possible catastrophe for prosecutors. It seems common knowledge to check for fingerprints to confirm the accuser's story.

The timing of the accusations in the 2004 case: The accuser claimed to have been molested AFTER the taping of the Bashir documentary, and it would be hard to believe that Michael would be so "desperate" to do such a thing at a time when he is trying hard to declare his "innocent" relationship with children...

The mother's credibility in this case, and her history of "lying", and how she uses her children in lies : The mother once accusing her ex-husband of sexually molesting the accuser and falsely imprisoning them ...And of course, there's the JC Penney scandal -Read it all here:

http://site.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1070

How the mother was irresponsible with her children: It was reported that the mother in the 2004 case would repeatedly leave her children for days at the Neverland Ranch while she was with her boyfriend, visiting spas, etc...

Claims on how the mother was on "watch": After Michael's arrest in 2004, and it was known who the accuser was, there were many calls made to authorities from people who had also been at the ranch at the same time as the accuser's family, claiming that she (the mother) had to be on "watch" by Michael's security, being that her behavior was "suspicious" and she was not very much "trusted" (the knowlege of her past drug usage may have lead to these "suspicions") ...Those who telephoned authorities also said that nothing "wrong" ever was witnessed between Michael and her children.

Reports that the MOTHER allowed the children to drink alcohol - Not Michael Jackson - in 2004 case: Explosive new information in the Michael Jackson "case" involved the accuser, his family, and alcohol.ABC News is reporting that there are witnesses who saw the accuser's mother allowing her children to drink alcohol at Jackson's Neverland Ranch when Jackson was away from the premises.These witnesses are also willing to testify to as much.This speaks to the heart of the allegations leveled against Jackson since prosecutors will actually claim the accuser would be plied with alcohol in order to be molested. The ABC report states: In addition, these sources told ABC News that there are witnesses who can testify that the alleged victim and his siblings were often seen drinking at Neverland when Jackson was not on the premises. They told ABC News that the alleged victim's mother was often present when the children were drinking and did nothing to stop it.

Boy's reaction to being humiliated: After Bashir's documentary on Neverland aired (which showed the accuser holding hands firmly with Michael and with his head rested on Michael's shoulder affectionately, it was reported that the boy was made fun of and harrassed in school, and this very much affected the young boy - which is HIGHLY understandable, and this could've greatly affected his feelings towards Jackson, even leading to negative feelings.

How both parents first went to lawyers instead of authorities, and what she (the 2004 accusing mother) told Bashir: Both the parents in the '93 and '04 case first went to attorneys instead of authorities, and it is highly unlikely that a parent (who's child has been molested) would first go to an attorney over the authorities ...You go to attorneys when there is something more in "pursuit" - not when you just want justice! ...It was also reported that the mother in the 2004 case went to Bashir (the British guy that did the documentary with her and Michael) saying something to the effect of "You'd better take care of me, OR ELSE!", when her son was being made fun of in school after the documentary aired...

The small amount of molestation accusations made against Michael, compared with the pattern of molesters/pedophiles: As any psychologist would know, pedophiles/molesters are not "picky-choosy" ...As we see with the many molestation cases against priests, etc., when one child comes out, you are highly guaranteed to see many more following ...And in comparison, Michael has been in contact with THOUSANDS of children, and there have only been 2 cases that have firmly stood by their accusations of molestation (not including the case with the former maid, where the mother was actually the accuser - not the child) - even children he has kept in CLOSE contact with (MacCauley Culkin, Emmanuel Lewis) have absolutely no story of being harmed or molested in any way ...This is highly unlikely for child molesters/pedophiles...

The testimonies of former child friends and associates, claiming his innocence (Debbie Rowe, Emmanuel, McCauley, and EVEN Corey Feldman): Initially, all of these associates mentioned have professed to NEVER seeing or knowing of Michael doing ANYTHING inappropriate with children, and most STILL stand firm by what they initially declared.

Claims of "kidnapping" and being "held hostage" appearing to be bogus: What the hell kind of kidnappers would allow their hostages to contact the office of the District Attorney of Santa Barbara about anything?? And why wouldn't the family have told the current DA that they were being threatened and held hostage? Remember, the prosecution won't be able to get out of this fact by claiming the alleged molestation hadn't began yet and somehow that's why they didn't say anything.


****The ONLY witnesses brought to testify against Micheal are mainly people who were fired by Michael, stole or made extortion attempts for Michael, or sold stories to tabloids for money (where some even admitted to lying, such as the former maid who Jackson settled with)

**Accuser's DNA Not Found - The DNA is NEGATIVE Results in the DNA testing which took place in the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Case have returned a result of negative.
**********************************************
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by EgbertSouse:
Do you think the reaction of racist white America would have been different if Jacko had been accused of molesting only young black boys instead of white (well, actually, Latino) boys?


Good thing for Michael Jackson that he chose to molest little Caucasian boys. Had this been a case to where Michael Jackson molested a Black child, the Black community would not have put any faith in the courts, and street justice would have ended Michael Jackson's days. Make no mistake, Michael Jackson would have been one less living pedophile!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
quote:
Originally posted by Michael:
Good thing for Michael Jackson that he chose to molest little Caucasian boys. Had this been a case to where Michael Jackson molested a Black child, the Black community would not have put any faith in the courts, and street justice would have ended Michael Jackson's days. Make no mistake, Michael Jackson would have been one less living pedophile!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton


Michael,

I have to agree with you.

On a lighter note, do you think Lashid would have been a member of the all-black "Lynch Michael" posse? Or would she be the lone black voice in the wilderness swilling jesus juice and imploring the mob to "STOP! the love you save may be your own!" Smile
quote:
Originally posted by EgbertSouse:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael:
Good thing for Michael Jackson that he chose to molest little Caucasian boys. Had this been a case to where Michael Jackson molested a Black child, the Black community would not have put any faith in the courts, and street justice would have ended Michael Jackson's days. Make no mistake, Michael Jackson would have been one less living pedophile!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton


Michael,

I have to agree with you.

On a lighter note, do you think Lashid would have been a member of the all-black "Lynch Michael" posse? Or would she be the lone black voice in the wilderness swilling jesus juice and imploring the mob to "STOP! the love you save may be your own!" Smile


***************

Hello EgbertSouse,

...I concur, Lashid would have been a leader in that "posse" to make Michael Jackson pay dearly, had this been a Black child.

...but look, one would not have to use this scenario, because I'm sure that more than a few members, of this board would love to have my neck in a noose, or be part of that lynch mob to string me up!....

....and I have not done anything more or less than tell the truth about what goes on in the Black community!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
quote:
Originally posted by EgbertSouse:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael:
Good thing for Michael Jackson that he chose to molest little Caucasian boys. Had this been a case to where Michael Jackson molested a Black child, the Black community would not have put any faith in the courts, and street justice would have ended Michael Jackson's days. Make no mistake, Michael Jackson would have been one less living pedophile!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton


Michael,

I have to agree with you.

On a lighter note, do you think Lashid would have been a member of the all-black "Lynch Michael" posse? Or would she be the lone black voice in the wilderness swilling jesus juice and imploring the mob to "STOP! the love you save may be your own!" Smile



*Lashid rolls eyes, ...and yawns*

I see that we are not willing to just stick with discussing evidence ...Is it fair to ask if any of y'all actually even follow the trial, court documents, etc.?
Yet, you are all so quick to speak on the case and give an instant "verdict"?

...Go back to doing your "investigation" through Access Hollywood!

...And I ALSO see that this "African-American" board is full of non-black posters...

"Jacko"? ...A very non-black reference to Mr. Jackson, wouldn't you agree?...

...Anyways,...
Come at me with a lit' more EVIDENCE than just "Jacko's wacko", and maybe we can talk a lit' more about "who's bad"!


Oh yeah, ...and let Lashid speak for Lashid, 'kay? ...COOL!
"*Lashid rolls eyes, ...and yawns*

I see that we are not willing to just stick with discussing evidence ...Is it fair to ask if any of y'all actually even follow the trial, court documents, etc.?
Yet, you are all so quick to speak on the case and give an instant "verdict"?

...Go back to doing your "investigation" through Access Hollywood!

...And I ALSO see that this "African-American" board is full of non-black posters...

"Jacko"? ...A very non-black reference to Mr. Jackson, wouldn't you agree?...

...Anyways,...
Come at me with a lit' more EVIDENCE than just "Jacko's wacko", and maybe we can talk a lit' more about "who's bad"!"

Oh yeah, ...and let Lashid speak for Lashid, 'kay? ...COOL!" by Lashid


.....Any pedophile and any fool with his or her money soon part with freedoms taken for granted and his or her money!

....Michael Jackson can't blame Caucasian America or Black people for his situation, because he did this to himself. There is no such human as an oppressed Multi-millionaire or Billionaire!

"...And I ALSO see that this "African-American" board is full of non-black posters..." by Lashid

I'm Black. I'm neither ashamed of, or attempt to hide my Blackness, which can't be said for your idol, your hero, Michael Jackson!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton

Attachments

Last edited {1}
I have a different opinion of what the black community would have done. They would have brushed it off (rightfully) as some money grubbing parents looking for a free ticket to his concert.

If the Michael Jackson wanna be Justin Timberlake was accused of touching little black boys, would CNN be so quick to scrutinize and judge him, I'll use a better example. Elton John, an obvious flamer. Wouldn't CNN have the black parents faces all over the news, with implications and innuendos of there true agenda? Wouldn't we know where they worked, how good there credit was and every personal aspect that could be dug up by then Defense?

Just a few rhetorical questions?
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
I have a different opinion of what the black community would have done. They would have brushed it off (rightfully) as some money grubbing parents looking for a free ticket to his concert.

If the Michael Jackson wanna be Justin Timberlake was accused of touching little black boys, would CNN be so quick to scrutinize and judge him, I'll use a better example. Elton John, an obvious flamer. Wouldn't CNN have the black parents faces all over the news, with implications and innuendos of there true agenda? Wouldn't we know where they worked, how good there credit was and every personal aspect that could be dug up by then Defense?

Just a few rhetorical questions?


....If Michael Jackson would have molested a Black child, generally speaking few Black people would have any faith in the courts bringing Michael Jackson to justice, and make no mistake, street justice would have been swift.

Media coverage of his death, wake, or funeral would come later.

.....either way, the average individual would not have any sympathy for his pedophile hide!

Let's see:

A. ....Michael Jackson paid out 20 million in hush money in 1993 in response to a claim filed by the legal representatives of a Caucasian child he molested.

...Michael Jackson's present criminal prosecution for child molestation predicament!

B. ....Michael Jackson paid out 2 million in "hush bucks" to the plaintiffs of an "Hispanic maid and her son".

C. ....No telling how many other incidents exist to where Michael Jackson has given expensive gifts, and/or large sums of money to keep the victims from talking.

A, B, C, etc., are not the MO of someone who is truly innocent, especially as it pertains to anyone with the financial means, and connections to prove his innocence. A truly innocent individual would not have paid out $100 in damages, let alone $20 million, because any payment would mean that the defendent accepts responsibility for the criminal act, which believe it or not, is an admission of guilt!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton

Attachments

Last edited {1}
In amerika's "so called- Justice" system, I don't know if the evidence is going to find him guilty or innocent (I don't really give a damn)......my position is simply this: Knowing what he knows (that wolves are watching and foaming at the mouth for a chance to pounce on him), why in the world would he render himself vulnerable over and over again? If he claims that the ole bloody jawed wolf is setting traps for him...why in the hell does he insist on walking through the woods with a blindfold on? Not only is he eccentric, he is also foolish and a damned stupid fool at that! Hell, you can have an ass load of $,fame, and you can get your nose shaped more like the wolf, get you mane straighted like the wolf, you can even marry the wolf and have little wolf chaps, But the wolf will NEVER let you become a card carrying member of the pack. He will find some way to remind you that you are really not one of them. And if we are to blame anybody, we need to blame Michael Jackson and the people around him. Hell, a wolf is gonna be a wolf. You can't blame a wolf for being himself! You can't change the nature of a wolf. You know where you stand with a wolf.....let your gaurd down for a minute, and it's your blood that drips from his frothy jaws! Sure, I agree that MJ is a target. He is world famous and has lots of cheeze which makes him a target, BUT it's his Stupidity that makes him an EASY target. I betcha if he spends three or four weeks in a real prison, he'll start to act like his ass got some sense! Wheather he is guilty or innocent does not matter, the reality is that in amerika, the bloody jawed wolf is ever present....wheather he is after your Beatles catalog or wheather he is simply conducting 'business as usual' in this cottage industry called 'the penal system'.

And If he was accused of messing around with little black boys, the African American community would not do a damn thing! Just like we keep our mouths shut and still support R.Kelly. Hell, we know he married Alia as a minor, then we all SEE.... (camera tricks my ass!) with our own eyes - him with a minor doing the nasty -- BUT yet you still got sucker African Americans out there steppin in the name of love and spending $30, $40 and $50 on a ticket to see him on a stage for twenty minutes, then next week don't know how they are gonna pay the damn light bill!! Chit !! Oh, I know the truth is sometimes hard to swallow. I'm with Bill Cosby, 'It's not what the bloody jawed wolf is doing to us......it's what we do to oursleves!!
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Hushbucks? Since when is hushbucks proof of guilt. Hushbucks only proves that he couldn't prove innocence to people like you that assume guilt before innocence. I mean come on. A maid? Not like she needs any money right? by HeruStar


Let's see:

A. ....Michael Jackson paid out 20 million in hush money in 1993 in response to a claim filed by the legal representatives of a Caucasian child he molested.

...Michael Jackson's present criminal prosecution for child molestation predicament!

B. ....Michael Jackson paid out 2 million in "hush bucks" to the plaintiffs of an "Hispanic maid and her son".

C. ....No telling how many other incidents exist to where Michael Jackson has given expensive gifts, and/or large sums of money to keep the victims from talking.

A, B, C, etc., are not the MO of someone who is truly innocent, especially as it pertains to anyone with the financial means, and connections to prove his innocence. A truly innocent individual would not have paid out $100 in damages, let alone $20 million, because any payment would mean that the defendent accepts responsibility for the criminal act, which believe it or not, is a tacit admission of guilt!

....the only other reason would be ignorance or lack of backbone, because no one with any sense
or backbone is going to pay for damages that they did not make. This would be especially true for anyone of wealth and connections who has the resources at their disposal to fight back!


Furthermore, should any attorney fail to serve your interests, you have the right to fire his or her hide!

If Michael Jackson is truly innocent then he must be extremely weak or ignorant.

Paying out a large sum of money in gifts to conceal wrongdoing or accepting financial responsibility for criminal acts, is indeed a strong indication that you are guilty as charged!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Hushbucks is just an implied admission of guilt. I don't know Jackson's true motif for paying out that money, but I'm certainly not going to form an opinion based off of he racially biased information that the media allows to be at the forefront of the trial.


Well HeruStar,

It's not racially biased that Michael Jackson in fact paid millions to keep this crap quiet. It is not racism that Michael, against his own best interest continued to have foreplay with little boys!

More likely ignorance, or extreme weakness than being subjected to racism. Furthermore, there is no such human as an oppressed multi-millionaire, or close to being billionaire. Michael Jackson's predicament has no connection to the civil rights movement, or the daily realities of the truly oppressed within the Black community.

Michael Jackson entrapped himself in this foolishness,....he spun his own web of self-destruction. Michael Jackson definitely had choices.

Michael preferred perversion, and weakness over being moral, rational, and showing strength in being a man.

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
Last edited {1}
See, there is the problem, we've been judging Jackson ever since he became an icon. Who are we to judge? I'm willing to bet Jackson's morality is alot higher than his accusers.

There is no such human as an oppressed multimillionaire. UNLESS HE'S BLACK!

Jackson entrapped himself by being himself, a free spirit highly misunderstood. I wouldn't apologize for someone else's misunderstanding of me. NO WAY NO HOW.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
See, there is the problem, we've been judging Jackson ever since he became an icon. Who are we to judge? I'm willing to bet Jackson's morality is alot higher than his accusers.

There is no such human as an oppressed multimillionaire. UNLESS HE'S BLACK!

Jackson entrapped himself by being himself, a free spirit highly misunderstood. I wouldn't apologize for someone else's misunderstanding of me. NO WAY NO HOW.


.....well Michael Jackson, etc.,......let me hang on to some of that "multi-millionaire subjected to being oppressed assets". I'll show you what I can do with it, and the money won't be heavily invested in a "Neverland", or be used to acquire the exclusive rights to any "Beatles music masters or the like", or to finance some Caucasian controlled business venture, but rather the money will be heavily invested in my own community, with people that I can trust or have faith in!

......if it was all up to the Sleazy Reverend Al Sharpton, and the reader didn't know any better, Michael Jackson would rank right up there with the truly oppressed.

......again there is no such human as an oppressed multi-millionaire or close to being a billionaire. If Michael Jackson is oppressed then he did it to himself. Any fool and his or her money soon part. Money nor foolishness in spending have a color line, as it relates to the foolish spender or the extremely frugal being Black, Caucasian, Chinese, Korean, Indian, or otherwise!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton

Attachments

Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Hey why don't you go tell your next door neighbor Bill Gates (who probably never did anything remotely immoral in his life) that my cousins sisters baby mamma can't afford to send her child to a private school where she'll get a real education.


Well HeruStar:

1. Bill Gates is very removed from being my next door neighbor.

2. Bill Gates is not facing multiple counts of felony child molestation charges.

3. Bill Gates has more sense than to put himself in this position.

4. Bill Gates has yet to claim that he is an oppressed billionaire.

5. Bill Gates has helped many individuals from all walks of life, and there is no comparison between the benevolence of a Bill Gates, and the benevolence of a Michael Jackson. Bill Gates has done more to uplift the oppressed, and/or inner-city dwellers, than one billion Michael Jacksons.

6. Bill Gates deserves admiration and respect.

7. I admired, and was a fan of Michael Jackson, up until he had all his surgeries to make himself appear more and more Caucasian like. At this point I lost all admiration and interest in Michael Jackson or his music!

8. Michael Jackson has lost fans because of his actions, meaning the respect and admiration for "Michael Jackson the pedophile" has diminished considerably!

9. Michael Jackson did not consider himself as being Black or having any connection to the Black community, until he faced criminal indictment for multiple counts of child molestation.

10. My generation followed the radical Black Panthers movement. During the radical 60s and/or shortly thereafter it was an insult to humanity to be a trans-sexual, a pervert, a child molestor, treasonous, etc.

Heck, the perverts during this era were closet cases. If it was a known fact that you were gay, you would catch "Hell" day in and day out!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
Last edited {1}
Lofton,

Yor verbose postings are difficult to read. So forgive me if I have taken something out of context, but ...

......again there is no such human as an oppressed multi-millionaire or close to being a billionaire. If Michael Jackson is oppressed then he did it to himself. Any fool and his or her money soon part. Money nor foolishness in spending have a color line, as it relates to the foolish spender or the extremely frugal being Black, Caucasian, Chinese, Korean, Indian, or otherwise!

I completely disagree with this statement. I'm sure you've lived long enough to realize that money has no color, as long as it is a white man that holds it.

The legistaltive history of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Congress clearly indicated that its purpose was to ensure that, "[A] dollar in the hand of negro should be worth the same as a dollar in the hand of a white man."

However, this goal has yet to be met. There remain communities in this country where regardless of your money, you will never be able to purchase, BECAUSE OF your race. There are private clubs in this country where regardless of your money, you will never be able to be a member, BECAUSE OF your race.

This "money has no color" myth is the lie that white men use to keep negroes distracted. But it ultimately works to their disadvantage for once the negro achieves the wealth and is still treated as a ni@@er, he/she becomes a Black activist.
More judging and subjective statements. Well Mike, I got a couple of my own

1. You and Bill are discriminately and intellectually neighbors.

2. Bill Gates should be facing multiple charges of negligence to hungry children.

3. Bill should have sense to put himself in a position to be more useful to society and the world, he's just walking wasted money.

4. Bill has not claimed to be oppressed BECAUSED HE IS NOT OPPRESSED

5. Bill has helped many non-impoverished, educated individuals from many walks of life.

6. Bill is hardly the philanthropist that you claim he is. He got where he is by machiavellian means. I reserve admiration and respect for those that live truth.

7. Michael Jackson lost fans? I'm sure he's just as much concerned with you being a fan as you are with him receiving justice.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Lofton,

Your verbose postings are difficult to read. So forgive me if I have taken something out of context, but ...

......again there is no such human as an oppressed multi-millionaire or close to being a billionaire. If Michael Jackson is oppressed then he did it to himself. Any fool and his or her money soon part. Money nor foolishness in spending have a color line, as it relates to the foolish spender or the extremely frugal being Black, Caucasian, Chinese, Korean, Indian, or otherwise!

I completely disagree with this statement. I'm sure you've lived long enough to realize that money has no color, as long as it is a white man that holds it.

The legistaltive history of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Congress clearly indicated that its purpose was to ensure that, "[A] dollar in the hand of negro should be worth the same as a dollar in the hand of a white man."

However, this goal has yet to be met. There remain communities in this country where regardless of your money, you will never be able to purchase, BECAUSE OF your race. There are private clubs in this country where regardless of your money, you will never be able to be a member, BECAUSE OF your race.

This "money has no color" myth is the lie that white men use to keep negroes distracted. But it ultimately works to their disadvantage for once the negro achieves the wealth and is still treated as a ni@@er, he/she becomes a Black activist.


...Let's see, are we living in 1866 or 2005? The Koreans, the Hispanics, the Jews, the Jamaicans, the Ethiopians, the native American Indians, the Filipinos, etc., are doing extremely well in the U.S., because each of these ethnic groups support each other in business ventures or any other endeavor.

In contemporary times, prosperity, acquiring assets are not bound by color, but rather your willingness to work, your ability to work together as a people, your talents, an individual's willingness to be profficient at what he or she does, etc.

*******************

quote:
In my opinion, when (and if) we finally realize that we need to spend money among ourselves, --(for the interest of ourselves)....we begin on a road of economic uplift. It does not take an urban league report, a commission to study it or the US government to implement it..... FIRST,WE (as a people) need to start to keeping each other accountable. We seriously need to keep each other in check for how we spend """OUR""""money. We need to get into the mentality that it's not 'MY' money but the 'communities' money. We have become a materialistcally driven people, obsesed with the hedonistic images that the mass media tells us are real. We go out of our way to buy chit that depreciates down to nothing the minute we walk out of the store. Instead of investing for future generations, we are too selfish, buying $6000 rims that don't do a damn thing but gleam in the sun, buying 20 and 30 pairs of tennis shoes at $80 - $100 dollars a pair. Breaking our necks to run to the koreans to get our nails painted, and to the indians 7/11 store to buy our '40s'. We'll spend hundreds of dollors on weed and won't spend a damn dime on a book about smart investing. Our young people are lost as hell, not knowing their ass hole from a hole in the sidewalk,...with their idea of being a black man is demeaning women, calling each other ni&&er on a record and bragging about how thugish they are and how much gold and silver is hanging around their necks and stuck on their teeth and robbin and killing each other for insignificant petty reasons.... Our little girls having babies and not even being able to take care of themselves, let alone an infant. Becoming grandmothers at the age of 33 and grown assed men still living off their mothers or so called girlfriends. And oh how we go along and glorify it all as 'keeping it real', and as someone posted in another thread...."Ghetto" has become the thang to be. So the first thing we need to do is start pointing all this chit out....emphasizing, day in and day out how backwards it is. We need to stop modeling the sorts of behaviors that have proven time and time again to only dig us deeper into pits of despair. Secondly, we need to start buisnesses....independently and collectively. And I'm not talking about some little rib shack, hotdog stand or beauty/barber shop either. We need to get into manufacturing, producing, farming, owning grocery stores, health care conglomerants, owning sports and entertainment corporations THEN be responsible stewards of these enterprises ---not like BET for example (whos majority programming is a mindless, pointless, waste of energy). We need to start hiring and not have to rely of being hired, producers instead of always being consumers and leaders instead of always looking for some group or sombody to lead us. Damn the government, Damn the NAACP, Damn all these 'so called' black leaders who cannot even get together on one accord, and set one collective goal or agree on an appropriate agenda. We need to start keeping ouselves accountable for the poor choices some of us make.....identify it, and then 'as a community' condemn that chit! We need to stop worring about Mr. Charlie and start focusing on the uplift of our own station in amerika. And if we do that.....we'll never have to worry about Mr. Charlie again. Money talks.......that other stuff walks. Hell, mexicans ain't took a damn thing away from us.......we're just content to sit back a squander it all away. Go into ANY urban community in amerika....you'll find hispanic stores popping up left and right....they are hiring their own, you'll see indian establishments, asian enterprises all looking out for themselves. BUT us, we'll pass by a brothers struggling business to go to the koreans shop to get a jar of grease JUST because it's twenty cents cheaper. Those of us who have the education, connections and skills spend too much time in narcissitic showboating: basking in the 'hey ya'll--look at me', I work for corporate amerika and I drive a Beamer, I have made it' malarkey...we have got to get busy yall. The government aint gonna do it for us, neither is the naacp, urban league, Farrakhan, Cornel West,....not even these mega churches with your T.D. jakes, Creflo Dollar and all the rest of them. NO my brothers and sisters, we are gonna have to do it ourselves. When I sojourned to the million man march,...I was sooo filled with hope and enthusiastic zeal. It was one of the best days of my life, but after the gloss has dulled and now that reality has set in, I have to conclude that Not A Damn Thing Came Of the Million Man March but a bunch of good feelings! But We can at least get that spirit up again, and this time do something!!!! Hey brother minister, what happend to all that money ya'll raised up there at the MM March? Hell, I want my chit back!" by Scalder


....Other opinions and facts of life exist to support what I have posted. Thank you Scalder. I'm going to use your material so that I won't have to continue posting mine. Scalder's material is very real, and definitely has merit!

This being said, the only enslavement that Black people face today is the enslavement that Black people have placed on each other!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
Last edited {1}
Being realistic about this whole issue re: MJ, IS WHO SHOULD GIVE A DAMN. We're wasting time and web space over a man(or some facsimile of) who has blantanly forsaken his whole AA background and plays the "race card" issue just like O.J. did and when the heat was off he( like MJ will) returned to WHITEYVILLE. I give him credit for being a very talented artist , dancer and singer but that where it ends. These allegations of him being involved in child molestations is entering it's 15th year and is still going strong. I've always had an issue with athletes and singers given god-status while our real heroes such as teachers, doctors, professors,lawyers,etc. die in obscurity. Outside of being a national joke and a cartoon character MJ is not a "brotha" and will never be. A good dose of psychiatric counseling on a 24-7 basis is the only presription that I can suggest for him.
Michael Jackson is not a "brutha", however the fact remains that he is a black man undergoing scrutiny that is heavily rooted in racism. You should be concerned with how our black athletes and entertainers are being treated. And they are hero's because of the trials that come with being a black man initiated into stardom. Michael Jackson is a hero BECAUSE of his talent. His God-given BlACK talent. If you get my drift.
quote:
"Being realistic about this whole issue re: MJ, IS WHO SHOULD GIVE A DAMN. We're wasting time and web space over a man(or some facsimile of) who has blantanly forsaken his whole AA background and plays the "race card" issue just like O.J. did and when the heat was off he( like MJ will) returned to WHITEYVILLE. I give him credit for being a very talented artist , dancer and singer but that where it ends. These allegations of him being involved in child molestations is entering it's 15th year and is still going strong. I've always had an issue with athletes and singers given god-status while our real heroes such as teachers, doctors, professors,lawyers,etc. die in obscurity. Outside of being a national joke and a cartoon character MJ is not a "brotha" and will never be. A good dose of psychiatric counseling on a 24-7 basis is the only presription that I can suggest for him." by Zodo


I'm in full agreement with Zodo. Beyond praise for his entertainment ability, Michael Jackson would not be considered a "brotha" and never will be.

Unless someone else intitiates the discussion, there will be no further discussion on Michael Jackson, by me. Indeed, it is a waste of time, to continue discussion on Michael Jackson, who basically has no connection to the Black community!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
Lofton,

Let's see, are we living in 1866 or 2005? The Koreans, the Hispanics, the Jews, the Jamaicans, the Ethiopians, the native American Indians, the Filipinos, etc., are doing extremely well in the U.S., because each of these ethnic groups support each other in business ventures or any other endeavor.

We are living in 2005, but living with unresolved vestiages of slavery dating back to long before 1866. Surely, you see this.

You hold out other groups and promote them as doing extremely well. Are their successes, the rule or the exception? If you believe the former, census data clearly shows your ignorance; if you believe the latter, why do you ignore those Black americans that are succeeding [at the same or greater rate as the groups you mention].

"In contemporary times, prosperity, acquiring assets are not bound by color, but rather your willingness to work, your ability to work together as a people, your talents, an individual's willingness to be profficient at what he or she does, etc.:

If you are unwilling to listen to or accept the real life experience of many of the posters to this site, I refer you to "Rage of a Priviledged Class" by Cose Ellis.

Every one of us has experienced some form of discrimination in employment, housing, or in the securing of financing. While many choose to note it and move on, others refuse to even acknowledge it, owning the false belief that the acts of others are in fact, deficiencies on their part. I refuse to accept this. And, will argue with you when you accept it. Racism is real.
you might want to examine MJ's background more...he has done quite a bit for blacks and black causes....more than any of these "keeping it real" negroes I see and especially HEAR nowadays.....as so far as his personal life.....MJ obviously has some issues....but they are not my business so all I can do is wish him well....like any other troubled black man.......i have never heard MJ express any self-hating or black-hating sentiment...unlike the clarence uncle(thom-as), ward connerly's, larry elders, etc......hell they work directly to lessen opportunities for blacks and hold back progress in terms of overall equality....those m-fkers are a worse creature than MJ could ever be......and do not get me wrong....i'm not defending MJ or anything...but the trial should run its course before we condemn.....because poor white people leeching off of rich blacks is a new trend..and that Beatles catalog has had white people troubled for a while now.......they have openly expressed their disdain.......because a black person in any position of power, wealth and authority...does not allow them to feed into that stupid azz notion of supremacy......peace
Well Kweli4Real

quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Lofton,

Let's see, are we living in 1866 or 2005? The Koreans, the Hispanics, the Jews, the Jamaicans, the Ethiopians, the native American Indians, the Filipinos, etc., are doing extremely well in the U.S., because each of these ethnic groups support each other in business ventures or any other endeavor.

We are living in 2005, but living with unresolved vestiages of slavery dating back to long before 1866. Surely, you see this.

You hold out other groups and promote them as doing extremely well. Are their successes, the rule or the exception? If you believe the former, census data clearly shows your ignorance; if you believe the latter, why do you ignore those Black americans that are succeeding [at the same or greater rate as the groups you mention].

"In contemporary times, prosperity, acquiring assets are not bound by color, but rather your willingness to work, your ability to work together as a people, your talents, an individual's willingness to be profficient at what he or she does, etc.:

If you are unwilling to listen to or accept the real life experience of many of the posters to this site, I refer you to "Rage of a Priviledged Class" by Cose Ellis.

Every one of us has experienced some form of discrimination in employment, housing, or in the securing of financing. While many choose to note it and move on, others refuse to even acknowledge it, owning the false belief that the acts of others are in fact, deficiencies on their part. I refuse to accept this. And, will argue with you when you accept it. Racism is real.


....Mind you, it is a extremely difficult task to seek redress for well deserved claims during contemporary times for the atrocities of government, be it perpetrated by Caucasians, or the treason that exists within our own community.....let alone trying to seek damages for the atrocites of yesteryear, as applied to the era of slavery!

It would be more likely, and make more sense, to pursue the proven atrocities of today, as opposed to pursuing reparations for slavery of over one hundred years ago.

Heck, there are so many atrocities that can be proven and pursued for "Equity in the Courts in Contemporary Times", that are very lucrative, that it would truly be a waste of finite resources to seek reparations for slavery, a condition to which, it is very difficult to bring the perpetrators or their heirs to justice, especially since it can not be shown where the heirs are the perpetrators.

"A bird in hand is worth two in the bushes"

Seeking redress for the many atrocities of today would be closer to having that "bird in hand"!

Seeking reparations for slavery would be equivalent to unsuccessfully hunting down fleeing birds from the bushes!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
so i guess the concept of wealth being passed down that was generated during slavery....and the sustaining of businesses built off of free slave labor to the present day is just too complex for some to comprehend......so if your grandad worked for mine for free...and i was born rich and you were born poor because of that fact....then your grandfather working for free was no big deal and you'll go ahead and let my wealth be on the house while you remain poor......wow...slavery is still alive in a mental form.....where some of us do live in deference to whites and the status quo with us being at a systematically established disadvantage is just fine.......wow
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
so i guess the concept of wealth being passed down that was generated during slavery....and the sustaining of businesses built off of free slave labor to the present day is just too complex for some to comprehend......so if your grandad worked for mine for free...and i was born rich and you were born poor because of that fact....then your grandfather working for free was no big deal and you'll go ahead and let my wealth be on the house while you remain poor......wow...slavery is still alive in a mental form.....where some of us do live in deference to whites and the status quo with us being at a systematically established disadvantage is just fine.......wow


...Well Kevin41, or anyone else of similar expression, the above diatribe can't be used in any claim for redress in court in the U.S. to take property from anyone.

The claim, be it a claim for reparations or otherwise, the claim must be specific as to parties, the claim for redress, the specific reasons to justify your claim for redress, specific proven losses, and the reasonable amount expected to recover the loss incurred.

..as an educator Kevin41, you need to be more on the level. Anyone who has ever been involved in the legal process, be it as a defendant or a plaintiff should know that:

"so i guess the concept of wealth being passed down that was generated during slavery....and the sustaining of businesses built off of free slave labor to the present day is just too complex for some to comprehend......so if your grandad worked for mine for free...and i was born rich and you were born poor because of that fact....then your grandfather working for free was no big deal and you'll go ahead and let my wealth be on the house while you remain poor......wow...slavery is still alive in a mental form.....where some of us do live in deference to whites and the status quo with us being at a systematically established disadvantage is just fine.......wow"

.....will be ignored by the courts. A formal complaint must be filed by the plaintiffs, accepted by the court on its merit, before any legal remedy will be considered!

...Ignoring Michael Jackson's predicament, this would be an example of a formal complaint that will be accepted by the courts for redress. A claim using this format will have to be filed stating the specifics, in instances, the names, the parties, the violations, etc., to demand redress for slavery. Slim chance exists that Caucasian, or Corporate America will volunteer incriminating evidence to nail themselves to the cross! Heck it is certain that much of the information has been destroyed rather than leave an easy to follow paper trail that can be used in a claim against corporated America.

It is very doubtful, that any claim for redress will be settled without going through the normal legal process.

Unless ordered to do so by a valid court judgment, Corporate America, the affluent, any private citizen, etc., will resist parting with assets.

The amount of money that the reparations movement seeks will not be satisfied without proving the claim in court, without active political involvement of our own Black elected leadership, and/or the consent of the American people.

This civil complaint as referenced in the 1993 Michael Jackson case file, is an example of a formal complaint. Be it reparations, or any other loss, this would be an example of how to proceed. The circumstances for seeking reparations for slavery would be very different, but this is how it is done!

Without proof the result will be, "This ridiculous amount of money does not come anywhere near what that company owes us for the devastation they caused our ancestors and their descendants," said Antoinette Harrell-Miller, a noted Louisiana genealogist, New Orleans television personality, and organizer of the press conference. "They must pay us more," by Antoinette Harrell-Miller, a noted Louisiana genealogist

"That was my point in my first quote when this thread hit the board. They are 'getting ahead of the game' by offering an amount that 'sounds' impressive. To challenge that amount requires quantitative evidence of its inadequacy.

That's how the 'game' is played.

The next time the demand should be made with a dollar-value attached.

That is if the lession is learned" Well said Jim Chester


....which means that corporate america is not obligated to pay so much as a dime, and the plaintiffs can't prove their claim for redress! Going to court is no game, you either play for keeps, meaning play to win, or don't proceed at all!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
Last edited {1}
Michael, Kevin the post is "let's just talk the evidence Michael Jackson" not "let's flog the same old crap for umpteenth time" I'm with zodo here, squarely in the "who gives a flying frig?" camp. I'll let the jury decide whether Mr. Jackson is guilty or not. I will observe that money does matter here. If Jackson was some publically defended nobody from the hood he definitely be in county lock up instead of free on his own recognizance. More likely he already would be pulling hard time in the state pen. Remember, money talks and bulls#it walks.

Also I find it laughable that the race card is being played here. Unless were talking the bigotry heaped upon Zomphnoids from the outer rim galaxies I'm unaware of what race Mr. Jackson might belong to. He stopped being black, hell he stopped being human, a long time ago.
quote:
Michael, Kevin the post is "let's just talk the evidence Michael Jackson" not "let's flog the same old crap for umpteenth time" I'm with zodo here, squarely in the "who gives a flying frig?" camp. I'll let the jury decide whether Mr. Jackson is guilty or not. I will observe that money does matter here. If Jackson was some publically defended nobody from the hood he definitely be in county lock up instead of free on his own recognizance. More likely he already would be pulling hard time in the state pen. Remember, money talks and bulls#it walks.

Also I find it laughable that the race card is being played here. Unless were talking the bigotry heaped upon Zomphnoids from the outer rim galaxies I'm unaware of what race Mr. Jackson might belong to. He stopped being black, hell he stopped being human, a long time ago. by SpinCitySD


"I'm in full agreement with Zodo. Beyond praise for his entertainment ability, Michael Jackson would not be considered a "brotha" and never will be.

Unless someone else intitiates the discussion, there will be no further discussion on Michael Jackson, by me. Indeed, it is a waste of time, to continue discussion on Michael Jackson, who basically has no connection to the Black community!" by Lofton

"Let's see, are we living in 1866 or 2005? The Koreans, the Hispanics, the Jews, the Jamaicans, the Ethiopians, the native American Indians, the Filipinos, etc., are doing extremely well in the U.S., because each of these ethnic groups support each other in business ventures or any other endeavor." by Lofton

"We are living in 2005, but living with unresolved vestiages of slavery dating back to long before 1866. Surely, you see this.

You hold out other groups and promote them as doing extremely well. Are their successes, the rule or the exception? If you believe the former, census data clearly shows your ignorance; if you believe the latter, why do you ignore those Black americans that are succeeding [at the same or greater rate as the groups you mention]." by Kweli4Real

"In contemporary times, prosperity, acquiring assets are not bound by color, but rather your willingness to work, your ability to work together as a people, your talents, an individual's willingness to be profficient at what he or she does, etc." by Lofton

"If you are unwilling to listen to or accept the real life experience of many of the posters to this site, I refer you to "Rage of a Priviledged Class" by Cose Ellis.

Every one of us has experienced some form of discrimination in employment, housing, or in the securing of financing. While many choose to note it and move on, others refuse to even acknowledge it, owning the false belief that the acts of others are in fact, deficiencies on their part. I refuse to accept this. And, will argue with you when you accept it. Racism is real." by Kweli4Real

"so i guess the concept of wealth being passed down that was generated during slavery....and the sustaining of businesses built off of free slave labor to the present day is just too complex for some to comprehend......so if your grandad worked for mine for free...and i was born rich and you were born poor because of that fact....then your grandfather working for free was no big deal and you'll go ahead and let my wealth be on the house while you remain poor......wow...slavery is still alive in a mental form.....where some of us do live in deference to whites and the status quo with us being at a systematically established disadvantage is just fine.......wow" by Kevin41

The previous responses by Kweli4Real and Kevin41, and my response to the material, had absolutely nothing to do with Michael Jackson, other than using Michael's case file as an example of what a formal claim is supposed to look like.

.....now I believe I've already said what is on my mind, regarding Michael Jackson. It is you, SpinCitySD, who has continued to bring the subject up.

..Either way be it criminal prosecution for being a pedophile or being a fool with his assets, MJ contributed to his own demise, which can't be blamed on any racism on the part of Caucasians.

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
Last edited {1}
Michael,

You are the one that mentioned redress for slavery in your post and i responded to it....now you come back and say it doesn't have anything to do with reparations....It is obvious that Micheal, your intent is do nothing but spew your hatred for black people which is based on your particular experiences...you talk a bunch of bullshit....and when asked a question directly, you dodge it, say what you don't have to do...and continue to just rag on black people in some clinically observable way....when you want to actually talk about something let me know...in the meantime.....save that schit.....because you are just ranting and raving and not saying a damn thing.............
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
Michael,

You are the one that mentioned redress for slavery in your post and i responded to it....now you come back and say it doesn't have anything to do with reparations....It is obvious that Micheal, your intent is do nothing but spew your hatred for black people which is based on your particular experiences...you talk a bunch of bullshit....and when asked a question directly, you dodge it, say what you don't have to do...and continue to just rag on black people in some clinically observable way....when you want to actually talk about something let me know...in the meantime.....save that schit.....because you are just ranting and raving and not saying a damn thing.............



Similar response as before!

...Again I have not condemned the entire Black community! If the shoe fits you, meaning you are one of these individuals as described Kevin41, then you too would be right at home with sleaze, greed, treason, etc.


Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
I guess any time a black sees himself as equal to others and not the lowlife, evil scum azz people you TRY to paint blacks as......makes him pompous....racist whites call blacks who are very educated and not poor "uppity"....i guess your PW aand Stormfront homies taught you the lingo well.......well Lofton....all of us do not bow our heads, shuffle our feet and sing praise to the white man every time he farts...okay?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×