Sep 30 2012

“Was Michael Jackson Framed?” – Original GQ Article Available on Amazon!

Category: Books,Justice,Prose/EssaysSeven @ 7:52 pm

I squawked about this on Twitter several days ago and posted it on my MJJ-777 Facebook page last Friday. Now, everyone in the MJ fan community is abuzz about it. Guess it took them a while to catch up with the news.

The GQ article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” by Mary A. Fischer is now available on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Was-Michael-Jackson-Framed-Superstar/dp/0786754133.

If you have a Kindle, it’s also available in that format for only $2.99:  http://www.amazon.com/Was-Michael-Jackson-Framed-ebook/dp/B009G1SX0S/ref=tmm_kin_title_0

From the Amazon writer bio:

Award-winning writer and journalist Mary A. Fischer has tracked down crime and corruption stories from around the world for national magazines including, GQ, The Atlantic, Los Angeles Times magazine, New York, Rolling Stone, Men’s Journal, O-Oprah, ELLE and AARP.

Twice she has been ranked as one of the top five print reporters in the U.S., when two of her GQ articles, including her cover story on Michael Jackson, were finalists for the National Magazine Award.

Known for pursuing under reported stories, Fischer is credited with breaking several high-profile criminal cases, among them, the ’93 Michael Jackson case originally published in GQ, and the McMartin Preschool child molestation scandal. She was the first print reporter to take the controversial position, backed up by her six-month investigation, that there was no credible evidence against the McMartin defendants and the allegations against them were not credible.

In her memoir Stealing Love, Fischer tells the personal story of why she is passionately drawn to stories, and life situations, of injustice.

She lives in Los Angeles and is at work on another eBook and a news-making journalist project, this time in Washington D.C.

Joe Vogel, author of “Man in the Music, the Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson” and the recent article “Studying Michael Jackson“, says this about the Mary Fischer piece (via Twitter):

Mary A. Fischer was one of few voices of reason and fairness during the first MJ extortion case. Highly recommend this.

-Joe Vogel

Well, I’ve got my copy. I think this was and is a very important voice in the sensational pro-guilt wilderness surrounding the allegations against Michael. There were and sadly still are few factual and objective voices on the subject. Among a few others, I’m happy to support this one, too.

Tags: , , , ,


Sep 24 2012

Abortion Papers

Category: Humanitarian,Justice,Prose/EssaysSeven @ 4:31 pm

There has been a lot of understated chatter about this song since its release, with many people projecting their own personal beliefs about the controversial subject onto Michael.

I won’t project my own beliefs onto Michael no matter what song he has written or about what subject. For one thing, he isn’t here to speak for himself on the matter and unless he were, such projections are unfair and most likely, incorrect.

I do have my own beliefs though, and in regards to this subject I have a spiritual yet non-religious, common-sense take on the matter:

Such personal decisions are usually made by women/girls whose situations are often quite dire, even deadly. I have seen them made – but never have I seen them made lightly and I know that contrary to religious dogma-borne propaganda, they are rarely made lightly. Such choices belong primarily between the woman/girl herself and God, her family and her doctor. Not the government. Not the church. And certainly not the rest of us. Not even Michael Jackson (which may be another reason he never released the song). It’s her life. It’s her body. It’s her decision. People need to give up trying to control others according to their own personal beliefs when such deeply personal and difficult decisions are involved.

There is one person whose personal behavior and decisions we each have ultimate control over: our own. And that is all.

I do not think God would approve of allowing a girl or woman to die due to a pregnancy complication or an unsafe botched abortion. I also do not believe God would harshly judge a woman or girl who aborted her pregnancy due to rape or incest or frankly, for any reason. What is “pro-life” or “moral” about women dying preventable deaths? Many people seem perfectly OK with that idea as if women and their lives were somehow of less value than a fetus, zygote or baby in the womb. It’s very interesting.

Newsflash: Women are human. And just as much so as a fetus/baby. And they were human before they were women. And their lives have at least equal value to any other. Particularly if they are already mothers and wives. That women hold life in their bodies does give them a special responsibility and the duty and ability to make life or death decisions. It is not in the control of men. It is not in the control of any religion. It is not in the control of pressure groups or pop stars – including Michael Jackson, no matter what he thought of it – and we’ll never know what he thought.

I loathe the idea of anyone making an pro- or anti-abortion screed out of this song of Michael’s. That’s probably why he never released it. If I had a conversation with Michael Jackson about this subject I would tell him the same thing I am writing here, now. I don’t know if he’d agree or not and I never will. But it doesn’t matter. One thing I do know is that Michael obviously exerted control over the one and only person he knew he could and should control – himself. He did not enter into relationships, particularly sexual ones, lightly. He wasn’t raised that way.

Until and unless men can become pregnant, men have no say in this issue. Their choice both begins and ends at their pants zipper. If they dislike the consequence of whatever they chose at that time and location, they must realize they no longer control it – that they already made their choice and that it’s now beyond them. Their control began and ended with that zipper. Once they make a decision there, they’re done. They have no more to say. That is because it is women and God who bear primary responsibility for and decisions about the bringing forth of life into this world. Like Sojourner Truth told some men in her “Ain’t I a Woman” speech years ago: “Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Men ain’t had nothin to do with it.

I do not judge women who choose abortion – for any reason. They have to answer to God, not me. I do not judge women who chose not to have an abortion for the same reason. What is in their own hearts is known only to God and is none of my business.

I do know this: “pro-life” includes women’s lives. And no God of mine would approve of women dying due to botched, unsafe abortions or due to refusal of the procedure for “moral” reasons when the continuation or completion of the pregnancy would result in the death of the mother. Forcing women to their preventable deaths is not “pro-life“. And forced pregnancy is in my own opinion slavery, which is as immoral as death itself.

It is heartbreaking to me, just as it was to Michael, that once children are born, our society, our religious factions and our government do not care nearly so much about them as they claim to while they are in a woman’s womb. One has to wonder why that is. This vehement opposition to allowing women control over the bringing forth of life via their own bodies is very interesting. It appears that many people like to oppose abortion but that they have little interest in actually preventing it.

Typically the same factions that oppose abortion also oppose birth control (contraception) and laws that would force men to be responsible for children they father ie: paternity laws. They oppose sex education and they oppose educating men and boys to control themselves and to respect women and girls as human beings. If we put half the effort into telling boys and men to “be careful” with their sexual activities and to respect others, as we do telling women and girls that, perhaps there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies. There is a huge education problem in that regard, in at least American society.

What do people gain by these Taliban-like attitudes? One word: control. It’s the one thing too many men lack in themselves and to compensate, they deign to exercise the control over others (primarily women) that they ought to be exercising over themselves. So they punish women with and for their own weaknesses. And thus they punish their children too. There is nothing moral about pawning responsibility for one’s own behavior off onto the victims of it. It’s reprehensible, in fact.

So we have many seemingly fatherless children running around that most of society primarily blames women for as if they “got themselves” pregnant. Men don’t want to take responsibility, many of them, and evidently our society thinks they ought not have to. And at the same time, they also want to take from women any choice in the matter, pretty much relegating them to sexual and reproductive slavery. That is what this boils down to.

Men need to let women and God decide and stay out of decisions they are in no way qualified to make, obviously. I suggest that males should concentrate on controlling their own behavior and stop trying to control others and stop inserting themselves between women and God. This is a relationship that men have no business involving themselves in. That they do so is a problem with many established religions and why I refuse to subscribe to them.

As for Michael, it could be that trying to control (or judge) others is something he didn’t want to do (or appear to do) and I can guess this is why the song wasn’t released while he lived. In my opinion, it should never have been released lest people try to turn it in to an anti- or pro- abortion screed which is probably something Michael also did not want.

All we really know for sure about Michael’s own opinion on the subject is what Michael Jackson did while he was alive: he controlled himself and his own sexual behavior. And he did not release this song. Let others take note of that, regardless their beliefs about abortion or what they want his meaning or message to have been in writing a song about it.

The BAD25 CD liner notes contain the following:

This is a song that Michael knew could be controversial, and, as a result, he spent a lot of time thinking about the story for the song and the voice through which the song should be told. The song is about a girl whose father is a priest and was raised in the Church and on the Bible. She gets married in the church, but decides, against the Bible, to have an abortion and she wants “abortion papers.” As Michael indicated in his notes, “I have to do it in a way so I don’t offend girls who have gotten abortions or bring back guilt trips so it has to be done carefully. I have to really think about it.

~~~

NOTE: Comments on this post are disabled due to the highly controversial nature of the subject. I doubt anyone will change anyone else’s mind or beliefs on the matter, so heated debate is pretty pointless here and would likely do more damage than good. Everyone has a right to and a responsibility for their own and actions and beliefs. But they do not have a right to control others, especially when the decision or choice in question is so difficult and deeply personal. 

 

Abortion Papers (lyrics, approximately)

Sister don’t read, she’ll never know
What about love, living a Christian soul
What do we get, she runs away
What about love, what about all I pray

Don’t know the worst, she knows a priest
What about God, living is all I see
What do you get, things she would say
What about love, that’s all I pray

Those abortion papers
Signed in your name against the words of God
Those abortion papers
Think about life, I’d like to have my child

Sister’s confused, she went alone
What about love, what about all I saw
Biding a life, reading the words
Singing a song, citing a Bible verse

Father’s confused, mother despair
Brother’s in curse, what about all I’ve seen
You know the lie, you keep it low
What about heart, that’s all I’ve known

Those abortion papers
Signed in your name against the words of God
Those abortion papers
Think about life, I’d like to have my child

Those abortion papers (whoo)
Signed in your name against the words of God
Those abortion papers
Think about life, I’d like to have my child

Look at my words, what do they say
Look at my heart, burning is all heartbreak
What do you get, what do you say
What about love, I feel my sin

Those abortion papers
Signed in your name against the words of God
Those abortion papers
Think about life, I’d like to have my child

Those abortion papers (whoo)
Think about life, I’d like to have my child (whoo)

Who have the grateful, where will she go
What will she do to see the world

Sister don’t know, where would she go
What about love, what about all I saw
What would you get, don’t get so confuse
Love all the things, it’s just the things I do

Those abortion papers
Signed in your name against the words of God
Those abortion papers
Think about life, I’d like to have my child

Those abortion papers (abortion paper, this paper, hee-hee)
Those abortion papers (hee-hee-hee, hee, hee-hee)
I’d like to have my child (hee-hee, hee, hee-hee)

Those abortion papers (hee-hee, hee, hee-hee, hee, hee-hee, hee, hee-hee)
Those abortion papers (hee-hee, hee, hee-hee
I’d like to have my child (hee-hee, hee, hee-hee, hee-hee, hee-hee)
Those abortion papers (hee-hee, hee, hee-hee)

Tags:


Jul 28 2012

The way I see it…

Category: Justice,Prose/EssaysSeven @ 8:27 pm

Mrs. Jackson with her grandchildren

Here is how I see this Jackson family debacle at this time. This is my opinion and my opinion only. I don’t insist it is the truth, because none of us know what the truth is. My opinion as written below may change as other information becomes available. I only offer the below as an alternative perspective on the situation, and in lieu of  “popular opinion” and media spin on the matter.

_ _ _ _ _

If MJ’s will is valid (and it probably is), then why didn’t these two lawyers just kindly answer the family’s questions/concerns about it privately? Sure the courts have validated it, but if the family has concerns or questions, why not just answer them, specifically?

Why does the estate (or those associated with or working for them) instead seem to blow smoke, obfuscate, and issue condescending, accusatory, and vague public responses, and subsequently blast days worth of negative stories about the Jacksons in the media as they appear to have done? Why not just privately answer the questions and concerns the Jackson family members have about the will and about the control or undue influence they feel are being wielded over Mrs. Jackson?

How did Michael sign that will if he wasn’t in LA that day? There may be a viable explanation for that. That would be great! The estate should provide those answers to the Jacksons. Would Michael sign a will on which his children’s names were spelt wrong? How and why did John Branca still have a copy of that 2002 will after he he had left the employ of Michael Jackson and was obligated upon termination to return all documents to Michael? And so on.. If it’s all on the up-and-up, then why don’t these guys just kindly answer the questions, privately, honestly, and transparently?

Instead, it seems like they have a household bouncer (Trent Jackson, allegedly the head of security or similarly involved, some say he’s an assistant to Mrs. Jackson) and possibly other personnel, particularly attorneys Ms. Ribera and Mr. Perry Sanders and others to whom that letter was addressed, who have spent the better part of a week now on the line 24×7 to the media feeding them stories about the Jacksons – which has had the end result of smearing them in the public eye and creating a distraction from this family’s concerns as expressed in their letter.

If that was the intent, it certainly worked. It created a distraction from the questions about the will and abuse/control issues and at the same time, smeared the Jacksons so badly that the entire public has turned against them. They are negatively defined as “greedy bullying swindlers just after money” , nevermind at least one of them has her own considerable fortune and doesn’t need any estate money, and the rest are on tour making money or happily married and financially independent and have been for years.

I do know this much: Propaganda works. When employed skillfully it can turn gentle, innocent people into sinister, raging criminals and raging, sinister criminals into benevolent Kings in the public’s collective eye. Remember Michael Jackson and what it did to him. In PR terms, this kind of a ruse would be called a “success“. That’s right – a success. We may see it as a fiasco but to those orchestrating such media firestorms – they are a fantastic success.

This is how the tobacco companies are still allowed to sell a product that is dangerous and kills people. It’s how the United States railed against nationalized health care (even though all other developed countries have it) because – well you know – “death panels“: a term that PR experts chose specifically to strike paralyzing fear in the hearts of anyone who would even think of supporting health care reform. Trust me. They research this stuff. They know psychology better than the psychologists do. And they use it to manipulate public opinion every day.

Fearmongering. Hysteria. Sensationalism. Take something with a hair of truth or even no truth at all. Take it out of context then claim it’s XYZ when it’s really ABC. Create a distraction from the original substance of the issue by insisting the real issue is XYZ. And then the public completely forgets about ABC because they’re all in a pitchfork-wielding mob about – OMG!  XYZ!!  Insert it into a veritable funhouse of mirrors to distort it innumerable ways and then publish, print, broadcast it to the high heavens. In the end, the truth is buried forever and some big media corporations have made millions off of the story to boot. The real criminals go free and the benevolent innocents are forever destroyed in the public eye, their lives and livelihoods ruined.

Happens every day, and that is no exaggeration. You saw it happen to Michael.

You can’t find anything written about these Jacksons now that doesn’t say “it’s all about the money! They just want control of that estate!“.

Is that because this is really true? Or is it just the PR — the spin — the “meme” — the false premise?

You know what I mean — a false premise like:  Michael Jackson is a pedophile, freak, drug addict and weirdo that bleached his skin because he didn’t want to be black!

That kind of false premise.

Yes, there’s a big difference between truth and spin, as you might guess. I’d think MJ fans particularly would be keenly aware of that. Oddly, they’re not. Why buy into the media’s spin on all this – anymore than MJ fans bought into the spin about Michael? You could tell the difference then. Why not now?

Do you think the tabloids and media have suddenly became honest and truthful entities when it comes to this family? Really? If you look at the basic facts of what happened — ignoring all the sensationalist spin and instead attempt to employ some logic instead, a different picture emerges.

Let’s look at the “greedy bullying swindlers” meme that has been put out and propagated by the estate/media spin machine:

It’s said that the older versions of MJ’s will reads very much like the existing one with exception of adding the children’s names as they were born. These siblings who are now questioning the will are not named in any prior versions of his will, either. This means that there is no money to be gotten by them from this either way, even if the current will were declared invalid. So — the premise that “they’re just after money” is not logical then, is it? It just doesn’t add up. The false premise put forth that everyone cannot seem to let go of, makes no sense. At that, it beggars belief that the current will would be declared invalid at this juncture. It won’t.

So why the hell are they doing this? Let’s apply some simple logic to this question instead of spin:

Consider that maybe – just maybe – contrary to the spin that virtually every media outlet as well as the estate has employed about this, – maybe they’re not after money. One has to let go of the false premise that they are, because that’s the only way it logistically makes any sense.

It seems to me these siblings want answers and changes, not dollars. They’ve said they feel that their mother is (or was) being abused and controlled. They said they feel the two lawyers running the estate may be doing so under false pretenses and they want something done about that (they want the executors to step down due to all these issues). That’s what their letter said. Read it.

It did NOT say they wanted money.

It did NOT say they wanted to run the estate themselves or control it themselves.

As I understand it, Janet is quite wealthy of her own accord and is financially independent and has been for years. The only way this makes any sense (to me) is if it’s NOT about the money. It’s not what they said, it’s not what their stated concerns are, and frankly the actions of certain others involved in this particular matter bear out the fact that there are some serious problems in the Calabasas household.

Beware the false premise(s) planted by estate operatives and/or the media.

That letter, by the way, was evidently not meant by the Jacksons to be public. It was allegedly leaked by Perry Sanders or one of the other recipients of the letter. In fact it would make more sense that one of the recipients publicized the letter in order to smear those who sent it. And lo and behold. It worked just like that, didn’t it?

Trust me – the Executors are behind this. The “powers that be” use tabloid media to spin their lies and divide our family.Randy Jackson

So all this questioning: “well why did the Jacksons make it public?” Did you ever consider – that maybe they didn’t? One of the recipients may have publicized it. And once it was made public by this estate operative/addressee, the estate responded to the letter, also publicly. And after that, a massive smear campaign in the media was launched against the Jacksons – with the copious help of Mrs. Jackson’s lawyer, Ms. Ribera, and Mr. Perry Sanders, another attorney the letter was addressed to, and Trent, the security head/bouncer/assistant/whatever, who was also an addressee/recipient of the letter. Trent Jackson is the one who filed the ‘missing persons‘ report on Mrs. Jackson.

We’re told Trent is also the one who has been feeding information to TMZ, and the one who turned Janet and others away from the home on the day of the alleged “altercation“. He also alleged to be the one who fed the security camera footage to the media and he is also said to be the one who called police to the scene. One member of the LAPD said they felt “used” by this whole debacle.

In her ABC Nightline video, Mrs. Jackson said someone (I’m just assuming Trent) sent away the nanny, cooks, housekeepers so the house was chaos while she was gone. I don’t know if that’s true, but she mentioned that they had been sent away. She said she thought she knew who might be behind some of this stuff.

You sort of get the idea that (at least) this Trent guy meant to cause trouble here. And what about all these lawyers feeding information that is frankly none of anyone’s business to the media for a week? Randy Jackson tweeted that Mrs. Jackson had fired Trent and the security team. Reports surfaced later that she could not do so, citing “no authority“. How would you feel if you didn’t have the “authority” to remove a troublemaker/bully from your own home if you wanted to?

Now, let’s remember what the letter to the estate from certain family members said: It said that the estate is controlling and abusing Mrs. Jackson. Well lo and behold would you look at that. If even some of this is true, then this entire situation is a prime example of just that – Mrs. Jackson is being controlled and abused.

If Mrs. Jackson is unable to even fire anyone or decide whom she wants to have or not have in her home or around her grandchildren; if Trent is allegedly being forced on her even when she no longer wants him around; if Trent is partially or mostly responsible for the chaos and upheaval that ensued while she was out of town; if Trent is the person whom the Jackson siblings said they wanted to get their mother away from (and thus the reason for this trip), I’d say just maybe the letter is right. Mrs. Jackson is (or was) being controlled and abused. If she is dealing with this guy’s machinations day in and day out, and these chatty lawyers and perhaps other staff issues, and cannot even control who may or may not live and work in her own home or around her grandchildren or family – that’s pretty terrible. Don’t you think?

Of course it’s just my opinion and you know what they say about those. But as I stated previously, it seems to me that this is partially what has gone on here and what the problem is – or was. And yes, of course like everyone else, I’m just guessing. So these are my guesses based on how I’ve watched all this unfold and I’ve seen most of it since the moment Alan Duke of CNN first tweeted about it days ago – fed the story by Mrs. Jackson’s lawyer, Ms. Ribera, who in my own opinion ought to be fired as well for spending too much time talking to the media.

Instead of any viable answers to the concerns the family expressed in that letter about the will or about estate control issues, this family had what was a private legal correspondence to the estate unduly publicized (possibly) by one of the addressees of the letter; the family got a public “answer” to the letter from the estate which was vague, condescending, and accusatory, the family have gotten ambushed for a week with a very nasty negative public smear campaign undoubtedly orchestrated by some of the same people they named in that letter; one of them we’re fairly certain about and another named in many media reports including the original one, Ms. Ribera.

I saw that video where Janet allegedly pushed or slapped Paris. She didn’t. The video showed one thing, while the sensationalist media spin said something completely different. Paris herself said that Janet never pushed or slapped her. Now that Mrs. Jackson has denied she was ever “kidnapped” by her own kids (which was ridiculous to begin with), Trash Media Zone (TMZ) asserts that Mrs. Jackson was somehow “in on it” – that she helped orchestrate her own “kidnapping“.

Oh for God’s sake, please. Do MJ fans really believe this?

I don’t believe these siblings had sinister intentions, anymore than I believe Michael ever did. I don’t believe they were after money or control. I believe they were very concerned about their mother handling the pressure and stress of managing staff and dealing with some who seem to be bullies and manipulators. Many such persons surrounded Michael. Now, they seemingly surround his mother. And if she had no choice in hiring/firing any of them, and is forced to have certain people in her home and life that she does not want involved, that’s even worse. They felt she was being controlled and abused. And there are still unresolved questions about Michael’s last known will and like it or not, they are entitled to reasonable answers about that.

I just know that this is not a family that does the kinds of things that are being reported.…somebody wanted to publicize this, somebody wanted to make a big issue out of it (by giving the security videotape to the media) –Thomas Mesereau

It’s reported that TJ had been left in charge of the children before when Mrs. J was out and there were no issues. Why were there issues this time? I don’t know but I suspect that some internal animosity in connection with these problematic staff had come to a head. They wanted their mother away from it and she has relatives in AZ so she went away for awhile. Why did “they cut her off from the children“? In her statement to ABC Nightline, Mrs. Jackson said she had “given up her phone” and that her assistant was checking on the children daily. Since the idea was for her to get away from the stress in that home and to assure her ability to relax and rest, it makes sense to me that the chaos and media firestorm that ensued after her departure were not reported to her and thus she did not know about it and thought all was well at her home and with her grandchildren. This is a more reasonable explanation than all the hysterical and sinister bullshit being parroted out there about kidnapping and her being”cut off” from the grandchildren.

Meanwhile, the kids, who it is reported were told Mrs. Jackson was going out of town, were obviously miffed that they couldn’t speak to her, but seemed for the most part fine, Paris chatting away on twitter about movies, music, and other subjects — until suddenly Paris started tweeting that her grandmother was “missing“. What changed then? I suspect that is when the children were told she was “missing” by someone in the household, perhaps because she didn’t show up at the brothers’ concert as planned. She went to Arizona, instead.

It seems maybe someone did not communicate this change in plans to the children and other staff, or they thought they did, but the information was never relayed. Perhaps the information was withheld so that a chaotic situation could be created to make this family look bad. Considering that certain people in the Calabasas household  had just received a letter from these same family members accusing them of being abusive and controlling, that isn’t out of the question, is it? And if that is the case, then this once again proves the premise of the family’s letter to these individuals to be valid ie: abuse and control.

Or, it could have simply been an honest misunderstanding or miscommunication. Regardless, some communication was clearly lost somehow and for some reason, deliberately or otherwise. A hysterical assumption was made or chaotic situation deliberately created in the Calabasas home, actions carried out accordingly and the media had a field day with it. However, Mrs. Jackson was certainly not “missing” or kidnapped by her own children as was alleged and probably didn’t even know all this was going on.

After all this, if the estate are unwilling to address the family’s concerns about the will and about the treatment of Mrs. Jackson in a professional, private and honest manner, then this only adds weight to the argument that perhaps they are fraudulently in control and they (along with those associated with them) are wielding undue influence over Mrs. Jackson. This may particularly be true if she is not even allowed to control who does or does not work in or enter her own home; if this situation was publicized and fed to the media as a means to discredit her and her family and upset her grandchildren in lieu of providing answers to the family’s written concerns; or if any miscommunication was intentional on the part of anyone involved estate-side.

As for Ms. Ribera and Mr. Sanders, I personally would not trust attorneys who are online with tabloids and media 24×7 for days at a time feeding stories to them about people’s personal lives. That indicates to me that these attorneys have other interests than (and which may even trump) managing Mrs. Jackson’s legal affairs.

These lawyers and everyone involved in running that estate should be ready, willing, and available to calmly, kindly and PRIVATELY answer any questions or concerns the family has about their brother’s will, his estate or the management thereof, or issues surrounding their mother and what goes on in her home.

Why? Because it’s Michael’s family and there should be nothing to hide from them.

Whether you like or trust some of the Jackson family or do not like or trust some of them, and regardless what their own internal squabbles, misunderstandings or disagreements are – they are Michael’s family and any estate execs or their operatives ought to be transparent with them about what is going on with Michael’s estate and certainly about what is going on with their own mother – IF in fact there is no reason for such concern.

Otherwise, those concerns only appear to have validity. And frankly and just in my own opinion, based on how this debacle has unfolded, they do bear serious consideration.

If the family’s private letter to the estate has been publicized by the recipients of said letter or other estate operatives, and subsequently the family have been subjected to a media firestorm of negative propaganda by these estate operatives/employees – and it appears to me this may have happened, then this behavior on the part of the estate  is unacceptable, unprofessional and unethical. It is divisive and extremely damaging to the Jackson family and particularly to Katherine and Michael’s children – the very people whose interests the estate presumptively exists to protect and serve.

Worse, it closely resembles the type of treatment and pattern of behavior that Michael Jackson himself was subjected to during much of his life.

I sincerely hope that the estate will deal with these concerns in a private, professional and courteous manner. I also hope that they will do something to contain certain overbearing employees/household members and overly-chatty attorneys who were involved.  I hope the new arrangement with TJ and Mrs. Jackson sharing guardianship works out well.

Additionally, I hope that Michael’s children will eventually be able to understand the history and the scope of this problem and forgive their relatives (Michael’s siblings) for trying (however unsuccessfully) to protect Mrs. Jackson, and to find out the truth behind their father’s death.

_ _ _ _ _

Geraldine Hughes gave one of the least hysterical and most reasonable summaries of the situation on Thursday when TJ gained temporary guardianship of the children:

Let’s not rush to judgment based on the temporary guardianship given to Tito’s son today. Let’s all wait until Katherine Jackson surfaces. According to her attorney, it is only temporary and he will not allow her to be permanently stripped as guardianship. Because of the age of MJ’s kids, they are old enough to voice their opinion as to who THEY want to be their guardian. We see that they love their grandmother to death and will not allow her to be taken completely away, while, on the other hand, she needs help with them, and to be protected from anyone trying to take their custody. This might actually be a win win situation. The judge granted the temporary order until August 22, 2012. TJ has always been close to MJ kids. They love him, he’s young enough to handle and help raise them, and he has a vested interest in Michael Jackson’s estate. Also, the judge ordered him to move into their home, therefore, they don’t have to be uprooted from school, home, etc. Even if Katherine is not reinstated as guardian, she can continue to live with them, help look after them, while not being under too much pressure and guarding her health. This ruling does not cut her out of MJ’s will as being his heir. I just don’t like how this came about. I think Janet, Jermaine, Rebbie & Randy’s intention might have been good (thinking only of their mother’s health), but it might have backfired negatively for Katherine. Let’s wait and see and keep our prayers up for the entire Jackson family.

And Deborah of Reflections on the Dance shared this:

One of my sources has shared the following…

It’s been shared that Trent Jackson, Joe Jackson’s nephew, head of security and home surveillance, is the person who stopped Janet and Randy from entering the home to speak with the children, and who reported an altercation to the police. It is also this same person who has apparently been leaking video to TMZ.

Mrs. Katherine is unable to fire this person, who has apparently been causing a lot of trouble, as she does not have the authority to do so. Supposedly there have been problems in the home due to this person and this is the reason that Mrs. K and the siblings took the actions that they did. Janet was also asked to help on her mother’s and brother’s request, and flew in from Italy to support her mother, though these actions backfired.

I believe the statement directly above from Deborah is likely true because someone pointed out to me on twitter that during the playing of the security surveillance video from the Calabasas home the day of the altercation, Trent Jackson’s name appears on the video. It appears both on CNN’s copy and during the interview with Tom Mesereau.  I screen-capped a couple shots from the Mesereau interview. The words “From Trent Jackson” clearly appears in the upper left-hand corner of the security portion of the video. You can see it here and here.

I do not believe there was anything sinister or underhanded about the actions Jermaine, Randy, Janet, Tito and Rebbie took in this situation. I believe their intentions were good and based on real concern fr their mother, even if their actions backfired or were badly executed. I hope that with TJ Jackson and Mrs. Jackson sharing guardianship of the children, much of the manipulation and pressure that Mrs. Jackson has obviously been subjected to by certain staff will be relieved and that she will be able to enjoy her family and especially her grandchildren once again.

-Seven

Tags: , ,


Jun 25 2012

Love Lives Forever

Category: Children,Justice,Prose/Essays,Quotes About MJSeven @ 6:09 pm

I want the same for Michael that he wanted for Ryan White: “I want the world to know who you are” . . . only then can the world understand why Michael Jackson is so missed 3, 5, 10 or more years later.

It’s why I have this website where I write about him. I’m a writer. Michael was a singer. When you want to give voice to someone’s memory, you use whatever talents or tools you have at your disposal to do it, if it’s important enough to you. And he was important.

He was as important to those who want the world to know who he was as the world was to him, especially the children. There lies the unbroken circle that even his death cannot sever.

Love Lives Forever.

___

You can read about the story behind Michael’s recording of the song that actually woke me this morning – “Gone Too Soon” – in Joe Vogel’s new piece he wrote for today in The Atlantic – it’s not to be missed!

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/06/gone-too-soon-the-many-lives-of-michael-jacksons-elegy/258933/

©2012 Seven Bowie

Tags: , , , , , ,


Mar 30 2012

Why we advocate for Michael Jackson

Category: Justice,Prose/EssaysSeven @ 1:03 am

Written by Tori Tompkins

Some may ask why we advocate for Michael Jackson. We write, we speak, and we repeat time and time again the truth because this man was completely and utterly destroyed by the avaricious ills of the modern world. The media purposely circulated lies and inaccuracies about the man knowing full well the immense damage it would have on the easily moulded mind of the masses.

Only recently, an official report was released which confirmed something Michael Jackson supporters had known for years: that the allegations against him were unfounded-that they were merely extortion attempts by families driven by greed, supported by a corrupt judicial system driven by an insatiable and all encompassing desire to publicly lynch one of the most decorated and celebrated black men in modern history. The media were fully aware of this report and these facts yet they continued to circulate lies, innuendoes and inaccuracies in order to paint a false and irrational portrait of this man. This “media blackout” on the facts, as my dear friend, Seven Bowie would say was also highlighted by Michael’s friend of 20 years, David Nordahl with his assertion that the press knew for years that Michael suffered from the serious skin disorder, vitiligo, yet they continued to suggest that he was beaching his skin in order to distance himself from his own identity, yet another attempt to undermine his considerable achievements and the immense contribution he made in keeping the flame of Dr.King’s fragile dream alight.

Why do the media block out these facts about an innocent man? Why do they continue to mock him for an affliction, akin to cancer, over which he had no control? Because it makes money. It means people can buy bigger houses, shinier cars and can strut around with feelings of inflated status and self worth. Who are the victims in all this? Us, normal people, for we so often buy into this industry-we offer our money and in return they lie to us and abuse us. Whether it be about dear Michael, domestic affairs, or foreign policy, the media lie. It is their job to keep you uninformed so big businessmen can continue to protect their financial investments. What you read in a paper is not objective, it is the subjective prejudices of money mad individuals like Murdoch who do not care about the general public or accuracy. Murdoch used his News of the World empire to support the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq which has cost thousands of innocent lives on both sides. When confronted with such a damning notion, what was his reaction? He laughed-laughed in the face of all those families who have lost brothers, sons, sisters and fathers on an empty expedition.

Unfortunately, Michael Jackson got caught in this horrific web of lies and deceit to an extent unseen in modern history. Such unending bullying and a gross disrespect for his value as a thinking, feeling human being no doubt broke this poor man’s spirit. The media, with nothing more than words and a limited mental capacity managed to condition the minds of an entire public. Such horrific treatment could happen to anyone. It is horrifyingly simple how easy it is for the press to obscure necessary detail and keep the masses dangerously misinformed about a variety of subjects. Because of their immoral, entirely unethical and avaricious approach to their industry, an innocent man was daily ripped from his family and all those who held him dear in their hearts. The media wantonly bullied and ridiculed a father, a brother and a son. Never again will he be able to look upon his children in play, nor comfort them when they are down. His three children will never be able to know the presence of their father throughout their lives, nor share those sacred and precious moments with him that so many take for granted. Never again can he enjoy the wonders, joys and simple pleasures of life so brutally and relentlessly denied him.

That such an industry, when coupled with a responsive public, can annihilate an individual is disgusting and abhorrent. Something must be changed. As a group, as a species, we must stop placing vale on the material above all else. It seems now profit is far more important to most than people. There must be a change. We must work to restore a sense of ethics and humanity to this deeply corrupt and immoral industry. How tragic though that we couldn’t change in time to save one so beautiful from the grotesque clutches of the darkest recesses of human nature.

Tags: ,


Next Page »