Thread by @JuliaBerkowitz1

THREAD: There is a new Bill in the works in California that, if passed, MAY help out Robson and Safechuck (depending on with what specifics it would be passed and whether it would be passed before their appeal is decided on or after).

The end of the current analysis lists organizations that are supportive of the Bill and those which oppose it. I noticed an interesting name among those lobbying in support of the Bill.

Googling this "Leaving Neverland Support Network" nothing comes up so I wonder if it is even a working organization, or just something Finaldi, Wade and James quickly set up for lobbying purposes. Lobbying for their own purse.

This is the Bill we are talking about: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billText…

Remember when Leaving Neverland aired how many people bought into the notion (just because Wade and James said so), that "it is not about money".

Their lawsuit in LN was presented as just some fleeting afterthought, not important at all. "It's already dismissed anyway, they are not doing this for the money", so went the mantra of many LN supporters.

What the film did not tell you was that they are still appealing the case, bending over backwards with ridiculous arguments for that money that is supposedly not important to them. LN is a part of their campaing for that money.

Maybe it was no coincidence that LN aired around the time when this Bill was submitted to the Assembly. One purpose is certainly to contribute to the public pressure on law makers to change laws in favor of accusers.

Also, let's not forget, that when they started shooting LN in early 2017, their lawsuit was still ongoing and if it had not been thrown out theoretically LN could have been released around the time when their case would have gone on trial.

Imagine the pressure on a civil trial Jury in that LN atmosphere where all the media is telling them LN is definitely "true" and in this MeToo atmosphere when you are only considered a "good person" if you unconditionally "believe victims"!

Imagine being a Juror on this case in that atmosphere in a civil trial (where the burden of proof is a lot more lax than in a criminal trial)! Of course, LN and the one-sided media frenzy surrounding it would be a huge pressure on any civil trial jury to side with the accusers.

I think that would have been the initial purpose of LN. Their lawsuit was thrown out, so it didn't come to that, but now this Bill is their new chance and LN can be used in assisting their new attempt at getting that money that is supposedly not important to them.

Also, I think LN was also way of "victim" fishing.

I don't think their appeal has much chance, that's not what they are looking at now either, as per Filaldi's latest interview. They are looking at this new Bill.

I am no legal expert but from what I understand it is a race against time: it must pass before their appeal is concluded for this new Bill to apply to them. That's why you see them dragging on the appeal by all means possible.

It also must pass in this current form with revival rules that would apply to them - and this revival issue is one of the most debated parts of the new Bill, so it is not yet certain at all it would pass in a form that would apply to them.

But surely if they are among the lobby groups supporting this Bill, they will try to make sure it does.

So these are the lengths these two accusers and their ambulance chasing law firm goes for the monetary reward that in public they claim is not important to them. Lobbying for law changes and all.

They know if they somehow manage to break into the Piggy Bank of Michael Jackson, they could rip them off for hundreds of millions of dollars (ultimately MJ's orphaned children, elderly mother and the charities MJ left his money to).

And let me remind you what their lawsuit is actually about: it is about them suing MJ's companies for those supposedly "facilitating" their abuse. Mind you, James Safechuck had nothing even to do with those companies. He was never employed by them in the relevant period.

Yet somehow they are responsible for his alleged "abuse". If this is about "truth" and "justice" why not sue his mother who let MJ sleep in James's room both in their home and on tour?

Who, acc. to LN, eavesedropped MJ and James on tour in their room and laughingly reminisced about it in LN. Instead you make contrived attempts at trying to make companies responsible you had nothing to do with. Because tHiS iS nOt AbOuT mOnEy, I guess.

Wade was employed by MJ's companies but only because his mother was eager to immigrate to the US to make a career for Wade and asked MJ to help them with the immigration by employing them so that they can get the green cards.

According to Wade's own mother, the companies were only incidental to their relationship with MJ. Wade makes up contrived tales in his lawsuit to somehow make the companies responsible for his alleged abuse,yet his own mother inadvertently refutes his lies in her 2016 deposition.

No, it were not MJ's companies who organized the dance contest in 1987, let alone with the intent of "recruiting victims for MJ". MJ would not have given a shit about Wade and his family after that dance contest, if Joy had not pursued him relentlessly afterwards.

She was the one who went out her way to contact MJ again in 1990, by finding out the phone number of MJJ Productions. How does this make MJJP responsible for Wade's alleged abuse?

The very fact that Wade/James bend over backwards to blame the companies (ie. to be able to sue for money) tells you all about whether you should believe them when they say it is not about money.

If it wasn't about money, but about truth and justice, they should sue their mothers. Of course, they won't do that, since there is no big money to be made with that. But hey, I thought it wasn't about money!

I don't think anywhere else in the world outside the USA is there such a big prospect of making HUGE money with child sexual abuse allegations. There's a whole industry built on it. The law firm of Wade/James itself brags on its website to have litigated 2 billion(!) dollars.

So anyone buying into the notion it is not about money, is fooling themselves. It is no wonder Finaldi, James and Wade go such lengths to somehow find a way to break into the Bank of Michael Jackson. It is potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for them!

In the UK there is a big debate about how the fact that vicitm's compensations are paid out to accusers may encourage people to lie about historic abuse.

And those victims' compensations in the UK (in the range of 10,000-30,000 pounds) are nowhere near the potentially millions of dollars paid out in such cases in the USA. Especially when a celebrity, like MJ, is the accused.

How naive you have to be to think this is not about money?

I think law makers be careful not to go from one extreme to another where now the rights those accused would be considered a lower priority than the rights of accusers.

There needs to be an acknowledgement in the fact that false allegations do exist and that the potentially big money made of such allegations can be a magnet for opportunists.

Thus those on the receiving end of such a Bill (schools etc) may find themselves in end trapped in endless litigation - some of which might be legit, but some might be brought on by opportunists.

Cases of CSA are already notoriously difficult to judge anyway, but they are even more difficult in historic cases, and an added difficulty is when the accused is no longer there to defend himself.

There is a reason why it is a basic requirement that the accused can face his accusers. With this type of litigation (where they sue not MJ, but his companies) that can be circumvented as the accused here is the company, not MJ.

Yet, ultimately the stigma of an abuser would be on MJ, in case of a liable verdict. So ultimately it is not a fair process towards the accused on so many levels. And now they would make this even more stacked against the accused organizations.

Yes, there are situations where posthumous lawsuits in CSA are absolutely warranted, but the case of James/Wade just isn't that case. They were both adults at the time of the 2005 trial, where they could bring these allegations with the accused having the ability to face them.

The ability to face your accuser is a basic human right and that right shouldn't be so easily trampled on just because someone makes a convenient claim of supposed psychological inability to bring claims earlier. It is so easy to make such a claim.

Depending on which version of James's story you go with, in 2005 he knew MJ was a "bad man"/ that MJ "had sexually abused him". Of course, he also has another version where he claims he didn't realize he was an abuse victim until 2013...

... alternatively until his child was born in 2010, which only shows that these men will claim just about anything they need to claim to pass statutes. Which highlights the huge problem with this all.

And Wade sang praises of MJ up until 2012, both publicly and privately, when his career crumbled because he couldn't deal with its pressures, and as a convenient solution for all of his problems, he suddenly "realized" that he was supposedly "abused" by MJ.

And this is why should we trample on basic human rights? To appease accusers like these two?