Michael Jackson's Accuser finally gets down to business: Sues for cashhhhhhh

[Trauma-san]

The true motive finally starts to play out.  Up until now, Michael has only been sued Criminally, leading many to say that the family doesn't want money... however, in california now, you can't sue civilly in a child abuse lawsuit until a criminal case is won!  So the family CANT sue Michael.... yet.  

Anyways, that's not stopping them from trying to make money.  They actually just sued yesterday, the Child Protective Services in L.A., whom last year FOUND THE CHARGES AGAINST MICHAEL UNFOUNDED.  That's right, the Child Protective Services found the charges against Michael "Unfounded" which in their interpretation, means that the charges have absolutely no evidence to support them.  The family is suing them for that.  


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Money Motive?
Jackson's Alleged Victim's Family Seeks Damages in Connection to Molestation Case

May 26, 2004 — The family of Michael Jackson's alleged victim in his child molestation case has filed a claim for damages against the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services, ABC News has learned.

Jackson has pleaded not guilty to 10 charges that include: felony conspiracy with 28 overt acts involving child abduction, false imprisonment, extortion; committing lewd acts upon a child; attempting to commit a lewd act; and administering an intoxicating agent to a child.

The alleged victim in the case is believed to be a cancer survivor, now 14 years old, who spent time at Jackson's Neverland ranch and appeared in the British documentary Living With Michael Jackson, which was broadcast on ABC last year.

ABC News has obtained a document, filed Tuesday on behalf of the alleged victim and his relatives, that seeks damages against the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services for allegedly violating their privacy. The family's claim revolves around disclosure of the details of the confidential investigation that was conducted by the department before Jackson was first criminally charged in the molestation case last November.

According to an internal government memo on the investigation, Los Angeles police and child welfare officials concluded that the sexual abuse allegations against Jackson were "unfounded." It was not until after investigators in Santa Barbara reviewed the case a couple of times that officials decided to pursue criminal charges against Jackson.


Trouble Started With The Smoking Gun

There was no public knowledge of the Los Angeles investigation and its conclusions until The Smoking Gun posted the government memo on its Web site in December 2003.

The memo said Jackson's alleged victim "denied any form of sexual abuse" and said that he never "slept in the same bed as the entertainer." The boy also denied the allegations when questioned by a social worker assigned to the Sensitive Case Unit of Los Angeles' Department of Children and Family Services back in February 2003

In the claim, the family of Jackson's alleged victim says it is seeking damages from the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services because officials did not have the "human decency" to apologize for violating their privacy and allowing the confidential memo become public knowledge. The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services said it "continues to conduct an aggressive, ongoing investigation" into the memo's leak and has promised to hold those responsible accountable.

Not About the Money

A source close to the family told ABC News that the family is only seeking an apology, not money. They want to prevent another leak from happening. Still, the defense experts say the damages claim is the first time the alleged victim's family has sought money in the case and suggests motive.

"This new claim on their part seems to suggest that maybe there is a financial motive, and that it is about the money," said defense attorney Dana Cole.

Michael Jackson has denied any wrongdoing. He and his supporters have suggested that the Santa Barbara District Attorney's office has a vendetta against him and relatives of the alleged victim have made up the allegations to get a monetary settlement similar to the deal the singer made when another boy accused him of sexual abuse in 1993. (Jackson was never charged in that case. Prosecutors did not pursue charges against him after the alleged victim refused to testify. Still, Jackson has always insisted on his innocence in that scandal.)

The next hearing in Jackson's case is scheduled for Friday.

Reported by ABC News' Jessica Yellin on Good Morning America. ABC News' Beth Tribolet contributed to this report.

[Shallow]

True motive? How do you know that?

Look I'm not saying he did, but what if what the kid said really did happen. Huh. What if you had a son that came to you and said MJ molested him? Would you just laugh at him, slap him a few times, and tell him about all the great things Michael has done.

Look man the guys a fuckin musician, okay he's a great one. But does that mean he's a great person, or that he's above the law. You have know idea what's going on behind close doors. Is there a possibility that this is all a scam? Sure, maybe. But to imply that it is  only because the family wants money is just stupid. Who wouldn't want money. Particularly if Jackson is guilty. If you tell me that if Jackson molested your son you would leave it alone and praise Jackson for the artist he is, then I sincerely hope you never have any children.

I think it's time you separate the fictional people you listen to on record from the real people they are. You, or I, do not know who these people are, not in the slightest. So to claim what they would or wouldn't do is not up to us, we're just fans of the music, we'll never know the person behind the music, no matter hiow many vh1 specials we watch.

[Trauma-san]

Quit putting words in my mouth.  I'm just providing information, people can make up their own mind.  In *MY mind, I've already decided Michael's probably being framed.  I have several things (this being one of them) that have led me to that conclusion.

1. Michael says he didn't do it.
2. Apparently, Michael was in Florida while the boy was in California on the days the boy claimed all this happened.
3. The L.A. Child protection department found the charges "unfounded".
4. I know a lot of information about the first Michael Jackson child abuse case, and have concluded it was a frame job.
5.  The boy's mother has sued people for sexual harassment in the past, and settled out of court.  (she said security guards molested her in a parking lot after her son stole shit from a mall).  She won several hundred thousands of dollars from that settlement.
6.  Tom Sneddon, the d.a. in Santa Barbara, is cited by mannnnnny people as having a vendetta against Michael Jackson, and was recently accused (by a man whom Sneddon lost a false imprisonment lawsuit to) of having a 'how to get Michael Jackson out of Santa Barbara" meeting... what the fuck.
7. Again, Tom Sneddon has lost false imprisonment lawsuits before, by people who claimed (and were believed by a judge and jury) that Sneddon 'stacked' charges against them, accusing them of everything and anything (as he's doing with Michael currently) to try and get a conviction.
8. Sneddon laughed and made a fucking party scene out of the press conference he held to announce they were charging Michael with these sick charges.
9. Michael's demeanor doesn't fit the profile of someone who would harm anything, much less a child.
10. Michael's spent his entire adult life donating time and money to children's charities.
11. Child Molestors typically molest dozens, even hundreds of children before their caught.  Michael has been accused twice.  Again, doesn't fit the profile.  
12. Sneddon set Jackson's bail at 3million dollars, an unheard of amount... even for celebrities.  Celebrities accused of MURDER have had bail set at 1 million typically.  Again, shows that Sneddon has a vendetta against Jackson.
13. Michael made and recorded and released a diss song called "D.S." with the hook "Dom Sheldon is a cold man" which obviously is a half-ass veiled jab at Sneddon, so again, Sneddon has reason to have a vendetta against Jackson.
14. The Child's father claims that he has a paper script that the child's mother wrote out in their first sexual assault lawsuit against the bodyguards, as a script for the child to read if he was ever put on the stand in court.  Come on, can it get any more fucking obvious?
15. Jackson & Co. have signed, and videotaped statements from the Boy, AND the Mother, saying nothing ever happened! What the fuck? Why even try him.

[Trauma-san]

OH, and this is a cute line you just typed.

"If you tell me that if Jackson molested your son you would leave it alone and praise Jackson for the artist he is, then I sincerely hope you never have any children."

In the first child molestation case, did you know that after the guy accused Michael of this shit, in their first 'meeting' (between the father's attorney and Michael's attorney), the guy walked up and hugged Michael like an old friend?  In your own fucking words, that's not how somebody acts that just found out their son was molested.  He's been framed twice, it's pretty fucking clear if you know anything at all about the situation (which you obviously don't).  

[Shallow]

Look I don't know whats really going on with the case, and I'm not going to pretend to. You for some reason think you know the secrets they are not revealing in the media. Things are never as they seem, only Michael and the boy know the real story. Let's leave it at that.

On a personal level I don't think Mike did it, but I am not going to go around and promote his freedom. I see all these idiots with their "free jackson" T-shirts, like they know him. FreeJackson? From what. The guy starts his own fires. He has all this money, he chooses to live the mega high life and separate himself from others like he's on some higher plateau or something. And he apparently isn't very logical, (if he is in fact innocent). If I went through a molestation charge and bought my way out of going to court, I probably wouldn't invite children into my house and sleep with them in my bed. I mean if someone had already tried to frame me once by accusing me of molesting their child, I don't think I would go aroung sleeping with other peoples children in my bed. And if I did, I wouldn't act surprised when I get charged again.

The bottom line is Michael is either guilty or incredibly stupid.

[Shallow]

OH, and this is a cute line you just typed.

"If you tell me that if Jackson molested your son you would leave it alone and praise Jackson for the artist he is, then I sincerely hope you never have any children."

In the first child molestation case, did you know that after the guy accused Michael of this shit, in their first 'meeting' (between the father's attorney and Michael's attorney), the guy walked up and hugged Michael like an old friend?  In your own fucking words, that's not how somebody acts that just found out their son was molested.  He's been framed twice, it's pretty fucking clear if you know anything at all about the situation (which you obviously don't).  

Cute line?

I don't know what that father did when he saw Michael, but I find it hard to believe that he hugged him. Even if the guy is lying, why the fuck would he publicly hug Michael and pretty much destroy his whole case.

But even if he did hug him. That is not the point. I was asking what "you" would do if you let your son stay with Michael and your son came to you and said Mike touched him innapropriately.

[Don Seer]

OH, and this is a cute line you just typed.

"If you tell me that if Jackson molested your son you would leave it alone and praise Jackson for the artist he is, then I sincerely hope you never have any children."

In the first child molestation case, did you know that after the guy accused Michael of this shit, in their first 'meeting' (between the father's attorney and Michael's attorney), the guy walked up and hugged Michael like an old friend?  In your own fucking words, that's not how somebody acts that just found out their son was molested.  He's been framed twice, it's pretty fucking clear if you know anything at all about the situation (which you obviously don't).  

Cute line?

I don't know what that father did when he saw Michael, but I find it hard to believe that he hugged him. Even if the guy is lying, why the fuck would he publicly hug Michael and pretty much destroy his whole case.

But even if he did hug him. That is not the point. I was asking what "you" would do if you let your son stay with Michael and your son came to you and said Mike touched him innapropriately.

you completely showed your ignorace with that line i highlighted. IMO you're just here to be a smartass.

the kids father is seperated and claims the mother is nuts... he's probably a part of the MJ defence now.

[Shallow]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Look I've said before I haven't thoroughly followed the case. I don't intend to. Why? Because I strongly believe that all these stupid celebrity court cases are one lie after another. You never know what to be believe.


I followed the OJ case, after that circus show I stopped following any case that involves a celebrity.



I'm not trying to be a smartass. I'm merely implying that "what if" Jackson really does molest children, I don't want to be publicly defending the guy, and addind further distress to the possible victim. I wouldn't like hearing people publicly vouch for a man if that man raped my 5 year old daughter (hypothetically speaking), to think that a choild who had been molested also has to go through public humiliation is appauling. Once again, I'm not suggesting that Jackson is guilty, but if it turns out that he is, I don't want to feel bad about what I may have done in his defence.