civil case Jackson vs. Schaffel

um was gehts dann da?

<div class='quotetop'>ZITAT (KingOfPop @ 09. Mai 2006 - 13:37 Uhr) [snapback]102545[/snapback]</div>

Zitat

um was gehts dann da?
[/b]

Det ist doch dieser Konzertveranstalter, der Mike verklagt hat, weil er ein Konzert ganz plötzlich abgesagt hatte, und dadurch natürliche hohe Verluste gemach hat....

<div class='quotetop'>ZITAT (Blanket @ 09. Mai 2006 - 14:20 Uhr) [snapback]102556[/snapback]</div>

Zitat

Nee, das war Avram.

Schaffel ist doch Michaels Ex manager und der will von Michael Kohle haben, die er ihm angeblich noch schuldet.
[/b]

achso darum geht es.
naja, mal sehen.

<div class='quotetop'>ZITAT (janosch @ 09. Mai 2006 - 14:22 Uhr) [snapback]102557[/snapback]</div>

Zitat

[/b]

Jackson Heads Back to Court for Civil Suit
Former Associate Alleges 'King of Pop' Owes Him Money

June 13, 2006 — Michael Jackson, acquitted last year of child molestation and other charges, returns to the courtroom Monday to face a former associate who is suing him for alleged breach of contract and other agreements.
Marc Schaffel, a reputed porn producer and one-time Jackson confidant, seeks more than $3 million from the "King of Pop." In his lawsuit, Schaffel also alleges the entertainer is broke and has had problems with drugs and lavish spending. Jackson's representatives have denied the charges.
Schaffel's trial brief says: "In the rarefied air of the world Michael Jackson … inhabits, sometimes referred to by his closest advisers as 'Michael World,' things were different." The brief goes on to say Jackson carried no credit cards, cash or checks, and relied on advisers and others to attend "to his every need."
Schaffel calls Jackson a "master of manipulating the people around him" by playing one adviser against another and a combination of "emotional pleas and strident demands."
Meanwhile, the brief filed by Jackson's attorneys says: "To say that Schaffel is an unsavory character is an understatement. He is a professional swindler and pornographer with a long history of dishonest, immoral and manipulative behavior."
Schaffel was an unindicted alleged co-conspirator in Jackson's molestation trial. Prosecutors in Santa Barbara, Calif., alleged he and other associates played various roles in surveilling the alleged victim's family, taking the boy and his siblings out of school and making them virtual prisoners of Jackson. He did not comment to ABC News on the case when interviewed about the lawsuit in 2004.
In the lawsuit, Schaffel claimed Jackson hired him to produce two rebuttal documentaries to the British documentary "Living With Michael Jackson." Schaffel told ABC's "Good Morning America" at the time it was filed that Jackson was devastated by the documentary that aired on Fox.
While Schaffel claims he is owed money for that project and other business dealings, Jackson's attorneys allege Schaffel owes the singer money.
Jackson has been living in Bahrain with his two children.

(abc)

Klingt nach ner so richtig dreckigen Schlammschlacht

Und ner schlampigen Recherche.

<div class='quotetop'>ZITAT </div>

Zitat

Jackson has been living in Bahrain with his two children.[/b]

Michael Jackson Sought to Earn Money From 9/11 Charity Single
Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Jacko: 'Charity' Means He Gets Paid

On the first anniversary of Michael Jackson’s acquittal on charges of child molestation and conspiracy, here is something new and novel to think about: Jackson believes that putting out a charity single means he gets paid while everyone else works for free.

This little bit of information came out recently during depositions for Jackson’s trial with former associate Marc Schaffel. The trial is set to begin on Monday in Los Angeles.

During a lengthy deposition in London last month, Jackson apparently gave fascinating testimony about how he was putting together the single “What More Can I Give” for release in 2003.

The single, which never did get released, was supposed to somehow benefit the families of 9/11 victims. In fact, Jackson had written the song much earlier than that and had been planning to release it in August 2001 as part of his overblown egotistical plan to “save the world” and “save the children.”

But what does cutting a charity single really mean to Jackson? According to insiders, he told lawyers in the deposition that he retained the copyright to “What More Can I Give?” and had no intention of donating the proceeds from the publishing.

In Jackson’s view — which will come out at the Schaffel trial via his still unseen videotaped performance on the stand — it would be crazy for him to donate the rights to a song to a charity.

Instead, Jackson’s idea of a charity single — and this would apply to the still unreleased song he was planning for survivors of the now 10-months-ago Hurricane Katrina — is to turn over the money from sales of a CD.

Everyone on the CD is supposed to waive their fees, too, including the musicians, performers and engineers. But rights to the music remain with him, and he would reap the financial rewards.

Jackson told the attorneys in the deposition, and I am paraphrasing without a direct transcript available: “I don’t know songwriters who give their royalties to charity. To give the royalty rights, that’s a lot of money to give away.”

When asked whether the idea was to give “zero percent” of the royalties to “What More Can I Give?” to charity, Jackson is said to have responded: “I told you so, yes.”

Jackson can only learn from past experience. According to the ASCAP Web site, 1984’s “We Are the World” — the only charity song he’s actually ever participated in — is registered to Jackson, singer-songwriter Lionel Richie and ex-wife Brenda Richie. This means that any time the record is played on the radio, money goes not to charity but to that trio. Jackson gets 50 percent, and the Richies split the other 50 percent (Brenda evidently got her share through her divorce from Lionel).

A source at one of the publishing companies involved explained, however, that USA for Africa, the original charity for which "We Are the World" was composed and recorded, still receives money from the all-star recording of the song and the video. But the money for writing the song? That goes right to the three copyright holders.

Jackson — who made a sad appeal for publicity over the weekend in France by being rolled through the Tuilleries in a wheelchair, wearing pajamas — proves to be savvier than previously thought, according to his testimony. Unfortunately, according to accounts, he didn’t know the meaning of the word “savvy,” and asked to have it rephrased during questioning.

Jackson is said to understand the value of copyrights and that his public eccentricities — pajamas, umbrellas, sunglasses, top hats, children in masks, etc., going right back to Hyperbaric chambers and the Elephant Man’s bones — are all part of a well-choreographed game to keep the public interested in his fading celebrity.

(fu**ing fox news)

wird der gerade bezahlt, für schmutz-meldungen, oder was soll das

Niemand verschenkt Rechte...totaler Humbug. Gespendet wird immer aus den Einnahmen, die man erzielt. Ausserdem geht es beim Rechte halten ja nicht nur um das Geld, dass Michael bekommt, sondern einfach auch darum, entscheiden zu können was mit einem Song, der einem gehört bzw. den man geschrieben hat, passiert!

<div class='quotetop'>ZITAT (Screamlouder @ 15. Juni 2006 - 12:21) [snapback]115432[/snapback]</div>

Zitat

Niemand verschenkt Rechte...totaler Humbug. Gespendet wird immer aus den Einnahmen, die man erzielt. Ausserdem geht es beim Rechte halten ja nicht nur um das Geld, dass Michael bekommt, sondern einfach auch darum, entscheiden zu können was mit einem Song, der einem gehört bzw. den man geschrieben hat, passiert!
[/b]

genau!

In Amerika ist sicher sonst nix neues über Michael zu erfahren, da muss Dreckschleuder Friedman die alten Kamellen ausgraben und wenn er denn mal was neues anzubieten hat, muss er Mr.Jackson natürlich im negativsten Licht darstellen... wird der Mann eigentlich fürs Klatsch- verbreiten bezahlt oder verdient er sein Geld nur damit, ausschliesslich Michael Jackson mit Dreck zu bewerfen?

(obwohl, wenn ichs mir recht überlege: Brittney Spears hat im Moment auch ne ziemlich schlechte Phase, manchmal könnt man denken, sie läuft Michael den Rang ab, also natürlich nur im Einstecken mieser Presse ...)

na, das hat unser friedmännchen ja wieder super hinbekommen, er wird mir immer sympathischer

er hat es geschafft, alle gerüchte in einen artikel zu bringen,hat der mann kein anderes hobby oder wird er wirklich auf provisionbasis bezahlt ,nach dem motto, je mieser der artikel desto mehr money???

ich verstehe nicht ,wie ein erwachsener mann der mit diesem mann(mj) nichts zu schaffen hat, der ihm nie was getan hat ,soviel hass entwickeln kann und nur dreck schleudert ,was hat er davon ???

und ausserdem ist er ein seeeehr schlechter, subjektiver journalist, falls man ihn so überhaupt bezeichenn darf ,denn er liefert eine miese recherche und prüft in keiner weise seine quellen ,sondern setzt alles in seine artikel was er irgendwo von irgendnem superdeppen aufgefasst hat und verkauft es als verifiziert ,es sei denn es gibt positive berichte, die sind natürlich alle keinen heller wert und ERredet da von manipulation....hat da jemand was verdreht???

also der einzige, der versucht hier zu manipulieren ,das ist ganz alleine er selber

sorry musste mal raus!!