We’d like to send a big thank you to the Estate of Michael Jackson for relinquishing the domain name mjfacts.com so that we can use it. It is much appreciated. You could have charged us a lot of money for it, but you didn’t.
[No. B092937. Second Dist., Div. Three. Oct 1, 1996.]
BARRY K. ROTHMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MICHAEL JACKSON et al., Defendants and Respondents.
(Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. SC032081, David B. Finkel fn. and Alan B. Haber, Judges.)
(Opinion by Croskey, Acting P. J., with Kitching and Aldrich, JJ., concurring.)
Wylie A. Aitken, Darren O. Aitken and Herbert Hafif for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Kinsella, Boesch, Fujikawa & Towle, Dale F. Kinsella, Catherine H. Coleman, Alan R. Kossoff, Katten, Muchin, Zavis & Weitzman, Katten, Muchin & Zavis, Mark A. Wooster, Zia F. Modabber and E. Randol Schoenberg for Defendants and Respondents.
CROSKEY, Acting P. J.
Barry K. Rothman and the Law Offices of Barry K. Rothman (hereafter, collectively, Rothman) appeal from judgments of dismissal entered in favor of Michael Jackson, MJJ Productions, Inc. (hereafter, collectively, Jackson), Bertram Fields, the Law Offices of Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman & Machtinger (Fields), Anthony Pellicano and the Pellicano Investigative Agency (Pellicano) in Rothman’s action for defamation, tortious interference with business relationships and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The judgments were entered after the defendants’ demurrers were sustained without leave to amend. The demurrers were sustained as to all causes of action solely on the ground of the litigation privilege in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). fn. 1
We reverse. The challenged statements were made by the defendants in a press conference, and not in any context which the litigation privilege exists to protect. The privilege in section 47, subdivision (b) does not apply to the statements made in this case. Continue reading
[No. B114354. Second Dist., Div. Four. Oct 28, 1998.]
MICHAEL JACKSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents.
(Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC119778, Reginald A. Dunn, Judge.)
(Opinion by Curry, J., with Vogel (C. S.), P. J., and Epstein, J., concurring.)
Katten, Muchin & Zavis, Zia F. Modabber and Steve Cochran for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, Patricia L. Glaser and Ronald E. Guttman for Defendants and Respondents.
Appellant Michael Jackson brought suit against respondents Paramount Pictures Corporation, Diane Dimond, and Stephen Doran, alleging that he had been slandered by reports broadcast on the television program Hard Copy fn. 1 and in a radio interview with Dimond. During these broadcasts, the search for and purported existence of a videotape showing appellant inappropriately touching an underage boy in a sexual manner were discussed. The trial court granted summary judgment to respondents based on the truth of the statements made in the broadcasts and the lack of evidence of malice. After review of the record and the evidence in support of and in opposition to the summary judgment motion, we affirm the trial court’s ruling. Continue reading
March 3, 2005
by Jim Kouri, CPP
Okay. I’m crying uncle. The pressure is just too great. But I’m going to do this once and once only: I’m going to write about the Michael Jackson pedophile case. I’m going to write a column that will hopefully contribute to the discussion by informing the reader of facts not being discussed by the mainstream media.
But first, I have a question for the members of news media: where are the experts on pedophiles and child sex abuse who are paraded out whenever there’s a high-profile case such as the pedophile Catholic priests story? Where are the FBI profilers? The sociology and psychology professors? Where are the detectives who possess an expertise in sex crimes investigation? I’ll tell you where they are. They’re MIA — missing in action. Where are the experts who are qualified to speak on the subject of themodus operandi of child sex offenders? MIA. It seems obvious that such details are absent from the coverage of the Michael Jackson trial.
As a cop, I investigated several sex crimes with victims who were children. Both pedophile and pederast cases (pedophiles victimize pre-pubescent kids, while pederasts prey on pubescent kids). In fact, one of the biggest cases of my career was in a New York City hospital where a 12-year old female patient was sexually abused by a hospital employee (the suspect got 20 years; I got a commendation). So I kind of speak from experience. My contribution to the discussion of Michael Jackson and the allegations of child molestation will be simple:
Here are the characteristics of child sex offenders from an article I wrote a couple of years back for The Chief of Police Magazine. You judge for yourself whether Michael Jackson fits the MO of a predator.
* Are popular with children, teens and adults.
* Appear to be trustworthy and respectable.
* Have good standing in the community.
* Prefer the company of children and teens.
* Are mainly attracted to pre-pubescent boys and girls and can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.
* “Groom” children with quality time, video games, parties, toys, candy, gifts or money.
* Single out children who appear troubled and in need of attention or affection; children from dysfunctional families.
* Often date or marry women with children or have children who are the age of their preferred victims.
* Rarely force or coerce children into sexual contact; it’s usually done through trust and friendship.
In addition, physical contact is gradual, from touching and holding to sitting the child on the lap and kissing. They derive gratification in a number of ways. For some, looking is enough. For others taking pictures and watching children undress is enough. Still others require physical contact.
They find different ways and places to be alone with children; and are primarily male, better educated and more religious than the average person. Child sex abusers usually choose jobs that provide them with greater access to childen. Even if the pedophile has no children, his home is usually child-friendly with toys, books, video games, computers, bikes, swimming pool, rec room swing sets and other items to attract children into his home and to keep the children coming back. Usually the items reflect the preferred age of his victims.
The pedophile usually has no criminal record and deny they abuse children even after arrested, prosecuted, convicted, incarcerated and ordered into a sex offender therapy program. Pedophiles are often victims of childhood sexual abuse themselves, or they may have grown up in a dysfunctional home environment.
I rest my case.
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. He writes for many police and crime magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, and others. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com.