DAN REED is a freelance British film director and producer who specializes in “documentary reconstructions of major terrorist attacks.” He has made numerous TV movies and documentaries, working with HBO, Channel 4, PBS Frontline, the BBC, and, by his own admission, certain intelligence assets that have been instrumental for some of his films. In an interview for his 2008 TV movie, “Terror in Mumbai,” he characterized himself as “a bit of a gun for hire.”
“I tend to make films which go behind a big news story or go behind something that has made headlines, and try to show the more complex side of it, and to try and kind of unpack the hidden truths…I’m hired on a job-by-job basis. And I do the projects that I like and the projects that, for some reason, turn me on.”
Dan Reed on his work with intelligence assets in India for “Terror in Mumbai.” Image: MsFlying Fairy.
Reed has specialized in terrorism-related films, such as “Terror in Mumbai,” and also “Frontline Fighting: Battling ISIS,” “Terror at the Mall,” and “Three Days of Terror: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks,” which serve to promote the official narratives of these staged and otherwise-suspect events and activities. At university, Reed majored in French and Russian and spent quite a bit of time in Russia; his knowledge of Russian, he says, got him a job as a researcher with a documentary series, and he “kind of took it on from there.” He has clearly been hired to take out Michael Jackson.
Reed admits to the directorial and cinematic tricks he uses to push these narratives, using behind-the-scenes stories and intimate, personal details to reveal the “hidden sides, hidden complexities behind stories we think we’re familiar with from the news media.”
“…Telling the inside of these big stories, using very personal accounts. It’s a mode of storytelling I specialize in and have developed…everything from the camera angles, the lighting, the manner in which I interview people. That has all been incredibly useful in “Leaving Neverland.” You see the same techniques being repurposed from one subject matter to another.”
Yes, the same techniques, including the use of scripted text that is made to appear spontaneous, off-camera coaching, multiple takes from which the most convincing are selected, lighting tricks and special camera angles, as well as graphic details of alleged sex meant to stand in for real evidence – all calculated to convince the viewer that Wade Robson and James Safechuck are real victims. The interviews with Wade and James were filmed in one week in February 2017; the families were interviewed later that year, and the “wedding ring” scene was added in July 2018.
“Leaving Neverland” builds on the previous 1993 and 2003/2005 child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson, and returns to the topic to accuse him anew. Reed claims he made the film over the course of two or three years, although what he did all this time is a mystery, as he certainly didn’t research Michael Jackson. Reed has given numerous interviews to promote the film, with few challenges to his authority. This, although he has admitted that he knows little about Jackson.
“…my knowledge of Jackson’s biography is so restricted and my interest in his music and in his career was pretty much non-existent before I began the three-year journey of this film…”
Anyway, according to Reed, not a lot of research was required, because “This isn’t a film about Michael Jackson.”
“It’s a film about Wade Robson and James Safechuck, two little boys to whom this dreadful thing happened long ago. It’s the story of their coming to terms with that over two decades and the story of their families.”
Elsewhere, Reed claims to have done extensive research into the earlier allegations against Jackson:
“You know, I did a huge amount of work, and my team did a huge amount of work digging into the 1993 and the 2003-2005 criminal investigations against Jackson by the LAPD, by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department. We spoke to investigators. We looked at documents. We found nothing that contradicted, and we found quite a lot that corroborated Wade and James’ stories specifically.”
What? Jackson was thoroughly investigated, his body was photographed and his homes raided by the authorities, he was tried in 2005 and declared innocent on all counts, and nothing was ever found to substantiate any allegations of child molestation. And both Robson and Safechuck are on record, under oath and in interviews, saying time and time again that they were never abused by Jackson. One wonders, then, why Reed is so insistent.
Besides his interest in terrorism, Reed also walks the seamy side, with films like “Escorts” and “The Paedophile Hunter,” which tracks a vigilante group in the UK that exposes pedophiles who use the internet to find their victims. So Reed knows a lot about pedophilia. This expertise has allowed him to state with authority that Wade Robson and James Safechuck are telling the truth.
“…In common with many pedophiles out there, [Jackson] believed that pedophilia is a valid sexual orientation and that the world simply doesn’t understand that and they haven’t caught up with it yet. That’s speculation of course, because he never discussed the subject in public, perhaps never articulated it himself. There were so many people around him enabling him and very rarely challenging him that he found it very easy to sneak in little boys, so maybe he thought he had a God-given right to do so…he was so ruthless and manipulative when it came to abusing little children and grooming their families that I can’t really exonerate him.”
Repeated again and again in Reed’s film and interviews is the idea that the pedophilia alleged in “Leaving Neverland” is a “love story.” This harks back to Victor Gutierrez’s pornographic work of fiction and echoes the stance of NAMbLA – the North American Man/Boy Love Association. The group was founded in 1978 and lobbies for the normalization of pedophilia. Due to infiltration by law enforcement, the group no longer holds regular national meetings, membership has declined, and many associates have moved online. All the accusations of Michael Jackson have had this fake “love story” angle, stemming originally from Gutierrez and the 1993 Chandler allegations and fed by the tabloid press. Reed’s obsession with this dubious notion is explored in “Leaving Neverland: Echoes of a Pedophilia Apologist.”
Reed is very sure of himself. He has evidenced a distaste for anyone who criticizes the film or disbelieves his narrative. Such people are now called “truthers.” As for Michael Jackson fans, “One can only compare them to religious fanatics, really,” says Reed. “They’re the Islamic State of fandom.”
“We fact-checked and re-fact checked and re-fact checked and scrutinized. I feel pretty comfortable with the amount of preparation we did and therefore I don’t think there’s anything anyone can say that cast any real doubt on it…Most of the challenges that have come from the Jackson fan community are not valid. They are based on false information.”
In response to the news that Brandi Jackson dated Wade Robson between 1991 and 2000, and has called him a liar, Reed says, “I don’t follow the logic.” Regarding Safechuck’s sex in the train station between 1988 and 1992 (the dates of his alleged abuse given in his second amended complaint), although the station was not built until 1994, Reed has tweeted, “Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse.” With this reckless tweet (which he has since deleted), he has presumed to speak for James Safechuck, effectively accusing him of perjury.
Many in the media have come to Reed’s aid, like Diane Dimond in her article, “‘Leaving Neverland’ and the Twisted Cult of Michael Jackson Truthers.” One exception is Piers Morgan, who interviewed Reed on Good Morning Britain, calling him out for his complete lack of evidence. An even more astounding confrontation appeared on French TV, where Reed was skewered by journalist Olivier Cachin and MJ fan Hector Barjot. Reed’s response to anyone or anything casting doubt on his story is to double down and hit back hard. In fact, part of his job seems to be the discrediting of Jackson with negative publicity, which he spreads unstintingly in interview after interview. Reed is a deep-state lackey of the intelligence services who works as a mercenary for the highest bidder.
“Just because it’s in print doesn’t mean it’s the gospel.”
-Michael Jackson, 2003 (60 Minutes interview)
Wacko Jacko (selection)
The media hounded and vilified Jackson with lie after lie, promoted in the tabloids and then picked up by the mainstream press. These bogus allegations were fueled by The Sun, The Daily Mirror, The National Enquirer and other tabloids, which might pay up to $500,000 for a salacious story reflecting negatively on Jackson. This practice is still continuing, as shown by this notice in The Mirror following an article of April 8 about “Leaving Neverland”:
Jackson experienced many health problems. He had a skin disorder, vitiligo, which caused his brown pigmentation to disappear in blotches, requiring him to wear makeup when he performed. As his skin turned predominantly white, he began to use light makeup, causing the tabloids to scream that he was bleaching his skin. Jackson had also been diagnosed with lupus. He had plastic surgery on his nose, undoubtedly because his father had told him his nose was too big. He was badly burned in an accident on the set of a Pepsi commercial in 1984, which required reconstructive surgery on his scalp and several follow-up operations. He injured his back during a concert in Munich in 1999 when part of the set collapsed – he gamely finished the performance. Due to these accidents, Jackson was on pain medication and became dependent on prescription drugs. Despite these adversities, he continued to write, choreograph, record, and perform, bringing joy to millions. But this was lost on the media, which branded him a freak, a wacko, and, of course, a pedophile.
Michael Jackson after the 1984 accident that led to reconstructive surgery. Image CNN.
The press happily bought fake stories from former employees of Jackson and followed the lead of several predatory “journalists” and “investigators” who exploited the star for decades. Chief among these are Diane Dimond, currently still writing fake news about Jackson, Maureen Orth, also still on the scene, and Victor Gutierrez, the author of the fictional “diary” of Jordan Chandler. Gutierrez was the only person who claimed to have “seen” the “diary.” His lies were out and about long before his book was published in 1995/1996, and he was a source for the 1993 Chandler extortion scheme. It is tempting to dismiss Gutierrez as a sleazy NAMbLA low-life, but that is not recommended.
Gutierrez has been lurking in the shadows ever since the Chandler allegations. He reported the existence of a 27-minute video, supposedly captured by a security camera, that was said to show Jackson molesting one of his nephews. This story was passed to Dimond, who announced it on her radio show in January 1995. It developed that no one but Gutierrez had “seen” the “video,” which turned out to be a complete fabrication. Jackson sued Dimond and Gutierrez, won the case against Gutierrez for $2.7 million, but he fled the country and never paid up. (Dimond managed to escape, with the help of Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon.)
Victor Gutierrez and his book were important sources for the prosecution in the 2005 trial, in which Jackson was completely exonerated. Gutierrez has provided false information for numerous documentaries on Jackson, including Martin Bashir’s 2003 defamatory film, “Living with Michael Jackson,” and he is still a source of fake news in the media. Gutierrez and his phony allegations are behind the lies of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, and the NAMbLA man-boy “love” theme that persists in “Leaving Neverland.”
Oprah Winfrey’s special, “After Neverland,” which aired for one hour following “Leaving Neverland,” featured a sit-down conversation with Robson, Safechuck, and Reed. Not a penetrating interview, the Oprah component was a platform for the men to repeat their allegations, unhindered by any demands for actual evidence. Oprah hit the pedophile “love” and “grooming” themes heavily, supporting the narrative uncritically. She had assembled an audience of 100 adults who had been sexually abused as children; sadly, these actual survivors hung on every word of the fake victims.
Oprah, “the most famous survivor of childhood sexual abuse in the world,” who has featured survivors of childhood abuse in 217 episodes of her talk show program, purports to speak out against pedophilia. In 2010 she recruited 200 male sexual abuse survivors as props for two episodes, showing them posed as a group, holding up photos of themselves as children. Back in 2010, “grooming” was on her agenda, but the “love” theme had not yet developed. Now, the message she says she tries to convey is that sexual abuse is not just “sexual abuse” – it is also “sexual seduction.” However, with her prolonged focus on child molestation, “grooming,” and the alleged “love” relationship between abusers and their victims, it can be argued that she is actually popularizing pedophilia and promoting its normalization.
A huge amount of information discrediting the film is available, but it is mainly on YouTube, Twitter, and several major websites (see Resources below). So far, Mike Smallcombe is the only person who has managed to breach the mainstream media firewall. The errors and discrepancies have been picked up by elements in the press, with recent brief articles in Ebony Magazine, Billboard, Vanity Fair, and People, as well as numerous international venues, including The Mirror, The Sun, and The Daily Mail. Still, some diehards are insisting that trauma victims cannot be expected to remember details such as dates (Cosmopolitan), while others pretend that real MJ fans have been dissuaded by “Leaving Neverland” (The New York Times). These approaches may lose ground, however, as the film comes under scrutiny.
Some real journalism has appeared in the British tabloids, in a reversal of their years-long denigration of Jackson, while the US press is more reticent. British journalist Charles Thomson has also spoken out, but his American colleagues are curiously accepting of the stories of Robson and Safechuck. The reasons are outlined by John Ziegler: the short attention span of the US news media (unless we’re talking about “Russian collusion”), the strategic use of Oprah Winfrey to endorse and legitimize the accusers, and the #MeToo movement and its mandate to #BelieveSurvivors – weaponized and heavily promoted. Yet the facts are getting out. Is this the beginning of the end for Reed, Robson, and Safechuck?
Many people have benefitted from the “Leaving Neverland” scam, or they hope to in the future. Heading the list are Wade Robson and James Safechuck. Dan Reed has stated unequivocally that neither was paid for the film – they are really interested in “justice” and it’s not about money. Then why are they each suing the Jackson estate and companies for hundreds of millions of dollars? Obviously, it’s about the money. They were apparently hoping for a settlement from the Jackson estate, but this was not forthcoming. Their lawsuits were dismissed in 2017, pending appeal; both men now owe the estate a substantial sum for court costs.
Estate attorney Howard Weitzman believes that Wade and James are using the “Leaving Neverland” film to aid their appeals. Perhaps they think that the publicity from the film will help their chances. But this is a long shot, considering the weakness of their claims. So did they think this through? What’s in it for them? Perhaps they have indeed been paid to participate in the film through some indirect channel. If so, by whom were they paid?
In October 2013, the concert promoter AEG won against the Jackson estate in the wrongful death lawsuit filed in 2010. AEG Live was under contract to present Jackson’s tour, “This is it,” which was cancelled after the star’s death in June 2009. AEG had hired Conrad Murray, Jackson’s doctor, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter relating to his administration of the anesthetic propofol, said to have led to Jackson’s death. Some have found it curious that Robson “realized” that he had been abused by Jackson in 2012, during the run-up to the 2013 trial. Attorney Thomas Mesereau has noted this coincidence. The estate had sued AEG for $1.5 billion, based in part on the loss of projected income for Michael Jackson. Certainly, if Jackson’s reputation – and worth – were diminished, then that would help AEG’s case.
One wonders whether AEG hooked up with Robson, who first met with his lawyers in March 2013, just before the case went to trial. If so, did AEG give Robson the idea for his “realization” and hire his lawyers? Or did they hear about it and then decide to provide support? On April 29, 2013, the first day of the trial, AEG’s lawyer, Marvin Putnam, said that AEG had no choice but to “show some ugly stuff” to defend themselves against the estate’s allegations. Two days later, Robson filed his lawsuits, and on May 16 he gave his interview on the Today Show. It looks like that was the “ugly stuff” to which Putnam was referring.
Putnam is a trial lawyer with extensive litigation experience in the entertainment industry. His wife, Keri Putnam, is also in the entertainment industry. She is Executive Director of the Sundance Institute and oversees all programs, including the Sundance Film Festival. Keri Putnam previously held positions at Miramax, founded by Bob and Harvey Weinstein, and HBO. In another curious coincidence, the Robson/Safechuck allegations were the subject of a film shown at Sundance in January 2019 – “Leaving Neverland” – which sought to further diminish Jackson’s reputation. Since the Jackson estate was denied its appeal in 2015, why pursue the denigration of Jackson? Possibly because there were other forces at work in addition to AEG.
Meanwhile, James Safechuck had “realized” he too had been abused by Jackson, after seeing Robson on the Today Show. He had supposedly contacted Robson’s lawyers, engaged them, and filed suit in 2014. However, it seems more likely that it was Robson and his lawyers who contacted Safechuck. As part of their strategy, the team is collecting “victims” and is now on a “manhunt” looking for Jordan Chandler. According to Dan Reed, Wade and James were not in contact and did not meet as adults until the film was shown at Sundance. However, in Robson’s 2016 deposition, he stated that he had spoken to Safechuck in 2014.
According to Reed, he was the one to approach Robson and Safechuck about making the film, which was done through their lawyers in 2016. Luckily, the complaints of the two accusers were already available to serve as the script. Channel 4 supposedly initiated the project. As Reed tells Rolling Stone:
“I was having breakfast with a guy called Daniel Pearl, who ran a series called ‘Dispatches,’ which is like a current affairs show on Channel 4 News. And he said, ‘What are the big, unresolved stories that everyone’s heard of?…What about Michael Jackson?’…I didn’t know much about Michael Jackson, to be honest. And I didn’t know much about his music. I was approaching this as a cultural phenomenon.”
Then, supposedly, Reed “stumbled across” Wade and James in a footnote. Channel 4 and HBO, partners that Reed had worked with previously, launched the project and hired Reed to produce and direct. This was a good deal for Reed, who would get paid a substantial amount for a very high-profile film that would (he thought) enhance his reputation. Who then was behind the idea for the “documentary”?
The AEG – Sundance – Harvey Weinstein – Oprah connections. Image: MJMedia09 Returns.
Oprah Winfrey’s special, “After Neverland,” was a love fest for the alleged victims. Her support for “Leaving Neverland” was instrumental for the promotion of an otherwise-bogus film. Oprah celebrated her birthday on January 29 with Gayle King and David Geffen aboard Geffen’s 450-foot yacht, “Rising Sun,” with a private viewing of “Leaving Neverland.” At the time of the HBO broadcast, King promoted the film in interviews with Dan Reed, Robson and Safechuck, and also members of the Jackson family.
In addition to Winfrey and King, Geffen is also a person of interest. He and his friends were once heavily involved in Jackson’s career and his contract with SONY; Geffen ousted John Branca and installed Sandy Gallin as Jackson’s manager in 1990. Jackson and Geffen had a falling out, however, and Geffen reportedly topped a list of Jackson’s “enemies.” Jackson had said that Geffen had sunk his career. Geffen is famously vindictive, and some have tied him to the 1993 allegations against Jackson. Considering Geffen’s proximity to “Leaving Neverland,” it looks like he may be a part of this latest smear campaign too.
Oprah has long been a friend of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. The scandal over Weinstein’s pattern of assault and abuse began to unfold in October 2017, but this was no trade secret. Weinstein, who had abused many women over the years, was too big to fail until October 5, when The New York Times published a detailed article in which some of his accusers went on record.
But Harvey had seen it coming, and in the fall of 2016, he hired several private security firms to collect information on women and journalists he thought were trying to expose him, in order to suppress the allegations. In a New Yorker article of November 2017, Ronan Farrow revealed that Weinstein had hired Kroll, one of the world’s largest corporate investigation companies, and Black Cube, run by former Israeli intelligence officers. The contracts were routed through law firms, so that the activities could be kept secret under the cover of attorney-client privilege.
On December 6, The Times published an article on Weinstein’s “complicity machine” of “enablers, silencers, and spies,” which included David Pecker, publisher of American Media Inc., Dylan Howard, editor of The National Enquirer, and A. J. Benza, former gossip columnist for The New York Daily News. As far back as 2003, Benza was engaged in writing fake stories particularly for the tabloids about several celebrities to divert attention from Weinstein. One of these celebrities was Michael Jackson. Benza was selling defamatory articles about Jackson already at the time of the Chandler allegations, claiming he had a hand in breaking the story in 1993. Benza is still slandering Jackson on Twitter.
Harvey Weinstein and Oprah Winfrey with Kadian Noble.
Oprah was not only Harvey’s good friend, but allegedly his procurer. Kadian Noble, shown above looking apprehensive, filed suit against Weinstein for sexually assaulting her in the bathroom of his hotel room in Cannes in 2014 – and for destroying her dreams of acting. The actress said that Weinstein used Winfrey to dupe her into believing that he would advance her career. The Weinstein scandal spawned #MeToo, of which Oprah is a big supporter. You can sign a petition telling Oprah to “disavow Harvey Weinstein” at change.org started by Paul Joseph Watson.
Weinstein was closely associated with Sundance for much of its history. In 2018, he reportedly missed “his first Sundance in memory,” but he was spotted hanging around in 2019. How interesting that a film about Weinstein was showing at the festival: “Untouchable,” with colleagues and accusers detailing “the method and consequences of his alleged abuse.” By another coincidence, I am sure, the Weinstein film aired on January 25, 26, 27, 31, and February 2. “Leaving Neverland” was a last-minute entry that aired on January 25 and 26, obliterating “Untouchable,” which got no media buzz whatsoever. Has anyone heard of this real documentary, “Untouchable”?
To sum things up: Did AEG Live team up with Wade Robson to promote his story and file his complaint – to diminish the reputation of Michael Jackson and defeat the estate in its civil suit? Did AEG bring on the lawyers to research possible victims and manage to recruit James Safechuck? Have Robson and Safechuck been paid for their services? Did AEG team up with Weinstein, Channel 4, HBO, and Sundance, and hire Dan Reed to make the fake documentary? Did Oprah jump on the train leaving Neverland to help David Geffen undermine his “enemy” Michael Jackson – and help Harvey Weinstein divert attention away from the screening of “Untouchable” at Sundance? Is Victor Gutierrez still driving the narrative? The attempt to normalize pedophilia, using Michael Jackson as a vehicle, began in earnest in 1993 and continues up through the present with “Leaving Neverland.” Meanwhile, no one is really listening to the real victims of child sexual abuse, conveniently for the perpetrators. Quite the conspiracy theory, this scenario looks plausible, and there’s something in it for everyone.
Who was Michael Jackson?
In this age of fake news and identity politics, the media merchants don’t appreciate Jackson’s lyrics: “Just because you read it in a magazine or see it on a TV screen don’t make it factual” (Tabloid Junkie) and “It don’t matter if you’re black or white” (Black or White). And certainly not his outlook: “Lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons.” His millions of fans, however, do. Much has been written about Jackson, including several books; one can start with his 1988 autobiography, Moonwalk. So much is now available online that the truth is easily found. In relation to “Leaving Neverland,” some brief comments are in order.
Certainly, Jackson was not a pedophile. As the facts prove, he is completely innocent of all allegations of child sexual abuse. But don’t believe me – you can do your own research. The documentation is available and can be accessed through the List of Resources following this article.
Jackson with Diana Ross, Lisa Marie Presley, Debbie Rowe, and his three children.
Michael Jackson was heterosexual, and he loved women. One of his best friends was Elizabeth Taylor, and he was in love with Diana Ross. He was married twice, to Lisa Marie Presley and Debbie Rowe, and had three children, Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. (Prince), Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson (Paris), and Prince Michael Jackson II (“Blanket”). Both marriages were derided by the press, said to be stunts, but this was not true. Lisa Marie was interviewed in 2003 by Diane Sawyer, who was dismissive of Jackson and surprised by Presley’s response:
“It’s unfortunate that not a lot of people know who he really is – he doesn’t let anybody see it. And he has some idea about how he should represent himself to the public that he thinks works for him…which is not anything like how he really is…
When he wants to lock into you, and he wants to intrigue you or capture you, or whatever he wants to do with you, he can do it. He’s very capable of doing that. He was very quick to, the first time I met him, sit me down and go, listen, I’m not gay – I know you think this, I know you think that – and he started cursing and he started, you know, being a normal person, and I was like, wow…
I fell in love with him, I did…Everything I said was the truth.”
Jackson was a wonderful father, according to everyone who knew him, and he loved children:
“They notice everything. They aren’t jaded. They get excited by things we’ve forgotten to get excited about any more. They are so natural too, so unselfconscious. I love being around them. There always seems to be a bunch of kids over at the house and they’re always welcome. They energize me – just being around them. They look at everything with such fresh eyes, such open minds. That’s part of what makes kids so creative. They don’t worry about the rules. The picture doesn’t have to be in the center of the piece of paper. The sky doesn’t have to be blue. They are accepting of people too. The only demand they make is to be treated fairly – and to be loved. I think that’s what we all want.”
He built an amusement park to entertain the hundreds of children he invited to Neverland, many of them poor or sick, and he worked with numerous children’s charities worldwide. He loved animals and kept a zoo at Neverland that children could visit. Something of his private life was revealed in his TV special, “Michael Jackson’s Private Home Movies” (2003).
The Jackson 5 on the Ed Sullivan Show, 1969.
Michael Jackson was born in 1958 in Gary, Indiana, and raised a Jehovah’s Witness. He and his eight brothers and sisters lived in a two-bedroom house with his parents. The boys all slept in one room, as they did when they were on tour. He was performing with his brothers by 1964. Starting with The Jackson 5, Michael sang and danced through 16 concert tours, including his world tours “Bad,” “Dangerous,” and “HIStory.”
His musical achievements are legendary. He is the first and only artist to have five albums selling over 30 million copies worldwide. He won a vast number of awards, including 13 Grammy Awards, 26 American Music Awards, 16 World Music Awards, and he holds 39 Guinness World Records, including one for “Most Successful Entertainer of All Time.” Jackson is credited with supporting 39 charities, more than any other artist.
He was highly intelligent and an avid reader who owned more than one million books. He was an expert on photography, a talented designer and draftsman, and well versed in the history of art. An astute businessman, he acquired ATV Music Publishing, which included the Lennon-McCartney song catalogue; the company later merged with Sony Music Publishing, and Jackson retained half. Vilified by the press for alleged mismanagement of his finances, Jackson has reportedly made $2 billion for his estate since the time of his death. And, of course, he was The Greatest Entertainer of All Time, a phenomenal musical genius, spectacular singer, dancer, composer, choreographer, and poet, magnetically attractive, with a legion of fans worldwide.
The whole story cannot be told here; many readers will know it already. For those still in doubt, I urge you to click on the links, and investigate the full range of Michael Jackson’s accomplishments and activities. Ask yourself if Jackson – with a packed schedule of meetings, charity events, rehearsals, and performances, while writing and recording songs, making videos, arranging and choreographing, working with musicians and dancers, designing his concert sets and wardrobe, keeping up with trends in film and music, and attending to his business – had the time and inclination to devote years to the “grooming” and romantic pursuit of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, molesting them at every opportunity.
Mandatory Credit: Photo by Karl Schoendorfer/REX/Shutterstock (954381b) Michael Jackson Michael Jackson in concert, Vienna, Austria – 1997
Michael Jackson, his legacy, and his estate are again under siege by unscrupulous grifters and their promoters in the press. In a sense, Wade Robson and James Safechuck are the worst of the lot – former friends who were mentored and supported by Jackson, turning on him after his death. Regarding the attempts to cancel MJ or mute his music, that is unlikely to happen. The more one listens (and watches), the better it gets. But things may get rough for Reed, Robson, and Safechuck. To quote Evan Chandler, “The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight.” In this case, not Jackson, but the fake accusers of “Leaving Neverland.” In the opinion of many, it’s just a matter of time. At least Jackson himself is now safely out of reach – unless you believe he is still alive.
VIVIAN LEE is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.
This article was also published at JamesFetzer.org.
 The last airing on HBO is scheduled for April 17, although the film was originally set to run until September. The films can be streamed at HBO NOW, which requires subscription but offers a free 7-day trial period, after which a subscription can be cancelled.
 Michael Jackson, Moonwalk, (1988; re-issued 2009 with an introduction by Berry Gordy). Also the following: Damien Shields, Michael Jackson: Songs & Stories from the Vault (2015, 2018); Richard Lecocq and François Allard, Michael Jackson – All the Songs: The Story behind Every Track (2018); Mike Smallcombe, Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson (2016); Bill Whitfield and Javon Beard with Tanner Colby, Remember the Time: Protecting Michael Jackson in His Final Days (2014); Michael Bush, The King of Style: Dressing Michael Jackson (2012); Joseph Vogel, Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson (2011); Jermaine Jackson, You Are Not Alone: Michael, through a Brother’s Eyes (2011); J. Randy Taraborrelli, Michael Jackson: The Magic, the Madness, the Whole Story, 1958-2009 (1991, 2003, 2004, 2009); Aphrodite Jones, Michael Jackson: Conspiracy (2007); Geraldine Hughes, Redemption: The Truth behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations (1997, 2004).
 Michael Jackson, Moonwalk, 274.
 For problems and anomalies surrounding Jackson’s death, autopsy, and burial, see “Alive 1: Is Michael Jackson Really Dead?” and “Alive 2: The Great Xscape” (Pearl Jr). https://vimeo.com/191251878
VIVIAN LEE is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.
This article was also published at JamesFetzer.org.
The new pseudo-documentary, “Leaving Neverland,” directed by Dan Reed, hit the scene with a four-hour screening at Sundance on January 25, 2019. The film was then aired with great fanfare on HBO on two consecutive nights, March 3 (part 1) and March 4 (part 2). Following part 2, HBO featured a one-hour special with Oprah, “Oprah Winfrey Presents: After Neverland” (also shown on her channel OWN).
The stars of the film are Wade Robson and James Safechuck, alleged victims of childhood sexual abuse by Michael Jackson, with supporting roles for members of their families. “After Neverland” features Oprah in conversation with Robson and Safechuck. For a total of five hours, we hear their grisly stories of masturbation, French kissing, pornography, and anal rape, in vivid and horrifying detail, but without a shred of corroborating evidence.
The mainstream media was all over this extravaganza, and continues to cover it, despite an increasing number of problems regarding the allegations. With some exceptions, such as Macaulay Culkin and Diana Ross, the big stars are hanging back, reluctant to speak out in Jackson’s defense, although this may change, as the situation is still developing.
This reticence is due to the current #MeToo climate requiring us to #BelieveSurvivors, and also the animus of the press toward The King of Pop – widely considered The Greatest Entertainer of All Time. The new accusations against Jackson are just the latest (all the others having been proved untrue), this time targeting a man who cannot defend himself since he died in 2009. With “Leaving Neverland,” #MeToo vaults into the great beyond, such that anyone and everyone can now be defamed whether guilty or not, whether alive or dead.
“Leaving Neverland” is not a real documentary, but a slick promotional film purporting to tell the true stories of the accusers, which are completely unverified. We are supposed to believe these stories, even though both men have stated repeatedly in past interviews and under oath that they had never been molested by Jackson.
The Jackson Estate called the film “a one-sided marathon of unvetted propaganda to shamelessly exploit an innocent man no longer here to defend himself.” They have sued HBO for $100 million for breach of a nondisparagement clause in a 1992 contract. When Reed was asked why he did not seek input from members of the Jackson family or Michael’s close friends, he demurred, saying, “This isn’t a film about Michael Jackson; it’s a film about Wade Robson and James Safechuck.” Reed did not find it necessary to seek other “eyewitnesses,” since no one else was in the room when the two boys were supposedly being molested.
Wade Robson, Dan Reed, and James Safechuck in a promotional photo for the Sundance premier of “Leaving Neverland.”
Reed asks, “Well, what does the family know about this sexual abuse that happened? Do you think they know about the sexual abuse? … I don’t believe they do.” As to why the allegations were presented in such a graphic manner, he says he found this necessary:
“For many years, Jackson got away with this image of being a bit of a child himself, and, you know, being very affectionate with children, and I wanted to make sure that people understood this wasn’t over-enthusiastic, you know, kissing or cuddling. This was sex. This was the kind of sex adults have, but he was having it with a little child.”
Reed claims that throughout the two years of making the film, he did a “deep dive” into prior allegations of sexual abuse against Jackson. He says he “looked for anything that could cast doubt or undermine Wade and James’s story” and “found nothing at all.” As will be apparent, either he didn’t know where to look, or he is lying, along with the two alleged victims. Asked about how he came to make the film, Reed says it was a story he “stumbled across” in a footnote about Robson and Safechuck litigating against the Jackson estate. Who knew that a footnote reference could be so prolific?
Reed has made the rounds of the networks, promoting the film aggressively with a smirk on his face. This is schlock journalism at its most abhorrent and sensational, meant to overwhelm the viewer with gross, shocking details in the absence of actual evidence.
The lurid effect is further enhanced by clever camera work, multiple takes, background music, images of the men as children, and subtle props, not to mention fine acting by the film’s stars. This is child pornography, once removed, masquerading as a documentary. This is beginning to dawn on HBO, which has cut the film’s run short, and Oprah, who has muted the special on her website and deleted it from her social media accounts
Reed has indicated that he would like to make more films about the supposed victims of Jackson’s sexual abuse: Jordan Chandler, who claimed to have been molested in 1993 at age 13, and Gavin Arvizo, allegedly abused in 2003 at the same age. These two cases led to an inquiry and settlement (1993), and the arrest of Jackson (2003) and his acquittal (2005). We wish Reed good luck with this project, as Jackson was exonerated both times. However, the legal proceedings, invasions of privacy, and adverse publicity took a terrible toll on Jackson, leading, as some think, to his 2009 death. These earlier cases are bizarre in their particulars, and are typically reported inaccurately in the press. Although they cannot be explored here in detail, they are related to the new allegations and are therefore summarized below.
Jordan Chandler and the 1993 Settlement
Jackson met Jordan Chandler and his family at a car rental agency owned by the boy’s stepfather, David Schwartz, in 1992 when Jordan was 12 years old. Jackson became friends with the family and periodically called Jordan, who was a big MJ fan. Visits to Neverland ranch followed for Jordan, his sister, and his mother, June. In 1993, they were invited by Jackson to Las Vegas, where the family claims Jordan began sharing a bedroom with Jackson. Other invitations included trips to Monaco and Paris.
Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler.
In 1993, Jackson met Jordan’s father, Evan Chandler, who was a screenwriter and celebrity dentist. Evan reportedly became “suspicious” that Jackson had sexually molested Jordan, and he hired a lawyer, Barry Rothman, who agreed to help, supposedly in exchange for dental treatments. David Schwartz taped several phone calls from Evan, which showed that he was clearly out to extort money from Jackson.
“This attorney I found – I mean, I interviewed several, and I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find, and all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can and humiliate as many people as he can…
If I go through with this, I win big time. I will get everything I want. They will be destroyed forever.”
Schwartz played the first tape for Anthony Pellicano, a private investigator working for Bertram Fields, Jackson’s attorney. Pellicano then questioned Jordan, who insisted that nothing inappropriate had occurred. Despite this, Evan Chandler accused Jackson of sexually abusing Jordan, who supposedly “confessed” to Evan, although this is in doubt. Evan was trying to get custody of Jordan, who had been staying with his father and had not been allowed to return home.
Represented by Rothman, Evan demanded $20 million from Jackson to not go public with the accusation. When Jackson refused, Evan took Jordan to a doctor, who heard his coerced allegations against Jackson. This triggered a criminal investigation, and Jordan was allowed to stay with Evan.
Meanwhile, Jackson had embarked on the Asian leg of his “Dangerous” world tour. While he was out of the country, Neverland was searched under warrant, as well as his Century City condominium and a hotel room in Las Vegas where he had stayed with the Chandlers. Tapes and other items were seized, but nothing incriminating was found. A copy of the report was leaked to the media, and a frenzy ensued; the tapes of Evan Chandler ranting to Schwartz were then released by Pellicano.
Evan sued David Schwartz and ex-wife June for invasion of privacy in leaking the tapes, and Schwartz counter-sued Evan Chandler. In this midst of this fracas, Larry Feldman, the Chandler lawyer, sued Jackson for $30 million. Jordan was then taken to a psychiatrist, where he made more detailed allegations. Jackson’s lawyer countered with a letter to the LAPD complaining about the Chandlers trying to manipulate children into saying incriminating things about Jackson. The police interviewed 40-60 children who had spent time with Jackson, none of whom corroborated the Chandlers’ story. In November 1993, Jackson cancelled his remaining concerts, in poor health and dependent on pain killers. He returned to the U.S. in December.
Michael Jackson statement regarding the strip-search he was required to undergo in 1993.
More unfortunate incidents followed, but we will make a long story short. Jackson was strip-searched and his body photographed and videotaped, for comparison with a description made by Jordan Chandler. Although the media reported that Jordan’s description matched – which is still reported to this day – it did not match, and no arrest warrant was issued. In order to minimize the expense and the ordeal of a trial, Jackson’s lawyers settled the civil case out of court for $15.3 million dollars to be placed in trust for Jordan, plus a reported $1.5 million for each of his parents and $5 million in legal fees. The settlement was paid by Jackson’s insurance company and did not acknowledge any admission of guilt.
After the civil case had been settled, the criminal case continued. But Jordan Chandler refused to testify, and the grand juries disbanded without indicting Jackson. In 1995, Jordan Chandler legally emancipated himself from both his biological parents, and his whereabouts are unknown, although Dan Reed tried to find him for his film. After further attempts to extort money from Jackson, Evan Chandler committed suicide in 2009 after Jackson’s death.
Chilean reporter Victor Gutierrez was one of the players in the case, serving as a source for false information fed to the media. In 1996, Gutierrez published a book, Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler, which was totally fictional but considered by some to be credible (Jordan Chandler never kept a diary). You can get a copy of this slim paperback from AbeBooks.com for $400.
Interestingly, this book contains passages that are suspiciously close to some of the allegations of James Safechuck and Wade Robson against Jackson. It should be noted that both Robson and Safechuck were interviewed by the LAPD and provided witness statements during the Jordan Chandler inquiry, and both denied that anything inappropriate had happened between them and Jackson. In “Leaving Neverland,” they both claim to have lied to the authorities in 1993.
Gavin Arvizo and the 2005 Trial
The second major allegation of child molestation involved the Arvizo family, resulting in a grueling ordeal for Jackson that ended in his trial and acquittal in 2005. Gavin Arvizo, age ten, was dying of cancer in 2000 when he asked to meet Michael Jackson. Jackson was told about his request and called him in the hospital. The Arvizo family met Jackson for the first time at Neverland after the first round of Gavin’s chemotherapy.
Gavin and his brother Star had asked to sleep in Jackson’s bedroom, which he allowed them to do, but only after being begged by Gavin’s mother Janet. Jackson’s two children, Prince and Paris, slept with the kids in the bed, and Jackson slept on the floor with his personal assistant Frank Cascio. The incident nonetheless caused an uproar when it was featured in the 2003 documentary “Living with Michael Jackson,” directed by Martin Bashir. The Arvizos did not accuse Jackson of molesting Gavin that night. However, they later claimed, without evidence, that Jackson and Cascio had shown the children pornography on a laptop that Jackson had given to Gavin.
Gavin Arvizo and Michael Jackson in a scene from the Bashir documentary, “Living with Michael Jackson.”
The Arvizos returned to Neverland in 2002 at the time of the filming of the Bashir documentary. For most of the Arvizo visits, Jackson was not home, but he did things to help them, such as allowing them to use Neverland for a blood drive, and giving them a van as a gift. Gavin’s parents separated in 2001, and Janet sued J.C. Penney over alleged abuse, eventually obtaining a settlement. As it turned out later, Gavin had been caught shoplifting, and his mother avoided the charge by accusing the guards of assault. At Jackson’s 2005 trial, it was found that Janet had lied under oath in depositions in that case. In addition, Janet had committed welfare fraud. Like the Chandlers, the Arvizos were opportunistic grifters.
Martin Bashir was also dishonest, gaining the confidence of Jackson under false pretenses, cajoling and complimenting him on set, while cutting important sections of the film and adding negative commentary for the final version, making Jackson look quirky, negligent, and even dangerous. Jackson did not understand the agenda, speaking openly and allowing himself to be filmed holding hands with Gavin. The dialogue included the following:
-Bashir: But Michael, you’re a 44-year-old man now. What do you get out of this?
-Jackson: I think what they get from me, I get from them. I’ve said it many times. My greatest inspiration comes from kids. Every song I write, every dance I do, all the poetry I write, is all inspired from that level of innocence, that consciousness of purity, and children have that. I see God in the face if children… I just love being around that all the time…
-Bashir: When people hear that children from other families have come, and they’ve stayed in your house, they’ve stayed in your bedroom, … and they say, is that really appropriate for a grown man to be doing that, how do you respond to that?
-Jackson: I feel sorry for them, because that’s judging someone who wants to really help people. Why can’t you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone.
-Bashir: You really think that?
-Jackson: Yeah, of course…you can have my bed if you want. Sleep in it, I’ll sleep on the floor. It’s yours. Always give the best to the company…
-Bashir: Well, haven’t you got a spare room or a spare house here where he could have stayed?
-Jackson: Yes, we have guest units. But whenever kids come here, they always want to stay with me…I have never invited them in my room. They always just want to stay with me. They say, “Can I stay with you tonight?” And I go, if it’s OK with your parents, yes you can.
Toward the end of the film, Bashir returned to this conversation and added his own commentary, saying he had “found this easily the most disturbing moment of the past eight months.” Jackson volunteered that he had “slept in a bed with many children…It’s very right, it’s very loving – that’s what the world needs now, more love.”
A storm of bad publicity ensued, and Jackson’s team moved to control the damage. His own camera man had shot extensive footage, and this was compiled into a second documentary, the so-called rebuttal video, “Michael Jackson, Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See.” “Take Two” was released two weeks later, containing material deliberately omitted by Bashir in order to manipulate the viewers. The Arvizos were filmed for “Take Two,” but in the end their segment was not included. Although they initially backed Jackson, they would soon change their story.
Meanwhile, Jackson was in Florida, where the Arvizos fled, trying to escape the media. Together they returned to Neverland, where the Arvizos were allowed to stay, although they subsequently claimed that they were held captive there against their will and forced to make the rebuttal film. A teacher at Gavin’s school had filed a complaint after seeing “Living with Michael Jackson,” and the Arvizos were visited by Child Protective Services. They supported Jackson at the time but later said they had been intimidated into doing so by “Michael’s people.” This began a long series of changing and conflicting allegations by the Arvizos,
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department also began an investigation, based on a complaint by psychiatrist Carol Lieberman, again due to the Bashir documentary. While all this was happening, the Arvizos claimed, Jackson began to molest Gavin. The Arvizos “escaped” from Neverland on March 12, leaving for good. Between 2003 and 2005, the Arvizos told their story several times, to a psychologist, to the Sheriff’s Department in a series of interviews, to a grand jury in 2004, and finally at the 2005 trial.
The Arvizos accused Jackson of masturbating Gavin at least five times, supposedly observed by Gavin’s brother Star, in some cases when Gavin was passed out after having allegedly being plied with alcohol. The details were subject to change, with fluctuating descriptions, conflicting accounts, and disappearing claims, such that no coherent narrative materialized. With no corroborating evidence for the said molestation, the case eventually hinged on the credibility of Gavin and his family. Initially, some found the Arvizos credible, until it was discovered that they were all aspiring actors. No concrete evidence was ever presented to substantiate their unconvincing story.
Gavin Arvizo 2003 interview.
Gavin and his family were represented by William Dickerman and Larry Feldman, the lawyer who had negotiated the settlement for the Chandlers in the 1993 inquiry. Feldman had reported Gavin’s allegations to the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, which was already investigating Jackson. In November 2003, a warrant was issued for his arrest; he turned himself in and was released on $3 million bail. Prior to the issuance of the warrant, in Jackson’s absence, more than 70 members of the Sheriff’s Department had raided Neverland, ransacking the house and filming the process. To counteract the publicity from this footage, Jackson’s team hired the film maker Larry Nimmer to produce a documentary on Neverland, which was shown to the jury at the trial. Nimmer has just released an updated version of this film to include a rebuttal of “Leaving Neverland.”
In April 2004, Jackson was indicted on 10 counts of lewd acts upon a child, administering an intoxicating agent to assist in commission of a felony, and conspiracy. The People v. Michael Jackson went to trial in February 2005, under District Attorney Thomas Sneddon, who had overseen the 1993 investigation. Sneddon, who felt cheated out of a conviction in 1993, was determined to get one this time and pulled out all the stops.
Jackson was represented by attorneys Mark Geragos and Thomas Mesereau, who has continued to speak out in support of Jackson. Numerous witnesses testified for the defense, including Macaulay Culkin, and the 22-year-old Wade Robson. Robson’s sworn testimony of May 5, 2005, the equivalent of 86 pages of court transcripts, includes the following.
-Mesereau: Do you consider Michael Jackson your friend?
-Mesereau: Do you consider him a close friend?
-Mesereau: You’re aware of the allegations in this case, are you not?
-Mesereau: And are you aware, as you sit here today, that there’s been allegations that Mr. Jackson molested you?
-Mesereau: Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever molest you at any time?
-Robson: Absolutely not.
-Mesereau: Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever touch you in a sexual way?
-Robson: Never, no.
-Mesereau: Mr. Robson, has Mr. Jackson ever inappropriately touched any part of your body at any time?
-Mesereau: Has Mr. Jackson ever helped you with your career?
-Mesereau: Mr. Robson, has anyone told you what to say in this courtroom today?
-Mesereau: Is everything you’ve said the complete and honest truth?
-Mesereau: Did Mr. Jackson ever do anything wrong with you?
In 2004 at the height of the Arvizo investigation, Evan Chandler’s brother Raymond published All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-up, a book about the Chandler inquiry, widely considered to have been ghostwritten by Evan. Jordan Chandler was visited by prosecutors in the Arvizo trial and asked to testify but he refused, saying that he would legally fight any attempt to make him do so. Thomas Mesereau later revealed that Jordan had admitted to several people that Jackson had not molested him, and these witnesses would have been presented if Jordan had testified. Jordan’s mother June did testify at the Arvizo trial, saying that she had not witnessed any molestation of her son by Jackson.
On June 13, 2005, Michael Jackson was acquitted of all charges.
In 2013, Gavin Arvizo was married at age 24 in Atlanta in a joint Catholic-Baptist ceremony. Guests included Santa Barbara District Attorney Ron Zonen, who prosecuted the case against Michael Jackson. Also present was Gavin’s mother Janet, who has since married Army Lt. Colonel Jay Jackson – so her name is now Janet Jackson.
Leaving Neverland: The New Allegations
The new film features detailed interviews with Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who have radically changed their stories about their relationship with Jackson. Whereas both went on record to defend the star in 1993, and Wade testified under oath in Jackson’s defense in 2005, they are now retailing outlandish stories of sexual molestation. Both say that Jackson tried to turn them against their families and poison them against women.
The two men have sued the Jackson estate and companies for monetary compensation, alleging they were sexually assaulted by Jackson as young boys (Robson fourth amended complaint, ¶5; Safechuck second amended complaint, ¶5). The suits claim that Jackson and his companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, operated what was “likely the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known.” Really?
Both lawsuits were dismissed in 2017, but the men have appealed. While “Leaving Neverland” is based on the complaints filed, it does not follow them exactly. Additional problems with the narrative were immediately apparent, and important discrepancies have continued to crop up. These and other issues are reviewed in “A Critical Analysis of ‘Leaving Neverland’” and an update is given below. As the film is purportedly about Wade and James, according to director Dan Reed, one must examine these two characters – who, by the way, are both professional actors.
WADE ROBSON (b. September 17, 1982) is a dancer, choreographer, actor, and film maker – and also a known liar, if tweets by his colleagues and others are to be believed. In a note for a 2012 book, he called himself “a master of deception.” In his complaint and in “Leaving Neverland,” Wade says that Jackson molested him starting at age seven for seven years (1990 through 1996). The abuse supposedly began when he was left behind at Neverland by his family, who went on a trip to the Grand Canyon without him. He says that Jackson sexually abused him every night during that week and whenever and wherever he got the chance thereafter.
Wade Robson’s fourth amended complaint, ¶15-16.
Robson alleges that Jackson masturbated while watching him “on all fours,” fondled his genitals, and licked his anus, while moaning and saying, it “feels so good.” On the first night of these alleged capers (around February 4, 1990), Jackson supposedly told Wade, “We can never tell anyone what we are doing…If anyone were to ever find out, our lives and careers would be over.” Jackson’s interest reportedly waned after Robson reached puberty. (Robson fourth amended complaint, ¶14-16). Complete details are available at “The Michael Jackson Allegations.”
In “Leaving Neverland,” Robson is presented as a successful showbiz celebrity, but the reality is somewhat different. He was a choreographer for Britney Spears and NSYNC in the early 2000s, and he has danced in film and on tour. The winner of two prime time Emmy awards for outstanding choreography (2007 and 2008), he aspired to direct his own dance films. In 2010 he was given the chance to direct “Step Up Revolution” (released in 2012), but in 2011 he folded under the pressure and had a nervous breakdown. On May 16, 2011, he began therapy.
Five days later, Robson wrote an email to Cirque du Soleil, asking to be hired to direct or choreograph “One,” the production about Michael Jackson that opened in 2013 and is still playing at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas. However, another choreographer, Jamie King, was hired to direct the show. Despite being passed over, Wade claimed in an interview in July that he had taken on a leading creative role in the production. In March 2012, he suffered a second breakdown, after which he said he was unable to work, with the attendant financial problems. Wade’s wife, Amanda Rodriguez, had reportedly threatened to leave him if he could not pull himself together. Amanda, who is an actress, was a member of the supporting cast of “Leaving Neverland.”
In April 2012 Robson went to a new therapist, and in May 2012 he had his “realization” that he was molested by Jackson. He said this was triggered by his infant son, who “became a profound access point to little Wade.” In late 2012/early 2013 Robson shopped a book about this, reportedly asking for a substantial advance, but he found no takers. On May 1, 2013, Wade filed a creditor’s claim against Michael Jackson’s estate and a civil suit against the Jackson companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, allegedly for $1.5 billion (Robson fourth amended complaint). He claimed that the alleged abuse by Jackson, rather than the pressures of his career, had caused his breakdowns. On May 8, 2013, the case became public with a story at TMZ; on May 16, Robson discussed the allegations in an interview on The Today Show with Matt Lauer.
“Michael Jackson and Wade Robson: The Real Story.”
Wade Robson first met Michael Jackson in Australia on November 27, 1987. Five-year-old Wade won a dancing contest in Brisbane, for which the prize was a “meet and greet” with Jackson, who was then on his “Bad” world tour. Jackson met Wade on his two-day stop in Brisbane (November 27-28) and invited him to join him on stage the following night, as he frequently did with children.
Robson would later claim that “meet and greets” such as the one in Brisbane were an orchestrated “sexual grooming mechanism to acquire minor sexual abuse victims for Michael Jackson, disguised as charitable events for minors” (Robson fourth amended complaint, ¶11).
This allegation was directed against Jackson’s companies MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, although the Brisbane event was actually sponsored by Target, Pepsi, and CBS. Wade’s mother Joy contradicted his claim in her 2016 deposition, revealing that the event was large and Wade had only spent a few minutes with Jackson, invited to dance with him later on stage. Joy sent Jackson a thank you note and received an invitation to meet briefly at his hotel. She followed up with letters and videos of Wade sent to Jackson, but did not get a response.
Thereafter, Joy Robson promoted her son’s career in earnest. The family traveled to Disneyland in early 1990 so that Wade and his sister Chantal could perform there with a talent school. Joy managed to hunt down Jackson and score an invitation to Neverland, his fabulous estate. Wade would later allege that this is when his “abuse” began, at age 7, lasting for 7 years until he was 14. The graphic but unsubstantiated allegations are laid out in Robson’s complaint and aired in “Leaving Neverland” (fourth amended complaint, ¶15).
In September 1991 Joy Robson moved with Wade and Chantal to Los Angeles, so that Wade could pursue a career in show business. According to Robson’s complaint, this was arranged by Jackson and his companies “for the explicit purpose of allowing Michael Jackson access to [Wade] for sexual abuse” (fourth amended complaint, ¶23). However, it was the Robsons’ idea to immigrate, and they asked Jackson to sponsor them, as that was the only way they could stay in the US. After the Robsons moved to Los Angeles, Jackson did not spend much time with them, according to Joy. Their interactions were occasional and sporadic, and it was Joy who had to call Jackson to ask him to help Wade.
Still from the “Black or White” music video, featuring Macaulay Culkin (left) and Wade Robson (right).
Nonetheless, Jackson mentored Wade, coaching him in dance and giving him minor roles in three of his music videos: “Black or White” (1991), “Jam” (1992), and “Heal the World” (1992). Robson idolized Jackson from the age of two when his mother showed him a video of “The Making of Thriller.” He spoke fondly about Jackson, often praising him effusively, and he repeatedly denied that he had ever been sexually abused. Until he came to the “realization” that he had been molested, calling Jackson a pedophile.
One can speculate on the origins of Robson’s story. Clearly he had done research on victims of sexual abuse and child pornography. He had certainly read Victor Gutierrez’s fictional book, Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler, where Wade appears as one of Jackson’s “lovers” and even has his own chapter. Wade also plied his mother with questions about their relationship with Michael, and relied heavily on her recollections. The exact narrative was devised by his legal team in order to get around the statutes of limitations and other requirements for filing, with certain features taken from the book by Gutierrez, particularly regarding the alleged culpability of Jackson’s companies. Robson, as well as Safechuck, was initially represented by Gradstein & Marzano, and switched to Manly, Stewart & Finaldi in 2016. Thus, the outlines of Robson’s convoluted story were established by his first team of lawyers, with amendments made later.
As noted above in terms of the Chandler and Arvizo allegations, Robson testified in both cases that Jackson had never molested him. So was he was lying then, or is he lying now? As to why he has now changed his story, he says that Jackson had warned him not to say a word about their relationship, because if anyone found out, “our lives and careers would be over” (fourth amended complaint, ¶16).
For the requirements of his legal claim, he needed to state that he did not realize that his abuse was “abuse” until recently. Thus the phony man-boy “love” story between Robson and Jackson, which harks back to the main premise of the fake diary by Victor Gutierrez. After Wade’s civil suit was dismissed in 2017, he declared himself “healed,” presumably since he had to go back to work for a living. He filed an appeal, which is now pending.
Wade, Michael, and Brandi, who appeared together in 1991 in an LA Gear commercial.
“Leaving Neverland” has put Wade Robson back in the spotlight, along with his allegations of child sexual abuse. With the imprimatur of Oprah Winfrey and Dan Reed, Robson has enjoyed an outpouring of media sympathy. Unfortunately for Robson, however, Jackson’s niece Brandi has come forth to say that Wade had asked her to be his girlfriend when they were first introduced as youngsters. From 1991 to around 2000 they were close friends and then a couple, dating for 7 years. This includes the period when Wade says that Jackson molested him. Brandi says that it never occurred. She calls Wade Robson a liar. Not only had Jackson not tried to poison Robson against women, he had fixed him up with his own niece.
At Wade’s 2016 deposition, the Jackson family presented a memo he had written: “My story of abuse and its effects will make me relatable/relevant.” Brandi has tweeted: “…now the only time you are #relevant is when you headline with my family’s name next to yours. It’s time to stop these lies and live your own life.” Jackson’s nephew Taj has also been giving interviews and is planning a documentary. In a two-part radio interview with John Ziegler, Taj and Brandi discuss the claims of Robson and Safechuck and why their preposterous allegations should not be taken seriously. This has gotten limited play in the media, although lots of exposure on YouTube and Twitter, with numerous short films and thousands of “likes” at @BJackson82, @TajJackson3, #MJFam, #MJInnocent, #MJJLegion, #LeavingNeverlandLies, #WadeRobsonIsALiar, @Hammertonhal, and elsewhere. The story of Wade and Brandi is a bombshell waiting to fully detonate.
More bad news: Jackson biographer Mike Smallcombe has challenged a major contention of Robson’s – that he stayed alone at Neverland with Jackson in 1990 while the rest of his family went to the Grand Canyon. It is at that time, Wade says, that he was first molested by Jackson. However, Joy Robson testified in 1993/1994 that the entire family went to the Grand Canyon and then returned to Neverland the following weekend. No mention of leaving little Wade behind at the mercy of Jackson. Joy said that Wade was never at Neverland without her before 1993.
JAMES SAFECHUCK (b. February 28, 1978) is a dancer, film director, and actor, who, like Wade Robson, was unable to meet his expectations for success in show business. He is now a computer programmer. His IMDb entry shows he is “known for” work as an editorial assistant on “Dude, Where’s My Car?” When his wife first met him, he was playing guitar with a band in a bar. Safechuck alleges that he was molested by Jackson for four years, from 1988 through 1992 (Safechuck second amended complaint, ¶36). According to his complaint, when James “fully reached puberty,” Jackson’s “sexual abuse” finally stopped (¶63). As with Wade Robson, this alleged abuse was supposedly not recognized as “abuse” but nonetheless left a lasting impression.
In May 2013 James saw on the news that Robson had filed suit against the Jackson estate, and his “feelings of panic and anxiety heightened” (second amended complaint, ¶81) After this, he met with a psychiatrist in 2013, when he was first able to discus the alleged abuse during treatment. Because of the statute of limitations, Safechuck – like Robson – needed to show that his realization of this abuse was recent, such that he could not have brought the claim earlier. And although he reportedly knew he had been abused in 2005, as claimed by Reed, he had not connected his life problems with this abuse, which he was finally able to do in 2013. Nonetheless, he has not been successful with his lawsuit. After substantial resistance from the Jackson legal team, James was forced to amend his complaint several times, and in 2017 his suit was dismissed.
James Safechuck in the Michael Jackson Pepsi commercial.
“Jimmy” Safechuck was a child model who had been acting in commercials, when he scored a Pepsi commercial with Michael Jackson in 1986/1987. His mother, Stephanie, was a tough stage mom, like Joy Robson. In “Leaving Neverland,” Stephanie says she was told by a friend to put her young son in commercials, and an agent told her, “He’s money in the bank.” Like Wade Robson, Jimmy Safechuck is featured in Victor Gutierrez’s book, and his story draws on Gutierrez’s material. Safechuck’s claims are similar to those of Robson, and he too finds a way to accuse Jackson’s companies. His story is constructed in much the same manner, organized around the statutes of limitations and other legal restrictions pertaining to his lawsuit; the two men have the same team of lawyers.
Some months after the Pepsi commercial, Jackson invited the Safechuck family to dinner at his Hayvenhurst home in Encino, CA. On Thanksgiving (November 26, 1987) Jackson was supposedly on the phone with James, and the Safechucks invited him to their house for Thanksgiving dinner. Jackson reportedly accepted, and the family drove to Hayvenhurst to pick him up (Safechuck second amended complaint, ¶13). Unfortunately for James’s account, however, Jackson was traveling for his “Bad” tour on Thanksgiving 1987. November 26 in California was November 27 in Brisbane, where he was performing that very day. It seems that instead of having dinner with the Safechucks, Jackson was meeting Wade Robson in Australia. Safechuck’s story starts to fall apart here, and has continued to crumble.
After the alleged Thanksgiving dinner, Jackson was supposedly in constant contact with James and “had become like a part of” his family. In 1988, James and his mother traveled with Jackson to Hawaii for a convention where the Pepsi commercial was featured. Jackson supposedly asked if James could sleep in his room, although his mother did not allow it. Jackson had rented out an amusement park in Hawaii for everyone to visit, and James met Michael J. Fox at the convention. The Safechucks were treated like VIPs, which made a big impression (second amended complaint, ¶19-21).
In 1988, Jackson allegedly began to sleep over at the Safechucks’ house, where he supposedly stayed in James’s bedroom (second amended complaint, ¶24). The same year, James and Stephanie traveled with Jackson to New York and Florida, and then to Paris on his “Bad” tour, where the first instance of alleged abuse occurred. This was reportedly described by Jackson as “showing love” (¶31). On another occasion, Jackson supposedly masturbated while having James “rub and suck” his nipples (¶38), which he also mentions in “Leaving Neverland.” This is straight out of Gutierrez’s book. Other activities alleged are much like those described by Robson.
James Safechuck’s second amended complaint, ¶33.
The jewelry episode in “Leaving Neverland” is one of the most poignant fake moments in the film. Safechuck pulls a few rings and a gold charm out of a small jewelry box with a shaking hand. He talks about his love for Jackson and says “we were like this married couple” that had a “mock wedding ceremony” in his bedroom. This “fake marriage,” along with a wedding ring and signed certificate, also appears in Safechuck’s complaint (second amended complaint, ¶54). “It’s hard to go back to that moment,” says James in the film, looking pained. The media jumped on this episode, digging up an old report about Jackson (in disguise) and Safechuck shopping for jewelry at Zales. This was caught on CCTV, although the tape actually shows the two in the nearby “Gift Bazaar,” and they are not buying jewelry. Of course, none of this constitutes proof of the allegation.
Safechuck’s brand new jewelry box with rings he says Jackson gave him when he was a boy.
James says that Jackson “engaged in sexual acts” with him “hundreds of times,” on tour and at his various houses (second amended complaint, ¶56). This included a romantic trip to New York City for James after Jackson’s performance at the Grammy Awards in February 1989, where he allegedly slept with Jackson in his hotel room and was sexually abused (¶35). The only problem with this incident is that it never happened. In 1989 the Grammy Awards were held in Los Angeles. And Jackson performed at the Grammy Awards in 1988 in New York. This blooper did not appear in “Leaving Neverland.”
Michael Jackson and James Safechuck, 1988. Image: The Sun.
One of the most curious anomalies in Safechuck’s allegations is his mother’s statement in “Leaving Neverland” that she danced for joy when Jackson died in 2009, because he would not be able to harm any more children. This is strange, because James allegedly did not even realize he had been abused until 2013. According to Dan Reed, James told his mother about the abuse in 2005. However, James claims that told his mother that Jackson was a “bad man” and “not a good person” – he says he told her only that “something had happened” but nothing more specific (Safechuck supplemental declaration, ¶15). This is not the same as telling her that Jackson had sexually abused him, although he alluded to this in his second amended complaint (¶74).
Indeed, we don’t know if James told his mother anything in 2005. This episode is supposedly related to the allegation that Jackson had begged James to testify in his defense in the 2005 trial. According to James, Jackson had contacted him about testifying and, when James said no, he “got angry and threatened him.” (Safechuck second amended complaint, ¶73). Jackson then reportedly called James’s mother Stephanie to get her to convince James to testify, and to ask both parents to testify as well. However, this entire scenario was invented. Actually, James was never a candidate for testimony in the 2005 trial. For the purposes of this trial, he had been considered a “non-entity,” as he was deemed unrelated to the Arvizo allegations. Furthermore, Jackson would not have contacted either James or his mother about testifying, as this was the job of court officials.
James’s story in “Leaving Neverland” has now been poked full of holes, most recently in terms of his allegations regarding the train station, where he said he and Jackson “would have sex” in the upstairs room many times. However, he had said his molestation lasted from 1988 through 1982, ending when he was 14 years old. Unfortunately for James, the train station was not built until 1994, which was discovered by Jackson biographer Mike Smallcombe. John Ziegler’s tirade on this blunder is hilarious.
The stories of Safechuck and Robson were carefully constructed so that their lawsuits could proceed within the legal limitations. Not carefully enough, however, as research shows. Still, although their lawsuits have been thrown out of court, both men have appealed. Along comes “Leaving Neverland,” providing support for the stories and the accusers, who hope to get their cases reinstated. Meanwhile, the film’s director, Dan Reed, is also a person of interest.
The van supposedly belonging to “MAGAbomber” Cesar Altieri Sayoc. Image: Daily Mail.
Internet researchers report that the van belonging to the so-called MAGAbomber “Cesar Sayoc” – whose name is actually Cesar Altieri – was parked not far from the Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center in south Florida for more than a year.
The rabbi of the Aventura TJC synagogue is Jonathan Berkun, who, perhaps not coincidentally, grew up in Pittsburgh and attended the Tree of Life Synagogue. He had his bar mitzvah at the Pittsburgh synagogue, and his sisters were married there. Not only that. His father, Alvin Berkun, was rabbi of Tree of Life for 23 years and subsequently attended the Shabbat morning service there for the past 12 years. In an article in the Miami Herald, Jonathan Berkun is quoted on the day of the Pittsburgh shooting as follows:
This morning in the middle of Shabbat morning services at ATJC Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center, Michael Yavner came (in the middle of my sermon about the recent acts of domestic terrorism whose investigation led straight to Aventura) to tell me what we now know to have been a murderous, hateful, anti-Semitic shooting rampage at Tree of Life.
What are the odds, folks?
Rabbi Jonathan Berkun of ATJC Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center. Image: ATJC.
The investigation that led straight to Aventura involved the accused MAGAbomber, Cesar Altieri, who was said to have been living in his van “outside an aging strip mall in Aventura, Fla., that houses an LA Fitness, a Jewish market, a bakery and a post office.”
One of the addresses associated with Altieri is 1801 North Ocean Beach Avenue in Hollywood, FL, right where the dead body of Beranton Whisenant was found floating near the shore in 2017, and just up the road a piece from Aventura. Whisenant was a U.S. Attorney who may have been investigating visa fraud in a case involving Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Yes, the same “DEBBIE WASSERMAN SHULTZ” [sic] of the return address on the package “bombs” that were allegedly sent out by Altieri.
Package “bomb” addressed to James Clapper with return address of “Debbie Wasserman Shultz.” Image: NBC.
Jonathan Berkun’s father, Alvin Berkun, is rabbi emeritus of the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and a past president of the Rabbinical Assembly, a former Navy chaplain, and an active police chaplain. He also has long-standing ties to the U.S. government and is shown in a C-SPAN clip from 1993 leading a prayer in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Rabbi Alvin Berkun addressing Congress in 1993. Image: C-SPAN.
Alvin Berkun was scheduled to be at the Tree of Life services on Saturday morning, October 27, the morning of the alleged shooting, but his wife was not feeling well and asked him to stay home – fortuitously. According to Jonathan Berkun in a blog post of October 29, his mother was not only “not feeling well” but in a nearby hospital with an infection, and he went straight there to see her when he arrived in Pittsburgh on Sunday. He and his father then left to take part in a community prayer vigil held in response to the shooting. As Jonathan notes:
Here’s one truth: Elderly Jews tend to come early to synagogue on Shabbat, and for some reason, many of them prefer to sit in the back. Maybe it’s so they can sleep through the rabbi’s sermon unnoticed, or maybe because it’s a shorter walk to the bathroom. That back row is where my father sits early every Shabbat at the Tree of life Congregation. But the shooter also came early, and today, every single person who sits with my father in synagogue is dead. I have no doubt that had my mother not been ill, I would have flown home not to comfort my father, but to bury him.
Wait – I thought that Jews come late to Saturday services. Oh, I’m sorry, that was another former rabbi of Tree of Life who said that: Chuck Diamond. Anyway, whatever.
Alvin Berkun was one of several rabbis who visited convicted Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard in federal prison, which suggests that he was working for his release as an intermediary for Israel. According to Berkun, Pollard’s sentence was much harsher than those of other spies who have given U.S. secrets to foreign states. “I can’t help but think there’s an element of prejudice,” he said, indicating that, in his opinion, Pollard has been “singled-out.” The group of rabbis had special access to Pollard and were even allowed to hug him. “I found the visit to be very moving,” Berkun said.
Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard. Image: Getty Images.
Pollard was imprisoned on espionage charges beginning in 1985, in solitary confinement for the first seven years of his incarceration. The leaders of the Reform and Conservative movements were “engaged in vigorous advocacy for years, passing resolutions, issuing public statements, advocating Pollard’s clemency to four presidential administrations and to Congress and working with the large number of their member rabbis across the nation who have regularly preached and written on the unfairness and inequities of Pollard’s sentence,” which they considered “grossly disproportionate.”
Pollard had sold to Israel numerous U.S. state secrets, including the NSA’s ten-volume manual on how the U.S. gathers its signal intelligence, and he revealed the names of thousands of people who had cooperated with U.S. intelligence. Benjamin Netanyahu insisted that Pollard had worked exclusively for Israel, but Pollard himself admitted selling his services to other parties. After a long campaign by Israel for his release, with legions of supporters from Netanyahu and Shimon Peres to Henry Kissinger and Alan Dershowitz, Pollard was finally granted parole and released in 2015 under Barack Obama. Although considered a traitor in the United States, Pollard is regarded a hero by many in Israel.
Screen shot from the video “MAGA Bomber and Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting False Flags,” which can no longer be accessed at YouTube.
These connections were outlined in a short video, “MAGA Bomber and Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting False Flags,” by “impartjewish,” which makes one wonder if Alvin and Jonathan Berkun are tied to Israeli intelligence. Unfortunately, this important video can no longer be viewed at YouTube.
Jonathan Berkun worked with the FBI on a sting in 2016 involving the (fake) bombing of his own synagogue: James Gonzalo Medina was arrested while carrying a non-explosive device toward the Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center. “The synagogue’s leaders sought to reassure congregants and, even as news spread through south Florida, they said their facilities were open…for a normal day.”
Rabbi Jonathan Berkun and the center’s executive director, Elliot B. Karp, said they were assured by security officials that “the synagogue and school were never at risk at any time” and were told no other credible threats had been found.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz was apparently in on the scam and spoke out about the 2016 arrest, which occurred during the final days of Passover.
“This attempted attack is a harsh reminder that there are many in our community who are motivated by bigotry and violence,” she said in a statement. “As a community and a nation we must work together to confront this kind of hatred.”
Jonathan Berkun has been photographed frequently with Wasserman Schultz, and they both spoke out at a press conference on the day of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting – against “the rise of anti-Semitic acts in South Florida and across the U.S.”
Press conference on October 27, 2018, with Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Jonathan Berkun. Image: ABC.
One is left to wonder whether the MAGAbomber hoax and the alleged Tree of Life shooting were carried out by Israeli intelligence with the help of members of the U.S. Jewish community.
VIVIAN LEE is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.
This article was published at JamesFetzer.org and MemoryHoleBlog.org.
Tree of Life synagogue, Squirrel Hill, Pittsburgh, PA. Image: Daily Mail.
On Saturday morning, October 27, 2017, a mass shooting was reported at the Tree of Life synagogue in the Squirrel Hill region of Pittsburgh, PA. A suspect, Robert Gregory Bowers, was apprehended at the scene, after being wounded by SWAT officers. Before he was taken into custody, Bowers is said to have killed 11 of the congregants and injured six, including four members of the SWAT team that he engaged in two separate gun battles. Bowers was allegedly armed with “an AR-15-style assault rifle,” a Glock pistol, and two other handguns.
The officers who rushed to the scene came upon Mr. Bowers as he was trying to leave the synagogue. He fired at them, injuring one officer in the hand, according to the criminal complaint. Another officer had injuries to his face from shrapnel and broken glass. Mr. Bowers then darted back inside and ran up to the third floor.
At that point, a SWAT team went in and came upon the scene of the massacre. Two people were still alive and the police carried them out. As they were searching for other victims, SWAT officers encountered Mr. Bowers, who fired at them and critically injured two officers.
The remaining officers “engaged the suspect in a gun battle in which multiple rounds were exchanged,” the criminal complaint said. At some point in the shootout, Mr. Bowers was wounded, and he eventually surrendered to the police.
Bowers reportedly entered the synagogue just before 10 am, and “the Allegheny County Emergency Operations center received calls of an active shooter at 9:54 am ET…Officers were dispatched at 9:55 am,” according to CNN. In all, Bowers is said to have been inside the synagogue for a full 20 minutes.
Where did the shootings occur?
The synagogue was hosting services for three congregations, “Tree of Life,” “New Light,” and “Dor Hadash,” according to Michael Eisenberg, past president of Tree of Life. The Tree of Life service would usually have around 40 people in attendance, in the main part of the building. New Light’s service would have had a group of 30‒40 people meeting in the basement, and Dor Hadash would have had around 15 people meeting in the rabbi’s study room.
Michael Eisenberg gives a CNN interview at the scene. Image: CNN.
According to early coverage by The Daily Mail, Bowers “burst through the synagogue’s doors and opened fire on the congregation on the main floor where around 40 to 50 people had gathered…shouting ‘all Jews must die!’ while spraying bullets over them.”
After killing three people on the main floor, he went downstairs, where the New Light congregation was gathering in the basement, and opened fire there. He murdered four people there then fled upstairs where, on the third floor, he exchanged fire with SWAT teams and injured three police officers. Dor Hadash, a third, smaller group, was gathered in the rabbi’s study to the side of the Tree of Life’s congregation.
Just how The Daily Mail came by this information is unclear, but it does not square with other reports. According to The New York Times, Stephen Weiss, one of the congregants present, heard “a loud noise” and then “a couple more loud sounds.” Weiss and the rabbi then discovered it was the sound of gunshots.
The rabbi instructed everyone to get to a safe place, and after the Tree of Life congregants had done so, [Weiss] considered the other congregations that meet in the building on Saturdays. The bris was taking place on a lower floor, and he checked first to make sure the people there were safe. They were.
Weiss never saw the shooter, but “before evacuating, he was at one point close enough to see the shell casings.” This suggests that the Tree of Life congregants on the main floor were all able to “get to a safe place,” and that the New Light congregation was safe in the basement as well. That leaves only the rabbi’s study, where around 15 people had been meeting. Was this the site of the alleged massacre? Meanwhile, we hear about victims found in an “atrium.” And where did Bowers run to when he fled back inside the synagogue to hide from the SWAT team? The third floor? And in the additional time he had to kill more congregants, why did he not do so?
SWAT team members on the scene. Image: Associated Press.
According to the latest New York Times reports, Bowers barged into the building and “then killed at least 11 people in and around the synagogue.” Nowhere is it specified exactly what this means. However, he had somehow, somewhere allegedly killed all 11 before encountering the SWAT team. Just how the media will re-construct the story for the final narrative remains to be seen. The rolling barrage of coverage has just begun.
Who is Robert Bowers?
Who is this abhorrent character, previously known to law enforcement only through a traffic ticket? An angry man turned insane mass murderer, if details as reported are to be believed. Bowers has been charged with 29 federal criminal counts, including obstructing the free exercise of religious beliefs, a hate crime, and using a firearm to commit murder. In addition, he faces state charges including 11 counts of criminal homicide, six counts of aggravated assault, and 13 counts of “ethnic intimidation.” Billed as a raging anti-Semite, he reportedly shouted “All Jews must die!” before opening fire, and he told a policeman, “I just want to kill Jews,” according to an FBI affidavit.
Anti-Semitic post by Robert Bowers on Gab.
In January, “an account under his name was created” on the social network site Gab, “a free-speech alternative” that has become “a haven for white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and other extremists.” Several weeks ago, Bowers reportedly posted a link to the website of HIAS, a Jewish non-profit in support of refugees, with the following caption: “Why hello there HIAS! You like to bring in hostile invaders to dwell among us?” And supposedly “just before the shootings” at Tree of Life, he posted about HIAS again:
The website has since been penalized, with its provider moving to shut it down and its payment platforms frozen or cancelled. According to PayPal, “When a site is allowing the perpetuation of hate, violence, or discriminatory intolerance, we take immediate and decisive action.” The casting of Bowers as a demented anti-Semite aids numerous agendas of the security state, including the current move to monitor, censor, or completely eliminate inconvenient websites and payment platforms. It also generates sympathy for the Jews and for Israel, and promotes the idea that anti-Semitism is on the rise:
“I’m afraid to say that we may be at the beginning of what has happened to Europe, the consistent anti-Semitic attacks,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of Simon Wiesenthal Center, who prayed at Mr. Trump’s inauguration. He spoke in a phone interview from Austria, where he was visiting the Mauthausen concentration camp. “If it is not nipped in the bud,” he continued, “I am afraid the worst is yet to come.”
Yes, this would be terribly worrying, if the shooting in question had actually occurred.
Another active-shooter drill?
Although reported as a real event by the corporate media, there are suggestions that this may actually have been a drill. As with other fake shootings, the action – or rather inaction – at the scene is troubling. Police, men in SWAT gear, EMTs, and others are shown standing around or walking casually, with no one exhibiting any sense of urgency or fear. Despite the claim of Dr. Donald Yealy, chairman of emergency medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, that experts were dispatched to the scene to help accomplish triage, there is no evidence of colored tarps for START triage procedure near the synagogue.
Tree of Life synagogue, with no evidence of colored tarps for START triage protocol. Image: ABC.
As with other drills-gone-live, there are no bodies, blood, or other gruesome evidence that a massacre has occurred. Despite hearing about victims being “extracted” from the synagogue, there is no indication of any such actions. Only one empty stretcher is visible in photos from the scene, and no helicopters are shown airlifting victims to nearby hospitals, three of which have supposedly accepted the injured. As with Sandy Hook and other such events, victims were apparently declared dead at the scene, although this is not standard protocol. Except in unusual circumstances, in an effort to save lives, victims are normally transported to a hospital. And as with Sandy Hook, the bodies of the dead were apparently identified and left where they fell – although we hear that “a Jewish volunteer group from New York will soon go through the grueling task of collecting all the blood and bodily fluids from the 11 victims left inside” the synagogue.
Any fluids that can’t be identified as belonging to a specific victim will be buried together in a separate location. The team uses towels to soak up the blood. The arduous process is also conducted at car accident scenes and other violent deaths involving Jewish victims. In Pittsburgh, authorities Sunday morning allowed a Misaskim volunteer to check out the inside of the synagogue to see what needs to be done. But investigators are still collecting evidence from the crime scene and have blocked anything from being removed. As for the funerals, Jewish law requires that the burial be conducted soon after death…the bodies have not yet been released by the medical examiner’s office.
Law enforcement officers standing around with an empty stretcher. Image: Associated Press.
As with other like events, televised interviews show people seemingly unaffected by the horrifying carnage. Neighborhood residents are calm and smiling, and even the former rabbi at Tree of Life, Chuck Diamond, has the presence of mind to add a bit of levity: “Jews come late to services, so for a lot of people, that’s probably a good thing.”
Former rabbi Chuck Diamond being interviewed. GameTimeWoo.
Reports of active-shooter training have cropped up, and Stephen Weiss, mentioned above, had taken part in such training “the year before,” according to The New York Times. Michael Eisenberg, ex-president of the synagogue, reports that they had been working with DHS on security issues, “to evaluate exit routes,” and also with the security expert at the Jewish Federation on “what to do in an active shooter situation,” along with other area synagogues. An FBI active-shooter drill was held at the nearby Jewish Community Center on Thursday evening, January 25, 2018, as reported in the local press. And, in a nice touch, the shooter is called an “actor” by police chief Scott Schubert in an interview; Bowers is again called an “actor” in audio from a police scanner.
Gun grab and security state
As is common in alleged mass shootings, the shooter was carrying multiple weapons: an assault rifle as well as handguns. Like Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook, Bowers had an “AR-15 style assault rifle” and a Glock pistol, although he had two additional handguns instead of one. How did he carry all these weapons? And did he have extra ammunition? Bowers was found to have 21 guns registered to his name – obviously another crazy gun nut who should not have been allowed to own all these weapons. As with other mass shootings, the calls for stricter gun laws are pouring forth in the media.
Likewise calls for more security at religious institutions – and everywhere else. Trump insisted that this shooting was not about guns, and that things might have gone better if the synagogue had had armed guards for protection. “‘If there was an armed guard inside the temple, they would have been able to stop him,’ he said to reporters before boarding a flight to a pair of events later in the afternoon.” This comment, of course, was derided by gun-control advocates, such as comedienne Wanda Sykes:
And along with gun control goes more stringent security: more monitoring and censoring of the web and social media, more electronic surveillance, and more active-shooter drills in schools, the workplace, and places of worship. Security is a mega-growth industry, and organizations are shelling out for all these services. Mass shootings are also a growth industry. Funds were being raised almost immediately for the victims of the Pittsburgh massacre, with a GoFundMe account for “Tree of Life Synagogue Victims” totaling $510,000 at the time of this writing, and climbing.
It’s Trump’s fault, particularly right before the election
Even though Bowers was not a Trump supporter, Trump is being blamed for the alleged synagogue shooting. According to The New York Times, “Critics of President Trump have argued that he is partly to blame for recent acts of violence because he has been stirring the pot of nationalism, on Twitter and at his rallies, charges that Mr. Trump has denied.” Or it could be that Trump is just plain toxic, in the words of New York Times op-ed writer Charles M. Blow. The Washington Post tied Trump to the shooting on the front page of the Sunday paper: “Trump, Allies Set the Tone for the Violence They Denounce, Critics Say.” Sarah Sanders hit back, asking “Is there any tragedy the Washington Post won’t exploit to attack President @realDonaldTrump?” Look for more such criticism in the near future.
Anti-Trump post by Bowers, reportedly showing part of his gun collection. Image: Daily Mail.
Hollywood types have jumped on board, tweeting up a storm, hoping to influence the coming election.
We can’t read a newspaper. Fake News. We can’t watch television. Lies. We have to go to the polls. Indeed.
VIVIAN LEE is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.
This article was published at JamesFetzer.org and MemoryHoleBlog.org.
IN SOLIDARITY WITH ALEX JONES: TOP TEN REASONS SANDY HOOK WAS AN ELABORATE HOAX
August 15, 2018
I am writing in solidarity with Alex Jones—in support of his right to speak freely on YouTube, Facebook, and other internet platforms without being censored, as protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While Jones has not been consistent in his comments about the Sandy Hook Elementary School event, he has expressed the idea that the shooting was not real, and in this he was correct. Adam Lanza did not kill 28 people in Newtown, CT, on December 14, 2012. This was a drill, presented by officials and the media as an actual shooting. Following the event, a group of investigators compiled a list of ten reasons that, taken together, show that Sandy Hook was staged. These are published in detail in the banned book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It Was a FEMA Drill To Promote Gun Control (Moon Rock Books, 2015). Although more evidence has since emerged, the original “top ten reasons” still ring true:
(1) Proof of death was suppressed.
(2) Emergency protocols were not followed.
(3) Drill protocols were followed instead.
(4) There was foreknowledge of the event.
(5) There were contradictory reports about the weapons.
(8) Photos at the scene and of victims look staged or fake.
(9) The crime scene was completely destroyed.
(10) Deceased children sang at the Super Bowl.
To summarize, first of all, there is no proof of anyone’s death—not for the children or adults at the school, Nancy Lanza, or Adam Lanza—no photos or footage confirming the official story (1). In June 2013, the state of Connecticut outlawed disclosure of photos or video images of homicide victims, along with other records.
There is no evidence of any frantic attempt to save lives at the scene (2), which looked largely calm and bloodless. START triage protocol for a Mass Casualty Incident (MCI) was not followed. Emergency vehicles were jammed together at the Firehouse, impeding access to the school and possible rescue. Instead, drill protocols were followed (3), with ID badges visible, Porta-Potties, and cases of bottled water on hand. In an amazing coincidence, a FEMA Mass Casualty Drill, “Emergency Response for Mass Casualties Involving Children,” was scheduled to take place on December 13 or 14 (location unspecified). This furnished the script for the Sandy Hook “shooting,” an Integrated Capstone Event run by FEMA to coordinate federal, state, and local emergency response teams in case of a mass-casualty event.
START tarps outside Sandy Hook Elementary with no victims.
There is proof of foreknowledge of the event (4). The Connecticut state emergency system was taken over before the “massacre” occurred, and normal police and EMS dispatch protocol was replaced with staged transmissions. Tweets about the “shooting” began before it occurred, and Facebook pages honoring “victims” were established before they had “died.”
State officials and the media were confused about the guns used (5), with reports of four handguns, a Bushmaster AR-15, a Bushmaster SM 15-E2S, a Glock 10mm handgun, a Sig Sauer P226 9mm handgun, and an Izhmash Saiga-12 12-gauge shotgun, supposedly found in the trunk of Adam Lanza’s car. Oddly, Fox News reported a 12-gauge shotgun and two magazines of shotgun rounds found in the glove compartment. And how did Adam Lanza, who had Asperger’s Syndrome and weighed 112 pounds, manage all these guns (6), along with more than 150 rounds of ammunition? Ballistics experts agree that he could not have carried all this on his person. In less than seven minutes, this inexperienced marksman supposedly killed 26 people and then himself, with a 96% kill ratio, a complete impossibility.
A young Adam Lanza, the alleged killer. Image: Time.
Numerous participants displayed bizarre and inappropriate behavior (7). Wayne Carver, the Medical Examiner, gave a surreal press conference in which he clowned around, grinning strangely, making irrelevant comments, and appearing unknowledgeable and unprofessional. Robbie Parker, the alleged father of Emilie Parker, one of the alleged deceased children, was caught chuckling before a CNN interview, then hyperventilating to get into character, and finally feigning distress for Wolf Blitzer. Alleged parent Veronique Pozner was interviewed by Anderson Cooper in front of a green screen, which caused the end of Cooper’s nose to disappear several times (according to the media, this was “motion compensation video compression”). Neighbor Gene Rosen was caught on camera rehearsing his story. And internet researcher “Barry Soetoro” proved that alleged parent David Wheeler had played two roles in the production, the second being that of an FBI sniper who did not know how to carry a firearm. His important channel was removed by YouTube.
Robbie Parker, before his CNN interview on December 15, 2012. Image: CNN.
Photos reportedly taken at the time of the “shooting” look staged or fake (8). The “iconic” photo taken by Shannon Hicks for The Newtown Bee of children being evacuated from the school was shot at a different time and date, as shown by photo analysis. Hicks uploaded this photo to YouTube, along with 19 others, the day before the “shooting.” Many other photos look staged, one being the scene in the school lobby, with a shattered glass window supposedly shot out by Adam Lanza, but with all the furniture still in place—although Lanza and ten policemen, all with their guns and gear, reportedly entered through the hole and pushed past the furniture.
Window supposedly blown out by “the shooter.” Image: 2013 final report, Walkley scene photos.
In an amazing breach of procedure, the crime scene was completely destroyed (9), reminiscent of the destruction of the World Trade Center complex following 9/11. Sandy Hook Elementary was razed, and $50 million was allocated to build a new school on a different site. Employees who worked on the project signed non-disclosure agreements, prohibited from speaking about anything they observed at the scene. Evidence indicates that Sandy Hook Elementary was dilapidated, contaminated, and not even a working school in December 2012, with the building cleaned up and staged for the FEMA “shooting.”
In a wonderfully surreal touch, at least nine of the supposedly dead children sang “America the Beautiful” in the “Sandy Hook Elementary School Chorus” at Super Bowl XLVII in February 2013, along with Hollywood actress Jennifer Hudson (10). This was shown in a brilliant video by researcher “QKultra,” which has now been wiped from the web, like the work of so many others.
Sandy Hook Elementary School Chorus, singing at the Super Bowl in 2013. Image: “Sandy Hoax Surprise.”
And cui bono? At least $12 million was raised and distributed to the victims’ families and other survivors (with condolences posted by the Support Fund/United Way three days before the “shooting”). Individual families have raised additional funds, and “Sandy Hook Promise” solicits money “to protect children and prevent gun violence.” Add to this a total of $15.2 million in federal grants to Newtown agencies and other participants. According to the documentary, “We Need To Talk about Sandy Hook,” at least $131 million has been forked over, including the $50 million for the new school. This film has been removed repeatedly by YouTube.
The “families” have been active in lobbying for gun control, as covered widely in the media. Not only did the Sandy Hook event serve the effort to curtail the Second Amendment, but it benefited the “security industry” and the push for “mental health” screening to try to “identify” children who may need “help.” All these repressive programs are further enhanced with each new “school shooting.”
Mr. President, the Sandy Hook shooting narrative is “fake news,” to use one of your favorite expressions, devised by the deep state and promoted in the mainstream media. The disinformation on this and other hoax events is being used to traumatize the American people into giving up their constitutional rights. Internet platforms should not censor the research of those who question such narratives. You have sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. The tech industry cannot be allowed to subvert it.
VIVIAN LEEis the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an American university. Her special interests include war, psyops, and propaganda, with a current focus on false flag terrorism and staged shootings as well as the media’s role in these fabricated events. Her writing has appeared in Nobody Died at Sandy Hook and From Orlando to Dallas and Beyond (Moon Rock Books), and at numerous online sites including James Fetzer’s website and Memory Hole Blog.
Global Research brings to the attention of its readers this review article pertaining to the West Palm Beach court decision regarding Prof. James Tracy’s dismissal from Florida Atlantic University (FAU). Whilst opinions may diverge regarding the events at Sandy Hook, we nonetheless believe that First Amendment Rights should prevail with a view to preserving academic freedom.
On December 11, 2017, in a serious miscarriage of justice, a jury in West Palm Beach, Florida, ruled unanimously in favor of Florida Atlantic University and against former Media Studies Professor James Tracy, who was suing for reinstatement after his firing in 2016. The jury found that Tracy’s “controversial” articles on Memory Hole Blog were not a “motivating factor” in his firing, the only question they were required to consider. Of course, Tracy’s posts at “his conspiracy theory blog” were indeed the reason he was fired, but the jury was convinced otherwise by FAU’s legal team with assistance from the judge. The case centered around Tracy’s writings on the anomalies found in the reporting on the Sandy Hook “massacre” of December 14, 2012. His skepticism about the event was not to the liking of the university.
James Tracy with his attorney Louis Leo IV arriving at federal court. Image: Palm Beach Post.
FAU maintained that Tracy was not fired from his tenured position because of his blog posts, but because he did not follow the “rules” set out by “his bosses” at the government-run institution. FAU attorney G. Joseph Curley insisted that Tracy was not denied his First Amendment rights, but that he simply did not follow university procedure. “Professor Tracy doesn’t follow the rules,” Curley told the jury. “They’re rules that everyone else follows. He doesn’t play by the rules.” FAU cast the case as one of a “belligerent,” rebellious,” and “nonconformist” employee being let go for “insubordination,” instead of that of a tenured professor exercising his right to free speech.
FAU attorney G. Joseph Curley: “I could not be happier for FAU.” Image: Palm Beach Post.
FAU’s current “rules” require that faculty submit forms listing “outside activities” to be vetted for administrative approval, whether the activities are compensated or not. Tracy and other professors at FAU had argued that the policy is vague and confusing, constituting a form of prior restraint forbidden by the First Amendment, and leading to a climate of “fear and uncertainty” among the faculty. Aside from the fact that “outside activities” can reach into all aspects of a professor’s life and therefore be difficult if not impossible to list, such activities must not be subject to bureaucratic approval. And certainly, no tenured professor can be fired for not filling out a form, even at Florida Atlantic University.
Tenure and academic freedom
The reason for tenure at academic institutions is precisely to allow professors to research, write, and speak out without fear of reprisal. The road to tenure is long and difficult, embarked upon with the goal of attaining the “academic freedom” that tenured professors enjoy. According to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), as outlined in their 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties.” Regarding “outside activities,” the statement includes the following:
College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline…they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for their institution.
The statement was amended in 1970 to stipulate:
The controlling principle is that a faculty member’s expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness for his or her position. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty member’s fitness for the position.
This is further reinforced by the AAUP in its executive summary of 2011, “Ensuring Academic Freedom in Politically Controversial Academic Personnel Decisions.” The AAUP sees a current “political threat” to academic freedom from outside forces, including interest groups, politicians, and members of the media, which can put pressure on the university. All personnel decisions should rest on “academic fitness” and no institution should discipline academic speech “unless that speech implicates professional fitness.”
James Tracy was clearly notunfit for his position, having received evaluations indicating that his teaching, scholarship, service to the institution, and job performance were considered to be “excellent.” Curley fought to keep these evaluations from the jury; only when he had left the courtroom one afternoon was Tracy’s team able to get them included in the record.
FAU conspiracy with the judicial system?
Tracy filed suit in April 2016, alleging a conspiracy between FAU and the faculty union, which had advised him not to fill out the outside activities forms, discouraged him from initiating a grievance or lawsuit, and even attempted to coerce him into resigning from his position. FAU delayed proceedings by the filing of repeated motions alleging that the suit was “frivolous,” that there was no conspiracy, and that Tracy’s termination was merely due to his failure to disclose his outside activities in a timely fashion.
In February 2017, federal judge Robin Rosenberg ruled that Tracy’s lawsuit could proceed to discovery, with defendants including FAU, the Board of Trustees, President, Dean, Associate Provost, the Florida Education Association, the faculty union (United Faculty of Florida) and the union’s Chapter President and Service Unit Director.
United States District Judge Robin Rosenberg of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Image: Palm Beach Post.
This allowed Tracy’s legal team to obtain thousands of internal emails from FAU, which supported his contention that members of the administration had conspired to discipline and finally fire him. The case proceeded on the basis of the Second Amended Complaint, which included six individual counts as follows:
Count I – Retaliation in Violation of Right to Free Speech, against Defendant FAU and Defendants President John Kelly, Associate Provost Diane Alperin, and College of Arts and Letters Dean Heather Coltman.
Count II – Conspiracy to Interfere with Plaintiff’s Civil Rights, against Defendants Alperin, Coltman, Kelly, UFF President Robert Zoeller, Jr., UFF Service Unit Director Michael Moats, UFF, Florida Education Association, and FAU.
Count III – Facial Challenge to FAU’s Conflict of Interest Policy, against Defendant FAU.
Count IV – As-Applied Challenge to Plaintiff’s Right to Free Speech, against Defendant FAU.
Count V – Declaratory Judgment and Injunction, against Defendant FAU.
Count VI – State Law Breach of Contract, against Defendant FAU.
Although the Second Amended Complaint shows clear evidence supporting every count, Judge Rosenberg eliminated all but the first count in her order on pending motions for summary judgment of October 31, 2017. This reduced the case to a matter of why Tracy was fired—whether because of his blog posts or for not submitting his outside activities forms—and the decision was left up to a jury. This arguably suggests that the judge was aiding Defendant FAU in reducing the complaint to one of simple intent without reference to the complexities of the case and the large amount of evidence against the university. All this evidence was disregarded by the jury and ignored by the press.
Incriminating memo by defendant Dean Heather Coltman of January 2013, part of the evidence discounted by the federal jury.
This had the effect of putting Tracy on trial (although he was the plaintiff and not the defendant), judged not by his actual peers but by a jury composed of members of the public who did not understand the full implications of the case—because much of the evidence was suppressed. Neither did they understand the implications of tenure, as they were not academics themselves. This upended the complaint and trashed many months of hard work by Tracy and his lawyers—work detailed in the 90 legal documents posted at the James Tracy Legal Defense Fund website.
FAU conspiracy with the press?
Much has been written about the massive bad press that James Tracy has received, beginning in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook event. This was instigated by the Florida Sun Sentinel and then taken up by the national mainstream and alternative media.
The Sun Sentinel published a letter of December 10, 2015, written by Lenny and Veronique Pozner, publicized as the only Jewish family to have lost a child in the alleged Sandy Hook shooting. The letter, “Sandy Hook Massacre 3rd Anniversary: Two Parents Target FAU Conspiracy Theorist,” was reprinted in the Forward on December 14. The letter accused Tracy of “torturing” the victims’ families, and called for his firing:
A plethora of conspiracies arose after Sandy Hook, but none received as much mainstream publicity as Tracy, who suggested that the shooting never occurred and the Obama administration had staged the “event” to prepare the country for strict gun control measures.
More than 800 news agencies covered the story of his denial. As a result, this professor achieved fame among the morbid and deranged precisely because his theories were attached to his academic credentials and his affiliation with FAU. Tracy has enjoyed tremendous success from this exposure and has since leveraged it into a popular Internet blog and radio program. Worse yet, it has elevated his status and fame among the degenerates that revel in the pleasure of sadistically torturing victims’ families.
The Pozners’ accusations were false, as has been shown, but nonetheless they were picked up by other media outlets and used to bash Tracy in the US press. Strangely, the letter contains information that only an insider would likely have known. And it was this letter that brought on Tracy’s dismissal on January 5, 2016, although FAU insists that there was no connection. “The timing of it is completely coincidental,” said FAU attorney Curley. “The optics of course look like the school is retaliating, when they’re not.”
The trial was covered by the local Florida press and kept out of the national media, with the exception of brief, disparaging reports in the Washington Post and New York Daily News. The titles of the articles indicate their biased nature:
This last article pushes the idea that Tracy was an ordinary employee who “repeatedly refused to obey reasonable requests from his bosses.” It quotes Curley as saying that FAU officials were glad they got to “set the record straight. According to the article:
FAU said it was about an employee who didn’t want to listen to his bosses, his peers or his union officials…Tracy used his position as an FAU professor for “self-promotion” and to bolster his blog’s reputation, Curley said. FAU officials testified Tracy lied to them about using university resources to write his blog…Curley listed several examples of Tracy’s failure to follow the rules and comply with reasonable requests from his employers. The school wasn’t his priority.
“The school was a platform for him—that’s not what it’s supposed to be about,” Curley said. A video in the article features an interview with Curley; watch it and judge for yourself whether this is an honest man.
Louis Leo warns off local reporters as the team departs the court house. Image NBC.
G. J. “Joe” Curley is a Florida “super lawyer” and shareholder with Gunster, “Florida’s law firm for business.” According to Gunster’s website, “Joe most often represents business clients with complicated employment and commercial matters in court”; his experience includes “the achievement of zero verdicts for institutional defendants, injunctions involving hundreds of millions in issue, as well as multi-million dollar verdicts in a variety of business related disputes.”
On December 11, immediately following the verdict in the trial, attorney G. Joseph Curley became Judge Curley—appointed to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court by Florida Governor Rick Scott. “Curley’s appointment came just hours after he won a high-profile case involving a professor from Florida Atlantic University.” The “timing” of this was surely “completely coincidental” as Curley might say.  Governor Rick Scott will be familiar as the official who dominated the media after the Pulse nightclub event in Orlando.
The fifth anniversary of the Sandy Hook incident
Yet one more “coincidence” had the trial scheduled to run right up to the fifth anniversary of the Sandy Hook “shooting” on December 14, 2017. As expected, the mainstream press featured the “massacre” once again in major venues including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Daily News.
Yet it has long been known that the official story is far from the truth. Much of the evidence can be found online in articles, lectures, and films (although MemoryHoleBlog.com and many important YouTube channels have been taken down) as well as in the book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, second edition, published by Moon Rock Books. The book was censored by amazon.com and wiped from the site without a trace, but the first edition can be downloaded for free at several sites. New details continue to appear, making it ever more certain that this was a staged event.
If you don’t believe me, you are not alone—although at least one-fourth of the US public reportedly now thinks they’ve been played. A poll conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University in October 2016 found that 24% of Americans interviewed believed that it was at least possible that the Sandy Hook “shooting” was “faked in order to increase support for gun control.” It is likely that even more people now hold this opinion. Those who orchestrated the event are desperate to keep the facts from emerging, by banning books, pulling videos off the internet—and firing Professor James Tracy for daring to investigate.
Tracy’s legal team is considering an appeal based on Rosenberg’s order on motions for summary judgment, which limited the proceedings to one count only. Tracy has been without a job and an income since he was fired, his scholarly reputation has been ruined, and he remains a subject of ridicule in the press. Not only has he suffered cruelly and unjustly, but academic freedom is now in real danger. In a statement by Tracy to the Washington Post:
In my view the Tracy v. FAU decision will embolden university administrators across the US to scrutinize the personal affairs of faculty members with whom they disagree, and they’ll be more inclined to discipline or terminate vulnerable faculty knowing a set of legal precedents are being established in this vein.
One positive outcome of the trial is the classification by Rosenberg of Tracy’s blog posts as private speech on matters of public concern, such as mass shootings, government conspiracies, and the like. With this, she threw out FAU’s repeated assertions that Tracy was conducting academic research on Memory Hole Blog pertinent to his employment. This may help with an appeal. But an appeal will require more resources. If you can support this cause, visit the James Tracy Legal Defense Fund website and click on “Give.”
VIVIAN LEE is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.
This article was published at GlobalResearch.ca and also at MemoryHoleBlog.com (now MemoryHoleBlog.org) and JamesFetzer.org.
 The governor of Florida also appoints 14 of the 17 members of the Board of Governors of the state university system of Florida. The governor appoints six of the 13 members of each state university’s Board of Trustees, and members of the Board of Governors appoint five of the 13. The governor thus controls appointments to the Board of Trustees of FAU.
The original source of this article is Global Research