A Tree Grows Here

Trees. They are an ancient source of wisdom and knowledge to mystics and followers of the old ways. The old ones have stood for countless years as strong sentinels, protecting the secrets and truth of ages past. Sheltering and nurturing new life, their roots spread wide and deep into the ground, to anchor against the storms that nature brings. Branches may fall; they may snap from the strength of prevailing winds, but the body remains strong and ready to regenerate new limbs in the calm that follows.

It is an endless cycle of growth and rebirth; an example of strength, persistence and fortitude and it can be likened to this community. We are the limbs of a tree whose roots are firmly planted in the legacy one special man left behind. We guard and protect his legacy of truth and love and justice, of selfless giving and of humbleness, of the artistry of his music and dance. And we carry his voice of change within us.

We fight against the disease of injustice that helped to destroy him, and against the hatred, jealousy and self-service that grows amongst us. We can prune those branches who serve no other purpose than to leech nutrients from the soil in which we grow. And some branches will fall when the winds are too strong for their lightness of being to withstand.

But new life grows and will continue to do so. Our branches will keep spreading and injustice will be righted. The truth of this man will become known to all through our words, our actions and the music of his life. He planted a seed and watered it with love, and now a tree grows here in our hearts. A tree grows here!

What Brought Us Here?

What brought us here to this place where we stand?

Was it the melody sung or the poem penned during sleepless nights?

Or was it that first whisper where consciousness floated to a single awareness?

We felt it trace the outline of our thoughts

Skimming across indifference and careless disregard

Eyes and ears opened

And when the whisper gave birth to the voice

We heard, we saw, we felt the shift to a place outside ourselves

Eyes viewed a different world

Our slumber was over and we had awoken to a new reality

Ears heard an age-old message

One now sung upon the pages of history

Through the lyrics of one life

A life filled with the joy of living

Of children and laughter

Of the pain of betrayal

In service to others through unselfish love

Of dance and song

Change came to us

And we embraced it

Cradled and protected within newfound knowledge

So, what brought us here to this place where we stand?

A man the color of hope

A man the shape of love

A man carrying a powerful truth

Gone is the body, but his voice will never be silenced

Because we, now speak his message

A man the shape of loveA man the color of hopeOf dance and songIn service to others through unselfish loveOf the pain of betrayalOf children and laughterA life filled with the joy of livingEars heard an age-old messageOur slumber was over and we had awoken to a new realityWas it the melody sung or the poem penned during sleepless nights?

                    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQmoitUJBLE 

By Valmai Owens© 2011. All Rights Reserved.
No reproduction without permission from author.

This interview appears in the publication Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael’s Legacy Alive,

http://mjtpmagazine.presspublisher.us/
and its content is the property of the authors and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait. Articles and exclusive interviews are copyrighted; therefore there should be no republication without permission. You may email edito@michaeljacksontributeportrait.com with any requests for republication. If permission is given, credit must be given to the author, Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael's Legacy Alive and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait.

Interview with Cadeflaw

In 2009, not long after the death of Michael Jackson, a group of women met on through a Michael Jackson community, on Amazon.com. They found they had many things in common, including a deep concern for how Michael had been unfairly portrayed throughout his life by the media. Realizing the impact this would have on his legacy, they banded together and formed the idea to try and have a law passed in California that would make it illegal to defame the dead. Cadeflaw was born.

In this interview, Lauren and I spoke with several Cadeflaw members. It came as no surprise to either of us to learn that they have conducted intelligent research into what is needed to have a law like this passed, and their organization is well-structured. They are also 100% committed and dedicated to seeing this project through to the end.

Valmai:  Could you tell us how and when Cadeflaw was formed, and how you initially came to be involved in this project? Obviously Michael was the main inspiration behind it, but were there other factors?

Karen:  Back in 2009, when Michael passed away, quite a few people (myself included), had a really hard time with his death. We really didn’t know what to do with our grief. We found a group on an Amazon thread called, “Why are we still crying about Michael Jackson?” Through that thread I met a lot of wonderful people. We talked back and forth, while holding our hearts on our sleeves for Michael. 

Everybody wanted vindication for Michael, and I happened to see an article that you had written, called Truth vs. Sensationalism, which really sparked something in my heart. Mary Brookins and I spoke, and we decided if we wanted to do something, we had to stand up and do it now. If we got enough support, we were going to try to file a class action suit against the media. I contacted my attorney, and I was told that a class action suit was not going to handle the problem.

I gave that information to Mary, and we decided to attempt an anti-defamation effort. Mary prepared The Michael Jackson Legacy Anti-Defamation Law to present to California legislators.

Mary:  Initially, it was Michael, but we believe it’s wrong to defame the character of any deceased person. They can’t defend themselves—and my personal mission is to help those left behind who suffer emotionally and financially, to protect and preserve the legacy of their loved ones. I think this law will provide them with that.

Defamation offends the deceased's relatives; it exposes the family to public hatred, contempt, ridicule;  it blackens the memory of their loved ones; and it provokes a breach of peace between people. That’s what drives me to be active and to stay active with this.

Jennifer:  Yes. I came across this idea, and I put some deep thought into it. I wanted to see what the ladies were doing. I thought that this would be something I would be very blessed and proud to be a part of.
It’s not just Michael; there are other stars who have passed away that the media have done this to also—perhaps not on the same scale, but it hurts me to see this. So that’s why I am here.

Valmai:  Well, that’s how the tabloids/media-loids earn their ratings and make their money, not just in California, but everywhere. In California, the star capital of the world, they have a well-spring of celebrities at which to point their cameras and write about, truthfully or not. They expose people’s private lives on magazine covers, on TV, in newspapers, and on the Internet. I know these people are still alive, but the legacy they will leave behind will be tainted.

Barbara:  Part of that is that we have allowed the media to go too far. We enabled them, and they have no regard for anyone, including children.

Valmai:  Yes, and like you said, we have enabled them; we have allowed them to get this far, and somewhere we have to take responsibility for that.  

Barbara:  Yes, we are making poor decisions about our medicine, what to purchase, what schools to send our children to—everything that involves our lives—off of their misinformation. Because we don’t stand up to them, they continue to do it, and they continue to use the First Amendment and the Shield laws to protect themselves.

Valmai:  Karen, we understand that you went to California last year, and met with Tom Mesereau. Can you tell us what his advice was?

Karen:  I was going to California in October, 2010, to visit my daughter, who is in the military. I decided I was going to see Tom Mesereau while I was there. I got in touch with his office and after a number of calls, Mr. Mesereau called me and we set up an appointment in November, 2010.

Mr. Mesereau is the most eloquent, elegant man I have ever met. He was extremely kind, and he gave me 45 minutes of his time free of charge. He was kind enough to look through our anti-defamation law petition. At that time, he noticed that there were a few things that needed to be changed in the wording of the petition letter. He advised me that he is a criminal defense attorney, not a defamation attorney, which of course, I understood. He did, in fact, change some of the wording, and we had a very nice conversation. Mr. Mesereau gave me his phone number, and told me if he could help in anyway, he would talk to us at any time. He is very much a proponent for the First Amendment, which we are not trying to change. What we are trying to do is change what is now the law in California, which states:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1.  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 2.  (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

And, this is what we’re going for—the abuse of that right.

I did go to another attorney when I was in California, Mr. Michael Harris of Rogers and Harris, Esq. He handled the defamation case for the Errol Flynn family for his Estate. He agreed with Mr. Mesereau that it would be a challenge to attempt an anti-defamation law, because as it stands, a deceased person cannot be defamed. He recommended, as Mr. Mesereau did, that we retain a constitutional attorney.

When I returned from California, I gave all this information to Ms. Brookins, and she prepared the Cadeflaw Petition, which is the baby of the Anti-Defamation Petition.

We don’t want to stop freedom of speech. I served in Vietnam, my husband served in Vietnam, my daughter has been in the Gulf wars; I do know what freedom of speech is. Nobody’s asking to curtail freedom of speech. What we are asking for is accountability for its abuse. This is not just about Michael Jackson. We use Michael’s name, but it has to be for every man, woman, and child.

Lauren:  Did you do any research on any previous efforts in regards to this issue? Apparently, there was a similar case in New York that came close to passing, but didn’t. Did you take a look at that case at all?

Mary:  Yes, we’ve done quite a bit of research. The New York case was in 1987. It involved a young, black teenager who accused a New York police officer, and a State Trooper, of a racist attack; a rape.
The gentlemen maintained their innocence, and the police officer who was implicated, committed suicide.  In fact, he wasn’t implicated until after he committed suicide. The Grand Jury in New York ultimately rejected the teenager’s claim. The reputations of the men were completely destroyed, as well as the memory of the deceased officer. The New York Assembly pushed for a posthumous defamation law, which was supported by Mario Cuomo, the Governor at that time. The Assembly encountered a lot of negative feedback from news organizations and the media. The communication industry found a way to stop the proposal for the law, and there was no attempt made to re-enact the proposal. There were many more cases, but the law was never changed. That just gives me more incentive to keep this ball moving, and to do everything in my power to get a law passed, because it’s time something was done.

Valmai:  Do you know what other states have a law like this?

Mary:  Colorado, Idaho, Georgia, Louisiana, and Nevada.

Lauren:  And has anybody made contact with a group(s) that might have been successful in those states?

Mary:  My hope is that more people might support this, and help in doing the work and research that needs to be done. No one gets paid to do this, and you have to be very special to be a part of a group like this, because it’s going to take a lot of hard work.

Valmai:  Is the petition, or proposal, modeled after another one in particular? Who would actually draft it? Would an attorney have to do that?

Mary:  Not necessarily. Barbara Owens did a marvelous job writing the petition letter that we posted on our site, and we have a young lady from Southern California, Julie Noel, who is an attorney, and who has expressed interest in writing this bill. We don’t have a model yet.

Lauren:  How do you see the anti-defamation law co-existing with the First Amendment?

Mary:  It can co-exist very well, absolutely. Look at California’s Article 1, Section 2. This law would not attempt to restrain, or abridge the liberty of speech. When we defame the character of a deceased person, it affects their descendants, the people who are left behind. By proxy, through an Estate, there is an obligation to sustain the US Government, and an Estate can sue be sued. A deceased's civil rights are being violated because, as in Section 1, any opinion that does not reflect the truth should be considered abusive, harmful, and offensive. Defamation of the deceased therefore interferes with the enjoyment, happiness, and one's inalienable rights. It says the same thing in the Constitution. So, it would exist very well with the First Amendment.  Say, write or speak what you want, but one must be held accountable, and if you cannot prove what you are saying is the truth, then the family should have an opportunity to bring an appropriate lawsuit or cause of action on behalf of themselves and the deceased person.

Lauren:  How would you define defamation? Who would decide what defamation is, and what is not?

Mary:  There are things said about others that are absolutely true, and if you’ve done your research and can prove your statement, then it is not defamation. It is defamation when you can’t provide proof for your statement.

While I’m alive, I can challenge the untruth, but if I’m deceased, my children should have a right to file suit against you, because what you are doing is blackening my memory. I deserve to have my legacy preserved and protected. If no one else is going to try and change that, then we are.

Valmai:  If there were such a law, would it only be the family who could sue?

Mary:  No. As far as the guidelines are concerned, an Estate should have the right to file a posthumous law suit. Once a person passes, the Estate may have an opportunity to earn money, and continue to be financed. If the deceased is defamed to such an extent that people will not purchase any material associated with that person, then that adversely affects the heirs. For example: there are those who will have nothing to do with Michael Jackson, because they absolutely believe everything the media has said in the past, and continues to now. The masses receive their information from the media, and if the masses choose to believe the untruths published by the media and other sources that may not be credible: this could rob the estate and heirs of income that might have been earned. Michael Jackson left behind three children and elderly parents, who may have in the past, and are still now, dependent upon his estate for their financial support.

Lauren:  What about the issue of financial damages? Public media enjoys the financial gain from the defamation of a person through stories, lies, innuendo, etc. Perhaps the only thing they would understand is a financial penalty?

Mary:  It may be too early to address that issue. Once the law is passed, any financial damages would be decided by the court. I would think it would apply to the media, or anyone who denied a person’s civil rights, living or deceased.

Valmai:  Can you outline the steps needed to put this law into place?

Jennifer:  Obviously, it begins with the idea; the bill must be written and needs an author. Once written, it would be sent to the Legislative Council in California. There are two houses in that state, the Senate and the Assembly.  Depending on which legislator authored the bill, it would go to that house first. It takes 30 days to pass, and then it is forwarded to the Rules of Committee, presented, and testimony is heard in support or opposition. There is then a hearing, where the bill is read three times. The bill can be passed, defeated, or it can be amended. Then it would go back to that house, and the process is repeated.

It is then presented to the other house, and the above steps would be repeated again. If the bill passes both houses, it goes to the Governor. The Governor has three choices:  he can sign the bill, allow it to become law without his/her signature, or he/she can veto it. If it becomes law, it is given a chapter number by the Secretary of State. 

Valmai:  If the Governor decides to veto the bill, can it be re-introduced?

Jennifer:  Yes. If a percentage of both Houses, which I believe is two-thirds, votes for it, the Governor’s veto can be overridden. Then, it would go into effect the first day of January of the following year.

Lauren:  Have you contacted any legislators in California?

Barbara:  We prepared a list of all the Senators and Assembly members; addresses, phone numbers and their e-mail addresses; we have contacted them, and expect to have more response once we have more California residents involved. We need more ‘foot soldiers’ willing to present petitions and request signatures from registered California voters. Online signatures would support the written petition.

Valmai:  Do you know how many California residents are involved at the moment?

Mary:  I’m not sure exactly; I think about fifteen Californians has signed the change.org petition, but we need more. Many have signed the initial online petition, but there is no way to contact them. The petition site is not allowed to give out information about endorsers, except the name they gave, and the geographical area they posted. 

Jennifer:  It weighs more having a written petition rather than an online petition, in California. The written one with actual signatures, which I have—and my job out here is to get people involved—has about thirty signatures on it.

Barbara:  We do have people in California signing the online petition, but what we really need are more foot soldiers like Jennifer, to circulate the petition and get handwritten signatures.

Jennifer:  Yes, that is a huge part, because California voters have to sign the petition for it to be passed.

Valmai:  So, it’s not the quantity of signatures so much as it is how many of those who have signed the petition live in the State of California.

Jennifer:  Correct, but the online petition showing the support we have in California, also makes a difference.

Valmai:  Would you see this as the biggest stumbling block in getting this law put in place? How are you going to get support from California residents?

Jennifer: That actually is the hard part. I need to get more people here involved; get a team together locally—and in Los Angeles specifically, and also throughout California—that can help to get signatures and spread the word. We need signatures and we need support.

Valmai:  There has to be a lot of Michael Jackson supporters in California, surely?

Jennifer:  Yes, there are—but we need dedicated people fans or non-fans, because this isn’t just about Michael Jackson. Obviously, we are going to get more support from his fans, but we need people who are really dedicated because it takes a lot of time to go out and get these signatures, spread the word, and make contact with different media. That’s the hard part, finding people who will take this upon themselves and show up when I need them to.

Valmai:  I guess I do not understand why some fans aren’t giving this their support.

Sharon:  Keep in mind, not everyone responded to Michael in the same way. Not all fans or supporters see the same need as we do.

The stumbling block in getting support begins with the heavy burden of Michael’s image. The media still blacken his name, though perhaps not as badly as in the past. Some are a little more subtle about it these days.

When you come up to a group, go to work, or go to church or wherever and begin to discuss what we are doing, people say, “Yes, we’ve heard about this. This is for Michael Jackson.” So then you have to explain that this is inspired by Michael, but not necessarily just for him, and no, Michael did not do this, Michael did not do that. This is where the other Michael Jackson supporters come in: those who are spending time attempting to educate the public on what did and did not happen, and those who are rebutting negative articles. It takes support from a lot of different directions to make this happen.

And quite honestly, some people aren’t there as much now. One-third of the United States has been devastated by storms, so people’s minds are more on survival, on losing their jobs, and their husbands are screaming at them for gawking at Michael for the last 2 years, so, there are all kinds of reasons why there is not as great a support now. And there are still also a lot of fans who are more prone to fan-sy—type reading rather than advocacy forums, so some of these fans just do not know what we are doing.

Valmai:  Yes, but it still makes it harder for you finding those dedicated people you need.

Sharon:  Yes, yes it does.

I would also like to address something you brought up about the First Amendment and whether the anti- defamation law could co-exist with it. When we first drafted the law, one of the things that came up immediately was that people would not support it because it violates the First Amendment. That is an excuse. 50 states already have an anti-defamation law in place for the living, and one in five, for the dead. Our one happens to be new for just this particular state.

When defamation takes life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and your ability to earn revenue—and in case of people who are gone, those whose products or family will be earning revenue—that ability may be hindered because of false stories about their loved ones.

Lauren:  This question has to do with the web and social media sites. Do you see the dissemination of information the way it is now versus 5 or 10 years ago as being helpful to this cause? And another question I would like you think about is, say this was passed as a law. It would only apply to people who lived and died in California, and it would only apply to what comes out of this state or what is said in this state. You could go to Nevada and say what you wanted. Because of how information is spread now, how would this affect in any great way either Michael or anyone who happens to be in California?

Sharon:  When we get this law passed for the State of California—with primarily Michael being the inspiration, and also there being so many people of wealth and fame who really seem to get hammered by what is put out by the media in this state—it will empower people. More of them will stand up and begin to address issues inside and outside of their state.

Hopefully, this law will become U.S. wide. There is no reason why anyone should be able to profit by lying or deceiving viewers and readers who are taking in information and using it to make judgments and decisions. These people get away with this without suffering the consequences, and they have to be responsible for their actions. Once we get this passed, and it will take awhile, it might get picked up by another state. Hopefully, there will be multiple groups in each state looking at what’s happening in California, and they might say, “Okay, if they can get this done there,we can do it in Iowa.”

Valmai:  There are a lot fans and non-fans, who are angry with the media and their continuous slander, particularly toward Michael. Do you plan to tap into that?

Mary:  Even though many are angry, most do not understand the importance of this law and what it means. I think a lot of people believe their First Amendment rights will be infringed upon, so we have to educate people on what this law is about. Hopefully, in doing this interview, and through the one we did with Billy Johnson from Yahoo! Music, we can get the word out there.

My question to people is, are you angry enough to be moved to action? Are you angry enough to get up and do something about it, not just talk about it?

We tweet a lot to get the word out, and one of our main tweets is, stop the abuse of the First Amendment rights. Don’t allow people to hide behind this amendment to promote hate. We ask people to visit our website and watch our video, then tweet about it. So, we are hoping to get those who say they’re angry, to move toward action with us.

Valmai: That’s a good answer and a very good question also.

Lauren:  Have you contacted, or had any support from Michael’s friends or family? Is the estate aware of what you are doing?

Mary:  Absolutely! There are a lot of names on the first petition that we’re not familiar with,because used their fan monikers, and this gave us concern. That’s why we changed the petition so that people would have to give their real names. Teddy Riley, an American singer-songwriter, musician, keyboardist and record producer, signed the petition in all caps, as if he wanted the world to know he had signed it. He has also tweeted and retweeted about Cadeflaw. We have the support of Dr. Patrick Treacy, a cosmetic physician and humanitarian from Dublin, Ireland; Charles Thomson, freelance writer/reporter specializing in music and celebrity journalism; Billy Johnson, music director, freelance writer for many media outlets, and presently Senior Program Director-Urban/Video Programming Lead for Yahoo Music, and Lynton Guest, freelance writer for magazines/newspapers, singer and author of several books, including the Trials of Michael Jackson.

Jennifer Batten, guitarist, songwriter and producer who worked with Michael for many years, supports Cadeflaw and the petition, and we’ve had many tweets and retweets by Genevieve Jackson [Michael's niece], and Omer Bhatti, singer and friend of Michael Jackson. Cadeflaw has been retweeted by Akon and Billy Johnson. Billy doesn’t claim to be a friend of the family. He is a major media source from California who has been around for awhile, but he does support the entire family.

I’m pretty sure, with Genevieve and Omer tweeting about us, that the family is aware of what we are doing. I have also notified the estate in several ways. I have faxed, emailed and sent a registered letter to John Branca about what we are doing, and I have also sent a registered letter to Katherine Jackson. From John Branca’s office, I received a signed certified receipt noting the letter had been delivered. A registered letter sent to Mrs. Katherine Jackson at the Hayvenhurst address in Encino, was not returned, but no signed return receipt has been received as of yet. However, no one can say they have no knowledge of this project because they do. We haven’t had a response to either letter, but they are aware of it. We have also been sending tweets to Jermaine, Jackie, Tito, Marlon, Randy, La Toya and Janet Jackson since November of 2010. Since we all follow these Jackson family members, we know they have observed our tweets.

Valmai:  You are now a registered, nonprofit corporation, and you are able to collect donations. Can you tell us what this money will be used for?

Jennifer:  Well, we will pretty much use the money for whatever is needed to get this law passed. Most of the money will go, hopefully in the future, toward a Constitutional attorney. Having an attorney is the key, so the rest of the money will go toward anything else we need to get the law passed. And when it’s over, if there is anything left over, obviously it will go to charity.

Mary:  In California, it will cost between $30,000 and $50,000, to hire a Constitutional attorney, so that is why our goal is $50,000; but whatever it takes, that’s what we will do.

Valmai:  Is this $50,000 just to retain an attorney, and start him or her working on this?

Mary:  No, that’s for the entire process from beginning to end.
People may think I am a dreamer, but I work what I dream, and I am hoping that an attorney might come forward, say that he likes what we are doing, that he believes in it, and that he will do this for free.

Lauren:  I would just like to ask a question that goes back a little bit. In California, we have what they call, the Initiative process. Have you looked into that, or has it been mentioned at all?

Jennifer:  I am aware of it, but, no, I haven’t mentioned it.

Lauren:  There are a number of laws here in California that are passed just on the number of signatures gained from the population. In any of your discussions with legal experts, have any of them mentioned this Initiative process? Is this another route you could take?

Jennifer:  It is another route, yes, and it’s something that we need to go into more depth with. Basically, if you have enough signatures, you can pretty much get it done. In California, that's 8% of active voters, which I believe is at least 400,000 people.

Valmai:  How are you going to collect donations? Will you set up a PayPal account?

Mary:  We already have a PayPal account, and we also have an account with a bank in Florida. So, all people have to do, is go to our website at www.cadeflaw.com  to make their donation. They can either use their real name or donate anonymously. 

Lauren:  It sounds like a lot of money, but it is possible to raise that much. Last year there was a push to develp a garden for Michael at the museum where he was inducted into the Dance Hall of Fame. Though the project fell through, there was an anonymous donor who gave $20,000 toward the garden. So, how can we help in this effort? What can we do?

Jennifer:  Well, you are actually already helping by doing this interview. Its helping us get the word out first of all, and by doing that, it’s drawing attention to what we are doing. That’s really what we need right now: attention through social networks, different websites, and the media to make more people aware and offer their support.

Valmai:  Is there anything anybody wants to add?

Mary:  Yes. I just want thank you Ms. Owens and Ms. Trainor, for giving us this opportunity, for believing in us, and for supporting us. God bless you.

Valmai:  Well, thank you, Mary. Anything that we can do to help get the word out there, we will do it.

Beginning in August, Cadeflaw will have a permanent column in this publication in which they keep us updated on their progress, and ways in which you can offer your help and support.
If you live in California, and have the time and dedication to assist Jennifer Marino in gathering signatures for the written petition, please email her at unitedinluv@yahoo.com

You can also find her on Twitter under All4LoveJen

For more information about Cadeflaw and to offer your support or to make a donation, please visit these sites:

Website: http://www.cadeflaw.com/
Blogspot: http://lovemeansactionformichaeljackson.blogspot.com/?spref=tw
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/California-Legacy-Anti-Defamation-Law/165053683513202?ref=ts

Petition Sites:
Cadeflaw Italian Petition: Guilia Passaro
http://www.petizionionline.it/petizione/protect-and-preserve-the-legacy-of-those-deceased-proteggiamo-e-preserviamo-leredita-dei-defunti/4300

Cadeflaw US Petition
http://www.change.org/petitions/protect-and-preserve-the-legacy-of-those-deceased-those-left-behind-can-still-be-hurt

Initial Cadeflaw Petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/MJJ2010/petition.html

Information on the California Constitution, Article 1: Declaration of Rights:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Information on the California State Assembly, legislative procedure:  
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/billslegislature/Leg_Proceedure.pdf

                        


Promotional Video #1:  http://youtu.be/ndND5pNv7UY  Cadeflaw Advocates, 2010

By Valmai Owens© 2011. All Rights Reserved.
No reproduction without permission from author.

This interview appears in the publication Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael’s Legacy Alive,

http://mjtpmagazine.presspublisher.us/
and its content is the property of the authors and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait. Articles and exclusive interviews are copyrighted; therefore there should be no republication without permission. You may email edito@michaeljacksontributeportrait.com with any requests for republication. If permission is given, credit must be given to the author, Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael's Legacy Alive and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait.

Michael Jackson Legacy: The Lies That Bind

April 29, 2011. London. Westminster Abbey groans under its own weight in flowers and a nation prays for the sun to shine. A centuries old country hyperventilates as it waits for a young Prince and a young woman who would become a Princess – well, Duchess as it turned out – to kiss. The level of anticipation and interest in Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding, building in the weeks and days before the big day, powered not only by a media whipped frenzy, but out of the massive desire to see the eldest son of the late ex-Princess of Wales make his choice before an audience of billions. Lady Diana Spencer, self-confessed ‘Queen of Hearts,’ was for many both in England and overseas, the real heroine of the Royal Family. And it was the memory of the joyous potential a young Diana’s own wedding represented and the huge sorrow and anger her death precipitated – that gave her son’s wedding the pathos and historic power it did.

The reality that it was in fact Diana’s death that revitalized the mythology and popularity of the British Royals is a deeply ironic one. Subjected to hostile media headlines after Prince Charles and Lady Diana’s marriage collapsed – in the wake of Diana’s death, the Royal family achieved its lowest approval ratings since King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936. Miraculously, that same Royal Family now enjoys the new affection that has transferred from the people’s adoration and respect for Diana – a respect she earned, to her first-born, Prince William.
The political Establishment, Royal family and still prevalent ruling class in British society, shunned Diana for her seemingly unpredictable informality and distinctly modern way of relating to a people the British constitution stubbornly defines as subjects. But the reason why Diana herself manifestly rejected the destiny that had been carefully mapped out for her, and was then rejected by the Establishment for that snub, was this singularity: Her refusal to accept a loveless marriage. That generations of Royal wives and aristocrats before her had put up with unhappy, arranged marriages and done so silently, did not change Diana’s mind or subsequent acquiescence to divorce.

Diana; the shy girl who became a woman before the world’s lens, portrayed then (and still now in some quarters), as weak, stupid – and famously, by parliamentary member Nicholas Soames on the BBC’s flagship, political TV program, Newsnight, in November 1995, after Diana’s interview with Martin Bashir as – suffering from ‘mental illness’ and in the ‘advanced stages of paranoia’– simply said ‘No.’ Deciding the vows she made during her 1981 wedding – not to mention the intrusive media she undeniably became a victim of – could no longer be honored if the husband she made them to did not love her exclusively: Diana made a choice. Though that choice would expose her increasingly to the aggressive attentions of a rapacious press who would not be ignored, one question amongst many bears asking: Would Diana have done anything differently if she still had the chance to choose between a loveless commitment or personal freedom and self worth? One suspects the answer would be no.

And it is this truth, in addition to Diana’s extensive philanthropic work – that is her greatest legacy. It is why the moniker ‘Queen of Hearts’ still has real potency and longevity. The example she set for her children and to the world: that no amount of privilege or perceived social status could ever compensate for the misery and pain that a life of emotional deception entailed – remains a bold and powerful one. The sole reason why Prince William’s marriage to Kate Middleton caught the imagination and hearts of millions around the world is simple: He married for love. And that choice, that one decision, will now ripple glorious effect into the generations that will result from it.

In the BBC’s evening coverage of the event, British reporter Andrew Wilson commenting, stated this truly unprecedented fact: “For the first time in over three hundred years, a future monarch has looked outside the inner circle for his bride – and brought her home.” This was Diana’s true gift. Diana bequeathed to her children the necessity of living an authentic life no matter how difficult, and the value and need for authentic love to fill that life. The first of her sons has now opened that gift. That is the power of legacy.

Legacy. A curious word. It applies to bloodlines of inherited wealth and historic families, and equally it applies to every human being. Who we are, how we live, and what we give during the lifetimes we are assigned – are key parts of sum we leave behind. And across the pond Michael Jackson also leaves a legacy to his children, and to the world. Like Diana, Michael used his fame, time and energy – not to mention millions of dollars – to positively benefit the lives of others. And like Diana, Michael also lived his life under unimaginable scrutiny. In Diana’s latter years however, the albeit tenuous respect afforded her by the media in Britain after her divorce and new relationships, not to mention the still rapturous media she enjoyed in America and around the globe, were exponentially more humane than that extended to Michael Jackson. While both these public figures endured violating levels of media attention, Michael did so for far longer and on a much more malevolent scale. 

Yet there remain striking connections between these two icons; similarities which apparently Michael and Diana were themselves well aware of. In a 1997 interview on the popular television program 20/20, American host Barbara Walters revealed that the last two concerts of the European leg of the ‘HIStory’ tour were dedicated to Diana after Michael learned of her death. Poignantly, in that interview Michael revealed that during one of those concerts he had this thought of the late princess. “I love you Diana. And shine on forever, because you are the true Princess of the people.” Interestingly, Michael’s choice of words here completely negates the media mischaracterization of him as being unaware of, or unable to understand the politick of the real world. Clearly Michael understood the deep insult and exclusion the British establishment intended Diana when, as a condition of her divorce settlement, it was insisted that the title of ‘Princess’ be removed from Diana’s official ranking as a Royal.

By referring to Diana as a ‘Princess of the People’ before an audience of millions, Michael stated the obvious: that after her death Diana was – in truth – this even more so. Symbolically too, since Jackson is known throughout the world as the ‘King of Pop,’ by declaring his sense of empathy with Diana and her struggles, Michael expressed in words the resonance and connection he felt with Diana that, in fact, exists on a number of levels. Many celebrities do good works, endorsing a charity is de rigueur for any modern PR savvy star. What made Michael and Diana so different was the way they gave to others, the overriding sense they did it from a place of compassionate service; not out of duty or because it would ‘look good.’ The similarities do not end there. Both Michael and Diana met not only untimely deaths – but violent ones. One, the result of a high speed chase through Parisian streets by paparazzi on motorcycles; the other, at the hands of a prima facie acutely negligent physician treating his patient with inappropriate drugs for relief from chronic insomnia. The grief that attended both these deaths was compounded by the certain knowledge that they were both overwhelmingly unnecessary.

Only the most imperceptive would deny that Jackson’s insomnia was undoubtedly the result of a life massively traumatized. Even for someone used to living in the glare of uber fame, the level of stress, abuse and cruelty Jackson had to deal with, went far beyond what any individual could healthily be expected to cope with. Indeed there is an argument – a strong one –for contending that Jackson would never even have arrived at a point in his life where he felt he needed doctors around him constantly, had the media persecution which came his way not been so unrelentingly vicious. Used to being bundled through the back doors of hotels and venues long before he hit his teens, Michael often said he had ‘rhinoceros skin.’ Clearly he did not. And now the toll of false allegations exacerbated and perpetuated in the public consciousness by the overtly malicious, commercially-driven marketing of Jackson as some sort of monstrous harmer of children by at least two generations of journalists, editors and TV pundits across the spectrum of media – now undeniably threatens the positive truth of his legacy. And it is that threat that has united many in one outstanding purpose: Restoration.

The reality that Michael Jackson remains the one of world’s least celebrated humanitarians, and despite fourteen emphatic ‘Not Guilty’ verdicts in the criminal trial of 2005, has not as yet been vindicated in the actual – is testament to the enduring power of perception. This perception of ‘guilt’ dominated Jackson news stories while he was alive and continues even after his death. Present day media comment in the run-up to the Conrad Murray trial that only hinted at the ‘demanding addict’ sub-text has now exploded into full blown accounts of ‘drugs found in the Neverland raid,’ and horrifically, graphic speculation about what the autopsy pictures may look like. It is evidence that the powerful and pervasive Fourth Estate shows no sign yet of any desire to recant the years of distortion they issued into the public domain. Many believe this state of affairs to be insurmountable. The question is, is it?

Years of self-serving media narrative will take certainly take time to be righted. But the journey back has begun, and it has begun in earnest. One way this is being achieved can be seen in the new narratives now surfacing. Amidst the wealth of rush-to-copy, mostly picture books releases that hit the market soon after Michael’s death, others have sought to push back the years of media misrepresentation and actually honor an exceptional life. To date, three publications are notable. American journalist, Aphrodite Jones’s ‘Michael Jackson Conspiracy’ published pre-2009 in 2007, details the extent of a preconceived negative bias within the U.S media towards Jackson and how that was reflected both during, and after, their coverage of Jackson’s 2005 trial. Post 2009, Bruce Swedien, noted recording engineer, released ‘In the Studio with Michael Jackson.’ In it, Swedien takes it back to the music, tracing the beginnings of his working relationship with Jackson from as far back as The Wiz through to HIStory – and does Jackson great service throughout. More recently, Joe Vogel’s new work, ‘Man in the Music: The Creative life and work of Michael Jackson,’ set for international release in October 2011, also promises to positively contribute to Jackson’s legacy – simply by returning the conversation to Michael’s commitment and service to the creation of phenomenal music, dance and visual art.

In the arena of journalism, Jones’s work with Discovery Investigation via her True Crime television programs has so far made modest impact on the prevailing smirking content found in the majority of current media, but these are early days. Similarly, British journalist, Charles Thomson, in hugely important articles on Huffington Post and elsewhere, has consistently exposed the damaging inaccuracies about the legal challenges faced by Jackson – inaccuracies still recycled ad nauseam by the media. In addition, a multitude of positive articles and interviews from people who knew Jackson personally (and some who didn’t) – such as David Nordahl, Thomas Mesereau, Elizabeth Taylor, Susan Fast, Stephen King, Jeff Koopersmith, Forbes Everett Landis, Michael Bearden, Linda Deutsch, Armand White, Stuart Backerman, Matt Semino, Dr Patrick Treacy, Barbara Amiel, Jonathan Margolis, Dave ‘Dave,’ Ishmael Reed, Gerald L. Campbell, Wade Robson, Howard Bloom, testimonials from stars and those who worked with Michael professionally, and the many families who benefited from the outreach work Jackson did continually throughout his life; are all part of the new narrative that could potentially transform the destructive Jackson meme most of the media remains irrationally attached to.

Mention must also be given to a hugely ambitious project undertaken by Reverend Barbara Kaufmann. In 2010, Kaufmann, herself a minister, award winning writer, Huffington Post contributor and bright voice in the field of activism – gathered together a bank of exceptional  articles, poetry and case studies, inspired by and dedicated to the lives and incompletely acknowledged achievements of both Lady Diana Spencer and Michael Jackson – as part of the collaborative ‘Words and Violence Project.’ It stands as a body of work that, in time, could one day be widely referred to and used by educational centers to further our society’s understanding of how words and media culture occupies a dual ability to both benefit and damage the lives it touches.

Likewise, a range of websites diligently compiling their respective collections of memories, anecdotes, stories, facts, and extent of the phenomenal philanthropic gift Jackson gave, are also contributing – some better than others – to the archiving of Michael Jackson’s legacy. While many of these sites focus only on the musical accolades and aesthetic of Jackson’s many ‘eras’ in his musical career, some notable ones go further and actively keep alight a true record of Michael Jackson’s compassionate legacy to a world that so dramatically refused it.
Among these, Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait. Represented by members and visitors from over 180 countries, 250 thousand so far (and counting) have signed up to be part of the largest [dot] comprised portrait of Michael Jackson ever commissioned. Also worthy of note is The Silenced Truth website. One of the first sites to draw attention to the gap in the world’s understanding of who Michael Jackson was, The SilencedTruth also hosts one of the most comprehensive lists of Jackson’s humanitarian contributions. Another site worthy of highlight is MJJ-777. Hosted by Jackson archivist Seven Bowie, it’s an exquisite repository. Rich in facts and a cultural breadth reflective of Jackson’s impact on the world, this site is a must-visit destination for not only fans, but all those who seek to expand their knowledge of Jackson. Also of note are the informational grand central stations in the forms of MJTruthNow, Vindicatemj, Reflections of the Dance, and the outstanding blog spots of smokeandmirrorsmj, gatorgirl277 and mjandjustice4some. To dismiss – as some do – the value of the work produced on these sites and blog spots as merely ‘fan’ sites hosting partisan perspectives, is to fail to comprehend the extent of the staggering research amassed on these demonstrably, credible sources. 

The rejuvenation proper of Jackson’s official charitable legacy has still to be re-ignited since the Estate is still in probate and thus has to seek specific legal dispensation to make payments even to approved creditors. But as the executors – John Branca and John McClain – of the Estate of Michael Jackson expressed as recently as April 21, 2011 as part of a larger statement, their intention to make decisions and “… direct contributions to recipient charities … with complete regard to Michael’s wishes and Michael’s legacy, which we intend to honor and perpetuate ” –  should assure those who need it that rejuvenation is indeed coming. The legal furore over the sensitive and complex settlement with Howard Mann and Melissa Johnson, who held the rights to various trademarks and control of the ‘Heal the World Foundation,’ itself an unauthorized impression of Michael Jackson’s original vision – has paradoxically within it the seeds of a new platform for the Estate, Michael Jackson’s family – and three children to go forward from an albeit clumsy beginning to a future that possibly reincarnates that vision.       
On January 25, 2011, Zach O’Malley Greenburg of Forbes reported that the Estate of Michael Jackson earned $275 million more than Madonna, Beyonce, Lady Gaga and Jay-Z combined. An intimidating statistic considering the artist earning these gargantuan sums is in fact dead. But this also suggests that if speaking in purely monetary terms alone, the legacy of Michael Jackson is very much alive. Greenburg notes much of this boon was due to the commercial boost that nostalgia driven sales of ‘all things Michael’ received ‘following the King of Pop’s death,’ which of course indicates that the one thing the ‘Michael Jackson’ brand does not lack – is an audience.

In February of this year, the Estate of Michael Jackson declared it made over $310 million before debt clearance, and it is no doubt banking on that same audience to consume the array of Michael Jackson products now flooding the market. These include: the interactive dance game Michael Jackson the Experience, box-set Michael Jackson Vision, collector’s item Opus, the film This Is It, the Cirque du Soleil collaborative live extravaganza The Immortal World Tour, the Epic album releases – part of the Sony corporation, and a legion of Michael Jackson posters, T-shirts and merchandise etc, as well as the sales of Jackson’s peerless musical back-catalogue. None of this, of course, even takes into account the plans for a replica ‘Vegas Neverland,’ the revenue possibilities for the actual Neverland, and the over $1.5 billion estimated worth of the Sony/ATV catalogue jointly owned by the Estate and Sony. Yes, in purely monetary terms alone, legacy is big business.

But the success of a legacy turns on more than just balance sheets and portfolios. Clearly the Estate has already made more money than any of Michael’s three children could spend in a lifetime, and to those children it will not be their father’s money they remember – or long for. The lasting legacy of Michael Jackson will, in reality, rest on the de facto restoration of his rightful place as not only one of America’s greatest creative sons, but also one of her most unjustly judged. After death, a man (or woman’s) reputation is the unwritten text on which the memory of that individual falls or stands. The public’s insistence on an ambivalent collective relationship with Michael Jackson, and the American and British media’s engineering and perpetuation of that stance, however – is not fixed. Flux is inevitable, and the pendulum will swing. Perhaps to somewhere in the middle, or perhaps just beyond the catastrophic damage wrought by years of media malice and deception by characters that need no introduction here. That will not be good enough for many of course, but how far that pendulum swings will be down to the work of those actively involved in the work it will take to move it further.

The reshaping and restoring that Michael Jackson’s reputation deserves will need work to make that restoration a reality. But behind the scenes a body of people that combines fans, advocates and supporters, the Estate, the Jackson family, Jackson’s friends, the generations of fans yet to come – and perhaps Michael’s children; are all part of that groundswell. Just as Diana’s children now forge new destinies because of the gift their mother gave them, three voices bearing the name Jackson may one day join the force that now gathers pace but as yet lacks focus. Because the reality is this: it isn’t only love that survives. The lies that bind will remain as tightly fastened as they are allowed to – and Michael Jackson’s legacy demands nothing less than the truth.

by Deborah Ffrench
© 2011. All Rights Reserved.
No reproduction without permission from author.

This article appears in the publication Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael’s Legacy Alive,

http://mjtpmagazine.presspublisher.us/
and its content is the property of the authors and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait. Articles and exclusive interviews are copyrighted; therefore there should be no republication without permission. You may email edito@michaeljacksontributeportrait.com with any requests for republication. If permission is given, credit must be given to the author, Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael's Legacy Alive and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait.

Lasting Impressions

Lasting impressions. We have all experienced those moments in time when someone or something has left an indelible mark upon us, an effect that causes a feeling both permanent and enduring. These impressions are imprinted upon our minds and hearts forever to dwell within our life memories.

Michael impacted our lives in ways we are still discovering; ways in which some of us are trying to understand. Slight of frame, huge of heart, empathetic to all creatures, a musical genius breaking barriers across time while carrying a love so great and unselfishly given, Michael left a powerful mark on the face of generations past, present and future.

We, his fans and supporters, each have our own memories and different impressions placed upon us from time spent walking a shared, and spiritual space with Michael during his time on this planet. All of us will remember the good that was this man without doubt or uncertainty, without question or blame. But how will the media and public remember him?

Far from embracing the light that shone from this man, there are those who choose to remember Michael in quite a different way. A means to an end. A commodity of endless scandal. Efforts concentrate on negativity and controversy, and the public soak up this information in what for some is seen as the final episode in his life, a life to us that was given to humanity, a life to us that was cruelly taken before its time.

Michael’s last trial looms before us. He stands accused once again, not of the heinous charges and allegations of the past, but of the mismanagement of wealth, and relief sought through means that at the end would see him take his last breath. A life once more open to speculation, ridicule and blame, dissected before the world in an attempt to shift culpability from the taker of life, to the giver of love.

Is this how the ‘Moonwalker’ will be remembered? Will he become another of our bright stars that lit the sky with blazing light, burnt out and drained of life and spirit by those who feed off their energy; by those afraid of the words change, justice, equality, peace and….love? Will Michael’s final portrait be painted in the colors of laughter and mockery, shame and guilt? His face staring out from yellowed posters and magazines? His song encased in plastic covers and buried in discounted bins?

As extreme as this may be, it has happened to others. Michael, one of our brightest and most beautiful stars cannot be allowed to rest still surrounded by controversy, allegations, cruel mockery and the pointing of fingers. This should not be the last testament of a life lived in service to his craft and humanity.

The characterization of Michael’s name by those who seek nothing else but pleasure and profit through its exploitation, obscures the world’s view of the ‘real’ man. It is up to us to show  the musical genius, humanitarian, messenger and gift that Michael truly was, and reveal his legacy as a lasting impression that should be remembered by all. One that is deserving of recognition by all, rather than one overshadowed by a few who seek not truth, but  notoriety  through deceit and falsehood.

              

Video by Bonnie Lamroc- http://www.mj-upbeat.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwry-3KE8Vs 

© Valmai Owens, 2011. All Rights Reserved.
No reproduction without permission from author.

This article appears in the publication Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael’s Legacy Alive, and its content is the property of the authors and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait. Articles and exclusive interviews are copyrighted; therefore there should be no republication without permission. You may email edito@michaeljacksontributeportrait.com with any requests for republication. If permission is given, credit must be given to the author, Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael's Legacy Alive and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait.

How Far, Is Too Far?

It is not always easy to admit that you are wrong; that you have committed a grave error in judgment. Upon learning that Discovery UK, along with its new partner in marriage, OWN, are planning to air a re-creation of Michael Jackson’s autopsy using a anatomically correct synthetic cadaver, I had to do just that; admit I was wrong. Naively believing that the media had reached the fullest extent in which they could discredit his name, I realized they were about to cross the finishing line with the exploitation of his body, even if posthumously. I was shocked, disgusted and yes, angry. It was a physical reaction; I felt sick and somewhat defeated.

I found myself asking what really the purpose of this so-called “documentary” was. I was under the impression that an autopsy had already taken place, that a lethal dose of propofol was the cause of Michael’s death. Did I miss something in the autopsy report; in all the articles I had read? If there had been any doubt surrounding the coroner’s findings, would not a second opinion have been sought?

Why then is, “to reveal the true reasons for his death” the explanation for this abomination, when the reasons have already been proven?

It was suggested to me that the reason for this program is to bring closure to all the controversy and conjecture surrounding Michael’s death, and to bring solace to his fans and family. Considering that in England, where the documentary will be shown, the media have hardly been kind to Michael, and that the timing of this only just precedes Dr. Murray’s pre-trial, I hardly find this explanation credible. I also don’t see how a look-a-like Michael Jackson cadaver being dissected in front of cameras and millions of eyes, is going to bring any peace or closure to those who love and support him.

There is only one conclusion I can draw, and no excuses given or reasons offered can make me think otherwise. Ratings! I clearly see now how far the media are prepared to go to get those ratings, and that it is beyond all decency and conscience. Is this what our society has been reduced to? Is this what the public are hungry for?  Is the media exploiting the dark perversions of human nature or simply manipulating the tentative hold over right or wrong that some people struggle to hold on to? We are meant to be a cultured and intelligent species, but under the surface of our so-called civilized demeanors lays ugliness. You don’t have to dive too far into shallow waters to find it.

I have never been a witness to rape, but I have been a victim of it, mentally and physically. It is not an easy thing to forgive or forget. The violation, the loss of control over the mind and body linger long after the act. It can destroy your spirit, self-confidence and self-worth. In Michael’s rape, it is also destroying his name and therefore his legacy. The media go too far!

Make your voice count by addressing your letters of concern to:

Nicolas Bonard, Senior Vice President

Discovery Enterprises International Discovery Networks Europe/Oprah Winfrey Network

Chiswick Park Building 2

566 Chiswick High Road

London, W4 5YB

UK

Email your letters to MJ Justice Project

mjj@innocent.com

Support CADELAW petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/MJJ2010/petition.htm
http://www.facebook.com/pages/California-Legacy-Anti-Defamation-Law/165053683513202?v=wall

© Valmai Owens, 2010. All Rights Reserved.
No reproduction without permission from author.

The World We Live In

Written for the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait, 11/10/2010.

If I were to be asked to describe my life over the last sixteen or so months, I would have to say it’s been like stepping into another world. Here in this world there is a central core of light filled with magic, wonderment, discovery and love, but it is also surrounded by shadows. They hover around the edges enticing the stray wanderer to step into the darkness. Some willingly enter and set up permanent residence. A few have taken a peek out of curiosity and lingered awhile, while others  having once seen what lie in wait for them, run away as quickly as they can. Negativity, greed, envy, spite, self-serving egos and malicious untruths are a major part of this world, and there can be no escape from that part of human nature that lives and flourishes within the shadows. This was Michael’s world for most of his life; it has now become ours.

It has been said that taking a walk through the numerous fan communities, pre-existing and newly formed since Michael’s death, is akin to navigating a minefield. One wrong move and you could find yourself shattered into a million pieces. Having ventured into this realm I would have to agree, in part. I have been witness to the angry outbursts between fans, read the disparaging and often hateful comments left by others, had snide comments made to me by someone who believed I should be taking a more active role in seeking justice for Michael, by abusing my position with the MJTP, and used as a platform to launch a personal agenda through lies and subterfuge. This experience in particular left me wondering how Michael maintained the way he did for so long; how he still had the capacity to love when surrounded by so many lies, both from the media and people he trusted, and surrounded by those who used him as a means to an end.

I am sure I am not the only fan who has experienced these things. It appears that some believe their groups, forums, discussions and opinions are the only ones that count. That if you aren’t an activist you aren’t a real fan; that if you aren’t donating to a certain cause, writing hysterical and incoherent letters to the media, posting vitriolic comments to members of Michael’s family or to those that oppose you, then you can’t possibly be a true fan. I have to ask why these people think they are any truer when clearly acting in direct contrast to everything Michael was and believed in?

It saddens me that parts of our community are divided, when in reality if we want to vindicate Michael’s name and continue his legacy, we should be united. It saddens me that there are some who have infiltrated the fan community to use it as a means to their own end. That their only purpose in being here is to use Michael’s name to launch themselves into the spotlight, and to give the impression they are doing some good while collecting followers like trophies. They trick people into believing they care about the cause, but if you look closely at their dealings and connections, you will see that they are building monuments for themselves upon lies and deceit. This was Michael’s world for most of his life; it has now become ours.

As Michael sought refuge away from the eyes of the world, more and more fans are seeking their own respite from the savage attacks, bullying, and infighting. They are closing down Facebook pages and Twitter accounts; dissolving groups and cancelling membership to various websites. Disgusted and disheartened, verbally beaten and bruised, they are going to ground to lick their wounds. Some may never return, while others may never be able to trust again, but it is so important for us to reach out to them in the hope that they might. Through us we can bring them back by showing that there is positive good working within the fan communities. We can show them; we can build their trust again and open their eyes to all the beautiful rays of light everywhere, who are working so diligently to vindicate Michael’s name and continue his legacy.

Groups, causes, petitions, projects and individuals have achieved so much, and have done so with love and respect, without anger or hate, without greed or misrepresentation. Look at A Million Trees for Michael, Michael’s Angels, the Sunflower Project, the Martin Bashir Petition, the Michael Jackson Legacy Defamation Law Petition, Uncover Michael Jackson’s Name (The Gardner St. School Issue Campaign), just a few of the countless works that have been successful or are still in progress, and this doesn’t include the thousands of fans who are donating to charities, helping in their communities and reaching out their hands to others, all in Michael’s name.

I believe we are all connected through our love for Michael. I believe that each of us has a role and a purpose. I believe Michael has handed us each a piece to a giant puzzle. We are the pieces and we have to find where in the puzzle we fit so we can complete the whole picture. Some may find their role is to actively seek justice for Michael or to vindicate his name, others may find their roles more passive or creative, but all are equally important to completing the puzzle. No one is better than another, no one is more important than another. We are all equal here.

I think it’s also important to realize that everything we say and do as fans has an impact on Michael’s legacy. We already have a reputation with the media and the world at large, for being hysterical and crazy. If we want anyone to take us seriously and what we are trying to achieve, then we have to approach people in a calm, rational, respectful and intelligent manner. Calling people names, hurling accusations and making libelous statements, not only puts us on the same level as the media, but further diminishes Michael in their eyes.

I think this is why I love the MJTP so much because here people are embraced not attacked, here people are accepted not rejected, here a haven has been created not a war zone, and here people are united through love and share a common purpose without ulterior motives. If only this had been the world Michael had lived in. What a difference that would have made.

© Valmai Owens, 2010. All Rights Reserved.

No reproduction without permission from author.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHNRYlbW_uw

http://www.michaeljacksontributeportrait.com/home.php