This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - MFFreedom
Filter to certain boards:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 18
16
« on: June 12, 2013, 03:18:55 AM »
Look at the interior style on these photos. Being an interior decorator myself I am perfectly aware that you can trim a room to look old fashioned stylish but it's newly made. I would even say, this is some random old apartment from the 19th century staged as Michael Jacksons' bedroom. I for one do not even believe anymore that this bedroom even can be found at Carolwood. Same goes with Michaels' bedroom and toilet at Neverland. This looks ALL staged. The trial, the alleged evidence, just everything. Do not get fooled by what is in the forefront.
17
« on: May 24, 2013, 01:57:38 AM »
@ Snoopy71 I think AEG is behind this 1000%
Me too think the same....AEG hoped in large receipts with This is it tour, exploiting Mike and he with June 25 did not allow this...
and they understood all..... :moonwalk_:
We should remember a) Michaels' rant about Sony, his song BAD he sang (you're throwing stones to hide your hands) and that one goes far back BEFORE any alligations b) La Toya remindung us to look at the left hand instead of at the right hand (the trial) that is right in front of us (something like that). By looking at this whole fiasco I have strong doubts AEG is the bad guy. They (AEG and Lady Katherine & Kids) are used. By Sony. Through the lawsuit filed by Sony affiliated lawyers by using Lady Katherine & MJ3 as the plaintiffs AGAINST AEG they try to sabotage AEG and therefore try to hide their hands. That way Sony stays in the background and let the public shred AEG apart when it's Sony that should be shredded. It's the same pattern they already used on Michael, is it not? Set someone/a company/anyone/anything up and have 'em publicly scrutinized. And here some of you are following Sony's script. Michael knew what he wrote and sang about. Why else did Michael openly 'complain' about Sony? He knew all along that Sony used him forever and a day. (only about Mr. Branca:Michael knew Mr. Branca was Sony affiliated - amongst others. JB negotiated the deal for SONY to buy the footage from AEG and produce TII (big bucks). He was not trusted by Michael any longer. He was never re-hired. He produced a phoney will, never produced a valid contract that stated he was rehired). All for Sony. This suit is about money and was filed through lawyers which I am certain they are Sony payed. I think we can be save by saying, Lady Katherine would never file such a lawsuit about money as in her eyes it's not about money but about her son. So, my conclusion is that Lady Katherine knows too much and is threatened by Sony thus pushed into publically go against AEG, who itself also is just the fall guy like Murray. And Wade? I bet he's Sony payed ... Joe is completely correct in assuming that there IS a big fat wallet financing Wade. And Sonys' wallet is definitely much bigger than AEGs.
18
« on: May 20, 2013, 09:10:23 AM »
What a freakin' hogwash. Karen Faye worked 27 years for Michael and somehow just never got around to 'help'? This puts KF in a very uncomfortable position, because, if she stayed 27 years with Michael, then she was in on it. For the better or for the worse. She felt retouching Michaels' corpse was part of that lie and she didn't want to be part of it?! Well, KF, in 2009 you sure proudly talked about your retouching of Michael after he died. That makes her hell of a part of the lie. I don't know, but I once was in a position where I worked for a financial guru. When I began to realize I was contributing to a perverted system, I quit. She didn't. She stayed. You cannot stay around a lie if you have a heart, thus you dismiss the good pay for a better consciousness. I would just like to know her real reasons for her staying 27 years but shutting up for 27 years. In my eyes she was supporting the lie around Michael. If she even was a handler of his ...
The Jackson family matriarch says AEG Live were responsible for hiring the medic, and should have known he was inappropriate for the job. Inappropriate for what 'job' exactly? Taking care of Michael? Or rather putting Michael down constantly? I am 100% sure Katherine did NOT say it with THESE words, even less do I believe she was the one who initiated this trial in the first place, as her attorneys are Sony attorneys. I can't shake this feeling off, that Sony sued AEG but using Katherine as a front (to hide their hands). Sure you can read this line as if Murray was not a good doctor, but more so it indicates, the sedating of Michael with Propofol was, where Murray was not appropriate for.. Katherine knows her son was being sedated, she sure would not say: Oh, Murray was inappropriate in administering Propofol to Michael.' That was the job. Not taking care of Michael.
Does Michael live? I sure hope so, but this begings to become a fiasco as big as the 911 lie. Nothing adds up. No matter how one turns it.
19
« on: May 17, 2013, 02:30:06 PM »
Looks like the eye part is shopped. Something is off with this photo. Can maybe someone with more experience in PS look at the close up of DD next to MB? Appreciated.
20
« on: March 25, 2013, 05:20:19 AM »
We are not here to judge Michael's family we are here to investigate his faked death, I find it very disrespectful talking about Paris that way, let it be please.
I'm with you on that, sweet! Though I somehow try to understand where MFFreedom's coming from. But MF, try to understand that even though you don't agree with her looks and behavior these days, let's not forget: after all, she's just a teenager, she is entitled, just like everybody else in this world, to behave the way she feels. It's the time when she discovers herself, what she likes/what she doesn't, etc. And maybe she does it on purpose, who knows...
Just because she's MJ's daughter, that doesn't mean that she must forget who she is, in order to please everybody on this Earth: that would make no sense, now would it?
I for one, have absolutely no doubt in my mind, that these kids were raised IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE by their wonderful father.
MJ raised them in a very mature, profound, beautiful way. They were heavily exposed to the media, even though Mike didn't want that, so...we can say that they're as normal as any teenager can be.
So, in light of the respect that we here say we have for Michael and his family, my simple modest opinion is that [just like sweet said] we should let her be 
No harm feelings, I beg of you! :bearhug:
Perfectly agreed upon. And thank you for trying to understand me. As I said in my previous post: her being a teenager is just not the issue in what forms my opinion. So, I'm really surprised some here understand my post as I am picking on her personally, when I do not even know her personally. I am just going by what is presented to me via the media in regards to the hoax, surely not to Paris personally. But please: I was just stating my opinion and I asked to leave it at that. So, can we move on? Big bear hug to all of you as well :bearhug:
21
« on: March 24, 2013, 09:39:24 AM »
Well, I said this doesn't sit well with a lot of you. Yes, I've come to question if she really is NOT the Paris we all think: yes, an imposter. We all questioned her 'bedroom' looking like a fans' bedroom. I'm not going to press on that, it was just a note on the side. I however still think, that Michael would not want his girl showing off devil horns et al in public - being a teenager doing stuff like that or not is not the issue here now - knowing how he always was more or less polite with his enemies and was a faithful man. And if Paris is this faithful Daddy's girl she would respect his father by not acting like she does. She acts like she's kept on pretty lose leash. But hey - that's just my feeling. And her not showing up for the deposition - well, I tend to think there are some people behind her not showing up that steer this scene pretty well - and that is not MJ. Feels too sinister. But ... please, don't let me stop discussing the OP theme.
@sweetsunsetwithMJ
22
« on: March 23, 2013, 01:43:50 AM »
Well, I said this doesn't sit well with a lot of you. Yes, I've come to question if she really is NOT the Paris we all think: yes, an imposter. We all questioned her 'bedroom' looking like a fans' bedroom. I'm not going to press on that, it was just a note on the side. I however still think, that Michael would not want his girl showing off devil horns et al in public - being a teenager doing stuff like that or not is not the issue here now - knowing how he always was more or less polite with his enemies and was a faithful man. And if Paris is this faithful Daddy's girl she would respect his father by not acting like she does. She acts like she's kept on pretty lose leash. But hey - that's just my feeling. And her not showing up for the deposition - well, I tend to think there are some people behind her not showing up that steer this scene pretty well - and that is not MJ. Feels too sinister. But ... please, don't let me stop discussing the OP theme.
23
« on: March 22, 2013, 05:16:45 AM »
I don't know, but I'm seriously beginning to doubt Paris is the real deal. I know this doesn't sit well with most of you. But she seems to be anything but what her father must have taught her. This girl just doesn't sit well with me anymore. Anyways, after reading the filed papers I'm just stunned at the amount of people even surrounding Prince during his depositon. It's as if these kids (and stars in general) are a commoditiy, moved around and taken care of that noone gets too close. I'm seriously beginning to question the amount of security around celebrities in general. MK victims kept from being found out? I tend more and more to believe that the amount of security measures the amount of secrecy behind it.
24
« on: January 07, 2013, 03:23:10 AM »
The fact that he allegedly files this claim three years after MJs jump into the hide-out is not really of interest to me - I'm much more interested how an assistant - even MJs one - is able to bring up 28'000+ $ of his own pocket, when this was a very good annual income in the states around the time I was living in the states (late 94-97). Don't count me on that someone living in the States now can be more elaborative about that than me. Unless Amir was from a rich family I certainly doubt that he was even able to bring up that amount of money - even if in bits and parts.
I call it BS big time. No truth to it.
PS: Happy New Year to all of you. :bearhug:
25
« on: January 07, 2013, 03:21:46 AM »
The fact that he allegedly files this claim three years after MJs jump into the hide-out is not really of interest to me - I'm much more interested how an assistant - even MJs one - is able to bring up 28'000+ $ of his own pocket, when this was a very good annual income in the states around the time I was living in the states (late 94-97). Don't count me on that someone living in the States now can be more elaborative about that than me. Unless Amir was from a rich family I certainly doubt that he was even able to bring up that amount of money - even if in bits and parts.
I call it BS big time. No truth to it.
26
« on: December 21, 2012, 03:41:01 AM »
Double opt-in.
If the sender comes up 3 years later with a "double opt-in" confirmation email, you can already sue him for violation of privacy and spamming.
You do have a point there. I am personally wether particularily excited about maybe coming BAM (I'm just really sitting with all of you in the waiting room) nor am I bored  . I just ask myself if something legally in the background has shifted. Like a new owner who needs my consent again, as the last time I've given it, it was to someone/something else and the new owner cannot legally take over my consent from the former owner. On the outside it just looks like an affirmation of something, like 'Are you really with it?' But I'm just watching and learning. But looking up the owner of mj.com it's still Sony. But that could still be the front.
27
« on: December 21, 2012, 12:34:23 AM »
Well, I never went there either after registering. Also because of Sony. That's why I was really surprised. I just do hope it is indeed our MJ that will bam.
28
« on: December 20, 2012, 04:42:43 PM »
Anyone else on here who received such an 'invitation'? :suspect: :icon_lol: :icon_albino:
29
« on: December 20, 2012, 04:34:50 PM »
on 22.21 local time in Switzerland I received the e-mail from michaeljackson.com :icon_eek: I know I've registered with them for a newsletter about 3 years ago and never received any newsletter. I'm not jumping all over the place but since they've been having my e-mail address for about three years why do I receive an invitation to subscribe to them?! I was kind of :WTF: when I saw that? So they send me an e-mail to register with the already known e-mail address.? ok ...
30
« on: September 25, 2012, 10:59:24 AM »
Anyone reminded of 2000 Watts?
|
Show Posts