#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: ‘Leaving Neverland’ is Michael Jackson’s Pandora’s Box

NNPA NEWSWIRE — “During the 1993 investigation into Michael’s alleged pedophilia, his sister Latoya created a firestorm by saying that she ‘would not be a silent collaborator in my brother’s crimes against little children.’”

Published

6 years ago

March 3, 2019

Oakland Post

Stacy M. Brown is a journalist and former family friend of the Jacksons. He’s the author of the forthcoming biography, “Aftermath: Michael Jackson’s Dysfunctional Family and the Legacy of the King of Pop.”

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

[Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BlackPressUSA.com or the National Newspaper Publishers Association.]

“Leaving Neverland and the Twisted Cult of Michael Jackson Truthers.” — The Daily Beast
“The Music Stops: Leaving Neverland and the awful truth about Michael Jackson.” — NY Daily News
“Leaving Neverland Reveals The Monster We Didn’t Want to See in Michael Jackson” — BuzzFeed

Those are just three of what’s become a cavalcade of headlines about the gut-wrenching and disturbing documentary, “Leaving Neverland,” that finally aired on HBO Sunday night with part two and a post-film interview by Oprah Winfrey on Monday night.

It’s the story of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, two men who describe in the most heart-breaking and wrenching ways the abuse they say they suffered at the hands of the late Michael Jackson when they were little boys.

While Michael’s family, fans and the executors of his multi-billion dollar estate, have blasted everyone involved in the film, this fact remains indisputable:

Only the young men know what really happened between the sheets at Neverland, the King of Pop’s sprawling 2,700-acre estate in the Santa Ynez Valley of California.

And, while it’s noble that Tito, Jackie, Marlon, Jermaine and the lawyers who represent Michael’s estate have pushed back against the film, one thing director Dan Reed’s documentary does make clear:

Michael and his family really were strangers over the last 25 years of his life.

They didn’t know him and he really didn’t care to know them.

His interactions with his brothers, whom he once led as the Jackson 5 and later as The Jacksons, were mere token visits on “Family Day” once a year.

During the 1993 investigation into Michael’s alleged pedophilia, his sister Latoya created a firestorm by saying that she “would not be a silent collaborator in my brother’s crimes against little children.”

Latoya claimed that she and her mother had seen checks written out for “lots of money” to the families of her brother’s alleged child victims. Her mother, Katherine, “was so disgusted that she wrote a letter in which she used [a homophobic slur] to describe Michael,” Latoya alleged.

Katherine vehemently denied “every word Latoya had to say.”

She’d been brainwashed, the Jacksons said.

For this reporter and one-time close family friend, their denials were shattered years later when the Jackson family forfeited possession of a storage unit upon being sued in 2002.

That storage unit, Jermaine and Katherine would admit to me, contained “those checks and that letter” Latoya had spoken of.

Several Jacksons, including Jermaine, Rebbie, Katherine and even Joseph often confided in me and much of those discussions have remained confidential despite the sour ending to the friendship.

Jermaine and Rebbie both poured out their souls for book proposals.

Others including Tito, Jackie and Randy also often spoke openly.

“Michael is messed up,” Randy has said.

One family member expressed his fear that “Michael may have touched [his son].”

My response at the time: Ridiculous.

His take: “I hope not,” and “How would you know?”

Like him, I didn’t really know. At the time, I had my doubts.

Michael’s family often fumed about his “Carrying on with little white boys,” though they never said he was molesting his special friends.

One morning in 2003, I received in succession, two phone calls pleading for my intervention. One from a girlfriend of Jermaine’s and the other from one of Michael’s nephews.

Both had the same concern: A teenage family member was telling others that Michael was guilty of bad behavior with little boys – this was taking place while police were investigating Michael.

Authorities eventually questioned the teen family member and two lead detectives said the boy denied that Michael had done anything wrong, but they were convinced he knew a lot more than what he said.

One month before jury selection in Michael’s 2005 trial, members of the Jackson family attended my wedding on Long Island.

At a dinner, a heated argument between two members ensued over whether Michael was a pedophile.

I interjected, “Let me ask you a question, you all still believe he was regularly high on drugs, correct?” Both agreed. “Could it be possible that he behaved with these boys inappropriately while under the influence?”

The dissenting family member paused and conceded to me: “You have a point.”

While Safechuck declined to testify for Michael, Robson did.

And, despite being a “star” witness for the defense, Robson’s testimony, and that of his mother, were amongst the most disturbing in a trial that made most observers feel “unclean.”

Robson testified that he shared a bed with the King of Pop regularly and Robson’s mother, Joy, said Jackson would “cry like a baby” if she denied any of his requests to have a sleepover with Wade.

Detectives approached one family member during the trial in which Michael was acquitted on all charges.

That family member declined to take the stand for either side. “I told them,” the family member said. “I will tell you that Michael’s a pedophile because I know that he is. But, take me to jail now because I’ll never say that in court.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

PRESS ROOM: Charles D. King Reminisces at Howard University’s Charter Day

Don't Miss

Baby Found Safe in D.C. After PG Carjacking, Suspects Still At Large

Oakland Post

1 Comment

#NNPA BlackPress

Recently Approved Budget Plan Favors Wealthy, Slashes Aid to Low-Income Americans

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts

Published

5 days ago

March 21, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown

BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent

The new budget framework approved by Congress may result in sweeping changes to the federal safety net and tax code. The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts. A new analysis from Yale University’s Budget Lab shows the proposals in the House’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Resolution would lead to a drop in after-tax-and-transfer income for the poorest households while significantly boosting revenue for the wealthiest Americans. Last month, Congress passed its Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2025 (H. Con. Res. 14), setting revenue and spending targets for the next decade. The resolution outlines $1.5 trillion in gross spending cuts and $4.5 trillion in tax reductions between FY2025 and FY2034, along with $500 billion in unspecified deficit reduction.

Congressional Committees have now been instructed to identify policy changes that align with these goals. Three of the most impactful committees—Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means—have been tasked with proposing major changes. The Agriculture Committee is charged with finding $230 billion in savings, likely through changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. Energy and Commerce must deliver $880 billion in savings, likely through Medicaid reductions. Meanwhile, the Ways and Means Committee must craft tax changes totaling no more than $4.5 trillion in new deficits, most likely through extending provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Although the resolution does not specify precise changes, reports suggest lawmakers are eyeing steep cuts to SNAP and Medicaid benefits while seeking to make permanent tax provisions that primarily benefit high-income individuals and corporations.

To examine the potential real-world impact, Yale’s Budget Lab modeled four policy changes that align with the resolution’s goals:

A 30 percent across-the-board cut in SNAP funding.
A 15 percent cut in Medicaid funding.
Permanent extension of the individual and estate tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Permanent extension of business tax provisions including 100% bonus depreciation, expense of R&D, and relaxed limits on interest deductions.

Yale researchers determined that the combined effect of these policies would reduce the after-tax-and-transfer income of the bottom 20 percent of earners by 5 percent in the calendar year 2026. Households in the middle would see a modest 0.6 percent gain. However, the top five percent of earners would experience a 3 percent increase in their after-tax-and-transfer income.

Moreover, the analysis concluded that more than 100 percent of the net fiscal benefit from these changes would go to households in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. This happens because lower-income groups would lose more in government benefits than they would gain from any tax cuts. At the same time, high-income households would enjoy significant tax reductions with little or no loss in benefits.

“These results indicate a shift in resources away from low-income tax units toward those with higher incomes,” the Budget Lab report states. “In particular, making the TCJA provisions permanent for high earners while reducing spending on SNAP and Medicaid leads to a regressive overall effect.” The report notes that policymakers have floated a range of options to reduce SNAP and Medicaid outlays, such as lowering per-beneficiary benefits or tightening eligibility rules. While the Budget Lab did not assess each proposal individually, the modeling assumes legislation consistent with the resolution’s instructions. “The burden of deficit reduction would fall largely on those least able to bear it,” the report concluded.

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

#NNPA BlackPress

A Threat to Pre-emptive Pardons

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process.

Published

5 days ago

March 21, 2025

Oakland Post

By April Ryan

President Trump is working to undo the traditional presidential pardon powers by questioning the Biden administration’s pre-emptive pardons issued just days before January 20, 2025. President Trump is seeking retribution against the January 6th House Select Committee. The Trump Justice Department has been tasked to find loopholes to overturn the pardons that could lead to legal battles for the Republican and Democratic nine-member committee. Legal scholars and those closely familiar with the pardon process worked with the Biden administration to ensure the preemptive pardons would stand against any retaliatory knocks from the incoming Trump administration. A source close to the Biden administration’s pardons said, in January 2025, “I think pardons are all valid. The power is unreviewable by the courts.”

However, today that same source had a different statement on the nuances of the new Trump pardon attack. That attack places questions about Biden’s use of an autopen for the pardons. The Trump argument is that Biden did not know who was pardoned as he did not sign the documents. Instead, the pardons were allegedly signed by an autopen. The same source close to the pardon issue said this week, “unless he [Trump] can prove Biden didn’t know what was being done in his name. All of this is in uncharted territory. “ Meanwhile, an autopen is used to make automatic or remote signatures. It has been used for decades by public figures and celebrities.

Months before the Biden pardon announcement, those in the Biden White House Counsel’s Office, staff, and the Justice Department were conferring tirelessly around the clock on who to pardon and how. The concern for the preemptive pardons was how to make them irrevocable in an unprecedented process. At one point in the lead-up to the preemptive pardon releases, it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process. President Trump began the threat of an investigation for the January 6th Select Committee during the Hill proceedings. Trump has threatened members with investigation or jail.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Reaction to The Education EO

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking a higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college.

Published

5 days ago

March 21, 2025

Oakland Post

By April Ryan

There are plenty of negative reactions to President Donald Trump’s latest Executive Order abolishing the Department of Education. As Democrats call yesterday’s action performative, it would take an act of Congress for the Education Department to close permanently. “This blatantly unconstitutional executive order is just another piece of evidence that Trump has absolutely no respect for the Constitution,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) who is the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee. “By dismantling ED, President Trump is implementing his own philosophy on education, which can be summed up in his own words, ‘I love the poorly educated.’ I am adamantly opposed to this reckless action, said Rep. Bobby Scott who is the most senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee.

Morgan State University President Dr. David Wilson chimed in saying “I’m deeply concerned about efforts to shift federal oversight in education back to the states, particularly regarding equity, justice, and fairness. History has shown us what happens when states are left unchecked—Black and poor children are too often denied access to the high-quality education they deserve. In 1979 then President Jimmy Carter signed a law creating the Department of Education. Arne Duncan, former Obama Education Secretary, reminds us that both Democratic and Republican presidents have kept education a non-political issue until now. However, Duncan stressed Republican presidents have contributed greatly to moving education forward in this country.

During a CNN interview this week Duncan said during the Civil War President Abraham “Lincoln created the land grant system” for colleges like Tennessee State University. “President Ford brought in IDEA.” And “Nixon signed Pell Grants into law.” In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush which increased federal oversight of schools through standardized testing. Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college. Wilson details, “that 40 percent of all college students rely on Pell Grants and student loans.”

Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) says this Trump action “impacts students pursuing higher education and threatens 26 million students across the country, taking billions away from their educational futures. Meanwhile, During the president’s speech in the East Room of the White House Thursday, Trump criticized Baltimore City, and its math test scores with critical words. Governor West Moore, who is opposed to the EO action, said about dismantling the Department of Education, “Leadership means lifting people up, not punching them down.”