Did YOU Know?

12 Nov

Defamation PhotoIt’s NOT about US.

It’s NOT about ME.

It’s NOT about YOU.

It’s NOT about FAME.

It’s NOT about FORTUNE.

It’s NOT about JUSTICE.

It’s NOT about REVENGE.


It’s NOT about who gets the CREDIT.

AdLLaw Initiative Photo Card (1)It’s ABOUT “Protecting and Preserving” the Legacies of these people. ARE YOU ANGRY ENOUGH TO SUPPORT the Anti-Defamation Legacy Law Initiative by asking your two U.S. Senators and the President of the United States, to author and pass an “Anti-Defamation Legacy Law? These people are worth the effort. #AdLLawInitiative

There has been an orchestrated plan to destroy Michael Jackson’s reputation since 1993, and it has NOT STOPPED even in death. WHEN WILL IT STOP? It won’t unless we ask our two U.S. Senators and the President of the United States to support the #AdLLawInitiative by authoring and passing a law; to give the family members of the deceased a law to sue those who defame their deceased relatives.

The beautiful photos are NICE. The projects are BEAUTIFUL and well deserved, but they won’t mean a thing if the general public, globally, continue to believe that Michael Jackson was a child molester; that Trayvon Martin’s death was a good thing because he was a gangster; that former First Lady Betty Ford was a whore; that God hated Steve Jobs, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, Army Spc. Carrie L. French and Whitney Houston was a “crack-head whore” as well as some other horrific things many of the deceased has been named since their death.

Did you know that Bill SB 131 to Extend Statute of Limitations – Child Molestation, is a new law set to go into effect as scheduled on Jan. 1, 2014, if the CA Governor does not veto it? Source 

Did you know that SB 131 gives alleged as well as real victims a causal connection window of five years as opposed to the existing three-year period to file a lawsuit after the date of discovery by a mental health professional that their psychological trauma is indeed linked to their childhood sexual abuse? Bill Analysis

Did you know that SB 131 (Beall) was amended on May 2, 2013 and the hearing date was on May 7, 2013?

Did you know that Wade Robson filed his claim on May 1, 2013 and has been granted a court date in June of 2014?   Source

Robson’s lawyer also mentions a psychiatrist who treated him — the doctor is a leader in the field of child psychology. NO OFFENSE TOWARD THOSE WHO ARE REAL VICTIMS, BUT IS THIS REALLY A COINCIDENT?  CA SB 131 was amended on May 2, 2013; one day after Wade Robson filed his claim and the bill is amended to read what Wade Robson needed to file a late claim.

This bill should be enforced for those who sincerely need it but not for anyone to file bogus claims. This is really a tender situation for those who are REAL victims.  It is very difficult to attack a bill that should have been enforced a long time ago, but really Wade Robson. I support this bill but I do NOT support those who use something worthy for financial gain because they can.  This bill is intended to support REAL victims. Conveniently, Mr. Robson did NOT remember being molested as he was the “Star” witness for Michael Jackson’s defense at the 2005 trial.

New Molestation Claim Against Michael Jackson    Another Source

Many of us are well acquainted with being molested, as children and adults, and we support the amending of this law and the victims, but we cannot support those who use something intended for real victims to benefit those who use it for financial gain.

There is no “Magic Wand” to make this disappear and it won’t go away because YOU choose to ignore it.  WE have to come TOGETHER to make this happen or at least make a mighty loud noise about it. We must support the victims of abuse but, at the same time, oppose those who will use this law to defame someone who is NOT here to defend himself.

The Anti-Defamation Legacy Law Advocates (AdLLaw) is a non-profit, charitable and advocacy organization which wants to have a U.S. law passed allowing for family members of defamed deceased people to sue for civil damages.

Even the non-famous can be targets which mean that we and our loved ones are at risk.

Adllaw Photo 2The law protects the likeness and image of a person dead or alive, and the same should hold true for their reputation.

AdLLaw Initiative Letter

AdLLaw Petition

Follow the Anti-Defamation Legacy Law Advocates on Twitter: @CADEFLAW

Submitted by: MJ Brookins, AdLLaw Director


Posted by on November 12, 2013 in AdLLaw Initiative, Advocacy


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

12 responses to “Did YOU Know?

  1. Fernanda Camino

    November 21, 2013 at 10:31 pm

    Hi! Emmmmmm, have you ever read the law which was changed in 2011 and benefitted the Michael Jackson estate and Conrad Murray in one move? Check it!!! No coincidence at all neither!!!

    • Stephanie Anne Christy

      December 7, 2013 at 3:29 pm

      How did it benefit The Estate and Murray in one move, Murray was evicted, sent to prison, and even though he may be out of Prison, he now has a convicted record. As to the Estate, Michael had a will, several for that matter, and in all honesty, to date, they have generated money for the Estate. I actually stumbled across this Youtube video, where you commented and agreed. what you need to do, is perhaps research the Estate Executor before agreeing to that. Firstly, Branca was his lawyer and Manager back in the 80’s, He managed him when Dileo was not around. The woman they are saying is Elle McPherson is not, she is Donald Trumps daughter, and the lady with the blonde hair is John Branca’s first wife, that”s correct the wedding that Michael was best man at his first wedding. You people have managed to do to Branca just exactly what happened to Michael. If you are a MJ supporter or fan then stop judging the Estate. They generate income to provide for his children. Oh and Tito Jackson also works for the Estate. It’s not just all one sided as you may have been wrongly advised.

  2. Scott Singleton

    November 25, 2013 at 10:40 am

    A law protecting the dead from being libeled may sound like a good idea on the surface. However, it can also have a chilling effect on anyone who wants to expose the possible misdeeds of a wealthy individual who has committed a crime that a writer cannot discuss while the person is still alive (i.e., due to the specter of a huge libel suit).. If the rights of the dead are protected in a similar manner to the living, it would severely impinge on the First Amendment rights of a writer to divulge his research and put his case before the public after that individual dies. What a law protecting the rights of the dead against potentially libelous claims would mean is that if you are wealthy enough and have wealthy heirs, misdeeds up to and including murder for which a credible case may have been built in that individual’s lifetime (but which could not be made public) cannot even be discussed AFTER he dies, thus preventing the public from ever knowing what the facts are that prove or suggest that this now deceased individual may have committed those crimes. This can then have the effect of essentially covering up those misdeeds forever, which does not serve the interests of the public and their right to know these facts in order to judge for themselves if they have any merit.

  3. Scott Singleton

    November 25, 2013 at 11:34 am

    I was not in any way referring to Michael Jackson with the above post. This was just a general comment.

  4. Mary Kesterke

    November 30, 2013 at 12:20 am

    Bullies like Conrad Murray and Wade Robson will NOT go away and MUST be dealt with…Their bogus claims are NOT free speech but OVER the LINE ABUSE of free speech rights and deliberate ASSASSINATION of Michael Jackson’s character and his legacy…ENOUGH is PAST being ENOUGH! If the likes of Conrad Murray and Wade Robson are allowed to continue to abuse celebrities like Michael Jackson, that will send a disturbing message that the character and legacy of NON-celebrities can be abused and assassinated also…and this cannot be allowed to continue.

    • AdLLaw Initiative (@CADEFLAW)

      December 16, 2013 at 7:52 am

      Thanks for posting @MaryKesterke. I wish thousands of others would take your stand on the abuse of “First Amendment”. It is not something we earned but was given. It is not to be abused or used as we see fit or to lie to make a great name or gain riches. We must not allow this to continue. Some way we must convince those who make these laws to give the deceased the same rights as the living. A decedents estate can be held liable and made to compensate. Why can’t their estate be given the same right?

  5. Dialdancer

    December 14, 2013 at 9:00 pm

    Hello Scott

    I just read your post. It truly makes no difference whom you are to write about the living or deceased. If there is a concern of a defamation suit from writing about a living person this presupposes there is grossly inaccurate and/or false information given. Because that is what it takes for the Courts to consider any defamation suit. What would be the good of writing about anyone if the information which becomes historical knowledge is false?

    I am not speaking directly to you, but to anyone who writes about another person. If you have researched it yourself and it appears factual and true then there should be no need for worry of a defamation suit. If you have not and have used less then reputable sources (written or persons) then the writer deserves to be held accountable for the harm they bring and contributing to human ignorance through misinformation. How will you write that factual account if all others abuse the 1st Amend and lied in their telling. Where will you go for accuracy, unless you have first person knowledge?

    If you have read here then you know you have the option to sue a decedent for defamating to you while they were alive. If our laws and Courts can see this as a legal means to resolve that problem then it must work in reverse.

    P.S. There seems to be this great well of misunderstanding about our First Amendment Rights. There is nothing in it which says it is ok to lie on another nor steal from them by lying.

    • AdLLaw Initiative (@CADEFLAW)

      December 16, 2013 at 7:55 am

      Dial: Thanks for responding to Scott. Great explanation. @Scott I hope this answers any questions or concerns you may have about this initiative. I think even you will have to admit that things have gotten out of hand. Thanks for posting @Scott.

      • nancy

        August 7, 2014 at 12:06 am

        Great idea let’s shred the first amendment to protect a dead pop star.

  6. Cadeflaw

    August 8, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    Nancy: I see you forgot all the other decedents or is it Michael Jackson you have the problem with?
    Trayvon Martin’s death was a good thing because he was a gangster; that former First Lady Betty Ford was a whore; that God hated Steve Jobs, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, Army Spc. Carrie L. French and Whitney Houston was a “crack-head whore” as well as some other horrific things many of the deceased has been named since their death.

  7. Dialdancer

    August 14, 2014 at 4:09 am


    Thank you for your comment at least someone is asking questions.

    If having a law against defaming would shred our 1st Amendment Rights then they would already be destroyed. There already exist laws against slander. They just exist only to serve the living and their families. Why should the living be able to sue a decedent through their family for slander, but not the other way around?

    “Jesse Ventura sues deceased person Chris Kyle for slander. Jesse Ventura wins $1.8 million defamation suit.” If Kyle’s wife or Estate wished to sue Ventura for defamation they could not. Where is the balance, the fairness? It is not about who is slandered it is about slandering the deceased and getting away with it..

  8. Алена

    June 25, 2016 at 2:34 am

    Thank you to those who staged this project.It’s good on the legal level to protect the rights of citizens on private life.We are all not angels,is to see each and mirror(there’s a song Michael about it).Before you write and condemn someone else.Look at yourself.Yes, I agree the truth needs to be opened.But a lie about any person for money and the sale of news is bad.I am for the truth.And protect those who are unjustly accused.There should be a law.If it is proved that the person is guilty.It is necessary to leave him alone.And to cherish the memory and the peace.


Leave a Reply to Mary Kesterke Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: