Reasons Cadeflaw did not post on the “Prince Jackson” Articles

Fox News Article

Saturday, February 23, 2013

After Diana Falzone, FoxNews.com contributor, wrote an article concerning Prince Jackson’s appearances on Entertainment Tonight, I received an inquiry from a justice advocate as to whether Cadeflaw was going to post a response. After researching the article myself, I thought it was not an unreasonable question, yet I was vexed in my spirit about the article and whether I should post on behalf of Cadeflaw.

DarkChild the fan may have jumped at the chance. DarkChild is a fan moniker so who would care, no one will know who I’m representing. DarkChild could easily be anyone. I had to think on this one long and hard. Of course I did read the article, but since I didn’t have a great feeling about it I decided to sleep on it.

Why was I so vexed about posting? And why the photo of Michael if this is about his son, Prince?  Actually I included the photo as a reminder of what my real assignment is. Secondly, I asked myself what would Michael do and what would he want his supporters to do? If truth be told, I could have answered that before I went to bed. The answer was simple; do nothing. More importantly, he’d want me to think it over carefully and be led, spiritually.

I got up this morning and not only did I have one reason to not post but I had ten reasons and they all made sense. When we make decisions in haste and without proper guidance we make foolish mistakes. I have many trophies and tee shirts I’ve won for following the crowd, in haste,  instead of following my own learned wisdom; that is, wisdom from God. How many fans and nonfans don’t know about the term “Jacko” given to Michael Jackson by haters and fans? I added fans because it has been written and reported that the term was originally supposed to be a term of endearment, although I don’t know that for sure. Another source for this “Jacko” idiom, and I quote an online UK news source “The Telegraph”: “Michael Jackson’s often wildly eccentric behaviour earned him the nickname “Wacko Jacko” in the tabloid press.” Source  Well, that is the opinion of “The Telegraph” but Michael didn’t like it and he said so here:   “Michael Jackson – ‘Don’t Call Me Wacko Jacko’

We have kept our hands to the plow going on four years now. We’ve fought and fought about the use of the term “Jacko” and some media sources along with many questionable others who continue to use it with every opportunity possible. Many will continue to use it just to make us angry; many will use it because that’s how they really feel and online news sources will use it to get hits to their sites. The same reason CBS hired young Prince Jackson, for ratings. We can not stop people from exercising what they call their “First Amendment Right” or from free speech. They can say, write and publish whatever they choose. What we have to do, as a team, is get a legislator to push the Anti-Defamation Legacy Law and get it passed.

Now, we get to the rational reasoning for not posting:

1. Prince Jackson is NOT deceased. Cadeflaw’s goal is to protect and preserve the legacies of the deceased.
2. Prince Jackson chose to enter into an agreement with CBS. The sixteen-year-old Jackson has just been hired by “Entertainment Tonight” as an on-air correspondent. He made a choice. Key word here is “Hired”. Source
3. Prince and Paris Jackson, I’m convinced, have been advised by some relatives to stay children and away from the media as much as it is feasible. However, I think they will do whatever is pleasing to them. We’ve all had to learn that with decisions come consequences, some consequences extremely unfavorable.
4. Prince and Paris Jackson should NOT follow the guidance of their father’s fans. FANS are not familiar with the inner workings of the family. The Jackson’s are a family unit.
5. If we play with fire we are bound to get burned. A relationship with the wrong media outlets can be the beginning of a fire that will burn out of control. Prince Jackson is mature enough to be acquainted with this. I would wager he has been schooled well.
6. By now the older children and perhaps “Blanket” have some knowledge of how their father was treated by the media.
7. The Anti-Defamation Legacy Law Advocates have to keep some distance from sources who may be considered to be a bit too challenging or by what some deem to be, “fanatical”.
8. Cadeflaw’s approach to this concern is a global one and especially to law makers. Attacking the media or people who don’t like Michael, his children or his family will not get our purpose accomplished. We need that law as a means for the family members of Michael and other deceased persons to bring reasonable complaints in opposition to those who defame and slander their deceased family members. Perhaps, with the law, the families can prevent some of this thoughtlessness.
9. It’s very difficult to go out on a limb for people who have made up their minds to do what they yearn for.  Apparently, the Jackson family has made a decision to support young Prince with this endeavor. Who are we to interfere in that? It is my opinion that young Prince Jackson is not STUPID.
10. It is the desire of the Cadeflaw Group that legislators take this initiative serious. CADefLaw’s name posted on every article, of which we estimate to be negative, printed or published about Michael, Whitney, Trayvon or Lance Corporal Snyder may dub the members to be seriously psychologically challenged or prejudice; and that is not the message we wish to convey.

Note: Entertainment Tonight is a daily tabloid television entertainment television news show that is syndicated by CBS Television Distribution throughout the United States, Canada(on Global) and in many countries around the world. Source

Can we take our eyes off of whom we don’t like or who is not doing as we say and come together for the betterment of the legacy of those we say we love and still have great respect for? The Jackson children don’t need us to fight their battles. I’m sure there are plenty Jackson’s to get that job done. What we can do, together, is support the great humanitarian causes we have in the community. You don’t have to like me to know that this law is a good thing and it will impede some of the things we know to be incredibly iniquitous.

I am positive that this will not be well received, with some, in the Michael Jackson fan community, but it is necessary. The Cadeflaw Group will continue to support those persons or groups who are positive influences and who are in fact striving to make a difference, and at the same time promoting peace. Too many supporters have left the community because of the unrest. There seem to be an excess of bullying in the Michael Jackson community. The Michael Jackson who inspired this initiative is one who promoted TRUE “Peace” and “Unity”, not STRIFE. Together, we can accomplish many wonderful things if we would just “Come Together”. Together, we have and can accomplish much but apart we will accomplish nothing that will last.

Can we do it? Yes, we can. I wish young Prince Jackson the best in whatever direction he choose to travel. I believe he will be given the tools he need to endure whatever may come. This law will be for him and his siblings. They will be the ones to make the real difference. Together, let’s make this LAW a reality. 

WISDOM IS dependent upon knowledge. Where there is complete ignorance there can be no wisdom, no knowledge of the right thing to do. Man’s knowledge is comparatively limited and so his wisdom must be small, unless he can connect his mind with knowledge greater than his own and draw from it, by inspiration, the wisdom that his own limitations deny him.

Only God knows all truth; therefore only God can have Real wisdom or know the right thing to do at all times, and man can receive wisdom from God. Wisdom is obtained by reading the mind of God. – Wallace D. Wattles, “The Science of Being Great”

MJ Brookins, CAD

 

MotherDiva Show Pre-Grammy Red Carpet 2012 pt 2

Pete Allman, Owner at Celebrity Scene News, interviewed by Valencia Dantzler, aka Mother Diva. Mr. Allman discusses Michael Jackson and Cadeflaw. He also discusses a little about a script written for ”In Search of Neverland”, the story about Michael Jackson and his friendship with Gloria Berlin, and how she found Michael his paradise, Neverland.

 

The Importance of Cadeflaw

It is paramount that one’s reputation be protected. When one’s reputation is compromised so are their estate, commerce and family. Defaming one’s reputation has a myriad of consequences.

The passage of this groundbreaking and much needed law is necessary in order to protect the reputation of the decedent, just as we do diligently for the living.

We as a people tend to look at the reputation of the decedent from an emotional standpoint, thus overlooking other values to the reputation of the decedent. There are emotional, psychological and monetary aspects to the reputation of the decedent. The emotional aspect is grieving over the loss of the former living being, while the psychological aspect is trying to understand and come to terms with the loss of the departed. Now comes the more overlooked and misunderstood aspect and that is the monetary aspect, how defamation can compromise further commerce; i.e., income that is and can still be made by the decedent.

Not everything dies with the decedent; if it did there would be no need for attorneys to protect the estate of the decedent. For the most part everyone has an estate. An estate is everything that you own. If you have insurance, you have an estate. In many cases with insurance there is an increase in the estate, depending on how you depart. For example, if you die because of an accident, double indemnity applies. If your policy has a value of $500,000 and you perish as the result of an accident and your policy has a “double indemnity” clause, your policy will double to ONE MILLION DOLLARS! This would be your estate, which would also include but not be limited to clothing, jewelry, furnishings, art work, cars, electronics, real estate and collections; i.e. stamp and coin collections, etc.

Whenever a decedent is defamed, not only does this wreak havoc on the reputation of the decedent, it can also have the same effect on the survivors of the decedent. If the decedent has a surviving spouse, and in the eyes of the law they are one flesh, then defaming the decedent will have the same effect on the reputation of the surviving spouse. This will also have a transferring effect should there be any surviving children of the decedent. Defaming and slandering have a domino effect. Whatever damage is done to the decedent’s reputation can harm the reputations of the survivors of the decedent.

Defamation, libel, and slander are the main tools for blackballing an individual. This can be done to the living and it influences their marketability and opportunity to earn income. The same tools wreak havoc on the estate of a decedent. A person’s earning life does not end in death. For example, there are people long deceased who are still generating income from the grave. This makes the preservation of their reputations that much more important.

SILENCE DOES NOT MEAN DEATH…AND DEATH DOES NOT MEAN SILENCE!

Where did we get the idea that once one takes off the flesh it is the end of it all? Who said that once one is deceased there is no need or possibility to speak on behalf of the decedent, whose physical voice is silenced? Has it occurred to anyone that the deceased have long created their voice, long BEFORE THEIR DEMISE? We need to understand that life and death have many similarities, which makes this cause necessary to become law. Your voice is your legacy and your legacy is your voice…all have great value, meaning and life.

CIVIL AND LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE DECEDENT

Although the departed is no longer in the flesh, their deeds, estates, survivors, and legacies remain and need protection. Deeds and actions have the same effects, benefits and consequences, whether or not one is deceased, which makes this important cause necessary for law. Other than being alive vs. being deceased, what is the real difference when both have the same thing? For example the law protects the likeness and image of a person dead or alive, and the same should hold true for their reputation. Since their former lives reflect and have everything to do with their reputations, then why not protect it as we would for a living human being? By not protecting their reputations, what happens to the survivors and the estate is no different from what happens to the decedent. The reputation must be made a part of the estate as such is the foundation therein. To tarnish the reputation of the decedent diminishes their works, talent, career and business and is liken on to blackballing, blacklisting and slander. To protect the reputation of the decedent is to preserve the value of their estate and their memory. While the living has a traditional physical voice, the decedents have a voice through their work, talent, career and legacy.

THE MONETARY ASPECT OF THE REPUTATION OF A DECEDENT

Who a decedent is and their connection needs understanding. An estate and the decedent are one and the same; they carry the same power and ability. If this were not the case, there would not be any business of looking after and protecting an estate. The main content of an estate is one’s likeness, image and name of the decedent. Whether it is a celebrity, our troops, a political figure or a victim of a high profile situation or case, the reputations of these individuals are in great need of protection. In the case of a deceased celebrity, their likeness and image may be assumed to be up for grabs; a victim of a high profile case or situation may fall prey to those who may attempt to cash in on the tragedy. While the decedent no longer has a direct physical voice, their voice is still here as it has transitioned into and through their survivors and their estate.

An estate has various degrees of value, depending on the decedent. This is a fine line, as in the case of the late Frankie Lymon. While alive he did not have two nickels to rub together yet one of his songs, “Why Do Fools Fall in Love” amassed over $4 MILLION in royalties. Frank “Frankie” Joseph Lymon did not see one dime! This legendary performer and songwriter also left a marital mess in the form of 3 wives: Elizabeth Waters, Elmira Eagle and glamorous singer of The Platters, and the now late Zola Taylor.

The three wives all went to battle back in 1986 over the estate of Frank “Frankie” Joseph Lymon.
After a 5-year battle, Ms. Elmira Eagle was determined to be the true and legal Mrs. Frank “Frankie” Joseph Lymon. In addition, she was awarded his estate, which was valued at more than ONE MILLION DOLLARS, with a settlement that was well over the 7-figure range. This all goes back to the parable; “you are worth more dead than alive” Frankie was broke, always short on cash yet his estate was worth more than one million dollars. This battle was more than about money; it was about those three things that were discussed earlier…. the emotional, psychological and monetary aspects of death. Even in death, a decedent STILL has life. Another precious commodity locked in this battle was his NAME. There are a myriad of things that make up who a decedent is, his REPUTATION, his ESTATE and most of all…his NAME.

Take a victim of a high profile case or situation and you have people coming out of the woodwork writing books, making backyard deals, and movie deals based on the victim’s life and the incidents that surrounded the demise of the decedent. We have laws that prevent criminals who kill from profiting from their nefarious deeds, whether it is Night Stalker Richard Ramirez, Charles Manson, or Jeffery Dahmer, just to name a few.

DEFAMATION vs. FREE SPEECH vs. SLANDER

The lines between defamation, free speech and slander are so thin you can cross them without realizing it until there is a response to your actions, usually a consequence that can lead to slander or defamation suits. The purpose of this proposed bill to become law is to protect the reputation of the decedent. Offenders presume they can speak untruths of the decedent, believing that there will be no response. They don’t realize that speaking untruths about the deceased can cause injury to the estate and survivors of the decedent. There are cases where defamation has brought economic damage to an estate or a survivor when it was felt that the defamatory statements were protected as free speech. Free speech is well defined, yet not understood. Free speech has its limitations and consequences if not kept in check. For example, hate speech is not free speech, as it infringes on the civil rights and liberties of others. Speech that incites violence and riots is also not free speech.

Lying and making statements that bring about damage to one’s reputation are not free speech and one can be sued for this…providing the victim is alive…but what about the decedent? The reason there is a need for this to be law is because of the DOMINIO EFFECT that defamation has on a reputation and the earning potential of such reputation. Slander, like defamation can also wreak havoc on the NAME of the decedent and survivors. Survivors can suffer a myriad of losses due to defamation and slander of their decedent, whether monetary and or socially. These acts can have a lasting, and in some cases an irrevocable, effect on a decedent, a surviving spouse, children and the estate. Decedents and all they have done get destroyed all too often in the name of “free speech”.

IN CONCLUSION

In the end, the decedent never sees or enjoys their true wealth, because they are worth more dead than alive…which accounts for why the survivors enjoy what is left behind as the estate, and why survivors can be harmed by defamation of the decedent.

Author: Carletha Lee
CA Endorser/Cadeflaw Lobbyist

Submitted for Cadeflaw Initiative on April 20, 2012

 

Letter to Justice Roberts of U. S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court

March 2, 2011

Dear Chief Justice Roberts:

It is a heartrending day in this country when our Supreme Court Justices would rule against the remarkable men and women; our US soldiers who serve our country and who has given their lives and continue to do so that we may be safe from harm. They stand watch and fight so that we may have the full benefit of these freedoms.

It is not only tactless but reprehensible when a pastor and his members are allowed to promote HATE by making inflammatory statements by way of picket signs against our fallen soldiers; and the highest court in America agrees with them by permitting them legal cover, hiding behind the first amendment. Men and women who have volunteered to serve and protect us should be honored, not defamed and slandered.

This pastor, along with his family members, presented themselves at the funeral of a deceased soldier, Matthew Snyder who died in Iraq in 2006, with signs reading: “Thank God for dead soldiers,” ”You’re Going to Hell,” ”God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men. It is common knowledge that this group pickets many military funerals promoting hate while using the word of God as a cover to do so.

“Thank God for 9/11”. How terroristic is that, sir? And the justices of the highest court in this land sided with these people? I love this country and I value the freedom that has been granted to me and others; but sir, please, how could you write an opinion using the constitution to side with something this malevolence?

How can the constitution shield such iniquitous remarks or written pronouncements such as these about anyone; and especially a deceased soldier? What does that declare to the world about our country? If a “God” fearing man can get away with something such as this, it tells me that I am at the mercy of any group who decides they hate me and promotes it because your court gives them that right. I say your court because God can’t be in that decision.

It is time that people cease using the “First Amendment” to commit such evils. Freedom of Speech is a right given to us and I consider it to be an honor and most certainly a privilege to have full use of it. However, it does not give us the right to defame and slander those who can’t defend themselves; and there is a responsibility to be fair and just while exercising that freedom.

Matthew Snyder and other fallen soldiers died defending the rights of others and they deserve much more than what they have been given. The deceased have a right for their legacy’s to be protected and preserved. Instead the US courts give odious people the right to speak and publish hateful comments about them. Justice Roberts, that doesn’t sound right to me.

The first amendment should be redressed and the proper corrections made right. It is time for change, sir. People would be mindful if they were penalized for these slanderous and defaming statements. It is time an “Anti-Defamation Legacy Law” be put into place, sir.

I do realize, of course, that you will not be of the same opinion as myself and many others; but let us agree, in advance, to disagree. Most of America won’t be in agreement; especially those who hide behind the “First Amendment”. However, it is TIME for CHANGE.

I thank you kindly for your time, Chief Justice Roberts.

Humbly Submitted,

MJ Brookins, Administrative Director

Texas

A few videos from WBC displaying their “Hate” promotions

God Hates America   

Westboro Baptist Church family disowns daughter — 20/20   

Jeremy Vs Westboro Baptist church  

 

 

Vindication and Advocacy

Vindication and Advocacy for deceased persons whose Legacy’s are allowed to be tarnished because there is no law to protect the deceased from defamation.

Offenders, those who defame, should be required to give account for their personal thoughts, views, or attitudes; especially those based mainly upon emotion instead of reason or knowledge.

We should be able to protect the legacy of the dead, whose legacy demands protecting. Please don’t allow groups to slander the deceased to benefit themselves.

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. Originally this initiative was about Michael Jackson but we believe it’s morally wrong to defame the character of any  deceased person. They can’t defend themselves—and Cadeflaw’s mission is to help those left behind who suffer emotionally and financially, to protect and preserve the legacy of their loved ones. We believe a posthumous law will provide them with that. 

Be COUNTED among those who helped to protect the legacy of those deceased.  Those left behind can still be hurt.Support #CADefLaw. Help us convince the California Legislators to author this bill by making corrections to the wrongs that have been done.

TOGETHER, we can make a difference. Help US make that CHANGE.

 

Search For The Hero In You

A Salute To The Honorary Butterflies

 

Freedom of Speech or Bullying

Words are powerful and leave their effect long after they have been uttered. It is reprehensible to carelessly damage a person’s reputation and legacy by promoting rumor, innuendo, gossip and sensationalism after they have passed on. We are seeking to make it unlawful to defame a person who is deceased. The First Amendment is not a free pass to exploit people for entertainment and profit. Slander and libel are not protected expressions under the First Amendment while a person is living, and that same protection should extend to people after they are deceased. 

Freedom of speech is our right, and to lose any part of that freedom would be a travesty. However, with freedom comes responsibility. The California Constitution actually addresses the issue of responsibility, as follows: 

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS 

SEC. 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.” 

Our focus is the ABUSE of this right. We must be free to express our thoughts; however, we are not entitled to express them as fact, gossip, innuendo, lies, and conjecture. The families and friends of the deceased should not have to endure defamatory stories presented as facts about their departed loved ones. Opinions expressed that infringe upon a person’s civil right (that which is good or proper and conforms to fact or truth) should be considered as abusive, harmful, offensive and infringing upon their quality of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, which are their inalienable rights. This is a form of BULLYING. Therefore, offenders should be held liable and required to give account for their expressed thoughts, views, or attitudes; especially those based mainly upon emotion instead of reason or knowledge. 

It is time to address the general lack of integrity, responsibility, and accountability on the part of our news media. The line between responsible journalism and tabloid journalism has become so blurred that a new term, “medialoid” has been coined. Too often truth and unbiased objectivity are missing in the presentation of information. The coverage of Michael Jackson’s sudden death in 2009 is a perfect example of a deceased person being exploited for entertainment and profit. The media’s treatment of Mr. Jackson while he lived was an aggressive and egregious misuse of the power of words; it is even more disturbing that he continues to be denigrated after his passing. Although a high profile celebrity is named here as an example of the damage that can be committed by a media out of control, the potential damage of words used irresponsibly extends equally to everyone, regardless of fame, wealth, or social standing. 

If you believe it should be unlawful for people, including the media, to defame those who have passed on, please sign the Cadeflaw petition. We are seeking to change the current law in California; a cause of action so that a cause of defamation could be asserted on behalf of the dead.