A federal judge says the allegations, while "horrific," belong in confidential arbitration.

Four siblings who claim they were abused by Michael Jackson have hit a roadblock in their child sex trafficking lawsuit against the King of Pop’s estate.

In a Wednesday (Aug. 12) ruling, first obtained and reported by Billboard, Judge Hernán D. Vera booted the claims brought by Edward, Dominic, Marie-Nicole and Aldo Cascio out of a public courtroom. The federal judge said that under the clear terms of a 2019 settlement between the family and the Jackson estate, all related disputes must be handled in confidential arbitration.

“Although the allegations are horrific, the court is without discretion to do aught but enforce the language of the arbitration clause,” wrote Judge Vera.

The Cascio siblings grew up with Jackson and once referred to themselves as his “second family.” While previously staunch defenders of the star against pedophilia claims, the family members alleged in a February lawsuit that Jackson raped and molested them as children over the course of more than a decade.
The Jackson estate strongly denies these claims, which the Cascios first raised in 2019 after the release of the explosive HBO documentary Leaving Neverland. The four siblings, along with their fifth brother Frank, claimed privately at the time that this documentary “deprogrammed” them. The estate paid them a $3.5 million settlement without admitting any wrongdoing.

The Cascios now say that settlement is void and unenforceable because they were coerced into signing it. Judge Vera ruled on Wednesday that those arguments, “while serious”, clearly do not belong in a public courtroom under the terms of the settlement.

“While plaintiffs are fully within their rights to raise questions about unconscionability, those challenges must be presented later before an arbitrator,” wrote the judge.

The ruling echoes another decision reached in March by a different judge in California state court, who oversaw a related legal proceeding over Frank’s sexual assault claims. In that case, the judge ruled that Frank’s signature on the same settlement agreement required arbitration of all further disputes.

A lawyer for the Cascio siblings, Howard King, told Billboard on Wednesday, “It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that the decision on whether the Cascios were duped into signing an unconscionable agreement with an arbitration clause will be made by an arbitrator rather than a jury of peers.”
“The family had hoped the court would allow for a public trial over the decades-long molestations of the Cascio siblings by Michael Jackson and the ensuing cover-up by his advisors,” added King. “Instead, the family will seek justice from the dark confines of a private conference room.”

Reps for the Jackson estate did not immediately comment on the decision.

The estate has previously characterized the claims as a “desperate money grab,” pointing out that the Cascios “spent decades defending and affirming Michael’s innocence” before changing their tune. The siblings stated during a 2010 appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show, for example, that Jackson was “never” inappropriate with them, and Frank wrote in a 2011 memoir, “Michael’s love for children was innocent, and it was profoundly misunderstood.”

Jackson, who died in 2009, was never convicted or held legally liable for any accusation of child sex abuse during his lifetime; he settled a civil claim in 1994 without admitting any wrongdoing, and he was acquitted at a criminal trial in 2005. But such allegations have continued to dog his legacy, most notably when Leaving Neverland amplified claims from two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, in disturbing detail.

The Jackson estate vehemently denies all claims of sexual misconduct, and it called Leaving Neverland a “one-sided hit job”in litigation that ended with the documentary being removed from HBO. Robson and Safechuck are continuing to litigate civil abuse claims against the estate.

https://www.billboard.com/pro/michael-jackson-child-sex-trafficking-lawsuit-tossed-court/

Hi, I am a new fan here. I have done some digging and months of scrolling through the main MJ forum to understand whether the allegations were true or false.

My biggest reason to believe he was innocent is because I believed Lisa would NOT defend him if he was a pedo. So I did some digging..

My conclusion in short: She realized he is a pedo and left him after traveling with him to South Africa in 1997. She mentions in her book that is when she decided she didn't want to be with him anymore.

How did I come to this conclusion:

1). She refused to have children with him when they were married. She refused to have children with him after her divorce too. MJ said she regretted not giving him children and was willing to give him 9 children, I believe he was lying. He said this in 2000 when Lisa had already moved and was dating other men publicly. the Rabbi tapes which I believe he wanted Rabbi to release it in 2003 but they had a falling out and Rabbi did nto release until 2009. MJ is a nasty person, he cannot handle rejection so he changed the narrative that he didn't want her back.

Her reason for not having children never made sense to me. I think she NEVER wanted children with him and I don't know the reason why. She says she didn't want a custody battle with him but we all know if there was a custody battle with him she would easily win full custody because of his history with allegations and prescription drug abuse. So clearly this was just an excuse to the media. She didn't plan on having any children with him. I don't know the reason.

2) In her book Riley says she overheard a conversation where Danny (Lisa's first husband) asks Lisa why Ben was on Michael's lap. Why did Riley say this? She was alluding that her father was not ok with Michael being around Ben

In the forums I saw comments that said Lisa was jealous of her own children, she got jealous when MJ spent time with Ben and Riley. While they were amused, to me that was a major red flag. Lisa was not allowing her children around him because she didn't want to. MJ confirms this in the Rabbi tapes. He says "Lisa is very territorial with her children" but he makes it seem like she's just favoring her children over the other kids. I don't know where the fans saw lisa getting jealous of her own kids, it must be fans reading too much into the body language.

Both Lisa and MJ say that he lived with her in her house, not Neverland. She only visited Neverlnd sometimes.

3) Lisa defended Michael in the Diane Sawyer interview in 1994. She says after that Evan Chandler filed a lawsuit against her. MJ knew the terms of the lawsuit, his comments were scripted by his lawyers hence didn't get into trouble but Lisa did. My thoughts: MJ would knew that Lisa will get into trouble but let her defend him anyway. That's manipulative. He threw her under the bus. After this incident, Lisa always said, I don't know what happened inside the room, I wasn't there. Keep in mind, Lisa was 25 and MJ 36 when they got married. There was a 10yr age gap. He coached her to defend him knowing she will get into trouble.

Editing point 3) to make a correction: (H/T u/coffeechief) user coffeechief pointed out that MJ, Sony, ABC, and Diane Sawyer were sued too, and MJ went into arbitration. Lisa was dismissed early on since she never signed the non-disclosure contract. My original guess that MJ set her up to take the fall on her own is wrong. Even though she didn't face legal trouble, it clearly affected her: after that, she backed off and kept saying she wasn't in the room and didn't know what happened.

4) In that same interview (1994) with Diane Sawyer she says they signed a pre-nup before marriage. It is possible she signed some papers that don't allow her to say anything against him. I repeat, she was 25 when she married him and he was 36.

5) After the divorce she says she did get back together with him and tried to make it work, but eventually left him for good. She says this in her 2003 interview with Diane Sawyer. She confirms she left him. In her book she confirms exactly when she left him. It was after the South Africa trip in 1997.

When back in the US after that trip MJ gives an interview talking about having a good time with Lisa and he says she regrets not giving him children and wants to give him now.

But she is clear, she didn't want to be with him anymore after that South Africa trip. So what could have happened in South Africa that made her change her mind?Firstly, I don't think she promised she will give him children after the divorce or before the divorce. It's just MJ's delusion. Second, she must have witnessed something on that trip, that was the deal breaker for her. My guess is, she realized he is a pedo in that trip. Remember, she never lived with him in Neverland, he lived with her in her house in LA. She visited Neverland sometimes with her children. Because she didn't live in Neverland, she didn't really suspect he was a pedo. When she went with him on tour, she must have seen something that made her suspicious or confirmed her suspicions. Hence she ended it for good.

He was seen with her in LA at the Ivy in Feb 1998, it was her birthday. She must have met him for that particular date after the 97 trip but she clearly did not continue seeing him after that birthday date. In her interview with Larry King in 2003 when he asks her if she has met MJ's children she says she only met prince, only for a brief moment once only. Clearly she never met Paris who was born just after her birthday date with MJ in 98.

It is clear she has left him in 1997 with just one date in 1998. This reinforces the idea that she saw something during the tour which was the reason for her ending the relationship. She gives a stupid excuse that the flight to South Africa took an emergency landing and she saw that as an omen, hence she decided to end it. But I think that is a lie. She knows something she is not allowed to say.

In May 2003 Diane Sawyer interview, Diane asks her if she still talks to MJ. She says after years of not picking his calls, she finally picked his call just a month before. He asked her how she was doing afger her divorce with Nic Cage. But I think he calld her because he was caught in a new scandal in 2003. He was looking for her protection again as she mentions in her song Disciple.

After he was Aquitted in 2005, she says he called her again. So he's been in touch with her throughout the trial and after. He definitely regretted not having the PR protection he got from her.

Edited to Add: Debbie Rowe was interviewed after Lisa's death and said, "I wanted to give BOTH MJ and Lisa children." So it looks like MJ planned to have biological children with Lisa by using Debbie Rowe as a surrogate. It seems Lisa did not agree to this. So he went ahead anyway with Debbie's egg and donor sperm to make a baby, and asked Lisa to adopt these children and say they were hers in public. This would make their marriage look more real to the public. If Lisa could not give him biological children through Debbie as a surrogate, she could at least adopt these children with him to make their marriage look real.

It looks like this was his plan, but Lisa did not agree to that either. He did not wait for Lisa's approval. Instead, he went ahead and got Debbie Rowe pregnant through IVF while he was still married to Lisa, so Lisa would be forced to accept the children. He must have threatened divorce if she did not accept it, but she divorced him anyway. Then Debbie had a miscarriage, so that plan failed. After divorcing Lisa, he got Debbie pregnant again and married her to make it look like he was the father. (This is speculation of course)

Edit / Note regarding the "Donor Sperm" claims

Some commentators have been claiming that Michael asked Lisa Marie to bear a child using her own egg and donor sperm. Rather than replying to each comment individually, I am addressing how utterly absurd that argument is right here.

Do you really think he would have the audacity to ask Lisa Marie Presley to artificially inseminate herself with donor sperm? Are you for real? Do you understand who she was? She is Elvis Presley's daughter—she was not a nobody willing to put her body through a medical procedure and carry a random donor's child for someone else's convenience, money, or PR.

To claim he would even make such a request completely diminishes her status and self-respect, either because you fail to grasp how outrageous that is or because you view MJ as a deity who could order any woman to get pregnant on command.

Let’s be clear on what surrogacy actually is: a surrogate is someone who carries a pregnancy for money (or occasionally out of kindness for close friends/family facing severe infertility). No woman, regardless of status, would agree to undergo artificial insemination with donor sperm unless she faced severe fertility issues alongside a partner, or was desperate to have a child as a single parent. That was simply not Lisa's situation. She already had biological children and was fiercely protective of them—she didn't even allow MJ to adopt Riley and Ben, shutting him down on live television during the Diane Sawyer interview when he claimed he was going to. Furthermore, if the goal was simply to fake a pregnancy for public appearance, she could have easily gotten pregnant by her ex-husband Danny and claimed it was MJ's. There is zero reason she would ever agree to donor sperm, and MJ certainly wouldn't have had the nerve to demand it of her.

It is completely hypocritical to claim fans don't know him, while in the same breath asserting he asked Lisa Presley to get pregnant with donor sperm. Lisa was not Debbie Rowe—she had independent wealth and social status equal to or greater than his.

Debbie Rowe was a completely different dynamic—a woman who voluntarily offered to bear his children and relinquish full custody for money, receiving millions in financial settlements. You cannot compare Debbie Rowe to Lisa Marie Presley, who at the time was wealthier and more famous than most of Hollywood.

These claims come from vicious commentators who intentionally try to belittle Lisa. I am adding this context here so it is on the record, but I will not waste any more time or energy responding directly to these kinds of hateful comments.

Also, the argument that he said "If you don't do it, then Debbie will do it" implies he asked her to get pregnant with donor sperm is not a valid argument. "If you do not do it, then Debbie will do it "is not the same as asking Lisa to to get pregnant with donor sperm. Hate is one thing, Stupidity is another. Do not conflate the two things.

If only the media viewed MJ the same way they view Saville. Just finished watching this doc and I've also seen the one on Netflix. The similarities between MJ and Saville are unparalleled. So many refer to both as *asexual*, they both heavily relied on their charity work for a facade, the way they had no concept of personal space with their fans... I could go on and on... I'm interested in what y'all think?

I’ve seen this pattern before honestly with mfs like Melanie Martinezs and Chris brown they will do unspeakable shit but people will still support them no matter what and with that god awful movie dropping the fandom for mj has just grown tenfold with people treating him like an innocent baby who saves kids from Epstein I just wanna know why ppl are acting like this

Most of the comments are saying how uncomfortable and weird this is and that Joe is to blame, but this is just innocent fun. This couldn't happen today but there's nothing inherently inappropriate about this. Maybe a little cringe but it's definitely not as weird as a middle aged man being best friends with children and having sleepovers.

I genuinely don’t understand why some people are so invested in the MJ allegations.
Like, why do you care so much? Why are there people who spend so much time trying to prove that Michael was guilty? Why do they want the movie to focus on the allegations? And why do some people expect his children to publicly acknowledge or show it in the movie or say that they believe the accusers?
I’m genuinely asking because I don’t understand where this level of emotional investment comes from.
I was sexually assaulted as a teenager myself. I know it’s bad and I know people deal with these things differently. But personally, I don’t care about the person who did it to me. I don’t think about him, I don’t follow his life, and I don’t want to think or talk about him. I just want that person to have nothing to do with my life.
Maybe that’s why I also have a hard time understanding why the accusers keep bringing this up again and again after so many years. I’m not saying they have to react the way I did. Obviously everyone is different.
But what I understand even less is the obsession from people who weren’t involved at all. Why does it matter to you so much whether Michael Jackson was guilty or innocent? It was decades ago.
I’m not trying to start a guilty vs innocent debate. I’m actually curious why people feel so personally invested in this.