Email Dubai Cinemas

APPLE IPHONE+IPAD USERS CLICK HERE TO OPEN IN APPLE MAIL APP
If you use Windows/Android/macOS, copy and paste the email instead!

 TO info@cinemaakil.com, tellme@cinemaakil.com,
 happiness@nmc.gov.ae, letters@thenational.ae,
 editor@gulfnews.com
 SUBJECT Leaving Neverland is a depraved, sickening film and must not be shown in Dubai

To whom it may concern,

This is a protest email as part of a public campaign, which I am individually supporting, to inform relevant contacts & institutions in Dubai about a documentary that is intended to screen at Cinema Akil this month.

The purpose of Leaving Neverland is to promote depraved sexual abuse. This film has no place anywhere in the world, especially not in Dubai. It is reprehensible and morally wrong. To prove this, consider how it contains no content that would help to prevent child abuse, but instead focuses 50%-60% of its time (nearly all of part 1 and some of part 2) graphically describing sex & bodily functions during abuse. You can see for yourselves that there is nothing in this film that is actually useful in preventing child abuse.

This is a pointless movie with graphic descriptions and sick, depraved sexual content.

Given this information, it is not hard to conclude that the purpose of Leaving Neverland is to 1) Inspire abusers. 2) Desensitize the public to these acts and promote these types of relationships (which, horrifically, are described as 'love' in the film), so eventually child abusers can ask for understanding and acceptance. Abusers are hoping that by using a well-known celebrity as the subject of the film (who was actually proven innocent of these crimes) that they can have a public forum for their own sick interests. Abusers eventually want laws changed in their favor. You must never let that happen.

To ensure this, we urge Dubai and its TV & Film industries to make sure this film is not given any time. Preferably, the film should be banned outright due to its sickening nature.

A petition has been signed 3.1 thousand times asking for the worldwide cancellation of this movie. See it here: https://www.change.org/p/3-1k-we-demand-all-broadcasters-venues-cancel-the-leaving-neverland-documentary-mjdocpetition

Furthermore, Leaving Neverland is full of factual inconsistencies and the 'accusers' of Michael Jackson in this film have been denounced & disproven time and time again. Their involvement in this project is highly questionable, to say the least. Despite vicious prosecutors who wanted Michael Jackson to be sent to prison, Michael Jackson was found innocent in a court of law. There is no need for him to have any of these types of sick stories attached to his name. There is no need for this film, which also contains no evidence at all, to be shown to slander & defame him in death.

Please do the right thing and cancel all showings of this movie. See below for a full list of reasons proving why the film is not suitable for presentation.

جزاك اللهُ

1.) WadeRobson and JamesSafechuck (the subjects of the film) had their joint case thrown out of court by a Superior Court Judge
Robson filed a creditors claim against Michael⠀Jackson's companies for billions of dollars in 2013.Safechuck joined the case a year later. Judge Mitchell Beckloff dismissed their joint case on May 26, 2015.

2.) There is a viral documentary that examines each of Robson's claims
You can see it here youtube.com/watch?v=rgSbSotJgUY
or alternatively alongside an extensive evidence list here: sites.google.com/site/therealstorydoc

3.) In previous testimony, RobsonandSafechuck's stories do not match
SafechuckdescribedJackson as someone paranoid, who went out of his way to hide his claimed 'activities' with him and to practice 'looking normal' in case anyone would be to discover what they were doing. Oddly,Robson describedJackson as callous and in testimony, relayed a story of howJackson was almost caught with him by an employee butJackson 'did not care.' This also contradictsRobson's other story saying thatJackson "coached" him on the phone that both would 'have their careers ruined and go to jail if anyone found out.' All of these accounts are incompatible.
Source 1. Excerpt fromSafechuck's testimony: twitter.com/JuliaBerkowitz1/status/1084055743660208128
Source 2. Excerpt fromRobson's testimony: twitter.com/JuliaBerkowitz1/status/1084054525495992325

4.) At the end of the film, Robson is seen burning his MichaelJackson collection
These were either fakes or replicas as Robson consigned his actual MichaelJackson possessions to Julien's Auctions as, according to Julien's in a public statement, they had sold them and "he needed the money." Robson had wished to remain anonymous but Julien's Auctions did not agree with that. His collection was sold publicly as 'The Wade Robson Collection' by Julien's Auctions in 2011.

5.) This film mimics the contents of a (US-banned) fictitious book by a sickening child abuse fantasist
The film contains eerily similar claims that convicted criminal Victor Gutierrez is reported to have made in a book in 1993. Gutierrez is suspected to have associations with an infamous child abuse apologists group in the US and even thanks them in his book. His book is centered around JordanChandler, whose parents sued MichaelJackson in a civil suit for money in 1993 despite them being pressured by law enforcement to make the case a criminal suit which would result inJackson going to jail. Gutierrez's book was banned in the US. Among other disgusting and false claims (which Gutierrez made likely in own interests), he claimed that Chandler and Jackson had a 'loving' relationship. Gutierrez was sued byJackson. Gutierrez lost and was ordered to payJackson $2.7m in damages. Gutierrez fled the country and filed for bankruptcy.

6.) Robson and Safechuck can be seen laughing and smirking at their Q&A while being asked questions about what happened to them.
Video clips:

7.) It is problematic for this film to make claims without any evidence. What is worse is that despite this, it is being paraded as factual and 'powerful'
HBO, Channel 4 and other networks seem to say is that this documentary is 'powerful' as a standard line. Many journalists and verified social media influencers (some of whom have been proven to be 'in the pocket' of these networks) are quick to regurgitate this claim without evidence. Graphic stories are not unfalsifiable evidence. Fiction books aren't considered real because of their use of detailed described imagery and neither should this programme.

8.) Robson and Safechuck have a monetary interest in making up allegations
They tried suingMJ's companies for billions of dollars. They are both represented by the same lawyer. Their lawyer, Vince Finaldi[1] worked for MichaelEgan who made false allegations against Bryan Singer[2] and other big names in the 2014 film An Open Secret  (associates of which currently derail MichaelJackson on social media.)

9.) Dan Reed, the director, did NOT include any exculpatory evidence
He included no evidence or counter-arguments that shed light on the true credibility ofRobson andSafechuck. His documentary is biased from beginning to end. Sickening stories do NOT make it a reliable piece of work. As stated above, fiction books aren't considered real because of their use of detailed described imagery and neither should this programme.

10.) Contrary to what was stated by Reed, Robson and Safechuck have indeed met before this year - which is problematic
Robson mentioned this in his 2016 deposition. It is likely that he andSafechuck have now harmonized their stories to remove inconsistencies that previously did exist as mentioned above.

11.) MichaelJackson was 100% acquitted (found NOT GUILTY) of all charges after a media-heavy 'witch hunt' trial.
In 1993 there was a fiasco in which Santa Barbara County prosecutors failed to convince Jordan Chandler's parents to pursue a criminal suit (soJackson would go to jail.) Instead Chandler's parents opted to sueJackson for tens of millions of dollars in a civil suit in which they reached a settlement and are barred from discussing the matter.Jackson wished to fight the suit fully but was pressured by his insurance companies and business partners to settle as it would take his attention away from other commitments.
Following this, the Santa Barbara District Attorney, Tom Sneddon, had the law changed so that evidence of previous allegations/cases could be used in current trials.
When MichaelJackson was once again falsely accused in 2003 and the case went to trial in 2005, the same prosecutors and District Attorney submitted evidence from 1993 as well as the 2005 case.
When MichaelJackson was acquitted of all charges on June 13th, 2005, he was not only acquitted of wrongdoing in 2005 but also of wrongdoing in 1993 as evidence from that time was used as well.
The FBI assisted in investigating MichaelJackson secretly for over ten years. Their extensive reports onJackson were publicly released on their website after a Freedom of Information Act request followingJackson's death. They found no evidence of wrongdoing.
MichaelJackson cleared - BBC News: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4604027.stm
Official FBI reports on FBI website: vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson

12.) Legally, the dead cannot be defamed. As MichaelJackson was 100% acquitted, this documentary would not be able to air if he was alive.
US and UK defamation law makes this clear. Other countries' laws are similar. One of the co-producers of this film, Channel 4, goes out of its way to note in its Producers' Handbook that the dead cannot be defamed. Channel 4 also does not discourage it.
U.S. defamation law description: MincLaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-defama...
Channel 4 Producers' Handbook section on defamation: channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law...