Roger\'s pathetic take on Debbie\'s stunt

[hopespringseternal]

*It is my own personal view this is all a stunt by Debbie to force Michael to get back with her no mater how low she thinks she has to go to get him, sigh*

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196916,00.html

Judge Opens Michael Jackson Divorce and Custody Documents to the Public
Thursday, May 25, 2006
By Roger Friedman

Michael Jackson is not having a good week in the legal system.

Thanks to a California Superior Court judge, the story will finally come out about ex-wife Debbie Rowe complaining about her children being taken to live in Bahrain.

The judge ruled Wednesday that all the papers from the Rowe-Jackson custody and divorce case be filed for the public to view. Ironically, this may be in small part due to the ruling last week in the unsealing of papers filed in billionaire Ron Burkle's contentious divorce from his wife, Janet. Burkle was Jackson’s financial adviser and friend during part of 2005 until he became fed up with the pop star’s nuttiness. Now their personal lives have unexpectedly collided.

I told you almost a year ago what Rowe’s chief complaint was in the removal of her children Prince and Paris to Bahrain: Jackson had faked passports for them because he couldn’t get her permission to take the kids abroad and no longer had the original documents. The original passports had been filed with the court. Rowe tried to get the FBI and other government organizations involved to stop Jackson, but to no avail.

Rowe has had one visit with her kids since 2001 – late last summer, when Jackson’s nanny, Grace Rwarmba, brought them to Los Angeles. Rowe was not allowed to tell the kids she was their mother, however. Jackson has told them they have no mother.

The unsealed papers – which may be available shortly – may also reveal the true parentage of Prince and Paris. I also told you a year ago that even though Rowe is their biological mother, Jackson is not their biological father. Toward the end of the child molestation case last year, Jackson attorney Robert Sanger suggested as much to Judge Rodney Melville when he argued that a Jackson TV interview not be offered to the court because of its truthfulness on certain matters.

"The circumstances that relate to the birth of the children wouldn't be admitted for the truth of the matter,” Sanger said to a mostly drowsy, sparsely attended court on May 30, 2005. “Only his love of the children."

Meantime, Jackson has plenty of other legal problems. According to sources, he “giggled” and responded to few answers during a daylong deposition in London on Monday for the $4 million lawsuit filed by former partner Marc Schaffel. Like another deposition taken in the case last fall, this one was videotaped and it will be played for the jury when the case commences next month in Los Angeles.

This should be interesting, too: Jackson will not return to Los Angeles for this trial, and his own lawyers didn’t bother questioning him for the video testimony. I’m told he contradicts much of what he said the first time when he’s not laughing or acting strangely. That’s what this new jury will be shown. This latest deposition was held in London at the former King of Pop’s expense, as well, which suggests that in letting this absurd case proceed to a trial he probably can’t win, Jackson does not have the cash to settle it.

 

[whisperAdmin]

yeah, and what happens if Fatty Friedman finds out that Jackson is the biological father? Will he print a retraction?

But I really couldn't give a goddamn if he grew them in a cabbage patch! They are his children that he's raised since birth.

And Friedman can sit his know-nothing ass down somewhere. He is a hateful bastard and I can only wish upon him the same treatment he's doled out against Michael Jackson.

 

[InMyPlace]

Why is this posted here? Who cares?

 

[InspirationMoonwalks]

yeah, and what happens if Fatty Friedman finds out that Jackson is the biological father? Will he print a retraction?

But I really couldn't give a goddamn if he grew them in a cabbage patch! They are his children that he's raised since birth.

And Friedman can sit his know-nothing ass down somewhere. He is a hateful bastard and I can only wish upon him the same treatment he's doled out against Michael Jackson.

Exactly!

Roger just doesn't seem to know what he thinks, does he? One week, Michael has to be in NY for the custody case taking place in LA, the next minute, he doesn't. His stories change from one week to the next. It would be different if he gave retractions, but he just continues to contradict himself..

Blah..

 

[Ben]

Michael should sue Roger Friedman. Too many of his stupid stories are picked up by different newspapers, magazines etc around the world and are printed as the truth which people believe.

I for one don't 100% believe Michael is broke and has sould 25% of his Sony/ATV share to Sony to clear his alleged debts. I also don't believe Robert Sanger told Tom Melville that Prince and Paris aren't Michael's biological children.

 

[Ben]

I remember seeing Roger Friedman on a BBC tv show called Liquid News when news of a warrent for Michael's arrest came out in 2003. Friedman said the warrent for Michael's arrest was in connection to Michael's former private detective Antony Pellincano arrest for wiretapping and witness intimidation, and that it would be over in a couple of day's. He also went on to say the warrent wasn't a big deal and that there were bigger and more important star to thank about than Michael Jackson. How wrong was Roger Friedman on that !

 

[InspirationMoonwalks]

Michael should sue Roger Friedman. Too many of his stupid stories are picked up by different newspapers, magazines etc around the world and are printed as the truth which people believe.

I for one don't 100% believe Michael is broke and has sould 25% of his Sony/ATV share to Sony to clear his alleged debts. I also don't believe Robert Sanger told Tom Melville that Prince and Paris aren't Michael's biological children.

Well, he DID at least re-finance the catalogue. That information came from lots of other sources, far more credible than Friedman. But you're right about the Sanger thing. Sanger NEVER said that the children were not biologically Michael's. He only said that those things should not be discussed in court, because it has nothing to do with what kind of a father and person Michael is. Friedman is twisting words, yet again...

 

[InspirationMoonwalks]

I remember seeing Roger Friedman on a BBC tv show called Liquid News when news of a warrent for Michael's arrest came out in 2003. Friedman said the warrent for Michael's arrest was in connection to Michael's former private detective Antony Pellincano arrest for wiretapping and witness intimidation, and that it would be over in a couple of day's. He also went on to say the warrent wasn't a big deal and that there were bigger and more important star to thank about than Michael Jackson. How wrong was Roger Friedman on that !

Man, how I wish he would've been right on THAT...

 

[trenny]

Roger FATMAN is a lowlife and obviousley has a hatetred tward Michael because he is so hatefull in his reporting about MJ, Even if it's good news about Mike he will only report the negative side, and every other news site and newspaper will jump on the band-wagon and quote him instead of doing their own independent investigation of the reports! I hope BJ that other Jackson fan-turned reporter does some investgating of his own on Roger Fartface and exposes all the skelentons in his closet.......see how these tabliod reporters feel having the tables turned on them:tonofbricks

 

[missclimpson]

Whether Michael is the biological father of his children (and I choose to believe he is) or not is irrevelant. He is their father by law and has all the rights of a legal father. He was married to their mother when they were born and his name is on the birth certificates as their father. His "fatherhood" is a non-issue legally. He must have adopted Blanket after the surrogate had him and he's his legal father, too. All this stuff about biological parenthood is a red herring.

 

[trenny]

true dat!:cloud9

 

[IrishFaery]

Co-sign!

 

[Danielle Oliver]

yeah, and what happens if Fatty Friedman finds out that Jackson is the biological father? Will he print a retraction?

But I really couldn't give a goddamn if he grew them in a cabbage patch! They are his children that he's raised since birth.

And Friedman can sit his know-nothing ass down somewhere. He is a hateful bastard and I can only wish upon him the same treatment he's doled out against Michael Jackson.

People think that they are not Michael's biological kids because they are white and Prince is blond (Roger said once that this was not his natural hair color). But I watched "Medical Investigation" and they told a case about a 9 year old missing girl. Her father, named Jackson, was redhair, and her mother was black. Guess what, the girl was natural redhair! If she was natural redhair why Michael's kids can't be white? Paris has dark eyes and hair.

 

[minnie yu]

the turth is : MIchael is his three children's daddy..he is the ONE who gave birth to his babes his babes' bodies are running MIke's blood..


i really hate that jerk who has beening crazy obsessed with Michael for years and years..he better find a decent job to support his crazy-ugly-messy family....

 

[minnie yu]

People think that they are not Michael's biological kids because they are white and Prince is blond (Roger said once that this was not his natural hair color). But I watched "Medical Investigation" and they told a case about a 9 year old missing girl. Her father, named Jackson, was redhair, and her mother was black. Guess what, the girl was natural redhair! If she was natural redhair why Michael's kids can't be white? Paris has dark eyes and hair.

that's what...we canot figure out what kinda gene babes got from parents..that is called nature..we canot stop it ..we have nothig to do with it...

as far as i am concerned..babe Prince's hair are not natural blonde..whe he was born he had BLACK hair like Mike..look at that babe's big brown eyes and his facial feature and his big head..he is absolutely Mike's lil copy...:8-26-03fruits_apple so does Paris..

i do showed their pics to my mama and to one of my closest friend, they all thought they are looked very much like Mike..

another things is MIchael is MAN..he can get whatever he wanna get as long as he want to....he wanted to have his OWN babes..he can got a woman and had babes for him..he can do that...he can...those babes are his own..i swear to GOD..:8-26-03fruits_apple

those ignorant jerks need to die..

 

[Bee]

People think that they are not Michael's biological kids because they are white and Prince is blond (Roger said once that this was not his natural hair color). But I watched "Medical Investigation" and they told a case about a 9 year old missing girl. Her father, named Jackson, was redhair, and her mother was black. Guess what, the girl was natural redhair! If she was natural redhair why Michael's kids can't be white? Paris has dark eyes and hair.

Well, any person who knows anything about genetics will tell you that just because some child who has a black parent "looks white" does not mean that the child is not the child of the black parent. RF is a gossip hacker, not a common sense thinking person. Did this fool see the roots of Prince's hair in the recent pics of MJ in Japan? Where did the brown roots come from? The sky? Please. Or the child's arm in that same picture? RF and the other losers who continue to say that MJ's children are not his because of their skin color are idiots. I mean, I am tired of this. Someone HAS TO LOOK LIKE THE MOTHER! Their biological mother happens to be white and they have to look like her. The children are starting to look more and more like their father everytime there is a new pic with them in it.

Also, when is RF going to stop talking about MJ? He is too obsessed with this man and it is unhealthly.

 

[missclimpson]

Quincy Jones has a bunch of children, all by different white women. When his kids were little, some of them were blond. As they grew into adulthood, they began to look more like Quincy.

 

[IrishFaery]

Roger and other folks like him are still in heavy denial when it comes to the free for all sex and rape that went on during slavery in America. This fact has had a major effect upon the Black American gene pool.

The reality is, when we reproduce--whether with other Black people or with someone of the opposite ethnicity--we never know what we're going to come up with! I suppose to Roger and others like him, fair-skinned, blonde, blue-eyed, red-haired, green-eyed, ect. Black children are a constant reminder of the horrors that their ancestors commited against Black men and women. They seriously need to let go of the guilt and stop obsessing over skin and eye color and hair texture and other such trivial things.

Seriously, I hope I live to see the day when Black Americans are defined by our accomplishments and contributions to society. Not the color of our skin and eyes and the texture and color of our hair.

 

[ajkinkycuffs]

he is the ONE who gave birth to his babes

lmfao...you made that sound like HE actually opened his legs and had the kids himself rotf!!!!!!!!!!! but I know what you mean minnie


Point is, we really don't "know". To tell you the truth, I'm confused myself about it. There are many times I question whether those are his biological kids. But I do understand that there are circumstances where the kids are lighter skin color than the parents and have little or no traces of their parent's race or vice versa. I mean, my mom is African American, and my dad is from Ecuador. I don't look like my mom or my dad, skin color wise. People think I'm spanish heritage first before Black. A coworker of mine, her father is African American and her mom is Caucasian, and she looks spanish also. So it can happen, and I have to believe that what he is saying is the truth. But in the end, it doesn't matter either way. The paternity is none of my business, and who cares. He's a great father, so why should paternity matter?

 

[Annique]

that's what...we canot figure out what kinda gene babes got from parents..that is called nature..we canot stop it ..we have nothig to do with it...

as far as i am concerned..babe Prince's hair are not natural blonde..whe he was born he had BLACK hair like Mike..look at that babe's big brown eyes and his facial feature and his big head..he is absolutely Mike's lil copy...:8-26-03fruits_apple so does Paris..

i do showed their pics to my mama and to one of my closest friend, they all thought they are looked very much like Mike..

I even recalled an article about a British family. A couple both had olive skin and dark hair and eyes. They had a twin (YES TWIN!) one with dark hair and dark skin, and the other with blonde hair and fair skin. Those stuff happen you know. I believe they are Michaels kids, because they are so alike him and his relatives (Michael said Paris was more of tomboy, just like Janet. Because Paris wanted to be batman or some other superhero for halloween.) I believe he said that in an interview or the PHM. And just look at them: they look a lot like him too. And they are also Debbie's kids, she has fair skin and blonde hair, so his children are probably a mix of him and Debbie, just like EVERY OTHER child. The fact that Michael is a celebrity (and a target) doesn't mean that things like that go different for him. That's so obvious, but do the haters and such see that? NOOOO! So Roger Fatman can stick that one up his ignorant a$$ and just accept the fact that he's a pathetic loser.