Michael Jackson Accused of Sex Trafficking Kids in Bombshell Lawsuit

In a brand new bombshell sex trafficking. lawsuit, four adult siblings are. claiming that Michael Jackson sexually. abused them as children and that they. also alleged the estate is trying to. keep them quiet. We are breaking down. the allegations, the timeline, the. potential evidence, and the response. from the deceased pop star's estate. right now. Welcome to Sidebar, presented. by Law & Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. By the way, if you're putting things out.

on social media, if you're into content. creation, you might be wondering how. we're able to share so many of these. clips from all of these stories so. quickly. Well, we use something called. Opus Clip. This is an all-in-one AI. editor that makes it so easy to cut, create, and upload videos across any. platform. Through AI, Opus Clip. generates B-roll, reframes footage, and. it even cleans up audio. It is so easy. Just visit opus.pro/sidebar. You sign up, you upload, and in minutes. you'll have perfectly edited clips ready. to go for TikTok, Shorts, Reels. Opus. Clip one-stop shop. And having a tool.

like Opus Clip means that our producers. can get you viral courtroom updates. instantly. This is the most powerful. tool there is to share ideas and edit. like a pro. So, go to opus.pro/sidebar. to get a free week and then 50% off. You. know, we cover a lot of celebrity. lawsuits here on Sidebar. It's kind of. been a common theme for us over the past. few years. I have to talk now about one that is. truly bombshell. Four adult siblings. have just filed an official lawsuit.

against the estate of Michael Jackson. and others in a bombshell sex. trafficking lawsuit. Edward, Dominic, Marie Nicole, and Aldo Cassio or Cassiel. allege that Jackson, Michael Jackson, who died in 2009 at the age of 50, quote, "groomed and brainwashed them as. children," including supplying them with. drugs, alcohol, gifts, isolating them, exposing them to pornography, and. sexually abusing them.

Here's a quote from the lawsuit. "Michael Jackson was a serial predator. who over the course of more than a. decade drugged, raped, and sexually. assaulted each of the plaintiffs. beginning when some were as young as. seven or eight." And the filing alleges. that the abuse occurred over extended. periods of time and quote locations. around the world and when Jackson and. his children were guests in plaintiffs'. family home. And they claim that again this abuse. happened for years. They describe this.

relationship with Jackson over a 25-year. period. So, you're talking about the. 1980s until his death in 2009, by the. way. The sex trafficking component is. key cuz you have these claims that. Jackson allegedly sexually abused them. during travel, right? Traveling across. state lines, traveling when leaving the. country, including, by the way, on his. Dangerous World Tour. I will give you an. example. Aldo has made the claim that he. was just seven when his parents let him. go with Jackson alone to Florida for.

dance training, but claims ultimately he. was sexually assaulted. This is. according to an interview he did with. the Daily Mail. And by the way, the. claims include, aside from sex. trafficking of children by force, fraud, or coercion, which we'll talk more. about, you also have these claims of. negligence, negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of employee. So, basically that's the idea of that. the alleged enablers, they had a duty to. protect these siblings and they felt. they had a duty to not create an. environment where Michael Jackson would.

have allegedly done this. You have. intentional infliction of emotional. distress, breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, rescission, and declaratory judgment. A lot of that. is and we'll get into this is based upon. the circumstances surrounding these. siblings signing a contract that they. claim was fraudulent, that should be. thrown out, that's unenforceable. That. was a way to misrepresent. who was getting them to sign. They. didn't realize they were signing an. agreement with the Jackson estate to. allegedly keep them quiet. We'll talk.

more about that. But again, you have. multiple claims here and there's a. demand for a jury trial. There's. obviously a claim for damages here. And. let me tell you who this lawsuit's. against. It's against the Michael. Jackson company, so it's an LLC, a. limited liability company. John uh. Branca, who is a co-administrator of the. estate of Michael Jackson, co-trustee of. the Michael Jackson family trust. You. also have John McClain uh as. co-administrator of the estate and uh. co-trustee of the Michael Jackson. family, MJJ Productions LLC, MJJ.

Ventures LLC, Herman Weisberg, we'll. talk about him, and Does 1 through 20. Now, the family reportedly first. connected with Jackson when the. siblings' father was a manager of a. hotel in New York City that Jackson. would frequently stay at. And this. father ended up introducing Michael. Jackson to his family, and the pop star. apparently became close friends with the. family, and the kids would apparently. end up staying at Jackson's Neverland. Ranch out in California. These are the.

allegations. Again, the siblings claim. that ultimately they were abused. According to the Daily Mail, the. siblings' father even described this. what appears to be an alleged red flag. with Jackson where he said that Jackson. had stated, "I want to surprise the. kids." He arrived at their house and. Connie, the wife, the mother, says he. wanted to see the kids' rooms. He told. jokes to the kids. He was so kind, we. didn't think about it. Now, here's the. tricky part. When Jackson had previously. been accused of sexual abuse of children.

in the '90s, the family defended him, even sending him a fax saying that they. support him. Now, to be clear, these. parents asked their children first if. anything ever happened, and they said. no. You know, Frank apparently even. wrote a book back in 2001 that was. highlighting what seemed to be an. innocent relationship. It was called My. Friend Michael, an ordinary friendship. with an extraordinary man, but obviously. now, the claim is that that wasn't true. According to Complex in the complaint, it was really after that HBO documentary.

premiere, Leaving Neverland, that these. siblings wanted to move forward with. their accusations against Jackson. And. they claim, and I'll get into this more, that they were pressured into signing. what is essentially a confidentiality. agreement that they couldn't speak about. what happened to them. Uh but that the. circumstances surrounding that that it. was fraudulent, that it was. misrepresented what had happened. Now, one of the things that Aldo had said to. the Daily Mail was that he actually felt. relieved when Michael Jackson died, saying, quote, "I also had to act sad. I.

knew that I had to play this double. role. Why did he do this to me? I hated. him. I knew I couldn't free myself of. it. I had to live my whole life alone. with this, and it was hell." And to give. you an idea of what Aldo claims happened. to him, there was just this one segment. I have to mention. He claims, "I was. just sitting on the bed with him during. the day, and I was just playing my Game. Boy, and I remember he just went to me. and pulled down my shorts." Now, Michael. allegedly told him, "I make you feel. good because I love you, and you know,

we've talked about love before, so for. me, this is just. like an extension of that. And so, I was. like, "Okay, I love you, too." And that. was how he hooked me in. Aldo says it eventually matured into. full-blown sex with Michael Jackson at. 10 years old, and. that the pop star would coach him to. deny if anyone ever asked what had. happened to me between the two. And he. also claims that Michael Jackson gave. him Xanax. Quote, "The truth was I was. terrified of him. The way he brainwashed. The way he brainwashed me, I was scared. for my own life." Says the last time he.

spoke with Michael Jackson was 3 days. before. Jackson died. He claims the singer. turned the conversation sexual. Marie Nicole claims she was abused by. Michael Jackson in 2001, saying he. talked about how it's very normal for. men and women to be naked. He asked me. to take off my clothes, so I did what he. said. And you remember when I said that. everything changed when the Leaving. Neverland documentary came out? Well, Aldo claims that is when he realized. that this was allegedly happening to. others, and that he essentially felt. safe to come forward. Finally told his.

parents what he claims happened. Connie, the mother here, says, "I feel. responsible for all this. I should have. known what was happening to my kids and. I didn't. I saw Jackson being so lonely. and lost because his career was. diminishing.". And then that's when Aldo's siblings. revealed that they were allegedly. abused, too. And here's the key. This is. about the contract. So, the siblings. claim that in 2019, the Jackson estate. had pressured them into signing a. contract without having lawyers to. essentially silence them. That one of.

the defendants, the guy I mentioned. before, Herman Weisberg, allegedly. misrepresented who he was working for. That in reality, he was working for the. Jackson estate when he approached them. saying that he was just looking to. fairly compensate them. Quote, "Weisberg. convinced the family, including. plaintiffs, that he would be working for. them, not for Jackson's estate. Among. other things, Weisberg said the Jackson. estate was the evil empire, that he. would never work for the estate or its. representatives.". Goes on to say, "Shortly after the. Weisberg introduction, prominent Jackson. estate attorney Brian Friedman told the.

family, including plaintiffs, that the. estate would compensate them for. Jackson's crimes. Although plaintiffs. understood that Freeman represented the. Jackson estate, Freeman convinced. plaintiffs that he was working in their. interests. Unknown to plaintiffs, Weisberg's job was to neutralize the. threat that Leaving Neverland would. trigger public disclosures from other. Jackson victims, including plaintiffs.". And then it goes on to say, "Later on in. 2019, Weisberg told the family that the. estate believed them and was prepared to. compensate them fairly for the suffering. Jackson had caused. Weisberg then showed.

plaintiffs a legal document deceptively. titled acquisition and consulting. agreement. The document That was the. first time they saw the document. On. information and belief, defendants used. that harmless-sounding title to obscure. the unfair and unconscionable nature of. the document so that plaintiffs would. accept and sign the document without. protest. Weisberg did not let plaintiffs. read the document and did not give them. a copy. The estate and its lawyers knew. not only that the statements in the. document that plaintiffs had an. opportunity to consult with counsel, and. that the document was jointly drafted.

were false, but also that the estate and. its lawyers had themselves prevented. plaintiffs from consulting with counsel. and negotiating the terms of the. document, and that the estate presented. it to plaintiffs on a quote take it or. leave it basis. Weisberg told the family vaguely that. the document was a life rights agreement. that would give the Jackson estate the. exclusive rights to plaintiffs'. experiences with Jackson. In fact, buried within the document's legalese. was a purported release of the estate. from liability for Jackson's crimes and. language that prohibited plaintiffs from. reporting Jackson's crimes. It goes on.

to say plaintiffs retained independent. counsel and learned for the first time. that Weisberg worked for the estate. When plaintiffs demanded compensation. proportional to Jackson's crimes and the. harm they caused, Branca and McClain. instructed Weisberg to try to convince. plaintiffs to fire their independent. counsel. Plaintiffs refused. Branca and. the Jackson estate then engaged in a. public blame-the-victim campaign to. intimidate plaintiffs and their counsel. Branca's statements materially breached. the confidentiality and. non-disparagement terms in the document. by disclosing the existence of the.

document and disparaging plaintiffs. On. July 9th, 2025, Branca, McClain, the. estate, and MJC filed a petition to. compel arbitration out in Los Angeles. The petition repeated much of what. Branca had published in the press. The petition was in direct violation of. the terms of the document, which. expressly prohibited defendants from. defaming plaintiffs and from making any. court filing relating to the document. So, that's why you where you get the. breach of contract claim. Now, the. timing of this lawsuit is key, too, because it's our understanding, based on. the reporting that it was filed 1 month.

after these siblings, these plaintiffs, were in LA court. Um, they were trying. to avoid this document, this agreement. And again, they said it was an unlawful. agreement to silence victims of. childhood sexual abuse. That's the. quote. Now, here's the other side. The attorney for Jackson's estate, Marty. Singer, released a statement to People. Called the lawsuit, quote, "A desperate. money grab by additional members of the. family who have hopped on the bandwagon. with their brother Frank, who is already.

being sued in arbitration for civil. extortion. The family staunchly defended. Michael Jackson for more than 25 years, attesting to his innocence of. inappropriate conduct. This new court. filing is a transparent forum shopping. tactic in their scheme to obtain. hundreds of millions of dollars from. Michael's estate and companies.". Now, he also said, "Statements by the uh. Cascios or the Cassios, including those. appearing in dozens of passages. throughout Frank uh Cascio Cascios' 2011. book, as well as in interviews with. Oprah Winfrey and others, directly.

contradict what is being alleged now.". Singer's statement continues, "Throughout the Cascios Cascios. consistently and repeatedly asserted. that Michael never harmed any of them or. anyone else. With the estate's financial. success growing, the family, through two. different attorneys, threatened to go. public with heinous accusations that. completely contradicted their previous. statements defending Michael unless his. estate paid staggering sums of money.". So, you're basically alleging extortion. here, right? And I should tell you also, and this is important, that Michael.

Jackson was never criminally convicted. of child sexual abuse. But, I want to. talk about this now. All right, so. whenever we have a big celebrity case, I. think, "Who might be good for this?" Of. course, litigator Richard Schoenstein is. with us in studio. Good to see you. Thanks for taking the time. Appreciate. it. Initial impressions of this? Uh, well, I just read the complaint, which. you were kind enough to give me. After. reading the reports, it is a very. salacious, very provocative story of. continued abuse, grooming,

rape, and everything that goes along. with that over many years. So, if it's. true, it's shocking. Talk to me about. the timing of it. I I think that's. really interesting, right? So, a lot of. people would and I mentioned this in the. intro, a lot of people say, "Why come. out now?" Well, first, there was the. idea of you know, there's always. complicated factors in terms of alleged. sexual abuse, particularly of children, uh. when they would feel comfortable coming. forward, acknowledging what happened, particularly if you're dealing with a. high-profile individual. But, also, I.

think it was key, if you take the. allegations as true, this coming out. after Finding Neverland, that. docu-series, right? And that other. people experienced, allegedly, what they. experienced. But, also, what's different. about this is the claim that the estate. was allegedly trying to silence them, trying to have them sign an agreement um. several years back. And now, there's. been a back-and-forth about did they. breach the agreement, you know, did. these these representatives from the. estate breach the agreement? Um there's.

now a legal fight going on. What are you. taking away from that? There's a lot of. things playing into the timing of this. I mean, the first of all is there's this. California legislation that provides a. window for adult survivors of abuse to. bring a claim, and I think that window. goes until sometime in 2027. in the latest iteration of that. legislation that was signed last year. So, there's a window for these claims to. be brought. That's number one. Number. two, in my view, there is sort of.

renewed interest in Michael Jackson. There's kind of this Michael Jackson. renaissance going on, which would be a. good time to go after the estate for a. settlement if that was your strategy, because. there's going to be more content coming. out about Michael Jackson, and perhaps. you want to persuade the the estate that. they want to quiet these claims going. into that so they don't have to deal.

with them. I mean, according to the. Daily Mail, since his death, Jackson's. estate has generated $3 billion uh in. revenue. Now, they're they made the. point that this is not about money. This. is about accountability. Um and I'm curious let's start here with. this agreement that they claim is void, that is unenforceable. Do you think they. have an argument there based on their. assertion of the facts, right? It's. their narrative that they didn't know. what they were really signing. They. weren't properly represented. What do.

you make of that? So, I would need to. know a lot more to determine if they. have an argument. First of all, I. haven't seen the agreement. I haven't. seen what it says. Typically, in an. agreement like that, you're going to put. in very specific language that the. people signing it have read it, have. understood it, have had an opportunity. to consult counsel, whether or not they. did consult counsel. I would want to see. all of those things in the agreement. I. would want to know exactly when it was. signed. I would want to know the ages of. each signatory to make sure that they. were adults at the time they were they.

signed them. I want to know the terms of. it, exactly how much money each of them. got in exchange for it. I would have to. parse. all of that. There is a potential claim, but as I read the complaint, the central. complaint about it is. we didn't get a fair amount of money. to settle these claims. Well, also, they. didn't know what they were exactly. signing, right? They didn't know who who. this Weisberg guy was representing. They. didn't They were given, allegedly, a.

false representation of what they were. exactly signing, what the meaning of the. agreement was, and that, you know, kind. of buried in it was this idea that. they're releasing the estate from. liability, and also that they can't talk. about what happened. They thought, I. mean, if you basic They thought that. perhaps what they were signing with the. other party was going to own their. stories and maybe amplify their stories. about what happened under Michael. Jackson. >> The lawyer in me is a little skeptical. of the I didn't know what I was signing. argument. I mean, I've heard that made.

>> understanding correctly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I I've heard that made before in. other cases and I'm always kind of. skeptical of that argument. But I I. would want to know the facts. I mean, I. think it's a it's an issue that can be. litigated in court or maybe in. arbitration. I mean, that's a whole. other issue. The agreement supposedly. requires arbitration. So, you have to decide whether the issue. of the agreement's enforceability would. be decided in court or in arbitration. And if the plaintiffs are saying it is.

void ab initio because it was procured. by fraud, then it should be determined. in court probably. If the plaintiffs are. saying there's some other infirmity or. problem with the agreement, then that. might have to be decided in arbitration. And and and that's one of the things. they want. They want a declaratory. judgment. They want an understanding. that this was fraudulent. Um and you. know, they basically say that uh the. people they're suing breached the. agreement. You know, they're forcing. arbitration. They're creating a blame.

game in the public sphere about what. they were after. They're calling them, you know, extortionists. Um I To me, I I. I. I want to just go back to something. You. think the timing of this, if this is all. true, to get this family to sign this, stay quiet, that's the allegation, because this big biopic is coming out, right? Am I saying it Is it I always. It's biopic, right? But but I think that's I always say. biopic. Biopic. I always get the word. But like that is a key here, right? I. mean, that's supposed to.

uh revitalize maybe Michael Jackson's. career. I think his nephew might be. starring in it. So, you think the timing. of that could be key? So, it's an. interesting question, right? You said. the estate has generated $3 billion. And it's because of that music. The. music is is ubiquitous. The music is. unquestionable. The music prevails over. everything else. So, that's generated. all of this money. But separately, we. have the issue of the persona of Michael. Jackson. And yeah, there's going to be a.

movie. There's going to be when that. movie is out, there's going to be. marketing of his music, right? That's. the way it works. The music The movie. comes out, they repackage the music, they try to sell more music. So, from. the point of view of the estate, the. last thing they want is renewed focus on. his personal. problems, issues. I have to imagine that this estate. doesn't want this to go to trial.

Because talk to me about what Um and. I'll get into the different claims and. the allegations. The allegations are. horrific. >> Right. This would be litigated. There. would be discovery. Would we get an. understanding of what really happened? I. mean, how do you imagine a trial like. this would look? What evidence would. come out to prove that these. individuals, these siblings, were. sexually abused by Michael Jackson? What. would be the evidence? >> If they can get past the settlement. agreement or whatever that agreement. was. >> And if they can keep it in court and get.

past arbitration. One of the reasons the. estate wants it in arbitration is that's. private. We don't see any. >> you explain what that is, arbitration, so people know? Arbitration is a private. dispute mechanism, dispute resolution. mechanism. You hire a private. arbitrator, and you go have a trial, but. you do it in a private conference room. >> And we wouldn't know what anything about. it. No. Court TV, Law & Crime, they. don't cover arbitration. They can't get. in the door. They don't see a. transcript. There's no film of it.

There's generally no reporting of it. Um. it's sometimes governed by. confidentiality orders. So, So, right. It's private. That is one of. the key advantages of arbitration from. the point of view of the defendant. And. And the so if you're the plaintiff in. this matter, you want to get rid of that. arbitration agreement so you can pursue. the claim in court. Okay. >> So, you can go into court publicly and. not only make these allegations against. Michael Jackson, but. Michael Jackson's not here to contradict.

them, right? So, you have. four plaintiffs. uh siblings. who are apparently prepared to testify. that they were groomed and abused over a. series of years. And. you know, you're going to cross-examine. those people, but what is the evidence. you're going to put to disprove it? Uh. it It would be horrific for the estate. I I think if the case got that far, the estate would throw a lot of money at.

it to settle. And the And the fact that. they're going after the people that. manage it manage the estate, the. companies, the side theory of they were. enabling him, covering it up, fraud. I. mean, again, let me just read out to. everybody what all the causes of action. are. And I want to save uh sex. trafficking for for its own analysis, but just again, they're saying. negligence. Negligence So, negligence. like you should have You should have You. had a duty of care to these siblings. And you should have not created an.

environment where Michael Jackson could. have allegedly done this. Negligent. hiring, supervision, retention of. employees, intentional infliction of. emotional distress, breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, rescission. Talk to me And we'll then. we'll get to sex trafficking. But what. do you make of those causes of action? Cuz again, it's really about the idea of. the companies, the the people that were. managing the estate, the the alleged. enablers. So, I think that's helpful. from two perspectives. One is getting to. where the money is because as you say, there's a number of companies that are.

defendants in this action. I don't know. where the money is. I don't know if it's. in the estate or it's in one of the. other companies, but you want to make. sure that you're suing the entity that. has the money. Cuz otherwise, winning is pointless. The. second one is they do want to press this. theory that it's not just Michael. Jackson. and he had problems. It's everybody who. managed him, everybody who enabled him, everybody who ran his fortune was more.

interested in the money, and their. theory is that that continues. to this day, years after his passing. They continue to put his image and his. financial well-being ahead of the people. who were associated with him. And that's. a powerful theory of the case. I think. that's what they want to push. >> Sex trafficking of children by force, fraud, or coercion. Now, we all kind of. had an indirect indirect introductory. course to sex trafficking. We were.

talking about the Diddy case, right? They allege, and I mentioned this. before, that there were aspects of it. that triggered the elements. transporting cross state lines, international lines where this abuse. occurred. There was the showering of. gifts, uh affection, um manipulation, right? Do you think. this fits neatly into a sex trap a civil. sex trafficking claim? I don't think. there's anything neat about a civil sex. trafficking claim. Right? They're They're really hard and.

they're very fact-specific. I As alleged, this is sort of what you. think about in terms of grooming, abuse, and trafficking. Right? The. allegation is he starts. associating with them when they're. children. He's plying them with gifts. He's treating them lavishly. He. interjects alcohol into the proceedings. Xanax, other other substances. And then he begins to abuse them, and.

then he travels them around the world. and continues the abuse. Uh I think the element that's missing, I. didn't see anything about exposing them. to abuse by others. Which is sort of what I think was what. we saw in the Diddy case that came up. about trafficking allegations. I don't. know that there's any of that. This. seems to be only abuse by Jackson, but. there is definitely allegations of. grooming, abuse, trafficking. But again, how do you prove that? So, I was sitting.

in the Harvey Weinstein trial when you. talked about allegations from years ago. before there were iPhones. And. sometimes, uh or maybe before we had the. iPhones that we have today. But, you. know, if you're talking in this, the. '80s, the '90s, the early 2000s, you. don't have text messages. You don't. necessarily have emails. How did did did. did did they prove? Is it Is it some. sort of faxes? Is it travel receipts uh. that, you know, Jackson was with them. and you know, in hotels. I mean, how can. they even prove any of this without Is.

it just their accounts getting on the. stand, telling the story, and that's. enough? >> Well, let's start with the obvious, which our four siblings are going to. support them, right? Right? They're. going to take the stand, they're going. to tell essentially the same story. The. jury is going to sit close and assess. credibility. If the jury believes them, they don't. need any other proof. If the jury. concludes, I don't think four siblings. could come into the court. and credibly tell the same story and. survive cross-examination.

and make me feel the way I feel if they. weren't telling the truth. If that's what the jury thinks at the. end of the presentation, then that's. enough evidence. Now, you can bolster. that if you have receipts, if you have. documents that show travel, you have. whatever, plane tickets, hotel receipts, wherever they traveled, if you can show. I don't think there's any dispute that. they were associated with Michael. Jackson and were at times, I don't know,

part of his entourage or traveled with. him. I'm not sure that's in dispute. So, you can show some of those specifics and. they will have the the burden of. offering testimony that can't be. impeached. You know, if they say, "I was. in this country in this month of this. year with Michael Jackson when he abused. me." and then the defense can show that. Michael Jackson wasn't in that country. that month, right? That's good.

cross-examination. If he if they. previously did not Remember they I. mentioned they came to his defense at. one point in the '90s. Um they didn't. come forward with this. Apparently the. siblings didn't tell their parents what. happened. If they previously denied. this, how much does that hurt their. credibility? Well, it's going to be a. factor. The the defense is going to. make a lot of noise about that, but we. understand. it's 2026. We know that survivors of sexual abuse. don't always tell their full story the.

first opportunity they give them. We. know many survivors of sexual abuse. repress those memories or lie about them. for many years before the truth comes. out. And one could offer expert. testimony to that effect at trial. So, the fact that the stories are changing. and by the way, it's consistent with. their story that they were groomed and. and plied by Michael Jackson that they.

would have supported him in previous. proceedings. That's actually consistent. with the story we're hearing. So, I. don't think that that is impossible to. get around. >> to go back to something else about a. settlement now. So, if this case doesn't. end at the very least for Michael. Jackson's estate and those. representatives with a court dismissing. the action, right? Just dismissing it. If they end up settling this so it. doesn't go to trial, settlements happen. for all different kinds of reasons. You. know, you don't necessarily believe at.

the end of the day that the plaintiff, the defendant, who is responsible. If. there's a settlement, they could say, you know, if if it's a business dispute, you say, "Eh, listen, they didn't want. to go to court. I'm sure each of them. were a little at fault." This is such a. sensitive topic that if the estate. settles for an undisclosed amount, whatever it might be, if this is a PR battle, it do they even have the the ability to. settle at this point of view because. people will look at it and say, "They. they they did something wrong. They. wouldn't have settled otherwise." They. can go to trial. They can fight it. They.

have the money. Well, so first of all, my understanding is there have been. settlements in the past. So, we're we've already crossed the. territory of he was accused of doing. really horrible stuff and settled. disputes. We know that is the truth. And. there's been a substantial amount of. data presented publicly to to to. evidence him. behaving inappropriately and or. criminally. So, I don't know.

if if more of that really changes the. narrative that much. Um. if the estate can settle, it probably. should. I mean, at some point you have. to ask yourself, Jesse, if your two. options are. settle a claim and have it look publicly. like you're buying off victims, or go to trial and let those victims. testify publicly. >> Yeah. Like, there's not a good choice. Yeah. I. I hear you. Um you know, it's.

interesting, this I think Thursday. there's a follow-up hearing regarding. this dispute over the contract. So, I'm. curious to see what'll happen then. I. mean, I know they were in court about a. month ago fi- fighting about it. What. should we expect there? Well, I think so. these kind of battles are really. important. So I say all the time you. hear me say all the time so much happens. in these cases before you ever get to a. trial. And. these proceedings was that agreement is. that agreement enforceable?

Are they required to go to arbitration? The whole case could be dismissed. because they have to go to arbitration. Those are game-changing decisions in. that litigation. Those those really will set the path for. what happens next because. going to an arbitration to decide. whether or not this previous settlement. agreement is enforceable, that is a lot. less inflammatory than going to a public. jury trial in California to find out if.

there was sex trafficking. >> It's a good point. It's a good point. All right, we'll see which way it goes. Thanks so much for coming on. Appreciate. it. Thank you. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody thank you so. much for joining us and as always please. subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get your podcast. We're also up on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me X, Instagram, my NewsNation show Jesse Weber Live. Monday through Friday 11:00 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time. everybody.