Law&Crime Sidebar - Michael Jackson Accused of Sex Trafficking Kids in Bombshell Lawsuit

Episode Date: March 2, 2026

In a brand new bombshell lawsuit, four siblings, now adults, claim Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children and that his estate is trying to silence them. The suit alleges Jackson "groomed and brainwashed" them, and labels his companies and estate co-executors “enablers.” Litigator Richard Schoenstein joins Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber to discuss the claims, the impact of their previous denials, and the fight to invalidate a confidentiality agreement.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Grow your own audience today – go to https://www.opus.pro/sidebar for 1 week free plus 50% off the first 3 months of Opus Pro. HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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 allege 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 stars estate right now. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and 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, OpusClip generates B-roll, reframes footage, and it even cleans up audio. It is so easy. You just visit Opus.p.pro slash sidebar. You sign up, you upload, and in minutes, you will have perfectly edited clips ready to go. For TikTok, shorts, reels, Opus Clip is your 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 slash 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, Marina Cole, and Aldo Cassio or Casillo alleged that 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 plaintiff's family home.

And they claim that, again, this abuse happened for years. They described 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 because 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 a sign 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 that the alleged enablers, they had a duty to protect these siblings and they failed. 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 an 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 Branca, who is a co-administrator of the estate of Michael Jackson, co-trustee of the Michael Jackson Family Trust. You also have John McLean as co-administrator of the estate and co-trustee of the Michael Jackson family, MJJ Productions LLC, MJJ Ventures LLC, Herman Weissburg will talk about him, and Doe's 1 through 20. Now, the family reportedly first connected with Jackson when the sibling's 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 sibling's 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 and 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, 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, 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 was just like an extension of that.

And so I was like, okay, I love you too. And that was how he hooked me in. Although 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 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 me. I was scared for my own life.

It says the last time he spoke with Michael Jackson was three days before Jackson died. He claims the singer turned the conversation sexual. Marie Nicole claimed 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. Now 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 how those siblings revealed that they were allegedly abused to. And here's the case. This is about the contract. So the siblings claim that in 2019, the Jackson estate had pressured them into some of the same. And to say, 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. 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, Wiseberg's job was to

neutralize the threat that leaving Neverland would trigger public disclosures from other Jackson victims including plaintiffs. And then he goes on to say later on in 2019, Wiseberg 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 unconsorable 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 plaintiff's 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. 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 McLean instructed Weisberg to try to convince plaintiffs to fire their independent counsel. Plaintiffs refused. Bronca and the Jackson State then engaged in a public blame the victim campaign to intimidate plaintiffs and their counsel.

Bronca'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 9, 2025, Branca McLean, 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 documents. So that's why you're 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 one month after these siblings. These plaintiffs were in L.A. court.

They were trying to void 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 Casios or the Casios, including those appearing in dozens of passages throughout Frank Cascio Cascio's 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 Cassio's Casios 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 accusation. 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? 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 think that's really interesting, right? So a lot of people 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, 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 several years back. And now there's been a back and forth about did they breach the agreement, you know, did these representatives from the estate breach the agreement? 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 a,

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. 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

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 in revenue. Now, they made the point that this is not about money, this is about accountability. 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'd 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 the 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 signator to make sure that they were adults at the time they were 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 this Weisberg guy was representing. They were given allegedly a false representation of what they were exactly sending, 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 base it, they thought that perhaps what they were signing, 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. If I'm understanding correctly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've heard that made before in other cases, and I'm always kind of skeptical of that argument. But I would want to know the facts. I mean, I think it's an issue that can be litigated in court or maybe an arbitration.

I mean, that's a whole other issue. The agreement supposedly requires arbitration. So you have to decide whether the issue of the agreements 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, 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 that's one of the things they want. They want a declaratory judgment.

They want an understanding that this was fraudulent. And, you know, they basically say that the people they're suing breach 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. To me, 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 up, right?

Am I saying it's biopic, right? Biopic. But I think that's it. Biopic. Biopic. I always get the word. But like, that is a key here, right? I mean, that's supposed to 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 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 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, and I'll get into the different claims in 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 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 the evidence. Yeah, can 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 anything about it.

No. Court TV, law and 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. It's sometimes governed by confidentiality orders. So, right, it's private.

That is one of the key advantages of arbitration from the point of view of the defendant. And 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, 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?

It would be horrific for the estate. I think if the case got that far, the estate would throw a lot of money at it to settle. And the fact that they're going after the people that 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 sex trafficking for its own analysis. But just again, they're saying negligence. So negligence, like, 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 then we'll get to sex trafficking. But what do you make of those causes of action? Because again, it's really about the idea of the companies, the people that were managing the state, 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 because 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 introductory course to sex trafficking. We were talking about the Ditty case, right? They allege, and I mentioned this before, that there were aspects of it that triggered the elements, transporting across state lines, international lines, where this abuse occurred.

There was the showering of gifts, affection, manipulation, right? Do you think this fits neatly into a civil sex trafficking claim? I don't think there's anything neat about a sex trafficking claim. I don't think there's anything neat about a civil sex trafficking claim. It's fair. Right? They're really hard and they're very fact-specific. As alleged, this is sort of what you think about in terms of grooming abuse and trafficking.

The allegation is he starts associating with them when they're children. He is plying them with gifts. He is treating them lavishly. He interjects alcohol into the proceedings. Xanax, other substances. And then he begins to abuse them. And then he travels them around the world and continues the abuse.

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 on the Diddy case that came up about trafficking allegations. I don't know that there's any of that This seems to be only abused 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, or before we have 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 they prove? Is it some sort of faxes? Is it travel receipts 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 the numbers.

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 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 burden of offering testimony that can't be impeached. 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, 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 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. 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 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. I want to go back to something else about a settlement now.

So if this case doesn't end, at the very least, from 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 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 it's a business dispute, you say, hey, listen, they didn't want to go to court. I'm sure each of them were a little of 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, do they even have the ability to settle at this point of view? Because people will look at it and say, 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've already crossed the territory of he was accused to 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 evidence him behaving inappropriately and or criminally. So I don't know if more of that really changes the narrative that much. 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.

There's not a good choice. Yeah, I hear you. 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 will happen then. I mean, I know they were in court about a month ago fighting about it. What should we expect there? Well, so these kind of battles are really important.

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 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. That'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 Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. We're also up on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, X Instagram, My News Nation Show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time, everybody.