Latest on MJJC

[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

8701 I guess Diamond is happy to have something like this to talk about again. I mean this story is quiet, so why was she on your tv talking about this?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Maybe she was celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Chandler allegations, which gave her a career. On August 17, 1993 the Chandlers made their allegations.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
Maybe she was celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Chandler allegations, which gave her a career. On August 17, 1993 the Chandlers made their allegations.
Click to expand...

^^This is so funny, even though the allegations is nothing to laugh about. She may see that situation as the high point of her career.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Petrarose said:
8701 I guess Diamond is happy to have something like this to talk about again. I mean this story is quiet, so why was she on your tv talking about this?
Click to expand...

I think she was talking bout this & the aeg trial

Our local morning tv show had her on it to talk bout it but i didnt watch it cuz i didnt wanna see her lyin face .
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Petrarose said:
^^This is so funny, even though the allegations is nothing to laugh about. She may see that situation as the high point of her career.
Click to expand...

She thinks she queen b in the media field sad thing is they all laughing behind her back lol
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Diane is simply trying to boost her dead career. What for? I don't even know. The media is really stupid for letting some journalist wannabe on their show/in their magazine or whatever. She always seems to claim Michael's a pedophile, and the media agrees like sheep. Maybe the fact that she helped Tom Sneddon falsify info and the fact she BOUGHT people to lie on Michael in 1993 and 2005 magically slipped their minds. Society is jacked up, I'm trying to tell ya.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

michaeljacksonsprincess said:
Diane is simply trying to boost her dead career. What for? I don't even know. The media is really stupid for letting some journalist wannabe on their show/in their magazine or whatever. She always seems to claim Michael's a pedophile, and the media agrees like sheep. Maybe the fact that she helped Tom Sneddon falsify info and the fact she BOUGHT people to lie on Michael in 1993 and 2005 magically slipped their minds. Society is jacked up, I'm trying to tell ya.
Click to expand...


Oh it didnt magically skipped thier minds, they know but they dont wanna admit it
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

8701girl said:
Oh it didnt magically skipped thier minds, they know but they dont wanna admit it
Click to expand...

They won't admit it because they know that people will stop believing their crap once and for all. All those lies Dimond made up about Michael, and us too, she'll be sorry, very soon. Trust me.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

i didnt followed that bullshit story. so is there any news in the last 4 weeks?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

8701girl said:
Diane dimond was on tv this morning i think spelling out rubbish bout mj child abuse allegations...ugh she makes me sick
Click to expand...

In Australia? because she sure as heck is not on in America
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

About Dimond, what reason does she give to explain why the jury found him not guilty on ALL the counts?

Maybe she will be in court for Wade's circus.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

michaeljacksonsprincess said:
They won't admit it because they know that people will stop believing their crap once and for all. All those lies Dimond made up about Michael, and us too, she'll be sorry, very soon. Trust me.
Click to expand...

Excatly!
 
respect77;3888277 said:
besides California law changed since 1993 and now they could not pull what the Chandlers did in 1993 because according to the new law you cannot bring a civil trial ahead of a criminal now, you have to go through a criminal first.
Click to expand...

That was also my understanding before till recently I re-read this passage from Larry Feldman's testimony on 1st April 2005. According to what Mez is asking him the law remained the same in that aspect as in 1993:

20 A. You know what? I don’t know. I’m guessing.
21 Show me the letters and maybe it will refresh my
22 memory. I remember there was letters to Mark
23 Geragos, and that’s what was significant to me.
24 What was in them, I can’t remember, unless you show
25 me the letters.
26 Q. Do you recall at some point during your
27 relationship with Prosecutor Sneddon, Mr. Sneddon
28 spoke to the media and said, “If they’re going to 4534


1 sue, I hope they don’t do it until after the
2 criminal case is done”?
3 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to the
4 word “relationship.”
5 THE WITNESS: I don’t even remember it
6 happening.
7 THE COURT: Just a moment.
8 You’re asking him what Mr. Sneddon said, if
9 he --
10 MR. MESEREAU: If he was aware of it.
11 THE COURT: That’s not how you phrased it.
12 MR. SNEDDON: No.
13 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
 
smoothlugar;3893488 said:
That was also my understanding before till recently I re-read this passage from Larry Feldman's testimony on 1st April 2005. According to what Mez is asking him the law remained the same in that aspect as in 1993:

20 A. You know what? I don’t know. I’m guessing.
21 Show me the letters and maybe it will refresh my
22 memory. I remember there was letters to Mark
23 Geragos, and that’s what was significant to me.
24 What was in them, I can’t remember, unless you show
25 me the letters.
26 Q. Do you recall at some point during your
27 relationship with Prosecutor Sneddon, Mr. Sneddon
28 spoke to the media and said, “If they’re going to 4534


1 sue, I hope they don’t do it until after the
2 criminal case is done”?
3 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to the
4 word “relationship.”
5 THE WITNESS: I don’t even remember it
6 happening.
7 THE COURT: Just a moment.
8 You’re asking him what Mr. Sneddon said, if
9 he --
10 MR. MESEREAU: If he was aware of it.
11 THE COURT: That’s not how you phrased it.
12 MR. SNEDDON: No.
13 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Click to expand...

I don't think it means that.

Prosecutor says law won't allow Jackson to pay off accuser before trial

By Linda Deutch, Associated Press, 11/20/2003


LOS ANGELES -- The prosecutor in the Michael Jackson case praised a law that can halt civil lawsuits during related criminal cases, saying it would prevent a scenario where the singer's accuser accepted a settlement and then refused to testify in the criminal trial.

The state law was passed because another child backed out of a 1993 molestation case against Jackson after the singer reportedly paid him a multimillion settlement, Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon said.


"It is an irony. The history of the law is that the L.A. district attorney's office carried the legislation as a direct result of the civil settlement in the first investigation," Sneddon told The Associated Press in an interview.


Sneddon had baffled legal experts Wednesday when he seemed to imply at a nationally televised news conference that the new law lets prosecutors force minors to testify.
"The law in California at that time provided that a child victim could not be forced to testify in a child molest proceeding without their permission and consent and cooperation," Sneddon had said. "As a result of the (first) Michael Jackson case, the Legislature changed that law, and that is no longer the law in California."


But Sneddon later told the AP he was referring to a change that lets prosecutors intervene in a civil action, removing the monetary incentive for someone to wait for the outcome of a civil case before deciding whether to testify in a criminal trial.


"The practical effect is that they cooperate" with prosecutors in the criminal case, he said.

Sneddon said he was aware that children cannot be forced to testify, and that reporters and other attorneys had misinterpreted his remarks at the news conference.

Loyola University Law Professor Laurie Levenson said she was fielding calls all day from members of the legal community and other professionals who deal with molestation victims who were baffled by the district attorney's comments.


"I think he misspoke and he was confusing," Levenson said. "In a case of this magnitude with this much media attention, there is a responsibility to be more precise."

"This could affect other potential victims who wonder if they come forward will they be forced to testify. It is a bad message and it's not a good first impression. ... Everyone interpreted him as saying he could now force witnesses to testify. It was a disservice in that what he said may be scaring off other victims."
Sneddon's mention of compelling testimony was especially puzzling, legal experts said, because he also stated that the child now making allegations against Jackson is willing to testify and has no plans to bring a civil suit.
Click to expand...

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/20/jackson_case.htm

Based on this, they could have sued before the criminal, but their lawsuit would have been halted until the criminal process was over. So the two things do not necessarily contradict each other.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
I don't think it means that.



http://www.boston.com/news/daily/20/jackson_case.htm

Based on this, they could have sued before the criminal, but their lawsuit would have been halted until the criminal process was over. So the two things do not necessarily contradict each other.
Click to expand...

Firstly, thanks for replying, Respect!

I think you agree then with what I was saying.:)

About what the article you quoted says about "removing the monetary incentive for someone to wait for the outcome of a civil case before deciding whether to testify in a criminal trial", I personally see it better explained in this other article below:

In an follow-up interview shortly after his press conference, Sneddon told Deutsch and Molloy he was referring to another law. That statute regulates only civil settlements, forbidding payments to an alleged victim more than one year after the settlement is reached. In other words, no long-term hush money. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/03/entertainment/et-rutten3
Click to expand...
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This is what I wrote:

besides California law changed since 1993 and now they could not pull what the Chandlers did in 1993 because according to the new law you cannot bring a civil trial ahead of a criminal now, you have to go through a criminal first.
Click to expand...

And reading what you posted no, I don't think what you quoted from Feldman's testimony means civil trial can be held before the criminal is completed. It just means Feldman (according to Mez) hoped that the Arvizos would not file a civil lawsuit before the criminal case is completed - obviously because that would look bad. That's all I see there, not any claim that the civil trial can be held before the criminal. Filing a lawsuit is different than holding a civil trial. They maybe could have filed the suit but I don't think the civil trial could have been held before the criminal. Unlike in the Chandler case where it was set before the criminal. That was wrong already back then, as in many precedent cases before that there were rulings against such situations.

As for the other articles, the thing that those articles criticized in what Sneddon said was that he said that alleged victims can be forced to testify which is apparently not true. That's a different issue to whether a civil trial can be held before a criminal. And what you quote in your above post about forbidding payments is yet another issue IMO.
 
You might be right, and Sneddon (according to Mez) in that passage just simply hoped the Arvizos would not file a civil suit only after the criminal case because that would look bad.

Yet, the reason given in the article you posted to support that “the new law can halt civil lawsuits during related criminal cases” is not very clear at least to me (“removing the monetary incentive for someone to wait for the outcome of a civil case...”). That's why I quoted that other part of the forbidding payments, which I agree is another complete different issue and has nothing to do with whether or not the changes in the law allowed the Arvizos to sue before or after the criminal trial as it was in 1993, but at least IMO is clearer and explains one of the changes in the law.

Anyway, if prosecutors and lawyers can interpret the law wrongly (as appears in both articles), just imagine the rest of us (media included).
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^Smoothlugar maybe you will find Aphrodite Jones book helpful.

Respect I am glad you went over that, because some fans might not be aware of the importance of that change or maybe not even aware of it. At the same time, maybe some fans should read the Hughes book to see what motions influenced the settlement.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Petrarose said:
^^Smoothlugar maybe you will find Aphrodite Jones book helpful.

Respect I am glad you went over that, because some fans might not be aware of the importance of that change or maybe not even aware of it. At the same time, maybe some fans should read the Hughes book to see what motions influenced the settlement.
Click to expand...

Yes. But next time we can communicate with Mez I think we should ask him about this to clarify this law change. He probably knows the answer.

IMO the Arvizos clearly wanted money and wanted to sue, that's why they went to Feldman first. Why not to the police if the allegations are true? Probably Feldman advised them about the law change and about how it would look bad if they sued first so they didn't. And during the criminal trial they were exposed and beaten so much that they probably knew they would not have much chance in a civil trial either, so they did not sue then. I also think the prosecution advised them not to, because they too knew it would look bad. Until this day Zonen uses this argument for the Arvizos that they never sued so it was not about money. Only he forgets to add how they went to Feldman first and how they also asked for victims compensation right away. So they probably did get money, only not from Michael. And given the fact the Arvizos are so chummy with Zonen now, I suspect (although I cannot prove this) that some way they got some payment from the prosecution. Maybe as "victims compensation" maybe in other ways. But I think the prosecution did talk them out of suing some way because they knew how that would look.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Petrarose said:
^^Smoothlugar maybe you will find Aphrodite Jones book helpful.
Click to expand...
Petrarose, I am very familiar with that book and can tell you that it doesn't say anything related to whether the law changed in the aspect we are currently discussing. As I said initially, my understanding was what Respect wrote, that the law in 2005 was different and the criminal trial should precede the civil one in cases of child abuse, but after doing some sort of research I've not been able to find a reliable source that states that, hence my doubt.

But of course, the Arvizos wanted money in the first place and that's why resorted to Feldman and this one to the same psychologist he used for the Chandlers to interview the Arvizos. That's not under discussion.

I would be thankful if this could be clarified, as Respect suggests.

respect77 said:
Yes. But next time we can communicate with Mez I think we should ask him about this to clarify this law change. He probably knows the answer.

IMO the Arvizos clearly wanted money and wanted to sue, that's why they went to Feldman first. .
Click to expand...
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Does anyone have any idea when the next hearing is? All this waiting is just killing me.
 
respect77;3893691 said:
Probably Feldman advised them about the law change and about how it would look bad if they sued first so they didn't.
Click to expand...

Maybe, or as Mez insisted on the cross and Aphrodite well summarised in her book it was just a way of saving time and legal work cost:

4529
1 Q. On similar alleged facts. And let’s assume
2 the process you’ve just identified, where you walk
3 into civil court, you follow rules, and you
4 essentially establish to a civil court judge that
5 liability exists.
6 If that were to happen, whoever the civil
7 lawyer was representing the Arvizos would have
8 avoided costs of investigation, experts,
9 depositions, filing fees, messenger fees, all sorts
10 of legal fees, right?


5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But if you were to gauge
6 your legal fees at hours, sir, and you didn’t have
7 to prove liability, you would save a tremendous
8 amount in legal fees, wouldn’t you?
(...)
13 Q. If you had to try a civil case on liability,
14 Mr. Feldman, it could go months, couldn’t it?
15 A. Sure.
16 Q. If you have a judgment of felony conviction
17 in a criminal case and you walk into civil court and
18 establish it, you don’t have a trial in civil court
19 for months on liability, correct?
20 A. You have to --
21 Q. Yes or no? (4532)

11 Q. In other words, if you could avoid the
12 liability phase of a civil case, you wouldn’t save
13 some time in legal fees?
14 A. Of course you would save some time, and you
15 would save some money. We’re just talking about how
16 much. You keep saying it’s -- there’s -- it would (4533)
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ I think we will have to ask a legal expert about this. These extracts do not really answer the question.

It's interesting though because if it's less costly for the accuser to have the criminal before the civil then it makes it even more questionable why the Chandlers were pushing for the civil trial so much.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
^ I think we will have to ask a legal expert about this. These extracts do not really answer the question.

It's interesting though because if it's less costly for the accuser to have the criminal before the civil then it makes it even more questionable why the Chandlers were pushing for the civil trial so much.
Click to expand...

Respect Ivy already posted the part of the law for us, most recently in the Trial thread without any layperson's interpretation. It came up for some reason or other as things do.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Petrarose said:
Respect Ivy already posted the part of the law for us, most recently in the Trial thread without any layperson's interpretation. It came up for some reason or other as things do.
Click to expand...

Can you direct us to it or repost it here?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
Can you direct us to it or repost it here?
Click to expand...

Actually I started already, but the problem is that there are several pages in these threads. Every time I have to go back and search for information in threads, I take a drink first.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

FYI: A final status meeting in the Wade Robson case will be September 27th; the judge will then decide if it can proceed as a late claim.

The legal evidence that this claim was filed much too late to proceed is overwhelming, yet it is Michael Jackson we are talking about so nobody should be shocked if the judge still decides to approve it for trial. To do so, of course, the judge will have to buy into Wade's argument that he had no knowledge that anyone was administrating Michael's estate from the time he died until March 4, 2013 (despite Wade working with the estate's counsel on the Opus project etc). The judge will also have to buy into the claim that Wade was 100% unaware that he was sexually molested until May 8, 2012, a year prior to filing the suit.

If the case is tossed, be assured that Wade will begin a media crusade by selling stories to tabloids and talk shows for as long as the media will buy them (with Diane Dimond and the other usual MJ obsessors being first to get exclusive interviews with him). That will be Wade's sole source of income going forward--that and any "charities" he may throw together to support other "victims". By having the case dismissed, it will also allow the media and reports to claim it was only dismissed due to a "technicality" and not necessarily because Wade's case was unfounded and disproved.

(Speaking of Wade's "nonprofit" initiatives, the alleged organization he was starting for which he bought a $10 domain for two months ago, has yet to get a website or even an official $30 legal filing in California to make it even vaguely legitimate.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top