Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Ivy, if judge allows this case to go forward, what stops other people with suppressed, compressed or repressed memory to put in claims years to come?. All of them can claim the same as Wade that somehow MJ made them to forget their memories that they were molested for years, but now those memories are coming out and they need money. There are definitely lots of loonies out there that when their money runs out, they need to dip in bank of Michael Jackson.
nothing. I believe Pearl also mentioned Estate lawyers stating if allowed this would set a precedent. we discussed this before a little, yes there are civil lawsuits filed against living defendants based on repressed memories but I couldn't find any case brought against a deceases person or their estate. so you are right, there needs to be a limit. the court needs to say either you cannot bring an abuse claim against a person after they die or any claims against Estate should be brought in within a year and that's it. Otherwise if you go with wade's lawyers logic of "well he remembered it when he remembered it", 10 - 20 yrs can go by before someone says "oh wait a minute I just remembered". there would be no end to it (almost).
I believed that she said that I just didn't know if she understood that well. We still cannot be sure of course, but in this video she seems adamant that Gradstein said compressed memory (she even points out it was not repressed but compressed) and apparently it was something he based his argument on re. statues of limitations - eg. "he remembered when he remembered". If so this seems extremely desperate.
I don't know if the term "compressed memory" even exists in psychological literature, it seems to be an informatics/computer term. So maybe it's Gradstein being "creative". They do not want to say repressed memory because Robson already said publicly it wasn't that but they try to claim something similar. The memory was not repressed, it was there, but it was "compressed" - whaterver the eff that means. LOL.
I have been thinking about this for a while actually. I also checked the complaint again and he does mention compartmentalizing the memory. so let me explain myself with an example
my parents took me to a zoo when I was 3 yrs old. If you ask me now I have absolutely no memory of it. if let's say in the future suddenly an event (let's say a visit to a zoo) made me remember the zoo visit, that's a repressed memory. Does it make sense? An event happens, you don't remember about it at all and then it comes back to you.
my parents took me to ride horses when I was 3 years old. I remember it but it's not a memory that's actively in my mind. I can go years without thinking about it. But when I think about childhood memories or horses, I can recall that memory from the depths of my mind. Is this a compressed memory? Something I know/ remember, something I never forgot but not something that I actively think about?
Regardless of definitions, I feel they have been arguing some type of repressed, compressed, suppressed memory in their complaint without calling it that.
They are after Branca because if they get him admit he was aware of MJ molesting people from left and right, Branca, as executor should have sent notice of to WR, and that is the reason they want court docs from older case, just to see if there is something about Branca knowing molestation.
If there is something that they can work on, then judge can allow this go ahead as late claim because Branca was aware, but didn't notify WR, thus late claim.
Does that make any sense to you guys?
yes it makes sense. they have already argued Estate didn't give Wade any notice and Estate counter argued there was no reason to give him a notice. They could be trying to justify that Estate should have given them notice hence overcome that statue of limitations issue.
So if both MJ and his companies would be dismissed as defendants that would mean Robson would have no one to sue, at least in the lawsuit. I guess that would mean a dismissal of the lawsuit, unless they could substitute the formerly named Defendants with someone else - eg. the Estate, John Branca, Howard Weitzman, anyone. (And why doesn't he claim his mother knew? If what he claims was true Joy Robson would have more reasons to know about it than anyone else.) I think that's why they are so desperate to try to get them "admit" they knew something but they are fools if they think that will happen.
(The dismissal of the lawsuit would not mean though that the case is over as the creditor's claim is still going on and I think a decision is expected in February 2015 about that. If it's dismissed then I think the case is over - well, besides appeals. But if the creditor's claim is approved by the Judge then the Estate can say that they dispute the claim and that is when Robson can sue the Estate, I believe. Right now he cannot. Only MJ, his companies and whatever crap he is trying now.)
I think they are trying this from all aspects. MJ, companies and Estate. I think the Estate documents made it very clear that Wade wants to add Estate to the lawsuit but for that he needs to win his late claim request in the probate court. Estate will deny the claim (they already said so) and Wade will add Estate to the civil trial. I think everyone knows MJ will be dismissed. I can't see any court maintaining jurisdiction over a deceased person. They simply cannot.
No, there was no final distribution of the Estate yet, that is why they could file a creditor's claim. Once the final distribution happens no more creditor's claim can be filed. Pearl also reported that this was another argument of the Estate lawyers: that there is a reason for statues of limitations and that is that after statues pass the Estate can close (ie. the final distribution can happen). But if this is allowed to go on then the Estate cannot close and it can go on and on and on forever as long as someone thinks its a good idea to make money by filing a creditor's claim against the Estate even though the statues have passed. MJ is dead for almost 5 years, all statues passed, the Estate needs to close already - apparently this was one argument the Estate lawyers made.
yes but regardless of the claims Estate will probably go on for a little while longer. It's not just about the claims/lawsuits against Estate - yes those keep probate going on as well- but there's also the requirement of paying all the debts and IRS dispute. There have been big Estate's that were in probate 10-20 yrs or even longer.
I think there will be a decision about the Estate demurrers on October 1 and there will be a couple of hearings in November too.
I think the hearing is on October 1st. Unless the judge already has a tentative, decision might take some time.
ps: Weitzman cannot be a defendant. He was a lawyer for MJ and now a lawyer for Estate. He isn't a representative of Estate. He works for Estate.
