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

[Gold Pants Girl]

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

But why are both claims allowed to coexist? Shouldn't he have to wait for the probate judge to grant the claim and for the Estate to deny it? These are running parallel when they can only happen under certain circumstances and the probate claim has to fail for the civil claim to go forward?

 

[HIStory]

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

I'm personally a lot more interested in Wade's interest in that information. Is this a fishing expedition or is there something he wants to have on court record?

It is not just the Neverland search material but all testimonies, depositions from the 2005 trial and from the 1993 case. So, for example, I think this allows them to use Blanca Francia's testimony in their favour, among others. (But I guess it would also allow the Estate to use Wade's own testimony then.) In their Motion to Compel their argument is that they need this material to show MJ had a "modus operandi" that "serial pedophiles" have. My guess is that they will use former allegations (Chandler, Arvizo) to try to portray MJ as a serial pedophile (even though MJ was aquitted in one case and the other was settled with MJ not admitting guilt). As for the NL search my guess is that they will use things like MJ's porn magazines to say it was MJ's "modus operandi" to show children porn magazines because both Robson and Safechuck claim that. Of course, this argument would be totally fallacious, because we all know that Robson was shown that material in court and he knew about them because of the 2005 trial so for him to claim such a thing in the hindsight does not prove anything about MJ's supposed "modus operandi". It just proves that Robson and Safechuck incorporated elements of the 2005 allegations into theirs. (Funny, that before the Arvizo kids broke into MJ's room and found his porn stash, no one ever claimed that MJ showed porn to kids. But since people know he had such material it is suddenly his "modus operandi".)

In their Motion to Compell they write this:

But they do not say what it is exactly that "undoubtedly" would be of great assistance to Robson in supporting his claims against MJ and his two companies. There was nothing found there about linking MJ's companies to abuse and there was nothing found that proved MJ molested children. All material found there is public record. So it seems like a fishing expedition to me. My suspicion is that they want to bring this in at this point for inflammatory reasons and for the salacious headlines it may generate. They know that things like porn, graphic pornographic images can inflame people (be it a conservative Judge or the public), so IMO that's why they are trying to bring this in now. I see no other reason at this point. I'm glad at least there will be a protective order so they may not be able to use it to generate salacious headlines, but like with the graphic details of Robson's allegations I'm not convinced they will not find a way to get it out their mouthpiece Radar Online in some way. Yes, there is nothing new and nothing that is incriminating but you know how easy it is to manipulate the public with salacious things such as porn.

And to be honest it feels premature to me. If the Judge agrees with the Estate's Demurrers then the civil case is as good as over, isn't it? But I guess he wants to cover his grounds in case there is an appeal and does not want them to say that they weren't given a chance at discovery etc. But it's still odd. They say it's "critical" to their case to have access to this material. So they hope that the material found at NL in 2003 will prove that MJ molested Wade? Ugh, OK. If there had been anything proving that among that material it would have been used in 2005. Everything that was found there is public record and there is nothing that proves MJ molested anyone. To be honest, the fact that they call this "critical" for their case IMO shows that their case weak and they have nothing.

And BTW, they say the evidence they hope to find there would support and substantiate Robson's claims against MJ and his two companies for childhood sexual abuse pursuant to CCP 340.1.

But 340.1 is about the statues of limitations. So what exactly do they hope to find there that would support them to get around statues? How anything that was found there would effect Wade's ability to file before 2013? I don't get it. I do not think they don't know what was found in 2003. It's public record. They must know that there is nothing there that would help them get around statues. But they tell the Judge they hope to find such evidence there? IMO they know nothing is there for them in that regard. They just want to bring in the salacious material (none of which was criminal) to try to prejudice the Judge IMO.

 

[passy001]

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

this I can explain.

Wade filed a civil lawsuit suing MJ and his companies. He also wants to sue Estate. Any claims against Estate has to be brought up in probate court. So he filed a claim against Estate in probate court. He was late so now he needs to convince the judge to allow a late probate claim against Estate. So that's why it's in two separate parts.

Wade hopes probate court would allow a late claim. For any claim against an Estate, Estate has 2 main choices : accept or deny. Estate has already said they would deny it (if the court allows the late claim). When an Estate denies any claim, the other party can file a civil lawsuit.

In short Wade is trying to sue MJ, his companies and Estate in civil court. However in order to file a civil lawsuit against Estate, he needs to go through probate claim process. So it's a technical issue.

So, his real target is the estate. it's not so much about MJ and his companies as such. The MJ and companies stuff is just some smoke screen just to keep their option open while the probate process is ongoing. this also allows wade and his gang to pit two courts against each other for the same issues.

anyways, the probate judge seems to be sympathetic towards those who file late claims. he's done this before with DeMann, even allowing him to amend his complain up to 4 - 5 times. In that respect his ruling is not so surprising after all.

for the executors however, this judge could be problematic because his penchant for allowing late claims raises a lot of uncertainty about the future of the estate. More so as the executors will never know what will hit them tomorrow.

same goes for the beneficiaries, their stakes in the estate is in constant jeopardy.

overall this kinda defeats the purpose of the statute of limitation since the estate will always be in probate due to late claims creeping in all the time.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

Real victims would say that they lied under oath because of shame and embarrassment. But Wade is claiming that he lied under oath because MJ brainwashed him so much to the point that he was psychologically and emotionally unwilling and unable to see or understand that what had happened to him was wrong or was sexual abuse.

 

[Soundmind]

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

I ve never heard of victims who took the stand to defend their abuser. Enlignten us, where did you read about those who lied under oath ?
What exactly your point?

 

[dannyboy72]

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

I ve never heard of victims who took the stand to defend their abuser. Enligntwn us, where did you read about those who lied under oath ?
What exactly your point?

I think you misunderstood what I said. I said if a real victim took the stand and lied under oath about being molested, he or she would say they lied because of shame and embarrassment.

 

[HIStory]

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

And BTW, this reeks of hater arguments. When you go to MJ Facts or other hater websites they usually put big emphasis on the books and magazines found in the search. They hardly discuss the factual parts of the cases in detail, but they go on and on and on about the art books and porn mags found. There was nothing criminal found - ie. no child porn - but they try to twist that material into something perverted, because that's all they have and because they know it's salacious things that people mainly pay attention to. That Robson says this is "critical" to their case echos those hater websites and their arguments to me. I'm pretty sure MJ Facts is a source material for them. But it may come back and bite them because MJ facts is a manipulative, carefully cherry-picked website that does not put anything in its full context and does not tell the full story.

 

[Soundmind]

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

90 % of people watch porn, what does exactly that prove? Mj married twice, did he ever claim he was asexual and had no interest in sex? Never, did he say people should not watch porn while he was watching? Never. So what really does that prove? Like you said, he will use the neverland five stories , Francia, June and Arvisoz statements to make the judge more comfortable in bending the laws and setting a precedent to make sure MJ is tried again, this time in a civil court with much less ammunition to defend himself.
The judge is more desperate than them to get this case to trial.

 

[HIStory]

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

I would not yet say the Judge is biased for Robson. This decision might have to do with the fact he wants to cover his grounds - ie. does not want Robson to say in their appeal that they weren't even allowed discovery when that discovery would have helped them get around statues. I personally do not see what they can find in that NL search material that would get them around statues (which is the issue at the moment). Nor do I see how bringing in earlier testimonies and depositions would help them get around statues. I mean let's say they bring in Blanca Francia's claim that she saw MJ shower with Robson. But that is something to discuss at a trial and for a jury to decide whether they believe it or not. It does nothing for Robson to get him around statues and demurrers. So that's why I do not get what they are trying to achieve with this at this point and that's why I suspect it's more to try to prejudice the Judge and inflame the public and try MJ in the court of public opinion before it's even decided whether it can go to court.

I don't think the Judge knows the content of that material found in NL and he just goes by what Robson is telling him in his motion - ie. that they would "undoubtedly" discover material there that would assist their case. So he gives them the chance to present that alleged evidence. But I don't know what evidence from the NL search or earlier testimonies, depositions could get them around the statues and demurrers. I just don't see it.

 

[Bubs]

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

Soon I'll have some updates but for time being

September 16 court denied Estate's motion to quash 76 subpoenas served at Santa Barbara District attorney and sheriff department. So Robson will be getting the 2003 Neverland search report.

Edited to add

Court records shows Estate's replies to Robson's oppositions to the demurrer requests in the civil case (dismissal of MJ and corporate defendants). I'm waiting to see if Robson's oppositions will also be added to the system.

Where can I see what is going on with this civil case?
I did a search here https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/index.aspx?CT=CI
with this case number BC508502 and got this as result No match found for case number BC508502

 

[Bubs]

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

I have gotten a document today from Wade's lawyers in civil trial saying the discovery issues got moot because judge in probate court denied Estate's motion to quash - hence granted Wade's discovery. I don't know any specifics about how and why the judge ruled like that. This is not a case of public's right to information but how the 2005 trial was widely reported and widely available could have been a reason to grant the request.

I'm very confused as why probate judge Mitchell L. Beckloff is judge in civil case BC508502 too?
If he judge in both cases, I cannot understand why he even ruled that WR can get NL docs, when he himself hasn't decided whether he allows WR's claim to go ahead in probate court, doesn't make any sense to me?
What if he decides not to allow late claim, then WR getting those docs was useless anyway?

 

[HIStory]

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

I'm very confused as why probate judge Mitchell L. Beckloff is judge in civil case BC508502 too?
If he judge in both cases, I cannot understand why he even ruled that WR can get NL docs, when he himself hasn't decided whether he allows WR's claim to go ahead in probate court, doesn't make any sense to me?
What if he decides not to allow late claim, then WR getting those docs was useless anyway?

I guess Robson must have argued that he needs this material in order to show why he is entitled to extended statues of limitations or equitable estoppel. In their motion to compel it looks like that because they refer to CCP 340.1 which is about the statues. Like I wrote above:

And BTW, they say the evidence they hope to find there would support and substantiate Robson's claims against MJ and his two companies for childhood sexual abuse pursuant to CCP 340.1.

But 340.1 is about the statues of limitations. So what exactly do they hope to find there that would support them to get around statues? How anything that was found there would effect Wade's ability to file before 2013? I don't get it. I do not think they don't know what was found in 2003. It's public record. They must know that there is nothing there that would help them get around statues. But they tell the Judge they hope to find such evidence there? IMO they know nothing is there for them in that regard. They just want to bring in the salacious material (none of which was criminal) to try to prejudice the Judge IMO.

For other reasons it makes no sense to bring in this material at this point. For example, they can argue all that they want about what MJ's porn was used for but at this phase of the case that is irrelevant. They can bring in Arvizo and Chandler, but what will that do to get them past statues and demurrers?

The question is now whether Robson is outside of all statues of limitations. It seems he is. He is over 26 years, he failed to file one year within MJ's death and he also failed to file within 60 days of allegedly realizing he was allegedly abused. The one thing he can still hope for there is if the Judge buys he did not know about the Estate until March 2013.

As for equitable estoppel, he needs to prove that some deliberate conduct by MJ or his Estate is what prevented him from making a timely complaint. Such as threats or misleading him about his legal possibilities etc. He cannot really prove any such thing. So what on Earth does he hope from the NL search material regarding this? What he should find there to support his equitable estoppel is like letters in which MJ threatens him or documents which prove MJ's companies knowingly participated in cover up of child abuse. There was nothing like that found. And I don't think Gradstein doesn't know that. So this just seems like a fishing expedition.

ETA: But you know, considering that FBI files article from last year and how quickly Robson's lawyers jumped in to say how much it proves their case, maybe they do believe or at least hope there must be some documents somewhere showing MJ paying off young boys left and right and his companies actively covering up for such crimes. I don't know if it ever occured to them if such evidence had really existed and been found in 2003 then the prosecution would have used it against MJ in 2005 at the trial. No such evidence was ever produced.

 

[Bubs]

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

Oh s..t, I'm getting overwhelmed by all this crap:no:
I haven't really delved into this case as much as I have others because I thought this is going to get thrown out in no time, but seemingly that is not the case, so I've been reading older docs, and sorry if this is already talked here, but I was reading this:
http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/jackson-estate047_redacted.pdf
page 8 "As executors should be well aware, however, they "stand in the shoes" of Decedent and therefore can be held liable for Decedent's actions"

Really, I don't know if that law applies everywhere, but it is seriously phucked up that if I en up to be someone's executor, I could be held liable to deceased actions:no: Bonkers!

 

[ivy]

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

But why are both claims allowed to coexist? Shouldn't he have to wait for the probate judge to grant the claim and for the Estate to deny it? These are running parallel when they can only happen under certain circumstances and the probate claim has to fail for the civil claim to go forward?

because he can (try to) sue the companies even though let's say probate court doesn't allow a late claim against Estate. So he started his actual civil case and is hoping to add Estate to it.

Where can I see what is going on with this civil case?
I did a search here https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/index.aspx?CT=CI
with this case number BC508502 and got this as result No match found for case number BC508502

You need to register an account (only USA address and credit card can) and then search the court documents. For some reason this case doesn't come up in public case summary but documents are in the paid document system.

I'm very confused as why probate judge Mitchell L. Beckloff is judge in civil case BC508502 too?
If he judge in both cases, I cannot understand why he even ruled that WR can get NL docs, when he himself hasn't decided whether he allows WR's claim to go ahead in probate court, doesn't make any sense to me?
What if he decides not to allow late claim, then WR getting those docs was useless anyway?

as the both cases are about the same issues they are combined and given to one judge. Given Beckloff is the judge for Estate matters he gets the case.

I think as respect has written Wade argued he needed those information to argue equitable estoppel. In other words I believe he's asking for this information to argue why his claims should be allowed to go forward. I don't think this is a discovery for a trial, this is a discovery for his motion. and I think judge granted it because he doesn't want an appeal.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

In my opinion shows that this is all about Michael's estate especially John Branca. I think that if the cc claims are thrown out and the lawsuit against the companies get thrown out the next person to get sued will be Branca himself.

 

[HIStory]

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

Oh s..t, I'm getting overwhelmed by all this crap:no:
I haven't really delved into this case as much as I have others because I thought this is going to get thrown out in no time, but seemingly that is not the case, so I've been reading older docs, and sorry if this is already talked here, but I was reading this:
http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/jackson-estate047_redacted.pdf
page 8 "As executors should be well aware, however, they "stand in the shoes" of Decedent and therefore can be held liable for Decedent's actions"

Really, I don't know if that law applies everywhere, but it is seriously phucked up that if I en up to be someone's executor, I could be held liable to deceased actions:no: Bonkers!

Thanks for reminding me of that doc. I read it again and I still do not get where they are trying to get with this all.

So, yes, they say they want to have access to NL search material and earlier testimonies to somehow support their request for equitable estoppel.

They argue that "the threshold proof required to establish the doctrine of equitable estoppel to assert the claims limitation periods is that childhood sexual abuse, sexual trauma and threats occured."

They say "proof of childhood sexual abuse, sexual trauma and threats will be presented by direct evidence, corroborating evidence and evidence of Decendant's intent, plan, habit and custom, which, in the case of a pedophile, have a unique and repeated signature."

So they argue that to establish all this they need access to NL search material and former testimonies etc. It seems to me they try to use the other allegations to support Wade's.

But I really don't get how it is supposed to work for them to get around statues. They argue that Michael's threats and mental manipulation is the reason why Wade could not come forward earlier. Wade claims he was unaware of the illicit nature of the alleged acts until his breakdown and therapy:

"Thus, the burden of shame and guilt, coupled with Decendent's portentous threat that divulging the nature of Claimant and Decendent's relationship to anyone would mean that both would go to jail for the rest of their lives, prevented Claimant from becoming aware of his psychological injury and damage until his unexpected breakdown necessitated that he seek professional help."

This is ridiculous in itself considering all other circumstances of the case (1993, 2005 etc.), but even if the Judge believed it it still would not get him around the statues, no matter if he talked about Arvizo and Chandler and until the cows come home to establish a "modus operandi". And that is because Probate Code 9103 says he should have filed his complaint within 60 days of becoming aware of his alleged abuse and injuries. He was in therapy in May 2012, so he should have filed until July 2012. Instead he filed in May 2013. So what kind of equitable estoppel he would be entitled for that? So that is why I do not understand their whole hoopla about equitable estoppel because that Probate Code 9103 seems to make all this discussion moot to me.

His claim is that the effects of MJ's threat, manipulations lasted until May 2012. That means he should have filed until July 2012, even if we believe all his crap about not realizing it was abuse until May 2012. He failed to do so.

The only hope for him is if the Judge buys he was not aware of the administration of the Estate until March 2013. I don't know if they discuss that in other motions, but it's odd it's not discussed anywhere in this one or any other I saw. (Maybe that rumour about the Estate getting him admit in a deposition that he knew about the Estate is true, so they dropped that angle.)

So this whole thing just seems moot to me on so many levels:

1) What exactly they hope to find at NL that would "prove" that MJ molested Wade Robson or any other child? That the SB prosecutors somehow overlooked?
2) They may try to "prove" MJ's "habits, plans, modus operandi" by bringing in past allegations or porn magazines or whatever their plan is. They may re-try the whole 2005 trial but that would still not get them around statues.
3) Even if someone believed he was really molested and MJ really threatened and manipulated him, that still not explains him missing the 60 days deadline after he "became aware of his alleged abuse" in May 2012.

 

[Annita]

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

I think as respect has written Wade argued he needed those information to argue equitable estoppel. In other words I believe he's asking for this information to argue why his claims should be allowed to go forward. I don't think this is a discovery for a trial, this is a discovery for his motion. and I think judge granted it because he doesn't want an appeal.

I think this has a logic.

 

[mjjmsc]

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

Sneddon had all the materials in the world available to him and he couldn't prove anything! Michael was and is innocent, end of story!

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Sneddon had all the materials in the world available to him and he couldn't prove anything! Michael was and is innocent, end of story!

Agree he did.

I don't see how the judge can allow this Wade still miss the 60 days to file like it was mention he file in 2013 so Wade miss again. Bringing in 1993 and 2005 will not help Wade at all. I just don't see the judge letting Wade get around statues he was late filing this should be throw out.

And about say the Estate should have told him he was not on the list in the first place he just file in 2013 so the Estate didn't have to tell Wade anything second strike three strikes you are out i hope that is what the judge do.

 

[ivy]

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

Respect77, I'll briefly disagree with you while I will agree with you mainly

I disagree that probably not "All material found there is public record." It's very possible that parts of the search hasn't been public record and it's quite possible that there are interviews / depositions done with people and have never been used or testified in court. Even current cases shows us this might be case. For example MJ's death search resulted in hundreds of scene photos but only a certain amount became public, similarly in both criminal and civil trial there were many people interviewed/deposed but never testified. So there's either very limited or no public information about those people's statements. I think with 76 subpoenas served to district attorney and law enforcement there is bound to be something there that hasn't been public record. Especially from 1993.

That being said I agree that chances that there are anything incriminating in those stuff is slim.This is exactly the same information that Sneddon has that didn't result in a criminal charge in 1993 and didn't result in a guilty verdict in 2005. So yeah I agree that there's probably nothing ground breaking there. The most important and most incriminating parts should have already been used and become public.

Now back to discovery. My understanding - and correct me if I'm wrong - this is not a discovery for a trial, this is a discovery for equitable estoppel motion. Robson is trying to support his claims that it was Michael's actions - threats, brainwashing or whatever you call it - that stopped him from realizing the abuse and coming forward. I don't know what he and his lawyers think they would find. confirmation of the adult magazines? jordie saying he told they would go to jail? or other people telling michael called them and talked to them? I don't know. there might be nothing there.

Given the discovery request is for the motion, I don't see anything alarming that the judge granted it. Like I said his thinking is probably to give him whatever he wants so that if dismissed he cannot argue denial of discovery as a reason for appeal. If we as fans think there's nothing there that could help Wade then there shouldn't be any panic about his access to the discovery.

I'll write about this tonight/this weekend when I do the update but there is now also a dispute about Robson demurrer in probate court. Robson is asking estate for a delay so that they could get the documents and prepare their answers and Estate is still stating discovery is irrelevant. We'll see.

As for the statue of limitations yes everything is passed. I think Pearl also mentioned that Estate lawyers mentioning not one but 3- 4 different statue of limitations has passed including the 60 days to file a claim after being aware of the situation. So I do think they don't have much chance, and they are hoping to convince judge of equitable estoppel and hope that to stop any and all time limits. Again we'll see.

passy001 - I hate to get technical but Demann wasn't a 9103 late creditor claim - as far as I know.

In an Estate you can bring a claim against the decedent and you can also make a claim / complaint about Estate / Executors. For example the chef saying she has unpaid salaries would be a claim against the decedent and has to be filed at a certain time period. In Demann's case he claimed MJ's music became popular and used a lot after MJ's death and Demann wasn't sure if he was being paid all the commissions he should get and he wanted an audit. So Demann's claim wasn't against MJ for the stuff MJ did or did not do when alive. Demann's claims was against Estate and what they did and did not do when they took over.

So I wouldn't say the judge is sympathetic for late claims. I don't think we have seen much late claims.

 

[HIStory]

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

Now back to discovery. My understanding - and correct me if I'm wrong - this is not a discovery for a trial, this is a discovery for equitable estoppel motion. Robson is trying to support his claims that it was Michael's actions - threats, brainwashing or whatever you call it - that stopped him from realizing the abuse and coming forward. I don't know what he and his lawyers think they would find. confirmation of the adult magazines? jordie saying he told they would go to jail? or other people telling michael called them and talked to them? I don't know. there might be nothing there.

Yes, it's a discovery to support their equitable estoppel and that's why I don't understand what they hope from it that would support that. What could possibly be there to give Robson a pass on why he did not file within 60 days of allegedly discovering his alleged abuse? I mean even if he brings in Jordan's jail claim to support his (BTW, the Gardner interview was not a part of any court proceedings IMO - it was a private document by the Chandlers that they leaked to the press in 2003, so they will not find it among the NL search material) and even if the Judge believed this sets a "pattern" (rather than Wade simply modelling his allegations after past allegations) that still would not help him in getting around the fact that he should have filed within 60 days of discovering his alleged abuse, which would be July 2012, not May 2013.

What he should claim for that is something that either MJ did during those 60 days to prevent him from filing (impossible because MJ was dead - unless he wants to bring in evidence of MJ's ghost haunting him and coaching him like he supposedly did in 1993 and 2005) or something that the Estate did to prevent him from filing (again he has no foundation to claim any such thing).

I'll write about this tonight/this weekend when I do the update but there is now also a dispute about Robson demurrer in probate court. Robson is asking estate for a delay so that they could get the documents and prepare their answers and Estate is still stating discovery is irrelevant. We'll see.

I expected this. If they want to go through all that stuff from 1993 and 2005 they will request more time so probably nothing will happen regarding demurrers on October 1 as initially planned. Probably more delays will be granted.

If they think the discovery might affect the demurrers then I guess they hope to find something linking MJ's companies to abuse or them knowing about abuse. In fact, I think this may be their main hope. Because as I said above I cannot see that anything that they might find could get them around that 60 days limit in Probate Code 9103. So I think the main aim is maybe to find documents or something about MJ's companies or people in it, or Weitzman or Branca or McClain knowing about abuse. As if it would not have been used in 1993 or 2005 if there were such documents.

Nothing they find can change the fact that MJ is dead though, so there could be a decision about that demurrer maybe.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

I guess Robson must have argued that he needs this material in order to show why he is entitled to extended statues of limitations or equitable estoppel. In their motion to compel it looks like that because they refer to CCP 340.1 which is about the statues. Like I wrote above:



For other reasons it makes no sense to bring in this material at this point. For example, they can argue all that they want about what MJ's porn was used for but at this phase of the case that is irrelevant. They can bring in Arvizo and Chandler, but what will that do to get them past statues and demurrers?

The question is now whether Robson is outside of all statues of limitations. It seems he is. He is over 26 years, he failed to file one year within MJ's death and he also failed to file within 60 days of allegedly realizing he was allegedly abused. The one thing he can still hope for there is if the Judge buys he did not know about the Estate until March 2013.

As for equitable estoppel, he needs to prove that some deliberate conduct by MJ or his Estate is what prevented him from making a timely complaint. Such as threats or misleading him about his legal possibilities etc. He cannot really prove any such thing. So what on Earth does he hope from the NL search material regarding this? What he should find there to support his equitable estoppel is like letters in which MJ threatens him or documents which prove MJ's companies knowingly participated in cover up of child abuse. There was nothing like that found. And I don't think Gradstein doesn't know that. So this just seems like a fishing expedition.

ETA: But you know, considering that FBI files article from last year and how quickly Robson's lawyers jumped in to say how much it proves their case, maybe they do believe or at least hope there must be some documents somewhere showing MJ paying off young boys left and right and his companies actively covering up for such crimes. I don't know if it ever occured to them if such evidence had really existed and been found in 2003 then the prosecution would have used it against MJ in 2005 at the trial. No such evidence was ever produced.

I agree with your whole post but in the bold i know we take with a gain of salt what Latoya say do you remember when you had that press conf saying that Michael did this to child in 1993 and she said my mother has show me checks of the ppls he paid off and she said i feel sorry for the family but this must stop somewhere along those line maybe that the prove their are looking for i know nothing like that was found i would not be surprise if their did it.


I hope that the judge can see the facts that there is no way of getting around statues Wade has miss all of the deadlines and Neverland materials can not help his so the only choice that is left is to dismiss the claim of MJ two companies and Mj that imo

 

[ivy]

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

^^

As far as I can see the October 1 hearing about MJ and Companies demurrers are going to happen as planned. The issue is the probate court and apparently the Nov 6th date set for summary judgment request of Estate. There's an email - and I'll post it tonight when I go home - that Wade's lawyers is talking about rescheduling it because they would need several weeks to prepare after they get the discovery. Estate was rejecting it stating their argument is about legal basis for late claims and discovery is irrelevant. I would expect an expart motion from Wade's side to reschedule it and if granted probate issue would be delayed several months.

 

[HIStory]

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

[/B]




I agree with your whole post but in the bold i know we take with a gain of salt what Latoya say do you remember when you had that press conf saying that Michael did this to child in 1993 and she said my mother has show me checks of the ppls he paid off and she said i feel sorry for the family but this must stop somewhere along those line maybe that the prove their are looking for i know nothing like that was found i would not be surprise if their did it.

If Sneddon had found any evidence for that he would have used it a long time ago.

 

[myosotis]

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

This is probably a silly question...are laws really called statues in the US? In the UK we call them statutes...I keep getting visions of MJs garden ornaments, reading this thread....

 

[ivy]

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

This is probably a silly question...are laws really called statues in the US? In the UK we call them statutes...I keep getting visions of MJs garden ornaments, reading this thread....

Lol. It's statute I guess people make typos while typing.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

^^

As far as I can see the October 1 hearing about MJ and Companies demurrers are going to happen as planned. The issue is the probate court and apparently the Nov 6th date set for summary judgment request of Estate. There's an email - and I'll post it tonight when I go home - that Wade's lawyers is talking about rescheduling it because they would need several weeks to prepare after they get the discovery. Estate was rejecting it stating their argument is about legal basis for late claims and discovery is irrelevant. I would expect an expart motion from Wade's side to reschedule it and if granted probate issue would be delayed several months.

So if the judge rule on Oct 1 to dismiss MJ two companies and MJ that is the end of the demurrers right all is left is the probate claim right?

 

[#MJforever57]

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

If Sneddon had found any evidence for that he would have used it a long time ago.

I just threw that in there because Wade and his lawyer will do anything.

 

[ivy]

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

So if the judge rule on Oct 1 to dismiss MJ two companies and MJ that is the end of the demurrers right all is left is the probate claim right?

There are 4 stuff

- civil claim against MJ
- civil claim against companies
- probate claim against Estate by Robson
- probate claim against Estate by Safechuck.

if judge grants Estate's demurrers on /around October yes the only thing remaining would be probate claims. If judge rejects late probate claims it would be over for good. If late probate claims are allowed then they would go through civil process as well.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

^^

As far as I can see the October 1 hearing about MJ and Companies demurrers are going to happen as planned. The issue is the probate court and apparently the Nov 6th date set for summary judgment request of Estate. There's an email - and I'll post it tonight when I go home - that Wade's lawyers is talking about rescheduling it because they would need several weeks to prepare after they get the discovery. Estate was rejecting it stating their argument is about legal basis for late claims and discovery is irrelevant. I would expect an expart motion from Wade's side to reschedule it and if granted probate issue would be delayed several months.

Now this is just to much Wade has miss every deadline and now he want to reschedule the rules have really be bend here he has been grated the NL docs and now their need more time just unreal.


Ivy why would their need time to look over the NL docs nothing is there.