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

[ivy]

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

I'm waiting to see if Wade had the gumption, the gall the balls to name other people

I would love for him to.

Who do you think or expect him to name?

 

[#MJforever57]

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

If Wade has more ppls to name am sure he will not be afraid to name them anything to keep this claim going. It all about the money.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Who do you think or expect him to name?

I have no idea who he would name. But I just want to see how low he's willing to go

 

[#MJforever57]

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

I think we have already seen how low Wade is willing to go by keeping this messy going. He doesn't care about MJ anymore he want the world to know the truth and that is he was abuse by Michael for 7 yr this is the same person who defend Michael in 2005 trial and said that Michael never abuse him now how low is that and on top of that he is suing MJ and he is gone do you really really think that Wade can get any low then this? Think about what he is doing to MJ kids.

 

[HIStory]

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

Reading that passage it seems to me that Robson argues that he needs to keep in the Corporate Defendants to be able to do discovery on them which he "believes" would lead to him being able to identify other individuals as direct perpetrators of transporting him for the purpose of lewd acts. Seems to be yet another desperate fishing attempt to me.

Who will he sue? Employees working for those companies? Does he look for dirt on Weitzman and Branca? I wonder if that crazy FBI files article made them believe (or at least desperately hoping) that there was really some big cover up and child abuse maffia going on around MJ with Weitzman and Branca involved?


BTW, this is from a prosecution motion from 2005:

So Joy Robson was pushing MJ for the green cards and to bring them to the US. So why doesn't Wade sue his mother on Penal Code 266j?

 

[la_cienega]

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

Who do you think or expect him to name?

Obviously nobody, he'd have to deal with trying to take them to criminal court (I mean it would look bad if he named someone and didn't try it, even if the statutes had expired, considering the things he's trying with the current statutes), or he'd have to take them to civil court, and try the same things.

Either way if it's someone living, then he'd face them directly trying to expose him, because I don't think anyone would take it lightly.

I'm amused/interested in how he's seeking out other people involved, because apparently he never encountered anyone himself, and never witnessed or has any info himself, about all the people who enabled this and covered it up. I mean hey, here's a hint for Wade... why not use the same people the Arvizo named? ... Or does he feel there's a problem with their claims? LOL

 

[ivy]

^^ because there's no case there either

Roe v. Doe

A person cannot be convicted of child procurement without proof of a sexual purpose. (People v. Bautista (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1437.) A violation of Penal Code section 266j requires that the procurement of the child be “for the purpose of any lewd or lascivious act as defined in [Penal Code] Section 288 . . . .” (Italics added.) While the complaint charges that the Church made Roe “available” to Father O’Grady, under no reasonable construction does it charge that it intentionally made her available for a sexual purpose. On the contrary, the allegations, construed as a whole and in a common sense manner, plead that the Church knew of Father O’Grady’s propensity for child molestation, but turned a blind eye to it. While such conduct may evince negligence or even recklessness, it is plainly not an intentional act of child procurement. Under no stretch of the imagination can the complaint be read to allege that the Church provided child victims to one of its priests with the specific intent that he commit acts of molestation upon them. Penal Code section 266j has no application here.

 

[HIStory]

I'm amused/interested in how he's seeking out other people involved, because apparently he never encountered anyone himself, and never witnessed or has any info himself, about all the people who enabled this and covered it up. I mean hey, here's a hint for Wade... why not use the same people the Arvizo named? ... Or does he feel there's a problem with their claims? LOL

Moreover he claims he never ever told anyone before 2012. So how will he claim that other people knew about it? Well, on those grounds he could only sue those who claimed to have witnessed things but have done nothing to protect him. But I somehow doubt he will sue Blanca Francia... Instead he will use her as an ally in this.

^^ because there's no case there either

Roe v. Doe

A person cannot be convicted of child procurement without proof of a sexual purpose. (People v. Bautista (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1437.) A violation of Penal Code section 266j requires that the procurement of the child be “for the purpose of any lewd or lascivious act as defined in [Penal Code] Section 288 . . . .” (Italics added.) While the complaint charges that the Church made Roe “available” to Father O’Grady, under no reasonable construction does it charge that it intentionally made her available for a sexual purpose. On the contrary, the allegations, construed as a whole and in a common sense manner, plead that the Church knew of Father O’Grady’s propensity for child molestation, but turned a blind eye to it. While such conduct may evince negligence or even recklessness, it is plainly not an intentional act of child procurement. Under no stretch of the imagination can the complaint be read to allege that the Church provided child victims to one of its priests with the specific intent that he commit acts of molestation upon them. Penal Code section 266j has no application here.

Thanks for this, Ivy.

And in this case it seems the Church actually did know about the molestation, but still 266j could not be applied because it could not be claimed that they deliberately provided children to the abuser to molest. In Robson's case he cannot even allege anything to suggest or prove that the companies or any employees of them knew about abuse.

 

[ivy]

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

Reading that passage it seems to me that Robson argues that he needs to keep in the Corporate Defendants to be able to do discovery on them which he "believes" would lead to him being able to identify other individuals as direct perpetrators of transporting him for the purpose of lewd acts. Seems to be yet another desperate fishing attempt to me.

Who will he sue? Employees working for those companies? Does he look for dirt on Weitzman and Branca? I wonder if that crazy FBI files article made them believe (or at least desperately hoping) that there was really some big cover up and child abuse maffia going on around MJ with Weitzman and Branca involved?

Obviously nobody, he'd have to deal with trying to take them to criminal court (I mean it would look bad if he named someone and didn't try it, even if the statutes had expired, considering the things he's trying with the current statutes), or he'd have to take them to civil court, and try the same things.

Either way if it's someone living, then he'd face them directly trying to expose him, because I don't think anyone would take it lightly.

I'm amused/interested in how he's seeking out other people involved, because apparently he never encountered anyone himself, and never witnessed or has any info himself, about all the people who enabled this and covered it up. I mean hey, here's a hint for Wade... why not use the same people the Arvizo named? ... Or does he feel there's a problem with their claims? LOL

Given these people mentioned in relation to corporate entities, he is probably thinking about people that worked for those companies and worked on Wade's (and his mothers) employment and visa situation. So to me it would probably include assistants, secretaries, human resources, lawyers etc.

To be fair given he was 7+ yrs old at the time it's very possible that he doesn't know or remember who those people are and he might need discovery about employment records of those corporations.

Taking them to criminal court isn't really in his control. The most he can do is complain and wait to see what the law enforcement will do. He could try a civil trial. I would imagine the statute of limitations have probably passed in those instances as well and he would have impossible time to prove any of those people knew or should have known.

His allegations predates Chandler ones. So unless there are other kids & settlements predates Wade and unless he can know these people knew what was happening there's no way such claim to be successful.

And in this case it seems the Church actually did know about the molestation, but still 266j could not be applied because it could not be claimed that they deliberately provided children to the abuser to molest. In Robson's case he cannot even allege anything to suggest or prove that the companies or any employees of them knew about abuse.

In making that determination appeal court accepts the accusations as true - that the church knew and turn a blind eye - and say even that's the case there's no way to say they intentionally provided children to be abused.

 

[peace.love.mj]

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

Reading that passage it seems to me that Robson argues that he needs to keep in the Corporate Defendants to be able to do discovery on them which he "believes" would lead to him being able to identify other individuals as direct perpetrators of transporting him for the purpose of lewd acts. Seems to be yet another desperate fishing attempt to me.

Who will he sue? Employees working for those companies? Does he look for dirt on Weitzman and Branca? I wonder if that crazy FBI files article made them believe (or at least desperately hoping) that there was really some big cover up and child abuse maffia going on around MJ with Weitzman and Branca involved?


BTW, this is from a prosecution motion from 2005:

So Joy Robson was pushing MJ for the green cards and to bring them to the US. So why doesn't Wade sue his mother on Penal Code 266j?

This...this is fantastic. Thank you for this!

 

[HIStory]

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

Given these people mentioned in relation to corporate entities, he is probably thinking about people that worked for those companies and worked on Wade's (and his mothers) employment and visa situation. So to me it would probably include assistants, secretaries, human resources, lawyers etc.

To be fair given he was 7+ yrs old at the time it's very possible that he doesn't know or remember who those people are and he might need discovery about employment records of those corporations.

What people? What exactly did this people do?

At the moment he is just desperately looking for someone, anyone to sue. He does not name who these people are, nor what they allegedly did. He cannot even allege anything about the companies other than that they brought him to the US. (And as we have seen it was actually his mother who was pushing MJ for that.) He has no foundation at all. It's a fishing expedition, nothing else. It looks as if saying: "I'm suing some unnamed, unindetified person, I don't know yet why, I don't know yet who, but give me discovery to find something so that I can sue someone for something." It's ridiculous.

 

[la_cienega]

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

If he can't remember the people involved, then his mother should be able to remember! Pretty sure they'd have loads of docs and things from when they got signed to MJJ Productions. Pretty sure if he can remember all kinds of details from back then, that he would be able to describe in some way anyone who worked around MJ that he could claim knew about it.

If his own mother didn't know and she worked for MJ Productions, if HE himself didn't know until 2012, as Respect pointed out, how on Earth could he claim others knew and facilitated it.

He should try and name the same people the Arvizo's named - the "germans", Frank Cascio. If he claims their claims were legit now, he should be claiming they're reliable and credible enough and therefore should be using these same people as proof MJ's companies knew about it. But oddly enough, he's making no attempt at this.

I really hope he does name Branca/Weitzman and attempts to go after them after all this, I would love to watch him try.

 

[ivy]

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

To be clear : I wasn't saying what he says makes sense. I was just trying to explain his mindset - the absurd mindset.

 

[la_cienega]

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

To be clear : I wasn't saying what he says makes sense. I was just trying to explain his mindset - the absurd mindset.

I know, but it's just another ridiculous thing from him.

Seven years of abuse, till the age of 14, seeing other children around MJ during that time and after that time, he should have a long list of people he personally witnessed and knew facilitated any abuse. As should his parents and family.

He needs to claim others knew about it in order to sue the estate and their companies, and yet he can't even state when/where/how others knew about it. It's just absurd. He was 14 when it supposedly ended, and was around MJ for years after that, there should be thousands of instances and dates/times/places where he could state 100% that he knew abuse was enabled and facilitated by others, and yet he ADMITS he does not know any of this.

Even though, let's remember, his cousin stated that Wade was suing BECAUSE of the ~~others~~ involved and the people who profited, and how they were more angry at those sinister forces, than they are about MJ. And yet they can't even name or state instances when this happened.

 

[metermaid]

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

I'm sorry i am trying to play catch up here. wade alleges a conspiracy where ~the others~ around mj (management, employees, lawyers etc etc) saw what was going down and said nothing so mj could keep making money for all of them? so everyone and their mom's (except wade's mom clearly) knew this was happening and kept silent through first allegations and the trial? have i misunderstood this? because this seems .......wild. yeah, i would like to see him name branca or weitzman, i think shit will get entirely the **** real then. one thing to accuse a dead man, entirely another to go after the names and rep of living ones.

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

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

The recent decision about the D.A. files really bothers me. Why does Wade seem to get everything he wants while the Judge refuses the Estate's motions? I don't see why Wade should be allowed to fish around in ancient, unproven prosecution documents whenever his case hits a brick wall. He should have to "prove" his so-called case all on his own since his camp is so convinced of the "truthfulness" of his claims, in my opinion.

 

[barbee0715]

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

Didn't Pepsi sponsor the contest that 5 yr old Wade won and he got to dance on the Bad Tour stage with Michael. Wasn't it a Pepsi commercial where Jimmy got his big break?
If they're looking for companies and employees that helped facilitate child abuse, why don't they sue the Pepsi execs and Pepsi itself.
I'm sure Pepsi has much deeper pockets than the estate.

(I'm being sarcastic.)

 

[HIStory]

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

Even though, let's remember, his cousin stated that Wade was suing BECAUSE of the ~~others~~ involved and the people who profited, and how they were more angry at those sinister forces, than they are about MJ. And yet they can't even name or state instances when this happened.

Yes, I'm thinking of that comment by his cousin. While it's not a direct quote from Wade, I think the cousin was parroting what Wade was telling the family about this case. And the cousin said:

There
is also many people who knew what Michael was doing, and potentially
facilitated it because he was making them money, who are still alive,
and still profiting from Michael's estate. People for example who
organised for Wade to come from Australia to America, and other children
like Wade.

I don't have anger for Michael, he had a very
troubled life (although it doesn't excuse what he did). But there was
people around Michael who at the very least turned a blind eye, and
those are the people that make me very upset

This is why I think he is not targeting simple employees of MJJP or MJJV. Those employees are not still profiting from MJ's Estate.

Wade has not openly accused the Estate executors and Weitzman yet, but IMO that's where he is trying to go. Which is very telling: aming at the people with money or in charge of money. If this is about their anger at people who supposedly knew but did nothing why doesn't he sue Blanca Francia? If this is about their anger at people who should have known but were negligent and facilitated abuse why doesn't he sue his mother? (Of course I do not believe Blanca Francia, and I do not believe MJ molested Wade. But since Wade claims this now if it was truly about healing and justice these are the first people he should sue, not people about whom he does not even know yet how to accuse them of something, anything.)

Problem for him is that he cannot establish any course of action that would somehow make Branca, McClain or Weitzman responsible. He's sweating to do so - see what Pearl Jr. reported from the courtroom when Robson's lawyer said that since Branca was a long time lawyer of MJ he must have known something. This is so telling because we have people who openly claimed that 1) they either saw things but did not bother to report them (Blanca Francia), or that 2) they allowed the sleepovers despite of the allegations in 1993 or that they were pushing MJ to bring Wade to the US and employ them in his companies (Wade's mother), yet those people are not accused of any turning of a blind eye or negligence or facilitating abuse. Instead Wade is trying desperately to look for negligence, turning of a blind eye and facilitating abuse in people who never claimed to have seen or known anything and were not in the position of allowing or stopping sleepovers and were not the ones pushing MJ to bring the Robsons to the US. This is just so telling what it really is about. And it's not justice and it's not healing.

The recent decision about the D.A. files really bothers me. Why does Wade seem to get everything he wants while the Judge refuses the Estate's motions? I don't see why Wade should be allowed to fish around in ancient, unproven prosecution documents whenever his case hits a brick wall. He should have to "prove" his so-called case all on his own since his camp is so convinced of the "truthfulness" of his claims, in my opinion.

Since Robson claims he will be able to support his equitable estoppel with that material I think the Judge just wants to make sure they were not denied any chance to prove their case and that would be not a basis of appeal. I don't think the Judge knows what that material is, so when they claim the material would prove their equitable estoppel he has to accept that claim and give them the chance to present it.

 

[Bubs]

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

If the "compressed memory" quote is true, then all our discussion about "repressed memories" comes back to being relevant, because that is essentially what it is. That they're claiming he managed to separate and compartmentalize his memory of the abuse (and all the ongoing threats and brainwashing he claims MJ gave him during each court case, which obviously didn't trigger the memories of the actual abuse) in order to cope and survive for 20 years, before suddenly becoming aware of it in 2013. That's essentially what the argument for "repressed memories" is.

And it's considered hooey fake psychology, because nobody who endured these kinds of things is capable of compartmentalizing it.

To be clear, Wade himself claims to have suppressed memory :scratch:

From Wade's declaration:
"this civil action, which for me involves finally speaking the truth as loud as I suppressed it all these years"
http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/wade-robson354b0046b.pdf


I wonder if judge is going to follow up that he committed perjury in his declaration when he lied that he didn't understand or was not aware of MJ's estate until March 4 2013. Weitzman got him to admit he was aware of the estate. If nothing follows from that, at least judge is aware that Wade is capable of pending "his truth".

 

[SarahJ]

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

Didn't Pepsi sponsor the contest that 5 yr old Wade won and he got to dance on the Bad Tour stage with Michael. Wasn't it a Pepsi commercial where Jimmy got his big break?
If they're looking for companies and employees that helped facilitate child abuse, why don't they sue the Pepsi execs and Pepsi itself.
I'm sure Pepsi has much deeper pockets than the estate.

(I'm being sarcastic.)

If he gets desperate enough, he just might.

 

[Bubs]

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

If he gets desperate enough, he just might.

I don't believe that for second.
Wade is coward that sues dead people when they cannot defend themselves, and it doesn't look like they are too keen to add living people in their case because if they do, those people can defend themselves and its not like Wade can go to tabloids talking shite of these living people without consequences. It is totally different when he can say all sort of crap about MJ and there is no reply from MJ.

I think that they never thought that this case gets this far and all the details were made public, most likely they were banking of settlement ages ago.

 

[SarahJ]

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

I was being flippant.
But yes your right, I think too this was always geared towards a quick settlement which they didn't get and are now scrambling to defend their bs suit.

 

[Bubs]

^^Oh ok

I wish I could turn clocks 24 hours ahead, then we would know what judge decided about those 2 demurrers :timer:

What is going to happen if judge agrees with the estate and removes MJ and corporates from the case - then Wade has no one there as so far they have no names?

Although, he could always add his mother's name to this suit:
"The reply brief gets very technical with focusing on 340.1 code and subsections. Robson in his opposition argues he doesn’t need to allege any duty of care or any intentionally tortuous act by the corporations. Throughout their reply Estate disagrees with this and cites the law and states it can only apply to parties who had a duty of care to the plaintiff."


The only one who had duty of care to plaintiff was Wade's mother and she was working with people getting green card for her family.

 

[la_cienega]

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

I'm sorry i am trying to play catch up here. wade alleges a conspiracy where ~the others~ around mj (management, employees, lawyers etc etc) saw what was going down and said nothing so mj could keep making money for all of them? so everyone and their mom's (except wade's mom clearly) knew this was happening and kept silent through first allegations and the trial? have i misunderstood this? because this seems .......wild. yeah, i would like to see him name branca or weitzman, i think shit will get entirely the **** real then. one thing to accuse a dead man, entirely another to go after the names and rep of living ones.

Why doesn't he claim that the Arvizo's "proved" that Frank Cascio and Dieter and Schaffel and whoever else proved that they knew and enabled the abuse???

Why isn't he claiming that as his amazing proof? Because that is the only occasion anyone has ever claimed people "knew" about it and let it happen, to the point that Frank Cascio was telling Janet Arvizo he was going to have her killed even before the abuse happened.

It's almost as though he doesn't want the Arvizo shit mixed up with his own claims, because he's still suggesting on some level they're liars by not using their claims for himself.

 

[ivy]

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

^^

to be a devil's advocate : Robson's timeline of abuse predates Cascio and Dieter and Schaffel. When he claims to be abused Cascio was also a kid and germans weren't in MJ's life.

I think the only thing he could do is to somewhat repeat Chandler accusations.

 

[Bubs]

http://www.dailymichael.com/

Civil case updates

As I prepare this post court system isn’t showing Robson’s opposition documents (I’ll update this post if they become available) therefore this post is done based on what the Estate reply documents state about Robson’s opposition and their reply.

Ivy, have Robson opposition documents posted on court system?
I really want to see what exactly they said when they say they haven't served MJ.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

Good to see that wade's insistence that his abuse began 24 hours after meeting mj in the usa is being used as another argument against his civil claim against the companies.

Since Robson claims he will be able to support his equitable estoppel with that material I think the Judge just wants to make sure they were not denied any chance to prove their case and that would be not a basis of appeal. I don't think the Judge knows what that material is, so when they claim the material would prove their equitable estoppel he has to accept that claim and give them the chance to present it.

I'm amazed that this discovery was allowed. I agree with you that if let's say they find mj had books at neverland on 'how to imprison someone's mind in 5 easy steps' and dummies guide to compressed memories - it's irrelevant as the statutes allow a time frame for someone like wade to escape his imprisoned mind and launch a lawsuit against a deceased abuser. He missed it by 10months through absolutely nothing mj cd possibly have done to him or intended to do to him as he's dead - that is irrefutable. This discovery will probably just further delay the whole process. I'm wondering if the judge is being so ubercautious because it's such a high profile case, it seems so unjustified although i suppose we haven't seen his arguments for allowing it.

It's almost as though he doesn't want the Arvizo shit mixed up with his own claims, because he's still suggesting on some level they're liars by not using their claims for himself.

If Wade and Gradstein voluntarily agreed to have janet arvizo as one of their witnesses it would probably indicate insanity and they wd need committing to an institution asap.

 

[Annita]

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

^^Oh ok

I wish I could turn clocks 24 hours ahead, then we would know what judge decided about those 2 demurrers :timer:.

It`s a hearing. He might not decide directly after the hearing.

 

[HIStory]

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

I'm amazed that this discovery was allowed. I agree with you that if let's say they find mj had books at neverland on 'how to imprison someone's mind in 5 easy steps' and dummies guide to compressed memories - it's irrelevant as the statutes allow a time frame for someone like wade to escape his imprisoned mind and launch a lawsuit against a deceased abuser. He missed it by 10months through absolutely nothing mj cd possibly have done to him or intended to do to him as he's dead - that is irrefutable.

This is what is so difficult to understand to me. I get it that there are two processes: civil case, probate case. And there are different rules for both. Probate Code 9103 (that 60 days thing) applies to probate, and in the civil case that is not there - only that he should have filed until the age of 26 against the companies. And in civil court he cannot sue MJ as a natural person because he is dead. But still Probate Code 9103 means that Robson did have his chance to file a timely complaint even if one accepts he was really so brainwashed that he could not connect the dots before May 2012. Probate Code 9103 gave him that chance, but he missed even that. So why on Earth should equitable estoppel invoked in either case? (Except if he is able to prove that MJ's ghost came back to haunt him and prevent him from filing between May and July 2012. Or that the Estate imprisoned or threatened him during that period. ) I mean even if PC 9103 does not apply to the civil case but it does mean he had his chance to make a timely complaint even after May 2012 and he missed it.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

^No wonder pearl jnr is so interested in this case that she goes herself to court to see what's what. Mj not actually being dead but still doing his fabled brainwashing for me is the only way you can invoke eqit estop, but clearly not for this judge. Does he publish his reasonings on decisions, i'd be quite interested on reading them.

I was under the impression the eqitable estoppel was just for the creditor's claim.