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

It is disappointing and it does seem as if this California judge is bending over backwards to accommodate these past the statute complaints.

The Kevin Clash (Elmo) cases were dismissed by the Pennsylvania judge (based on New York statutes) - tossed out - end of story period. He was not fooling around with it. But not this California judge. :(
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

As of now the media story posted is the only information we have. So it's impossible to answer some of the questions being asked.

I'll check the court system to see if any ruling gets added but if/when that might happen isn't certain. I have seen documents to be posted anywhere between 1 to 15 days. Plus how long the judge takes to prepare a ruling - if he hasn't already done so.

One possibility is to get the hearing transcript from the court reporter.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Why on earth giving that scum more time to amend if he filed his lawsuit too late? Michael can't defend himself anymore, Robson had his chance to "come forward" in 2005 and chose to defend his alleged abuser instead. It's not fair!
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

No it isn't fair. Nor were the Chandlers and Arvizos. None of it was and still isn't. He has to go through this even in death. Regardless of what the judges reasons are I just wish this whole thing had been tossed. He never deserved any of it. It's all so frustrating.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If Wade already told his perverted story, why is the judge asking for more facts? Wade already gave his delusional facts and to him that's his story, and the judge should rule based on that. Seems to me the judge is asking him to be more creative. This should had ended long time ago.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

ivy said:
As of now the media story posted is the only information we have. So it's impossible to answer some of the questions being asked.

I'll check the court system to see if any ruling gets added but if/when that might happen isn't certain. I have seen documents to be posted anywhere between 1 to 15 days. Plus how long the judge takes to prepare a ruling - if he hasn't already done so.

One possibility is to get the hearing transcript from the court reporter.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info ivy, and keeping us all updated :)
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It is obvious the judge want wade to go forward with this case but knows the estate will be succesful in appeal thats why i agree with ivy this judge does not want his decisions to be challanged at the appeal court , but I disagree with her that he is afraid of wade side. He wants to rule in favor of wade but afraid of the estate side at appeal.
He gave him all the evidence to bring anything to strengthen his case, reserved a place for the estate to be sued by keeping a deceased man as a defendant against all laws, and clearly told them help me to help u guys go forward with this case.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Even the Elmo case went on 2 yrs too long in my opinion.
Do you think it is possible that the judge is in the "OJ" mindset. Where he got away with murder but we'll lock him up forever on some kind of lesser charge ??
Punishing for this because he thinks he got away with it before?

I just can't imagine this since he has been the probate judge for 5 yrs now, has a good working relationship with the execs. and has been pretty fair with all of his previous decisions.
I just don't get it.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Personally I don't read that much into this. Demann was allowed to amend his complaint 4 times - before it could go forward. Michael Amir Williams amended his complaint 3 times before it was dismissed for good. The only thing it shows me at least in CA superior court judge's tend to give chances to amend before making a decision.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Well I'll try really hard to take a similar view but it's hard because I didn't care so much about the Demann case or the Williams case.
I'm taking this one really personally.
Is Beckloff also the judge in Quincy's case?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

How come the same judge is handling both the civil and probate cases?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It seems the judge wants to keep MJ as unnamed defendant until he rules on whether to allow the probate claims to go forward. so if he rules in favour of robson, MJ will be replaced by the estate. but if he rules in favour of the estate, the whole case will be dismissed. either way, MJ will be dismissed.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Wow, this is shocking. The law is very clear on that you cannot sue a dead person so if I was sure of one thing that the Doe 1 thing had to be dismissed. It cannot be anything else based on the law. I'm not sure what kind of amendments be made to make MJ not dead.

But the Judge is bending over backwards to still somehow let it go ahead. Really, really disappointing. It seems this judge will do everything to appease Robson. :(
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It wouldn't surprise if this idiotic lawsuit goes to trial, which would be a waste of money, time and completely unnecessary. If the trial occurs, I hope his past testimonies bite him right on his ass. He deserves to be humiliated and destroyed.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
It wouldn't surprise if this idiotic lawsuit goes to trial, which would be a waste of money, time and completely unnecessary. If the trial occurs, I hope his past testimonies bite him right on his ass. He deserves to be humiliated and destroyed.
Click to expand...

Well, the Judge seems to give every favour to Robson to make it go to trial. Is there even a precedent to use deceased Doe 1 defendants as "placeholders" for their Estate or is it just another creative law-bending by Robson's creative lawyer that the Judge ate up?

It really put me in a pessimistic mood now, because the law is crystal clear on the fact that a dead person cannot be sued. But if even this clear rule can be and is bended in Robson's favour then what else will?

Laws were bended against MJ in 1993. Laws were bended against him in 2005. (Just one example: look at those search warrants and just tell me wether objectively there really was a probable cause to carry out any of them? Or if it really served Justice when the Judge in 1993 dismissed MJ's request to push the civil proceedings behind the criminal?)
And now it continues in dead even when he cannot even defend himself any more. So unfair. I'm starting to be sick of the US court system.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I wonder what kind of amendments Robson can make to make this lawsuit work.

There is no amendment that can be made to make a deceased MJ be alive. All they can do is to name other defendants. It seems there was no decision about the companies (at least no mention of them in the article), which I expected since the Judge allowed discovery. Since Robson claims it will be this discovery that will make him able to support his equitable estoppel. As we learnt from the Estate's motion Robson also said he was contemplating adding other individuals as defendants.

So I guess now they will need to make it clear who else they accuse and of what. They need to make clear allegations against MJ's companies and other people. They will have to establish how the companies are responsible and they will have to establish how any additional individual they add is responsible.
 
S..t :angry: not the result I was expecting.
--------------------------------------
However, Beckloff said lawyers for Robson will have to shore up the civil complaint in general for it to move forward. The judge said the case appears to be implying negligence, but that no such specific allegation is made in the complaint.
“I think there needs to be more facts or else it’s uncertain,” Beckloff said.
--------------------------------
I read that judge is saying they claim negligence, but there isn't much of in their complaint so they have go back to drawing board and make up more s..t.
We haven't read Robson's claim about corporate defendants, but from estate's reply we can determinate that judge is referring to this bit:
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."

So Robson has to come up with the names, and more details how those people failed duty of care, and why they think those people had a duty of his care, (and not his own mother).
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Bubs said:
So Robson has to come up with the names, and more details how those people failed duty of care, and why they think those people had a duty of his care, (and not his own mother).
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what he has to do now. Name names and establish courses of action which would make the companies and individuals responsible somehow. So far he failed to do that and the Judge said so, but it's annoying that he's giving him a chance to amend his complaint. He's had more than a year now to amend his complaint and to add names and to establish courses of action and to come up with a viable story.
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of the time Sneddon said in his first filling that Michael abused Gavin on dates when Michael wasn't even in the USA and then he simply changed the dates and they all just let it slide.

whether the judge is going to procced after the little changes he wants to see or not, I just bet they will make those changes so juicy we'll see more damage done in the media.


Bubs;4046991 said:
S..t :angry: not the result I was expecting.
--------------------------------------
However, Beckloff said lawyers for Robson will have to shore up the civil complaint in general for it to move forward. The judge said the case appears to be implying negligence, but that no such specific allegation is made in the complaint.
“I think there needs to be more facts or else it’s uncertain,” Beckloff said.
--------------------------------
I read that judge is saying they claim negligence, but there isn't much of in their complaint so they have go back to drawing board and make up more s..t.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I read too, we don't know what the judge thinks on the rest of the case...
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The estate reply corporate demurrer, is says this:
This case was filed after Robson's 26th birthday. Thus any claims against the Corporate Defendants are time-barred unless Robson can plead facts consistent with the requirements of section 340.1 (b)(2)

340.1 (b) (2)
(b) (1) No action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision
(a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday.
(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.

I think this is the bit judge got stuck and is allowing Robson to amend his claim to be more specific, such as names, when and where. Don't they have to come up with proof that any of those corporate people knew MJ was molesting people left and right, but did nothing?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I just wish all this mess would get tossed out. It's shocking that this case is given the time of day by the judge. The us legal system seems to move at a snail like pace. The judge seems to be asking for more names and more specifics which could give give WR more time to come up with more fantasies or could backfire on him and show up what we already know that his claim his full of holes. As Ivy said maybe it will hopefully end up getting tossed after amendments. This should not be happening period. I'm so sick of it all and what it is doing to Michaels children, friends, family and fans. Luckily nobody here in the uk seems to be interested in any of it and a lot of people from what I have read online and heard from people that they don't believe any of it. The public seem to be getting tired of false allegations especially against a dead man. Only in America!
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Bubs said:
The estate reply corporate demurrer, is says this:
This case was filed after Robson's 26th birthday. Thus any claims against the Corporate Defendants are time-barred unless Robson can plead facts consistent with the requirements of section 340.1 (b)(2)

340.1 (b) (2)
(b) (1) No action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision
(a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday.
(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.

I think this is the bit judge got stuck and is allowing Robson to amend his claim to be more specific, such as names, when and where. Don't they have to come up with proof that any of those corporate people knew MJ was molesting people left and right, but did nothing?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's what it will come down to: will Robson be able to make viable claims about how MJ's companies or other people were responsible for his alleged abuse? I think the criteria is not that he needs to prove it like in front of a court, but it does need to be viable, ie. supported by some facts at least. I mean for example if he claims: "John Branca knew I was abused but turned a blind eye" or "John Branca knowingly facilitated my abuse" - he does need to show some kind of foundation for that claim, doesn't he? Even if it's not necessarily the kind of evidence that one would need to win a court case, but I would think he needs to show some kind of reasonably acceptable argument for why Branca (in this example) should have known or how he would facilitate abuse.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

What is the story from now on? Robson and Co go back to drawing board to make up more crap and bring it to next hearing, then the estate lawyers reads it and make their own reply-demurrer to it (again), the judge reads them and we are waiting for whether he agrees either side, or something else?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

yeah, like something you would be able to call a witness to confirm or dismiss it
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
Yes, that's what he has to do now. Name names and establish courses of action which would make the companies and individuals responsible somehow. So far he failed to do that and the Judge said so, but it's annoying that he's giving him a chance to amend his complaint. He's had more than a year now to amend his complaint and to add names and to establish courses of action and to come up with a viable story.
Click to expand...
That's what we established over a year ago - that the probate case's weakness were the time limits and the company case's weakness was the fact there's no proof the 'companies' knew mj was a pedo and failed to protect any children from him. Companies can only be liable if someone they negligently employ is a pedo (although of course here mj is the employer as the estate points out in another argument), but that's the whole issue - mj has never been proved to be a pedo - he was acquitted of child molestation.

I imagine that gradstein is just going to try and argue that the 93 chandler allegations put everybody on notice that mj was a possible pedo, but that is just not good enough as it put everybody in the world on notice including wade and his mum, so any contact they had with him after that was in full receipt of the facts. And mj strenuously denied the allegations and the 94 chandler settlement admitted no liability on that issue. Allegations which were thoroughly investigated in 2 grandjuries and resulted in no crim charges. Also, no lawyer or employee in mj's companies on record have ever said that they knew of or witnessed mj abusing any children. I can only think of bob jones who's now dead, and all i can recall is him saying mj licked chandler's head or something, which was then exposed in court as some salacious detail he made up for stacey brown. All those 'witnesses' to abuse who went to the tabs were neverland staff.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Beckloff said attorneys on both sides have filed court papers with a solid level of support for their arguments that he does not always see from other lawyers.
Click to expand...

?I know gradstein always puts in plenty of precedents for his arguments but usually the situation in those cases don't resemble the situation in wade's case and instead end up just revealing the shortcomings with wade's story.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Seems like the judge is doing everything he can to try and make this go to trial. I hope he's not one of those people who thinks that MJ ''got away with it'' in the past.

If this does to to trial then the judge is clearly bias
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Bonnie Blue said:
?I know gradstein always puts in plenty of precedents for his arguments but usually the situation in those cases don't resemble the situation in wade's case and instead end up just revealing the shortcomings with wade's story.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the Judge even looks up the precedent cases or he just accepts whatever Gradstein writes about them?

All those 'witnesses' to abuse who went to the tabs were neverland staff.
Click to expand...

Besides, suing those people would not bring them closer to being able to sue MJ's Estate. I mean Wade will not make much use of people who say they saw this or that but kept it to themselves until tabloids gave them money. He can sue them personally (which I doubt he would want - after all he needs those people on his side if the case goes to court), but that will not bring him closer to breaking the Estate piggy bank as none of those people said: "I saw this and then I ran to my boss to report it but he just swept it under the rug and told me to keep shut about it." That's the kind of thing Wade would need here.

I also don't know if the Judge agrees with the Estate argument that MJ is the owner of the companies so he was in control and not controlled by the companies. I mean what kind of evidence coming out of discovery could possibly change that situation? I can't see any. So why doesn't the Judge make a decision about that? I guess he is waiting for whether Robson is able to name individuals as co-defendants. Because I still cannot see how the case against the companies could possibly go on. Let alone the case against MJ as a natural person.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't know how he can argue that because according to Wade this happened before 93.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

We can probably expect more character assassination articles to come out via Stacy Brown.:no:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top