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

Remember when Diane liar Dimond wrote her story she said someone testified that he has been molested. I didn't believe because why would you be so silly to say that we know thats not true however, I find that line about Michael asking him to testify strange the more I think about it the more I think they said that.
 
SarahJ;4049160 said:
Re: Safechuck not wanting to testify, I read that the Judge in '05 ruled against allowing Safechuck and Spence's (I believe it's Spence) testimony in, so not that he chose not to testify per-see. I'll have to go back and re-read the transcripts to make sure though.
Click to expand...

Yes, the judge did not allow testimony refarding Safechuck and Spence because all the prosecution could offer about them testimony about "grooming", ie. MJ buying them gifts, nothing about anyone witnessing any inappropriety.

26 But ultimately the decision I’ve reached,

27 and which I’ll now announce, is that I am going to

28 permit the testimony with regard to the sexual 3783

1 offenses, and the alleged pattern of grooming

2 activities, which is 1101 material, leading up to

3 the sexual offenses against Jason Francia, Wade

4 Robeson, Macaulay Culkin, Jordan Chandler, and Brett

5 Barnes.

6 The witnesses that would be permitted to

7 testify under this order would be Jason Francia,

8 Blanca Francia, Charlie Michaels, Phillip LeMarque,

9 Adrienne McManus, Ralph Chacon, June Chandler, Bob

10 Jones, and Charmayne Sternberg. The evidence of

11 alleged grooming of the other children will not be

12 permitted. Evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck and

13 Jonathan Spence will not be permitted.

14 The witnesses that would be precluded under

15 this ruling would be Jolie Levine and Mary Coller.

16 And there was only one part of Bob Jones’ testimony

17 that I would consider admissible, that relating to

18 the one physical act that he observed. And some of

19 the testimony of Blanca Francia and June Chandler

20 and Charmayne Sternberg would not be admissible.

21 But I think if you can see the way I’ve

22 divided that up, the grooming testimony is limited

23 to those cases where there’s actual physical sexual

24 conduct that’s been observed by somebody. That

25 really is where I’ve drawn the line.
Click to expand...

Justthefacts;4049247 said:
Remember when Diane liar Dimond wrote her story she said someone testified that he has been molested. I didn't believe because why would you be so silly to say that we know thats not true however, I find that line about Michael asking him to testify strange the more I think about it the more I think they said that.
Click to expand...

Who said what?

What Dimon was referring to is a prosecution document where they promised witnesses who would testify this or that. Among them was Mark Quindoy who claimed to have seen MJ touch Safechuck inapproprietely and there was another claim in that motion about Blanca Francia witnessing them in the theater in bed with their upper bodies naked and their lower bodies under cover. This was in a prosecution motion, however the prosecution eventually never tried to introduce this testimony as you can see from the above court transcript. All they offered regarding Safechuck and Spence is testimony from Jolie Levine and Mary Coller about MJ buying them gifts.

So what happened with the Quindoys' testimony? Dimond in her book claimed that Mark Quindoy died and that's why he wasn't able to testify. Who knows if it's true or it's just an excuse about why the prosecution did not put him on the stand. The Quindoys were very problematic witnesses. They never claimed any of this until tabloid media paid them money in 1993. One year before the Chandler allegations they sold another story about MJ where they portrayed him as a little excentric but ultimately great guy. They never mentioned any child abuse or inapproprieties to children until money was to be made with such allegations in 1993. Already in a 1994 documentary called Tabloid Truth it was noted that the prosecution found the Quindoys useless as witnesses. On the other hand, the prosecution in 2005 wasn't shy to use other similarly questionable witnesses with similarly questionable credibility, so maybe Mark Quindoy really died and that's why he wasn't called.

And Blanca Francia never claimed what was claimed in that prosecution motion. In fact she contradicted it on the stand when she stated that she was never in the theater when MJ was there with kids. So either the prosecution made up stories in their motions which not even their own witnesses claimed or Blanca's testimony changed once again.

But the bottom line is, there was no testimony re. Safechuck as the Judge did not allow it. So to me it would be odd for MJ to be that desperate as to threaten him when testimony re. Safechuck wasn't even allowed. Of course, they could claim that this was before they learnt that testimony re. him would not be allowed and I can imagine that MJ's side called every possible witness, but to threaten him? That's BS. And BTW, the question is again what it was with Robson: if you molested this guy for years would not you want to keep him as far away from the courtroom as possible? Why would you be so desperate to bring him on the stand?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That's my point. In her daily beast story she says a manager at the ranch testified that Upchucks was abused. That's a lie, Radar Online said the same thing. And him saying he didn't testify for Michael because he didn't want his Mother to know he had been abused. I am saying it would not shock me if they say in there claim that it happened
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This is just insane. If Wade and his lawyers can't prove negligence that someone in MJ companies knew about this so call alleged abuse then their have no case that should be the end of Wade lawsuit because the judge will have no other choice but to dismiss. I don't see Wade and his lawyers coming back with proof i really don't see it.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

They don't have to have proof unless the trial goes forward do they? Do they provide proof and evidence in their claim or just their story.
I'm not exactly sure how this works since on its face they missed every single deadline against probate law and abuse statutes by years.
If I had been the judge I would have thrown it out Day One.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

right now it's just their claims. In demurrer judge only considers the law. basically judge right now thinking "even if all of this is true is there a legal basis for a trial". If it survives this there will be discovery. then comes summary judgment when one party argues the other side did not show any evidence for their claim and as a matter of law there's no triable claim.

for example let me remind you of KJ- AEG case. Katherine's original complaint had claimed civil conspiracy and accused people of conspiring to get Michael to rehearsals. Law says conspiracy claims can only be done towards illegal action. Judge said trying to get someone to show up to work wasn't illegal hence it was dismissed at demurrer. So even if what Katherine claimed was true, it didn't fit to the legal definition of conspiracy.

Katherine had a respondeat superior claim in which she claimed AEG controlled Murray. This survived demurrer because it's possibility in a employer-employee relationship. Employers can control their employees. Discovery happened to uncover more about the employer-employee relationship. Katherine kept saying AEG controlled Murray but based on the contract presented judge concluded Murray was an independent contractor as a matter of law. So dismissed Katherine's claim at summary judgment.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

barbee0715 said:
They don't have to have proof unless the trial goes forward do they? Do they provide proof and evidence in their claim or just their story.
I'm not exactly sure how this works since on its face they missed every single deadline against probate law and abuse statutes by years.
If I had been the judge I would have thrown it out Day One.
Click to expand...



Their didn't have enough to prove sexual abuse so the judge told them to go back and redo you case and that why we have negligence their need to find someone who knew about this so call alleged that Wade has claim happen to him. This case can't move forward right now the judge is given Wade and his lawyers a chance because if this case can't move forward then the judge will have no other choice but to
dismiss. Their have to come up with something in order for this judge to say that this case can go to trial it must be in the law.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Thank you Ivy for explain this. I was getting there it has to be in the law and this is what the judge will basically makes his decision on is there a legal basic for a trial.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

IMO i don't see a legal basis for a trial" this judge will be going by the law and Wade has miss every single deadline to file he claim his memory came back in 2012 and he still didn't file he claim that MJ was somehow control him by saying if you tell we will both go to jail so by rights this case should be dismiss it that right or wrong?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Thank you. I get confused because there are lots of side opinions and arguments (including mine) so I keep trying to get my head back to basics.
I wouldn't think there would be a legal basis for a trial flat out b/c of the deadlines missed.
But then I can never predict legal stuff. Judges unfortunately are human and they don't always go by the letter of the law.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That is what i am thinking also this judge has to go by the law but you are right we really don't know how this judge is thinking but if he go by the law and the law say you must file in time and Wade didn't he miss the deadlines all of them. We just have to see what the judge say but like Ivy said if the judge decide that this case has legal basic for trial then we are looking at the discovery.

I am really hoping that is doesn't get this far then like you said that the judge doesn't always go by the letter of the law but i hope in this case he will go by the letter of the law and dismiss it because he would be going by the laws.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I can't believe this case has gotting this far and the attention this judge is given it. The law is as clear as day you must file in a certain time frame by law this case should be dismiss but this is the Calif law where it could be in the favor of the Plantiff Wade excuses have kept this case going.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

barbee0715 said:
Thank you. I get confused because there are lots of side opinions and arguments (including mine) so I keep trying to get my head back to basics.
I wouldn't think there would be a legal basis for a trial flat out b/c of the deadlines missed.
But then I can never predict legal stuff. Judges unfortunately are human and they don't always go by the letter of the law.
Click to expand...

I'm with you, i'm at a complete and utter loss as to how these cases could possibly be seen to be within the timelimits. But although judges are human (technically!) they have to go by the letter of the law, that's their job - they'll be subject to appeal otherwise, they can't decide on their own that the statutory timelimits need to be extended for individual cases. These timelimits are there for specific public policy purposes. It seems v different to the uk, where we dont' appear to have any timelimits for historic sex abuse cases and no real need to explain why victims didn't come forward sooner - to me usa seems really strict, but maybe it's the uk that is unusual.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ I think the time limits has been passed. Nothing can change facts such as MJ being dead and Robson being above the age of 26, passing the one year limitation after MJ's death and also passing the 60 days limitation of Probate Code 9103. The only thing they can try there is making the judge buy the "I didn't know about the Estate before March 2013" argument, but that too seems like a very weak (and disprovable) argument. So I think now this is really about whether he could be entitled to equitable estoppel. It seems that in Safechuck's lawsuit they do not even try to claim any more that they are within statutes, they go straight to the equitable estoppel argument.*

I cannot see how equitable estoppel could be invoked in these cases but I think the Judge is obliged to give them the chance to bring evidence for their equitable estoppel argument if they claim they will be able to do so if they are given a chance of discovery. I cannot see how discovery would help them to invoke equitable estoppel but I guess the Judge thinks it's fair to give them the chance (and also so that a denial of discovery could not be a basis of appeal).

Reading that Forbes article yesterday about MJ being the top earning celebrity again in 2014 I wonder how Robson, Gradstein and Co. feel about such news. On one hand it seems their slander and blackmail campaign did not work in ruining the Estate's earning potential, on the other hand I can see how such news are what inspired these little scums Robson and Safechuck in the first place to see $ signs and want to have a share of that money.

ETA: * Oh, and besides equitable estoppel they still have one statutes of limitations they can argue for and that is the "within three years of learing about/realizing abuse" in cases of companies that knew or had reasons to know about the abuse but turned a blind eye. I think that's another reason why the Judge felt it fair to give them a chance to prove the companies knew etc. Robson claims discovery would help them to prove it and I think the Judge has to give them the chance if they claim they will be able to prove it by discovery.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
It seems that in Safechuck's lawsuit they do not even try to claim any more that they are within statutes, they go straight to the equitable estoppel argument.
Click to expand...
I think the estate was right to point out that these arguments in the safechuck claims about being in a confusing loving relationship with mj is nothing about estoppel, it's all about delayed discovery. Except safechuck says he realised back in 05 that the relationship was wrongful and was abuse, so he can't even begin to attempt claims about delayed discovery.

respect77 said:
Reading that Forbes article yesterday about MJ being the top earning celebrity again in 2014 I wonder how Robson, Gradstein and Co. feel about such news. On one hand it seems their slander and blackmail campaign did not work in ruining the Estate's earning potential, on the other hand I can see how such news are what inspired these little scums Robson and Safechuck in the first place to see $ signs and want to have a share of that money.
Click to expand...
Yes me too. I used to be really quite chuffed at seeing news about mj slaying all before him in the $$ stakes but i just cringe now, thinking of the irs and individuals like gradstein getting their calculators out.

respect77 said:
Safechuck with MJ and LMP in Budapest, 1994
Click to expand...
Safechcuk seems a little clumsy with the old brolly, pains me to admit it but i think matt fiddes had slightly more finesse.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect said:
ETA: * Oh, and besides equitable estoppel they still have one statutes of limitations they can argue for and that is the "within three years of learing about/realizing abuse" in cases of companies that knew or had reasons to know about the abuse but turned a blind eye. I think that's another reason why the Judge felt it fair to give them a chance to prove the companies knew etc. Robson claims discovery would help them to prove it and I think the Judge has to give them the chance if they claim they will be able to prove it by discovery
Click to expand...
I don't see how wade can possibly qualify for that extended timelimit of 'within 3 yrs of learning about abuse'. Wade just does not meet the requirements of 'delayed discovery', it does say for delayed discovery that it's when you realise or should reasonably have realised that you were abused. The precedent cases are quite strict in how they treat this. Wade's case would be the legal definition of what constitutes 'should reasonably have realised'. He simply can't say he was unaware of the wrongfulness of his relationship with mj when the district attorney and most of the media insisted for years that he was a victim of mj and he was actually in court answering questions about 'going to bed' with mj etc, i mean it's ridiculous, lol. I think wade's snookered, i'm sure gradstein knows he is, he doesn't even attempt to get round any timelimits with safechuck. It just seems to be about the pressure for a settlement.
 
by the way...

Alan Duke @AlanDukeCNN · 11 h ago

After 25 years with CNN, I will join @RadarOnline Monday. My choice. I was not laid off. Same stories, different website. Find me there.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Bonnie Blue said:
I don't see how wade can possibly qualify for that extended timelimit of 'within 3 yrs of learning about abuse'. Wade just does not meet the requirements of 'delayed discovery', it does say for delayed discovery that it's when you realise or should reasonably have realised that you were abused. The precedent cases are quite strict in how they treat this. Wade's case would be the legal definition of what constitutes 'should reasonably have realised'. He simply can't say he was unaware of the wrongfulness of his relationship with mj when the district attorney and most of the media insisted for years that he was a victim of mj and he was actually in court answering questions about 'going to bed' with mj etc, i mean it's ridiculous, lol. I think wade's snookered, i'm sure gradstein knows he is, he doesn't even attempt to get round any timelimits with safechuck. It just seems to be about the pressure for a settlement.
Click to expand...

I agree that their arguments for why the case should go forward are weak. My point is that the Judge probably wants to give them the chances they request so that they cannot say they weren't given a fair chance to prove their case. And that's why the Judge allows discovery etc.

I think wade's snookered, i'm sure gradstein knows he is, he doesn't even attempt to get round any timelimits with safechuck. It just seems to be about the pressure for a settlement.
Click to expand...

Which makes me think about the fact that they leaked Safechuck's allegations to Dimond on the eve of the release of the Xscape album in May 2014. And remember they say Safechuck first contacted Gradstein & Marzano in September 2013. Some of us wondered what took so long - 8 months - to put together his complaint. Of course, partly it could be because it was hard to make a case out of this mess, but maybe it's also because they know well that their case does not have much chance to go forward any way, so they were just waiting for an opportunity to file it and publish it at a time when PR wise it could hurt the Estate the most. So maybe that's why it took 8 months: they simply just timed it to interfere with the Xscape release. Becasue that is really the purpose: to pressure the Estate.
 
Paris78;4049891 said:
by the way...

Alan Duke @AlanDukeCNN · 11 h ago

After 25 years with CNN, I will join @RadarOnline Monday. My choice. I was not laid off. Same stories, different website. Find me there.
Click to expand...
Is he kidding? Has he ever read anything printed on Radar Online? Maybe same SUBJECT MATTER. NOT THE SAME STORIES.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Bonnie Blue said:
Safechcuk seems a little clumsy with the old brolly, pains me to admit it but i think matt fiddes had slightly more finesse.
Click to expand...
Haha. Well, Jimmy was just an intern-Matt was a professional. LOL.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

barbee0715 said:
Is he kidding? Has he ever read anything printed on Radar Online? Maybe same SUBJECT MATTER. NOT THE SAME STORIES.
Click to expand...

I wonder if he will be reporting in his usual way or adhere to the type of reporting that Radar is famous for. Why this need to say he was not laid off?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^

CNN is firing a lot of people - especially from their entertainment department- due to budget issues.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

ivy said:
^^

CNN is firing a lot of people - especially from their entertainment department- due to budget issues.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to hear that, then. Hopefully he can find a job with a good news outlet soon.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Are there any significant updates on this?

I had my account temporarily restricted due to an altercation with a mod in the Joan Rivers death thread, so am completely out of the loop.

What have I missed??
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ I think it's best if you read back the thread. We cannot know where you stopped reading and what you have and what you haven't missed. Everything that's been discussed can be found in this thread.

Last court action was on October 1 where the Judge told that Robson needs to modify his complaint because it's not sufficient now. He needs to establish how MJ's companies were negligent.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
^ I think it's best if you read back the thread. We cannot know where you stopped reading and what you have and what you haven't missed. Everything that's been discussed can be found in this thread.
Click to expand...

Too much like hard work for me. ;)

Last thing I heard was the bs propaganda from Wade's side about MJ trying to break up Wade's relationship with one of his nieces.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

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

ivy said:
^^

CNN is firing a lot of people - especially from their entertainment department- due to budget issues.
Click to expand...

Jane Velez lost her show too - on their sister station HLN network.

Let's hope Alan Duke won't change his stance on Michael. He has mostly defended him, and even visits Forest Lawn with his grandchildren.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I'm sure he's aware of the types of stories Radar has been running lately. He'll either write what they pay him to write or perhaps they brought him in to show their objectivity (*scoffs*).

With the changes in the media happening the way they are and so many journalists (and with some I use the term loosely) loosing their jobs, not sure how choosey alot of them can be. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top