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

[AliCat]

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

In 1993 Michael did not have debt, by 2005 he did, because of what happened in 1993.

Sneddon brought in an accountant to scrutinize Michael's finances in 2005. Sneddon wanted to prove the motivation of why Michael molested Gavin. Michael was heavy in debt. But not in 1993. Michael not being in debt in 1993 is what motivated the Chandler's. Sneddon seems to have some kind of memory lapse. Sneddon was of the opinion in 1993 that Michael thought he was all that and a bag of chips and oh yes we know how celebrities can be, no rules or at least the kind society lives by because of laws.

Michael was right about Sneddon when he sang that song on his HIStory album. Sneddon was going to get Michael no matter what. Because Sneddon is a cold man!

 

[CaptainEoLove85]

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

Liars can never keep their stories straight.

 

[HIStory]

This is a mess and he has no case.

It makes all of these RFA's meaningless as well. He sends close to hundred questions about private stuff / conversations he alleges happened between him and Michael. wants people to admit to them when he also claims no one knew what was happening between them.

I suppose the way he will try to get around it is that he will say that although he did not tell these people/companies somehow still should have known - for example, because of the Chandler allegations. That's the thing he can try IMO but even so it's hard to see how it could work. Like said before the Chandler allegations are just that: allegations. They have never been proven, MJ never admitted anything - in fact, the settlement specifically states that he does not admit any wrongdoing. And if they will try to say people should have suspected something from the fact MJ hung out with children or that they slept in his room etc. - again, that is no proof of wrongdoing and Wade at the time was on TV telling the world nothing ever happened, so what exactly anyone at MJ's companies was supposed to do? And why didn't his mother do anything if there was reason to do something?

And even if he somehow gets his way around this problem there is still the problem of who controlled whom. In the the precedent cases Wade's lawyer brought in that regard all ended up with a decision in favour of the defendant. Even the Estate noted this in one of their motions. For example, they brought a case called Aaronoff v. Martinez-Senftner. In this Aaronoff case a woman accused her father of molesting her when she was a child and she accused her mother not only knowing about the abuse but according to the plaintiff's allegations she even witnessed some instances of molestation but did nothing to defend her. The father owned three companies and the daughter was employed in those companies and made work as a child. The mother too was an employee of the companies. The allegation is that some molestations happened on the companies' premises and within the employer-employee relationship with the companies so that is a basis to sue the companies. But the court's decision points out that the allegation is that the molestations happened when the plaintiff was 4-13 years old but the companies only started to employ her from the age of 10. So the abuse did not arise out of her being employed in the companies, but it arose from a parent-child relationship much earlier.

Another thing was that she tried to use her mother's alleged witnessing of abuse as a basis for the companies being responsible (since the mother was an employee in the companies). However the court decided that (just like the Estate argues) as an employee the mother did not have contol over the employer (the father). These are quotes from that precedent case:

The language of section 340.1, subdivision (b)(2) clearly does not apply to the parental relationship.   The statute is targeted at third party defendants who, by virtue of certain specified relationships to the perpetrator (i.e., employee, volunteer, representative, or agent), could have employed safeguards to prevent the sexual assault.   It requires the sexual conduct to have arisen through an exploitation of a relationship over which the third party has some control.   In other words, the perpetrator's access to the victim must arise out of the perpetrator's employment with, representation of, agency to, etc., the third party, and the third party must be in such a relationship with the perpetrator as to have some control over the perpetrator.   The child must be exposed to the perpetrator as an inherent part of the environment created by the relationship between the perpetrator and the third party, in this case a business environment.

The language of the statute necessarily implies that the unlawful sexual conduct arises out of an environment over which the third party has some control.   Otherwise, it would be impossible for the third party to take steps  and implement safeguards to avoid future abuse.   For example, the employer of an office worker would have neither the ability nor responsibility to “take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards,” to prevent the office worker from assaulting his or her own child, even if the employer had knowledge of prior assaults.   On the other hand, the statute would apply, and the employer would have responsibility if the nature of the employee's work put the employee in contact with children, and the employer knew or should have known the employee had assaulted children in the past.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1048357.html

So even in this case where there were very well-defined allegations, ie. the mother witnessing abuse (which is a lot stronger allegation that Robson claiming that Branca and co. somehow should have known) but doing nothing, the defense's demurrer was still sustained in this case. And that is because the mother (employee) did not have control over the father (employer) within that employer-employee relationship.

The Estate of course pointed out this part of this precedent case as well:

But the court's decision points out that the allegation is that the molestations happened when the plaintiff was 4-13 years old but the companies only started to employ her from the age of 10. So the abuse did not arise out of her being employed in the companies, but it arose from a parent-child relationship much earlier.

In the precedent case it's stated this way:

In other words, the perpetrator's access to the victim must arise out of the perpetrator's employment with, representation of, agency to, etc., the third party

Because Wade claims that MJ started to abuse him on the first or second night they slept in the same room, however he only got employed by the companies later, so here too the alleged abuse would not arise from the employer-employee relationship, but the claim is it started earlier.

 

[Bubs]

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

yes.

interrogatories and requests for admission

they agreed they would answer 35 + 8 interrogatories.

They have a dispute about requests for admission. Estate wants court to say they don't need to answer 36-93. The reasoning is : some questions are already answered, they can't know the private interactions between MJ and Wade and they deny any sexual conduct hence there's no need to answer to specific claims.

The hearing for this is on November 6th. Remember this is the civil case.

edited to add : one part of it

I cannot even understand why would they even ask them to admit that they knew acts between Robson and MJ?
Did they seriously expected them to say, "oh yes, we admit that we knew what went on, and did nothing"?
Thats like handling case to Robson on gold platter, and might as well start paying millions to him.

Maybe thats why they ask at the end of your document:
"If sexual abuse has been categorically denied, why does Robson want the Corporate Defendants to further deny every imaginable and specific act?

They have to have some reason for that, as they cannot be that stupid - or can they?

 

[HIStory]

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

^ I wonder if it was really just tactics to get the specific graphic details of Wade's allegations out to the public. Since in the lawsuit those parts are redacted and it was through these questions that the specific details were made public. I wonder if that was the whole goal of it. Of course, now they have to play it to the end, acting like they have some sort of goal with it but I cannot see what else they would have. Like you said it does not make sense.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

I agree. His story is a mess. That's why he and his lawyers can't keep it straight. But they are constantly coming up with excuses for why the changes in his story shouldn't wreck his credibility.

How many excuses is Wade and his lawyers going to come up with before this judge say i have had enough. I hope on Nov 6 this judge say that this is it you have no case and as for Wade credibility i hope now this judge can see lies on top of lies Wade has no proof. I don't see anybody in MJ companies saying that their were aware or knew of Michael abuse Wade.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

^ I wonder if it was really just tactics to get the specific graphic details of Wade's allegations out to the public. Since in the lawsuit those parts are redacted and it was through these questions that the specific details were made public. I wonder if that was the whole goal of it. Of course, now they have to play it to the end, acting like they have some sort of goal with it but I cannot see what else they would have. Like you said it does not make sense.

I agree does not make sense.

 

[la_cienega]

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

This is a mess and he has no case.

It makes all of these RFA's meaningless as well. He sends close to hundred questions about private stuff / conversations he alleges happened between him and Michael. wants people to admit to them when he also claims no one knew what was happening between them.

So obvious he's doing that just to get these questions leaked out to the media so they can hype up the case with headlines involving what Wade is claiming.

They lost their argument too with the earlier questions, about all the graphic sexual stuff, but it got them out in the public, which Wade was so thrilled about he posted links to all the trash gossip sites recounting them on his own facebook.

I'm going to guess Wade will claim trying to get the estate to answer these questions is "healing" for him. Whereas any real victim of such horrible abuse would find all of this just horrific, and also pointless. Branca/McClain have nothing to do with anything that ever could've supposedly happened, so there should be no satisfaction from any reaction they could give him. If you were raped in private by someone who had a company and nobody knew about it for decades, would it really bring you closure to try and humiliate yourself by graphically recounting the supposed abuse to them and asking them to admit it happened, knowing they did not witness it, could have had no knowledge about it, and that it will all just get dragged into the public sphere? In the abuse books Wade recommended they specifically advise against NOT doing stuff like this, because of how damaging it is to have this stuff dragged out when you'll get an obvious denial and no closure.

 

[barbee0715]

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

I was reading the Associated Press news yesterday and one of the stories said that in Southern CA (San Diego) they awarded a child abuse victim 13.5 million dollars in an abuse suit with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Apparently there were multiple cases that they settled out of court because of this same abuser and 6 people have just filed this week here in Texas.
This kinda actually shocked me, just like all child abuse cases do, but guess really surprised because it was the Jehovah Witnesses. And of course, I was trying to figure out about the statute of limitations, etc. since the victim was abused back in 88. And would be well in his late 30's now. The main difference I could see is that this man admitted abusing some kids in the 90's-so maybe that is why the church had to take responsibility. But they are appealing.
I was also wondering if this case (and probably more like it) going on right now is the reason the judge is being extremely careful.???

 

[HIStory]

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

I was reading the Associated Press news yesterday and one of the stories said that in Southern CA (San Diego) they awarded a child abuse victim 13.5 million dollars in an abuse suit with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Apparently there were multiple cases that they settled out of court because of this same abuser and 6 people have just filed this week here in Texas.
This kinda actually shocked me, just like all child abuse cases do, but guess really surprised because it was the Jehovah Witnesses. And of course, I was trying to figure out about the statute of limitations, etc. since the victim was abused back in 88. And would be well in his late 30's now. The main difference I could see is that this man admitted abusing some kids in the 90's-so maybe that is why the church had to take responsibility. But they are appealing.
I was also wondering if this case (and probably more like it) going on right now is the reason the judge is being extremely careful.???

I do not know about the case, but there is a difference in statutes if the accused is not dead. So if the accused is alive in that JW case then I think that's the main difference. Another difference could be if the church knew about it but did nothing and this is actually a viable claim in that case (ie. there is some sort of evidence or reasonable case of it).

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

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

I've read there has been several suits against the JW since early 2000's and one reasons many victims took so long was because the congregation itself (mainly elders) made them feel shame, guilt and encouraged them to keep quiet, even more if elders were the abusers. I don't think either victims supported their abusers one time and then accusing them years later when the abusers could no longer defend themselves.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

The JW knew this person had been molesting kids and did nothing

 

[HIStory]

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

I've read there has been several suits against the JW since early 2000's and one reasons many victims took so long was because the congregation itself (mainly elders) made them feel shame, guilt and encouraged them to keep quiet, even more if elders were the abusers. I don't think either victims supported their abusers one time and then accusing them years later when the abusers could no longer defend themselves.

Yes, if this was the case then it would make it a case of a certain organization knowing about the abuse but covering it up instead of doing something against it. It's the classic church case that the law was actually made for - ie. church knowing but turning a blind eye.

 

[barbee0715]

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

Yes, if this was the case then it would make it a case of a certain organization knowing about the abuse but covering it up instead of doing something against it. It's the classic church case that the law was actually made for - ie. church knowing but turning a blind eye.

Thank you. The article I read yesterday was about the settlement and the appeal and was sketchy at best. And I also didn't understand (and it didn't detail) on the circumstances of the guy admitting abuse and not being charged with a crime and tried. All of this was civil against the church.

 

[ivy]

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

So obvious he's doing that just to get these questions leaked out to the media so they can hype up the case with headlines involving what Wade is claiming.

They lost their argument too with the earlier questions, about all the graphic sexual stuff, but it got them out in the public, which Wade was so thrilled about he posted links to all the trash gossip sites recounting them on his own facebook.

technically they leaked due to Estate's objection towards those questions but it could still be tactic to send them 2, 3 times more questions then normally sent and get Estate to object to them and in the process ensure that they become public. I guess Robson might have made such claims and sent such questions to scare Estate into settlement.

I do not know about the case, but there is a difference in statutes if the accused is not dead. So if the accused is alive in that JW case then I think that's the main difference. Another difference could be if the church knew about it but did nothing and this is actually a viable claim in that case (ie. there is some sort of evidence or reasonable case of it).

I checked the case. Perpetrator is alive but escaped to Mexico. There have been multiple reports of his abuse to JW but they did nothing most of the time. ( he was removed 2 times but then reinstated). First report was 4 years before the victim in this case claims when he was abused. And the perpetrator has multiple times confessed to the abuse - both to JW officials and during a deposition. In other words given that the JW church "knew or should have known" the abuse, the victim was in statute of limitations to file the lawsuit.

edited to add: the detailed timeline for the JW abuse case barbee mentioned for anyone interested
1982- first abuse, reported to JW, perpetrator admitted abuse, nothing is done
1983 - second victim
1986 - third victim - current plaintiff, reported to JW, JW told his mother not to report it to police, they left JW
1986 - JW did an investigation, perpetrator admitted abuse of two kids(victim 2&3), punishment was loss of privileges for 9 months
1988 - fourth victim abused between 1988 to 1995
1994 - second victim (1983) told his mom about abuse, his mother reported it to JW, was told it was dealt with in 1986 and was told statute of limitations for criminal case has passed - it wasn't. So JW gave wrong info to the victim to stop him from going to the cops
1995- mother of the fourth victim reported abuse to JW, perpetrator was removed as an elder from JW church. Perpetrator admitted abusing 3 other victims to the elders.(victim 5, 6, 7), JW did not report it to cops.
2000 - reinstated
2009 - some of the victims from the past learned he was reinstated so they filed lawsuits
2010 - perpetrator ran away to Mexico to avoid criminal prosecution
2011 - at a civil case deposition perpetrator admitted abusing at least 8 kids between 1982 and 1995
2009-2014 - 9 victims came forward. 4 victims as it can be seen above had reported the abuse to JW previously, perpetrator himself had mentioned 3 other victims to JW elders. 7 cases have settled privately, one case ended in $13.5 Million judgment

As it can be seen NOT comparable to Robson. In this case, there are 4 reports, 2 internal investigations and perpetrator admitting to abuse every single time. There's no question that JW knew and did nothing to stop it.

 

[barbee0715]

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

technically they leaked due to Estate's objection towards those questions but it could still be tactic to send them 2, 3 times more questions then normally sent and get Estate to object to them and in the process ensure that they become public. I guess Robson might have made such claims and sent such questions to scare Estate into settlement.

You were right the other day to say the case was a mess. I think both Wade and his lawyers have been contradicting themselves and each other since Day One. They have no case and are stumbling all over themselves. And I have no doubt at all that they did this to get it leaked publicly and force a statement. The only reason it hasn't been picked up but by a couple of tabloid media, is because Michael is gone. If he were alive, it would be a different story. And before anyone jumps on me, by different story, I do NOT MEAN a settlement!! I'm talking it would be front page news and leading headlines on every news outlet.

I checked the case. Perpetrator is alive but escaped to Mexico. There have been multiple reports of his abuse to JW but they did nothing most of the time. ( he was removed 2 times but then reinstated). First report was 4 years before the victim in this case claims when he was abused. And the perpetrator has multiple times confessed to the abuse - both to JW officials and during a deposition. In other words given that the JW church "knew or should have known" the abuse, the victim was in statute of limitations to file the lawsuit.

As it can be seen NOT comparable to Robson. In this case, there are 4 reports, 2 internal investigations and perpetrator admitting to abuse every single time. There's no question that JW knew and did nothing to stop it.

Wow. Thank you for all the research on this. None of this detail was written in the article and quite frankly, it was confusing. Even then, I never thought it would be comparable to Robson-just curious about the statute of limitations and the fact it was a civil case against an entity, not a person. And it apparently was a big case, so I thought that might make Beckloff more than cautious.

But reading this evidence, this is quite outrageous. It's been hard for me to accept that the Catholic Church has turned a blind eye all these years, and now this. It's very scary.

 

[HIStory]

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

^ Plus this would be a case for equitable estoppel:

1994 - second victim (1983) told his mom about abuse, his mother reported it to JW, was told it was dealt with in 1986 and was told statute of limitations for criminal case has passed - it wasn't. So JW gave wrong info to the victim to stop him from going to the cops

Those are the type of things equitble estoppel is about. When a defendant did something that prevented the plaintiff from staying within statutes of limitations. This is what equitable estoppel is about, not about the crap that Wade is trying to pull.

 

[ivy]

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

just curious about the statute of limitations and the fact it was a civil case against an entity, not a person.

The case is similar in regards to age of the plaintiff, time of the abuse etc- lawsuit is brought 20+ yrs later after victim is 30 yrs old. but I think this below rule applies to it

In 2002, SB 1779 (Burton/Escutia) was enacted to extend the statute of limitations in cases against a third party beyond age 26, when the third party knew or had reason to know of complaints against an employee and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent similar unlawful conduct.

so as the third party - JW church - definitely knew the complaints and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such abuse the victim could have filed it beyond age 26. and there's no ifs or buts at that case. they first got a complaint in 1982 and when asked the perpetrator admitted the abuse. so the JW church absolutely knew.

 

[seany]

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

Two things.

The judge that has been placed on this current legal case with WR, is he also the judge for JS's?

Tom Sneddon is a very very cold man now. He died yesterday.

 

[HIStory]

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

The case is similar in regards to age of the plaintiff, time of the abuse etc- lawsuit is brought 20+ yrs later after victim is 30 yrs old. but I think this below rule applies to it

In 2002, SB 1779 (Burton/Escutia) was enacted to extend the statute of limitations in cases against a third party beyond age 26, when the third party knew or had reason to know of complaints against an employee and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent similar unlawful conduct.

Yes, Probate Court law does not apply here if the accused is still alive, so it's probably CCP 340.1 that they would focus on. That's often mentioned in the Robson case as well, but due to different circumstances different parts of apply.

CCP 340.1:

340.1. (a) In an action for recovery of damages suffered as a
result of childhood sexual abuse, the time for commencement of the
action shall be within eight years of the date the plaintiff attains
the age of majority or within three years of the date the plaintiff
discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological
injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by
the sexual abuse, whichever period expires later, for any of the
following actions:
(1) An action against any person for committing an act of
childhood sexual abuse.
(2) An action for liability against any person or entity who owed
a duty of care to the plaintiff, where a wrongful or negligent act by
that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual
abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.
(3) An action for liability against any person or entity where an
intentional act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the
childhood sexual abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.
(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.

If the accused is alive then in the JW case (1) (the second bolded part which says "An action against any person for committing an act of childhood sexual abuse") applies there but in the Robson case it does not because Michael is dead and you cannot sue a dead person.

So in Robson's case only part (2) and (3) would apply regarding the third party defendants (companies), however about that (b) says: "No action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday."

In other words in the case of third party defendants (companies) the part where it says one can sue within 3 years of the plaintiff's discovery of abuse or the arising injury does not apply. That part only applies in case of an accused person who is still alive. In case of companies and other third party defendants only the part applies which says one has to sue them until the age of 26. With one exception that is detailed in (b)(2) that we have often talked about. And that is the part which says "if the entity knew or had reasons to know..." and did nothing etc.

So I would assume that in the JW case both (1) and (2) would apply (the second and third bolded parts): (1) because the accused is still alive and (2) because the JW church definitely knew and had reasons to know and turned a blind eye. From what was written in this thread about that case this is clear in the JW case - there is plenty of evidence of the church knowingly turning a blind eye and even misleading the plaintiff of his legal possibilities.

In Robson's case there is just nothing in that regard. He is now trying to construct something but it's hard to see where he can go with that but we will see.

 

[passy001]

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

Tom Sneddon is a very very cold man now. He died yesterday.

Really? if so, good riddance and hopefully he will rot in hell.

 

[HIStory]

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

Really? if so, good riddance and hopefully he will rot in hell.

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/134383-Tom-Sneddon-dies-of-cancer

 

[ivy]

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

The judge that has been placed on this current legal case with WR, is he also the judge for JS's?

Yes. It is Judge Mitchell Beckloff. He handles any and all probate related matters. Both WR and JS is trying to bring a late probate claim against Estate and therefore it falls under Beckloff's responsibility.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

When all else fail leak it to the pubic look like that what Wade and his lawyers want to do now. Did their really believe that the Estate was going to answer to those questions have their lost their mind. You can't force them you can't make them say yes this happen to you because it will be a lie.

 

[LastTear]

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

^^^^^ Yes, and also the estate can't answer those questions because apparently only Wade and Michael knew........

 

[HIStory]

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

BTW, I still don't get the whole equitable estoppel argument. I went through his lawsuit and arguments again and I just do not understand it.

There are three laws at play.

Probate Code 9103

- having to file within 60 days of getting knowledge about abuse, the resulting injury and the administration of the Estate.

CCP 366.2

- When a person dies all other time limitations of running issues go out of the window, there is a one year period within a claimant has to file.

And CCP 340.1

- 26 years of age and a 3 year period after getting knowledge about abuse, the resulting injury in case of companies which knew or had a reason to know bla-bla-bla.

Robson's argument seems to be that the PC 9103 and CCP 366.2 limitations do not apply to him because he is entitled to equitable estoppel which makes the limitations of CPP 340.1 apply to him instead. Obviously he is trying to ge to that "3 year period" stuff, because that's the only time limit he could be within.

But why on earth would he be entitled to equitable estoppel regarding PC 9103? His argument seems to be this psychological issue of abuse victims needing time to realize the abuse and injury. That's OK, but PC 9103 has it covered. He claims he realized abuse and injury in therapy in May 2012, so under PC 9103 he had 60 days to file which he missed. Why would he be entitled to equitable estoppel here? Unless he can make a claim about the Estate preventing him from making a timely complaint which he cannot make.

And even if he somehow got that equitable estoppel and went through to 340.1 applying to him rather than either PC 9103 or CCP 366.2 there's still the fact that that 3 year period only applies if he sued MJ personally as a natural person which he cannot as MJ is dead, or if he sued MJ's companies under the (b)(2) section which we talked a lot about (company knew or had a reason to know and turned a blind eye bla-bla-bla). Which also seems problematic.

But my point is here that I do not understand how even equitable estoppel could be invoked here. For that he would need something that the Defendant (MJ, companies, Estate) did to him to prevent him from filing within the limitations of PC 9103 (between May and July 2012) and he just cannot claim any such thing.

To me the argument seems to be that because he is an alleged victim of sexual abuse and CCP 340.1 acknowledges that sexual abuse victims may need time to come to terms with their abuse and CCP 340.1 gave 3 years for that if MJ was alive, somehow for some reason that longer time period should apply to him rather than the 2 months time limitation of PC 9103. And this is where he is trying to create a new precedent. But somehow that whole argument sounds twisted to me. "If MJ was alive" - but he isn't. There are different rules for people who are dead and people who are alive and he now tries to change that.

 

[ivy]

Radar is reporting the latest developments with a very biased and wrong headline

Silencing The Victim? Michael Jackson Lawyers Ask Judge To Limit Questions About Anal Rape In Wade Robson Sex Abuse Lawsuit
Posted on Nov 3, 2014 @ 14:10PM


Lawyers for Michael Jackson and Wade Robson will face off in a Los Angeles court Thursday, RadarOnline.com has learned, over what questions representatives for the late pop icon must answer about alleged sex activities between Jackson and Robson.

Robson previously filed court documents asking the estate to admit that Jackson was guilty of “putting his hand over Robson’s clothed penis,” “putting his hand inside Wade Robson’s underpants,” “taking Wade Robson’s hand and putting it over [Jackson’s] clothed penis,” “taking Wade Robson’s hand and putting it inside [Jackson’s] underpants,” “French kissing,” “rubbing Wade Robson’s penis,” “having Wade Robson rub [Jackson’s] penis,” “licking Wade Robson’s anus while [Jackson] masturbated using lotion,” “the mutual fondling of genitals” with hands and mouths, “mutual fellatio,” “lying on top of [each other] gyrating their genitals together,” “showering naked together,” and even “penetration of Wade Robson’s anus with [Jackson’s] penis,” among other offenses.

But in the new court documents, Jackson lawyers argue they’ve already “categorically and unequivocally denied that any sexual conduct” ever happened between Jackson and Robson, who is now suing Jackson’s estate for alleged sexually abuse when he was a child in the 1990s.

READ THE COURT DOCUMENTS HERE

Court rules allow a plaintiff to send just 35 “requests for admissions” to a defendant before a trial, unless lawyers can justify needing more responses.

Jackson lawyers say Robson’s attorney’s have not justified their 93 requests for admissions that “Robson and Michael engaged in sexual activities together in the 1990s and that Michael sexually abused Robson,” a new court filing contends.

Jackson lawyers, who technically represent corporations that Jackson owned, say they can’t answer many of the questions because Jackson is dead and the corporate representatives “were not party to” what happened on the 1990s.


“Both Michael and Robson vigorously denied that any such activities ever took place at all times when Michael was still alive,” the filing said. “And even through plaintiff now has changed his story, he contends that only he and Michael knew about the alleged conduct.”

The judge has granted a subpoena that orders the Santa Barbara County district attorney and sheriff to hand over all documents related to their 2003 raid of Jackson’s Neverland Ranch.

The explosive case appears to be headed to an eventual trial, as Jackson estate lawyer Howard Weitzman told RadarOnline.com in August that there were “no settlement discussions with Mr. Robson nor do we anticipate any ever taking place.”

Robson’s court filing included multiple graphic claims about sexual activities between Jackson and the boy that began after Jackson invited Robson and his family to stay on his ranch in 1990.

Though the estate has argued that Robson waited too long to file his complaint, Robson claimed he only remembered the molestation after suffering mental breakdowns and going to therapy.

A hearing could come in the next few months, in which Robson is required to testify about giving contradictory testimony in Jackson’s criminal child molestation trial in 2005.


By Alan Duke

documents: https://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/wade-signed.pdf

 

[barbee0715]

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

Haha. Biased headline is putting it mildly. Poor Alan Duke-looks like he has been reduced to "cutting and pasting" previous RadarOnline work to me.

Good thing no one really reads RadarOnline. And since this started, I've only seen TMZ and a few obscure international newspapers pick up their stories.

I really don't see how the stuff from the 2003 raid is going to help them, since they couldn't find anything in there for the criminal trial. But is it because the burden of proof is less in a civil trial?

And that reminds me, why didn't the Arvizos ever proceed with a civil trial? I'm just curious, because it seems like they could have. Just because someone is not guilty doesn't seem to stop that. I'm sure it wasn't for some high, ethical reason. ha.

 

[la_cienega]

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

"Silencing the victim"???? The ****? The media are just so awful. I'm so disappointed in how desperate Alan Duke clearly is for cash.

 

[passy001]

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

Typical checkbook and tabloid journalism. the dud must be running out of cash hence he's writing for a tabloid. that's a massive demotion right there for a dude that used to work for CNN.

and by the way Robson has not proven that he's a victim. if any, he's playing the typical extortionist.