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

Robson filed his response accusing Estate being unreasonable, giving ultimatums and so on. they want estate to answers all RFA's and they think the answers provided are deficient and not enough.

some tidbits from documents / email exchanges between lawyers

- Recently Estate had found 300+ boxes of documents. they need time to go over them.
- Estate says they will answer questions about Wade's visa and his mothers employment.
- Only person to file a lawsuit of childhood sexual abuse against MJ is Jordan Chandler. People that made claims of sexual abuse are Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo and Jason Francia.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

How does he expect them to answer questions about what allegedly went on between him and Michael? I mean they weren't there and you really believe that Michael will break the law like that and tell them about it I mean that is freaking ridiculous
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^

they would simply deny it.

One argument Estate made was they deny sexual abuse claims therefore there was no need / it was redundant to deny each and all of specific claims. I wouldn't be surprised if judge tells Estate to answer the questions - given the judge seems to grant all discovery requests of Robson. Estate will simply deny all those specific claims as well. It will require time, effort etc.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I guess the part I don't get is why is this such a big deal for Robertson's lawyers
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

ivy said:
- Recently Estate had found 300+ boxes of documents. they need time to go over them.
Click to expand...

The Estate? What kind of documents are those? Are those related to the discovery or they found them independently from them?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It's not exactly clear what they are. I would imagine it's business or legal files which they have to go through. For example at one part they mention they'll get the Chandler case number from the documents or they mention they would provide information about Robson visa and Joy's employment. It looks like Estate asked for a 30 day extension on discovery/producing documents on October 21st to go over the files. and yes it's related to discovery. This is again the civil case btw.

edited to add: I don't remember if the old court documents (the one with all that salacious RFA's and interrogatories) also listed document requests. If it does, these will be materials related to that requests.

edited to add 2: at one email Estate says they would get Chandler documents/numbers from "Katten files", Katten is the name of the law firm where Zia Modabber works and he was representing MJ back in the day in child abuse related matters such as VG lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Personally, I think that even if someone wants to believe Wade, he should have had his whole case in order before he filed this trash in the first place. Now he's fishing for info from the other cases to give support to his own and I don't think that's fair. His whole case is a copy-and-paste job in my opinion. And I would think that if he was telling the truth, he wouldn't need any past garbage-pail cases about Michael to do his work for him. Not to mention that Wade had years to bring Michael to "justice" and did absolutely nothing to make sure Michael went to jail, even when Sneddon and company went all out while questioning him in open court. And I don't like how that doesn't seem to count anymore just because he and his camp don't want it to count. Now, he wants that big money whether he admits it or not, in my opinion. This is pathetic and disgusting.
 
Last edited:
ivy;4055516 said:
Robson filed his response accusing Estate being unreasonable, giving ultimatums and so on. they want estate to answers all RFA's and they think the answers provided are deficient and not enough.

some tidbits from documents / email exchanges between lawyers

- Recently Estate had found 300+ boxes of documents. they need time to go over them.
- Estate says they will answer questions about Wade's visa and his mothers employment.
- Only person to file a lawsuit of childhood sexual abuse against MJ is Jordan Chandler. People that made claims of sexual abuse are Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo and Jason Francia.
Click to expand...

Will you be posting these documents later?


Bonnie Blue;4055321 said:
I think these radar articles that repeatedly dwell in detail on all the supposed sex activities mj and wade had are really disturbing - i don't think even tmz do this do they? Seriously, who wants to read this type of imagery except pedophiles? - it's basically child porn. Reminds me of the content of vg's books.
Click to expand...

I suppose that is the reason that Alan Duke didn't tweet his article. Maybe he has some remains of dignity and self-respect left, but I wonder how long he is going to hold on to it?

Note, he did tweet link to his other previous articles, such as
Alan Duke @AlanDukeNews · Oct 30
Michael Jackson's Drug 'Gatekeeper' Jason Pfeiffer Talks Tell-All Book & Riding 'Off Into The Su… xxxxxxxxx via @radar_online

PS, I removed the link to it because it doesn't deserve any clicks from us.
 
Last edited:
Justthefacts;4055522 said:
I guess the part I don't get is why is this such a big deal for Robertson's lawyers
Click to expand...

I don't get it either, and seemingly the estate lawyers are wondering it too, as they referred i few times in the latest document as wasting of paper and contributing environment problems.

There has to be some sort of reason.


ivy;4055516 said:
Robson filed his response accusing Estate being unreasonable, giving ultimatums and so on. they want estate to answers all RFA's and they think the answers provided are deficient and not enough.
Click to expand...

If the estate says this:
"categorically and unequivocally denied that any sexual conduct” ever happened between Jackson and Robson"

How it is going to change anything for plaintiff, if the estate are asked these questions individually:
putting his hand over Robson’s clothed penis,”
“putting his hand inside Wade Robson’s underpants,”

and deny all of them separately?

Plaintiff is the one who is being unreasonable. Common sense should say, nobody molest anyone on front of someone, or tells about it to employees. Judge should agree with defendants and tell plaintiff to stop messing:no:
 
Last edited:
Bubs;4055537 said:
I don't get it either, and seemingly the estate lawyers are wondering it too, as they referred i few times in the latest document as wasting of paper and contributing environment problems.

There has to be some sort of reason.


If the estate says this:
"categorically and unequivocally denied that any sexual conduct” ever happened between Jackson and Robson"

How it is going to change anything for plaintiff, if the estate are asked these questions individually:
putting his hand over Robson’s clothed penis,”
“putting his hand inside Wade Robson’s underpants,”

and deny all of them separately?

Plaintiff is the one who is being unreasonable. Common sense should say, nobody molest anyone on front of someone, or tells about it to employees. Judge should agree with defendants and tell plaintiff to stop messing:no:
Click to expand...

Is the reason that they want to be able to say that the Estate can't categorically deny each of these complaints / allegations...(because they were not there?) Maybe there is some PR they have in mind (or book they are writing) where it will strengthen their story to say that they brought a case and the Estate could not categorically deny all of these detailed issues, therefore ....(let the public join the dots). Same idea as Radar publishing the article with all the salacious details...the more you say it (and the less each claim is categorically denied), the more the PR machine can go into overdrive, and the more money they might be able to earn from tabloids when the case fails ( as it should).
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

myosotis said:
Is the reason that they want to be able to say that the Estate can't categorically deny each of these complaints / allegations...because they were not there? ....Maybe there is some PR they have in mind (or book they are writing) where it will strengthen their story to say that they brought a case and the Estate could not categorically deny all of these detailed issues, therefore ....(let the public join the dots). Same idea as Radar publishing the article with all the salacious details...the more you say it (and the less each claim is categorically denied), the more the PR machine can go into overdrive, and the more money they might be able to earn from tabloids when the case fails ( as it should).
Click to expand...

I don't get it?
I give you bad example how I see these questions: If there is a murder happened in your next door neighbours' house, and you are sued for not stopping it. You claim that you didn't see or hear anything, and that is your part. Yet they keep asking you "did you see what happened", "how many times victim was stabbed", "was kitchen knife used" etc, instead of allowing you to just say that you simply did not see or hear a thing when it happened.

I don't think they are going to say that the estate cannot categorically deny these claims because they weren't there, then they wouldn't have a case. It is admitting that they know Wade's ramblings are just work of fiction but they still tried to sue someone else because they couldn't sue MJ.
Edited to add, here is Wade's declaration
http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/wade-robson354b0046b.pdf
In his work of fiction, they were alone, noone else were there, so why they even go there asking whether they deny seeing MJ's hands on Wade's pants:scratch:

Might be the case of trying to slow down the process in order to give them more time trying to find more crap to trow on the wall and see f it sticks.

I don't think lawyers goes this far only for book deals. That kind of deal have to bring big monies to feed themselves for the rest of their lives as they wouldn't work in any law firm.

This curious case indeed. Hopefully we get some good news soon.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Bubs said:
Will you be posting these documents later?
Click to expand...

I didn't plan to post them bc it's a very minor issue that will be decided by the court soon. But if you want them, I'll post them tonight after work.

---------------

btw a little note about discussion about realmjfacts : realmjfacts is able to get the court documents from a system that only accepts credit cards with USA billing address. So that means they are either from USA or they have someone from USA who is getting the documents.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

What is a RFA again?

And you'd think common sense would prevail in this but no.
Michael denied it. Wade denied it. The estate denied it. Period.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

barbee0715 said:
What is a RFA again?
Click to expand...

A request for admissions (sometimes also called a request to admit) are a set of statements sent from one litigant to an adversary, for the purpose of having the adversary admit or deny the statements or allegations therein. Requests for admissions are part of the discovery process in a civil case.

edited to add: The logic behind them is if the other party admits a statement it is considered to be true for the purposes of the trial. In other words if I say "admit you owe me money" and if you reply "admit", it becomes a fact/truth that you owe me money and hence doesn't need to be proven/disproven during trial.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

ivy said:
A request for admissions (sometimes also called a request to admit) are a set of statements sent from one litigant to an adversary, for the purpose of having the adversary admit or deny the statements or allegations therein. Requests for admissions are part of the discovery process in a civil case.
Click to expand...
thank you!
 
ivy;4055686 said:
edited to add: The logic behind them is if the other party admits a statement it is considered to be true for the purposes of the trial. In other words if I say "admit you owe me money" and if you reply "admit", it becomes a fact/truth that you owe me money and hence doesn't need to be proven/disproven during trial.
Click to expand...

Sorry Ivy, my head must be thick or something, but I still don't get it:scratch:
If the estate say they " “categorically and unequivocally denied that any sexual conduct ever happened ”, that covers the whole list of things what plaintiff claims happened?
They are still going to have to prove every single thing in the list, because whether the judge allows the estate to deny once, or deny individually every single allegation, the estate is going to say the same thing, deny.

To me it smells like delaying tactic. Maybe they are trying to get more time in order if they "find" something to throw on the wall and see if it sticks?


Edited to add:
Thanks Ivy for posting docs, now I can read them:)
There was this little bit:
The only purpose - other than wasting reams of paper and further contributing to the deterioration of our environment - is to force Corporate Defendants to deny same thing over-and over again, and them to somehow provide interrogatory response (under Form Interrogatory No 17.1) about why they are denying the same thing over-and-over again.

What that bolded bit means?
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Kingofpop4ever3000 said:
Personally, I think that even if someone wants to believe Wade, he should have had his whole case in order before he filed this trash in the first place. Now he's fishing for info from the other cases to give support to his own and I don't think that's fair. His whole case is a copy-and-paste job in my opinion. And I would think that if he was telling the truth, he wouldn't need any past garbage-pail cases about Michael to do his work for him. Not to mention that Wade had years to bring Michael to "justice" and did absolutely nothing to make sure Michael went to jail, even when Sneddon and company went all out while questioning him in open court. And I don't like how that doesn't seem to count anymore just because he and his camp don't want it to count. Now, he wants that big money whether he admits it or not, in my opinion. This is pathetic and disgusting.
Click to expand...



I agree with you on this that what it look like to me a copy and paste he not saying what Michael did to him he looking at these others cases to build his own case and you are right it is unfair. If this so call sexual abuse happen to Wade then tell exactly what Michael did to you.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So what will be happening on Nov 6?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Justthefacts said:
How does he expect them to answer questions about what allegedly went on between him and Michael? I mean they weren't there and you really believe that Michael will break the law like that and tell them about it I mean that is freaking ridiculous
Click to expand...



My question too how can the Estate answer their were not there. Wade own words he and Michael was the only ones who knew about this so call sexuall abuse that happen to Wade so he claim. Like Michael said if you tell a lie long enough you start to believe.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

pminton said:
My question too how can the Estate answer their were not there. Wade own words he and Michael was the only ones who knew about this so call sexuall abuse that happen to Wade so he claim. Like Michael said if you tell a lie long enough you start to believe.
Click to expand...

The answer lies here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/24561311...ve-Order?secret_password=9rU85uREmLnLKqw6UL05
Starting from page 5 - line 7 What the defendants fail to understand .........


What a load of rubbish! "Defendants disbeliefs or purported lack of knowledge of the acts of abuse is not valid basis for refusing to respond Robson's legitimate requests".
:wtf:
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This is really getting crazy now imo i don't see what this has to do with Wade case it is a waste of time.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

ivy said:
I added the documents quickly in a private not watermarked format

Estate's protective order motion (previously posted by radar but in an easier to read format) : https://www.scribd.com/doc/245613112/MJ-Estate-Protective-Order?secret_password=Pj62JWNQz7ZX058kDuUr

Robson response: https://www.scribd.com/doc/24561311...ve-Order?secret_password=9rU85uREmLnLKqw6UL05
Click to expand...

Seems to me like much ado about nothing.

But now I'm confused about what is decided about on Nov 6. With all these delay requests and everything.

Also:

28tvwbr.jpg



What is a "rolling production"?

ETA: This is written by Steinsapir (Estate lawyer) to Marzano (Robson lawyer) in one of the e-mails:

2q022rl.jpg


What does it mean? What is a motion practice?
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Bubs said:
I don't get it?
I give you bad example how I see these questions: If there is a murder happened in your next door neighbours' house, and you are sued for not stopping it. You claim that you didn't see or hear anything, and that is your part. Yet they keep asking you "did you see what happened", "how many times victim was stabbed", "was kitchen knife used" etc, instead of allowing you to just say that you simply did not see or hear a thing when it happened.

I don't think they are going to say that the estate cannot categorically deny these claims because they weren't there, then they wouldn't have a case. It is admitting that they know Wade's ramblings are just work of fiction but they still tried to sue someone else because they couldn't sue MJ.
Edited to add, here is Wade's declaration
http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/wade-robson354b0046b.pdf
In his work of fiction, they were alone, noone else were there, so why they even go there asking whether they deny seeing MJ's hands on Wade's pants:scratch:

Might be the case of trying to slow down the process in order to give them more time trying to find more crap to trow on the wall and see f it sticks.

I don't think lawyers goes this far only for book deals. That kind of deal have to bring big monies to feed themselves for the rest of their lives as they wouldn't work in any law firm.

This curious case indeed. Hopefully we get some good news soon.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't writing very clearly.
I just meant that I thought Robson et. al. were going to great lengths for the allegations to appear 'undeniable'. (They can't be admitted, but neither can they be denied, because no-one else was there). However, if you concentrate on the 'un-deniability' part, and forget the reason why, it 'sounds' much worse. I just thought that if there wasn't a clear legal reason for needing 50-odd additional denials, then there must be a monetary reason...and since the whole thing is about money anyway, I'm just thinking about how they will play the 'undeniability' in the future eg with a book entitled ' The undeniable truth about...'.

Apologies for not being clearer.

PS ^^^ Motion Practice seems to be described here:
Motion practice is the three-step process to ask the judge to order something in the case. First, the moving party, i.e. the person who is asking for a court order, files a motion, asking the court to order something specific. Second, the other party files a response or opposition. Third, the moving party can reply to the opposition.

http://courts.alaska.gov/motions.htm

In this case, 'going through the motions' for the poor Estate lawyers seems to be rather like wading (apologies for the pun) through 's*1t'.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

ivy said:
A request for admissions (sometimes also called a request to admit) are a set of statements sent from one litigant to an adversary, for the purpose of having the adversary admit or deny the statements or allegations therein. Requests for admissions are part of the discovery process in a civil case.

edited to add: The logic behind them is if the other party admits a statement it is considered to be true for the purposes of the trial. In other words if I say "admit you owe me money" and if you reply "admit", it becomes a fact/truth that you owe me money and hence doesn't need to be proven/disproven during trial.
Click to expand...

But why even bother when they know as a matter of fact that the estate will deny everything? Isn't that a waste of time?

Can the estate also send Robson's lawyers their own RFAs with the same questions but asking them to admit it is all fabrication?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I was on my phone earlier today and got a Michael Alert-and Radar came out with another story about "Michael's lawyers stonewalling questions about hush money"-it's by Alan again, but this time he calls Michael by his infamous "nickname" both in the title and the story.
I was sorry I clicked on it, because I wasn't paying attention and didn't realize it was from Radar-but after I did, thought about calling Alan out on it.
I suppose if I said something to him personally, instead of just commenting on the story, they would delete my post anyway.
I'm through feeling sorry for him now.
I really think he should be ashamed.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ It seems the Robson propaganda machine is in full action now. The whole "stonewalling" is their language in these motions. And I'm so fed up with the media representing settlements as "hush money". Hush money is paid for an allegation not to come out and not to go to authorities. In this case both the Chandler and Francia cases were settled after both authorities and the media already knew full well about these cases and investigated them. Moreover a civil settlement cannot stop anyone from testifying at a criminal trial - as we have seen by the Francias testifying in 2005.

And of course Duke is fully misrepresenting what is in those docs. The Estate simply argues that some questions are redundant, Robson argues they aren't - the Judge will decide. That's it basically. You can also see from these papers that in the probate case the Estate basically already answered these questions. Also as far as I understood these special 8 interrogatories are questions about which the Estate agreed to answer (didn't they, Ivy?)

5a28o1.jpg

2e323kk.jpg


From Estate motion:

293y23m.jpg



As far as I understand now only the RFAs are disputed. About the interrogatories they agreed that the Estate answers 35 +8 interrogatories (the additional 8 are the ones above). Do I understand it right, Ivy? So what exactly do the Estate try to "stonewall" about "hush money" questions?

To me it seems that now Robson is trying to put some pressure on the Judge/Estate by these recent articles. Or Duke is trying to prove his "worth" in stirring shit to his new employers.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Would anybody be able to give me a quick runthrough of what's going on? I haven't checked on this case in several months.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I tell you what this case is all over the place now delayed,motions,questions,leaks i am really not please with Alan i can not believe he is apart of this messy.

When the judge told Wade and his lawyers to go back and redo your case the flood gates open so much has happen sense then.


last thing was


respect77 quote
What they have to prove now is that they are within statutes of limitations. They can achieve that if they manage to find support for CCP 340.1 (B)2 in their case, ie. this:

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.

Which their have not been able to prove.

So now what will be happening on Nov 6?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I have a few stupid questions to ask and this is as good a place as any since most of you know all the intimate details of all the cases. It's not really to do with Wade.
I was reading another article about Sneddon and they referred to the raid on Neverland. But wasn't Neverland also raided in 93? I seem to remember they searched Hayvenhurst and the condo also. Am I wrong?
If I'm right I guess Michael decided to forgive on that one and stay there but then I thought maybe I'm mistaken.
And also I know he sued and won lawsuits against his employees and Victor G. Did any of them ever pay? I was thinking they probably didn't and if any of them give paid interviews couldn't the estate confiscate the money. Wouldn't they owe that judgement to his heirs?
Just wondering a few things out loud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top