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

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.

Now that you mentioned it, about V.Gutierrez when Michael sued him for malicious libel re. his godforsaken book of his, when Michael does, Gutierrez filed for bankruptcy and then he fled to avoid paying Michael damages and he also sued Diane Demon and yet she avoided to pay damages to Michael.

Bunch of nancy cats they are. Pah! Cowards!
 
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.

I'm so disappointed in Alan Duke. He's down in the gutter now with this crap. He's getting a lot of heat on Twitter now. And the man has the nerve to have pictures posted on his Twitter of him visiting Michael's grave at Forest Lawn a few months ago. I tweeted him and told him to remove them since he's now pissing on his grave. What an a**hole. But, why should any of us be surprised. This is what they do. :(
 
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?

Yes, Neverland was searched in 1993 as well and they also searched the "Hideout" condo, Hayvenhurst and a Las Vegas hotel room where MJ often stayed. In 1993 they also searched the offices of his docs Arnold Klein and Steve Hoefflin and they confiscated medical records of MJ.

In 2005 they did dozens of searches: they did not only search Neverland but the premises of MJ's employees and associates, bank accounts, just everything imaginable. I think there was even a controversy because they also searched the office of MJ's private investigator, Bradley Miller and they had no right to do that. Sneddon claimed he did not know Miller worked for Mark Geragos which is obviously a lie. See:

[h=1]Sneddon Admits he Knew Raid was Illegal?? Bullet #178[/h] Written by Administrator. Posted in MJEOL BULLET
Sneddon Admits he Knew Raid was Illegal? ? MJEOL Bullet #178 There is word of breaking news today of two new pieces of information surrounding current district attorney Tom Sneddon and prosecutorial misconduct. Sources say that Sneddon, after initially lying about it, admitted to knowing a private investigator was hired by then-Jackson attorney Mark Geragos.Further, we have also learned that even after they ?found out? (the second time) that Miller was a part of the defense team, they lied again to get a second search warrant.
Appearing on Fox News Live today (Aug 15 2004), defense attorney John Dolan told Fox that the Jackson ?case? is a train wreck waiting to happen because of the misconduct of current lead prosecutor and DA Tom Sneddon. Dolan says that prosecutors initially lied to Judge Rodney Melville when they first claimed they didn?t know Miller was working for Geragos in written papers. Dolan tells Fox News:
?In the written papers filed with the court, Sneddon and his offices say they didn?t know Brad Miller was hired by Mr. Geragos. But in a telephone conference call with the defense and with some prosecutors, he admitted that he did know, before this investigation and before this entry by sledgehammer into Brad Miller?s office, that Miller was working for Geragos? :)camera see FoxNewsLive: Sneddon Admitted to Knowing Miller worked for Geragos Aug 15 2004 ).
Dolan says that this extraordinary set of circumstances could cause the attorney general to have to become involved in this case once again if Sneddon is made to step down from this case. ?That?s a train wreck because then the attorney general comes in to take over the case,? Dolan says. He continues:
?The same attorney general that probably has to investigate the district attorney?s office about what they did in this search warrant. It?s a real mess.?
Also discussed was what police may have been looking for in Miller?s office. Reportedly, the story goes, the family told prosecutors that Miller may be in possession of some letters Jackson wrote to the accuser. Most observers don?t seem to understand why Miller would have those alleged letters. Even though they had a search warrant, police still sledge-hammered their way into Miller?s office. These alleged letters were supposed to have been inside a storage box of some kind. Dolan said a storage locker was discovered during the police?s initial search. Evidently they didn?t find any letters because Dolan reports that after they were told (again) that Miller was working for Geragos?and after Miller?s attorney showed up at the scene during the initial raid?they obtained a second search warrant. This second warrant was obtained, again, without mention that Miller was a part of the defense team:
?And that storage locker, by the way, was discovered during the initial search. And then a second search warrant was obtained compounding the problem because they again didn?t mention that Brad Miller was Mark Geragos?s investigator. And Brad Miller was there and told them that before they went and got the second search warrant.?
So all of this illegal searching and prosecutors may have still come up empty-handed with regards to any incriminating evidence. The only report about any ?evidence? prosecutors want to use is actually exonerating material: a video of the family on tape saying nothing happened and professing how good a person Jackson is. Believe it or not, prosecutors are actually trying to claim that this shows a ?conspiracy? and that the family was made to say those things. Yeah?right. This new information comes on the heels of other information about Sneddon breaking the gag order he, himself, requested. And then lying to the media about not breaking it. Attorney Joe Tacopina, who represents one of the prosecution-alleged ?co-conspirators? told Fox News?s Geraldo Rivera (August 14 2004) that someone taped the speech Sneddon made in which Sneddon breaks the gag order by discussing this ?case?. Not only that, Sneddon is supposedly caught saying that he subpoenaed certain people to keep them off TV and from defending Jackson:
?He said this at a speech that someone taped. So yes, he?s gonna admit he did that. And he said he did that? :)camera see Rivera: Joe Tacopina talking about Sneddon testifying Aug 14 2004 ).​
This is more of that ?special treatment? again. Tacopina says that if this situation had been overseen by an unbiased prosecutor, this ?case? never would have been brought. He says that there is massive amounts of ?baggage? that?s going to come out about the family. ?The inconsistencies are gonna be enormous,? Tacopina says. He also says that all the credible evidence in this case is overwhelmingly in Jackson?s favor. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/sneddon-admits-he-knew-raid-was-illegal-bullet-178.html

IMO Michael's rights were violated left and right.


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.

No, VG never paid. Michael won in court but in real life it didn't change anything: VG never paid, he was still treated by his fellow media people as some kind of authority on MJ and child abuse allegations, still employed by the media. And people wonder why MJ did not sue more often. Apparently it was a waste of time.
 
Well this is why I didn't want to make detailed summaries or add the documents. It gets technical, it gets complex and some questions cannot be answered unless you are a lawyer. And honestly I don't have such knowledge.

Bubs;4055700 said:
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?

I cannot answer why Robson isn't satisfied with a general denial and want an answer to the every one of the specific allegations. Is there a strategy there? who knows? I guess you need to be a practicing lawyer to be able to understand that level of nuances.

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?

My understanding is parties are required to provide detailed answers to interrogatories but they can provide short accept/deny responses to the RFAs. However 17.1 is when they need to provide detailed explanation of why they denied a RFA. So Estate argues - as far as I can understand - that Robson asking RFAs and then wanting an explanation of why they denied such RFAs turn them into interrogatories.

respect77;4055738 said:
But now I'm confused about what is decided about on Nov 6. With all these delay requests and everything.

right now it seems to be if they will be ordered to answer RFAs 36-93 or not.

What is a "rolling production"?

production of documents in stages rather than all at once.

passy001;4055792 said:
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?

this is an expert question.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

right now it seems to be if they will be ordered to answer RFAs 36-93 or not.

So no summary judgement, right?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

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?)

yes. initially Robson sent 143 interrogatories and now parties agreed Estate will answer 35 + additional 8 = 43. Those additional 8 covers any sexual abuse claims against MJ, any sexual abuse lawsuits and any settlements (or "hush money" as Radar Online calls it). And yes Estate already answered the RFAs from Probate case which Robson's own lawyer calls as "virtually the same".

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?

All correct.

So what exactly do the Estate try to "stonewall" about "hush money" questions?

Nothing. they already agreed to answer "hush money" question in the additional 8 interrogatories.

PS: check my blog. I posted a piece about this issue.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So no summary judgement, right?

you mean the summary judgment from probate case? I can't tell to be honest. Hearing is still on the probate calendar. however there's a motion to compel and a stipulation to continue a hearing - which might or might not be related to Robson probate matter. So I cannot tell. However we'll know soon enough.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

you mean the summary judgment from probate case? I can't tell to be honest. Hearing is still on the probate calendar. however there's a motion to compel and a stipulation to continue a hearing - which might or might not be related to Robson probate matter. So I cannot tell. However we'll know soon enough.

Thanks. And is the date for that summary judgement hearing set for today or some other date?
And I guess just because there is a hearing that does not mean there will be a decision on summary judgement.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Thanks. And is the date for that summary judgement hearing set for today or some other date?
And I guess just because there is a hearing that does not mean there will be a decision.

Last we know - per Oct 1 transcript - it was on Nov 6th. However the judge have said he could allow them extra time if they can come up specific information/discovery they need. So the October 23rd "Motion to compel" might be related to that, and then there's the october 27 stipulation and order to continue hearing might be related to Robson or not. It's impossible to tell. But like I said we'll know soon enough. Hearing is tomorrow, I hope we'll hear something. and yes just because there's a hearing doesn't mean there will be a decision but also a decision might be made as well. We'll have a better idea in less than 24 hrs I believe.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I'm so disappointed in Alan Duke. He's down in the gutter now with this crap. He's getting a lot of heat on Twitter now. And the man has the nerve to have pictures posted on his Twitter of him visiting Michael's grave at Forest Lawn a few months ago. I tweeted him and told him to remove them since he's now pissing on his grave. What an a**hole. But, why should any of us be surprised. This is what they do. :(

Is it possible he was pressured into having a headline like that by the higher-ups? Or maybe an editor changed it to be like that before it got uploaded. I can't help but be skeptical that he would turn so quickly.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I always felt something was off about this guy Alan Duke. Never liked him too much. Whatever. They're all the same after all.
 
InvincibleTal;4055935 said:
I always felt something was off about this guy Alan Duke. Never liked him too much. Whatever. They're all the same after all.

He has never been the one to write impartial or objective articles. If you go back to read his old articles, he is always on one side and writes from that point. AEG trial was prime example, now it is just more highlighted after moving to Radar.

At least we still have Anthony McCartney and few others and can write impartially and objectively:clapping:

PS, Alan Duke @AlanDukeNews · Oct 15
After 25 years with CNN, I will join @RadarOnline Monday. My choice. I was not laid off. Same stories, different website. Find me there.

To me it sounds like Martin Bashir's case, he was allowed to say he resigned when in fact they kicked him out.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

PS: check my blog. I posted a piece about this issue.

Great job, what a pity link to it cannot be posted here.
 
Bubs;4055940 said:
He has never been the one to write impartial or objective articles. If you go back to read his old articles, he is always on one side and writes from that point. AEG trial was prime example, now it is just more highlighted after moving to Radar.

At least we still have Anthony McCartney and few others and can write impartially and objectively:clapping:

PS, Alan Duke @AlanDukeNews · Oct 15
After 25 years with CNN, I will join @RadarOnline Monday. My choice. I was not laid off. Same stories, different website. Find me there.

To me it sounds like Martin Bashir's case, he was allowed to say he resigned when in fact they kicked him out.


Yes. only then he was kinda Pro-Jacksons, wasn't he? I guess it worked for the fans and got him some support - well, not anymore, for the obvious reasons. Tricky business, that fan support. You gotta be consistent... or else -_-

I am not going to pretend I understand why would anyone leave a respected network like CNN for a filthy tabloid website. But if he says it's on his own will... good for him. Very decent choice of workplace.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes. only then he was kinda Pro-Jacksons, wasn't he? I guess it worked for the fans and got him some support - well, not anymore, for the obvious reasons. Tricky business, that fan support. You gotta be consistent... or else -_-

I am not going to pretend I understand why would anyone leave a respected network like CNN for a filthy tabloid website. But if he says it's on his own will... good for him. Very decent choice of workplace.

Yeah, he was anti-AEG in his reporting, thus those fans thought he was good and followed him.

Anyways, the good news is that this morning I looked how many followers he had, and numbers was something over 8 thousand, just few minutes again his number of followers have dropped a little over 7 thousand :clapping:
Few hundreds more to un-follow, then he has lost about 2 thousand followers in matter of 24h.

Thats a great thing to do, unfollow.:beach:
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Alan Duke gone from CNN (MJ supporter) to RadarOnline (Traitor). BOOOOO!!!!!
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

What time is the hearing? Do you think we will hear anything by tonight?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

What time is the hearing? Do you think we will hear anything by tonight?

We should hear something today Cal is 3 hours behind me i live in Louisville. it is 11:15 am here and only 8:15am there.


Maybe it is a 9:00 am started i think.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

We should hear something today Cal is 3 hours behind me i live in Louisville. it is 11:15 am here and only 8:15am there.


Maybe it is a 9:00 am started i think.
Thank you. TOTALLY OFF TOPIC-You live in Louisville, KY? Did you go to that "Thriller" recreation they had outside the movie theatre there? I saw in on YT and it looked fantastic.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

What time is the hearing? Do you think we will hear anything by tonight?

11/06/2014 at 08:30 am in department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion Hearing(MSJMotion to Quash)


Just a note to readers here, expect more rubbish from Radar when date of this case grows closer:
11/19/2014 at 08:30 am in department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Hearing on Demurrer(AND PETITION OF JAMES SAFECHUCKFOR ORDER TO ALLOW FILING OF LATECLAIM AGAINST ESTATE)
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

What time is the hearing? Do you think we will hear anything by tonight?

possible. we have heard about October 1st hearing by late afternoon.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

He has never been the one to write impartial or objective articles. If you go back to read his old articles, he is always on one side and writes from that point. AEG trial was prime example, now it is just more highlighted after moving to Radar.

At least we still have Anthony McCartney and few others and can write impartially and objectively:clapping:

You are right, Duke has never been impartial but he was (or perhaps still is) close to Jacksons and therefore his articles weren't anti-MJ. He might have been anti- AEG, anti- Estate and so on but he wasn't anti-MJ. Now it looks like he made a 180 turn with the use of dreaded Jac** and "hush money" and so on.

Anthony McCartney is the best reporter period. His articles just report the facts from all sides and he doesn't take any sides or even make any conclusions.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Wade Robson suffers LA court setback

Michael Jackson's lawyers have scored a victory in their legal battle with Australia's Wade Robson.

Source: AAP
7 NOV 2014 - 7:06 AM UPDATED 23 MINS AGO

0
Australian choreographer Wade Robson has lost his bid to grill representatives of Michael Jackson's estate about graphic sexual acts he alleged the late King of Pop performed on him as a child.

"I think the types of questions we are are asking are appropriate," Robson's lawyer Maryann Marzano told Los Angeles Superior Court judge Mitchell Beckloff during Thursday's hearing.

Marzano wanted to probe the heads of Jackson's estate with questions ranging from whether Jackson put his hands inside Robson's underpants to whether Jackson committed various sexual acts on Robson.

Jackson lawyer Jonathan Steinsapir said his clients have already denied anything sexual took place between Jackson and Robson.

"Now they want us to deny Michael Jackson put his hand on Wade Robson's penis," Steinsapir told judge Beckloff.

"We have denied that."

At the end of the hearing, Marzano agreed to withdraw 11 of the questions, but Robson's lawyers will be allowed to probe Jackson executives about other matters.

Robson, who was a five-year-old dance prodigy in Brisbane when he first met Jackson, had been one of the pop star's biggest supporters.

Robson testified under oath at Jackson's 2005 molestation trial involving another boy in Santa Barbara that Jackson never abused him.

Robson was a key reason for Jackson's acquittal.

However, last year Robson did an about-face and claimed Jackson was a sexual predator who brainwashed him.

Jackson died in 2009 and Robson now wants a slice of the entertainer's estate that's estimated to be worth around $US1.5 billion ($A1.6 billion).

Robson said it wasn't until after Jackson's death and the birth of his own son that he was psychologically and emotionally able to understand that Jackson had sexually abused him.

Robson filed a late claim in the Los Angeles court against the dead singer's estate.

Robson became one of the world's top dance choreographers, winning an Emmy Award for his work on US TV and was hired by acts including Britney Spears and NSYNC.

Robson's lawyers say Robson was so traumatised by Jackson molesting him he could no longer dance, sing or write songs

The matter was adjourned to December 16.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/07/aust-wade-robson-suffers-la-court-setback

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

So specific sexual abuse questions are withdrawn, Estate's general denial of any sexual abuse allegations will be enough. It seems other RFAs are allowed. Next hearing December 16th.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ So it seems nothing else was decided today, only the dispute about the questions.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Thank you very much for the update, Ivy :) It might not be a big step forward, but at least it is a step forward.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That's a good sign right??? Ridiculous stupid questions anyway! Especially to ask the execs! Just crazy.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Well, the article says it's a "setback" for Robson but to me it rather seems like a 50-50 decision. Sexual questions were not allowed, but it seems all other RFAs were. Minor issue anyway IMO as the Estate already answered those questions in probate court.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ So it seems nothing else was decided today, only the dispute about the questions.

yeah seems like it. We'll see if any other source would report about it. I'm loving the headline though :)

Well, the article says it's a "setback" for Robson but to me it rather seems like a 50-50 decision. Sexual questions were not allowed, but it seems all other RFAs were. Minor issue anyway IMO as the Estate already answered those questions in probate court.

I agree. It sounds to me as a 50-50 decision as well. They aren't required to answer some RFAs and they will answer some RFAs. Regardless I love the headline. :) At least this article might balance Radar Online articles.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't understand who they were supposed to answer those questions anyway, it doesn't make sense whatsoever, they're not even alleged eye witnesses, so they just wanted them to deny it? for the sake of what? denying?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

yeah seems like it. We'll see if any other source would report about it. I'm loving the headline though :)

I agree. It sounds to me as a 50-50 decision as well. They aren't required to answer some RFAs and they will answer some RFAs. Regardless I love the headline. :) At least this article might balance Radar Online articles.

That's what caught me too. Even if much didn't happen, the fact that this is reported as a setback for Wade & Co. is wonderful enough on its own :)
 
Back
Top