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

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

Does anybody have an ideas or know what will be happening on Dec 16?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Imo this does not apply to Wade either.

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.



He was 30 years old and he claim he had knowledge of the abuse in 2012 after he saw the doctor so is Wade trying to say he was within the statute of limitations because of the 3 years after he knew? but for this to happen somebody in the companies had to be aware that this was going on nobody knew that why this does not apply to Wade either there is no prove is this right this is how i see it.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think the discovery was given to them in both the probate and civil case and it isn't only about the Neverland search.

It's not. It consists of Neverland search, 36 witness statements from 2005, 11 from 1993.

B0gYMlACAAAK7zq.jpg



This is where I'm getting confused. i'm not sure how equitable estopel is relevant in the civil action. it's not like they are facing statue of limitation issues here.

they are also facing statute of limitations at civil action. Statute of limitations says he could only file until he is 26 unless the parties knew or should have known the abuse. Equitable estoppel can also be argued in civil trial.

Even if discussed, as your notes pointed out discovery has to be about something specific. and because Robson lawyers fail to provide any specifics, that issue became moot.

not quite in my opinion. Judge granted their discovery requests. It was when they asked for extra time to prepare to oppose the summary judgment motion. They were going to get discovery soon and wanted to look over it and ask for more discovery or depositions if needed. Judge then said in order to give them more time / delay the hearing they need to tell him a very specific reason. He wouldn't delay the hearing for "there might or might not be something in the discovery we are given and we might or might not need to depose some people".

I'm sorry I'm cutting the discussion but can anyone please explain what's the proccess of discovery and why does WR lawyers are said to be eager to get more of it? Shouldn't it be something you do before you file a lawsuit?

Well, since the judge allowed it it seems it's allowed at this stage as well. He probably allowed it because Robson argued they needed it for their equitable estoppel argument/against demurrer.

2033.020
a) A defendant may make requests for admission by a party without leave of court at any time.

b) A plaintiff may make requests for admission by a party without leave of court at any time that is 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, that party, whichever occurs first.

As it could be seen some discovery can happen very soon after the case is filed / before demurrer. I believe the more detailed discovery happens later on.

Overall to me the situation is Robson needs information or fishing around to make his claims and to be able to argue against statute of limitations.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

they are also facing statute of limitations at civil action. Statute of limitations says he could only file until he is 26 unless the parties knew or should have known the abuse. Equitable estoppel can also be argued in civil trial.

But is that a case of equitable estoppel? They do not need to lift time limits in the civil case. Since the civil code 340.1 says that they can sue for three years after he allegedly discovered his abuse or the resulting injury in case of companies which knew/had a reason to know and did nothing.
So to me that does not seem like a case of equitable estoppel, since they are not lifting any time limits. They simply have to prove that the (b)2 section of 340.1 applies to them.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ This brought me back to the part of my summary about the October 1 hearing where I wrote:

It's a bit messy to me but it appears that Marzano tries to argue that if they allege a cause of action, it's enough to establish that the company had a duty of care to the plaintiff and that "an intentional act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual abuse".

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page563?p=4052001&viewfull=1#post4052001

I went back to read again what Marzano is saying about CCP 340.1 to try to figure out what they are trying to say:

w4nxd.jpg


7bwy.jpg


So do you think they are trying to use equitable estoppel to lift the time limits on (a)2 and (a)3 part of 340.1?
As a reminder here is the law:

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.

Since he is past his 26th birthday this section does not apply to him:

(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.

So for that to make it apply to him he would need equitable estoppel, yes.

For the b(2) part - I think that's not a case of equitable estoppel but simply a case of showing why it would apply to him:

(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.

Does it seem to you from what Marzano is saying that they are trying both? Equitable estoppel for part (a)2 and (a)3 and to show that b(2) applies to them?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^

still he needs to claim and prove the corporations "knew or should have known". discovery is relevant in that regard as well.

edited to add: I'm not sure what exactly they are trying to do. I just wanted to say equitable estoppel can be applied to the civil case as well. When judge sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, he said not only give him a cause of action (negligence) but why the statute of limitations wouldn't apply here. Statute of limitations are why Robson is so desperate for all this discovery.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^

still he needs to claim and prove the corporations "knew or should have known". discovery is relevant in that regard as well.

edited to add: I'm not sure what exactly they are trying to do. I just wanted to say equitable estoppel can be applied to the civil case as well. When judge sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, he said not only give him a cause of action (negligence) but why the statute of limitations wouldn't apply here. Statute of limitations are why Robson is so desperate for all this discovery.

Robson will lose the equitable estopel argument because:
1) His imagined abuse allegedly happened before the chandler and arvizos accusations
2) MJ denied the charges in both instances and was never convicted or proven guilty.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

On #1 do you think that is why they tried to get Safechuck involved. He would have been before Wade and also an employee of the company.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

On #1 do you think that is why they tried to get Safechuck involved. He would have been before Wade and also an employee of the company.

Was he? For what?

Plus I don't know how it would help Robson. The argument that Robson needs to make is that MJ's companies knew or had reasons to know about his abuse but did nothing to prevent it/defend him. How would a Safechuck employment (if he was employed at all) help that argument? There were no allegations made by Safechuck. In fact he never claimed to be abused until recently. He was interviewed by police in 1993 and he denied abuse. There is no claim of him reporting abuse to someone at MJ's company and the company turning a blind eye. Safechuck being employed by MJJP (and I'm not even sure he was - where does that info come from?) in itself would not help Robson.

Did Safechuck file a civil lawsuit as well or did he only file a creditor's claim?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That's an assumption on my part, probably because Safechuck was a part of the Bad tour for a time and he and Michael did a lot of promotional appearances together. Jimmy wasn't just tagging along. It was work. However I do not know it as absolute fact.

I've being reading all of your and other posts on the strategy avidly because I've had a hard time understanding how this even got this far. And I know these aren't just stupid lawyers and have to have some ulterior motive behind these motions. Apparently deceased people are also exempt from civil rights violations because they've been violated left and right here.
I just see their every step as part of some strategy that I can't figure out to get this case not dismissed.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That's an assumption on my part, probably because Safechuck was a part of the Bad tour for a time and he and Michael did a lot of promotional appearances together. Jimmy wasn't just tagging along. It was work. However I do not know it as absolute fact.

I'm not sure it was work. The work was the Pepsi commercial but for that he would have a contract with Pepsi IMO, not MJJP.

That's why I asked whether he also filed a civil lawsuit. If he didn't then that probably means he was not employed by any of MJ's companies. (Wade could only file the civil lawsuit on the basis of being employed by MJJP and MJJV.)
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That could be. Hired by Pepsi. He performed a little on stage and traveled so they probably had to have a tutor. That's work. Kids on Broadway in bit chorus parts have to have tutors and contracts. I don't see Jimmys role in that show any differently.

I dont know what kind of lawsuit he filed. Don't remember. I'll go back thru the threads and try to find out.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That could be. Hired by Pepsi. He performed a little on stage and traveled so they probably had to have a tutor. That's work. Kids on Broadway in bit chorus parts have to have tutors and contracts. I don't see Jimmys role in that show any differently.

I dont know what kind of lawsuit he filed. Don't remember. I'll go back thru the threads and try to find out.

So you think each and every kid that was invited on stage during the Bad show had a work contract with MJJP? I doubt that. Most of those kids were children of employees, friends, family members etc. Nor do I think kids who went on tour with him were all contracted to MJJP. That was more a private decision by these families to go on tour with him and then he occasionally invited the kids on stage as a part of the fun. To me that isn't work.

Wade's situation was special because they needed to be officially employed to be able to get green cards to the US and that is why Wade and Joy were employed.

Safechuck might have been employed later when we see him holding umbrella for MJ in 1994. Maybe that was a work relationship, but I can't see how that would be relevant here.

Unfortunately we have limited info about the Safechuck case, we have not even seen his lawsuit. That's why I wonder if he even filed one or it's just the creditor's claim in his case. If there is no lawsuit in his case then that's probably because he was not able to file one. And the reason why Wade was is because he was employed by MJJP and MJJV so he can go for the companies angle.

Anyway, whether Safechuck was employed or not is moot, because it would not help Robson. The only way it would help him is if Safechuck could make a claim that he reported abuse to people in authority at MJ's companies at the time but they turned a blind eye. But he can't make such a claim.

And for Safechuck's own case being employed by MJJP would only mean that he too could try to sue under CCP 340.1, like Robson does, but then he would run into the same problems as Robson.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Ok. In glad i came back over because I've gone back about 200 or more pages and can't find it yet.

No of course all those kids at the end are not hired.
They're usually from the town michael is performing in. Didn't Wade win a contest when he was 5 and got to dance on stage as part of the prize.
And in LA 80% are his relatives. I know Titos kids went on tours. Reebies kids did. The Casio kids did. They weren't part if the show.
Maybe I just prefer to think of it more of a professional relationship rather than a personal one.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

They're usually from the town michael is performing in. Didn't Wade win a contest when he was 5 and got to dance on stage as part of the prize.

That was in 1987. He and Joy got employed in 1990 or 1991. Between 1987 and 1990 MJ did not really keep a contact with the Robsons. It was Joy who seeked him out again in 1990 when they came to the US. From Joy's testimony:

4 Q. Do you remember the first time you visited

5 Neverland?

6 A. Yes. It was in January of 1990.

7 Q. And how did you end up visiting Neverland?

8 A. When we were here, we called around, trying

9 to find Michael again. He had told us if we

10 returned to the United States to contact him. So we

11 called around, and we eventually were put onto his

12 personal assistant, which at that time was Norma

13 Stakos, and they called Michael.

14 He remembered us, and said he would like to

15 see us again. So we met him at a recording studio

16 where he was working at the time.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

There are also pictures of Genevieve Jackson and Lisa Marie's daughter Riley on stage. I have old newspapers and magazines ads of "win a chance to meet MJ on stage" competitions that took place weeks before he arrived. So I think being on stage with Michael was a privilege, not a job.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Robson will lose the equitable estopel argument because:
1) His imagined abuse allegedly happened before the chandler and arvizos accusations
2) MJ denied the charges in both instances and was never convicted or proven guilty.

you mean he can't win they "knew or should have known" part? Equitable estopel in my understanding is when a victim cannot come forward due to actions of the perpetrator - such as threats etc. I think in Wade's case "brainwashing" or "grooming" or "modus operandi" would be his equitable estopel argument.

On #1 do you think that is why they tried to get Safechuck involved. He would have been before Wade

Yes that would make him before Wade but unless Safechuck can prove he told people about his alleged abuse when it happened it wouldn't make a difference.

Did Safechuck file a civil lawsuit as well or did he only file a creditor's claim?

only creditors claim as far I can see. I don't think safechuck was employed by MJ companies and he doesn't have a similar claim like Robson. Robsons and his mother's visa and employment with MJ companies gives them a unique claim towards corporations.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That was in 1987. He and Joy got employed in 1990 or 1991. Between 1987 and 1990 MJ did not really keep a contact with the Robsons. It was Joy who seeked him out again in 1990 when they came to the US. From Joy's testimony:
Yes. I know that. I know that winning a prize, or being a selected children's group from that town, or being an employee's kid or relative is a privilege to get to be on stage. That's why I said this for an example:

No of course all those kids at the end are not hired.
They're usually from the town michael is performing in. Didn't Wade win a contest when he was 5 and got to dance on stage as part of the prize.
And in LA 80% are his relatives. I know Titos kids went on tours. Reebies kids did. The Casio kids did. They weren't part if the show.

I feel like I'm being a little bit attacked and I apologize in advance if that is not the case. I'm having anxiety attacks over thinking about this, and I can't not think about it and I've been dependent on your, ivy's, passy's, bubs and a few others comments to keep me calm.

I would have to say that I'm fairly freaking out that this case is going on so long and I feel like the lawyers are trying to entrap Michael's attorneys with something with these RFAs. And I think they are somehow legally going on fishing expeditions. I don't get it and I'm trying to figure it out-because just the case, pure and simple, has been blown apart just by Wade's own contradictory words.

Like I said, I'm just trying to figure it out, because there has got to be something that I am not seeing for it to continue.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I feel like I'm being a little bit attacked and I apologize in advance if that is not the case. I'm having anxiety attacks over thinking about this, and I can't not think about it and I've been dependent on your, ivy's, passy's, bubs and a few others comments to keep me calm.

I'm sorry if you feel attacked. I did not attack you, I only disagreed with your opinion about Safechuck being employed by MJ's companies. None us can know for sure, but as of now to me there is no reason to believe he was. The fact he did not file a civil lawsuit points to that as well.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't pretend to understand all the legalities of all of this, but it does seem to me Wade's camp are somehow trying with all the legal arguments to back the estate into a corner, so to speak, so they will eventually give up and settle. Which I don't think the estate will do or can afford to do. Their well aware I think of the consequences of that.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't pretend to understand all the legalities of all of this, but it does seem to me Wade's camp are somehow trying with all the legal arguments to back the estate into a corner, so to speak, so they will eventually give up and settle. Which I don't think the estate will do or can afford to do. Their well aware I think of the consequences of that.
I hope you are exactly right and that is what they are still trying to accomplish. That is what I thought the first couple of months and I have absolute faith that the Estate will never ever settle. So, I thought by now Wade's attorney's would be moving on to some other legal plan. But I hope YOU are right.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^

still he needs to claim and prove the corporations "knew or should have known". discovery is relevant in that regard as well.

edited to add: I'm not sure what exactly they are trying to do. I just wanted to say equitable estoppel can be applied to the civil case as well. When judge sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, he said not only give him a cause of action (negligence) but why the statute of limitations wouldn't apply here. Statute of limitations are why Robson is so desperate for all this discovery.





Right Ivy and this is what Wade and his lawyers have not been able to do yet so equitable estopped does not apply to them. Their will not imo get around the statute of limitations. In the bold that is what the judge said end of story.


Wade is getting desperate now his time is about to run out.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The Estate will never settle their said that but when this is all over the Estate need to sue the pant off Wade for these false allegations against Mj.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

One little note :

I realize this seems like going on forever however the hearings about demurrers/dismissals are just beginning to happen. I think all the discovery issues and the opposing motions took a lot of time and everything has been delayed.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

you think it's likely the judge will dismiss the case, judging by his actions until now? The case can still be dismissed?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The case can still be dismissed?

of course it can. as far as we know he didn't make a decision in probate case and the civil case was sustained with leave to amend. he can still dismiss the amended case. (I wrote this before MAW was allowed to amend his case 3 times before it was dismissed).

you think it's likely the judge will dismiss the case, judging by his actions until now?

His actions until now have been really 50-50 in my opinion. I feel he allowed discovery and so on because he doesn't want Robson have any grounds for any appeal. I also think not only the disputes between parties delaying this process but also the Judge is taking his time as he has said before at other MJ Estate related matters that he takes this stuff seriously - given the minor kids involved, the amount of money involved and the international interest in MJ related matters.

So judge has been really 50-50 and it's impossible to tell what he'll do based on his actions. However if you ask my opinion I think based on what we know Wade will not be able to show "known or should have known" for the corporate entities. The only exception would be if he can somehow find/show multiple settlements with boys predating him - which I don't think it exists. As for equitable estopel, I haven't seen anything yet to make me believe it would be successful. One thing that stood out to me was when judge asked if it was the first time being used in a probate case and Robson's lawyer said it was. I find it highly unlikely that the judge would set a precedent. So I'm personally thinking claims against MJ and MJ Estate will get dismissed. The only thing I can see that could survive the demurrer is the claims against MJ corporations - given that Judge have to accept Robson's claims on their face value. However I think even it survives demurrer, it would get dismissed at summary judgment.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I hope you are exactly right and that is what they are still trying to accomplish. That is what I thought the first couple of months and I have absolute faith that the Estate will never ever settle. So, I thought by now Wade's attorney's would be moving on to some other legal plan. But I hope YOU are right.

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

Passy I find your idea about Wade attorneys are pushing the RFA's quite interesting, especially after Marzano said she wanted to know what else is out there that is relevant to their case so they can do depositions. This might be a sneaky way to do a "deposition."
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

But is that a case of equitable estoppel? They do not need to lift time limits in the civil case. Since the civil code 340.1 says that they can sue for three years after he allegedly discovered his abuse or the resulting injury in case of companies which knew/had a reason to know and did nothing.
So to me that does not seem like a case of equitable estoppel, since they are not lifting any time limits. They simply have to prove that the (b)2 section of 340.1 applies to them.



That does not apply to them either because Wade lawyers have not been able to prove this.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

However if you ask my opinion I think based on what we know Wade will not be able to show "known or should have known" for the corporate entities. The only exception would be if he can somehow find/show multiple settlements with boys predating him - which I don't think it exists.

I do not think any such settlements exist before Chandler, but even if they did (just saying theoretically, because I do not believe at all that they exist) that would not necessarily help Wade. Just like I can't see how the Chandler or Francia settlement would help him when MJ does not admit any wrongdoing in them. Let's not forget there is the thing with who controlled who. In the precedent case that was cited both by Robson and the Estate (Aaronoff) the claim was that the mother (who was an employee in the company) witnessed abuse. Which is a much stronger allegation than claiming someone in some mysterious way should have known. And the demurrer in that case was still sustained based on the fact that the mother did not have control over the father (employer), who did the abuse.

Of course, this is all just theoretical because I don't think any such settlements exist. If they did Sneddon would have found them a long time ago. My point is only that even if there were such settlements I think Wade would still have a hard time to pass the statutes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top