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

[HIStory]

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

So his case is just creditor right?

Yes..

 

[#MJforever57]

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

So is there a chance that this can be dismiss because it was brought late?

 

[HIStory]

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

So is there a chance that this can be dismiss because it was brought late?

Pminton, no disrespect, but by asking the same questions over and over again won't make us able to answer what the Judge will decide. We will have to be patient and we will see. You know well, because this is what we have been discussing for the past 100 or so pages, that yes, at this time this is about whether the claim was brought late or not.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

Gavin KNOWS Michael is Innocent of his accusations. Maybe not Innocent in the general aspect of innocence but he's definitely aware Michael never molested him. So of course it's absurd of Wade and Gavin to have a "Why didn't you help me" conversation when they are both aware their allagations are false. It's like asking "Why didn't you lie for me?" when they never had any kind of friendship that would obligate Wade to help Gavin win a set up case. Can you really imagin

You didn't seem to understand my post. It's not absurd. It is merely your assumption that gavin is aware wade is lying, one I don't share. I set out my reasons in my previous post. You seem to have doubts yourself by saying 'maybe not innocent in the general aspect of innocence'.

I don't understand this argument and the Lol-ing at all because I feel like you're ignoring the fact that my starting point is that Gavin is a liar.

I only lol-ed as your initial response seemed a little ott, calling my post 'absurd and ridiculous', esp as your own argument against it is weak, gavin being a liar is irrelevant. None of us actually know for sure whether gavin believes wade was molested or not - it's not a certainty as you seem to be making out. So try and accept that others have different views.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

You might wanna re-read the first post and see I didn't say your post is ridiculous, I called the hypothetical conversation itself ridiculous. Picturing it in my head - two people who are aware of their lies, demanding explanations. But no, I don't doubt myself at all, I simply think it doesn't matter if Gavin thinks Michael done something wrong to justify his lies. It doesn't change my point because demanding Wade to "explain why he denied everything in court" is something a victim would do, not someone who consciously lied on a witness stand. I don't think Gavin is bothered because Wade denied something that he himself lied about, I think he's bothered because he lost. Two different things.

 

[ivy]

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

There is also a hearing scheduled for tomorrow re. demurrer in Safechuck case. That's still on, I guess?

yep. it's still on the calendar.

They just added the minute order about Nov 6 on Robson civil case. as far as the civil case goes the only thing that was decided was RFA's and his deadline to file the next complaint. Media already reported the RFAs.

Ivy do we know if Wade has done this yet?

He hasn't. He has one month till deadline. It's highly unlikely that he would file it early. He would take his time to work on his amended complaint.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Pminton, no disrespect, but by asking the same questions over and over again won't make us able to answer what the Judge will decide. We will have to be patient and we will see. You know well, because this is what we have been discussing for the past 100 or so pages, that yes, at this time this is about whether the claim was brought late or not.

This case is just drive me crazy as i know for all of us it is. You are right we have talk about this i just want these claims to be over.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

He hasn't. He has one month till deadline. It's highly unlikely that he would file it early. He would take his time to work on his amended complaint.

I don't see Wade file early either.

 

[barbee0715]

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

Who's Wade's cousin? Is he someone famous? I couldn't find him on google :mello:

I don't understand the significance of his death either. From reading this he looks like a relative that people were following on Facebook for some reason.
Was he important at all? Like was he supposed to be a witness or something?

 

[HIStory]

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

I don't understand the significance of his death either. From reading this he looks like a relative that people were following on Facebook for some reason.
Was he important at all? Like was he supposed to be a witness or something?

It does not necessarily have a huge significance (or we do not know yet if it does or does not), but it's worth noting since he's been pretty active in supporting Wade on social media, in Radar Online comment sections etc, so he kind of took an active role in this case - at least in public relations for Wade. His death is surprising because he was a young man, so people who have been following the case are naturally interested in what happened. It may not turn out to be anything significant considering Wade's allegations, but it does not harm to pay attention.

I explained his history here: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page590?p=4059342&viewfull=1#post4059342

 

[#MJforever57]

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

If his cousin believe that Wade was being abuse by Michael why did their not tell Wade mother she had a right to know this was her son.


The problem that i am having with this case is all of this is coming out after Michael has pass away nothing was said when he was alive that telling me that nothing happen and if it did why was it not brought to Michael attention so it can be dealt with.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Why wouldn't he be angry at someone he thought raped his cousin? That doesn't make any sense. The "did in fact abuse Wade" sentence doesn't work either. It's a claim, a fact is something you can prove.

Exactly Wade has yet to prove this fact

 

[barbee0715]

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

It does not necessarily have a huge significance (or we do not know yet if it does or does not), but it's worth noting since he's been pretty active in supporting Wade on social media, in Radar Online comment sections etc, so he kind of took an active role in this case - at least in public relations for Wade. His death is surprising because he was a young man, so people who have been following the case are naturally interested in what happened. It may not turn out to be anything significant considering Wade's allegations, but it does not harm to pay attention.

I explained his history here: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page590?p=4059342&viewfull=1#post4059342

I apologize Respect. I did not mean to be rude and I had already read your post about him. I read them all.

I had the impression he was just another person looking for attention by having a website and harping on the false allegations and didn't quite understand why people would give him that satisfaction. However, if he was the official mouthpiece for Wade, I get it.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

The family speculation sounds nothing big to me, I think it's very likely they "had a feeling" that Wade is being abused after the 1993 allegation came out, it doesn't look like it's based on a personal experience or from observing Wade's behavior. Jonathan's comment that Respect quoted isn't very specific - they only mention 1996 - if anything it just makes their case look worse, because in 2005 Wade and his mother still denied sexual abuse. Why did the family still kept quite then?

 

[HIStory]

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

The family speculation sounds nothing big to me, I think it's very likely they "had a feeling" that Wade is being abused after the 1993 allegation came out, it doesn't look like it's based on a personal experience or from observing Wade's behavior. Jonathan's comment that Respect quoted isn't very specific - they only mention 1996 - if anything it just makes their case look worse, because in 2005 Wade and his mother still denied sexual abuse. Why did the family still kept quite then?

Add to that that this part of the family hardly had any contact with Wade at the time, since Wade, Joy and Chantal lived in the US while Wade's father and the family of Wade's aunt lived back in Australia. Based on the court testimonies of the Robsons in 2005 their contact with the father was minimal - like seeing him once every year or even once in two years. So any "suspicion" he had was likely based on the 1993 allegations and surrounding tabloid atmosphere, maybe some grudge the father held against MJ because he helped his family move to the US and thus away from him. Also this was a mentally sick man, with a serious case of bipolar disorder. So him or his sister (Wade's aunt) speculating in a Word document about whether Wade was abused does not prove anything.

 

[barbee0715]

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

Add to that that this part of the family hardly had any contact with Wade at the time, since Wade, Joy and Chantal lived in the US while Wade's father and the family of Wade's aunt lived back in Australia. Based on the court testimonies of the Robsons in 2005 their contact with the father was minimal - like seeing him once every year or even once in two years. So any "suspicion" he had was likely based on the 1993 allegations and surrounding tabloid atmosphere, maybe some grudge the father held against MJ because he helped his family move to the US and thus away from him. Also this was a mentally sick man, with a serious case of bipolar disorder. So him speculating in a Word document about whether Wade was abused does not prove anything.

So it sounds like he has just been drumming up some kind of back story in order to support Wade's claims.
I have always thought, from the very beginning, any jealousy from any of the men involved, Evan, Wade's dad, et.al. has always come from the fact that Joy Robson and June Chandler, Glenda, others were chasing Michael himself hard and maybe even involved with him-and they were just using their kids as a "ready made family" to sweeten the pot.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Add to that that this part of the family hardly had any contact with Wade at the time, since Wade, Joy and Chantal lived in the US while Wade's father and the family of Wade's aunt lived back in Australia. Based on the court testimonies of the Robsons in 2005 their contact with the father was minimal - like seeing him once every year or even once in two years. So any "suspicion" he had was likely based on the 1993 allegations and surrounding tabloid atmosphere, maybe some grudge the father held against MJ because he helped his family move to the US and thus away from him. Also this was a mentally sick man, with a serious case of bipolar disorder. So him or his sister (Wade's aunt) speculating in a Word document about whether Wade was abused does not prove anything.

True. Looks like the Chandlers and the Robsons have more things in common than just greed and false stories.

I am no psychiatrist but doesn't it look like Wade's nervous breakdown is not that out of blue?

 

[HIStory]

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

So it sounds like he has just been drumming up some kind of back story in order to support Wade's claims.
I have always thought, from the very beginning, any jealousy from any of the men involved, Evan, Wade's dad, et.al. has always come from the fact that Joy Robson and June Chandler, Glenda, others were chasing Michael himself hard and maybe even involved with him-and they were just using their kids as a "ready made family" to sweeten the pot.

I think there was definitely lots of jealousy behind these allegations in various forms. Besides the monetary motive, of course, which is always Nr 1. With Gavin you see him complaining on the stand about MJ abandoning him and his family and not wanting to be his BFF. I think the jealousy element is probably there in Safechuck's allegations too because MJ drifted away from him during the late 1990s and he dropped out of MJ's inner circle and he probably turned bitter because of that.

True. Looks like the Chandlers and the Robsons have more things in common than just greed and false stories.

Yep. I find it interesting how bipolar disorder is present both in the Chandler and in the Robson family. In both families the father suffered from that disorder.

I am no psychiatrist but doesn't it look like Wade's nervous breakdown is not that out of blue?

Yes, and that's another reason why I would like to know how Jonathan died. Because if (and that's a big IF as of now) it was suicide then it would not be the first on that side of the Robson family. Anyway, I think Wade does have some kind of mental illness and it is possible that it runs in the family. Also the way his mother raised him was not a very healthy way to raise a child and that probably also contributed to his mental problems - but it has nothing to do with Michael. It has to do with how his mother pushed him to work from an early childhood.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

Somebody posted this online. I thought they made some very good points.


Wade Robson's contradictions:

1. Said on the today show that he "never forgot one moment of what Michael did to me" but then said "I had no understanding of this until a year ago"..So which is it??

2. When asked why he lied under oath, he didn't say "I lied because I was ashamed and embarrassed" as most victims would say. Instead he says "I said what I understood". In other words, he couldn't understand that what had happened to him was wrong or was sexual abuse because MJ had brainwashed and manipulated him so much to the point that he was psychologically damaged and believed that it was all "love". If that were the case then his answers to the prosecutor's questions would have been "yes" not "no". He wasn't asked "did Micheal Jackson sexually abuse you?". He was asked very specific questions about whether or not MJ touched his crotch or kissed him on the mouth and the answer was "no" over and over again, so this totally contradicts his claim of why he lied under oath.

3. Claims that molestation occurred the second night he stayed at Neverland and continued on for the entire visit, but his sister testified at the trial that she had slept in MJ's bed with her brother on the second night they visited neverland..So which is it??

4. His claim of being molested on the second night he stayed at neverland goes against the pattern that MJ was said to have by the prosecution as well as the pattern that is used by all pedophiles, that they groom their victims before molesting them. MJ met Wade very briefly at a concert and the two hadnt seen each other for 2 years. Out of the blue Wade's mom finds MJ, he invites the family to neverland, and on the 2nd night he immediately starts harming Wade? Hell, at least he took the time to get to know Jordan Chandler, James Safechuk, and Gavin Arvizo, and they all claim that molestation did not occur until many months afterwards..So one has to wonder what makes Wade such a pedophilic prize?

5. His claims of anal rape and anilingus has never been claimed by any of MJ's other accusers.

6. He says this isn't about money, yet is suing for millions of dollars.

7. Stated on the Today show that the reason why he didn't go to the lawyers and do this quietly is because "I've lived in silence and denial for the past 22 years. I have to speak my truth as loud as I can in order to truly heal from this"..but this is contradictory with his lawyer's initial request to have the case under seal, citing the privacy interests of his client.

 

[barbee0715]

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

Dannyboy-this is very good and this is what I was said about a week ago. Not only has Wade been contradicted by the very good posters on MJJC, but he has also contradicted himself from Day One. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
And this is why I am so angry and frustrated that it is taking so long to throw out!!

Any word on Safechuck today yet?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I think there was definitely lots of jealousy behind these allegations in various forms. Besides the monetary motive, of course, which is always Nr 1. With Gavin you see him complaining on the stand about MJ abandoning him and his family and not wanting to be his BFF. I think the jealousy element is probably there in Safechuck's allegations too because MJ drifted away from him during the late 1990s and he dropped out of MJ's inner circle and he probably turned bitter because of that.

The jealousy scenes by the Arvizos are so odd, it's like they begged to have Michael's presence in their lives again while taking the stand accusing him of sexual abuse.

Yep. I find it interesting how bipolar disorder is present both in the Chandler and in the Robson family. In both families the father suffered from that disorder.

Yes, and that's another reason why I would like to know how Jonathan died. Because if (and that's a big IF as of now) it was suicide then it would not be the first on that side of the Robson family. Anyway, I think Wade does have some kind of mental illness and it is possible that it runs in the family. Also the way his mother raised him was not a very healthy way to raise a child and that probably also contributed to his mental problems - but it has nothing to do with Michael. It has to do with how his mother pushed him to work from an early childhood.

Was Evan Chandler diagnosed with anything? How did you learn about Jonathan's death? Facebook?

 

[ivy]

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

Any word on Safechuck today yet?

that hearing is tomorrow.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Dannyboy-this is very good and this is what I was said about a week ago. Not only has Wade been contradicted by the very good posters on MJJC, but he has also contradicted himself from Day One. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
And this is why I am so angry and frustrated that it is taking so long to throw out!!

You are right Wade has change his story so many time it should have been throw out but because Wade claim he was sexual abuse as a child the judge had to take Wade words as true his job was not to decide weather Wade was telling the true or not his job was to decide if this case had another evidence to move on. So now you have this long process that it has to go through before the judge can make a decision and that is where the waiting period come in.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

It was suppose to be Nov 19.

 

[barbee0715]

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

It was suppose to be Nov 19.

Unfortunately, I thought all day was Nov. 19. So, now I have to be in a bad mood tomorrow too.:timer:

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Unfortunately, I thought all day was Nov. 19. So, now I have to be in a bad mood tomorrow too.:timer:

No think positive this is just a creditor claim judge will decide if it was file late or not

 

[HIStory]

Somebody posted this online. I thought they made some very good points.


Wade Robson's contradictions:

1. Said on the today show that he "never forgot one moment of what Michael did to me" but then said "I had no understanding of this until a year ago"..So which is it??

2. When asked why he lied under oath, he didn't say "I lied because I was ashamed and embarrassed" as most victims would say. Instead he says "I said what I understood". In other words, he couldn't understand that what had happened to him was wrong or was sexual abuse because MJ had brainwashed and manipulated him so much to the point that he was psychologically damaged and believed that it was all "love". If that were the case then his answers to the prosecutor's questions would have been "yes" not "no". He wasn't asked "did Micheal Jackson sexually abuse you?". He was asked very specific questions about whether or not MJ touched his crotch or kissed him on the mouth and the answer was "no" over and over again, so this totally contradicts his claim of why he lied under oath.

3. Claims that molestation occurred the second night he stayed at Neverland and continued on for the entire visit, but his sister testified at the trial that she had slept in MJ's bed with her brother on the second night they visited neverland..So which is it??

4. His claim of being molested on the second night he stayed at neverland goes against the pattern that MJ was said to have by the prosecution as well as the pattern that is used by all pedophiles, that they groom their victims before molesting them. MJ met Wade very briefly at a concert and the two hadnt seen each other for 2 years. Out of the blue Wade's mom finds MJ, he invites the family to neverland, and on the 2nd night he immediately starts harming Wade? Hell, at least he took the time to get to know Jordan Chandler, James Safechuk, and Gavin Arvizo, and they all claim that molestation did not occur until many months afterwards..So one has to wonder what makes Wade such a pedophilic prize?

5. His claims of anal rape and anilingus has never been claimed by any of MJ's other accusers.

6. He says this isn't about money, yet is suing for millions of dollars.

7. Stated on the Today show that the reason why he didn't go to the lawyers and do this quietly is because "I've lived in silence and denial for the past 22 years. I have to speak my truth as loud as I can in order to truly heal from this"..but this is contradictory with his lawyer's initial request to have the case under seal, citing the privacy interests of his client.

Good summary. Some things I'd like to add:

3. Claims that molestation occurred the second night he stayed at Neverland and continued on for the entire visit, but his sister testified at the trial that she had slept in MJ's bed with her brother on the second night they visited neverland..So which is it??

Actually, there is a bit of confusion in their story about wether it was the first or second night that MJ and Wade stayed alone, but this contradiction may become significant because now they are trying to make it a part of the abuse narrative that it was the second night when they stayed alone, claiming that this was because "Chantal expressed concern about sleeping in Doe 1's bed". Wade in his declaration says the following:

This story of Wade and MJ staying alone on the second night is built on Wade's 2005 testimony where he said that it was the second night they stayed alone. However, Chantal in her testimony in 2005 was adamant and sure that it was the other way around and actually corrected her brother on wether it was the first or second night. She said MJ and Wade were alone on the first night and then she slept with them on the second night. And as opposed to this current narrative of Chantal electing to sleep elsewhere because of concern, actually Chantal said that by the second night she was more comfortable with Michael and that's why she slept there too.

13 Q. And your first night at Neverland you stated

14 that you slept in Mr. Jackson’s bed?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Bedroom?

17 A. The second night. The first time I was in

18 the room.

19 Q. All right. So the very first night that you

20 went to Neverland you spent the night in Mr.

21 Jackson’s bedroom?

22 A. In his bedroom, yes.

23 Q. And on that first night, you slept

24 downstairs in the bedroom, correct?

25 A. No.

26 Q. You slept upstairs?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Did you -- or I’ll rephrase that. 9318

1 Were you interviewed by Scott Ross, an

2 investigator for Mr. Jackson, on May 2nd, 2005?

3 A. Yes. Not quite sure if that was the date,

4 but, yes.

5 Q. That was just a few days ago?

6 A. Yeah.

7 Q. And did you tell Mr. Ross that you recalled

8 the first night that you slept downstairs, and Wade

9 went upstairs and slept with Mr. Jackson?

10 A. No. It would be the other way around.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. Michael and Wade slept -- Michael and Wade

13 slept downstairs and I slept upstairs on the first

14 night.

15 Q. All right. So Mr. Jackson and Wade slept

16 together separately from the area that you slept in?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Why was that?

19 A. Because I left and went upstairs.

20 Q. Why did you leave and go upstairs?

21 A. Because I was a little older at that point

22 and I felt like I was interfering in Michael’s

23 bedroom, so I left and went upstairs.

24 Q. Because you wanted to give Mr. Jackson some

25 privacy?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And he was alone with your brother at that

28 time? 9319

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And your brother was seven years old?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And that night, your brother slept in the

5 same bed with Michael Jackson?

6 A. Yes. I told him to come up with me.

7 Q. You told him to come up with you?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was that because you felt like he shouldn’t

10 be sleeping in a bed with a grown man?

11 A. Not at all.

12 Q. Then why did you tell him to do that?

13 A. Because I didn’t want to make Michael feel

14 like two people were invading his space.

15 Q. Something about that first night made you

16 feel uncomfortable, didn’t it?

17 A. No, not at all.

18 Q. Didn’t you say you felt more comfortable the

19 second night to Mr. Ross when you spoke to him a few

20 days ago?

21 A. Comfortable with my friendship with Michael,

22 yes.

23 Q. And that next night, you slept in the same

24 bed with Michael Jackson?

25 A. I did.

26 Q. And your mother knew about it?

27 A. Yes.

7. Stated on the Today show that the reason why he didn't go to the lawyers and do this quietly is because "I've lived in silence and denial for the past 22 years. I have to speak my truth as loud as I can in order to truly heal from this"..but this is contradictory with his lawyer's initial request to have the case under seal, citing the privacy interests of his client.

Actually they cited the privacy interests of the Defendant ie. Michael as a reason to seal the case!

So on one hand they say they do this not because of money, but because of Wade's need to say it as loud as he can in order to heal but initially they filed a request to seal the case citing the privacy interests of Michael as a reason. The whole "I need to say it loud" thing came only after the media got wind of the case, but initially they tried to get it sealed. So it was all about money, no doubt, not about saying it loud to heal.

ETA: BTW, I took a look at CRC 2550 that Robson cites in his sealing motion and I found something interesting:

Rule 2.550. Sealed records

(a) Application

(1)Rules 2.550-2.551 apply to records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order.

(2)These rules do not apply to records that are required to be kept confidential by law.

(3)These rules do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings. However, the rules do apply to discovery materials that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=two&linkid=rule2_550

I always wondered if one of the reasons of those graphic discovery questions was to get those graphic details out to the public, since in the complaint those parts are which became sealed. And it seems based on this, that indeed discovery motions are not a subject to the same sealing rules as the other parts of the filing...

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Somebody had to leak it. It is so amazing how Wade can come up with a answer to every question to explain his reason why.

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

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

Somebody had to leak it. It is so amazing how Wade can come up with a answer to every question to explain his reason why.

Yes. That's his way of trying to keep any doubts about his credibility at a low point, in my opinion. Because I think the part of the media that is interested in this case wants to report that his case is strong. So he has to come up with reasons why things that logically should wreck his case either don't matter or make perfect sense. I have noticed how the tide turned with the public since this trash was filed last year. When this case first started, even some people who hated Michael were saying "Why now? It's too late." and "Either Wade was lying during Michael's trial or he is lying now." But after the tabloids yet again began actively trumpeting their ongoing belief that Michael was guilty and Wade started associating himself with abuse victim support groups, (to give an impression of truthfulness about his claims, in my opinion), and making excuses for the constant changes in his story, not to mention his sudden transition from MJ supporter to MJ hater in the first place, the public relations mood shifted back to the tired, usual mantra of "Yeah. Michael was guilty." and "Wade's not after the money." blah, blah, blah. Now you can't find a single news website with an article about this garbage without the comments section filled with disgusting statements about Michael. This case is a hot mess that is only getting hotter.

 

[HIStory]

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

A summary on what will be discussed today. Hearing starts at 8:30 local time. Subject is the Estate's demurrer regarding James Safechuck's petition to be allowed to file a late creditor's claim.

Since the Safechuck case is in the probate court we do not see as much of it as we do from Wade's civil lawsuit. The only official document that came out of it so far is a demurrer by the Estate that will be discussed today. Here is the document that was posted on Radar Online: http://www.filedropper.com/estatedemurrerseptember2014

Based on that Estate demurrer: Safechuck does not even try to claim he is within statutes of limitations, he admits he isn't. His claim is that shortly after May 1, 2013 he learnt about Wade Robson's allegations which made him realize that he might need help for alleged abuse that he allegedly suffered at the hands of Michael Jackson when he was a child. So on May 20, 2013 he went to a therapist to talk about his alleged abuse. He does not claim he was not aware of being abused before, but he claims that he was not aware that various psychological problems he had (anxiety, panic attacks) were a result of the alleged abuse. Only in therapy and as a result of hearing about Wade he made that realization, he claims.

He filed his creditor's claim on May 9, 2014, so almost a year after this alleged realization. According to Safechuck's story Robson's lawyers started to work on his case in September 2013, so it took them eight months to put together a complaint and file in May 2014 (conveniently right on time for the release of Xscape, may I add...).

But this means they slipped out of every possible statutes of limitations. Like in Robson's case there are three important laws at play here:

Probate Code 9103 which says a creditor must file within 60 says of gaining knowledge of the existence of the facts reasonably giving rise to the existence of the claim AND gaining knowledge of the administration of the estate.

(Unlike Robson) Safechuck does not claim that he did not have knowledge of the Estate prior to March 2014 and it would be hard for him to claim that since he's been working together with Robson's lawyers since at least September 2013 by their own admission. Nor did he file within 60 days of gaining knowledge about the alleged abuse or the allegedly resulting injury.

So he clearly missed the deadlines in PC 9103 and he admits that.

Next important law is CCP 366.2 which says that when someone dies claims and lawsuits against that person must be filed within one year of his death. Obviously he missed this too.

So what Safechuck is trying to rely on is a very odd interpretation of equitable estoppel. Based on the Estate's demurrer motion it seems Safechuck argues that he is entitled to equitable estoppel because of the psychological effect the alleged abuse and Michael's alleged manipulations had on him - ie. that he allegedly made Safechuck believe that it was a consensual love relationship.

The Estate however argues that this does not support equitable estoppel. They cite a number of precedent cases which all say that whenever equitable estoppel was invoked in probate court cases it always had to do with the conduct of the representatives or beneficiaries of the estate and never with the deceased person himself.

In other words, equitable estoppel would be invokable in this case if the representatives of the Estate had done something to prevent Safechuck from filing within those 60 days period laid out in PC 9103. Safechuck however cannot claim any such thing.

That's the kind of thing where estoppel could be invoked in this case, not something that Michael allegedly did 20 years ago.

The Estate then further argues that even if the Court decided the alleged conduct of Michael 20 years ago would be relevant here in invoking equitable estoppel, Safechuck could still not prevail because there is another problem with his argument for equitable estoppel: that his claims do not support a claim for equitable estoppel. They cite a precedent case in which a woman claimed that her teacher engaged in a sexual relationship with her when she was 16-18 years old. Initially she thought this was a consensual relationship she only later realized in therapy that this was sexual abuse. The woman argued for equitable estoppel, but the court rejected her request saying this was not a case for equitable estoppel, but a delayed discovery of alleged abuse. So this would make Safechuck's claim of not realizing it wasn't consensual love until mid-2013 also a case of delayed discovery, not a case for equitable estoppel. And PC 9103 has its own delayed discovery provision which says one must file within 60 days of discovering the facts giving arise to the claim, which Safechuck missed. Not to mention the fact that Safechuck claimed elsewhere in his complaint that he did not testify in 2005 because he did not want his mother to know he was abused but later that year he told his mother that he was allegedly abused and that MJ was a "bad man". So which is it? Did he believe until mid-2013 that this was consensual love or did he realize in 2005 that MJ was a "bad man" and he was abused?

Now we get to the third important law CCP 340.1 which is where Safechuck is trying to get to because this has the longest period within one could file. We have discussed this a lot here as well, but here it is again:

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.

We talked a lot about this regarding Robson and MJ's companies but in Safechuck's case there aren't companies to sue. So the only available part in 340.1 to him would be (a)1, ie. that one could file a lawsuit within 3 years of discovering that psychological injury or illness is a result of childhood sexual abuse. Well, that is if Michael was alive, but he isn't.

However, Safechuck apparently tries to argue for the creation of a new precedent arguing that "the policy considerations behind 340.1 somehow "estop" the Executors from relying on the applicable deadlines".

The Estate argues that CCP 340.1 is not applicable here, because it's creditor's claim in a probate court proceeding which is governed by PC 9103. Then they cite various law interpretations which support their argument that creditor's claims like this are governed by the Probate Code, not CCP 340.1. (Wade's case is somewhat different because of his suing of the companies so in his case 340.1 would apply in case of the companies. That's also why Wade could file a civil lawsuit and Safechuck could not.)

Citing a precendent case the Estate motion writes:

We do not see the opposing arguments as of now, so we can only hope the Estate's arguments are really as strong as they seem here.