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

[ivy]

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

I would not pin that much hope on Decemeber 16. Ivy said December 16 is the deadline for Wade to rework his complaint and if they file it on that day or shortly before, the Judge will need more time to go through it, the Estate will need time to write another demurrer etc. There will not be any decisions made about Wade's lawsuit that day IMO. I don't know about the probate case. Maybe we will get some decision about that, but I would not be surprised if we did not. Currently they are doing discovery, there will be papers filed regarding that, then oppositions by the Estate etc. I think it may go on for some time.

As for Safechuck, they filed this current motion that we discussed in the last couple of post, on December 3. Again, the Estate will need time to answer, maybe they will be able to do that until December 16, maybe not, but I doubt there will be some big decision about it on December 16.

I think multiple things happening at december 16.

First of all Safechuck probate demurrer hearing is on December 16. Estate will do their final reply before that. A decision might happen on that day or at a later date.

We don't know about what's going on in regards to Robson probate demurrer. News stories said the next hearing was December 16 and court system shows two demurrers on December 16. But then there's also a "motion to compel" hearing on December 17. Who knows what that is about? Could be robson or Tohme imo.

As for civil case December 16 is the due date for Robson's amended complaint. That's all. You are correct that Estate's demurrer, Robson opposition, Estate's reply and Demurrer hearing would take months. So nothing significant will happen about the civil case anytime soon.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

I feel like these lawyers are masters of twisting words and arguments (probably why Robson picked them), but when you look into those arguments you can notice how they are twisted.

Just desperate stuff from wade's lawyers - to claim that equitable estoppel applies to all timelimits, even those which occur after safechuck breaks free from mj's elaborate mind prison and is able to file a lawsuit, but still manages to miss the deadline. Who on earth was meant to have prevented him then?? Also if they have to resort to contradicting themselves in the timing of when safechuck realised mj was an abuser and his relationship with him was wrong - 05 or when he saw wade on tv in 2013 - it all becomes a bit of a joke. Hope the judge just goes and grants the demurrer. I find it extraordinary if these people can possibly be allowed to claim 'delayed discovery', when they've been continually questioned about any inappropriateness in their relationship with mj for 2 decades, never mind the added timelimits allowed by invoking that doctrine. They've had the entire law enforcement agencies of the united states and the global media 'joining the dots' for them, and to counter that they've had what? -mj saying, 'best keep it quiet, it's all l.o.v.e.'?

 

[HIStory]

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

Actually I find it shocking how they twist the law:

"Thus the fact that Safechuck was unable to reach this realization until after the deadline for filing a claim under Probate Code 9103 and CCP 366.2 had passed..."

This argument makes no sense at all about Probate Code 9103 because the deadline in PC 9103 by definition STARTS when the plaintiff says he realized abuse/injury. So what they say here does not even make any sense when you know what that law is about.

It's up to Safechuck to make a claim about when he says he realized abuse/the resulting injury. And that's when the 60 days period for him to file STARTS- so it's impossible for it to end by the time he made the alleged realization. By definition it STARTS when he made the alleged realization! That's what this law is about.

This is the bottom line IMO and all other arguments he makes in this motion IMO is a lot of hot air.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

As serious as the subject matter is, I couldn't help but laugh seeing these two contradictory claims next to each other. This is utterly ridiculous! With so many inconsistent details coming from both Wade and Safechuck I'd be very surprised if this ended up in their favour.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

As serious as the subject matter is, I couldn't help but laugh seeing these two contradictory claims next to each other. This is utterly ridiculous! With so many inconsistent details coming from both Wade and Safechuck I'd be very surprised if this ended up in their favour.

Me too.

 

[soulmum]

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

It's a good way of seeing their lies though, they are going to have to be on the ball when questioned if it comes back to bite them in the a__.

 

[SarahJ]

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

It's a good way of seeing their lies though, they are going to have to be on the ball when questioned if it comes back to bite them in the a__.

And it will.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

This statute of limitations is really hold this case up Wade and James lawyers claim that equitable estopped apply to them in this case but looking at the laws and the codes and how it is explain none of this apply to them they can twist the words all they want but the law will still be the law and that will not change. Every single deadline has been miss here i just do not get it.

End order for this case to to be file Wade came out as a adult with these allegations that Michael Jackson sexual abuse him as a child for 7 years and the judge had to take Wade words as true i understand all of that it serious when you abuse a child the laws are there to protect them but in Wade case it is a different story this happen two decade ago so why come out with it now. He took the stand in 2005 and told the world that he was never his words never abuse by Michael Jackson.

His reasons for not filing on time does not make any sense to me he claim he had a memory lost or Michael was control him so that why he could not file then he see the doctor and connect the dots and realize he has been abuse something is wrong with this picture Wade should of took care of this while Michael was alive not wait 5 years after Michael has gone could not even face Michael when he was alive what a coward he is. That why the ppls are going to see it for what it really is all about the money.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

Interesting video showing the control and influence mj has over these children who fall under his spell. See how he effortlessly tries to direct them in the photoshoot to ensure he is front and centre, and see how he er fails totally and they all ignore him and push him back, and tease him. Some svengali, can't organise a photo shoot with children but somehow can lull them all into decades long brainwashing.

 

[HIStory]

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

Interesting video showing the control and influence mj has over these children who fall under his spell. See how he effortlessly tries to direct them in the photoshoot to ensure he is front and centre, and see how he er fails totally and they all ignore him and push him back, and tease him. Some svengali, can't organise a photo shoot with children but somehow can lull them all into decades long brainwashing.

Yeah, like on this video. Kids kicking him in the butt, breaking an egg on his head, but he sure had such svengali control over them. LOL.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Michael was that type of person he was sweet,kind he love everybody did not matter the color of your skin he love you anyway i just hate seen ppls trying to say he misstreated the kids and that is wrong it just break my heart to see this. I know some of us say to ourselves that we are glad that Michael is not here to see this messy it would just break his heart.


Love the videos ladies.

 

[myosotis]

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

In the Cascio photoshoot video, can anyone hear what the photographer is saying at appx 1.16.
It starts 'He is cute, it's like..???'

Do we know who the photographer was?

 

[MJresearcher]

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

It was funny towards the end of the video where MJ gets told off for hiding behind the kid's head and the photographer says "you could have learned this in 30 years" and then one kid says "he's only 10" and MJ says he's Peter Pan. Watching videos of MJ offstage you could be forgiven for thinking he was a tall 10 year old because of how he behaves lol.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

The video of him with the 3 boys is adorable. I just looked on twitter and there are a lot of sick people like Diane Dimond who are twisting it around.

 

[SarahJ]

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

They'd say it even without the video. Their voices simply aren't as strong as they used to be.

Love the video. He looks so happy and strong

 

[HIStory]

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

I find it interesting how in Safechuck's motion they go on about how it is required to accept his allegations as true without evidence "no matter how unlikely or improbable". As if even they know how it sounds...

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

What the f.uck? What does it mean legally and why didn't state the same on Wade's motion?

 

[HIStory]

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

What the f.uck? What does it mean legally and why didn't state the same on Wade's motion?

Legally it means that at this stage whatever they claim in their papers it has to be treated as if it's true. We have already talked about this, it is just interesting to me that they so emphasize it in this motion and that they so emphaize that they do not need to show any evidence and by law whatever they claim has to be accepted as true "no matter how unlikely or improbable". Just odd how much emphasis they put on this. It's almost as if they know how bad it sounds when they claim all this BS about Safechuck recently realizing abuse and recently connecting the dots after seeing Wade on TV while 20 years of public allegations against MJ were not enough for him to "connect the dots".

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

^Yeah but I mean what does it help to state it on a motion, I find it extremely cocky - it's like cornering the judge and tell him "you have to proceed because we said so."

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

Legally it means that at this stage whatever they claim in their papers it has to be treated as if it's true. We have already talked about this, it is just interesting to me that they so emphasize it in this motion and that they so emphaize that they do not need to show any evidence and by law whatever they claim has to be accepted as true "no matter how unlikely or improbable". Just odd how much emphasis they put on this. It's almost as if they know how bad it sounds when they claim all this BS about Safechuck recently realizing abuse and recently connecting the dots after seeing Wade on TV while 20 years of public allegations against MJ were not enough for him to "connect the dots".

I don't think we should overstate this issue that whatever the plaintiff claims is treated as true at this pre-trial stage. It would mean every single case gets accepted as going to trial, however stupid. If there are disputed facts then for these pre trial purposes it is treated as if a case can be made to support them but the judge isn't obliged to agree with the 'conclusions and deductions' that are made in these court documents.

As i see it, it means in wade/jimmy's case, the judge at this stage has to accept that there is a valid case with disputed facts that mj did or did not abuse jimmy/wade, but he doesn't have to accept, for example, wade and jimmy's delayed discovery claim and the extra time limits that come with that. It's not a disputed fact that law enforcement questioned both plaintiffs, as boys and as men, regarding the exact nature of their relationship with mj and how they could be victims. They would be left in absolutely no doubt that a physical relationship with mj would be criminal, especially wade who was chief defence witness at mj's criminal molestation trial. I'm sure the estate in their rfa's, and interrogatories established that. The judge most definitely would be hard pressed to agree with gradstein's 'conclusion' that a few phone calls from mj would lead these men to labour under the impression for decades that a sexual relationship with mj was all l.o.v.e. Anyway, that's my reading of it all and how i demarcate between what the judge is obliged to accept and what he can deny.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

The judge job is to decide weather these cases has enough evidence to more on to court right?

If not enough evidence then it may get dismiss by the judge.

What about what the judge said that he could dismiss MJ and his companies is that still a possible?

 

[HIStory]

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

I don't think we should overstate this issue that whatever the plaintiff claims is treated as true at this pre-trial stage. It would mean every single case gets accepted as going to trial, however stupid. If there are disputed facts then for these pre trial purposes it is treated as if a case can be made to support them but the judge isn't obliged to agree with the 'conclusions and deductions' that are made in these court documents.

As i see it, it means in wade/jimmy's case, the judge at this stage has to accept that there is a valid case with disputed facts that mj did or did not abuse jimmy/wade, but he doesn't have to accept, for example, wade and jimmy's delayed discovery claim and the extra time limits that come with that. It's not a disputed fact that law enforcement questioned both plaintiffs, as boys and as men, regarding the exact nature of their relationship with mj and how they could be victims. They would be left in absolutely no doubt that a physical relationship with mj would be criminal, especially wade who was chief defence witness at mj's criminal molestation trial. I'm sure the estate in their rfa's, and interrogatories established that. The judge most definitely would be hard pressed to agree with gradstein's 'conclusion' that a few phone calls from mj would lead these men to labour under the impression for decades that a sexual relationship with mj was all l.o.v.e. Anyway, that's my reading of it all and how i demarcate between what the judge is obliged to accept and what he can deny.

I am not sure (and those who are familiar with US law, please enlighten me) but the way I understand it, while at a trial the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff, at this stage it is on the Defendant. Which means that the Plaintiff's claims are considered "true" by default, but if the Defendant can bring in evidence to refute them then he can get them thrown out. For example, in this case if they can bring in evidence that yes, Safechuck reasonably knew or had a reason to know about the illicit nature of the type of acts he alleges then it's a reason to throw that claim out. And that evidence would include what Safechuck himself said about 2005 in his initial filing. That's how I understand the game works, but I may be totally wrong.

Here is Safechuck's summary of his whole equitable estoppel argument from that motion:

As you can see their equitable estoppel argument depends (among others) on whether he really did not know about the illicit, non-consensual nature of such alleged acts and their alleged harm until 2013 - but we have seen that he apparently totally contradicted this claim in his initial petition with what he claimed about 2005. So of course the Estate will be able to use that against him to refute that claim. Actually the Judge having to accept what he claims as true will backfire on him here, because he claimed that in 2005 he told his mother about the alleged abuse calling MJ a "bad man", so accepting that as "true" would mean he did know about the illicit nature of such acts many years ago.

I also noticed that they argue that they have to go on to a trial because the argument involves "disputed facts" which have to be decided at a trial. See at the end of the above quoted part or here:

Seems to me like another "creative" interpretation of the law and the case again. They want to say that this thing about Safechuck not knowing about the illicit nature of alleged acts until 2013 is a disputed fact thus it has to be decided about at a trial. That's how they try to get their way through to a trial. But the Estate I guess will disagree that it's a disputed fact when Safechuck himself claimed in his initial Petition that he knew in 2005 that MJ was a "bad man" and told his mother that MJ had allegedly abused him.

And as we have discussed before this isn't the only problem with Safechuck's equitable estoppel argument. Even if the Judge accepts everything they claim about not connecting the dots until seeing Wade the issue still remains: even accepting all that he still would not be entitled to equitable estoppel because the law did give him a chance to legally file a lawsuit in case of delayed discovery and he failed to do so within the law-given time limits - and it was not because of anything MJ or the Estate did to him but through his own fault.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Thank you Respect77 for this that is right James told his mom in 2005 that Michael sexual abuse him and he was a bad man his own words he knew so this case can be throw out James blow his on case here is the evidence in the bold. Nothing was holding him back not MJ or the Estate pretty clear picture to me.


The judge job is to go by the law and it say here that they have miss every single deadline so the statute of limitations have ran out end of case.

Imo i do not see this judge letting this case move on equitable estopped dose not apply here at all i just do not see it. I agree James fault all the way.

 

[ivy]

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

I don't think we should overstate this issue that whatever the plaintiff claims is treated as true at this pre-trial stage. It would mean every single case gets accepted as going to trial, however stupid. If there are disputed facts then for these pre trial purposes it is treated as if a case can be made to support them but the judge isn't obliged to agree with the 'conclusions and deductions' that are made in these court documents.

As i see it, it means in wade/jimmy's case, the judge at this stage has to accept that there is a valid case with disputed facts that mj did or did not abuse jimmy/wade, but he doesn't have to accept, for example, wade and jimmy's delayed discovery claim and the extra time limits that come with that. It's not a disputed fact that law enforcement questioned both plaintiffs, as boys and as men, regarding the exact nature of their relationship with mj and how they could be victims. They would be left in absolutely no doubt that a physical relationship with mj would be criminal, especially wade who was chief defence witness at mj's criminal molestation trial. I'm sure the estate in their rfa's, and interrogatories established that. The judge most definitely would be hard pressed to agree with gradstein's 'conclusion' that a few phone calls from mj would lead these men to labour under the impression for decades that a sexual relationship with mj was all l.o.v.e. Anyway, that's my reading of it all and how i demarcate between what the judge is obliged to accept and what he can deny.

There are two dismissal phases : a demurrer and a summary judgment.

Demurrer is when the judge is determining if there's a legal basis for the lawsuit.

For example if I sue you for stealing $1,000 from me, the judge will accept my claim as true and will only consider if I can sue you or not. In other words Judge assumes that you indeed stole from me and only decides if I can file a theft lawsuit or not. Another example is from KJ and AEG case. She claimed AEG was conspiring to get MJ to rehearsals. Judge said based on the legal definition of a conspiracy claim the act parties conspiring should be illegal. Judge decided getting someone to work wasn't illegal hence didn't satisfy legal requirements of a conspiracy claim and dismissed at demurrer.

Summary judgment is when one party tries to show that either there's no evidence to support a claim and even if what the other party claims assumed to be true they would win. Summary judgment is supported by discovery, evidence, depositions.

For example in Katherine's case she claimed respondeat superior at AEG controlled Michael and his healthcare. Based on all the discovery and evidence presented in motions -such as Michael freely going to Klein and based on the fact that just a work relationship doesn't create control - judge dismissed this claim during summary judgment. In other words judge decided that she can never prove that and everything presented showed otherwise.

so when you say

but he doesn't have to accept, for example, wade and jimmy's delayed discovery claim and the extra time limits that come with that.

you are correct. that's what's going on right now. It's the demurrer phase and Estate's main argument is that they are late to file these claims. Wade and James are explaining why they are late. Judge based on law will determine if they can or cannot file a lawsuit.

However I would disagree with

They would be left in absolutely no doubt that a physical relationship with mj would be criminal

first of all such details are way to early in a demurrer phase and secondly I think this would be something disputed. Obviously Estate will argue what you said but Robson would have his own experts/ psychiatrist arguing how he compartmentalized, repressed whatever.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

You are correct. that's what's going on right now. It's the demurrer phase and Estate's main argument is that they are late to file these claims. Wade and James are explaining why they are late. Judge based on law will determine if they can or cannot file a lawsuit.

Can you get any clear then this the statute of limitations ran out so Wade and James claim were file late and the law clearly say you must file in a certain time frame which they did not do. So now they want to argue that equitable estopped apply to them for the reason that they file late and that will not work either because nothing was holding them back not MJ or the Estate. So they are arguing a losing cause. The judge ask if this has every been use before and the answer was no so i do not see the judge change this laws to help Wade and James cases.

The Estate has a strong arguement and it is very clear you miss every single deadline to file these claims so by right these claims should not have been file and it is also very clear that MJ is not here to defend himself and you can not sue a dead man.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

There are two dismissal phases : a demurrer and a summary judgment.

Thanks for the distinctions, i think i'm understanding the differences now. I find it's all getting a little confusing here with these 2 probate claims and the civil claim all happening simultaneously and at different stages.

However I would disagree with
One such details are way to early in a demurrer phase and secondly I think this would be something disputed. Obviously Estate will argue what you said but Robson would have his own experts/ psychiatrist arguing how he compartmentalized, repressed whatever.

Yes, i'm sure they wd try dispute that. I was just going by precedent cases for delayed discovery where there is a certain subjective standard required to be able to claim it, rather than just an automatic acceptance of someone saying i didn't know it was wrongful. I suppose i regarded 'delayed discovery' as so key to time limits it was something that had to be looked at and judged on, and not just accepted as true by the judge at a demurrer stage. You're the expert, as long as the estate counter arguments of wade being closely questioned in court on the criminal implications of a physical relationship with mj is something that comes into play in a summary judgement hearing, rather than at this demurrer stage, i'm happy. And of course, there are further time limits that they missed.

As you can see their equitable estoppel argument depends (among others) on whether he really did not know about the illicit, non-consensual nature of such alleged acts and their alleged harm until 2013 - but we have seen that he apparently totally contradicted this claim in his initial petition with what he claimed about 2005. So of course the Estate will be able to use that against him to refute that claim.

It always helps if the opposing side does your work for you and contradicts their own arguments in their own court filings,lol!

 

[#MJforever57]

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

It always helps if the opposing side does your work for you and contradicts their own arguments in their own court filings,lol!

The problem with James is he can't stick to one story.

 

[MJInnocent]

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

The whole lot of it disgusts me ,MJ's name being continually dragged through the mud for money......it will never end.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

The whole lot of it disgusts me ,MJ's name being continually dragged through the mud for money......it will never end.

I agree with you just like it was mention this case should have been drop on day one MJ is gone the statute of limitations ran out so what the point?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Not saying I want these cases to proceed or anything, but sometimes I am a bit afraid that people will see it as technical thing and not an actual win... There's this little part of me that wants to see Michael's lawyers kick Wade's ass in court just anyway so there won't be any shred of doubt in the future like Tmez dismissed anything the Arvizos brought up. Of course, people who want to have doubts will always find excuses to have them so I shouldn't really care. I really hope the judge will drop them and they won't have to go through this long trial - which may also get more attention if it gets green light.

btw - we should have updates this week or is it next week?