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

[barbee0715]

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

In defense of the conversation about Cosby, I don't think anyone here wanted to discuss his case or declare him innocent or guilty. Or claim that his accusers were a pack of liars or innocent victims.

It was just brought up to compare the same methodology of bringing down and destroying a rich, powerful person on allegations alone and one who is being tried by the media and court of public opinion.
All the facts are known in Michael's case now but any comparison to the Cosby case would be similar to what happened to Michael in 93 when no real evidence was known and rumors and innuendo ruled the day. That's it.
Mostly because of Michael, but also because of things like Allen, McMartin etc. I try hard to separate evidence vs. allegations. It's very sad but nothing has been learned from the past
and the media continues to report allegations as cold hard fact.

 

[HIStory]

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

In defense of the conversation about Cosby, I don't think anyone here wanted to discuss his case or declare him innocent or guilty. Or claim that his accusers were a pack of liars or innocent victims.

It was just brought up to compare the same methodology of bringing down and destroying a rich, powerful person on allegations alone and one who is being tried by the media and court of public opinion.
All the facts are known in Michael's case now but any comparison to the Cosby case would be similar to what happened to Michael in 93 when no real evidence was known and rumors and innuendo ruled the day. That's it.
Mostly because of Michael, but also because of things like Allen, McMartin etc. I try hard to separate evidence vs. allegations. It's very sad but nothing has been learned from the past
and the media continues to report allegations as cold hard fact.

Yes, that's true and I did not say that people should condemn Cosby. I said I don't know if he is guilty or innocent. But fans IMO should be careful not to compare any sex abuse case to Michael's and assume immediately that all accusers are always liars in such cases. That's like the other extreme and a similar knee-jerk reaction as on the other side where people immediately assume that every allegation is automatically true.

I think Cosby should be discussed in a different thread for those who are interested because it has nothing to do with Michael. And I don't think it serves Michael's case well if we fans of all people try to compare every other sex abuse allegation to his case. What if Cosby is guilty? Then I don't think these comparations will serve Michael well.

I agree though that the media should be more balanced and not jump to conclusions immediately.

 

[barbee0715]

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

No I get it and glad you got my point that I was talking about the media. And I agree about not comparing the cases themselves.
I wish people on news aggregates would show such restraint as the commenters always lump the guilty, innocent and accused all together as all guilty.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Can we all just agree to keep Cosby out of it? If people feel a need to discuss it I think the issue is big enough to have its own thread...

 

[SarahJ]

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

I wish the public would also be more discerning what we see, hear and read. The media lumps all together because they can and they know there is a huge audience for the negative, true or not. We tend to have an appetite for the salacious hence of course how the majority of people thought MJ was guilty in '05, no matter how one-sided the coverage was.

 

[barbee0715]

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

I wish the public would also be more discerning what we see, hear and read. The media lumps all together because they can and they know there is a huge audience for the negative, true or not. We tend to have an appetite for the salacious hence of course how the majority of people thought MJ was guilty in '05, no matter how one-sided the coverage was.

Me too. It's pathetic, isn't it? We consider ourselves in the USA as a very straight, proper, puritanical country, yet, the more salacious the better. It really makes me angry. People tell me all the time that it's no different than slowing down and looking at car wrecks. Well, I avert my eyes at those too.
I grew up wanting to be a writer-now that's about as low as you can go.

 

[PoP]

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

I wish the public would also be more discerning what we see, hear and read. The media lumps all together because they can and they know there is a huge audience for the negative, true or not. We tend to have an appetite for the salacious hence of course how the majority of people thought MJ was guilty in '05, no matter how one-sided the coverage was.

Yeah no matter what the public thinks, they believe that media works on convincing Michael was guilty of the allegations/charges and despite the fact that he's found guilty because the Arvizo b@$^@#%$ repeated story changes, lack of evidence which resulted a possibility of Sneddon falsifying evidence, people are way to convinced and very closed minded in a dumb way to believe the media over the truth. They wouldn't know the meaning of the word TRUTH if it really kicks them in the face.

 

[SarahJ]

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

Me too. It's pathetic, isn't it? We consider ourselves in the USA as a very straight, proper, puritanical country, yet, the more salacious the better. It really makes me angry. People tell me all the time that it's no different than slowing down and looking at car wrecks. Well, I avert my eyes at those too.
I grew up wanting to be a writer-now that's about as low as you can go.

It's not just the USA. It's human nature (no pun intended ). As for being a writer its what you write and how you present it. There are good, honest writers out there and they are desperately needed, especially these days.

 

[Tygger]

I have minimal interest in these claims; my only interest is their dismissal.

I saw them as a rouse during the AEG civil trial that did not have the effect AEG wanted. The claims have continued for far too long which gives the claims the guise of a legitimate legal matter when they simply are not.

While some are resistant to compare these late claims against Michael and his Estate to Cosby’s late claims, there are very valid comparisons. Suffice to say a Cosby allegation has already been appropriately denied by Los Angeles, U.S. prosecutors this week. With that, any other female with a decades’ old story will be less inclined to speak now that the fleeting notoriety will not also be paired with a possible civil remedy.

The only benefit to these faux Robson/Safechuck claims is the financial benefit to the lawyers involved. Estate funds continue to be wasted on this frivolous litigation. I attempted to screen posts here however; question please for anyone who may know: who funds the lawyers for Robson and Safechuck or are they contingency fee lawyers?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I came across this RARE video of Michael Jackson MANIPULATING his friend Macaulay Culkin.

notice how in 0:21 he threatened Mac he was going to KILL him!

Ladies and gentleman, this is a very dangerous man.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

Lol

Every time I see a video of MJ and children, it appears that they're the ones who are bossing him around, and when he does try to assert some authority they don't seem to take him seriously and his attempt at exercising anything resembling control over them fails miserably. It seems to me that kids saw him as being one of them, just taller.

 

[ivy]

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

I attempted to screen posts here however; question please for anyone who may know: who funds the lawyers for Robson and Safechuck or are they contingency fee lawyers?

No one would know the answer to that. They don't have a website with fee information. Anything is possible. They could be contingency or Robson/Safechuck paying them. (Sorry I don't believe in some sort of conspiracy involving AEG trial as these allegations as you pointed out was totally irrelevant to AEG trial).

 

[Tygger]

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

Ivy, thanks for the response regarding the contingency aspect of Robson/Safechuck's lawyers. If they are not contingency lawyers, it would be very interesting to find out who is funding this as the results of these allegations are rather obvious if not longwinded.

I never said the allegations were irrelevant to the AEG trial. I said it was a rouse that did not have the effect AEG wanted. They promised "something big" however, Robson faux claims and the faux article planted by an AEG sponsored news outlet at the time (successfully debunked despite the Estate allowing the UKPCC complaint to lapse) did not take away from the civil trial coverage.

 

[HIStory]

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

I am open to any theory but I have yet to see any compelling evidence about this "AEG created the Robson/Safechuck scandal" theory. I see no connection.

 

[ivy]

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

I am open to any theory but I have yet to see any compelling evidence about this "AEG created the Robson/Safechuck scandal" theory. I see no connection.

Because there's none IMO.

The only reason people think there's a connection is because Robson filed it very close to when AEG trial started and there was that quote of AEG saying "something big" (not the exact wording). However I read every single page of every document before trial, AEG's something big was the "drug addiction" angle. They wrote they had multiple witnesses that would testify about "addiction". So AEG's "something big" was they would portray an "addict" picture and no one (no jury) would put the blame on AEG for Michael's "addiction". I wrote about it a lot of times on this forum, that's also why some fans hated that trial. They knew Michael would be dragged.

Some also argued that Robson's complaint was to take attention from AEG trial but Robson news was short lived while AEG trial went on for 6 months. So that didn't happen either.

As we all agree (I guess) Robson's claims was totally irrelevant to AEG case and had no effect on the verdict.

 

[Tygger]

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

Oddly enough I did not expect agreement with my view.

However; there are those who understood AEG's "something big" was not drug addiction and it was Robson's claims. AEG always stated that drug addiction would be discussed at length during their defense. Thus, no surprise and not the "something big." That was separate.

Robson appeared on U.S. Today Show during the civil trial. Despite that high profile interview and the horrific article in an AEG-sponsored media outlet that then CNN's Duke and C. Thomson debunked, attention was not taken away from the civil trial.

Even if others are not interested, I am very interested in knowing who has been funding this doomed, frivolous claim as the only beneficiaries of this are the opposing legal teams. I know who is funding the Estate lawyers. I would like to know who is funding Robson/Safechuck's lawyers or if they are contingency-fee lawyers.

 

[HIStory]

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

^ Not to mention: how does Safechuck come into the picture by that logic? He filed after the AEG trial was over. In fact, if this was about distracting attention from the AEG trial he should not have waited that long with his filing as he did. He should have filed right after Wade.

Actually, Safechuck's lawsuit was filed to interfere with the release of Xscape - to hurt the Estate/Sony as much as they could -, not to do anything with AEG.

 

[HIStory]

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

Oddly enough I did not expect agreement with my view.

However; there are those who understood AEG's "something big" was not drug addiction and it was Robson's claims.

Who are "those who understand AEG's "something big" was not drug addiction and it was Robson's claims"? What is your evidence that AEG referred to these allegations?

 

[Tygger]

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

Not to mention: how does Safechuck come into the picture by that logic? He filed after the AEG trial was over. In fact, if this was about distracting attention from the AEG trial he should not have waited that long with his filing as he did. He should have filed right after Wade.

Not if his purpose was to support Robson and give weight to his faux claims. Again, the Robson claims did not have the desired effect it seemed yet, these claims continue. Nefarious deeds do not have to be logical or timely. In this instance, they only need to be funded.

Who are "those who understand AEG's "something big" was not drug addiction and it was Robson's claims"? What is your evidence that AEG referred to these allegations?

To answer your first question, it was discussed at length on a few MJ forums including this one.

For your second, I never said AEG referred to Robson. I said there was those who understood AEG's "something big" was Robson's claims. Feel free to point me to where AEG stated the "something big" was their focus on drug addiction.

 

[HIStory]

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

Not if his purpose was to support Robson and give weight to his faux claims.

Your suggested that the purpose of these allegations are to divert attention from AEG. So if that is the purpose it did not make sense for these lawyers to keep Safechuck's allegations under the wrap for as long as they did - long months after the AEG trial ended.

Nefarious deeds do not have to be logical or timely.

Theories however should make logical sense. If the purpose of these allegations is to divert attention from the AEG trial then it does not make sense to keep one of them under wraps until long after the AEG trial is over.

To answer your first question, it was discussed at length on a few MJ forums including this one.For your second, I never said AEG referred to Robson. I said there was those who understood AEG's "something big" was Robson's claims.

Oh I see. So you are just talking about fan speculations on fan forums, nothing concrete.

Feel free to point me to where AEG stated the "something big" was their focus on drug addiction.

AEG not specifically stating it was about drug addiction does not mean you can make the logical quantum leap to conclude it was about Robson's claims.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Lol

Every time I see a video of MJ and children, it appears that they're the ones who are bossing him around, and when he does try to assert some authority they don't seem to take him seriously and his attempt at exercising anything resembling control over them fails miserably. It seems to me that kids saw him as being one of them, just taller.

That's it. I watched Private Home Movies again yesterday and noticed so many little gestures that I possibly forgot since the last time I watched it. For example, on that vacation with Mac, Mac tries to light the snaps and Michael couldn't even get him to stop with the hotel manager being in the room. You can see the same thing with the auctioned Cascio tapes, the all look confident around him (and why wouldn't they?) so I can see how things could go out of hand in like sometimes the children themselves would do stuff around him without his permission and he would only then have to draw a line after they didn't take him seriously enough... Especially with trouble makers like the Arvizos who seemed to not give a shit about any person around them (Chris Tucker's story about them stealing things) so it's obvious they weren't afraid of anyone.

 

[ivy]

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

Your suggested that the purpose of these allegations are to divert attention from AEG. So if that is the purpose it did not make sense for these lawyers to keep Safechuck's allegations under the wrap for as long as they did - long months after the AEG trial ended.

If the purpose of these allegation were to divert attention from AEG, it also doesn't make sense for Robson.
Because
- they filed the complaint under seal. If they wanted to attract attention and divert attention from AEG they would and should have filed it openly. Robson had very serious allegations such as anal rape and it only became public August 2014 during RFAs and 9 months after a verdict in AEG case was reached. So logically if Robson's goal was to divert attention from AEG trial, you would expect him to start with those heinous claims right off the bat.
- Robson only did one interview. If the goal was to attract attention he could have done more interviews to keep the interest alive. Media reported his lawsuit and interview and then it was over and they moved on. Robson at most took a few days from AEG trial.

As you pointed out the worse news time for these accusations was May to August 2014. That's when Safechuck case came and both Robson and Safechuck claims have become public and reported on media. So I don't see any relevance to AEG.

And finally for the "AEG's something big was Robson's claims" argument, that doesn't really make sense does it. If AEG was in bed with Robson in regards to these allegations, why would they give a heads up to the public? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Who gets involved in a conspiracy , something illegal (false claims on a lawsuit) and even perhaps funds such illegal act (assuming that's what tygger means by who is funding Robson questions) and then announces "hey wait to see what we did"? Again doesn't that defeat the whole goal of conspiracy?

 

[Tygger]

Your suggested that the purpose of these allegations are to divert attention from AEG. So if that is the purpose it did not make sense for these lawyers to keep Safechuck's allegations under the wrap for as long as they did - long months after the AEG trial ended.

Theories however should make logical sense. If the purpose of these allegations is to divert attention from the AEG trial then it does not make sense to keep one of them under wraps until long after the AEG trial is over.

Repeating: I stated Robson's claims attempted to divert attention during the AEG trial. The claims were not a successful diversion. I continue to maintain that Safechuck’s claims were used to support Robson’s. I never stated Safechuck's claims were used to deflect attention from AEG during the civil trial. That is your and Ivy's quantum leap for whatever your reasons.

Oh I see. So you are just talking about fan speculations on fan forums, nothing concrete.

As are you. Your suggestion of what that “something big” is just as speculative and far from concrete. AEG never defined what their “something big” was so it is free to be interpreted however one sees fit.

AEG not specifically stating it was about drug addiction does not mean you can make the logical quantum leap to conclude it was about Robson's claims.

Continuing with your own logic, it also does not mean you can equate it to the well publicized defense that included drug addiction.

And finally for the "AEG's something big was Robson's claims" argument, that doesn't really make sense does it. If AEG was in bed with Robson in regards to these allegations, why would they give a heads up to the public? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Who gets involved in a conspiracy , something illegal (false claims on a lawsuit) and even perhaps funds such illegal act (assuming that's what tygger means by who is funding Robson questions) and then announces "hey wait to see what we did"? Again doesn't that defeat the whole goal of conspiracy?

laughs.

Ivy, it is amusing that you attempted to downplay Robson’s one national U.S. interview that received world-wide coverage.

As for Safechuck’s claims: I have continually repeated their only purpose is to support Robson; something neither you or Respect77 can deny.

As for Safechuck’s timing and Xscape: the appeal in the AEG civil trial is still pending. As you remember, part of their defense was Michael would earn $0 as per their expert because the accusations that followed Michael despite being acquitted. It seems poor promotion of Xscape by Sony which lowered its sales was not factored into this caper provided there was a caper to factor. Monies could have been saved instead of squandered to have Safechuck support Robson.

My original question was if anyone knew who was funding this nonsense and it seems no one knows.

If these lawyers are contingency-fee lawyers, fine. If they are not, these doomed, faux claims have proven to be long winded and happily expensive for each legal team. If these are not contingency-fee lawyers, whoever is funding these plaintiffs were aware this is only a futile, expensive exercise that they have sufficient funding for.

Anyone is free to speculate as to who that generous benefactor(s) is.

 

[HIStory]

Repeating: I stated Robson's claims attempted to divert attention during the AEG trial. The claims were not a successful diversion. I continue to maintain that Safechuck’s claims were used to support Robson’s. I never stated Safechuck's claims were used to deflect attention from AEG during the civil trial. That is your and Ivy's quantum leap for whatever your reasons.

You started this with wondering about where Robson's lawyer get their payment from. You seem to suggest that (just because we here personally cannot tell the details of the deal between Robson/Safechuck and their lawyers - and why should we?) somehow AEG is behind this and Robson's lawyers get their money from them. Well, if that is the case then there must be a purpose in it for AEG, isn't that true? And if Robson's lawyers get paid by AEG then their main goal is to do this diversion tactic for AEG to the max, isn't it? Because your idea is that the purpose is to divert attention from the AEG trial. If that truly is the case and Robson's lawyers, who are the same lawyers who also represent Safechuck, get paid by AEG then why didn't AEG use Safechuck allegations as well to make this plot more effective?

I don't know how much you know about the timeline in the Robson/Safechuck case, but according to Safechuck's court docs Safechuck started to work with Robson's lawyers in September 2013. So his allegations could have been thrown out to the media just in time for the end of the AEG trial. If Robson's lawyers are paid by AEG then their main goal would be to represent whatever the interest of AEG is and make that diversion tactic more effective, wouldn't it? So why did not they think it would highten the effectiveness of their diversion strategy if they had thrown out Safechuck's allegations to the media in September 2013?

As are you. Your suggestion of what that “something big” is just as speculative and far from concrete. AEG never defined what their “something big” was so it is free to be interpreted however one sees fit.

Continuing with your own logic, it also does not mean you can equate it to the well publicized defense that included drug addiction.

This is a typical logical fallacy - reversing the argument. I was not the one claiming that there is a certain specific meaning behind that "something big" statement. I don't know what AEG meant and I did not claim to know. You were the one who said it meant Robson's claims. So it's up to you to provide evidence for that and not up to me to provide evidence... for what - my "I don't know" stance? I'm open to any evidence that you can provide for AEG being behind Robson's allegations, but so far I have not seen any besides "I have my right to speculate". Of course, you do. But then do not be surprised if people may find this a weak theory.

My original question was if anyone knew who was funding this nonsense and it seems no one knows.

No offense, but why should we know this? This information is between a lawyer and his client, not public information. Not knowing the details of the deal between Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers does not mean AEG is behind it. That's such a logical quantum leap. LOL.

Ivy, it is amusing that you attempted to downplay Robson’s one national U.S. interview that received world-wide coverage.

Yet, it did not divert attention from the AEG trial...

You said, that's just because the strategy failed, but if that is the case then AEG could do two things:

1) Increase the pressure - eg. with more allegations and for that purpose Safechuck would have been perfect.Yet, they never used his allegations during the AEG trial. It was first made public months after the trial.
2) Or seeing that the strategy failed, abandon it. But according to you they did not abandon it, but will use Safechuck for the appeal process. Why if this already proved to be an uneffective strategy?

 

[barbee0715]

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

Does anyone know if any courts will be in session at all next week in LA? Everyone I know that is in the legal profession has already packed it up for the holidays. They are working short shifts for the next couple of weeks.
Just wondering if that will mean we wait longer?

 

[ivy]

Ivy, it is amusing that you attempted to downplay Robson’s one national U.S. interview that received world-wide coverage.

Yet, it did not divert attention from the AEG trial...

I did not downplay his interview. I said "Media reported his lawsuit and interview and then it was over and they moved on. Robson at most took a few days from AEG trial. " You tell me how many days the international media spent on Robson case and his interview? 3 days? a week? That's what it at most took from the trial - if it did. AEG trial was 6 months. So mathematically everyone can see it didn't take much from AEG trial.

As for Safechuck’s timing and Xscape: the appeal in the AEG civil trial is still pending.

yes but what is the relevance though? Appeal decision is done by 3 appellate judges. How does Safechuck's claims tie to that? First of all Appellate judge's role here is to determine if the lower court has done everything correct or a new trial is needed. As they aren't going to determine damages or any of the claims or testimony or verdict for that matter, the defense argument is irrelevant. So I fail to see Safechuck- appeal timing.

My original question was if anyone knew who was funding this nonsense and it seems no one knows.

No offense, but why should we know this? This information is between a lawyer and his client, not public information. Not knowing the details of the deal between Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers does not mean AEG is behind it. That's such a logical quantum leap. LOL.

Well no one knows because you are asking an almost impossible question. In the case of Katherine Jackson and her lawyers for example her lawyers had a website saying they take cases on contingency basis which prompted fans to speculate that's what they did in Katherine's case too. Later on media reported it was the case. As for Robson/Safechuck lawyers they don't have a website as far as I can see so there's no general information available about it. So anything is possible. This could be a contingency case and they could have taken it for publicity. Robson and Safechuck could have been paying them as well rather than some secret party who is funding it. As Respect pointed out there's no way for us to know the confidential agreement between a lawyer and a client.

Does anyone know if any courts will be in session at all next week in LA? Everyone I know that is in the legal profession has already packed it up for the holidays. They are working short shifts for the next couple of weeks.
Just wondering if that will mean we wait longer?

According to courts holiday schedule they are only closed at Christmas day and new year. But I guess the judge's own calendar might be empty.

http://www.lacourt.org/holiday/ui/index.aspx

 

[Tygger]

Respect77, what exactly are you suggesting I started? You and Ivy took the leap that Safechuck’s claims would have an effect on the AEG civil trial and it is up to you both to reason that out for yourselves. I clearly never stated such.

No argument has been reversed. As you stated, your issue is you do not agree with my suggestion of what AEG’s “something big” was and you want me to substantiate it despite not being able to substantiate for yourself that the “something big” is what you and Ivy suggest it to be (as you both share the same suggestion). That is an issue you will simply have to accept; neither suggestion is correct or incorrect as neither can be substantiated. Simply put, your/Ivy's guess is as good as mine.

No offense, but why should we know this? This information is between a lawyer and his client, not public information. Not knowing the details of the deal between Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers does not mean AEG is behind it. That's such a logical quantum leap. LOL.

Well no one knows because you are asking an almost impossible question.

My suggestion is no larger a leap than the leap that Robson/Safechuck are funding this themelves.

laughs.

I asked the question to see if anyone knew as this is often public knowledge on lawyers’ websites. It is rather hilarious you both would suggest such a question is out of order on a discussion board that has detailed these frivolous claims at length.

As no one knows the benefactor(s) – provided the lawyers are not contingency-fee lawyers – the funding source can be speculated. I speculated the source as did both of you.

Yet, it did not divert attention from the AEG trial...

I did not downplay his interview. I said "Media reported his lawsuit and interview and then it was over and they moved on. Robson at most took a few days from AEG trial. " You tell me how many days the international media spent on Robson case and his interview? 3 days? a week? That's what it at most took from the trial - if it did. AEG trial was 6 months. So mathematically everyone can see it didn't take much from AEG trial.

It is fair to say it diverted enough attention to receive close to 900 posts here during the AEG civil trial. As I stated before, it did not divert much attention from the civil trial. I should add this is outside of MJ forums.

Ivy, I appreciate your invented timeline. I would suggest a Google search to help validate it. Provided you do perform such a search, you may want included the horrific article in the AEG-sponsored media outlet that was spurned from Robson’s claims, specify U.S. media responses as opposed to international media responses, and the attention outside of MJ forums as opposed to MJ forums.

yes but what is the relevance though?

I continued my thoughts after the comment you reposted. I stated what I had to say regarding it. You disagree. shrug

 

[ivy]

Just two things

I asked the question to see if anyone knew as this is often public knowledge on lawyers’ websites.

If so why didn't you yourself check to see if they have a website and what is written on it? Couldn't you do it quite easily yourself? and if you tried but couldn't find such website/info why would you think anyone else would be able to know the answer? That's the "out of order" part of it. So I'm left to wonder why did you ask that question to start with? To insert AEG into this discussion and to be able to speculate AEG or someone else funding these lawsuits?

My suggestion is no larger a leap than the leap that Robson/Safechuck are funding this themelves.

Well I disagree. first of all we have seen examples of parties with seemingly low income able to maintain lawsuits. For example HTWF has filed initial fees and then bills piled up and not paid. They took loans from bank to support their lawsuits. "Billie Jean Jackson"s were able to pay filing fees on their own pockets. A fan is suing MJ Estate. So it's not impossible for seemingly not rich people to file and maintain lawsuits with small upfront payments hoping they would win at the end. or expect a settlement. In other words it's possible for Robson/Safechuck lawyers to take this case for small upfront payment / just filing fees if they believe that Estate would settle and pay their legal fees. I believe majority people discussing here believes many events - such as timing of Safechuck claims, when the details became public and the allegations is all about to force Estate to settle. So it fits with that belief too.

What you suggest that some party is funding the lawsuits is conspiracy territory. Your position is Robson/ Safechuck made false claims for whatever reason and some party is funding the lawsuits. That is abuse of process and/or malicious use of process which is quite illegal. so you are accusing Robson/Safechuck and AEG or whatever party to be involved in a conspiracy of an illegal act. So in other words in your scenario AEG to distract the attention from KJ's civil trial is getting involved in an illegal act which can cause more serious future problems for them. Some would think that's a bigger leap to make. Especially if the goal was to attract attention to Robson claims and to distract attention from AEG trial, it could have been simply and quite legally achieved by Robson going to the tabloids than filing a frivolous lawsuit. that would avoid an illegal act and would have been quicker in getting the salacious details out than a legal process. In other words I can see someone paying a person to lie, but thinking someone paying a person to do something illegal by lying to a superior court requires a bigger leap in my opinion.

 

[Tygger]

I will repost my first post in this 620+ page thread again in full so it is not left for re-interpretation.

I have minimal interest in these claims; my only interest is their dismissal.

I saw them as a rouse during the AEG civil trial that did not have the effect AEG wanted. The claims have continued for far too long which gives the claims the guise of a legitimate legal matter when they simply are not.

While some are resistant to compare these late claims against Michael and his Estate to Cosby’s late claims, there are very valid comparisons. Suffice to say a Cosby allegation has already been appropriately denied by Los Angeles, U.S. prosecutors this week. With that, any other female with a decades’ old story will be less inclined to speak now that the fleeting notoriety will not also be paired with a possible civil remedy.

The only benefit to these faux Robson/Safechuck claims is the financial benefit to the lawyers involved. Estate funds continue to be wasted on this frivolous litigation. I attempted to screen posts here however; question please for anyone who may know: who funds the lawyers for Robson and Safechuck or are they contingency fee lawyers?

If so why didn't you yourself check to see if they have a website and what is written on it? Couldn't you do it quite easily yourself? and if you tried but couldn't find such website/info why would you think anyone else would be able to know the answer? That's the "out of order" part of it. So I'm left to wonder why did you ask that question to start with? To insert AEG into this discussion and to be able to speculate AEG or someone else funding these lawsuits?

Ivy, there is NOTHING out of order about my question.

You do not have the authority to decide if I am allowed to ask about Robson/Safechuck’s lawyer(s) in this thread.

As for inserting AEG into this discussion thread, only you and Respect77 took one sentence from my first post in this 620+ page thread (reposted above). I have no control over your or Respect77’s responses to my posts. I hold the right to respond to your responses.

As for the remainder of your post as to which leap is larger, we will continue to disagree. Your leap in my view is as big as mine in your view.

And?

 

[ivy]

You do not have the authority to decide if I am allowed to ask about Robson/Safechuck’s lawyer(s) in this thread.

I never said you aren't allowed to ask about it and I never claimed I have any authority to decide what you can and you cannot post. Out of order was your wording not mine and I repeated it in quotes. (you wrote "you both would suggest such a question is out of order")So I would appreciate if you didn't twist what I wrote. I realize it might be hard given that you love to portray me negatively and take jabs but I believe we can be civil and fair.

None of the above answer my questions though. Allow me to repeat

- Why didn't you check to see if the lawyers have a website and fee information yourself?
- If you tried to check it but couldn't find such website/info why would you think anyone else would be able to know the answer?

As for inserting AEG into this discussion thread, only you and Respect77 took one sentence from my first post in this 620+ page thread

Well isn't it actually two sentences/paragraphs about AEG? you saw the claims as a rouse during AEG trial. And your question about who is funding them. By that question aren't you hinting/speculating that AEG funds them - which you already said so. So your post content is you want dismissal, Cosby comparison is valid, AEG used these claims as a rouse and speculation that AEG probably funds them. Given that there has been no discussion of AEG on this thread for a very long time or any discussion/speculation that an outside party funding this, I see it as inserting AEG to the discussion. I don't get why you get defensive or in a denial mood though. As you pointed out you can write what you want. If you want to mention AEG and speculate some ties with them and Robson/Safechuck you can too.