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

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

^ah yes, I remember. It just seems so aggravating/frustrating that we're now on our third round of complaints, you know?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

finally a document showed in the system (It's the 02/11/2015 Stipulation and Order (extending time to respond )document)

Safechuck got 30 day extension to file his second amended complaint.

Robson served his amended complaint on Dec 16. Estate got 21 + 28 day extension.

10psz2s.jpg



Thanks. So Robson/Safechuck's lawyer asked for an extension in Safechuck's case because of workload issues and in exchange they agreed that the Estate too gets an extension in Robson's case.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^
yep pretty much. and probably December 16 - January 20 wasn't good timing given there's christmas, new year etc. so it makes sense.

I'm thinking this would put Safechuck amended complaint by the end of February. and Estate reply to Robson to early March hence the hearing on April 10.
 
Out of curiousity I checked out this other case Gradstein & Marzano work on:

Case Number: BC430809
SYLVESTER STEWART ET AL VS GERALD GOLDSTEIN ET AL
Filing Date: 01/28/2010
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings

03/11/2015 at 08:30 am in department 68 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference(-S/C RE DECL RELIEF)

03/16/2015 at 09:30 am in department 68 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial


So a trial is set for March 16 in that case. So I guess that is why things have slowed down in the Robson/Safechuck case now.

Also, something for the conspiracy theorists. ;)

GRADSTEIN & MARZANO P.C. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT - Defendant/Respondent

Doesn't necessarily mean they are Sony's lawyers. There are many Defendants. But they are on the same side in this case.

Plaintiff is:

SLY AND THE FAMILY STONE - Plaintiff/Petitioner's AKA
STONE SLY - Plaintiff/Petitioner's AKA
STEWART SYLVESTER - Plaintiff/Petitioner

Sly Stone = Sylvester Stewart, that's his real name. So it's the same person. Wonder what it is about. Knowing that Michael owns the publishing rights for Sly and The Family Stone's music. However it is in his MiJac catalog, not in the ATV catalog.


ETA: This is what I found:

Sly Stone Awarded $5 Million in Royalty Lawsuit
After five-year legal battle against his former manager, the Family Stone rocker recoups more than 10 years of lost royalties
By Daniel Kreps January 28, 2015

Sly Stone Sly Stone was awarded $5 million in back royalties after his business partners were accused of "shady accounting."

Sly Stone was awarded $5 million after a Los Angeles Supreme Court jury found that the Rock and Roll Hall of Famer was cheated out of over a decade's worth of royalties by his former manager and an entertainment lawyer. In the breach-of-contract lawsuit, Stone's lawyers argued that Gerald "Jerry" Goldstein and Glenn Stone had tricked Sly Stone into becoming an employee and co-owner of a company called Even St. Productions, which they then used to pocket Stone's royalties through "shady accounting."

"It's a good day for Sly, it's a good day for entertainers in general," Nicholas Hornberger, one of Stone's lawyers, told the press following the verdict. "This was an important verdict for people that are artists, entertainers, music composers, etc."

Lawyers for Goldstein, Sly's former manager, and Glenn Stone claimed that the rocker was hoping to "re-create his career" when he approached the company in 1989, the AP reports. They argued that Stone didn't see any royalty payments from 1989 to 2000 because the money that Even St. collected was used to pay off Stone's outstanding IRS debts. The defense put the figure in the $10 million range, the Wrap writes.

However, the jury disagreed with Glenn Stone and Goldstein's claims and returned a $5 million verdict in favor of Sly Stone, with Even St. ordered to pay the Family Stone rocker $2.5 million, Goldstein forced to pay $2.45 million and Glenn Stone $50,000. However, the decision gets murky given Sly Stone's status of a co-owner in Even St. Productions, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2013. A judge will sort out that and other issues when the case returns to court "in a few weeks," Hornberger said.

"Sly’s a deeply religious guy and he loves everybody and they just took him. It's sad that people would treat other people like that," Hornberger told the Wrap. "This is endemic of the entertainment industry. There are bad people who leech off people and this has got to stop."

The legal battle between Sly Stone and Goldstein had been waging since at least 2010, when Stone sued his former manager for $50 million. It was later discovered that Stone was living out of a white van in Los Angeles after being left broke from "financial mismanagement." The year before, Stone accused Goldstein of fraud and embezzlement during a long rant onstage at the Coachella Music Festival; Goldstein later sued Stone for slander over that incident.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sly-stone-awarded-5-million-in-royalty-lawsuit-20150128
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^
yep pretty much. and probably December 16 - January 20 wasn't good timing given there's christmas, new year etc. so it makes sense.

I'm thinking this would put Safechuck amended complaint by the end of February. and Estate reply to Robson to early March hence the hearing on April 10.

Yes, I thought that the first extension might have been because of the Christmas/New Year period. And since Robson's lawyer then asked for an extension for Safechuck the Estate might have just used the opportunity to ask for another extension for themselves as well. Doesn't mean they really need it IMO, but if Gradstein & Marzano will be busy with another case in the next month it makes sense for the Estate to not to hurry with the filing of their opposition/demurrer. Gradstein would probably just ask for an extension to reply it anyway, since he is busy with another case until mid March and already asked for extension for Safechuck. So then it's better if the document just stays with the Estate until then.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

BP117321 is the probate case and it lists anyone and everyone that had anything to do with MJ Estate. Debbie Rowe was involved in the custody matters so that's why her name is listed. and alphabetically it falls between Robson and Safechuck.

Oh ok I understand now thanks ivy
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Thanks Respect77 and Ivy for the updated

No settlement here.
 
Roger again :bored:

Michael Jackson Pedophile Lawsuits Not Likely to Go to Trial, Settle Instead
by Roger Friedman - February 19, 2015 12:10 pm

The lawsuits brought by two young men against Michael Jackson’s estate– alleging the late pop star molested them when they were underage– are still progressing through Los Angeles family court. The suits were brought by Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, each of whom was part of Jackson’s coterie of young boys who lived and played at Neverland, and went on trips with Jackson.

Over time, Safechuck dropped out of the picture and there was speculation that his family received financial assistance in exchange for their silence back in the day. Robson, however, went on to work for Jackson and his company, became a choreographer, and testified for Jackson in his 2005 at his child molestation trial.

Of the two cases, I’m told, Robson is in the best position because he worked for Jackson’s company. Both Safechuck and Robson have sued Jackson’s company and his estate. But rulings are still pending about statute of limitations on suing an estate five years after the probate has settled. Jackson died in June 2009.

If the cases were allowed to go forward against the estate, it’s more than likely that Jackson’s executors would settle. The reasoning is they don’t want to tarnish the brand in public with a lot of sordid details. The executors would also want to avoid embarrassing Jackson’s three children with a circus like televised and much publicized trial. A settlement would gag all parties and seal the deals.

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

Why do they say it's more likely? I think a settlement will only make more crazy people to file crazy lawsuits with nothing to support it...
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

He doesn't know much if he thinks they'd settle. They've previously released a statement saying they aren't interested in settling, then there's the fact that those cases are actually likely to be dismissed. On top of that, the cases are weak and there are too many contradicting details and lies, why would a settlement be likely ? Typical spreading of ignorance to a misinformed public trying to play the "OMG, they're going to silence the victims!" card. With all the church abuse being in the news of course people are likely to believe it, they believed it back when the Chandler case was settled. Ignorance galore.

13916696604_6f3ee10e1d.jpg
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

See this is what happen when you run with a lie there no prove that a settlement is in the works thank to Tom speculation and listening to Pearl Jr and not getting the facts now ppls are thinking settlement which is not true. Roger you need to get the facts right before you stated spreading these lies.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

He doesn't know much if he thinks they'd settle. They've previously released a statement saying they aren't interested in settling, then there's the fact that those cases are actually likely to be dismissed. On top of that, the cases are weak and there are too many contradicting details and lies, why would a settlement be likely ? Typical spreading of ignorance to a misinformed public trying to play the "OMG, they're going to silence the victims!" card. With all the church abuse being in the news of course people are likely to believe it, they believed it back when the Chandler case was settled. Ignorance galore.

13916696604_6f3ee10e1d.jpg


Pppls are so quick to believe a lie instead of the true that the problem. You are right the Estate did release a statement that there will not be a settlement if Tom would have look at the facts in these cases he would see that the Estate will not be doing a settlement for what there is no prove that this happen and imo i do not see a judge let these cases move forward without the proof.
 
MJJJusticeProject @MJJJusticePrjct · 4h 4 hours ago
Nan Foster contacted MJonlineteam re: speculations regarding "settlement" w Robson/Safechuck - They answered - #MJFam

B-Q2oH6CIAAfEl3.png:large
 
Bubs;4075739 said:
MJJJusticeProject @MJJJusticePrjct · 4h 4 hours ago
Nan Foster contacted MJonlineteam re: speculations regarding "settlement" w Robson/Safechuck - They answered - #MJFam

B-Q2oH6CIAAfEl3.png:large

Coming from Roger Friedman, I am not surprised at all. his career in the last 15 years has been built on smearing MJ. he's among the long list of people who constanly parasite around MJ for a living. As I said before, his career at the moment is in limbo since he got fired from Fox. He's running a blog site nobody is reading so to get some attention he has to resort to smearing MJ.
 
Bubs;4075739 said:
MJJJusticeProject @MJJJusticePrjct · 4h 4 hours ago
Nan Foster contacted MJonlineteam re: speculations regarding "settlement" w Robson/Safechuck - They answered - #MJFam

B-Q2oH6CIAAfEl3.png:large



That why it is so important that you get the facts right instead of guessing like Tom M. did
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Coming from Roger Friedman, I am not surprised at all. his career in the last 15 years has been built on smearing MJ. he's among the long list of people who constanly parasite around MJ for a living. As I said before, his career at the moment is in limbo since he got fired from Fox. He's running a blog site nobody is reading so to get some attention he has to resort to smearing MJ.

I bet he was hoping that his article will be spreading to other tabloids like some of Stacy B's articles from NY post, but his article got no wind at all:D
Serves him right.


Btw, I love online team wording on their reply
"They are only seeking attention at Michael's expense"
:clapping:
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If the case goes to trial... please though, why would he be so dumb to act like this is a case that could possibly go to trial? There's nothing so far that could reasonably have this head to trial as nothing has met the requirements.

If this case goes to trial is like saying if Michael Jackson is capable of coming back from the dead.

Outsiders could see it as a possibility, but anyone who knows even a little about legalities or these lawsuits and how many amendments have been asked of them and the claims they've tried to make to go past the statutes would easily call the bluff over the idea this will get anywhere. Makes Roger look like such a fool.
 
Annita;4074883 said:
Yes, everyone has the right for his own opinion, but Meserau is an expert as a lawyer and I am shocked as he expresses his opinion to cases without sufficient retrieve information. He did it in the AEG-trilal. He trashed the jury in a interview directly after the verdict, said a appeal has good chances. I am also shocked that he trusted as a lawyer information from not reputable people. It would be easy for him to check information before he goes in a interview instead of specualting things. He did not even follow the case, trusted only on information some fans and family members gave him.

It is mindboggling that a high profile attorney with an impeccable reputation would let his personal bias cloud his common sense and credibility. Unfortunately T-Mez is starting to looks more and more foolish every time he opens his mouth concerning things involving MJ. He’s too young to be getting senile so all I can think is that he is carried away with the attention his status as MJ’s former attorney has given him.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

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

Because he is basing his opinion on generalities, not on facts about the case and what is currently going on, but on Weitzman's & Branca's past actions. And while past actions can be an indicator of future behavior, it is not always. Just because they have settled cases in the past does not mean they will settle this one. And if the Estate's word is not enough that they won't settle, I don't know what is.

Plus the settlements Estate has made in the past had NOTHING to do with allegations of molestation. They were all business not criminal settlements.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If the case goes to trial... please though, why would he be so dumb to act like this is a case that could possibly go to trial? There's nothing so far that could reasonably have this head to trial as nothing has met the requirements.

If this case goes to trial is like saying if Michael Jackson is capable of coming back from the dead.

Outsiders could see it as a possibility, but anyone who knows even a little about legalities or these lawsuits and how many amendments have been asked of them and the claims they've tried to make to go past the statutes would easily call the bluff over the idea this will get anywhere. Makes Roger look like such a fool.



Exactly in the bold.
 
Victory22;4076211 said:
It is mindboggling that a high profile attorney with an impeccable reputation would let his personal bias cloud his common sense and credibility. Unfortunately T-Mez is starting to looks more and more foolish every time he opens his mouth concerning things involving MJ. He’s too young to be getting senile so all I can think is that he is carried away with the attention his status as MJ’s former attorney has given him.


Victory22 i am with you also it is mindboggling. Tom did a beautiful job in 2005 and for him to fall for this lie it just unreal. Tom need to tell MJ fans that he is sorry for spreading this lie.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Jordan now knows. Pearl knows (from what I read anyway). Tom has been informed.

Everybody who has reached out to them has done a wonderful job. Nothing gets by us/his fans :)


You got that right we will defend Michael we are his voice now.
 
Last edited:
Victory22;4076211 said:
It is mindboggling that a high profile attorney with an impeccable reputation would let his personal bias cloud his common sense and credibility. Unfortunately T-Mez is starting to looks more and more foolish every time he opens his mouth concerning things involving MJ. He’s too young to be getting senile so all I can think is that he is carried away with the attention his status as MJ’s former attorney has given him.

It is sad that Meserau does not use his knowledge to provide clarification on such legal proceedings and in what stage it is, the case is far away from a trial and he did nothing to show the arguments why the judge must dismiss the case.

pminton;4076237 said:
Victory22 i am with you also it is mindboggling. Tom did a beautiful job in 2005 and for him to fall for this lie it just unreal. Tom need to tell MJ fans that he is sorry for spreading this lie.

He will not do this. He said he speculates because a fan gave him the info. So it seems right for him to go to shows without research and he said clearly he does not follow the case. It is what tabloids make.

If we go back to the Sulvian book. He really said fans who do not support the book are not fans. What makes this book so good for him? It must be the aspect that he gives contribution to the the book and he shines in the right light. He does not care that the book spread lies about Michael, that it trashes Michaels family or the Executers. Sulvian even suggests that Michael was in love with Jordan and he lost his virginity with him. I think really that A. Jones due to the fact that Meserau supports the book made her statement that maybe Michael was in love with Jordan.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Perhaps A.J. and T.M. should stop giving opinions on a case that they admit they haven't looked into in depth. Fans in most cases seem to be better researched about '93 than they are.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Jordan now knows. Pearl knows (from what I read anyway). Tom has been informed.

Everybody who has reached out to them has done a wonderful job. Nothing gets by us/his fans :)

It won't make much of a difference though. There is a lot of bias and agenda involved for some of those parties.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That why i am wondering why Tom would come out and say this without checking the facts first.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If we go back to the Sulvian book. He really said fans who do not support the book are not fans. What makes this book so good for him? It must be the aspect that he gives contribution to the the book and he shines in the right light. He does not care that the book spread lies about Michael, that it trashes Michaels family or the Executers. Sulvian even suggests that Michael was in love with Jordan and he lost his virginity with him. I think really that A. Jones due to the fact that Meserau supports the book made her statement that maybe Michael was in love with Jordan.

Has Tom even read this book?! It doesn't sound like Tom or Aphrodite know that much about the Chandler case but they really should make the effort to learn. You know, it makes me angry that Tom supports a book that says something like that. Then on top of that saying people who don't endorse such trash are "not fans"? Wrong.

Here's the definition of a fan:

Fan
noun
Definition of FAN
1: An enthusiastic devotee (as of a sport or a performing art) usually as a spectator
2: An ardent admirer or enthusiast (as of a celebrity or a pursuit)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fan

That's all that's actually required to be a fan of something, that's what the definition is. If a person is an admirer or MJ enthusiast, they are a fan regardless of whether or not they agree with other fan's opinions. What Tom is presenting is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

No True Scotsman

Origins
The term was coined by Antony Flew, who gave an example of a Scotsman who sees a newspaper article about a series of sex crimes taking place in Brighton, and responds that "no Scotsman would do such a thing." When later confronted with evidence of another Scotsman doing even worse acts, his response is that "no true Scotsman would do such a thing," thus disavowing membership in the group "Scotsman" to the criminal on the basis that the commission of the crime is evidence for not being a Scotsman. However, this is a fallacy as there is nothing in the definition of "Scotsman" which makes such acts impossible. The term "No True Scotsman" has since expanded to refer to anyone who attempts to disown or distance themselves from wayward members of a group by excluding them from it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

Another example:

Angus declares that Scotsman do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

For those interested, here's a master list of logical fallacies that can help you with ration thinking and debate, this is a very helpful tool for debating haters and can help in everyday life logic also.

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
 
Last edited:
There is this whole myth about Jordan Chandler that he was somehow special in MJ's world. This myth of course was fed by Jordan's father and then the media, for obvious reasons. However, this is not true. The other day I read extracts from Frank Cascio's book and this is what he wrote about Chandler:

I went up and shook Jordy’s hand; he seemed like a nice kid. This wasn’t the first time I’d met another kid through Michael. Like my own, Jordy’s family was one of many families Michael befriended, although the Cascios were the only ones he called his “second family.” We Cascios were a big family ourselves, and we were more than happy to embrace Michael’s friends. There was always room for more. To me, Jordy and his family seemed pleasant and unexceptional.

Seeing the look on her face, I understood that my friend was being accused of doing something wrong to Jordy. I was beyond shocked: the idea didn’t even make sense to me. I had spent plenty of time with Jordy and Michael, and when I was at Neverland, Jordy never even stayed in Michael’s room with us. Not once. I had never seen anything out of line happen, and I didn’t believe anything had happened, not for a single second. Furthermore, Michael had never acted in any way even approximating “inappropriate” toward Eddie or me. This story was utterly unbelievable; I simply couldn’t imagine Michael as a molester.
Nor could I imagine Jordy making such an accusation. “Is Michael going to be okay?” I asked. “Yeah, he’s going to be fine,” my mother replied. As this disturbing news sank in, I couldn’t help remembering some of what Jordy had said about his father during the trip we had taken to Disneyland together and later at the ranch. Jordy was an open, honest kid, and I didn’t have the sense that he was hiding anything. The night we’d gone to Toys “R” Us, he told me that his father, a dentist and aspiring screenwriter named Evan, was extremely jealous of Michael. He volunteered the information that his father thought it was weird that Michael was so close to Jordy and the rest of the family, and that the relationship had become a problem for the Chandler family. Thinking back on it, I remembered how Jordy had said that Evan had a terrible temper, that when he was upset he’d scream and bang things around the house. In retrospect, it’s not hard to see that Michael was a father figure for Jordy, that Jordy’s mother was attached to Michael, and that this most likely made for a problematic family dynamic. But at the time I wasn’t thinking in these larger terms. All I knew was that I was certain that Michael was being falsely accused—whether it was because of Jordy or his father didn’t matter.


After Michael’s departure, Eddie, Jordy, and I were left to entertain ourselves, which wasn’t hard to do given the full arcade we had at our disposal. I got along with Jordy—he was into science and puzzles and I thought that was cool. Eventually we took a break from the arcade, and Jordy and I went out on the balcony to throw water balloons and try to hit the cars that were parked below. This was good fun for a while. Then Jordy was fooling with a slingshot. I don’t know what he put in it, but it definitely wasn’t a water balloon because before I realized what was happening, whatever he had fired with that slingshot hit a parked car’s window and shattered it. Yikes. We ducked out of view, and then sneaked back inside the apartment. We didn’t tell security what had happened. Poor Jordy was a wreck. He, like me and Eddie, was an adventurous, fun-loving boy, not a troublemaker. He paced back and forth, terrified that the police would come, fretting that Michael would be angry. He was shaking with fear. I tried to calm him. I said, “Just relax, don’t worry. It’s not a big deal, nobody’s going to be upset.” Finally, he went into the bathroom to wash his face. When he came back, we played more video games, the ultimate tonic for a freaked-out teenage boy.

Slingshot antics aside, Jordy was a likable kid who seemed a lot like me. I didn’t notice anything unusual or disturbing in his relationship with Michael. The next day Michael took us to Disneyland with Jordy; Jordy’s mother, June; and his sister. I had never been to Disneyland before, but even so it wasn’t hard to see that because of our host we were getting VIP treatment. We went on every single ride without having to wait on a line.


That night Michael brought Eddie, me, Jordy, and Jordy’s mother and sister up to the ranch. In his limo there were always movies playing, but we were all still too excited and too busy talking about the day we’d had to pay much attention to them. We had all bonded that day. It was clear to me that Jordy and his whole family loved Michael as much as my family did. They were like another family to him, and I felt like we had that in common. I didn’t feel jealous of the relationship. I’m not the jealous type. Truth be told, it was nice to have another kid around, particularly one who didn’t seem either especially impressed by or dubious about my relationship with Michael.


Later that night our conversation turned to Jordy, who was staying with his mother and sister in the guest bungalows. I said, “Oh, he’s really really nice. Next time you come to New York, you should bring him to our house.” “Yeah, we should bring him to New York—he’s never been there,” Michael replied. “Why isn’t Jordy staying with us?” I asked. “I don’t know—Jordy never stays in my room,” Michael answered. “I like it to be just us so we can catch up.” So that night the three of us talked in front of the fire until around two in the morning, at which point we decided to raid the refrigerator. We went to the kitchen and warmed up vanilla pudding (one of Michael’s favorite snacks) in the microwave, gathered chips, orange Creamsicles, vanilla wafers, and juice boxes, brought them back to the room, and stayed up until four in the morning talking and listening to Michael’s fascinating stories.


So we piled into an ugly brown Dodge Caravan. I sat in the front, and my brother, June, Jordy, and his sister sat in the back. Michael Jackson, wearing a fedora, drove us to the store.

The point is, while the media is trying to portray this so called relationship between MJ and Jordan as some kind of "honeymoon", in reality most of the time it MJ was with a bunch of kids - like the Cascios or Brett - and Jordan was just one of them. There was nothing special about him to MJ compared to the other kids he hang out with, so this whole narrative that tries to make Jordan look like someone really special in MJ's life and portay him as "being in love with him" is just another BS.
 
Back
Top