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

[HIStory]

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

^

"For plaintiffs to prevail they must be able to show they remained unaware of, and had no reason to suspect, the wrongfulness of the conduct until a time less than three years before the action was filed." (Id. at p. 1619) (Emphasis added)

With 1993 and 2005 it's very difficult for any of them to claim with a straight face that they did not know or had no reason to suspect the wrongfulness of the alleged acts.

Reading this makes it all the more obvious how this is orchestrated. He made sure to say he didn't understand it until 1 year ago, which is what he needs to legally claim. He's trying to make this case work.

Yes, and that's why it's such a shame that most people are only interested in gutter "journalism" like Desiree's, and do not take a deeper look themselves into these lawsuits/complaints. They require research about the laws, but once you know that it will become very clear what this really is about. Their claims are totally constructed in a way trying to get around statutes of limitations. All the while making totally implausible claims such as not knowing about MJ's Estate until March 2013. Wade/James, if you are willing to lie to get around statutes what else you are lying about? I thought you said it was not about money, but "the truth".

And besides the above described things they also have a big problem with PC 9103, since even if one would accept everything they claim about not realizing psychological harm being linked to alleged abuse until May 2012/2013 respectively, they still would miss the statutes, since none of them filed 60 days within that alleged discovery. They both filed a year later. Like I said I wonder if in Safechuck's case that was deliberate, since even after he contacted Robson's lawyers in October 2013 they did not hurry up to file, but yet another 8 months passed until they filed just a notice that they would file and then another 3 months until they submitted their actual complaint. I wonder what took so long.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

^



With 1993 and 2005 it's very difficult for any of them to claim with a straight face that they did not know or had no reason to suspect the wrongfulness of the alleged acts.



Yes, and that's why it's such a shame that most people are only interested in gutter "journalism" like Desiree's, and do not take a deeper look themselves into these lawsuits/complaints. They require research about the laws, but once you know that it will become where clear what this really is about. Their claims are totally constructed in a way trying to get around statutes of limitations. All the while making totally implausible claims such as not knowing about MJ's Estate until March 2013. Wade/James, if you are willing to lie to get around statutes what else you are lying about? I thought you said it was not about money, but "the truth".

My point exactly Respect77 you hit it on the head the statute of limitations is what they are really trying to get around all of this others mess does not mean a thing.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Wade the truth.

 

[ivy]

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

FYI - Got Estate's demurrer for corporate defendants in Robson civil case. I'll post it later tonight / early tomorrow. So check back later.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Thanks Ivy you rock

 

[la_cienega]

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

Guess this proves Brooke ******* and Emmanuel Lewis had sex with MJ as Brooke said MJ would call them both "rubbas." Also MJ's nephews and nieces.

So it's a whole lot of people who he gave his secret sexual nickname to.

I hope they realize they can still file claims to the estate for $$$$$$$$$$

That alone boggles the mind. So he was molested and raped more than 100 times and brainwashed so severely that he ended up marrying his abuser yet his "psychological suffering" could be dealt with in just four therapy sessions almost 30 years after the fact? I just cannot believe there are people out there who actually believe this stuff.

And it turns my stomach to see that sweet letter MJ sent Jimmy turned into something sinister. Quite weird to keep recorded calls and letters from your "abuser" for such a long time anyway.

What an amazing breakthrough for him. This therapist should be hailed as a national hero. Imagine being sexually abused 100 times by the planet's superstar, being forced into marriage, court cases about this haunting you, actually thinking about molesting your own baby because of this, and within 4 therapy sessions you've figured it out and you're cured! That's amazing. Wow. Brave brave man he is. It's as amazing as the lack of sexual issues any of these idiots managed to have. Not one was gay or interested in guys or seemed to have any conflicted issues about their sexuality, or indeed being repulsed and disgusted by sex, which is normal for victims. How incredible they survived with so few scars. Oh except for MJ pretending the paparazzi were catching them during the act, besides that. But only for Safechuck - Jordan, Arvizo's, Wade, didn't seem to get that treatment. No practicing to get dressed at the speed of light either. Special faux life partner Jimmy got it all and remained the least scarred. A true hero.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Jason Blanca needed 7 years of therapy to deal with 'tickling' and now 4 sessions were all safef@ck needed to overcome the trauma of 100 incidents of sex abuse. Only in MJ's world.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

This is like watching a poorly funded, written and acted soap opera that's full of plot holes and stories that make no sense and go nowhere. Someone change the channel. :yawn:

 

[barbee0715]

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

All I can say is I hope the judge is finding all of this as hilarious as we are!! Bunch of crazy fools insulting everybody's intelligence.
Quincy may want to think about changing law firms.

 

[la_cienega]

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

Why would MJ try to get him during testify at the end of the trial. I'd understand it a bit more if the claim was that MJ called him before the trial, in 2004, but during and especially at the end when it was already decided that no testimony about Safechuck would be allowed and when Safechuck according to a January 2005 article already refused to testify for the prosecution?



Of course, they will try to make the psycho mumbo-jumbo the "star issue" because they do not have anything else.

That's interesting though, he believed MJ was taping it.

Almost as though he's worried MJ did tape it and could use it against him.

Why would MJ tape a conversation with a child he abused for so long where he claims MJ said he was sorry for not being there for him just as the 2005 trial was around? Which would prompt obviously this abused child to start babbling about the abuse, surely? On tape and on the record? Why would he want that? Why would you tape yourself in such a situation????

But it sounds like he's afraid such things could exist and he's trying to counter act them.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Why would Michael call him to the trial at all.

 

[ivy]

Okay here it is

Estate’s demurrer to the third amended complaint: https://www.scribd.com/doc/258435718/MJ-Estate-Robson-Civil-Case-Second-Demurrer

and my summary can be found here : http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/294-round-2-at-robson-civil-case

We will use MJJC for discussion. As a short recap unfortunately documents doesn't tell us much about how / what Robson amended his complaint. We know he used to have a single cause of action and now he has seven. Estate's main argument is still statute of limitation and how Robson cannot bring a claim against MJJ Productions and Ventures as he's over 26.

 

[SarahJ]

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

This is like watching a poorly funded, written and acted soap opera that's full of plot holes and stories that make no sense and go nowhere. Someone change the channel. :yawn:

Maybe it's one of Evan's old scripts. Would explain why he never made it as a screenwriter..

 

[barbee0715]

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

Well, I'm on a phone and can't see the demurrer. But I did read the summary on Ivy's website. Sounds like they're staying with the strict letter of the law with no extras, which IMO should have been enough for the judge day one.

I'll watch to see what you guys say. Can't believe June is the next hearing-so this has been dragging 2 years. Pitiful. (And agonizing.)

 

[la_cienega]

Why would Michael call him to the trial at all.

Well MJ was innocent and I could see him wanting his friends to testify in his defense. That's normal.

His claims trying to make it seem like he suspected MJ taped this phonecall are just bizarre... he seems to be saying it as a way to talk around why he didn't reveal things at the time? I guess is why? But it's nonsensical, why would MJ tape a possibly incriminating phonecall between himself asking a victim to testify in his behalf.

To me it sounds like he believes the call was taped and therefore if it exists, he'll claim he knew it was tape and that's why there's nothing incriminating on it. Which makes absolutely zero sense in any possible argument.

What could he say? "I was worried my mother would find out if I said anything on a tape he was recording"? "I was worried it could mean I'd have to testify and reveal everything"? Because what lunatic would MJ be if he taped James confessing and then played it out to the world? So if he knew it was taped, why would he care what was said on it? Why not say crazy shit and know MJ was at your mercy? "You abused me, admit it" etc Knowing MJ would never be able to play it to anyone and that you'd gotten it out of your system. But he makes it sound like he played along because he thought it could be used against him... It makes no sense at all.

Okay here it is

Estate’s demurrer to the third amended complaint: https://www.scribd.com/doc/258435718/MJ-Estate-Robson-Civil-Case-Second-Demurrer

and my summary can be found here : http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/294-round-2-at-robson-civil-case

We will use MJJC for discussion. As a short recap unfortunately documents doesn't tell us much about how / what Robson amended his complaint. We know he used to have a single cause of action and now he has seven. Estate's main argument is still statute of limitation and how Robson cannot bring a claim against MJJ Productions and Ventures as he's over 26.

Unfortunately the document doesn’t provide much detail about the specific changes Robson made to his third amended complaint. From the second amended complaint we know that Robson had one single claim for childhood sexual abuse. In his third amended complaint we learn, he listed 7 causes of action and only 4 of them applies to MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures. We learn first cause of action is childhood sexual abuse, fifth cause of action is childhood sexual abuse-negligence, sixth cause of action is childhood sexual abuse- negligent infliction of emotional distress and seventh cause of action is childhood sexual abuse- breach of fiduciary duty.

Why didn't he add these on the first go? Doesn't sound like he needed info or anything for those.

Is it just a delay tactic to add them on now?

Just seems like time wasting and not real valid things he's trying to do.

So he doesn't sound like he's attempted to prove other people knew, witnessed or enabled it.

 

[passy001]

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

Well MJ was innocent and I could see him wanting his friends to testify in his defense. That's normal.

His claims trying to make it seem like he suspected MJ taped this phonecall are just bizarre... he seems to be saying it as a way to talk around why he didn't reveal things at the time? I guess is why? But it's nonsensical, why would MJ tape a possibly incriminating phonecall between himself asking a victim to testify in his behalf.

To me it sounds like he believes the call was taped and therefore if it exists, he'll claim he knew it was tape and that's why there's nothing incriminating on it. Which makes absolutely zero sense in any possible argument.

What could he say? "I was worried my mother would find out if I said anything on a tape he was recording"? "I was worried it could mean I'd have to testify and reveal everything"? Because what lunatic would MJ be if he taped James confessing and then played it out to the world? So if he knew it was taped, why would he care what was said on it? Why not say crazy shit and know MJ was at your mercy? "You abused me, admit it" etc Knowing MJ would never be able to play it to anyone and that you'd gotten it out of your system. But he makes it sound like he played along because he thought it could be used against him... It makes no sense at all.






Why didn't he add these on the first go? Doesn't sound like he needed info or anything for those.

Is it just a delay tactic to add them on now?

Just seems like time wasting and not real valid things he's trying to do.

So he doesn't sound like he's attempted to prove other people knew, witnessed or enabled it.

Well said. It will be interesting to read his equitable estopel filing with the probate court. I'm sure it's equally absurd.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Okay here is my question if Wade had one cause of action in his second amended complaint now in his third amended complaint he has 7 cause of action we know the first one is against MJ companies and that the fifth,sixth and the seventh are all against MJ companies so that a total of four so what is two,three and four cause of action?


After reading these documents it plain to see Wade has no case there is no proof that this has happen he can't prove that the companies know or were aware this was going on. He can go back and amended complaint all he want but it will not change. The Estate case is very very strong their are saying that the statute of limitations has ran out and that Wade is filing this after he was 26 years old so Wade should not be able to file this late claim.


The part i was also reading how it said that Michael was the pres of these companies he was in control so how can you said that companies had control over Michael does not make any sense.


Wade and his lawyers are draging this case there is no more they can do to fix this case because the law will not let them plain and simply the case doe not fit the laws

 

[HIStory]

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

Thanks, Ivy.

Is it me or from this it looks like they still have not alleged any concrete cause of action by the Corportate Defendants? It seems to me as if they are just going in circles trying to make the law apply to them when it does not. Apart from that Robson now made a claim that allegedly Norma Staikos "told people" not to leave children alone with Michael. Is that all they have - vague innuendo? Other than this one note I have not seen anything concrete. Of course, this is the Estate's demurrer, but they would refer to concrete allegations re. the Corporate Defendants if they had been made.

In fact, at one point the Estate even says it's not enough for Robson to merely keep parrotting the language of the law. They need to plead facts.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

We had said in this thread that Wade case does not fit the laws how clear can you be. He has yet to prove that MJ companies are negligence that someone knew or was aware that this was going on and said nothing about it. Like you Respect77 i say the same question Norma Staikos is that all they have? What prove do Wade and his lawyers have that Norma said this and why would she say not to leave your kids with Michael? You are right they are going around in circle.

Wade and his lawyers are grab at straws now it time to end this and i hope judge can do it before June 25th

 

[#MJforever57]

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

All I can say is I hope the judge is finding all of this as hilarious as we are!! Bunch of crazy fools insulting everybody's intelligence.
Quincy may want to think about changing law firms.

I hope you are right enough is enough time to end this.

Maybe Quincy should just drop this case and move on.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Thanks, Ivy.

Is it me or from this it looks like they still have not alleged any concrete cause of action by the Corportate Defendants? It seems to me as if they are just going in circles trying to make the law apply to them when it does not. Apart from that Robson now made a claim that allegedly Norma Staikos "told people" not to leave children alone with Michael. Is that all they have - vague innuendo? Other than this one note I have not seen anything concrete. Of course, this is the Estate's demurrer, but they would refer to concrete allegations re. the Corporate Defendants if they had been made.

In fact, at one point the Estate even says it's not enough for Robson to merely keep parrotting the language of the law. They need to plead facts.

But even if Norma .made this comment no matter what context she made the comment in how was anyone going to enforce that when Michael was the boss? If Norma ran the companies she could enforce that, but Michael was in charge he could fire her and anyone else who tried it.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Thanks, Ivy.

Is it me or from this it looks like they still have not alleged any concrete cause of action by the Corportate Defendants? It seems to me as if they are just going in circles trying to make the law apply to them when it does not. Apart from that Robson now made a claim that allegedly Norma Staikos "told people" not to leave children alone with Michael. Is that all they have - vague innuendo? Other than this one note I have not seen anything concrete. Of course, this is the Estate's demurrer, but they would refer to concrete allegations re. the Corporate Defendants if they had been made.

In fact, at one point the Estate even says it's not enough for Robson to merely keep parrotting the language of the law. They need to plead facts.

You are right they have no concrete facts to back up they cause of actions

 

[myosotis]

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

But even if Norma .made this comment no matter what context she made the comment in how was anyone going to enforce that when Michael was the boss? If Norma ran the companies she could enforce that, but Michael was in charge he could fire her and anyone else who tried it.

It sounds a very sensible comment of Norma's, if she wished to protect her boss from children possibly making false claims against Michael. Especially if she used the word 'children', which includes girls. Anyone who is in a vulnerable position in which they could be falsely accused should not be alone with anyone they don't know, and since Michael spent a lot of time with children, this would apply to the people he was likely to spend time with.

I agree though that legally, Norma would not be able to enforce this, as she was in a position of employee. Most PA's do try to look after their bosses, but from the point of view of this case, I don't see the relevance of this reported remark.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Am I reading this right? It looks like Wade didn't give any names to support his last claim? They're really pushing it.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Thanks, Ivy.

Is it me or from this it looks like they still have not alleged any concrete cause of action by the Corportate Defendants? It seems to me as if they are just going in circles trying to make the law apply to them when it does not. Apart from that Robson now made a claim that allegedly Norma Staikos "told people" not to leave children alone with Michael. Is that all they have - vague innuendo? Other than this one note I have not seen anything concrete. Of course, this is the Estate's demurrer, but they would refer to concrete allegations re. the Corporate Defendants if they had been made.

In fact, at one point the Estate even says it's not enough for Robson to merely keep parrotting the language of the law. They need to plead facts.

I didn't see you wrote this, does it mean you also think he didn't give the names?

Also, what does line 25 means? "only applies to..." what does the law require?

 

[#MJforever57]

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

No names just that Norma said do not leave your kids with Michael. Wade has yet to prove anything.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

No just that Norma do not leave your kids with Michael

But even if Norma .made this comment no matter what context she made the comment in how was anyone going to enforce that when Michael was the boss? If Norma ran the companies she could enforce that, but Michael was in charge he could fire her and anyone else who tried it.

That's the best they got? It's nothing.

And if it was more than nothing, shouldn't they sue Norma? How does a single employee reflects on the entire company? More so with such an anemic thing they need to prove she actually said. Don't they?

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Tal what it is is Wade lawyers are trying to make his case fit the laws.

 

[HIStory]

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

It sounds a very sensible comment of Norma's, if she wished to protect her boss from children possibly making false claims against Michael. Especially if she used the word 'children', which includes girls. Anyone who is in a vulnerable position in which they could be falsely accused should not be alone with anyone they don't know, and since Michael spent a lot of time with children, this would apply to the people he was likely to spend time with.

I agree though that legally, Norma would not be able to enforce this, as she was in a position of employee. Most PA's do try to look after their bosses, but from the point of view of this case, I don't see the relevance of this reported remark.

I agree. There is no relevance, especially considering that it's very vauge and not clarified at all how she said it, when she said it, under what circumstances and what she meant by it. IF she said it at all, that is, because to me it just looks like a comment they could have possibly taken from a deposition by one of the prosecution's faviourite false "witnesses" or something. I think so because if it was from a deposition of Norma herself I think then she would have been asked to clarify what she meant and there is no clarification in this brief, vauge statement.

But whatever Norma meant that would not prove abuse either, it would be just an opinion (she never claimed to have witnessed abuse, in fact, she testified in front of the Grand Jury in 1994 and as we know that GJ did not indict MJ), let alone it having any relevance to the argument whether MJ's companies "knew or had a reason to know".

 

[#MJforever57]

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

That's the best they got? It's nothing.

And if it was more than nothing, shouldn't they sue Norma? How does a single employee reflects on the entire company? More so with such an anemic thing they need to prove she actually said. Don't they?

I agree with you in the bold then they need to sue Norma she made the comment


Respect77 not clarified at all how she said it, when she said it, under what circumstances and what she meant by it

I agree with this we do not know when she said this.