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

[#MJforever57]

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

You can not change the language of the laws to fit your need.

Does anybody know what 2,3 and 4 cause of action are? We know 1,5,6 and 7 are against MJ companies.

 

[MattyJam]

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 wouldn't trust this Norma Staikos woman. I remember her name cropping up from this:

Robson then detailed all the places he had slept with Jackson. At Neverland Ranch, at his mother's apartment in Hollywood, in a hotel in Las Vegas, at Jackson's condo in Century City while his mother stayed across the street at the Holiday Inn. During this time Jackson's office manager, Norma Staikos, openly called Robson one of her boss's "little boyfriends."

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Robson then detailed all the places he had slept with Jackson. At Neverland Ranch, at his mother's apartment in Hollywood, in a hotel in Las Vegas, at Jackson's condo in Century City while his mother stayed across the street at the Holiday Inn. During this time Jackson's office manager, Norma Staikos, openly called Robson one of her boss's "little boyfriends."



Are you for real?

 

[HIStory]

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

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?

They are discussin this law:

340.1. (a) In an action for recovery of damages suffered as a
result of childhood sexual abuse, the time for commencement of the
action shall be within eight years of the date the plaintiff attains
the age of majority or within three years of the date the plaintiff
discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological
injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by
the sexual abuse, whichever period expires later, for any of the
following actions:
(1) An action against any person for committing an act of
childhood sexual abuse.
(2) An action for liability against any person or entity who owed
a duty of care to the plaintiff, where a wrongful or negligent act by
that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual
abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.
(3) An action for liability against any person or entity where an
intentional act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the
childhood sexual abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.
(b) (1) No action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision
(a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday.
(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.

It clearly states: "No action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday."

With one exception which is the (b)(2) part.

(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.

This is what Robson needs to prove to prevail.

And the Estate's argument is the same as before: MJ was not the companies' employee, volunteer, representative, or agent but their sole owner. And so the companies did not have control over him but he had control over them. They cite precedent law which shows that for this part to apply to a company it has to have some kind of control over the alleged perpetrator.

Plus the companies did not know or had a reason to know that alleged abuse occured. They make it clear that a vauge statement that they try with that alleged Norma Staikos quote is not sufficient to prove that a company knew or had a reason to know:

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

Yes, apart from that vague alleged Norma Staikos comment they did not seem to give any names or any cause of action, for that matter, for why MJ's companies would fall within the (b)(2) section of the quoted law. They simply seem to go on about law interpretations, but that was already discussed before and the Judge wanted them to state a cause of action for why the companies would fall within (b)(2). From this demurrer to me it seems they have failed to come up with anything substantial.

 

[HIStory]

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

I wouldn't trust this Norma Staikos woman. I remember her name cropping up from this:

Just because it's in an article it does not mean it's true. But really, it's not significant here what Norma Staikos might or might not have assumed. That just would still remain an opinion, a sick joke or whatever way she meant it, not a fact. She never claimed to have witnessed anything.

 

[MattyJam]

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

Just because it's in an article it does not mean it's true. But really, it's not significant here what Norma Staikos might or might not have assumed. That just would still remain an opinion, a sick joke or whatever way she meant it, not a fact. She never claimed to have witnessed anything.

Perhaps. I've just become very jaded and mistrusting of pretty much everyone in Michael's life. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

 

[la_cienega]

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

I wouldn't trust this Norma Staikos woman. I remember her name cropping up from this:

Where is that from?

You realize how ridiculous anything like that is when Wade claims he had no idea he was a victim till 2 years ago, and his family didn't either? But someone wants to believe a staff member openly would say that?

What, did his family just not spend enough time with him...?

 

[#MJforever57]

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

2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.



This is what Robson needs to prove to prevail.

And he has yet to prove this.

MJ was the sole owner of both companies neither companies knew or was aware this was going on.

 

[HIStory]

Back to Safchuck's allegations I'm wondering about this claim:

James recounts that while he and Jackson engaged in sexual activities, Jackson would trigger a flashbulb set up behind his bedroom window curtain “to resemble a camera bulb flashing.” Jimmy, who’d jokingly been informed by Jackson that paparazzi were snapping photos of them in the act, cried at the trick, and “Decedent was surprised by his reaction.”

Jackson teased the boy he claimed to love with this prank on both the Bad tour and at Neverland, James remembers.

1) Did MJ's bedroom at NL even have a window?
2) So he took this flashbulb with him everywhere to the Bad tour and installed it behind window curtains in hotels, as well as Neverland?

ETA: OK, I realize that the downstairs portion had a window (I don't think the upstairs did). But the second question still stands.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Where is that from?

You realize how ridiculous anything like that is when Wade claims he had no idea he was a victim till 2 years ago, and his family didn't either? But someone wants to believe a staff member openly would say that?

What, did his family just not spend enough time with him...?

He want the attention now he want the world to know the truth.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

You do realize a statement like that opens Nora up to charges herself. It implies she knew something was going on and did nothing

 

[HIStory]

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

You do realize a statement like that opens Nora up to charges herself. It implies she knew something was going on and did nothing

Exactly. In that case why doesn't he sue Norma? Oh, wait, she probably does not have as much money as MJ's Estate? Thought so.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Back to Safchuck's allegations I'm wondering about this claim:



1) Did MJ's bedroom at NL even have a window?
2) So he took this flashbulb with him everywhere to the Bad tour and installed it behind window curtains in hotels, as well as Neverland?

ETA: OK, I realize that the downstairs portion had a window (I don't think the upstairs did). But the second question still stands.

Okay Respect77 you got me rolling over here :rollin:

As for your second question that you said will stand i can not see Michael taking the time putting a flashbulb behind the window in the hotel.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Right waste they time.

 

[ivy]

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

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.

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.

Honestly based on what we can see, it's underwhelming. I expected more but this is basically pretty similar to the last one.

Initially he only had sexual abuse claim against corporations which didn't even make sense given that corporations cannot abuse anyone. It seems he corrected for that by adding negligence and so on. However at least from Estate's writing it doesn't seem like he added anything more for the why this should be allowed past his 26th birthday.

My understanding he wants to apply the first section of the law - which says within 3 years of discovering injury. Estate argues this only apply to the actual perpetrator. Robson's lawyers seem to combine the corporations with MJ claiming they are his alter ego or something and desperately trying to fit his claims under that section.

I wish we saw Robson's amended complaint to have a better idea. But Estate's position seems strong.

 

[ivy]

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

And some other stuff

- @pminton : I posted the document. It doesn't list the other 3 causes of action. You can check for yourself.

- As for Norma, allegedly what she said isn't enough for control over MJ and/or knowledge. I don't think Norma could be sued for doing nothing, because as an individual I wouldn't think she has a duty of care towards Robson. The only possible thing probably is to sue her as an agent, representative of MJJ Productions. That would still require him to survive the demurrer against Corporations. That brings me back to the first cause of action of sexual abuse against "decedent and unidentified does 46 through 50 engaged in various acts of childhood abuse". Remember when they mentioned some people who were involved with MJJ Productions/Ventures? I think they plan to add them if they can survive the demurrer.

 

[HIStory]

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

My understanding he wants to apply the first section of the law - which says within 3 years of discovering injury. Estate argues this only apply to the actual perpetrator. Robson's lawyers seem to combine the corporations with MJ claiming they are his alter ego or something and desperately trying to fit his claims under that section.

I wish we saw Robson's amended complaint to have a better idea. But Estate's position seems strong.

Yeah, that's a good point:

Honestly based on what we can see, it's underwhelming. I expected more but this is basically pretty similar to the last one.

Yeah, I "thought" they would come back with some big bold statements about Branca and Weitzman being involved in cover-ups and pay-offs to other boys.But I guess they could not find any pay-offs. I guess that 2013 FBI files article about supposed pay-offs to 24 boys that Marzano even publicly commented, did not lead them anywhere LOL.

I guess that's also because they know they can slander a dead man all they want but a living person may sue them back for slander.

 

[ivy]

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

^^

See the last line "What Robson is really arguing is that the alleged acts of Michael in his bedroom can somehow be imputed to the corporate defendants as acts of the corporations".

He's trying to do that so that he can fall under "within 3 years of discovery of injury" deadline.

But then he changes position and claim corporations could have controlled MJ - which means classifying them separate and different from MJ.

Not surprisingly he's all over the place. This is probably a case of whatever sticks strategy.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

They are discussin this law:


It clearly states: "No action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday."

With one exception which is the (b)(2) part.

This is what Robson needs to prove to prevail.

And the Estate's argument is the same as before: MJ was not the companies' employee, volunteer, representative, or agent but their sole owner. And so the companies did not have control over him but he had control over them. They cite precedent law which shows that for this part to apply to a company it has to have some kind of control over the alleged perpetrator.

Plus the companies did not know or had a reason to know that alleged abuse occured. They make it clear that a vauge statement that they try with that alleged Norma Staikos quote is not sufficient to prove that a company knew or had a reason to know:

Yes, apart from that vague alleged Norma Staikos comment they did not seem to give any names or any cause of action, for that matter, for why MJ's companies would fall within the (b)(2) section of the quoted law. They simply seem to go on about law interpretations, but that was already discussed before and the Judge wanted them to state a cause of action for why the companies would fall within (b)(2). From this demurrer to me it seems they have failed to come up with anything substantial.

I thought they were reffering to the whole lawsuit not just the MJ companies, Thank you for clarifying. Are they not going to go after the claims against Michael\Doe 1 as well? or they don't have to because it isn't legit?

Isn't "They didn't know or had a reason to know" a bit problematic wording wise? or it's only being hypothetical?

The whole thing makes me cringe because they're not at the stage of debunking the claims but only discussing the laws... but lets hope it doesn't go further than this

 

[barbee0715]

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

This "whatever sticks" strategy worries me only because the judge gives them chance after chance to change their claim.

 

[ivy]

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

Our friends at Vindicate MJ V.2 is saying the alleged Norma Staikos statement "Don't live children alone with MJ" is from MJWML by Gutierrez. and he said Orietta Murdock heard it.

given Staikos testified in front of Grand Jury but Grand Jury did not charge MJ and given Staikos wasn't called to testify in 2005, I guess it's safe to assume that she denied it.

edited to add: apparently there's also a Sneddon motion which states Norma Staikos and Miko Brando had statements about not leaving their kids alone with Michael. These didn't materialize either.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I think the date of this alleged statement is very important because if she said it after 1993 it could mean anything and it doesn't mean she "knew". IF it was ever said, I'm sure it's after the Chandlers. Nice to see Wade's sources.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

There you go that did not stick either.

Wade has yet to find anybody in the companies that knew or was aware this was going on

The statute of limitations is what this case is all about. The Estate is argue that these claims should not be file they are late.

Wade has file this claim after the age of 26 and his lawyers are trying to say that this does not apply to them the statute of limitations.


Thank you Ivy i found them.

 

[ivy]

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

This "whatever sticks" strategy worries me only because the judge gives them chance after chance to change their claim.

I wrote this before, judges gave MAW, Demann 3-4 chances to amend. That's probably what's going to happen here as well. I wouldn't worry much because if there's nothing there, how many times they are given chances to amend wouldn't matter at the end.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

I wrote this before, judges gave MAW, Demann 3-4 chances to amend. That's probably what's going to happen here as well. I wouldn't worry much because if there's nothing there, how many times they are given chances to amend wouldn't matter at the end.

Right but i would love to see this end before June 25 of this year.

 

[HIStory]

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

Right but i would love to see this end before June 25 of this year.

It won't. In this demurrer doc it's stated that the next hearing about this subject is on June 30.

 

[HIStory]

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

I thought they were reffering to the whole lawsuit not just the MJ companies, Thank you for clarifying. Are they not going to go after the claims against Michael\Doe 1 as well? or they don't have to because it isn't legit?

I think about the Doe 1 complaint it was admitted by all sides, inlcuding the Judge, that it's not sufficient because MJ is deceased but - quoting from Ivy's website:

Estate filed a demurrer in the civil case. Judge decided to keep Doe1 as a placeholder for the time being pending the outcome of the probate claim. Judge granted the demurrer request of the corporate defendants but gave Robson the chance to amend his complaint.

There is nothing to discuss now about the Doe1 complaint until there is no decision in the probate claim.

 

[barbee0715]

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

I wrote this before, judges gave MAW, Demann 3-4 chances to amend. That's probably what's going to happen here as well. I wouldn't worry much because if there's nothing there, how many times they are given chances to amend wouldn't matter at the end.

Oh definitely. I know you did and it seems like that has happened in several other cases. But I just worry anyway. I was born worried and I think and worry about this case all the time even tho I try not to.

 

[ivy]

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

Last time there were two demurrers but I think they agreed that Doe1 is a placeholder for the time being.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Last time there were two demurrers but I think they agreed that Doe1 is a placeholder for the time being.

It's so bizarre because they'll have to prove Doe 1 guilty in order to prove Doe 2 and Doe 3's. It's not like they can take "Doe 1" out of the lawsuit so it's still a deceased man under trial and it's twisted if the judge approves it. Thank you Ivy and Respect for your answers.

Oh definitely. I know you did and it seems like that has happened in several other cases. But I just worry anyway. I was born worried and I think and worry about this case all the time even tho I try not to.

Right? I'm always worried somebody is going to lose it completely even when I think it's a sure win