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

[dannyboy72]

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

Can't wait until this is over.

 

[la_cienega]

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

I'm sure the judge is fully experienced in long drawn out legal procedures. Definitely not the first time he's dealt with this.
I'd love to be able to sneak a peek at their lawyers account files. See how the bills are mounting and if anything has been paid and if so by whom. Since their claims are going in circles, maybe his team are the ones getting run down. Not that I believe that but I wish it were true.

It might be one of those "no win no fee" claims.

I'm hoping it isn't though.

Either way, just sitting around not working and putting off stuff because of this will cost them more than the estate.


The claims when Michael alive were different - both were within the statutes.

 

[myosotis]

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

It might be one of those "no win no fee" claims.

I'm hoping it isn't though.

Either way, just sitting around not working and putting off stuff because of this will cost them more than the estate

The claims when Michael alive were different - both were within the statutes.

Also, since their senses of entitlement are so high, they may have convinced themselves that even if these legal cases are not successful, a major film producer might come along and pay them to make a film of the story of their two sorry lives. (I can almost hear the advertising voiceover: 'To them he was a god...... the American justice system let them down).

In your dreams, guys.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

Shamelessly trying to drag Brett into this mess. I can only hope Brett has more honour and self-respect than these vultures.

Safechuck never claims to have seen Brett being molested or that MJ told him he molested Brett. He just states that MJ paid more attention to Brett then him. Brett Barnes was one of the many children that MJ befriended. This is not a secret. There are pics of MJ with Brett on the internet.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Safechuck never claims to have seen Brett being molested or that MJ told him he molested Brett. He just states that MJ paid more attention to Brett then him. Brett Barnes was one of the many children that MJ befriended. This is not a secret. There are pics of MJ with Brett on the internet.

There was no reason to bring up Brett Barns into it at all. It's no screct that people have been trying to get Brett to say he was molested even to the point of stalking him on twitter. So there was def reason for him to drag Bret into it

 

[HIStory]

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

Brett Barnes is a hater obsession ever since Victor Gutierrez made him one. Haters are incredibly obsessed with him and yes, they constantly harrass him on Twitter trying to make him turn on Michael. You can see his interactions with haters on his Twitter timeline:
They call him a liar, a coward and all kind of stuff. Eg: https://twitter.com/IAmBrettBarnes/status/467180522892845056

 

[dannyboy72]

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

Brett Barnes is a hater obsession ever since Victor Gutierrez made him one. Haters are incredibly obsessed with him and yes, they constantly harrass him on Twitter trying to make him turn on Michael. You can see his interactions with haters on his Twitter timeline:
They call him a liar, a coward and all kind of stuff. Eg: https://twitter.com/IAmBrettBarnes/status/467180522892845056

Wow, that was pretty messed up what they were saying to Brett. I honestly don't understand why they are so hell bent on getting people to admit that they were molested by Michael Jackson. If they are that obsessed with pedophilia and child abuse victims then why not go bother Tyler Perry or Matt Sandusky?

 

[HIStory]

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

^ These are Michael Jackson haters plain and simple. They do not care about child abuse. They do not care about Wade Robson or James Safechuck. They are just pawns to them in their hate game against MJ. (Of course, they are also useful idiots for Robson and Safechuck in their game.)

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

They shouldn't mention Brett simply because Brett can speak for himself and he's not going to lie for them. They're acting just like Sneddon - trying to force people to say MJ abused them even though they adamantly dismiss these claims all the time.

Sorry James & Wade, not everyone is huge losers like you.

 

[MattyJam]

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

One think I do find quite interesting about this whole palava, is that the more "victims" that crawl out of the woodwork, the more ridiculous and unbelieveable it is appearing to Joe Public.
This is why I think mainstream media haven't really picked up much on WR and JS's allegations. On one hand you would think public perception would be thinking "strength-in-numbers", ie the more people making allegations the more likely it is that MJ was guilty all along. I think this is what Wade and his lawyers were banking on when he gave his television interview etc. But it hasn't panned out that way at all. If anything, the public at large are beginning to wake up to how opportunistic these accusers are and are smelling a rat with every crazy new allegation that is made against MJ.

 

[HIStory]

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

Sorry James & Wade, not everyone is huge losers like you.

I read on Brett's timeline that he is a Mensa president, so apparently MJ did not ruin his education like poor little Jimmy's. :smilerolleyes:

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

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

I don't think most of the public even know about Wade and James allegations, thankfully the media has largely ignored it. I've never once saw anything about it outside of the MJ forums/Twitter, if I didn't come here I wouldn't even know about it.

 

[MattyJam]

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

I don't think most of the public even know about Wade and James allegations, thankfully the media has largely ignored it. I've never once saw anything about it outside of the MJ forums/Twitter, if I didn't come here I wouldn't even know about it.

True, but look at the comments sections when it is reported on the few sites that are running the story. Of course you get the usual haters and fans commenting, but I'm also picking up on a lot more scepticism from non-fans as well, far more so than in 2005 when everybody except the fanbase was ready to throw the book at Michael. I think in a twisted kind of way the Arvizo's with their throw-anything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks allegations actually made a lot of people question the credibility of all MJ's accusers.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I agree with you MattyJam. The media had the "strength-in-numbers" attitude 20 years ago when those numbers had no names and detailed yet unreliable stories. They never cared about the story itself but they did like to say there are "more accusers" or "dozens" of them. At the end of the day, the "dozens" were 3 shady people. Now it's different. I think Wade's lawsuit brought more people to realization some people would say anything to get money. I went through some old TMZ articles the other day and there was this poll if people believe Wade. 93% answered No. Around 200k people took the poll.

 

[HIStory]

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

One think I do find quite interesting about this whole palava, is that the more "victims" that crawl out of the woodwork, the more ridiculous and unbelieveable it is appearing to Joe Public.
This is why I think mainstream media haven't really picked up much on WR and JS's allegations. On one hand you would think public perception would be thinking "strength-in-numbers", ie the more people making allegations the more likely it is that MJ was guilty all along. I think this is what Wade and his lawyers were banking on when he gave his television interview etc. But it hasn't panned out that way at all. If anything, the public at large are beginning to wake up to how opportunistic these accusers are and are smelling a rat with every crazy new allegation that is made against MJ.

I think that is because there is a big difference between these allegations and how these type of allegations usually play out. Generally when someone comes out with such an allegation in short time he or she will be followed by others who get encouraged by his/her example to also break their silence.

This is however very different. We had 1993 and Jordan Chandler and no one came out in support of him (except for the prosecution and his mother coercing Jason Francia into "remembering" inappropriate tickling that he never remembered before...). Then in 2005 comes Gavin Arvizo and Sneddon is on TV making a big announcment about setting up a website for "victims" and his officers travelling the world looking for "victims" but no other accuser is found. (And in fact, Wade Robson is among the first to volunteer to testify for Michael.)

And now these two come out with changing their earlier stories, but this (like all the former allegations against MJ) come with a demand for a big paycheque. Of course, people are going to be sceptical. (And I'm sure they'd be even more sceptical if they read these court papers like we do and saw how conveniently fine tuned these allegations are for purposes like getting around statutes of limitations etc.)

This is not a case of MJ being accused the first time. It's different to all those cases when a guy dies and he gets accused for the first time because when he was alive his accusers were afraid of him or of authorities not believing them etc. MJ was on a criminal trial and the prosecution would have welcomed anyone making an allegation with open arms. There is no good excuse for these people not to act then when it mattered and when the accuser was here to face them and defend himself, but to be "enlightened" all of a sudden now amidst big monetary demands. Naturally, that makes people highly suspicious and sceptical.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I read on Brett's timeline that he is a Mensa president, so apparently MJ did not ruin his education like poor little Jimmy's. :smilerolleyes:

Hey, remember the time when Wade was successful and gave all credit to Michael? :smilerolleyes:

Losers.

 

[MattyJam]

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

I agree with you MattyJam. The media had the "strength-in-numbers" attitude 20 years ago when those numbers had no names and detailed yet unreliable stories. They never cared about the story itself but they did like to say there are "more accusers" or "dozens" of them. At the end of the day, the "dozens" were 3 shady people. Now it's different. I think Wade's lawsuit brought more people to realization some people would say anything to get money. I went through some old TMZ articles the other day and there was this poll if people believe Wade. 93% answered No. Around 200k people took the poll.

Agree on all counts.


In these cases credibility is everything. And the fact remains that every single one of MJ's accusers have show a massive desire to profit financially from their "ordeal" and the claims are becoming increasingly ridiculous almost to the point where it's laughable.


I only wish the Chandlers had gone ahead with criminal proceedings so they would've been exposed the same way the Arvizo's ended up being. The Arvizo's are by far my favourite MJ accusers, for sheer comic value (in case you can't tell, I'm being facetious - I loath them for what they did to MJ).

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Agree on all counts.


In these cases credibility is everything. And the fact remains that every single one of MJ's accusers have show a massive desire to profit financially from their "ordeal" and the claims are becoming increasingly ridiculous almost to the point where it's laughable.


I only wish the Chandlers had gone ahead with criminal proceedings so they would've been exposed the same way the Arvizo's ended up being. The Arvizo's are by far my favourite MJ accusers, for sheer comic value (in case you can't tell, I'm being facetious - I loath them for what they did to MJ).

The Chandlers knew what they were doing and that's why they screwed the criminal charges and disappeared because of the same reason you wish they wouldn't. The Arvizos probably wished they could do the same as Evan Chandler. When you think about it, Sneddon was kind of an obstacle for those families. And I get you, you gotta give them credit for being overly creative eg. hot air balloons and kidnaps. Too much TV :lol:

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Judges follow the law. Not emotional and not because they get worn down

Well said. They interpret the law, not make it up. These are statutes regarding time limitations, you can't have different interpretations over a calendar. I know we haven't got the original complaint, but in safechuck's supplementary declaration i couldn't find one date as to his 'aha' moment so he can show he's within the 60 days timelimit. He seems to be just suggesting his realisation came about after he began his regular therapy process in late 2013. Maybe the lawyers know it's an impossible task as safechuck went to gradstein 8 months before filing. So i think they're relying totally on equitable estopppel to get round the timelimits, ie mj saying 'your life will be over' if safechuck spoke out, which miraculously still seems to have influenced him years after mj died. I guess he didn't notice jordan chandler or francia's lives carrying on unbothered by mj or the media with £millions in the bank or the fact the entire media and californian justice authorities rolling out the red carpet to anyone making allegations about mj. In any case California already allows 'equitable' principles by having its 'delayed discovery' statutory timelimit for child sex abuse - they just require people to file within 60days of discovery.

Anyway, i'm sure the judge can see this claim for the gibberish it is. Safechuck just contradicts himself constantly, he seems to be telling a different story to the one he told in his previous complaint re contact with mj, and he just ties himself in knots even saying at one point that 'i was confused, and remain confused as to what mj was telling me' because even he and his lawyers know his story doesn't make sense. I do love the delusional stan touches though - mj's 'godlike' status, a beloved and powerful historical figure who has 'billions' of adoring fans. So different to gradstein's declaration last year about how mj was a monster and all 'normal' people know this.

 

[Tygger]

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

THAT'S my concern. I don't think we need to worry about wearing out the estate-and the publicity has been next to nil. It's only hitting obscure tabloids, it seems, that are all cutting and pasting Radar Online. So the Estate can easily handle that and the financial part.

It's the judge that worries me-probably because he has let it drag on and on. I keep telling myself it's because of the appeal aspect, but it still worries me.

As I said before in this thread, the endless extensions have done nothing but, effectively drain estate funds. Such a drain effects the beneficiaries. I continue to wonder who is funding Robson/Safechuck in this doomed venture because I do not believe this is contingency based and most likely never was. I do not see any evidence of this legal team having a history for contingency based trials.

Note: this is a doomed venture; there is no chance for success for Robson/Safechuck so no fear there. That is why no media outlets minus a tabloid like Radar Online will post any updates regarding it. I wonder what benefit Radar receives for reporting on topics that a small minority has interest in. Do they have a partnership or alliance that I am unaware of because I am unsure why they insist on reporting on a topic that will not generate any substantial revenue for them. Robson grabbed attention from the AEG civil trial. He has not attracted much attention since. I am not aware of Safechuck receiving much attention either.

Other media outlets are aware this has almost nothing to do with Michael minus the fact that it his Estate whose funds are being drained. It has no bearing on his memory or legacy. This will not vindicate Michael as he was already vindicated in 2005. The audience for those media outlets could care less about Estate funds being drained.

 

[barbee0715]

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

^^hopefully the Estate isn't having to spend too much money in the case yet. Each and every time their rebuttal has been the statutes of limitations, as it should be. Just the basic law.

Obviously they have to win this because if they don't it will just make them wide open for long lines of other extortionists in the future. And it needs to stop now. No more. If they don't fight, there will be no legacy. No estate. No money for the beneficiaries. So sadly, this isn't a waste of money yet.

That's an interesting question about RO because I hadn't even heard of them before this and they do seem to be the most interested. I know the head guy was a nemesis before because he used to run a BIG tabloid (not sure which one) so maybe he's hoping he'll strike gold twice. (I guess I don't know my tabloids real well).

The very fact that both these guys were adults in 2005 and Wade in particular testified and sang Michael's praises for years after his death and now Michael can't defend himself, makes people flat out skeptical, inc the mainstream media.
I'm pretty sure that's why it's pretty quiet.

And TMZ (where the mainstream media gets most of their gossip from now) was skeptical from the get go-that might have helped.

However, if the judge does allow it to go to trial , I expect all media to pounce.

(I know Wade sold his CA house for some millions, and that probably paid the attys advance fee, but I would imagine that's running dry bc Hawaii is super expensive).

 

[ivy]

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

That's an interesting question about RO because I hadn't even heard of them before this and they do seem to be the most interested. I know the head guy was a nemesis before because he used to run a BIG tabloid (not sure which one) so maybe he's hoping he'll strike gold twice.

dylan howard - head of RO - is Australian. Some think there is a relation to why they are interested in these accusations.


As for the attorney fees, I think Robson and Safechuck lawyers are probably took this case as contingency basis and the reason I think this way is in the past there have been several cases which had contingency and/or unpaid lawyer that stuck around because all of them hoped for a big settlement with Estate. Plus any case against MJ brings publicity to these lawyers.

 

[Tygger]

Barbee0715, according to the Estate’s third accounting, the Tohme case alone cost close to $1M year end 2013. I have not said this venture resembles that cost however I cannot imagine costs being less than six-figures and counting almost two years later. This and other frivolous claims against the Estate cost the beneficiaries.

There is no chance that Robson/Safechuck will be successful. None. Most media outlets know this is not about Michael; only the monies in his Estate. Michael’s legacy is solidified. This venture only drains funds from the Estate and in turn, the beneficiaries.

I was introduced to Radar Online when the Jacksons had their public issues during a previous summer. Some fans were very supportive of Radar and Heger in particular because their articles had (and probably still do) a decidedly negative view of the Jackson family (including Michael). If I am remembering correctly, Heger made herself available to fans during that time to answer questions which was completely illogical because she had no more information than any other outsider and a tabloid with a slanted view (is there any other view for a tabloid) should not be trusted. She also encouraged others to believe Katherine signed a declaration during the AEG civil trial to support an early release of the doctor that killed her son when the document does not exist. I believe she has taken advantage of some fans who believe she is supportive of their particular views regarding the Jacksons. If she did not have that support, Radar most likely would not report on this or (maybe) anything Jackson.

I believe the man you are speaking of is Ron Burkle who was behind National Enquirer/Star which published notorious articles about Michael and so many others. If not, please let me know.

I do not believe Robson/Safechuck’s legal team to be contingency-based. There are technically two separate ventures here so, the total legal fees may be very similar in comparison to the Estate’s legal fees. Regardless, I cannot see this being less than six figures for both separately.

I was not aware Robson sold his home. I cannot imagine Robson AND Safechuck being able to maintain the costly fees for this expensive, doomed venture which leads me to believe the legal team is being funded by others. Provided they are contingency-based, it does not change the fact that the Estate legal team is not.

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

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

Ron Burkle was a friend and advisor to MJ

 

[ivy]

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

Burkle financed the print magazine version of Radar back in the day but he sold it in 2008 to American Media which relaunched it as a online website. Burkle hasn't been involved in Radar since 2008 so he has no involvement in recent MJ stories. Like I said Dylan Howard the current editor of Radar Online and editor of National Enquirer and an Australian. The initial Robson stories were written bu Howard. Now Duke writes them.

 

[barbee0715]

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

^^Dylan Howard is who I was referring to. Thank you. I think he goes way back with the NE and the hydrobaric chamber stories. It seems like I saw him on a talk show or maybe that Tabloid doc on Frontline.

(GREAT documentary by the way. Everybody should watch it. I believe it's in the archives here somewhere).

 

[Tygger]

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

Barbee0715, I see, you were speaking of the editorship and not ownership. Despite editorship, Radar has a history of reporting negative stories on the Jacksons including Michael before Robson/Safechuck as did NE/Star.

Adding: Howard is pending quite an embarrassment if his purpose to support Robson includes a shared heritage. I do not believe Safechuck is Australian but, I would not know.

GoldPantsGirl, can you elaborate on that history? My only understanding is Burkle encouraged Jesse Jackson to help Michael at a time. One of Jesse Jackson's sons also had ownership in Radar at a time as well.

 

[whateverhappens50]

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

I think that is because there is a big difference between these allegations and how these type of allegations usually play out. Generally when someone comes out with such an allegation in short time he or she will be followed by others who get encouraged by his/her example to also break their silence.

This is however very different. We had 1993 and Jordan Chandler and no one came out in support of him (except for the prosecution and his mother coercing Jason Francia into "remembering" inappropriate tickling that he never remembered before...). Then in 2005 comes Gavin Arvizo and Sneddon is on TV making a big announcment about setting up a website for "victims" and his officers travelling the world looking for "victims" but no other accuser is found. (And in fact, Wade Robson is among the first to volunteer to testify for Michael.)

And now these two come out with changing their earlier stories, but this (like all the former allegations against MJ) come with a demand for a big paycheque. Of course, people are going to be sceptical. (And I'm sure they'd be even more sceptical if they read these court papers like we do and saw how conveniently fine tuned these allegations are for purposes like getting around statutes of limitations etc.)

This is not a case of MJ being accused the first time. It's different to all those cases when a guy dies and he gets accused for the first time because when he was alive his accusers were afraid of him or of authorities not believing them etc. MJ was on a criminal trial and the prosecution would have welcomed anyone making an allegation with open arms. There is no good excuse for these people not to act then when it mattered and when the accuser was here to face them and defend himself, but to be "enlightened" all of a sudden now amidst big monetary demands. Naturally, that makes people highly suspicious and sceptical.

this is so true

 

[HIStory]

Some more thoughts about this latest Safechuck declaration.

One of that precedents they mentioned in Robson's complaints (I don't know if they did in Safechuck's, but they are sure aware of that story because they mentioned it in Robson's papers) is that Doe vs. Bakersfield City School District (2006) case where the accuser said he was sexually molested by a teacher in high school and the abuse continued even beyond that until he was about 20 years old. When he left school the teacher went after him, always did things to be near him, to have access to him. Meanwhile he threatened him with various things.

The abuse stopped around 2000 and he filed his lawsuit in July 2002, so it's not like it took him 20 years to realize what was abuse or something. But that case shows why they need try to establish some type of ongoing control and threats by MJ and why he had to include these new allegations about MJ's supposedly calling him and having control over him and his parents between 1997 and 2004.

If you read this precedent case (Doe vs. Bakersfield City School District (2006)) you will see why he had to add these new elements about alleged phone calls and where they are trying to go with these. (Wade cannot claim any such things of course because of his friendly relationship with Michael until he died and publicly praising him even after, but Safechuck is trying to establish something like this with his new claims about MJ's threatening calls IMO.)

Before the trial court, the parties agreed that John R. and Christopher P. set forth the applicable test of equitable estoppel.   Consistent with these authorities, plaintiff presented evidence, summarized above, to demonstrate that Diaz made ongoing threats in connection with his molestation of plaintiff.   Further, plaintiff claimed the effect of these threats was still operating on him shortly before he filed his application to file a late claim with the District on July 19, 2002.   The District did not directly refute plaintiff's evidence that Diaz's threats deterred plaintiff from bringing any legal action against Diaz. Until a combination of events occurred-including confirmation that police were investigating Diaz for pedophilia, plaintiff's enrollment in a witness protection program, and plaintiff's receipt of psychological counseling, beginning on July 8, 2002-plaintiff continued to fear Diaz would deliver on his threats to ruin plaintiff's reputation.   Instead, the District, in its briefing to the  trial court, attempted to distinguish John R. and Christopher P. principally on the basis that plaintiff was an adult when he filed his petition, arguing that “those cases involved a child in the ninth grade and an eleven-year-old as compared to a nineteen-year-old collegiate wrestler․” The District makes similar arguments on appeal.

It is unclear to what extent the trial court was persuaded by the District's arguments.   However, the fact that plaintiff was an adult when he first pursued his claim against the District appears to have been a central consideration in the court's ruling.   To reiterate, the court's order mentioned four points in time at which estoppel might cease and stated, without explanation, that the evidence did not support extending estoppel beyond any of them:  (1) plaintiff's departure from the District;  (2) plaintiff's graduation from high school;  (3) plaintiff's attainment of adulthood;  and (4) plaintiff's termination of his relationship with Diaz.

On the basis of the record, we cannot conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying relief on the grounds the evidence did not support application of equitable estoppel beyond the four events the court identified in its order.   The court cited and we know no legal authorities holding that estoppel would necessarily be cut off upon any of these events.   Nothing in John R. or Christopher P. suggests the test for estoppel depends on the victim's age.   Rather, “[t]hese cases have the following in common:  In each, the public entity or one of its agents engaged in some calculated conduct or made some representation or concealed facts which induced the plaintiff not to file a claim or bring an action within the statutory time;  and in each, the plaintiff acted promptly, almost always within a year, after the public entity's conduct which caused the estoppel ceased.”   (Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1047, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 777.)   The question of whether plaintiff acted within a reasonable time is measured from the time the deterrent effect of the unconscionable conduct of the District or its agent ceased.  (See ibid.)

Plaintiff presented undisputed evidence of circumstances giving rise to estoppel which occurred after the events listed by the trial court.   Plaintiff presented evidence that, after he departed junior high school and started high school in a different school district, Diaz continued to abuse him sexually and to threaten to humiliate him publicly if he ever disclosed the abuse by telling people plaintiff was gay and that he knew “people in high places” whom he could call upon to “take [plaintiff] down.”   The evidence showed that plaintiff believed Diaz's threats, which cunningly played off plaintiff's typical adolescent concerns relating to his popularity among his classmates.   Diaz's threats also invoked his status as an authority figure who could command others to act.   Plaintiff's fears were further reinforced by Diaz's apparent  ability to enlist others, including plaintiff's own parents, the high school “attendance lady,” and plaintiff's classmates, to unwittingly aid Diaz in communicating his threats and ensuring his continued physical access to plaintiff.

Diaz continued to engage in similar calculating conduct after plaintiff graduated from high school.   The evidence indicates that when plaintiff turned 18 and moved out on his own, Diaz actively pursued plaintiff, subjecting him to threatening telephone calls, finding out where he lived, and ingratiating himself with plaintiff's roommate in order to gain access to their apartment when plaintiff was absent.   There is no indication Diaz's threats lost any of their efficacy after plaintiff became an adult or ended his relationship with Diaz. Rather, plaintiff presented evidence that he continued to be deterred by Diaz's threats.   Plaintiff's emotionally charged disclosure of Diaz's abuse to his girlfriend in late 2001, rather than evidencing he was no longer afraid of Diaz as the District suggests, demonstrated that Diaz's threats were still acting strongly on him.   Plaintiff became hysterical when his girlfriend suggested going to the police, specifically alluded to Diaz's past threats as a reason for not reporting the abuse, and threatened to kill himself.

The record supports a conclusion that Diaz's threats were still having a deterrent effect when he disclosed the abuse for the first time in late 2001.   Moreover, plaintiff declared that it was not until after the police investigation of Diaz commenced, and plaintiff was enrolled in a witness protection program and received counseling from a psychotherapist, whom he met for the first time just 10 days before he filed his late-claim application with the District, that he felt he had reason to believe Diaz would not be able to follow through with his threats.   At the hearing, plaintiff testified he sought legal advice for the first time after he met with the psychotherapist.   These facts reflect that plaintiff acted within a reasonable time to pursue his claim against the District after the deterrent effect of the threats ceased.   It is also significant that the District does not dispute that Diaz sexually abused plaintiff throughout the majority of his teenage years.   According to the District's witness, Detective Armendariz, he was contacted in November 2001, after Diaz admitted to the school principal that he abused children.   As we discussed in Christopher P., a delay in reporting abuse under these circumstances is a common phenomenon.  (See Christopher P. v. Mojave Unified School Dist., supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 173, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 353.)   When the abuse is coupled with ongoing threats like in this case, this may be sufficient evidence to support an estoppel.  (Ibid.)

Further, we are not persuaded by the District's attempts to distinguish John R. and Christopher P. For reasons discussed above, the fact that plaintiff was an adult when he first pursued his claim against the District did not preclude him  from invoking the doctrine of equitable estoppel.   The District also makes much of the fact that plaintiff was not physically fearful of Diaz. There is no requirement that the abuser's threats must be physical in nature.   Like the teacher in John R., Diaz made threats to retaliate against plaintiff if he disclosed the abuse, including threats to represent to others that plaintiff was somehow responsible for instigating the relationship and that it was therefore plaintiff's fault, not Diaz's.   Similarly, the District makes repeated reference to the fact that plaintiff was a wrestler and a college athlete, suggesting this is somehow relevant to the estoppel analysis.   However, like the factor of age, strength, athletic ability, and educational status, by themselves, have no bearing on whether an abuser's threats have effectively deterred a victim from reporting the abuse or whether the deterrent effect of the threats have stopped.   Adult athletes and college students are equally capable of being sexually abused and threatened as any other type of victim.

None of the other evidence relied on by the district establishes that plaintiff suddenly became impervious to Diaz's threats when he became an adult.   The District asserts that plaintiff “continued to maintain” his relationship with Diaz into adulthood, pointing to evidence that Diaz co-signed plaintiff's car loan and plaintiff's testimony that he terminated his relationship with Diaz because he “just didn't want to do it anymore.”   The District infers from this that plaintiff was no longer afraid of Diaz and argues it was therefore unreasonable for plaintiff to wait two years after ending his relationship with Diaz to bring his request to file a late claim against the District.   However, when analyzed in light of all the circumstances presented by the evidence, the District's inference is unreasonable.   The evidence indicates that, far from becoming a consensual relationship when plaintiff reached adulthood, Diaz merely continued his pattern of manipulating plaintiff and inserting himself into plaintiff's life as he had when plaintiff was a minor.   Although plaintiff ultimately ended the relationship, there was evidence the deterrent effect of Diaz's threats continued, more than a year later, when he first disclosed the abuse to his girlfriend.   Plaintiff said that due to Diaz's threats and his fear of Diaz, he had planned to take the circumstances of the abuse with him “to his grave.”

In sum, plaintiff demonstrated that he was entitled to relief from the claims-presentation requirements of the Tort Claims Act by presenting undisputed evidence supporting application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel beyond the four events identified by the trial court in its order denying relief.   Because the correct test for estoppel and sufficient evidence to support each of the test's three prongs were presented for the court's consideration, there is no need to remand for further factual determinations as in  John R. and Christopher P. In the appropriate case, remand may be necessary.   But based on the evidence in the record here it was an abuse of discretion for the court to reach the conclusion it did.3

So these are all attempts to establish a similar situation as in the above precedent IMO (ongoing control and threats), but it's a struggle for Safechuck, because it is hard for him to even allege any such thing. That's why he had to bring in all these new claims about MJ supposedly having tremendous control over him and his parents even between 1997 and 2004 (which seems to be a change compared to his initial complaint). However, in the precedent we have a very much living defendant who continued to have a physical presence in plaintiff's life, did creepy stalking, kept threatening the plaintiff until he basically filed - and actually even after that when you read the full case.

The alleged threat by Michael is not clarified in Safechuck's complaint. He says Michael told him as a child that his "life would be over if anyone found out" and that continued to have a lasting effect on him until recent therapy. Putting aside the fact how difficult it is to believe with all the things going on around MJ (1993, 2005 etc.) - and we have no such circumstances in the precedent case -, I also find this a very vague statement. It's not clarified how it's meant. Did Safechuck allegedly believe his life would be physically over? Or in which way? At times in his complaint Safechuck references not only on MJ's supposed "power" but alleges that he would actively and deliberately use it in order to take him down:

"I was scared of the Decendent and what he could do to me if I ever crossed him and said anything about what he had done to me."

"I knew that he could see to it that my life would be over if what happened ever came out."

But it's never clarified how this is meant. Does he suggest that MJ would get him murdered? Does he suggest MJ would get him lose his job? His family? Or what? It's never clarified what Safechuck allagedly was afraid of and how MJ would have power over those aspects of his life.

At other times in his complaint he claims he was scared of publicity, MJ's fame, popularity, fans etc. But that's a different issue legally and that's not a reason for equitable estoppel IMO. Again, putting aside the contradiction in his actions, like running to Diane Dimond right after filing his complaint and to be on time to interfere with the release of Xscape, whether Safechuck fears publicity or not has nothing to do with what MJ allegedly did or told to him. MJ's fame and popularity is a special circumstance but not something that "MJ did to him". Equitable estoppel is about "no one can take advantage of his wrongdoing" and MJ's fame and popularity is an outside circumstance, not his wrongdoing. His wrongdoing would only be this "your life would be over" threat, but there is no concrete claim made about how this is meant and how MJ would be able to carry out such a threat, especially after his death. So if he allegedly feared that MJ would actively do something to ruin his life - well, that effect ended when MJ died in 2009. And if it's just the alleged fear of publicity (being "shunned by the public") - that is not something that MJ did. His fame and popularity is a given circumstance, not a "wrongdoing". So I fail to see how this would support equitable estoppel.

And, in any case, at latest in October 2013 he contacted Robson's lawyers, yet he only filed 8 months later. That's out of statutes of limitations by any measure. When statutrory limits give you the chance to file whenever you claim you realized abuse/its effects etc., as PC 9103 does here, and you still do not file within those statutes, I cannot see any good reason to apply equitable estoppel.

And BTW, in the precedent case it says:

and in each, the plaintiff acted promptly, almost always within a year, after the public entity's conduct which caused the estoppel ceased.”

Since in the precedent case we talk about a living defendant the statutory limits are different there (one year). In Safechuck's case it would be those 60 days given in PC 9103.

The question of whether plaintiff acted within a reasonable time is measured from the time the deterrent effect of the unconscionable conduct of the District or its agent ceased.  

Moreover, plaintiff declared that it was not until after the police investigation of Diaz commenced, and plaintiff was enrolled in a witness protection program and received counseling from a psychotherapist, whom he met for the first time just 10 days before he filed his late-claim application with the District, that he felt he had reason to believe Diaz would not be able to follow through with his threats.

So this Plaintiff filed just 10 days after receiving counseling for the first time.
And again: in this precedent case we talk about a very much alive and very actively threatening defendant, not someone who is dead for 5 years.

These facts reflect that plaintiff acted within a reasonable time to pursue his claim against the District after the deterrent effect of the threats ceased.

Safechuck however did not.

As a result of A.'s actions, Diaz came to the attention of law enforcement.   Detective Armendariz testified that in November 2001, a school principal contacted the sheriff's department to report that after A. confronted Diaz, Diaz confessed to abusing students.   As part of his investigation, the detective contacted plaintiff on January 31, 2002.


In February 2002, A. and plaintiff were driving by Diaz's sister's house when they spotted Diaz outside unloading groceries.   A. rolled down the window and yelled, “You can't face the truth;  you want to hide from it!”   Diaz yelled back at plaintiff, who was in the passenger seat of the car, “I can't believe you're doing this to me!   You're going to be very sorry!   You should have kept your mouth shut!”


Plaintiff testified that after he gave the detective his statement, he was enrolled in a witness protection program and was referred to psychotherapist Joan Knowlden.   Plaintiff met with Knowlden on July 8, 2002, which was the first date she had available to meet with him.   Plaintiff testified that the counseling sessions with Knowlden helped allay the fears that had deterred him from taking legal action earlier.   After receiving help from Knowlden, he took steps to get legal advice and followed the advice of his attorney.


In his declaration, plaintiff stated that it was not until the sheriff's department contacted him indicating Diaz was under investigation for pedophilia and he was entered into a local victim/witness protection program and had his first counseling session that, for the first time in over eight years, he believed Diaz would not be able to follow through with his threats.

So this is a very different case, with the Plaintiff acting almost immediately (within 10 days) after receiving psychotherapy for the first time and the threats in this case were very much actively ongoing during this period between 2000 and when he filed in July 2002. In Safechuck's case we talk about a guy who's been dead for 5 years.

Also notice how the Plaintiff in the precedent case acted within a reasonable time when he was first contacted by sheriffs who told him Defendant was under investigation for pedophilia. In Safechuck's case we have a Plaintiff who could have got his alleged abuser in jail in 2005 (and spare me of the tirade about "celebrity justice" - all law enforcement and 99% of the media were anti-MJ) but he did not want to testify. But now when there is money in it he suddenly "realizes" he was abused and that it was wrong and wants to take it to civil court, 5 years after the death of the defendant. Ugh, okay.

 

[la_cienega]

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

It makes no sense to claim you were afraid of his celebrity, or afraid of anything at all, when you didn't even believe it was bad or abusive at the time.

Trying so hard to find a way to make it seem reasonable and work with either statute, and by doing so negating both of them.

At least claim you knew it was wrong but he terrified you so much you felt you had no choice. At least go down that most reasonable argument against abuse.

But with MJ, they can be both terrified of this monster, but also act like he was the nicest guy alive and so you didn't even know he was abusing you till 20 years after the fact.