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

[terrell]

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

Im surprised the estate didnt do anything about the case before it got to this stage.

Sometimes it is best to keep quiet than to rant because then you give it more legs to be talked about. Everything has it moment to react.

 

[terrell]

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

^^Maybe we fans should do something too, like stop clicking those articles, and spreading them all over the internet, and definitely stop reading the comments under the articles. By reading them it just look like the whole world hates MJ, but that is far from the truth. SB writes this kind of nonsense every month, this is not different from other garbage he comes up with.

A year ago there was another article posted in Mirror that caused more fuss than SB bs
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...kson-Slandered-By-The-Mirror-New-assult-Pg-38

That didn't ruin MJ reputation either.

Fyi regarding Weitzman, you do know Cochran was lead attorney in 93 case?
Next Cochran used his clout to arrange for the city's black clergy to hold a press conference, condemning what they called the D.A.'s persecution of Jackson. At the same time, he was negotiating with Larry Feldman, the 13-year-old boy's attorney, a courthouse colleague. In the end, he and Feldman hammered out a settlement in which the boy received an undisclosed sum and Jackson did not admit any guilt. "It was the only way to get the case off the front pages," says Cochran. "I wanted Michael to be able to go on with his career."
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20108331,00.html

Exactly. And when Wade made the claims in 2013, he was more attacked than supported. When it got legs after he went on the Today show, many folks rolled their eyes. When James came out with his lies, very few folks even talked about it. MOST good thinking folks know these are lies (only haters like it). And with the release of the UVA fasle rape report this week, most of these kind of issues will be viewed to those who do read it with a grain of salt. Morning shows that often talked about most news on MJ did NOT even mentioned this story. Foxnews had this story up ONLY on their website (NOT on tv news)o for a moment and then it was removed (and SB work for the people who runs Foxnews). People know nonsense.

 

[terrell]

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

How hypocritical of them publishing SB's latest bit of fiction, while at the same time decrying Rolling Stone for their unethical journalism. Not sure how many papers that are printing this are co-owned by the same corporation, but i wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them are.
Looked at Google news and it's up to 71 articles at this point, (not the mainstream at this point) not to mention those who are posting it on social media. So much for journalistic integrity. They only cry that when it suits them.

EXACTLY. That is why I am not worried about this story on the FEW sites which is mostly tabloid sites. And most of the sites that have this posted are coowned by the same people.

 

[terrell]

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

Of course they sent Stacy Brown.. Same story from 2013.. but with different figures.. Two years later same fake FBI files story.. Hopefully one day soon Stacy Brown will get what's coming to him.. He's been doing this stuff for the past 12 years. There is absolutely no proof or evidence to support those claims..

And that fake FBI story did not hurt MJ either and neither will this. CNN even talked about the fake FBI story when it was brought to their attention and even they said they was not going to write about it but did because they knew this was NOT real and many folks who commented agreed. Like one person said, "if that report was true, MJ would have been arrested and brought up on federal charges. Did that happen? NO". FBI does not play that said that poster. Most folks think.

 

[barbee0715]

Barbee0715, I read the article you posted regarding Michael’s will/trust in the past. The article takes a surface view: Michael had documents that included the basics; therefore, it must be good. Many estate planners have said the documents are too basic and Michael would have fared better with more detail documents. Suffice to say a highly-skilled estate planner could protect Michael’s leveraged assets using other strategies besides an irrevocable trust. We are seeing the effects of those basic documents here with Robson/Safechuck's claims.

I agree that the will and trust are basic. But what impressed me was that it included a "pour over provision." You would be shocked at the number of wealthy clients and their well paid lawyers that would omit that small piece in wills-causing years of headache, not to mention financial disaster.

There may have been ways to set up Michael's estate in a more ironclad/safe manner, but I don't think that would have made a single iota of difference to this guys. The statute of limitations is ironclad, too, isn't it? And that's not stopping either of them from going after Michael's money.

I believe a staff writer completes the biographies on streaming sites. I do not believe the owner of those sites read the biographies; they trust the staff writer. Those owners would not know the biographies are rude unless fans of those artist complain.

I looked up the bio of Steve Huey, the staff writer. He joined the staff back when he was in college and so he came of age after 94 when Michael was known more for "other things" than his music.
I agree that these sites should be petitioned or we all should be writing letters to have the bios corrected-focus on the music.

 

[Paris78]

Agree with Pez !


MJJJusticeProject retweetete
Pez Dann @Pezdann ·

I'm glad the Estate has spoken out. Sadly that won't please everyone as we know all to well, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't

When it comes to claims such as these there is no room for personal vendetta or agenda. We need to be united.

 

[terrell]

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

Noboby cares about this nonsense and what these idoits are lying about now to try and make money. Folks have more important news to talk about like the cop shooting the guy in North Carolina in the back.

 

[ivy]

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

I so wish probate documents were available

04/03/2015 Declaration - Probate (OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RONALD J. ZONEN )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
04/03/2015 Response (RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO MOTION )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

Edited to add: This is clearly about 2005 and/or even 1993 discovery (depositions, testimony, evidence etc). But exactly what is going on is impossible to tell.

 

[Tygger]

Possibly I am too much in conspiracy mode, but I have been thinking about the events of these past days.

Follow the money trail as they say. You may discover who is funding this doomed venture.

Can we not turn this thread into a anti estate thread?

sigh

Would anyone care to explain the hypocritical purpose of equating a critique to an anti-estate stance for some posters and not all posters who critique as well? Please note this poster only has three posts on the forum which I do not believe is enough posts to render such judgment.

Fyi regarding Weitzman, you do know Cochran was lead attorney in 93 case?

sigh

Why do some fans still attempt to vilify Cochran? It did not matter if Michael wanted to fight the civil charges or not. One must understand that Michael was not going to be successful in the Chandler civil trial. Please let that simmer.

The only viable option that allow Michael’s career to continue past the Dangerous era (which was extremely important to Sony) was to negotiate a settlement. Cochran was the lead attorney (as he was the best of that legal team) and was the only person who personally said to Michael he could not guarantee a successful civil trial. That is the only response a lead attorney who is more concerned about their client than their payment should have given. It is clear such a concern is not being given to Robson/Safechuck by their legal team.

Yes, plenty of money to attract folks of their ilk. They want $$ from the Estate. Point. Blank. Period.

Indeed. Remember however; creditors attack assets.

There may have been ways to set up Michael's estate in a more ironclad/safe manner, but I don't think that would have made a single iota of difference to this guys. The statute of limitations is ironclad, too, isn't it? And that's not stopping either of them from going after Michael's money.

I appreciate your view however; particularly in this thread, I will disagree. If these charges are allowed, the Estate’s unprotected assets would be under attack. Conversely, if the assets were protected, Robson/Safechuck would only have access to income which is not as valuable as the unprotected assets.

Example: Xscape generated profit that went to the Estate in the form of income (not to be confused with net income received by Sony). That income most likely went to Estate expenses, reducing debt, and/or purchasing other assets. (We have not heard of additional distribution of funds to the trusts previously set up for the beneficiaries.) If those monies have already been distributed, where would Robson/Safechuck figure into the smaller amount of income remaining? Please remember this estate is still in probate. Depending on the amount of the civil award that would be distributed to two separate claimants (most likely for two separate amounts), assets would most likely have to be sold to satisfy the civil award. It is the same with any IRS settlement depending on the settlement amount.

As for the statute of limitations, the judge has to decide if the late claims will be allowed against a deceased person’s estate which would be a precedent. I see no evidence this will be successful. To attempt such, Robson/Safechuck’s legal team is most likely being funded while Robson/Safechuck dream of setting the precedent and receiving a large civil award causing assets to be sold.

 

[HIStory]

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

I so wish probate documents were available

04/03/2015 Declaration - Probate (OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RONALD J. ZONEN )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
04/03/2015 Response (RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO MOTION )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

Edited to add: This is clearly about 2005 and/or even 1993 discovery (depositions, testimony, evidence etc). But exactly what is going on is impossible to tell.

Thanks.

At this moment the focus should be on how Robson is within statutes of limitations. No matter how much they are going on about 2005/1993 that has nothing to do with whether he is within statutes, so yeah, I'd really like to see what they are trying to pull here.

From this all we know there was a Motion by Robson about something then the Estate objected it and now they respond to the objection accompanied with a declaration by Zonen. My guess is that the motion is about trying to introduce something (like you said, testimony, deposition, evidence etc.) from 2005/1993. But again, I fail to see how any of that would have anything to do with the statutes of limitations. But then we have seen that in that October 1 hearing Robson's lawyer kept going on about wanting to introduce "prior bad acts" even if the Judge told them he found that irrelevant at this point.

 

[CaptainEoLove85]

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

They're just trying to drag this out as long as possible. I wish the judge would put his foot down.

 

[ivy]

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

From this all we know there was a Motion by Robson about something then the Estate objected it and now they respond to the objection accompanied with a declaration by Zonen.

this could be from Estate as well. we know Estate filed a summary judgment motion and robson filed an opposition. The next step would be Estate's reply.

or it could be even from Zonen / district attorney's office as well - assuming Robson wanted something/some discovery and DA's office isn't cooperating.Remember how Brazil/Walgreen as third party opposed to giving discovery to the civil trials while Murray criminal trial was ongoing.

note: case summary generally refer to Robson as "claimant".

 

[HIStory]

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

I don't think Zonen would be non-cooperative with Robson. He hates MJ, he is probably very happy that this going on and I think he would assist Robson in any way he could.

What I note is that this is filed by "Attorney for Petitioner". Robson and Safechuck are always called Claimants in this court system, not Petitioners, so you may be right that this coming from someone else. But then maybe it's just an irrelevant detail or mistake in the system and it does come from Robson.

If this is about the summary judgement motion filed by the Estate then I don't know why Zonen would support that with a declaration. I mean: this is a response to an objection to the motion. If it's the Estate's summary judgement motion: Motion (filed by Estate) -> Objection (filed by Robson) -> and now this Response to the Objection (would have to come from the Estate/or someone in support of the Estate's summary Judgement). And I don't think Zonen would support anyone opposing what Robson wants to achieve.

 

[HIStory]

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

Scrolling through the names:

ZONEN RONALD J. - Attorney for Petitioner

THIRD PARTY CUSTODIANS OF RECORD - Petitioner

I guess this is the solution.

 

[ivy]

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

Scrolling through the names:

ZONEN RONALD J. - Attorney for Petitioner

THIRD PARTY CUSTODIANS OF RECORD - Petitioner

I guess this is the solution.

yep you got it. So the DA's office itself filed a response and declaration in regards to a discovery issue. Still exactly what they would be saying would be impossible to tell from just case summary.

I don't think Zonen would be non-cooperative with Robson. He hates MJ, he is probably very happy that this going on and I think he would assist Robson in any way he could.

I agree but as a DA there would still be some rules & procedures he needs to follow. For example he might need a court order before he turn over discovery or demand a protective order or have issues with third party privacy and so on.

 

[HIStory]

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

yep you got it. So the DA's office itself filed a response and declaration in regards to a discovery issue. Still exactly what they would be saying would be impossible to tell from just case summary.

Yes, it seems it has to do with the discovery requests and the "Motion" here is probably Robson's Motion to compel production of documents, objection is the Estate's objection to that and now Zonen responds to Estate's objection.

Just a reminder - the motion was filed last summer. Extract:

Again, I still cannot see how this has anything to do with whether he is within statutes of limitations which is the main point at this stage. I have to agree that these things just seem like a way to drag this on.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

I so wish probate documents were available

04/03/2015 Declaration - Probate (OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RONALD J. ZONEN )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
04/03/2015 Response (RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO MOTION )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

Edited to add: This is clearly about 2005 and/or even 1993 discovery (depositions, testimony, evidence etc). But exactly what is going on is impossible to tell.

Does this mean that Robson and Safechuck are in contact with Zonen?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I think it's stupid of them to bring up the 2005 case since Wade explicitly said he wasn't abused, kissed, touched by Michael. He's 10 years late with that claim, not 3 years or 6 months.

 

[aldebran]

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

One must understand that Michael was not going to be successful in the Chandler civil trial. Please let that simmer.

Why? The Chandler case was bogus. They had the photos and the description which themselves proved that Chandler lied.
Not to mention the Aug 4 1993 meeting, Chandler-Schwarz phone call, the lack of physical evidence, the lack of eyewitness,
no other accuser.

If you don't think they would have won a civil trial then you must think the Estate couldn't possibly win against Robson/Safejunk.

 

[aldebran]

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

Does this mean that Robson and Safechuck are in contact with Zonen?

I always wonder whether Zonen or anyone has access to those photos and could leak them to Robson so he could
claim that he knew how MJ looked.
Or that Sneddon was in contact with Robson and told him what was on those photos.

Does anyone else consider this a possibility?
Or it's impossible to get access to those photos without an independent witness?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

If they could do it they would have with Gavin. ^

 

[HIStory]

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

I always wonder whether Zonen or anyone has access to those photos and could leak them to Robson so he could
claim that he knew how MJ looked.
Or that Sneddon was in contact with Robson and told him what was on those photos.

Does anyone else consider this a possibility?
Or it's impossible to get access to those photos without an independent witness?

By now there are a lot of things we know about what's on those photos (eg. that MJ was not circumcised, or what Sneddon described about it in his declaration), so Robson making a claim about those photos would not mean a thing. Plus vitiligo is subject to changes. Robson claims an abuse of 7 years. So which period he's going to describe? Conveniently the same as what is in Sneddon's motion?

I don't think this is about those photos. This is, for example, about books and magazines which were introduced to court in 2005. This footnote is from the same motion that I posted that extract from:

So this is the kind of stuff they are looking to introduce (plus I'd guess also testimonies). Just inflammatory stuff that has nothing to do with an argument for statutes of limitations.

 

[aldebran]

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

If they could do it they would have with Gavin. ^

It's not the same since noone would believe that a vitiligo patient would have the same discolorations/patches
10 years later. That argument would have been ridiculous especially since MJ used Benouquin.
His dick didn't look in 2003 as it looked in 1993.

But 1993 May-June period is relevant to Robson's case.


I also wonder what he would say if someone asked OK you saw MJ naked in the shower in 1990 or 1991. How did he look?

This was the period when MJ's vitiligo got really extensive.
One reason why I think the allegations are ridiculous is that MJ wouldn't have exposed that body to ANYONE he would have died of embarrassment just like he almost did during the strip search. And those were grown men not kids! too bad TM didn't make that argument in 2005.

 

[aldebran]

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

By now there are a lot of things we know about what's on those photos (eg. that MJ was not circumcised, or what Sneddon described about it in his declaration)

Sneddon's declaration is so non-sensical and contradictory it means nothing. But a drawing could be convincing.
Although the jury should believe that Robson's memory is so great that he not only remembers how it looked in 1990-1993 but specifically how it looked in 1993 May-June.
That's hard to believe but unfortunately the mere claim that Chandler described MJ's penis was enough to convince people that he in face knew what he was doing instead of just guessing.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

You know the patches are not the only thing one can describe.

 

[aldebran]

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

You know the patches are not the only thing one can describe.

That's right. What if Robson sees the photos and can tell how long Mj's foreskin was in a placid state? How much his glans was covered.
This info is not in the autopsy report. He could argue that the only way for him to know that if he indeed saw the real thing.

Of course leaking the photos would be illegal but that never mattered when it comes to MJ.
And Sneddon simply could have told Robson while the bastard was still alive.

How could the Estate prove that Robson got the info from him?

 

[HIStory]

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

Sneddon's declaration is so non-sensical and contradictory it means nothing.

Sneddon's motion says there was a dark blemish on one side of MJ's penis. All Robson has to do is to claim the same. We know from MJ's autopsy he was not circumcised. All Robson has to do is to claim the same. We know that MJ had discoloration, vitiligo splotches all over his body, including his genitalia. All Robson has to do is to claim the same. At this point this would prove absolutely nothing, other than Robson doing due diligence on previous court papers and other readily available information. And yes, it would be a bit too convenient from him that after 7 years of alleged abuse he would be able to describe exactly how MJ's penis looked like in December 1993. In case they attempt to introduce the photos that will only be done to humiliate MJ and to try to stir more media attention by throwing in salacious stuff. I see no reason for a reasonable Judge to allow this as this has no probative value at this point. And especially in this phase of the case: they should focus more on statutes of limitations than stuff like this.

 

[aldebran]

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

Sneddon's motion says there was a dark blemish on one side of MJ's penis. All Robson has to do is to claim the same. We know from MJ's autopsy he was not circumcised. All Robson has to do is to claim the same. We know that MJ had discoloration, vitiligo splotches all over his body, including his genitalia. All Robson has to do is to claim the same. At this point this would prove absolutely nothing, other than Robson doing due diligence on previous court papers and other readily available information. And yes, it would be a bit too convenient from him that after 7 years of alleged abuse he would be able to describe exactly how MJ's penis looked like in December 1993. In case they attempt to introduce the photos that will only be done to humiliate MJ and to try to stir more media attention by throwing in salacious stuff. I see no reason for a reasonable Judge to allow this as this has no probative value at this point. And especially in this phase of the case: they should focus more on statutes of limitations than stuff like this.

OK but this would be a civil trial -- if it goes to trial. Just the mere idea that Robson described his penis and specified how long the foreskin was could sway jurors.
And if the Estate fought against the photos being introduced that would be seen as admission of guilt.
This is why Sneddon tried to pull this trick in 2005. He knew it was not a match but he knew they would not be introduced either so he forced TM to fight against it suggesting that it was indeed a match.
Yes humans are that moronic.

I just wonder what the Estate could do if Robson said something about the foreskin or shape of MJ's scrotum/penis some feature not related to vitiligo.

I'm sure Sneddon and DD also discussed those photos. DD knows how MJ looked don't doubt that. And DD is in bed with Safejunk and Robson.
It's all one big happy family.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Good Lord can we please stop it? More than ever it some of you are just looking for reasons to make yourself panic. Or IMO some of you are looking for ways the estate could loose just because who's in charge. Stop

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

How about the latter ^