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

[Justthefacts]

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

I agree.

 

[aldebran]

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

I'm certainly don't want the Estate to lose, those photos and the connections between these bozos bothered me from the beginning.
If you were Robson wouldn't you want to see those photos?

 

[Justthefacts]

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

My name is Karen. Not Wade. And the only person I can be is Karen

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

My name is Karen. Not Wade. And the only person I can be is Karen

:rofl:

 

[aldebran]

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

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.

I'm pretty sure they are looking for something to prove that someone in the companies had reason to know about the abuse.
But I don't understand why the Estate doesn't argue that Robson, his sister and his mother ALL said after 1993 that MJ was innocent so why the heck should anyone
anywhere else have reason to know that Robson was lying?

The Estate's response to the third compaint did not include this. Instead they cited a case where the LAPD knew much more about a pedo and the Supreme Court still didn't allow the plaintiff to sue them.

Could someone explain why the Estate did not refer to what Wade, Chantal and Joy all said both under oath and in interviews?

 

[HIStory]

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

I'm pretty sure they are looking for something to prove that someone in the companies had reason to know about the abuse.
But I don't understand why the Estate doesn't argue that Robson, his sister and his mother ALL said after 1993 that MJ was innocent so why the heck should anyone
anywhere else have reason to know that Robson was lying?

The Estate's response to the third compaint did not include this. Instead they cited a case where the LAPD knew much more about a pedo and the Supreme Court still didn't allow the plaintiff to sue them.

Could someone explain why the Estate did not refer to what Wade, Chantal and Joy all said both under oath and in interviews?

That's because Robson does not claim that his mother or sister knew anything. The Estate refers to this in their latest demurrer:

To me it is actually very telling how much Robson is trying to keep his mother out of it. If he was really abused then he should be the most mad at his mother (other than MJ) not trying to make struggle allegations against MJ's companies, Norma Staikos, Branca etc. How are MJ's companies responsible, how were they supposed to know when his own mother did not and when his own sister who slept in the same room did not?

 

[aldebran]

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

That's because Robson does not claim that his mother or sister knew anything. The Estate refers to this in their latest demurrer:

That's precisely the reason why they should have argued that Norma Staikos couldn't have possibly known since all three Robsons said that MJ was innocent.
But this is not what the Estate said even though it's a no brainer.
The judge should have been reminded of the absurdity of Robson's claim: people at the company knew what was going on despite he his sister and his mother all denying it??
Why the heck didn't the Estate make this argument?

 

[Justthefacts]

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

That's precisely the reason why they should have argued that Norma Staikos couldn't have possibly known since all three Robsons said that MJ was innocent.
But this is not what the Estate said even though it's a no brainer.
The judge should have been reminded of the absurdity of Robson's claim: people at the company knew what was going on despite he his sister and his mother all denying it??
Why the heck didn't the Estate make this argument?

Does not matter the judge has to accept what Roberson says has true no matter how it sounds. They know what they are doing

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

^ Yes and we're not there yet

 

[aldebran]

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

Does not matter the judge has to accept what Roberson says has true no matter how it sounds. They know what they are doing

No you don't understand.
I'm talking about the Estate's recent response as to why the companies didn't know and had no reason to know about the sexual abuse.
There they didn't even mention that Norma Staikos had no reason to know because the Robsons themselves were adamant that MJ was innocent.

Instead they argue that even if Staikos said don't leave kids alone with Michael that would not be sufficient because it would only put the companies on notice
which is not enough under the statue.

Why didn't they state the most obvious reason why the companies had no reason to know is beyond me. :banghead
Instead they cited Doe vs. City of LA where the LAPD knew a lot about a pedo they still couldn't be sued.

 

[HIStory]

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

That's precisely the reason why they should have argued that Norma Staikos couldn't have possibly known since all three Robsons said that MJ was innocent.
But this is not what the Estate said even though it's a no brainer.
The judge should have been reminded of the absurdity of Robson's claim: people at the company knew what was going on despite he his sister and his mother all denying it??
Why the heck didn't the Estate make this argument?

I agree that in this particular case it's absurd to accuse MJ's companies of "knowing" when Joy Robson herself claims not to have known, but at this stage I think a Plaintiff's claims have to be addressed as if they are true (no matter how improbable). So if Robson's claim is that Norma Staikos supposedly saying "do not leave kids alone with MJ" is evidence for MJ's companies "knowing" then they will have to address that claim and show from a legal POV why even IF that is true that is not sufficient to prove that MJ's companies "had a reason to know". Arguing about whether Norma Staikos really knew or did not know something is not for this stage of the process, I believe. At this stage every allegation of the Plaintiff has to be treated as "true" and for the Estate the task is to show why "even IF it is true this is not sufficient to put you within statutes of limitations".

 

[aldebran]

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

I agree that in this particular case it's absurd to accuse MJ's companies of "knowing" when Joy Robson herself claims not to have known, but at this stage I think a Plaintiff's claims have to be addressed as if they are true (no matter how improbable). So if Robson's claim is that Norma Staikos supposedly saying "do not leave kids alone with MJ" is evidence for MJ's companies "knowing" then they will have to address that claim and show from a legal POV why even IF that is true that is not sufficient to prove that MJ's companies "had a reason to know". Arguing about whether Norma Staikos really knew or did not know something is not for this stage of the process, I believe. At this stage every allegation of the Plaintiff has to be treated as "true" and for the Estate the task is to show why "even IF it is true this is not sufficient to put you within statutes of limitations".

OK so in case this survives the demurrer then they would start to argue that Staikos couldn't have possibly known and that she told this to people is bogus or taken out of context?
If they don't make the Robsons said he was innocent argument at this stage when will they make it?

 

[jaydom7]

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

The fact that Robson has not mentioned his Mother once is very telling.. Joy Robson testified at MJ's trial, basically saying that she was there a lot of the time and they would be there and MJ wasn't.. And if Joy didn't know and Chantal didn't know how the heck would the 'companies' know?

 

[HIStory]

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

OK so in case this survives the demurrer then they would start to argue that Staikos couldn't have possibly known and that she told this to people is bogus or taken out of context?
If they don't make the Robsons said he was innocent argument at this stage when will they make it?

I would say yes, if it survives the demurrer stage then there will be more arguments about what is true and what is not and what is taken out of context etc. during the summary judgement stage.

Why didn't they state the most obvious reason why the companies had no reason to know is beyond me. :banghead:

Here they do state that Robson does not claim that his mother knew anything:

Could it be more emphasized in their demurrer that if Robson's mother did not know how should the companies have? Maybe, but theoretically and generally speaking it is not impossible for an employee or a company to know something that a mother does not. Yes, in this case this is totally absurd, knowing that Joy was the closest to the whole situation as a pretty controlling mother etc, so I fully agree that it does not make any sense, but like I said no matter how absurd and improbable a story is, at this stage it has to be discussed as if it is true and the legal arguments are about "even IF everything is how you say it this does not put you within statutes of limitations".

 

[jaydom7]

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

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.

Robson said under oath that he never saw MJ naked at all.. His answers were specific and Mesereau asked him detailed questions which he responded yes or no too.. That's why his whole 'I didn't know what sex abuse' is was absurb.. He was asked and answered very specific questions that was yes or no responses so he either lied under oath or he didn't... There's no way a 23 year old man doesn't know what abuse is or inappropriate touching.

 

[jaydom7]

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

so in this case the estate is the petitioner? and Zonen responded to the petitioner? Maybe the Estate wanted access to Wade's under oath testimony. Does that have to be requested?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Robson said under oath that he never saw MJ naked at all.. His answers were specific and Mesereau asked him detailed questions which he responded yes or no too.. That's why his whole 'I didn't know what sex abuse' is was absurb.. He was asked and answered very specific questions that was yes or no responses so he either lied under oath or he didn't... There's no way a 23 year old man doesn't know what abuse is or inappropriate touching.

Right. The term "abuse" or "wrong" are things you need to comprehend, it's far-fetched that a 20 something years old man doesn't realize rape is wrong or a sexual abuse, but I get the argument for this sake. The thing is he was asked about specific actions - touching, kissing, hugging, sleeping, seeing Michael naked etc. these are not things you need to realize or understand. Either it happened or did not. He was asked if Michael touched him, he said no. There's nothing there to not realize.

 

[jaydom7]

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

Right. The term "abuse" or "wrong" are things you need to comprehend, it's far-fetched that a 20 something years old man doesn't realize rape is wrong or a sexual abuse, but I get the argument for this sake. The thing is he was asked about specific actions - touching, kissing, hugging, sleeping, seeing Michael naked etc. these are not things you need to realize or understand. Either it happened or did not. He was asked if Michael touched him, he said no. There's nothing there to not realize.

Exactly!! Nothing to realize when he's asked specifc questions like did he do this to you ' yes 'or 'no'? Wade answered no to all of them so is he now saying that he doesn't know what 'yes or no' mean??:busted:

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I don't get what he's trying to claim, does he think people are that stupid? Plus we know for a fact he had sex at that point of his life so it's not like he didn't know what sex is either.

 

[HIStory]

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

so in this case the estate is the petitioner? and Zonen responded to the petitioner? Maybe the Estate wanted access to Wade's under oath testimony. Does that have to be requested?

Petitioner is the Santa Barbara Police Department (as a third party custodian of documents) and the Attorney for Petitioner is Zonen.

I don't get what he's trying to claim, does he think people are that stupid? Plus we know for a fact he had sex at that point of his life so it's not like he didn't know what sex is either.

What he is trying to claim is a mess, no wonder no one understands it. Consider also that MJ supposedly told him that "they are making up these lies about us and they say we did this disgusting sexual stuff". So again, after his supposed "god" was telling him that how did that still not ring a bell? Like: "Wait! Did he say disgusting sexual stuff? How is that consistent with saying it is love?" Just a bunch of nonsense, doesn't make sense either way.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

He must think the whole world is a bunch of idiots. His supporters are fools. Even if they believe MJ is guilty, one has to be an idiot to believe Wade's claims.

 

[PoP]

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

He must think the whole world is a bunch of idiots. His supporters are fools. Even if they believe MJ is guilty, one has to be an idiot to believe Wade's claims.

He's the real idiot and I've always say that every MJ haters are the most retarded people on this planet.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

He's the real idiot and I've always say that every MJ haters are the most retarded people on this planet.

 

[jaydom7]

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

right...allegedly MJ told him it was 'disgusting' so why wouldn't he know it was wrong after 20 years? and how can he equate 'disgusting' sexual stuff with 'he told me it was love'??? doesn't make one bit of sense.

 

[aldebran]

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

Robson clearly tries to make the case that the mere existence of the 1993 allegations was enough reason to know that he was abused.

Putting aside what he, his sister and his mother said after 1993 the Estate didn't challenge that notion either in their response.
Just because Evan Chandler and his drugged puppet farted one doesn't have to believe what they said especially since MJ wasn't even charged and
there was no proof to support those allegations.
A reasonable person, especially one who personally knew MJ and his character, would reasonably conclude that the 1993 case was bogus especially since the Robsons thought they were bogus too.
Any decision that would allow this case go forward would basically tell: I don't care what you were really thinking, I know that you knew he was abused, period.

I don't understand why the Estate didn't even address this and wrote this instead:

Here. there are virtually no allegations regarding the Corporate Defendants alleged knowledge of
"unlawful sexual conduct" prior to when the alleged abuse began, or at any times prior to the 1993
allegations (which likely still do not suffice under the Supreme Court's reasoning in Doe v. City of LA)
to support a finding that the Corporate Defendants "knew or had reason to know or was otherwise on notice,
of any unlawful sexual conduct." indeed the facts here are nowhere close to the allegations in Doe v. City of LA, which the
Supreme Court held were insufficient as a matter of law at the demurrer stage.
At best, the facts alleged here would put a corporation inquiry notice, which is not enough under the statute.

I'm afraid in light of what the judge said during the hearing, that because of the 1993 case and Jason Francia and because MJ was an agent
a liberal interpretation of the complaint would put the case within 340.1(b)(2) the Estate's response is weak.
They didn't even argue why the 1993 case would not make anyone believe that MJ was abusing Robson!

Of course the whole claim is nonsense as the Corporations didn't control MJ but the judge already knew that when he made that comment.
He simply ignored it. :doh:

If this survives demurrer stage will Robson have to PROVE that someone knew for this to go to trial?

 

[Tygger]

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

Adlebran, the burden of proof is lower in a civil trial than it is in a criminal trial. The prosecution only needed to show Michael had the opportunity to commit the acts he was accused of by the Chandlers so he would be found liable.

For Robson/Safechuck, the only barrier between them and the unprotected assets is this judge. What pass events gave this legal team the belief this judge would possibly consider a precedent? The opportunity for a settlement even can only happen when the claim(s) is allowed by this judge.

Currently, this venture is only effectively draining Estate funds. Weitzman released a baffling statement where he is seemingly looking forward to going to trial. I do not believe the judge should allow these claims. If he does, I can only see it as a willful destruction of the estate by several parties.

 

[ivy]

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

Robson clearly tries to make the case that the mere existence of the 1993 allegations was enough reason to know that he was abused.
They didn't even argue why the 1993 case would not make anyone believe that MJ was abusing Robson!

first of all they did mention it during a hearing and on documents why 1993 allegations are irrevelant. Secondly 1993 allegations doesn't help Robson. His alleged abuse predates 1993 allegations.

For Robson/Safechuck, the only barrier between them and the unprotected assets is this judge.

not quite. even if the judge allows the late claim, there will still be an appeal, if that's is unsuccessful there will still be trial and a jury. It's not that easy. and we know from previous examples that just because burden of proof is lower in a civil trial doesn't mean a civil trial could easily be won.

 

[HIStory]

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

Robson clearly tries to make the case that the mere existence of the 1993 allegations was enough reason to know that he was abused.

Putting aside what he, his sister and his mother said after 1993 the Estate didn't challenge that notion either in their response.

They did challenge it in their earlier demurrer. And from this you also learn why the Estate cited that particular precedent: because that's what Robson is relying on:

I'm afraid in light of what the judge said during the hearing, that because of the 1993 case and Jason Francia and because MJ was an agent
a liberal interpretation of the complaint would put the case within 340.1(b)(2) the Estate's response is weak.

How so?

They didn't even argue why the 1993 case would not make anyone believe that MJ was abusing Robson!

They did. See above.

 

[Tygger]

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

Ivy, allowing the claims is the beginning of the end of the estate. There is no need for Weitfzman to pretend to be a hero as Michael was already vindicated. If Cochran as lead attorney knew he could not be successful and Michael was among the living, all the more foolish of Weitzman. Monies drain from the estate with the extensions and now the suggestions of appeals.....

This trial should not be confused with the AEG wrongful death trial.

 

[terrell]

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.

And do not forget these guys said they were NOT abuse in 1993 as well. Wade even went on to praise MJ even AFTER death. Anyone who take these guys serious is stupid.