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

[rsggamer123]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

so we will find out for sure whether or not the case goes ahead august 28th?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This Sneddon slip up is a little amusing!

Or maybe not exactly 'favours'...but 'threats' to deport unless....

I think it was both.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Or maybe not exactly 'favours'...but 'threats' to deport unless....

Exactly. Or both.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It wouldn't surprise me if Blanca stole those books and gave them to the police as "evidence," prosecution had no remorse fabricating evidence after all. The bribe to deport her makes sense as well.

 

[la_cienega]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So all that fuss about proof from the 2005 testimonies and all they got back was... stuff they already had before, that was in the public domain, that has been cross examined, that MJ was acquitted for.

Alright.

Not desperate at all.

Clearly has boundless evidence from all the years of the abuse, and it's amazing that the one true person in it all, was Blanca Francia, and without her there would be no witnesses or proof to these events at all ever. MJ who did all these elaborate schemes to keep people out and threaten to kill or brainwash this or that person, and he ignored the alarm going off as he was naked in a shower molesting a child and had the shower door already open for anyone to walk in, presumably even the child's mother. He messed up so bad, yet the only time this ever happened was with Blanca Francia once. Amazing, what a fortunate set of circumstances for the two of them.

 

[Amaya]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It really seems they upped their media game though. This is all about creating a constant media circus around this, constant negative publicity and trying to force the Estate to settle.

I have to wonder if this is also a way to influence the judge to let the claims go ahead, or because this year marks the 10th anniversary of the Arvizo trial and the media is trying to make a big hoopla about it by using these current accusations. Awful. I really hope people are smart enough to see how ****ed up this all truly is. It's been nearly two years and I've had enough.

 

[SarahJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Oh I have no doubt their piggy backing off the anniversary of the trial. Both Robsh*t's team and media. The media messed up terribly, going on and on how Michael was so obviously guilty and no way was going to get away this time, yada yada yada...Only to slink out of town with egg on their faces when he was completely vindicated. I suspect they're still mad over that.
They can spin any way they want but in the end, if by some chance this does go to trial, the result will be the same. Even though it's a civil trial I really have a hard time believing any jury is going to fall for such a weak non-existent case as his.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It wouldn't surprise me if Blanca stole those books and gave them to the police as "evidence," prosecution had no remorse fabricating evidence after all. The bribe to deport her makes sense as well.

Stole them to strengthen the case that Michael "molested" her son also-so she could get a big piece of the pie. No doubt.
Totally nutty story that should have been torn apart on the stand at the time. If someone leaves an employer, how would the police know it was her to call to get the key to open it-and why didn't they just drill the lock like they did everything else.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So all that fuss about proof from the 2005 testimonies and all they got back was... stuff they already had before, that was in the public domain, that has been cross examined, that MJ was acquitted for.

Alright.

Not desperate at all.

Clearly has boundless evidence from all the years of the abuse, and it's amazing that the one true person in it all, was Blanca Francia, and without her there would be no witnesses or proof to these events at all ever. MJ who did all these elaborate schemes to keep people out and threaten to kill or brainwash this or that person, and he ignored the alarm going off as he was naked in a shower molesting a child and had the shower door already open for anyone to walk in, presumably even the child's mother. He messed up so bad, yet the only time this ever happened was with Blanca Francia once. Amazing, what a fortunate set of circumstances for the two of them.

Right. And it's very telling that once again the media has to go on about "never before seen", "from the trial excluded" evidence to stir BS. Why keep going on about non-existent evidence if real evidence is so strong?

With all the talk about the media about $200 million to 20 victims and other supposed formely barred evidence, in court all they ever do is rehashing the same stuff that was presented in 2005. Now Blanca Francia's testimony.

Obviously this is the same strategy as in 1993, as in 2005 - trying to win the case in the court of public opinion by creating an alternative reality about it with the help of the media. How disappointed they will be when they find out there has never been any evidence of MJ paying off 20 people. Not in 1993, not in 2005, not now. It was not excluded from the trial, it simply does not exist other than in the media's fantasies.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Stole them to strengthen the case that Michael "molested" her son also-so she could get a big piece of the pie. No doubt.

I don't think at the time she contemplated the possibility of accusing Michael of molesting her son. That came only later, in late 1993. I think if she stole them then it probably rather has to go with her connection with Victor Gutierrez.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't think at the time she contemplated the possibility of accusing Michael of molesting her son. That came only later, in late 1993. I think if she stole them then it probably rather has to go with her connection with Victor Gutierrez.

Which housekeeper was it that stole a painting that Michael did of Elvis (or am I getting that straight?)

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Which housekeeper was it that stole a painting that Michael did of Elvis (or am I getting that straight?)

Adrian McMannus.

Blanca Francia stole a watch and a jacket and was caught "looking into" the purse of another employee...

 

[la_cienega]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Obviously this is the same strategy as in 1993, as in 2005 - trying to win the case in the court of public opinion by creating an alternative reality about it with the help of the media. How disappointed they will be when they find out there has never been any evidence of MJ paying off 20 people. Not in 1993, not in 2005, not now. It was not excluded from the trial, it simply does not exist other than in the media's fantasies.

The thing is, when the info never comes out, the public never hears about it. They only hear about this first part.

Or if it never comes out they can just then attribute it to the court/estate not allowing it out, but claiming it existed in secret documents.

It's pretending it's hidden and being suppressed that they're angling for, and the public tends to buy that. When it never gets exposed again Stacy will claim the estate just made sure it didn't get out. He's so predictable.

It's only us who knows right away that this $200 million stuff is laughable, that Stacy Brown is pathological and a proven documented court case liar, and that Blanca Francia is not a valid credible witness you need as your number 1 first resort port of call for proof.

 

[Tygger]

Personally I still find Tom very impressive defender of Michael. I do worry that the estate is being frightened into settling - not saying they will but I suppose tom is looking at this as he as the lawyer who dealt with the consequences of the settlement with j.c. This openned the door to more false allegations.

Indeed.

I will not choose a side between the clash of egos that is Mesereau and Weitzman. Mesereau had the advantage of defending a living person whom he could consult. Weitzman has a disadvantage because he can only defend Michael’s estate against accusations that are not leveled against it. I find no comfort in Weitzman’s suggestion of vindication in this scenario and I am not convince he believes in Michael's innocence.

There is a statue of limitations on perjury and Robson’s legal team has already laid a foundation that Robson most likely had impaired memory and most likely believed the statements he made during the 2005 criminal trial. Jurors can be unpredictable and they may very well develop sympathy for Robson/Safechuck when they did not for the Arvisos.

Robson is hoping the statements and information contained in these documents could aid his own case against Jackson. But how?

“Evidence that prosecutors were barred from presenting will be disclosed as it will be a civil case not a criminal one.”

Sources have added, “All of this is documented, and it will certainly help to sway a jury, particularly a civil jury who is not considering reasonable doubt but a preponderance of the evidence.”

Are staff writers at Inquisitor lurking in the thread and reading my posts?

If I understand correctly, Robson/Safechuck’s legal team is using Francis deposition from Chandler’s civil trial. Robson/Safechuck’s legal team most likely will utilize the legal strategy of the Chandlers' legal team. Opportunity lead to settlement in the past. Robson/Safechuck have 66% chance of a monetary remedy and at least a 33% chance of a settlement if these claims are allowed.

The Catholic Church does not have an assigned judge while the MJ Estate does. It is this same assigned judge that will decided if these claims will be allowed. I have stated this numerous times however; it bears repeating: if this judge allows these claims, it will be the destruction of this Estate. The act of allowing those claims alone will be the beacon of hope to every looter posing as a creditor to this Estate.

Why is this strange? Well, because the search took place on August 21, 1993. Blanca Francia has not worked for Michael since 1991...

So why was she called to open that cabinet? How and why she still had the keys to that after leaving employment for more than 2 years? How did the police know she had the keys to that particular file cabinet? Why didn't they just break into that file cabinet like they did during the search in 2003? This is just very strange to me. Something smells about this story to me.

You are aware of how Michael’s will/trust were discovered? It is not unusual for ex-employees to retain property that should have been returned upon termination.

 

[HIStory]

There is a statue of limitations on perjury and Robson’s legal team has already laid a foundation that Robson most likely had impaired memory and most likely believed the statements he made during the 2005 criminal trial.

So Robson believed that he did not shower with MJ when in fact he did? Or how does that work? Robson was asked very exact questions not vague ones which could be interpreted in many ways. "Have you ever been in the shower with MJ?" is a pretty straightforward question. And he does not claim repressed memory. So he basically has to admit to deliberate perjury. You are right that he can probably do that without legal consequences because the statutes of limitations on alleged perjury in 2005 most likely passed. Still it is not a good look to say that you lied under oath. But we are supposed to believe you now when you have a financial motive to turn around and claim that wasn't true and what you are saying now is the truth.

If I understand correctly, Robson/Safechuck’s legal team is using Francis deposition from Chandler’s civil trial.

So far they are using her testimony from 2005 in the court paper we have seen.

Robson/Safechuck’s legal team most likely will utilize the legal strategy of the Chandlers' legal team. Opportunity lead to settlement in the past. Robson/Safechuck have 66% chance of a monetary remedy and at least a 33% chance of a settlement if these claims are allowed.

Nice that you see the Estate's chances of winning this at 1%.

You are aware of how Michael’s will/trust were discovered? It is not unusual for ex-employees to retain property that should have been returned upon termination.

And your point is apart from wanting to bring up Branca and the Will?

The point is, why did the police call her to bring the key instead of just breaking in like they did with everything else? And how did they even know Francia, a maid that hasn't worked there for more than two years, had that particular key? Have you seen footage about the 2003 search? They did not have any qualms about breaking in locked drawers and cabinets, so I don't know why would they have qualms about breaking into that particular file cabinet. Instead they called Blanca and waited for her to bring over the key - moreover they knew she had the key to that cabinet.

[video=youtube;jrIDO3Z5QMU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrIDO3Z5QMU[/video]

Are staff writers at Inquisitor lurking in the thread and reading my posts?

No. They were just reading Stacy Brown's article. Those are quotes from that one.

We all know that a civil trial has a much lower burden of proof than a criminal trial, so that is a no-brainer, however there is no "evidence that prosecutors were barred from presenting will be disclosed as it will be a civil case not a criminal one”. At least not this fictional evidence of MJ paying off 20 victims with $200 million. That DOES NOT EXIST. That is a media myth. Okay? What they may bring up is the Jordan Chandler settlement, but it's not like that wasn't discussed in 2005. June Chandler testified and she was asked questions about it. The prosecution was only barred from bringing in the document itself, but the Jury did know about that settlement as it was discussed during June Chandler's testimony.

None of the other things mentioned here were barred. Blanca Francia did testify. Charlie Michaels was allowed by the Judge to testify only the prosecution did not call her for whatever reason. And Mark Quindoy was allowed to testify, but he supposedly died and that is why he did not appear (according to Diane Dimond at least). So none of this was "barred" from the criminal trial. It was all allowed. In fact, it was very pro-prosecution decision by the Judge to allow in all this "prior bad acts" testimony. So for the media now to act that somehow MJ was aquitted because damning evidence was not allowed is BS.

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

For some "fans" to act that way is bs.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The thing is, when the info never comes out, the public never hears about it. They only hear about this first part.

Or if it never comes out they can just then attribute it to the court/estate not allowing it out, but claiming it existed in secret documents.

It's pretending it's hidden and being suppressed that they're angling for, and the public tends to buy that. When it never gets exposed again Stacy will claim the estate just made sure it didn't get out. He's so predictable.

It's only us who knows right away that this $200 million stuff is laughable, that Stacy Brown is pathological and a proven documented court case liar, and that Blanca Francia is not a valid credible witness you need as your number 1 first resort port of call for proof.

I know what you mean. one advantage though, is like with the 2003 case, the prosecution built the hype from day one , continued with making bold accusations even during their opening statement but failed miserably on delivering the"bombshells" they had kept promising the public with. It is even worse now. The claims are ridiculously outrageous . the judge probably has no idea what happened in 2005 , so when he gives them access to everything back then , still they, being the desperate they are, do not ask for the "excluded" evidence of $ 200 millions the media is talking about , he would figure out that no such thing existed in the first place and instead of sympathizing with them he will sympathize with MJ whose reputation is being dragged through the mud for baseless lies. Their strategy will backfire because their mouthpieces in the media are promising big shit while Wade & Co can't back up those claims before the judge. The public might not b interested but the judge is and it is inevitable he will ask himself where is all the shit they are talking about. Even in the worst case scenario,the jurors , wont see 10% of what the media claimed Wade's side has.

 

[Bubs]

"If I understand correctly, Robson/Safechuck’s legal team is using Francis deposition from Chandler’s civil trial."

What did I miss? What Chandler's civil trial? There were no any sort of trial in 93 with Chandlers, unless I'm totally out of loop.

"You are aware of how Michael’s will/trust were discovered? It is not unusual for ex-employees to retain property that should have been returned upon termination."

After nearly 6 years, you should be aware of how the Will was discovered and get over that nonsense. Branca didn't draft the will/trust, nor do I think he had it at the time of MJ's death.
Google is your friend, ask Google


@Respect, I wonder that key thingy. Do you have any info why would Francia have the key for that drawer to beginning with. I find it odd that MJ would give his key to his drawer to his maid? Why would maid need to do any cleaning in drawers?


Second question, does anyone knows what's this is about?
Under probate, documents filed, there was this
04/02/2015 Creditor's Claim ($ UNDETERMINED )
Filed by Claimant

Is that related to WR case or new one?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

@Respect, I wonder that key thingy. Do you have any info why would Francia have the key for that drawer to beginning with. I find it odd that MJ would give his key to his drawer to his maid? Why would maid need to do any cleaning in drawers?

Well, that is the question. It's odd and it never made sense to me. Something smells about that story.

Second question, does anyone knows what's this is about?
Under probate, documents filed, there was this
04/02/2015 Creditor's Claim ($ UNDETERMINED )
Filed by Claimant

Is that related to WR case or new one?

There are a good number of Claimants in the system so it could be related to any of them. I cannot see any name among them that would suggest another accuser or something, if that is the question. But Ivy perhaps will know more.

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Franca was the only person in the 05 case who said she saw something involving Wade that IMO could be why they are using her. I'm a lay person who only has a high school diploma so perhaps I'm missing something but it sounds to me like the estate said that they are acting like the case is on its way to trial and this is an evidence motion

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Franca was the only person in the 05 case who said she sawsomething involving Wade that IMO could be why they are using her. I'm a lay person who only has a high school diplomaso perhaps I'm missing something but it sounds to me like the estate said thatthey are acting like the case is on its way to trial and this is an evidencemotion

I think it is. She has nothing to do with the statute of limitation.

 

[castor]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think it is. She has nothing to do with the statute of limitation.

Wait a minute. What makes you think the Estate thinks this will go on trial?
Why would they think it before summary judgement?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I know what you mean. one advantage though, is like with the 2003 case, the prosecution built the hype from day one , continued with making bold accusations even during their opening statement but failed miserably on delivering the"bombshells" they had kept promising the public with. It is even worse now. The claims are ridiculously outrageous . the judge probably has no idea what happened in 2005 , so when he gives them access to everything back then , still they, being the desperate they are, do not ask for the "excluded" evidence of $ 200 millions the media is talking about , he would figure out that no such thing existed in the first place and instead of sympathizing with them he will sympathize with MJ whose reputation is being dragged through the mud for baseless lies. Their strategy will backfire because their mouthpieces in the media are promising big shit while Wade & Co can't back up those claims before the judge. The public might not b interested but the judge is and it is inevitable he will ask himself where is all the shit they are talking about. Even in the worst case scenario,the jurors , wont see 10% of what the media claimed Wade's side has.

Yes, I agree. These accusers always rely on creating a media circus, but then the case falls flat in the courtroom. The media circus IMO has more than one purposes: to build a pressure to make the Estate/MJ settle, trying to work on public opinion building up prejudices and a "no smoke without fire" attitude in people - since the jury too will be made of people from the public, trying to also pressure the Judge. Of course, as a professional the Judge will have to look at the law and evidence actually presented to him, not hearsay about mysterious never seen evidence, but Judges are people too and you never know if you can play a little bit on his emotions and if that will result in decisions more in favour of the accusers. But as you said it can backfire too. Some Judges do not like when a case is fought in the media instead of the courtroom. Thing is though, that Robson will not directly associate with these journalists (like Stacy Brown) and publications. If he is in contact with any of them I am sure it is not a direct contact but through relatives or friends, so that he could not directly be linked to them. (Same way as the Chandlers used Ray Chandler as their mouthpiece.)

On the other hand there is some evidence of their tabloid whoring ways. The way his lawyers made comments on TMZ at the beginning. The way his lawyer Marzano immediately commented and endorsed that fake FBI file article in 2013. Robson's Today Show interview. The way his cousin constantly commented RadarOnline articles. The way both haters and the cousin told at one point not to read TMZ, but RadarOnline about the case. The way Safechuck's allegations leaked to Diane Dimond before the ink was dry on his complaint, right on time to interfere with the release of Xscape. (And Dimond actually referred to "sources close to Safechuck" in her article.)

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Wait a minute. What makes you think the Estate thinks this will go on trial?
Why would they think it before summary judgement?

I don't think they think that. I think Robson's lawyers think that.

 

[Bubs]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

There are a good number of Claimants in the system so it could be related to any of them. I cannot see any name among them that would suggest another accuser or something, if that is the question. But Ivy perhaps will know more.

I thought that WR goes ahead of himself and put the claim in.
That claim was nestled in between Wade's attorney's and Zonen's declaration:

04/03/2015 Declaration - Probate (OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RONALD J. ZONEN )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
04/02/2015 Creditor's Claim ($ UNDETERMINED )
Filed by Claimant
03/24/2015 Memorandum - Other (OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Claimant

so I thought Wade's attorneys were getting a tab bit arrogant, also the amount was put as undetermined. Wasn't that what they said at the beginning that they don't know yet?

Usually you could see Creditors claims the beginning of the probate, not so this late.

 

[castor]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't think they think that. I think Robson's lawyers think that.

Yeah but why?
Is that common practice with creditor claims?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I thought that WR goes ahead of himself and put the claim in.
That claim was nestled in between Wade's attorney's and Zonen's declaration:

04/03/2015 Declaration - Probate (OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RONALD J. ZONEN )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
04/02/2015 Creditor's Claim ($ UNDETERMINED )
Filed by Claimant
03/24/2015 Memorandum - Other (OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Claimant

so I thought Wade's attorneys were getting a tab bit arrogant, also the amount was put as undetermined. Wasn't that what they said at the beginning that they don't know yet?

Usually you could see Creditors claims the beginning of the probate, not so this late.

I think Robson's was this:

06/27/2013 Creditor's Claim
Filed by Attorney for Claimant

If it's related to Robson maybe there is a new amended CC or something. But then it could be related to anyone among the 20-30 claimants.

These are the names that are in the system. So it could be related to any of the claimants:

A4V DIGITAL INC. - Claimant
ABRAMS MICHAEL L. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
ADU NONA - AKA
AEG LIVE LLC - Petitioner
ALEXANDER VAN - Claimant
ALLGOOD CONCERTS LLC - Petitioner
ALLGOOD ENTERTAINMENT INC. - Petitioner
AQ BUSINESS CONSULTANTS WLL - Petitioner
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP - Claimant
ARONS RICHARD - Petitioner
ATKINS GRAHAM - Claimant
ATKINS THOMSON SOLICITORS - Claimant
AYSCOUGH & MARAR - Claimant
BACHUS JURGEN - Claimant
BAIN RAYMONE K. - Claimant
BARRY JARED A. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
BENNETT ROBERT E. ATTORNEY AT LAW - Attorney for Claimant
BLECHER MAXWELL M. ESQ. - Associated Counsel
BODDICKER MICHAEL - Claimant
BONDER TODD W. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
BONE WILLIAM - Claimant
BONNER ERLE - Claimant
BRADLEY EDWIN ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
BRANCA JOHN - Petitioner
BRAVADO INTL GROUP MERCHANDISING SVC INC - Petitioner
BROWN FLETCHER - Attorney for Claimant
BUA JOSEPH D. SR. - Probate Referee
BUIE CHARLENE - Objector
BUXER BRADLEY - Petitioner
BYRNE JOHN M. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant
Click on any of the below link(s) to see names that begin with the letter indicated:
TOP A - B C - F G - J K - M N - S T - Z
CANNON & COMPANY CPAS LLP - Claimant
CHARNLEY RICHARD L. - Attorney for Claimant
COHEN JERYLL S. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
CONSULTANT FOR THE MICHAEL JACKSON CO LLC - Petitioner
COURTCALL LLC - Claimant
CROSS GREGORY A. - Claimant
CROWE HORWATH LLP - Petitioner
CURRY JAMES. E. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
CUTROW ALLAN B. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
DANIELSON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Surety Company
DEIXLER BERT H. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
DEMANN ENTERTAINMENT INC. - Petitioner
DEWEY & LEBOEUG LLP - Petitioner in Pro Per
DIVENS JON A. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant
DOUGLAS D. MICHELLE ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
DUSHKES LARRY S. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
EL-AMIN QADREE - Objector
FAZIO JEFFREY L. - Attorney for Objector
FEINSWOG KENNETH A. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
FELDMAN MILES J. - Attorney for Claimant
FORD JUSTIN - Attorney for Petitioner
Click on any of the below link(s) to see names that begin with the letter indicated:
TOP A - B C - F G - J K - M N - S T - Z
GENESIS GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC. - Claimant
GEORGE ERIC M. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
GRADSTEIN HENRY - Attorney for Claimant
GREBE SIBYLLE ESQ. - Former Attorney for Petitioner
GRIGGS KIMBERLY L. - Petitioner
GRIM LERUE - Attorney for Petitioner
GRIVAKES CHRISTOPHER ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
GROSS ELISHA - Claimant
GROTKE JEFF ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
HANSELL DEAN ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
HARRIS-SCOTT HELEN M. - Claimant
HERBERT DANIEL B. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
HILL GARY J. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
HOFFMAN PAUL GORDON ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
HORNBERGER NICHOLAS W. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant
IGLESIAS ANER - Claimant
IN PRO PER - Attorney for Petitioner
INTERMEDIA PRODUCTIONS LIMITED - Claimant
IRDE AVINASH BRUNO - Petitioner
JACKSON ALEJANDRA - Objector
JACKSON BILLIE JEAN - Petitioner
JACKSON DONTE WILLIAMS - Objector
JACKSON GENEVIEVE - Objector
JACKSON II PRINCE MICHAEL JOSEPH - Minor
JACKSON JOSEPH WALTER - Petitioner
JACKSON JR. PRINCE MICHAEL - Minor
JACKSON KATHERINE ESTHER - Petitioner
JACKSON MICHAEL - AKA
JACKSON MICHAEL JOSEPH - Subject Person
JACKSON MOCIENNE ELIZABETH PETIT - Petitioner
JACKSON MOCIENNE PETIT - Petitioner
JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN - Petitioner
JACKSON PARIS MICHAEL KATHERINE - Minor
JACKSON PRINCE MICHAEL MALACHI JET - Claimant
JACKSON RANDY JR. - Objector
JACKSON-RICHIE NONA BONNIE BIANCA - Petitioner
JOHNSON CRAIG A. - Petitioner
JOHNSON DANIEL ALBERT - Attorney for Claimant
JORRIE KATHY A. - Attorney for Petitioner
Click on any of the below link(s) to see names that begin with the letter indicated:
TOP A - B C - F G - J K - M N - S T - Z
KABC-TV - Real Party in Interest
KAI CHASE INCORPORATED - Petitioner
KALBIAN HAIG V. - Petitioner
KASHFIAN RYAN D. ESQ. - Attorney for Objector
KCAL 9/CBS 2 NEWS - Real Party in Interest
KING ADEAN - Claimant
KLEIN ARNOLD W. M.D. - Claimant
KLEINBERG LOPEZ LANGE CUDDY AND KLEIN LLP - Petitioner
KNBC-TV - Real Party in Interest
KTLA-NEWS - Real Party in Interest
LAINER SIDNEY ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
LANDIS JOHN - Claimant
LAPOINTE RICHARD - Claimant
LEVITCH BURT ATTORNEY AT LAW - Former Attorney for Pltf/Petn
LEVITSKY PRODUCTIONS INC. - Claimant
LODISE MARGARET G. ESQ. - PVP Attorney
LOWE STEPHEN M. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
MALINGAGIO PAUL S. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant
MALINGAGIO PAUL S. ESQ. - Attorney for Respondent
MAREQUE JOSE TADEO - Petitioner
MARZANO MARYANN R. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant
MAYER & M&J INC. DBA VIDEO & AUDIO CNTR - Claimant
MCCLAIN JOHN - Petitioner
MCMILLAN CLAIRE C. HOMESCHOOL EXPERT - Claimant
MILLER-GINSBURG CATHY S. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant
MILLET PATRICIA A. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
MODABBER ZIA F. - Attorney for Executor
MOORE KEVIN J. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
MORRIS BRODERICK - Objector
MUNDELL THOMAS C. ESQ. - Petitioner in Pro Per
MUNDELL THOMAS C. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant
Click on any of the below link(s) to see names that begin with the letter indicated:
TOP A - B C - F G - J K - M N - S T - Z
NEDERLANDER PRESENTATIONS INC. - Claimant
NEWT RONNIE L. - Petitioner
OXMAN R. BRIAN ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
PAPIANO NEIL ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant
PARRISH LYNDA L. - Claimant
PATEL SHARAD CHANDRA - Claimant
PORZILLI LOU - Claimant
PRICE DYLAN J. - Attorney for Respondent
RANJACK GROUP INC. - Claimant
RAY OLA - Claimant
REIMANN NANCY B. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant
RESEARCH VIDEO INC. - Claimant
RIBERA SANDRA LYNN - Attorney for Petitioner
ROBSON WADE - Claimant
RONAY PETER E. LAW OFFICE OF - Attorney for Petitioner
ROWE DEBORAH J. - Petitioner
SAFECHUCK JAMES - Claimant
SCHREIBER JOHN E. - Attorney for Petitioner
SEGAL LAWRENCE ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant
SEGYE TIMES INC. - Petitioner
SHAPIRO SAMUEL D. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
SHEINBERG JONATHAN - Petitioner
SHERIDAN LYNDA - Claimant
SIGNAL HILL CAPITAL GROUP LLC - Petitioner
SLATER MATTHEW A. - Attorney for Claimant
SMITH LAVELLE JR. - Claimant
SMITH SHELLIE D. - Petitioner
STABLER & ASSOCIATES INC. - Claimant
STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD - Claimant
STINKYFILMS INC. - Claimant
STREISAND ADAM F. LAW OFFICES OF - Former Attorney for Pltf/Petn
SUNSHINE RANDALL J. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
SUPERIOR COURT - Court
Click on any of the below link(s) to see names that begin with the letter indicated:
TOP A - B C - F G - J K - M N - S T - Z
THE MACHINE MANAGEMENT LLC - Petitioner
THIRD PARTY CUSTODIANS OF RECORD - Petitioner
TOHME TOHME R. DR. - Claimant
TRAGER TIMOTHY J. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING GROUP - Petitioner
VALLEJO JOSE FREDDIE - Petitioner
WADE LORI ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
WANDER PERRY C. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant
WEINSTEN MICHAEL E. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant
WEITZMAN HOWARD ESQ - Attorney for Petitioner
WEITZMAN HOWARD ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner
WHATTOFF RANDALL C. - Attorney for Petitioner
WILLIAMS DIANE SIMMONS CPA - Claimant
WOLF KENNETH S. ATTORNEY AT LAW - Attorney for Petitioner
YU SUSAN C. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant
ZONEN RONALD J. - Attorney for Petitioner

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yeah but why?
Is that common practice with creditor claims?

To be honest I don't know what's common in such cases. The reason I think that is because Blanca Francia testimony is irrelevant to current problem of Wade's case which is the statute of limitations. Like Justthefacts said it looks like an evidence motion.

 

[castor]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

To be honest I don't know what's common in such cases. The reason I think that is because Blanca Francia testimony is irrelevant to current problem of Wade's case which is the statute of limitations. Like Justthefacts said it looks like an evidence motion.

They want to pressure the judge or what?
The judge must know that prosecution motions prove nothing, that Francia was cross-examined and her testimony wasn't even in line with what the motion said.

Also, the Estate would not introduce Francia's deposition where she said she never saw anyone with MJ and only heard one voice and Robson's own testimony where
he denied TWICE that he ever took a shower with MJ?

This shower story doesn't make a freaking sense anyway on many levels.
The alarm which MJ supposedly didn't hear but Francia somehow heard laughter. How loud could the laughter of a 7 year old be that she could hear that while MJ didn't hear the alarm?
And how convenient that this alarm which supposedly was installed to protect MJ from getting caught does not work just when some Gutierez friendly tabloid whore walks in and just when he is molesting someone! Very believable.

The floor plan of the bedroom suit also shows that for Francia to see if anyone in the shower she should have walked in the bathroom and stood where MJ would have noticed her.

At 2:10 you can see the floor plan of the first floor. The suite is on the right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1RVc01pCw#t=142

The shower in question is the one at the jacuzzi area.
There was a wall separating the shower and the toilet.
No way Francia could have seen anyone just by standing at the door.
And no way that MJ would have tolerated such an invasion of privacy she would have been fired instantly.

And this is just another reason why the story is bogus:

Michael's intense shyness and self consciousness must also be considered here. This is a person who wears sunglasses and sometimes a surgical mask in public so people can't see his face. As a teenager he had acne on his face that caused so much distress for him that he stopped looking at people in the eye, and he would wash his face in the dark so he wouldn't have to look at his own reflection in the mirror. That hardly sounds like someone who would allow his household staff to parade around his bathroom while he was naked. In addition to his own shyness and modesty, Michael suffers from vitiligo which destroys the pigmentation of the skin, causing blotching. Sufferers of vitiligo tend to become very self conscious of the blotching. So, in addition to his already extreme shyness, and his skin disorder, Michael is supposed to have allowed his housekeeper to not only see him naked in the shower, but allowed her to enter his private quarters when he was in the shower with a young boy!
During the course of the interview, Francia said Michael would give her bonuses; gifts and cash, in return for her to lie to Katherine Jackson, telling her Michael wasn't home when in fact he was. Francia said in return for these "bonuses", she didn't mind lying to Mrs. Jackson for Michael. But her statements here are supposed to be believable even though she accepted $20,000 to say them! She accepted money to lie before but this was the truth!

Source: The King of Pop's darkest hour.

I don't know why TM didn't make these arguments.
On the one hand haters argue that MJ was paranoid and so careful that he had the alarm, multiple locks and eavesdropping devices but at the same time
they say he didn't give a damn if someone just walked in while he was molesting boys, requested vaseline from a guard and opened the door in an excited state while a boy was in the room, ordered french fries and while waiting for the cook he molested a boy, he molested Jason while his mother was around and could walk in any time etc.

It's just absurd.

Of course for these ex-employees to have a story they had to paint a picture that MJ didn't really care if he was caught or was not cautious at all since how else could they have seen anything. It just happens to contradict Sneddon's other narrative of an ultra-careful molester.

It's also very interesting that out of the hundreds of people who worked in Neverland between 1988-2005 the only ones who "saw something"
were 1. fired 2. sued MJ 3. were sued by MJ and lost 3. were thieves 4. were felons 5. sold lies to tabloids and most of all
NONE of them said a bad word about MJ BEFORE the Chandler thing opened the opportunity to make loads of money with such claims.

They not only didn't call the police, but didn't talk to the parents or confront MJ or mention anything to colleges or family members!
Not a thing.

And it didn't just happen with one of them but ALL of them.

Could someone calculate the probablity of that happening in the real world?

The only common theme with these "witnesses" is money. Surprise surprise.

If this shit goes to trial I think that should be the main argument: every accuser and every witness had an ulterior motive. Every single one of them tried to cash in.
What are the chances that a real pedophile would only have such accusers and such witnesses especially in a place where hundreds of people worked including current and former
police officers?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't know why TM didn't make these arguments.

I guess it just wasn't needed at the time since Robson himself denied it.

On the one hand haters argue that MJ was paranoid and so careful that he had the alarm, multiple locks and eavesdropping devices but at the same time
they say he didn't give a damn if someone just walked in while he was molesting boys, requested vaseline from a guard and opened the door in an excited state while a boy was in the room, ordered french fries and while waiting for the cook he molested a boy, he molested Jason while his mother was around and could walk in any time etc.

It's just absurd.

I know. They cannot even create a coherent story. Was MJ extremely careful and extremely cunning which is why they never found any real evidence on him, or did he not mind doing stuff in front of his employees, like being in bed with kids (half) nude while those employees were around or all those stories that you mentioned (molesting a boy while waiting for an employee to deliver food, molesting Jason Francia while his mother is in the condo, ordering vaseline from an employee to molest a boy etc.) Which one is it?

It's also very interesting that out of the hundreds of people who worked in Neverland between 1988-2005 the only ones who "saw something"
were 1. fired 2. sued MJ 3. were sued by MJ and lost 3. were thieves 4. were felons 5. sold lies to tabloids and most of all
NONE of them said a bad word about MJ BEFORE the Chandler thing opened the opportunity to make loads of money with such claims.

They not only didn't call the police, but didn't talk to the parents or confront MJ or mention anything to colleges or family members!
Not a thing.

And it didn't just happen with one of them but ALL of them.

Could someone calculate the probablity of that happening in the real world?

Exactly. Not one of these prosecution witnesses did what normal people would usually do after witnessing such things. Which is that you either tell authorities or to someone in authority. And no, the "I feared to lose my job" excuse does not work. One because many of these witnesses actually lost their job with MJ way before they made their allegations and even then they did not turn to authorities, second, who the heck would want to keep working for a guy who is molesting children? In fact these people kept bringing their own children around Michael - Blanca Francia included. Why if they saw things they claim to have seen? Adrian McManus too said in a deposition in December 1993 that she would have no problem leaving her son alone with Michael. Then her story changed when she realized she could file a lawsuit against Michael. I think Kassim Abdool too took his child to Neverland. Why if he witnessed Michael molest a boy?

I mean maybe there are some people who are so utterly clueless and useless, but each one of them? Like you said, very, very hard to believe.