My own commentary to this:
So Robson did not only talk to Ciruqe about the project but to John Branca himself? He was in his office talking to him in Branca's position as the executor of the Estate. Yet he did not know about the administration of the Estate. LOL. OK.
From a legal POV: so the way they are trying to circumvent the "knowlede about the adminitration of the Estate" thing is claiming that although Robson was aware of the entertainment side of the Estate he was not aware of him being able to sue them. To me that sounds quite stupid, but for the sake of argument - the law says precisely:
(2) The creditor had no knowledge of the facts reasonably giving rise to the existence of the claim more than 30 days prior to the time for filing a claim as provided in Section 9100, and the petition is filed within 60 days after the creditor has actual knowledge of both of the following:
(A) The existence of the facts reasonably giving rise to the existence of the claim.
(B) The administration of the estate.
Knowledge of the administration of the Estate. Period. Not knowledge of whether you are able to sue or not. That you had a complaint and did not do due dilligence in discovering your legal possibilities in right time is no one's fault but yours. I don't think this should be a basis to circumvent statutes. Otherwise anyone could claim this about anything. "Oh I know all the facts giving rise to my claim for 10 years but I was only recently advised by a lawyer that I am able to sue - since I am a layperson I did not know this so far". I don't know but to me allowing this argument would set a bad precedent in circumventing statutes.
I tried to find precedents about what constitutes as knowledge about the administration of the Estate, but I could not really find anything similar to Robson's claims. The precedent I found is about a case where the dispute was about whether the executor's of an Estate were required to send a notice of the administration to the Plaintiff and if they did not whether that still means under the circumstances of that case that the Plaintiff's filing was too late. So this is a very different case, but I found something in it from which maybe we could derive something about the logic behind these requirements:
'A creditor has knowledge of the administration of an estate within the meaning of subdivision (a)(1) of Section 9103 if the creditor has actual knowledge of the administration through receipt of notice given under Section 9050 or otherwise, such as information from a newspaper clipping service that comes to the attention of the creditor. Constructive knowledge through publication of a notice of death or other information that does not come to the attention of the creditor is not knowledge for the purpose of subdivision (a)(1)....' " (20 Cal.App.4th at p. 931.) Since VW Credit conceded it received the notice of the administration of estate well before the deadline for filing claims, the reviewing court held that under the Probate Code, actual knowledge of the administration of the decedent's estate arose upon proper mailing of the required notice by the estate's personal representative. (Ibid.)
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/35/16.html
To me key here seems to be whether something
comes to the attention of the creditor. So in case there are news articles etc. about the death of someone but it does not come to the attention of the creditor then that does not constitute as "knowledge of the administration of the Estate". However Robson cannot claim such a thing. Obviously MJ's death came to his attention, as well as the fact that he had an Estate. That he did not sue in time because supposedly he did not understand he can file a lawsuit/creditor's claim against an Estate - well, that's up to his own undue dilligence and I don't think a reason to circumvent statutes.
“The most distressing thing for me is admitting to myself that it felt good. I feel overwhelming guilt and shame that I looked forward to being with Doe 1 sexually, because it makes me feel like I am responsible. My life has been a lie.”
To me it's quite impossible that anal penetration by an adult male to a kid would "feel good" and a child would look forward to that. And if it felt so good how come he did not turn out to be gay?
The "I was ashamed because it felt good" type of molestation stories are usually about the type of acts like masturbation, not about anal rape. I have never seen anyone claim that as a victim of child sexual abuse anal rape "felt good" and they were looking forward to it.
- He thought that Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo equally enjoyed being molested by MJ, they only chose to "betray him" for money. "This was reinforced by Jackson’s daily coaching."
You mean, "coaching" like “They are making up all these
lies about you and I, saying we did all this
disgusting sexual stuff" lead Wade to believe that what they had was "loving" and alright? How does that make any sense?
He claims that in 2005 in court he "felt like he was 11 years old again”, full of fear, shame and guilt".
Strange. Acc. to Mez he put him on the stand first because he was such a confident witness. I wish we had a tape of his testimony. He does come accross as very confident in writing.
As for the equitable estoppel thing. I still do not get how anything they go on about here supports an equitable estoppel. I get it that they make a claim for "mind prison" - that MJ brainwashed him into believing this or that which is why he allegedly "lied" in 1993/2005. But their claim is that mind prison ended in May 2012. That means from May 2012 - from the point he himself claims he had all facts giving rise to his claim - the law gave him 60 days to file which he missed. What he allegedly believed in 1993 or 2005 is irrelevant from that POV.
></o