Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
i mean alot of fans said that about the trial in 05, that once MJ was found not guilty the public would finally see him for who he truly was, innocent.
I don't think any sane person believed that knowing what the media did during that trial.
Americans are hypocrites when it comes to rich/famous defendants.
If they settle they are guilty.
If they have a trial and lose they are guilty.
If they have a trial and win they are guilty and got away with it because they are famous and rich.
This is why I laugh every time some asshole says if he had been innocent he would have cleared his name in 1994!
Sure, like these assholes would just say : oh he was found not liable so that proves he is innocent! He has cleared his name.
Bullshit. They would have said exactly what they said in 2005: he got away with it because of his celebrity, good lawyers blah blah blah.
Why have a trial when you are perceived guilty no matter what?
I wonder whether this kills any chance that the lawsuit against the corporations would be allowed.
From the Corporations reply brief page 6:
Thus, as every California court to address the issue has recognized, including the Supreme Court, subdivision
(b)(2) "is targeted at third party defendants who, by virtue of certain specified relationship to the perpetrator
( i.e. employee, volunteer, representative, agent) could have employed safeguards to prevent the sexual assault. It requires the sexual
conduct to have arisen through an exploitation of a relationship over which the third party has some control"
Robson quibbles with the Corporate Defendants' focus on the "control" aspect of subdivion
(b)(2) by noting that the "control" language comes from case law and not the statute itself.
That Robson might disagree with the California Supreme Court's interpretation of a California statute is
irrelevant: "the controlling voice on California law is that of the Supreme Court of California"
Phyle v. Duffy, 223 U.S. 431, 445 (1948) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/241210019/Robson-Estate-Reply-Corporate-Demurrer
Marzano during the octorber 1 hearing was whining over the Estate's focus on control
and argued that there were others in the companies with authority although she never
argued that those people had authority over MJ himself!
So if the judge allows this to go forward he would go against the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the law.
I don't see how anyone could argue that "the alleged sexual
conduct have arisen through an exploitation of a relationship over which the companies had some control".
Even if the companies had never existed MJ still could have and would have had a relationship with Robson.
However I find it strange that the judge completely ignored this during the hearing.
so I guess that's why he lost weight. But even considering that he looks crappy now. I don't necessarily think that's because addiction (but who knows) but it could be because of his mental illness. Which of course has nothing to do with Michael. It runs in his family on his father's side.