Latest on MJJC

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

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

castor said:
No of course he would testify. He already talked about that.

But he shouldn't testify. He should defend MJ.
I don't see how a wishy washy technocrat who never really cared about MJ could win such a case.

If this goes to trial only someone who understand MJ's entire life and his habits and his relationships could win.

Can you imagine Weitzman explaining why MJ didn't associate sex with bed sharing?
Why he let kids stay in his room why he didn't have the heart or any reason to turn them away when they asked Joy robson: can we stay with Michael?

Can you imagne Weitzman explaining that MJ was generous with everyone not just boys and he befriended just as many girls as boys
and he talked on the phone for hours with men, women, girls not just boys?

And why he had an amusement park and a zoo, and how he visited zoos and amusement parks all over the world simply because he loved those things?

And how sensitive and emphatic he was ever since he was kid?

I don't see Weitzman successfully arguing any of those.
Click to expand...


It doesn't have to be Weitzman. From what I see from court docs even now it's not personally Weitzman who writes most of the Estate's arguments but a lawyer called Jonathan Steinsapir (the lawyer Wagener called "the young lawyer" in his courtroom report). In case it goes to court there could be other specialist lawyers brought in. I'd like Mesereau to collaborate on it with the Estate, but it's not the Estate who keep isolating themselves from Mesereau with uselessly hostile remarks - it's the other way around. Sad.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

myosotis said:
I see that the fan post on FB states as 'evidence' of a settlement that 'there is no smoke without fire' (meaning presumably that any rumours must be true). Well, I sure hope they don't apply that to MJ. What a ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

Where did I hear that argument before? Let's see... isn't that what haters usually use?

The so called "smoke" in this case is nothing but speculations by fans and Mez - and sadly they speculate while not bothering (or even refusing) to check out the actual court proceedings. So any "smoke" not based on facts is pretty irrelevant. And to consider fans own speculations as "smoke" is nothing but a circular argument.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

myosotis said:
I see that the fan post on FB states as 'evidence' of a settlement that 'there is no smoke without fire' (meaning presumably that any rumours must be true). Well, I sure hope they don't apply that to MJ. What a ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

I nearly facepalmed when I read that, haters use the "no smoke without fire" argument too. The entire premise of that argument is flawed. They see smoke and jump to the conclusion that it must be coming from a fire despite the fact that they don't actually know where the smoke is coming from, they're acting like there's only one possibility. It disappoints me when fans jump to conclusions like this, they complain about haters doing that but what's the point in complaining about a particular behaviour if they're going to do the same thing about something else? So much fail.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Lol respect77, we must have been typing replies at the same time again. When I posted my reply I refreshed the page and saw you'd beat me to it :)
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Don't get caught up in the haters garbage friends. People have been hating for years. I know it's hard to ignore but don't waste your time with them. The Estate won't settle, they don't need too. This is just a long drawn out process. The outcome could still be a long way off. Stay strong we will get thier.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And once again, because Mez said so and of course he is highly respected in the fan community some fans run with this claim of settlement and think it's what is happening when a look at the actual process tell us otherwise.
Click to expand...

yep last time pearl provided misinformation, Tmez speculated on that and suddenly some fans were treating his speculation as something happened. I think the same is happening right now too. TMez again speculated why the decision did not come yet and you have Wagener stating the same thing TMez speculated as something he heard from a "source".

respect77 said:
I feel that there is a group of fans (those also surround Mez) who actually want the Estate to settle just to be able to bash them. They just cannot stop talking about a settlement even when there is no sign of a settlement.
Click to expand...

it absolutely feels like that. I'm disappointed that this people never state Robson/ safechuck have no case and cannot win but they are always about a settlement. I'm actually sorry for the fans that get caught in middle of this and get worried for no good reason.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Well it's no wonder that fans get freaked out when they hear something like that from the highly respected and beloved TM. And then you find out he's speculating on a nutty fan's info.
I'm really ashamed he's doing this.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think he's enjoying the pedestal he's been put on a little too much. Not sure why the endless speculation that's based on he said/she said, but the constant Branca/Weitzman bashing is getting old. He defends Randall Sullivan and sites unnamed Jackson family members as sources and says basically the Estate's already settled. But not real solid information. At this point I think I'll pass on any future interviews.
I wonder if the Estate has spoken with Robert Sanger or Susan Yu.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

SarahJ said:
I think he's enjoying the pedestal he's been put on a little too much.
Click to expand...
IMO, TM has become another person in the long list of people who received love and adoration bc of their association with Michael and can't move on. They get a taste of the limelight and can't let go.
It's sad and I hate to see it.

I have to separate my feelings for these people like certain Jacksons, Quincy, many, many others-and think about them by just watching film, reading books, listening to records that have to do with their early, happy, creative, productive times with him and to hell with the rest.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

ivy said:
Well yes anyone is entitled to think Estate might settle and it's their point of view. However sometimes what people say go beyond that, it becomes speculation and even a conspiracy.

I don't get why anyone thinks Estate would settle at this point in the case. There's a summary judgment happening (other two cases has active demurrers), judge has yet to rule. Even if the judge rules negatively for Estate there is still the appeals, even if that doesn't end well and probate claim gets added to the civil case there will still be demurrers and summary judgments. So there are still A LOT of chances to get this dismissed before any trial. So sorry but I personally don't get why anyone thinks they would even consider a settlement now. All of this speculation does nothing but to make fans nervous.
Click to expand...

Ivy I agree with the above point of view that talks of settlements makes fans nervous. I think T-Mez probably forget that him saying his point of view is taken as fact by some people.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It just hit me that Sneddon and the media wanted us to believe that
not one not two not three but seven people were willing to lie under oath just to defend someone they knew was a child molester.

Yes that's exactly what they tried to sell when they argued that Mac, Brett Wade were all molested and their parents and sisters willingly overlooked it for money and perks

And that's just the 2005 case. In 1993 there was Jimmy Safechuck and his parents, Jonathan Spence and his parents. All giving sworn statements that MJ never did anything.

There is no pedophiia case like this. Ever.


I wonder why TM never made this argument.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

castor said:
It just hit me that Sneddon and the media wanted us to believe that
not one not two not three but seven people were willing to lie under oath just to defend someone they knew was a child molester.

Yes that's exactly what they tried to sell when they argued that Mac, Brett Wade were all molested and their parents and sisters willingly overlooked it for money and perks

And that's just the 2005 case. In 1993 there was Jimmy Safechuck and his parents, Jonathan Spence and his parents. All giving sworn statements that MJ never did anything.

There is no pedophiia case like this. Ever.


I wonder why TM never made this argument.
Click to expand...

you were banned once for that argument " MJ was not interested in sex I wonder why Mez did not make this argument" now you are back to the same old arguments !! give it a rest.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Soundmind said:
you were banned once for that argument " MJ was not interested in sex I wonder why Mez did not make this argument" now you are back to the same old arguments !! give it a rest.
Click to expand...

I don't see how the two are related.
I didn't make any argument about MJ not being interested in sex, and I wasn't banned my brother was, however I don't see any problem with pointing out every hole in haters' argument.
Since they want everyone to believe that it's perfectly possible for this many boys and their families to lie for MJ under oath.

They even cite Matt Sandusky's case which is ridiculous since
1. Matt had changed his story from jsut fondling to mutual oral sex and he wanted his own kids to be with Sandusky which a real abuse victim would never do so Matt is not a victim he is an opportunist
2. even if he was a victim he was his adopted son so it would be understandable that he was conflicted
3. and even if he had lied under oath for him it happened only once in the Sandusky case not 12 times as haters wants us to believe happened in the MJ case.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

angelofinnocence said:
I think T-Mez probably forget that him saying his point of view is taken as fact by some people.
Click to expand...


I do not think he forgot it when he says something like this. He knows that he has a great standing in the fan base and he made it very clear that he wants fans to follow his opinion. How else can he say that fans who do not support the Sulvian book are not MJ fans. Why did he encouraged a fan -petition with the goal that the Estate has to hire him as a lawyer for the Robson-case. It`s clear that he thinks his opinion to the case is important and he is the only competent lawyer and estate-attorneys are not able to handle the case and he wants that MJ-fans follow his opinion.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^ What the hell is that????

I only read first paragraph and that was more than enough for me to pass rest of it.
His source says that the estate attorneys settle because it is"cost effective"??????

How it is cost effective for estate, if they settle, they cannot make any money out of MJ's name?
Once the word is out that it is settled, people are going to assume the same as they did in 93, and that definitely is going to tarnish MJ's name.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The website is very fitting: sdPARANORMAL. His "sources" are the voices in his head.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
The website is very fitting: sdPARANORMAL. His "sources" are the voices in his head.
Click to expand...

Probably Michael telling him to shut the h*ll up.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
The website is very fitting: sdPARANORMAL. His "sources" are the voices in his head.
Click to expand...

:hysterical: you are right.. he is nuts and his argument makes no sense.. The estate is worth a billion dollars. Fighting Wade and his team won't hurt them financially at all. Wagoner is nuts and has been since the trial.. His rantings and articles are laughable,. Like Ivy has said there is no reason to settle this case and that a summary judgement and demurrers are still in progress. There is also the appeals process in case the judge allows the claim to go forward which shouldn't happen because of the obvious statute of limitations and the California law on filing late claims against estates And a settlement still would not affect the judge ruling.. He would still have to rule anyway.. It's been two years since Wade filed his claim and MJ's brand hasn't suffered. There is no need to settle. If they were going to do that they would've done it two years ago when he first released his allegations to TMZ..
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The topic of settlements is not particular clear in threads here.

Mesereau understands that settlement offers can happen ANY time during pre-trial motions. In fact, settlements are more cost effective (lessor monies amounts) when they occur before a motion of summary judgement is ruled on than afterwards.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ And the cost to Michael's reputation, if this is settled..... It isn't always just about short-term 'cost effectiveness'.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

There is absolutely no basis to the claim that the Estate has settled or are working on a settlement. Mesereau has made similar claims months ago and he was wrong then too. He's obviously not following this case very closely. It also does not make any sense to settle at this stage of the process in this particular case.

myosotis said:
^ And the cost to Michael's reputation, if this is settled..... It isn't always just about short-term 'cost effectiveness'.
Click to expand...

Not to mention it being an open invitation for any other fraudster to cash-in on similar claims.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
There is absolutely no basis to the claim that the Estate has settled or are working on a settlement. Mesereau has made similar claims months ago and he was wrong then too. He's obviously not following this case very closely. It also does not make any sense to settle at this stage of the process in this particular case.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I am correcting. Settlements can occur at any time. This idea that it cannot occur before a summary judgement or it is illogical to occur before is incorrect.

No one has said a settlement is occurring or has occurred. Mesereau is speculating as to why there is no judgement from Beckloff and it is his right to do.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Tygger said:
This is exactly what I am correcting. Settlements can occur at any time. This idea that it cannot occur before a summary judgement or it is illogical to occur before is incorrect. No one has said a settlement is occurring or has occurred. Mesereau is speculating as to why there is no judgement from Beckloff and it is his right to do.
Click to expand...

It can happen but it IS illogical now in this particular case at this particular stage. You have to know the details of this case to see why and if you have not followed this case closely I am not going to start to tell you about it now. I do not feel like going back and forth with you about something that is simply theoretical and is not happening in reality. My opinion is that the reason why we do not have any judgement yet is NOT that the Estate has settled, like Mez and Wagener and that group of anti-Estate fans suggest. (If it was the case, that would too have its traces in the online court system. So the theory that long silence = settlement is just wrong and Mesereau already made this same mistake once - jumping to this conclusion that long silence = settlement, without obviously knowing about the details of this court process). The long silence is simply because the judgement takes time. We will see who is right or wrong about this. That's all I have to say about it and I'm not going to get into some futile discussion with you about something that isn't there in reality.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Respect77, I did not request a discussion with you nor a longgggggggg post from you regarding Robson/Safechuck's fabricated claims.

I simply corrected misinformation regarding when a settlement can occur. As I have always stated, the true issue here is if these claims will be dismissed because that is where a dangerous precedent can occur. I am not interested and I have never been interested in Robson/Safechuck's inconsistencies.

You have your speculation and Mesereau has his. Only Beckloff can explain his delay and he owes that explanation to no one.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

You do not need to "correct" anything about when generally settlements can occur, because we did not speak about generalities in this thread, but about this particular case.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This may be a slightly controversial thing to say, but I can't help but wonder if the reason so many fans are so anti-settlement is that they worry about it appearing like the estate believe MJ had something to hide, but I really don't look at it that way. It's basically a nuisance claim and they have to weigh up whether or not it is worth dragging up all the sleaze and controversy again and potentially damaging the MJ brand.

I think as fans we are looking at this in a very personalised way. We want everything laid bare in the public domain, because we know MJ was innocent and that these false claims are mere fiction. I think perhaps some fans are afraid of how it makes MJ look if Wade is paid to shut up. But the estate are going to be more invested in making a sound business decision that will best protect MJs public image, which is why I believe a settlement could be a likely outcome.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

No one has said a settlement is occurring or has occurred.
Click to expand...

Wagener did and I believe that's what most of the comments on the last pages were about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top