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

[HIStory]

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.

If a settlement happens it would be an invitation for other fraudsters to make similar allegations for relatively easy money. THAT could totally destroy the Estate financially and MJ's name.

Sadly it's a situation that hardly can be totally "won" by MJ, due to the henious nature of these allegations. The best outcome was if the Judge stopped this now at summary judgement, but of course then there would be people still saying it was "only due to a technicality" (statutes of limitations) and Robson/Safechuck could go on a media tour to make money and by raising negative publicity for MJ. If the case goes to court and MJ loses that's catastrophic and if he wins - even if Safechuck and Robson are totally exposed on stand as liars - I am sure some part of the media will still call "celebrity justice", after all they did just that with the utterly ridiculous and impossible Arvizo case as well.

So this is really a "no-win" situation. With allegations like these you cannot win, but I think a settlement would be an open invitation for others to make money by making such allegations. After all the other allegations were a result of the Chandler settlement.

But I really do not know why we keep talking about a settlement now. Every time when there is a longer pause in the information coming from court we are going through this same discussion because some people and certain groups start making claims about a settlement.

 

[Tygger]

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.

My correction regarding settlements stands as it applies to all cases including this one.

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.

Indeed, thus, the Chandler settlement.

These claims exist because Michael’s assets were not protected appropriately. In this instance, the judge must dismiss these claims or he will allow for a dangerous precedent. The ramifications of that precedent surpasses Michael and it will mean that anyone can sue an estate for the alleged misdeeds of the decedent who cannot defend themselves after passing. A victory for the MJ Estate as well as any other estate will be the dismissal of these claims.

Wagener did and I believe that's what most of the comments on the last pages were about.

How unfortunate that you could not correct my statements regarding settlements so you searched my post for any statement you felt you could correct. My posts clearly referred to Mesereau as I mentioned him by name.

 

[castor]

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

I am sure some part of the media will still call "celebrity justice"

That wouldn't work this time.

1. MJ is dead. Hard to argue that the jury was saving him from anything with the verdict.

2. It would be a civil trial with lower burden of proof. If MJ wins even with that it would be hard to argue that he was no innocent just found not liable. They do that with the not guilty verdict all the time.

3. It would be the second time that he was tried and won. It would be the complete opposite of OJ, especially since he would win while being pretty much unable to defend himself.

If this goes to trial I hope it will be televised. If the public had seen how full of shit the Arvizos were Nancy Grance, Dimond, Abrahms and the rest of the apes wouldn't have had the power they had.

And I hope freaking Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo also shows up and demolished under cross-examination.


Nothing would be better for MJ's image. Finally most people could see who ridiculous these claims are.

 

[castor]

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

I am sure some part of the media will still call "celebrity justice"

That wouldn't work this time.

1. MJ is dead. Hard to argue that the jury was saving him from anything with the verdict.

2. It would be a civil trial with lower burden of proof. If MJ wins even with that they couldn't argue he was not innocent he was just found not liable. They try that with the not guilty verdict all the time.

3. It would be the second time that he was tried and won. It would be the complete opposite of OJ, especially since he would win while being pretty much unable to defend himself.

If this goes to trial I hope it will be televised. If the public had seen how full of shit the Arvizos were Nancy Grance, Dimond, Abrahms and the rest of the apes wouldn't have had the power they had.

And I hope freaking Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo also show up and demolished under cross-examination.


Nothing would be better for MJ's image. Finally most people could see who ridiculous these claims are.

My concern is that the Estate's current lawyers simply do not understand how overwhelming the evidence supporting his innocence is and they don't know how to use it.

 

[ivy]

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

How unfortunate that you could not correct my statements regarding settlements so you searched my post for any statement you felt you could correct. My posts clearly referred to Mesereau as I mentioned him by name.

relax, I wasn't trying to start anything, in my mind "no one" meant more people than Mesereau and that's what I pointed out. I must add I think a settlement right now is quite illogical but given the argumentative and accusatory tone towards a very brief harmless comment, I'm not willing to elaborate more at this time. and I have no interest to discuss settlement speculations every other week. I have done enough of that.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, maybe it is you who should relax. I made a statement to correct the misconception being stated here about settlements and when they can occur. Your response to me had nothing to do with that correction and/or how you may feel it is illogical for a settlement at this time in this instance. Instead it seems you sought to correct my use of the term “no one.” Furthermore, any discussion you had regarding a possible settlement in this instance was not with me and it continues as such.

 

[ivy]

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

Ivy, maybe it is you who should relax.

I'm not the one replying in accusatory and defensive tone.

Furthermore, any discussion you had regarding a possible settlement in this instance was not with me and it continues as such.

yes, and I absolutely will try to keep it that way.

 

[Tygger]

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

Ivy, maybe next time you will chose to relax instead of attempting to correct my usage of a term because you could not correct my statement about settlements.

yes, and I absolutely will try to keep it that way.

I will be sure to assist you in keeping your promise.

 

[myosotis]

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.

I don't understand how it is 'protecting MJ's public image' to pay liars to tell lies about MJ? If there is a settlement, the tabloid media will be certain to proclaim that there is some truth in the accusations, else why settle. An Estate settlement would in my view be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Aside from the catalogue, there would be no Estate left worth the name. No potential future deals for computer games, entertainment shows, toys, dolls, no big name brands wanting to associate themselves with MJs music. May as well close up shop and go home. Plus (as Respect has said) 'open season' for claims from every chancer in the land, with endless new and bizarre claims to defend against. That is not a future that I wish to see.

 

[Bubs]

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

I don't understand how it is 'protecting MJ's public image' to pay liars to tell lies about MJ? If there is a settlement, the tabloid media will be certain to proclaim that there is some truth in the accusations, else why settle. An Estate settlement would in my view be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Aside from the catalogue, there would be no Estate left worth the name. No potential future deals for computer games, entertainment shows, toys, dolls, no big name brands wanting to associate themselves with MJs music. May as well close up shop and go home. Plus (as Respect has said) 'open season' for claims from every chancer in the land, with endless new and bizarre claims to defend against. That is not a future that I wish to see.

I absolutely agree with everything you wrote, especially the bolded bit.

 

[ivy]

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

Aside from the catalogue, there would be no Estate left worth the name. No potential future deals for computer games, entertainment shows, toys, dolls, no big name brands wanting to associate themselves with MJs music. May as well close up shop and go home.

Do you really expect such outcome from a settlement? I think the past has shown us that allegations alone enough to create a negative outcome and public doesn't necessarily care about the verdict and such. for example MJ was found not guilty in 2005 but that did not mean public to accept it. We discussed this before and I think people have already made up their mind about these allegations long long ago. I don't think any outcome - good or bad- would cause an extreme change in opinions.

So this is really a "no-win" situation.

I agree this is a "no-win" situation with every possible outcome having some advantages and disadvantages.

a dismissal would be the most quick, most cheapest and would end any further legal process and close the doors to other people. but it cannot stop accusers to go to media and it could be seen as just a technical win by general public.

winning a trial can seem as a good outcome but it would only come after a very long, costly and very public trial. a lot of negative media stories will be created and regardless of the outcome (winning it), stories alone can cause negative effects. and regardless of a win, general public can still classify it as a celebrity getting off due to being rich and famous.

losing a trial would be the worst outcome as not only it would happen after a very long, costly and very public trial but in general public's minds it would also confirm that the accusations are true.

a settlement would require some money but it would avoid a public trial and media tours by accusers. even if it doesn't have any admittance of wrongdoing, general public might see it as a sign of guilt and it could result in other people seeking settlements.

so like I said, I don't see a perfect outcome. The best outcome would be a dismissal as it should. a trial regardless of the outcome would be very public with a lot of negative stories being generated. a settlement could help avoid such negative stories but it would create whole a lot of other problems.

----------------

BTW I wrote the below quote on FB earlier this week while discussing the latest settlement speculations. I thought I would copy it here as well

I think most of the confusion among the fans is because they react emotionally and do not truly understand the process. I haven't listened to the lastest King Jordan TMez interview but in the past heard TMez say that Estate is trying to dismiss the case and IF it doesn't get dismissed he doesn't think Estate would go through a trial and settle. In the interviews I listened I heard TMez to say he did not have direct information about the case and he clearly stated he is speculating. This is his opinion and he is entitled to it. and it might happen . There are a lot of reasons to settle a lawsuit - it takes long time, it is costly, it is public and in civil trials burden of proof is relatively easy. Plus this case is about defending a deceased person (who cannot defend himself or help to his defense) against alleged events of 20+ years ago. So TMez might be right and Estate might not want to go through with a trial BUT it's too early to worry about it as of yet (see my second point below)

Now the first issue - as far as I can see - is fans taking what TMez clearly label as "speculation" and treat it like a "fact" or something already happened. So TMez saying "I think Estate would settle" turns into "oh my god Estate has settled" and that doesn't do any favors to anyone.

Second issue is not understanding the process. To repeat - as far as I heard, Tmez said Estate would try to dismiss the case and IF that fails they may settle. Well Estate is in the process of trying to dismiss the case and that isn't over. Allow me to explain it a little bit : Robson filed a creditors claim against Estate - which is basically "MJ abused me so pay up" but he was late to file his claim so Estate asked it to be dismissed and right now that's what judge is trying to decide about - whether to allow his late claim or not. If judge rules in favor of Estate, there won't be any need to settle. Let's assume that judge rules in favor of Robson and allows a late claim, Estate will appeal. Let's say that is unsuccessful as well. Then Estate would be required to respond to the claim - they can either accept the claim and pay or reject the claim and not pay. Estate has already said they would reject the claim then Robson would be required to sue the Estate and add Estate to his civil case. That civil case would go through two dismissal chances (demurrer and summary judgment) before it goes to trial. In short what I'm trying to say is that right now this is the first dismissal request, even if this fails for Estate there would be several more dismissal chances. So personally I don't see why Estate would consider a settlement at this stage. I would expect them to try every single dismissal chance. If everything fails and it becomes certain that a trial would happen, they might consider their options - including a settlement- as TMez said but that's years away. If they wanted to make this case go away, they would have settled right away before any "anal rape" media headlines. They did not settle right away so it seems they would see this through. Personally the only reason I can think of to settle in the middle of the dismissal process is if there's any evidence of wrongdoing on MJ's part and not wanting that to become public during discovery and motions and hearings so on. However given Sneddon tried for a decade and couldn't find any "smoking gun", I find it unlikely that Robson to have strong evidence that would panic the Estate to settle before trying any and all dismissal options available to them.

My concern is the fans. It seems like every other week another settlement speculation makes the rounds and fans start to get angry, sad, worried for no reason. Look this case will continue for some time.even if we assume the best case scenario - judge dismisses all four creditor claims and civil cases - the appeals will take 1-2 years. So the best thing to do is actually to stay calm, wait for confirmed news and then react.

 

[HIStory]

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

a dismissal would be the most quick, most cheapest and would end any further legal process and close the doors to other people. but it cannot stop accusers to go to media and it could be seen as just a technical win by general public.

Yes, I think dismissal would be the best outcome. Sure we would get some "it was just a technical win" comments but I believe that would come mostly from haters, because the general public does not care about this case that much. And haters gonna hate no matter what - they do not matter. And possibly Robson/Safechuck would make some comments in that regard in the media, but I do not see a huge general interest in these accusers. Sure they can produce a couple of articles written about them and go on some talk show programs, but neither Robson or Safechuck managed to get any significant media attention all through this. The biggest media attention generated was created by those fantasy phantom victims stories, not by Robson/Safechuck's own allegations. Which shows how seriously they are taken. Even a fantasy phantom victim story generates more interest than Robson going on Today's Show or Safechuck timing his complaint to interfere with the release of Xscape.

 

[castor]

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

Shouldn't the Estate respond to Safechuck's latest nonsense?

The one where he says that MJ told him over and over and over and over and over and over again that his life will be over.

(Funny he never told that to Chandler, Francia or Arvizo but whatever)

 

[Soundmind]

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

Why would they? What sane person does believe such nonsense? what sane person believe such "threat" deterred Safe**** from coming forward earlier.

 

[ivy]

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

Shouldn't the Estate respond to Safechuck's latest nonsense?

you mean to the amended complaints by Robson (for civil case) and Safechuck (for probate)? they would file oppositions roughly 30-21 days before the hearing.

So Robson hearing is June 30, that means estate's opposition would be end of May/early june.
Safechuck hearing is July 21 so estate's opposition would be end of june.

 

[castor]

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

you mean to the amended complaints by Robson (for civil case)

The Estate already responded to that.
This is it, isn't it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/258435718/MJ-Estate-Robson-Civil-Case-Second-Demurrer

so why wouldn't they respond to Safechuck now? Why wait till June?

 

[HIStory]

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

So now we are going to criticize the Estate for not filing their motions when WE want them to do that? They will reply whenever they want to within the law given time. And maybe they already did it's just not uploaded in the online system. But Castor if you are so impatient maybe you should spend your own time and money on getting court papers. Or if you feel you know everything better than Estate lawyers then I suggest you to send any information you think might help them to the Online team and ask them to forward it to the Estate.

 

[ivy]

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

The Estate already responded to that.
This is it, isn't it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/258435718/MJ-Estate-Robson-Civil-Case-Second-Demurrer

you are right. robson's opposition is due by end of may/early june. Estate's reply is due 7-10 days before the hearing

so why wouldn't they respond to Safechuck now? Why wait till June?

1. it wouldn't make a difference. hearing date is set, replying earlier wouldn't speed up the process. 2. why wouldn't they take all the time given to them and try to do their best rather than rushing it? regardless these next few months would bring motions from both sides. given that's a probate claim, it is highly unlikely that we will get to see them.

 

[castor]

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

So now we are going to criticize the Estate for not filing their motions when WE want them to do that? They will reply whenever they want to within the law given time. And maybe they already did it's just not uploaded in the online system. But Castor if you are so impatient maybe you should spend your own time and money on getting court papers. Or if you feel you know everything better than Estate lawyers then I suggest you to send any information you think might help them to the Online team and ask them to forward it to the Estate.

I didn't criticize them I asked everyone whether they know about it or whether they should respond at all. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what the due process is in cases like this.

you are right. robson's opposition is due by end of may/early june. Estate's reply is due 7-10 days before the hearing

Are you sure that Robson has to respond to this latest demurrer?
His third complaint was not a response to any demurrer but to the judge's decision.

 

[HIStory]

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

I didn't criticize them I asked everyone whether they know about it or whether they should respond at all. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what the due process is in cases like this.

Oh, okay.

 

[ILoveHIStory]

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

Its been three weeks now... and still nothing?

 

[passy001]

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

while i do understand where you guys are coming from, you also need to take a chill pill and allow the process to run its course normally.
That means if it takes 8 weeks for the judge to deliberate, so be it. it is what it is.

 

[Bubs]

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

Do you really expect such outcome from a settlement? I think the past has shown us that allegations alone enough to create a negative outcome and public doesn't necessarily care about the verdict and such. for example MJ was found not guilty in 2005 but that did not mean public to accept it. We discussed this before and I think people have already made up their mind about these allegations long long ago. I don't think any outcome - good or bad- would cause an extreme change in opinions.

I think Myotis meant, which I agreed, that if there is settlement, tabloids will have field day with it and run with it for ages, it will effect on future deals that the estate may have in pipeline. Myotis wasn't taking about individual people, whether their opinion is waiving or not, but companies and future prospect for the estate and how possible settlement affect on business side.

If this Wade thingy had happened before and settled, I don't think the estate would have made deals with Pepsi, Jeep, Cirgue and some others. Usually companies are careful with whom they associate their product, and associating their name with MJ when there is controversies is not good for their product, or at least for time being until it blows over.

 

[myosotis]

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

^ Absolutely. There is a world of difference between a previous settlement using insurance monies and a settlement by the Estate, who ferociously guard Michael's reputation and image, to the extent of threatening legal action against auction houses who offer MJ images for sale ' with rights', and who pursue any commercial entity (including family) using MJ's image without licensing / authority.
It would appear very strange if the same entity voluntarily gave millions to someone who claimed anal rape by MJ 'because it was a commercial ie cost-effective' decision. The Estate needs to be consistent in it's 'ferocity' in protecting Michael's name and image, or the general population, and the large corporations who need to sell their products to the general population, will wonder why not.
(and I do think that if the Estate settles, it will never 'blow over'. It will be a permanent stain on Michael's perceived character. The result will be exactly what Robson and Safechuck intended).

 

[Bubs]

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

^ Absolutely. There is a world of difference between a previous settlement using insurance monies and a settlement by the Estate, who ferociously guard Michael's reputation and image, to the extent of threatening legal action against auction houses who offer MJ images for sale ' with rights', and who pursue any commercial entity (including family) using MJ's image without licensing / authority.
It would appear very strange if the same entity voluntarily gave millions to someone who claimed anal rape by MJ 'because it was a commercial ie cost-effective' decision. The Estate needs to be consistent in it's 'ferocity' in protecting Michael's name and image, or the general population, and the large corporations who need to sell their products to the general population, will wonder why not.
(and I do think that if the Estate settles, it will never 'blow over'. It will be a permanent stain on Michael's perceived character. The result will be exactly what Robson and Safechuck intended).

Agree. I was thinking what if settlement happens, and down the line the estate wants to launch MJ product (album?) and wants make a deal with some company to help launch that album. I simply cannot see something like Jeep last summer happening. It is just a fans that are buying that album, but there wouldn't be anything to support that launch as it was with Xscape, no other media support to promote it, perhaps no radio play.

I say no to settlement, only over my dead body:bugeyed
I don't care if the estate uses every single penny there is, sell all the assets, put KJ in the poor house etc but no settlement.

Then there is the thing that they get paid from new deals, so if there are no new deals, they don't get their percentage of that deal.

Lastly, this settlement talk is pure speculation and TMezz should stop messing around and concentrate defending people, not speculating this or that.

 

[Annita]

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

^ Absolutely. There is a world of difference between a previous settlement using insurance monies .

A correction, there wasn`t a insurance who paid money for the 93-settlement. That`s a wrong circulating info.

 

[ivy]

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

Myotis wasn't taking about individual people, whether their opinion is waiving or not, but companies and future prospect for the estate and how possible settlement affect on business side.

^ Absolutely. There is a world of difference between a previous settlement using insurance monies and a settlement by the Estate, who ferociously guard Michael's reputation and image, to the extent of threatening legal action against auction houses who offer MJ images for sale ' with rights', and who pursue any commercial entity (including family) using MJ's image without licensing / authority.
It would appear very strange if the same entity voluntarily gave millions to someone who claimed anal rape by MJ 'because it was a commercial ie cost-effective' decision. The Estate needs to be consistent in it's 'ferocity' in protecting Michael's name and image, or the general population, and the large corporations who need to sell their products to the general population, will wonder why not.

personally I don't think companies consider such specifics and for most of them allegations alone is enough to not work with people. I mean look to Cosby example. Allegations itself was enough for several firms to drop the upcoming tv shows etc they had with him. The companies did not sit down and think "ah he isn't being sued so it's okay" or "he hasn't been found guilty so it's okay". Same could be an example for MJ as well. Almost all of MJ's endorsement , partnership deals ended in 1993 demonstrating merely an accusation is enough for companies to act on. Sure verdicts and settlements etc will have some effect but I don't think it would be such an extreme effect. For example when Jeep decided to use MJ's music in their commercial they knew he had been accused and settled, accused and tried and found not guilty and there was a pending allegation against him.

 

[myosotis]

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

personally I don't think companies consider such specifics and for most of them allegations alone is enough to now work with people. I mean look to Cosby example. Allegations itself was enough for several firms to drop the upcoming tv shows etc they had with him. The companies did not sit down and think "ah he isn't being sued so it's okay" or "he hasn't been found guilty so it's okay". Same could be an example for MJ as well. Almost all of MJ's endorsement , partnership deals ended in 1993 demonstrating merely an accusation is enough for companies to act on. Sure verdicts and settlements etc will have some effect but I don't think it would be such an extreme effect. For example when Jeep decided to use MJ's music in their commercial they knew he had accused and settled, accused and tried and found not guilty and there was a pending allegation against him.

That's OK. I'm happy to 'agree to disagree'. It is out of all of our hands, and there is nothing I can do to change anything anyway. I would fight for MJ to my last breath. I hope that the Estate will too.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I don't think a settlement will make a huge difference when it comes to deals because I think most companies, like most people, already made up their mind about this matter. Most of the damage was already done in 1993 and then in 2005. The thing is I think a settlement might look like a lack of confidence in MJ and his innocecne. I know the Estate's main interest is money, but I think in such cases it's better fight until the end because it's a the principle of the thing. It shouldn't be about the money, that's what Wade wants. Even if there's a chance of losing.

 

[PoP]

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

I say no to settlement, only over my dead body:bugeyed
I don't care if the estate uses every single penny there is, sell all the assets, put KJ in the poor house etc but no settlement.

Same here. No to settlement and end all this phoney bull$#!^. If the settlement may happen, it'll be like an endless cycle off media and haters spewing of more crap about Michael for an endless long time, it's like having a chronic endless headaches from these big mouthed idiots.