Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
ETA. Can anyone outline the different requirements for a civil suit please?
The civil suit is against the companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures. In that case the relevant main law at play is Civil Code Prodecure 340.1:
340.1. (a) In an action for recovery of damages suffered as a
result of childhood sexual abuse, the time for commencement of the
action shall be within eight years of the date the plaintiff attains
the age of majority or within three years of the date the plaintiff
discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological
injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by
the sexual abuse, whichever period expires later, for any of the
following actions:
(1) An action against any person for committing an act of
childhood sexual abuse.
(2) An action for liability against any person or entity who owed
a duty of care to the plaintiff, where a wrongful or negligent act by
that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual
abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.
(3) An action for liability against any person or entity where an
intentional act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the
childhood sexual abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.
(b) (1) No action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision
(a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday.
(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.
Now the (a) (1) part only applies to defendants who are alive. (b) (1) states that "no action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday".
So that leaves (b) (2) that we have to focus on. This:
(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.
So what Robson has to show is that MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures (as companies) "knew or had reason to know" of unlawful sexual conduct between MJ and Robson. But that's not the only requirement as per precedent law. It seems based on precedents that it is also a requirement that the company has to have some sort of control over the person committing the unlawful sexual acts. Which makes sense because only then a company is in the position of implementing reasonable safeguards by such as "avoiding placement of that person in a function or environment in which contact with children is an inherent part of that function or environment". Obviously Michael's companies were not in that position regarding Michael, since Michael was their sole owner - he was the one in control of them, not the other way around. The company had no power to place him in any function or environment.
This law is applied to situations such as church or school sex abuse scandals where it often happened that an organization knew about one of its employees committing such crimes but did nothing to prevent such unlawful activity.
Moreover, based on law and precedent it also seems to be a requirement that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has to arise from that company environment. Think of a school for example and an abusive teacher who meets his victims through his position as a teacher.
Robson's claim however is that MJ started to molest him in 1990 - way before he or his mother were employed by any of MJ's companies. So his alleged relationship with MJ had nothing to do with MJ's companies, it did not arise from that environment.
In the first version of their complaint Robson could not even make a claim about how the companies were supposed to know of unlawful sexual conduct. Therefore the Estate's demurrer was sustained by the Judge, but Robson was given another chance to amend his complaint to try to claim a viable cause of action. We have not seen his amended complaint, but we have seen the Estate's demurrer in reply of it. Based on that it does not seem to me he was able to allege much more than what he alleged the first time around. The only new element seemed to be some vague comment attributed to Norma Staikos who once allegedly noted to someone "do not leave kids alone with Michael". In the demurrer there is no context given though as to whom and under what circumstances, why and when she told this - and according to whom. In any case, I don't see this as helping Robson much. Norma Staikos is not Michael's company. She was not in control of Michael. Not to mention the whole murkiness of this alleged statement. She testified in front of the Grand Jury in 1994 and never claimed to have had knowledge about any wrongdoing by Michael.
Another thing they try is to say that the 1993 allegations were somehow a reason for MJ's companies to "know". Which is BS, of course. Michael was never found guilty of those allegations. He always denied wrongdoing. The settlement states clearly he does not admit any wrongdoing. So what were the companies supposed to "know"? Robson's own mother (who is curiously largely missing from his story) was closest to the whole situation between her son and Michael and she always stated there was no reason to worry. Both her and Wade always stated nothing happened, so how on Earth MJ's companies were supposed to "know"?
And you know, this is another point where Robson's case is very transparent. He is sweating to somehow involve MJ's companies to make money from them, he is struggling to make a viable cause of action about how on Earth MJ's companies were supposed to "know" (something that did not happen), yet he does not blame his own mother who was the one bugging MJ to get them green cards and bring them to the US, who was the one closest to her son and the situation. Yet, John Branca or whoever in MJ's companies is supposed to be responsible, but his mother is not. OK, give me a break, Wade.
