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

[elusive moonwalker]

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

Such motions require arguments based on the law inorder to win not hes a liar. how they act in interviews is different to writing a motion arguing points based on the law which is what will win it for you.

i do agree they are terrible at defending mj but a legal motion is a seperate issue

 

[HIStory]

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

They didn't call Robson a liarm not one time in any of their statements.

They do make statements several times in their court papers that they do not consider Robson's allegations true and whatever legal argument they make they do it that way because the law requires the Judge to consider Robson's claims as true. An example from the Estate's latest demurrer:

They do state this all the time.

 

[Paris78]

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

by the way

Taj Jackson ?@tajjackson3 June 1th

Starting round 2 of my official complaint to @IpsoNews against @DailyMirror. I will keep fighting for the truth. #MJLegacy

Taj Jackson retweetete
Suzanne ?@Suzanne4885

MJ said "if you hear a lie often enough, you start to believe it". Silence the lies and preach the truth. Always.

 

[castor]

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

They do make statements several times in their court papers that they do not consider Robson's allegations true and whatever legal argument they make they do it that way because the law requires the Judge to consider Robson's claims as true. An example from the Estate's latest demurrer:

They do state this all the time.

I'm not talking about the legal docs but their public statements.
That filhty minded Marzano calls MJ a monster a predator and what not and the Estate cannot even call Robson a liar?
They are weasels, period.

They should ridicule him, humiliate him, instead they are using diplomatic language.
They don't understand that this is war. Or they don't care.

 

[HIStory]

I'm not talking about the legal docs but their public statements.
That filhty minded Marzano calls MJ a monster a predator and what not and the Estate cannot even call Robson a liar?
They are weasels, period.

They should ridicule him, humiliate him, instead they are using diplomatic language.
They don't understand that this is war. Or they don't care.

I don't think the type of language that Marzano uses and her unprofessional comments come accross as sympathetic to most independent people and I don't think the Estate should sink to her level in media comments. Yes, sometimes they could come across as more forceful (eg. the whole FBI files crap) but this was not that occasion where it was needed IMO.

By the way, the Estate did call Robson a liar. When he first made his allegations Weitzman calling him a liar to TMZ was actually Robson's excuse of going to Today's Show to "clear his name". (I am pretty sure that was just an excuse and it was a part of his plan from the get go, but IIRC that comment by Weitzman was used by them to excuse his going on the Today's Show.)

ETA: And this was Weitzman's comment now:

“The court’s dismissal of Wade Robson’s claim against the estate of Michael Jackson confirms that his lawsuit was inappropriately filed,” Weitzman said. “Mr. Robson testified under oath in a courtroom that Michael never did anything improper with him. The estate believes his testimony was honest when his sole motivation was ‘to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”‘

I'd say that's pretty much calling him a liar.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

No, she is a fool who do not believe her own case by the way she is talking. she is looking for attention and hope this get her more clients by having this case and putting her name out there.. She know this mess is not true.

So how is it a no? I think we agree. She's a lawyer who goes to the media and uses shocking language to get the attention she couldn't get so far. It's not really working for her. To me it shows unprofessionalism and maybe panic especially after the dismissal.

If that was her reaction I can imagine how Wade was like :lol:

I don't think the type of language that Marzano uses and her unprofessional comments come accross as sympathetic to most independent people and I don't think the Estate should sink to her level in media comments. Yes, sometimes they could come across as more forceful (eg. the whole FBI files crap) but this was not that occasion where it was needed IMO.

I agree, it doesn't look good.

 

[ivy]

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

Safechuck is trying to start his civil case

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Without waiting on his claim?

 

[PoP]

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

Safechuck is trying to start his civil case

Pfft. STABchuck is not gonna win. He's gonna lose anyhow. We will never leech $$$ off the Estate with his backstabbing lies.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

A civil suit? I thought they said this wasn't about money? lol

 

[ivy]

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

Without waiting on his claim?

similar to robson, safechuck also filed a probate claim and a civil case. his civil case did not show any movement for a year. he is just trying to start it and probably name the corporations. at this time they should know that their probate claim will get dismissed so they are trying to start the case against corporations.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Was he working for Michael or PepsiCo?

 

[Soundmind]

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

How desperate.Safechuck is having a panic attacks over the thought that he "went" through this but at the end he wont get a penny. Sweet justice.

 

[Tygger]

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

I wonder if it also indicates that the Estate/ Colony are fairly sure that there will be no court proceedings about 'alleged events' in various parts of the property, so there will be no prolonged discussions / descriptions to dissuade interested buyers.

Indeed. It seems they are celebrating early.

What they don't seem to understand or they don't care about is that this issue is not about the law. This is about soundbites and perception....

Weitzman and Branca have been weasels when it comes to MJ's innocence ever since 2005.

Branca couldn't even give a forceful response during the 60minute interview. He just let that bitch repeat the myth that MJ was "sleeping with boys" -- clearly insinuating that alone proved he was a child molester.

Or look at their weak response to that BS 100 M for 20 victims story.

They have been doing a piss-poor job at protecting MJ's reputation.

I know your words may seem harsh to some however; I understand your point and I agree. Unfortunately and especially because this is almost six years after the lost of Michael, it is neither here nor there. I believe it is clear their job is not being performed out of love for the man; it is a job. It is fact Michael's perceived reputation fortunately has not effected profits for almost six years. Let us hope it continues so there will be no need to defend his perceived reputation.

Safechuck is trying to start his civil case

Key word is trying. Without the judge's approval of his claims, Safechuck will have no civil case. I believe you said his civil case is dependent upon his probate claims. Those probate claims will most likely follow Robson's and neither have a good chance at a civil trial. I understand Robson and Safechuck's lawyers would like to proceed to a civil trial however; it most likely will not happen and their only viable option will be to appeal if they can afford to do so.

 

[ivy]

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

I believe you said his civil case is dependent upon his probate claims.

not completely. his civil case against corporations isn't dependent on probate claims. probate claim only determines if he can add MJ/ MJ Estate as a defendant to his civil case. Even the judge denies the claims against MJ/MJ Estate (as he did with Robson), Safechuck can still sue MJ Companies (as Robson is also doing).

 

[Tygger]

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

Ivy, I appreciate the clarification. I do not believe the judge will determine Robson and/or Safechuck has "a meritorious clause to file action" against these companies. Robson and Safechuck's legal team can try as it is their right. It does not mean will succeed.

 

[ivy]

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

I do not believe the judge will determine Robson and/or Safechuck has "a meritorious clause to file action" against these companies.

Honestly I don't know what they exactly mean by that "meritorious cause of action" but given Robson's civil case against corporations has started and ongoing (next demurrer hearing on June 30), I feel judge would allow Safechuck to file a civil complaint against corporations and see that through the process - demurrer, summary judgment and so on.

 

[HIStory]

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

Safechuck is trying to start his civil case

Doe Defendants - plural. So I think it's the same thing as with Robson: trying to sue Michael's companies. Probably there is also Michael named as Doe 1, but like in Robson's case he will be thrown out on the basis that you cannot sue someone who is deceased. I agree this probably has to do with the fact that based on the Robson ruling they realized Safechuck's creditor's claim will also be thrown out.

I believe it's a last straw attempt. If they thought Safechuck had a strong case against the companies they would have already started the civil process long ago. This seems to be only in answer to the probability of his probate case being thrown out. But he will have the same problems with the civil case as Robson.

I also think they might have waited to file Safechuck's civil complaint for so long so that they will be able to continue to drag this whole thing as long as possible. Like I said earlier the most important thing for them does not seem to be to hurry up, stay within statutes of limitations or get over with it as quickly as possible, but to put publicity pressure on the Estate.

 

[Tygger]

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

Ivy, yes, it is Safechuck's right to go through the civil process as Robson is currently doing. Again, it does not mean it will succeed, a.k.a the chance for a civil trial.

 

[HIStory]

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

Honestly I don't know what they exactly mean by that "meritorious cause of action" but given Robson's civil case against corporations has started and ongoing (next demurrer hearing on June 30), I feel judge would allow Safechuck to file a civil complaint against corporations and see that through the process - demurrer, summary judgment and so on.

To be honest we do not really know what type of relationship Safechuck had with the companies. In his demurrer there is only mentioned that he MAYBE worked for MJ's company in 1995 when he was an intern during the shooting of the Earth Song video. I say "maybe" because even that is worded this way: "The last working experience I had with Decendent was in 1995 when he and/or DOES 2 and 3 employed me as an intern/shadow director for Decendent's "Earthsong" video."

That "and/or" is interesting - as if they are not sure by whom he was employed, MJ or the companies. Of course, it's possible that for other works he had earlier employment with the companies as well, but it's not mentioned so far in his court papers. Maybe he was also employed by MJ's company when he assisted MJ in Budapest in 1994, but that too would be after the alleged abuse. If he was only ever employed after the alleged abuse ended maybe the Judge could find he does not even have a "meritorious cause of action". Or is that a decision for the demurrers?

 

[passy001]

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

Safechuck is trying to start his civil case

This again confirms that safechuck is acting as a plan B of sort. robson is acting as Plan A, and therefore guinea pig for safechuck. this allows safechuck to learn from robson and to use strategies of robson if they work, and change if they do not.

can the civil cases be merged into one? not sure at this point since the robson case is at an advanced stage already. it's facing a complete dismissal whose hearing is at the end of this month. so that is impossible at this stage. and that could explain why the robson/safechuck camp decided to launch both suits in different periods of time and to have one proceeding way later.

this is obviously a planned tactic to tie the estate to this kinds of case and expose it to bad publicity for as long as possible (at least 1-2 more years).

 

[castor]

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

I'd say that's pretty much calling him a liar.

No it's not. Calling someone a liar is using the word LIAR. And it does matter.
If you call someone a liar that implies confidence in what you think about him.
And he not only should have called him a liar but should have specify why he was a liar. It's not just that he testified for MJ twice.
It's what he said and how during those testimonies.
For example how he denied even knowing that MJ had adult magazines.
Weiztman's wishy-washy comment is good for nothing.

similar to robson, safechuck also filed a probate claim and a civil case. his civil case did not show any movement for a year. he is just trying to start it and probably name the corporations.

But how could he sue the corporations? For what? They had nothing to do with him until 1995.

 

[HIStory]

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

Here is the law that they reference (CCP 340.1 (j)):

(j) In any action subject to subdivision (g), no defendant may be
served, and the duty to serve a defendant with process does not
attach, until the court has reviewed the certificates of merit filed
pursuant to subdivision (h) with respect to that defendant, and has
found, in camera, based solely on those certificates of merit, that
there is reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the
action against that defendant. At that time, the duty to serve that
defendant with process shall attach.

Also:

(1) That the attorney has reviewed the facts of the case, that the
attorney has consulted with at least one mental health practitioner
who is licensed to practice and practices in this state and who the
attorney reasonably believes is knowledgeable of the relevant facts
and issues involved in the particular action, and that the attorney
has concluded on the basis of that review and consultation that there
is reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action.
The person consulted may not be a party to the litigation.

So it seems the requirement for a "meritorious cause" is only that they have a therapist vouch for him. If that is the case then it will be probably allowed to go ahead, but they will face problems with the demurrers IMO, the same as Robson does.

 

[ivy]

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

Doe Defendants - plural. So I think it's the same thing as with Robson: trying to sue Michael's companies. Probably there is also Michael named as Doe 1, but like in Robson's case he will be thrown out on the basis that you cannot sue someone who is deceased.

yes it is exactly the same. the document list "doe 1 an individual, doe 2 a california corporation, doe 3 a california corporation, does 4-50"

I also think they might have waited to file Safechuck's civil complaint for so long so that they will be able to continue to drag this whole thing as long as possible. Like I said earlier the most important thing for them does not seem to be to hurry up, stay within statutes of limitations or get over with it as quickly as possible, but to put publicity pressure on the Estate.

yep I think the same.

To be honest we do not really know what type of relationship Safechuck had with the companies. In his demurrer there is only mentioned that he MAYBE worked for MJ's company in 1995 when he was an intern during the shooting of the Earth Song video. I say "maybe" because even that is worded this way: "The last working experience I had with Decendent was in 1995 when he and/or DOES 2 and 3 employed me as an intern/shadow director for Decendent's "Earthsong" video."

That "and/or" is interesting - as if they are not sure by whom he was employed, MJ or the companies. Of course, it's possible that for other works he had earlier employment with the companies as well, but it's not mentioned so far in his court papers. Maybe he was also employed by MJ's company when he assisted MJ in Budapest in 1994, but that too would be after the alleged abuse. If he was only ever employed after the alleged abuse ended maybe the Judge could find he does not even have a "meritorious cause of action". Or is that a decision for the demurrers?

Like I said I'm not sure what this is, or if he was ever employed by the corporations during his alleged abuse.

can the civil cases be merged into one? not sure at this point since the robson case is at an advanced stage already. it's facing a complete dismissal whose hearing is at the end of this month. so that is impossible at this stage. and that could explain why the robson/safechuck camp decided to launch both suits in different periods of time and to have one proceeding way later.

this is obviously a planned tactic to tie the estate to this kinds of case and expose it to bad publicity for as long as possible (at least 1-2 more years).

they are all listed as related cases. right now it doesn't make much difference to pursue them separately. the same judge assigned to them and motions being filed under different case numbers or under one case number doesn't make much difference. I guess the case can be merged if they are allowed to go to trial. but I don't see this coming to a trial stage.

But how could he sue the corporations? For what? They had nothing to do with him until 1995.

well who knows? wasn't he on tour with MJ? Perhaps he was hired as a performer during that time. I guess we'll see if/when he files his complaint.

 

[HIStory]

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

Thing is that even if he was employed by MJ's companies during his alleged abuse, Safechuck cannot even use the Chandler case as a point of reference of why the companies "should have known". Since his claim is that he was abused between 1988 and 1992. Of course not even the Chandler case would be a reason for a company "to know" when the mother and the child themselves say everything is alright, when MJ denies everything, when there is no concrete evidence against him just an allegation etc. - like we discussed about the Robson case. But this one seems to be even weaker.

While we do not know when he was first employed by one of MJ's companies - and let's say he was between 1988 and 1992 - we do know that his story is that he had not told anyone until recently (or 2005, whichever version of his story he wants us to believe now). His mother (who apparently was with them on the Bad Tour) did not know. His father did not know. No one ever knew. So it's the same question as with Robson's case: how on Earth then the companies were supposed to know? And if his mother is not respobsible how on Earth would MJ's companies be? And then of course we still have that whole question of who controlled whom etc.

And if he was only ever employed by the companies after the alleged abuse I cannot even imagine what they will try to do with that. Maybe they will tell some tale about the companies employing him so that MJ could keep him silent or whatever, but that's not a cause of action under CCP 340.1.

BTW, MJJ Ventures was founded in 1991:

Name: MJJ Ventures Inc.
Profile: Video production (Old company, re-activated for copyright reasons)
Established: 2-26-1991
Status: Active

Safechuck claims he was abused between 1988 and 1992. So at least in case of MJJV his alleged abuse would precede even the existence of the company.

I'm expecting them to highten their media smear campaign in the coming months to try to highten the pressure on the Estate to settle. I am expecting them to use these filings as a mean to get lurid, graphic details of allegations out to the media etc. That will be their tactic IMO, still hoping for a settlement.

 

[castor]

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

well who knows? wasn't he on tour with MJ? Perhaps he was hired as a performer during that time. I guess we'll see if/when he files his complaint.

But that would contradict the Robson claim.
There they argued that the Chandler case and the Francia case should be the reason why the corporations were "on notice".
That was 1993 1994.
They never argued that the corporations knew about any abuse in 1988-1992.
And the Estate's demurrer says this:

Here. there are virtually no allegations regarding the Corporate Defendants alleged knowledge of "unlawful sexual conduct"
prior to when the alleged abuse began or at any time prior to the 1993 allegations to support a finding that the Corporate Defendants
"knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct".

So now they will simply change that part too and claim that certain people knew Safechuck was abused and did nothing?
Nonsense.
If such a person would have existed he or she sure would have been found by Sneddon and LAPD in 1993.
But not even they claimed, ever, that MJ's companies were in any way involved in cover up the abuse.
And you can be sure if there had been just the slightest suspicion they and the press would have made sure everyone knew about it.

 

[HIStory]

I am looking into the precedent case that the Estate quoted in their latest demurrer re. the standards for "reason to know". Here is what it says:

Thus, contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, and the conclusion of the Court of
Appeal, the Legislature’s use of a “reason to know” standard is not the same as the
inquiry notice described in Civil Code section 19. Rather, in determining whether
an actor was in possession of the constructive knowledge described by the “reason
to know” standard, we ask whether, after examining the facts in the actor’s
possession, a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence — or, in the particular
circumstance, a person of superior intelligence — would have inferred the
existence of the ultimate fact at issue or regarded its existence as so highly
probable as to conduct himself or herself as if it did exist.

http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/doe-v-city-los-angeles-33697

So that is the requirement. So to translate that to the Robson case it would mean that based on the simple fact of Jordan Chandler accusing Michael a person of ordinary intelligence "would have inferred the existence of the ultimate fact at issue (ie. that Robson was being molested) or regarded its existence as so highly probable as to conduct himself or herself as if it did exist".

And that's just nonsense to claim here. I mean just because Jordan Chandler accused Michael it does not follow that people at MJJP or MJJV should have inferred that Robson was being molested, especially when Robson himself said he was not (remember he was on TV saying that!), when his mother stated he was not etc.

Also an allegation is not equal to a proven fact. Michael always denied the Chandler allegations and even in the settlement he stated he did not molest Jordan Chandler.

The Estate argues in the demurrer that the Chandler allegations would at best put someone on "inquiry notice" (ie. the person should make inquiry, research in whether abuse is happening to someone else). IMO we could even argue that that inquiry happened in regards of Robson, since he was asked if he was abused and he was even on TV saying he was not. However whether or not inquiry happened or not is not even relevant because according to the precedent case ruling "the Legislature’s use of a “reason to know” standard is not the same as the inquiry notice described in Civil Code section 19". So someone being on "inquiry notice" of potential abuse is not sufficient.

Fairly construed, then, subdivision (b)(2) requires the victim to establish
that the nonperpetrator defendant had actual knowledge, constructive knowledge
(as measured by the reason to know standard), or was otherwise on notice that the
perpetrator had engaged in past unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and,
possessed of this knowledge or notice, failed to take reasonable preventative steps
or implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of future unlawful sexual
conduct by the perpetrator.

And this is just one area where Robson's complaint seem to fail. The Estate lists three independent reasons for why the demurrer should be sustained. This one is just one of them. There is also the problem of the companies not having control over MJ (there is precedent law quoted there as well, that a company has to have some sort of control over the alleged perpetrator and of course it has to be in a position to take such reasonable preventive steps and implement safeguards, which is not the case here. And the third independent reason is that the alleged abuse did not arise out of the relationship between the alleged perpetrator and the companies, since Robson was already in contact with MJ way before he or his mother were employed by the companies.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

Er why was he working with/around mj in 94/95 if the big bad monster had been abusing him in the late 80's .never mind dont bother answering that!!

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Somebody had to hold that umbrella you know.

 

[castor]

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

And this is just one area where Robson's complaint seem to fail. The Estate lists three independent reasons for why the demurrer should be sustained. This one is just one of them. There is also the problem of the companies not having control over MJ (there is precedent law quoted there as well, that a company has to have some sort of control over the alleged perpetrator and of course it has to be in a position to take such reasonable preventive steps and implement safeguards, which is not the case here. And the third independent reason is that the alleged abuse did not arise out of the relationship between the alleged perpetrator and the companies, since Robson was already in contact with MJ way before he or his mother were employed by the companies.

Not to mention if one accepts that the companies should have done something to prevent Robson from being with MJ alone they should have done that in every other case:
somehow it should have been their job to prevent any kid from being alone with MJ.
And that's just ridiculous. They had no way to do that and no right to do that.

Also the main issue, if people at the companies knew about the abuse, why didn't they tell the police?
Not merely preventing meetings between MJ and kids.