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

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

A company is made up of individuals. Sueing a company is an easy way of or a bit of a cop out to me. its like invisible ppl. why not sue mjs assistants at the time.its fishing on a grand scale
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

(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.

Respect77, thank you. Despite the second section it is still the judge who will decide if this merits a civil trial. It simply does not.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

As expected, Safechuck civil case against corporations is going to start. Next step would be the complaint - hopefully allowing us to have a better understanding of the claims and demurrer.

bikv2e.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^Civil process not civil trial. Thank you.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^

yeah edited it to say "civil case".
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

As expected, Safechuck civil case against corporations is going to start. Next step would be the complaint - hopefully allowing us to have a better understanding of the claims and demurrer.

bikv2e.jpg


What the **** would he sue the companies for?
This is absurd.

And who is the Doe 1 defendant?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

What the **** would he sue the companies for?
This is absurd.

And who is the Doe 1 defendant?

can you please chill.

Just like Robson, he is trying his luck at all fronts. We will understand better what he is claiming/ will claim when we see the complaint. No one can tell you the contents of the complaint beforehand. And Doe 1 is MJ.Doe 4 and Doe 5 are Executors and that's the part dependent on the probate claim
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

can you please chill.

Just like Robson, he is trying his luck at all fronts. We will understand better what he is claiming/ will claim when we see the complaint. No one can tell you the contents of the complaint beforehand. And Doe 1 is MJ.Doe 4 and Doe 5 are Executors and that's the part dependent on the probate claim


I certainly would like to hear their explanation as to why more than 10 years of investigation couldn't uncover that there were people in MJ's companies who
knew about the abuse and let it happen. Sure that never occurred to Sneddon or Zonen or Garcetti or anyone in the press. :crazy
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Like I said based on the legal codes it seems the only requirement of a "meritorious case" seems to be a Certificate of Merit by a therapist and by the lawyer which they do have so the ruling was to be expected.

(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.

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

There are many in the online fan community that consider themselves investigators of sorts. If any one of them is reading this thread, I and many others truly want to know who is funding this doomed venture for Robson and Safechuck. Who has the funding to continue to employ this legal team to continue with a doomed civil process with no chance of a civil trial?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

There are many in the online fan community that consider themselves investigators of sorts. If any one of them is reading this thread, I and many others truly want to know who is funding this doomed venture for Robson and Safechuck. Who has the funding to continue to employ this legal team to continue with a doomed civil process with no chance of a civil trial?

Not every civil suit plaintiff has a back up source as Mrs. Jackson had with the estate executors to pay the lawyers. This very much could be a complete contingency base suit where the lawyers get their expenses and all fees from the settlement, and if no settlement or award, they get nothing.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Why isn't he also suing Pepsi? Surely they should be the ones he sues first...?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Why isn't he also suing Pepsi? Surely they should be the ones he sues first...?
I'm so glad somebody else thinks this. I've been wondering that too. Pepsi would have much bigger pockets.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think the companies he is trying to sue would differ based on when he is claiming the alleged abuse happen. correct me if I'm wrong (I'm too lazy to go and check his probate claim), didn't he claim the abuse started several months/ years after meeting MJ? if that's the case then nothing happened during pepsi commercial/employment. Earth Song & History tour seems to be after the alleged abuse. I wonder if he was ever signed by / employed by one of MJ's companies in between? I guess we'll know more, hopefully if/when we see the civil complaint.

Who has the funding to continue to employ this legal team to continue with a doomed civil process with no chance of a civil trial?

It could be contingency basis, it's actually pretty common. At least one currently active case is on a contingency basis. KJ's lawyers took it contingency basis. Mann apparently "paid" his lawyer by the MJ stuff he bought from Vaccaro. Last photo shoots documentary has a lawyer who is also a partner in the documentary - hence they don't pay him for services. HTWF managed to retain legal counsel - by constantly finding a new one when the previous ones left for nonpayment.

Plus I don't think Robson/Safechuck lawyers are aiming for a trial, they want a settlement. Every single thing that they do, timing, media involvement etc. makes me think that.
 
Last edited:
Gerryevans, I believe you know Panish’s legal team continues to be contingency-based for their clients; not only for Jackson beneficiaries. Only the appellate lawyer was to receive a capped payment.

I am unsure why some suggest Robson and Safechuck’s team to be contingency-based when there is no evidence to support such. Someone(s) is funding this doomed venture. Hopefully those who consider themselves investigators will discover who their benefactor(s) is. It would bring clarity.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

He claims the abuse started in Paris on the Bad Tour which would be June 1988. Apparently that's when he and his mother joined Michael on the Bad Tour.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

He claims the abuse started in Paris on the Bad Tour which would be June 1988. Apparently that's when he and his mother joined Michael on the Bad Tour.

There you go. So it could be a matter of who arranged him to go to Paris. Assuming MJJ Productions was involved, it could be a reason why he is suing that companies.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

There you go. So it could be a matter of who arranged him to go to Paris. Assuming MJJ Productions was involved, it could be a reason why he is suing that companies.

I think the reason why he is suing the companies is because if the probate case is thrown out then the only entity left for them to try to sue are MJ's companies. They cannot sue the Estate and they cannot sue MJ as a person. So it's more like a last straw attempt.

I read today the Doe vs. LADP precedent case that is a big reference in the complaint and demurrer. Here are some interesting parts:


[4] With these principles in mind, we turn to subdivision (b)(2). The words of subdivision (b)(2) create three conditions that must be met before it applies to a particular case: (1) the nonperpetrator defendant "knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice"; (2) that the perpetrator -- "an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent" -- had engaged in "unlawful sexual conduct"; and (3) "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."

[5] Although plaintiffs are focused on the words "knew," "reason to know," and "otherwise on notice" in the statute, it bears emphasizing that these words must, of course, be read in the context of the provision as a whole. Thus, the subject of which the nonperpetrator defendant must have had knowledge or notice is, the statute clearly tells us, the perpetrator's unlawful sexual conduct as that term is defined in the statute to encompass particular prohibited sexual acts with a minor. As we shall demonstrate, it is the failure of plaintiffs to allege that either the City or the BSA had knowledge or notice that Kalish had engaged in past unlawful sexual conduct that dooms their complaint. Bearing this in mind, we turn to the knowledge and notice language.

It is not enough, under the statute, as plaintiffs maintain, that knowledge or notice of conduct that does not amount to unlawful sexual conduct is sufficient to trigger a duty of inquiry, even if we assume that "otherwise on notice" refers to such a duty. The preliminary reference in subdivision (b)(2) to "unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent," is clarified by the subsequent language regarding the nonperpetrator defendant's failure to take preventative action "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 circumstances involving contact with children. (Italics added.)

Thus, construing the subdivision as a whole, the knowledge or notice requirement refers to knowledge or notice of past unlawful sexual conduct by the individual currently accused of other unlawful sexual conduct.

[10] 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.


So based on this what they need to allege is that MJ's companies knew about MJ engaging unlawful sexual conduct in the past.


Furthermore, we agree with plaintiffs that the doctrine of less particularity may be especially appropriate in this setting. The legislative history of Senate Bill No. 1779 demonstrates the Legislature was particularly sensitive to cases of childhood sexual abuse in which the nonperpetrator defendant concealed from victims of that abuse its knowledge of the perpetrator's past acts of unlawful sexual conduct. "[C]laims of some victims were delayed because the employer withheld information from victims or lied to victims so the employers' negligence and wrongful conduct would not be discovered. This is a key distinction and policy justification for holding these wrongdoing employers liable past the victim's 26th birthday. In these cases, the evidence is not lost because the perpetrator of the abuse could not be found or his memories faded. Instead, the evidence is in the possession of the wrongdoing employer or third party, who knew or had reason to know of complaints of sexual misconduct against the employee or agent but failed to take reasonable [42 Cal.4th 551] steps to avoid future unlawful acts by that employee or agent." (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1779, as amended June 6, 2002, p. 9.)

[13] This recognition by the Legislature that one reason a plaintiff may remain ignorant of the nonperpetrator defendant's wrongdoing is because that defendant has withheld or concealed evidence of its wrongdoing argues strongly in favor of broader, rather than more restrictive, standards of pleading where subdivision (b)(2) is alleged to apply. In the appropriate case, a plaintiff should be able to rely on the doctrine of less particularity where he or she can plausibly allege that the nonperpetrator defendant withheld or concealed evidence of its knowledge or notice of the perpetrator's past unlawful sexual conduct with minors. fn. 5

Nothing in the foregoing discussion, however, assists these plaintiffs because no degree of broad construction of their pleadings can supply what is missing from them -- allegations that defendants knew, had reason to know, or were otherwise on notice of past incidents of unlawful sexual conduct by Kalish with minors that triggered the duty on defendant's part to take preventive measure to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by Kalish in the future.

?FN 5. On the other hand, the pleading must conform to "the general rule that a complaint must contain only allegations of ultimate facts as opposed to allegations of . . . legal conclusions . . . . " (Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 279, fn. 4.) Thus a pleading that did no more than assert boilerplate allegations that defendants knew or were on notice of the perpetrator's past unlawful sexual conduct would not be sufficient nor would allegations of information and belief that merely asserted the facts so alleged without alleging such information that "lead [the plaintiff] to believe that the allegations are true." (Pridonoff v. Balokovic, supra, "36 Cal.2d at p. 792.)


And then there is of course the whole problem of control:

[2] In Aaronoff v. Martinez-Senftner (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 910, the court observed that the purpose of subdivision (b)(2) is to target "third party defendants who, by virtue of certain specified relationships to the perpetrator (i.e., employee, volunteer, representative, or 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." (Aaronoff, at p. 921.)

Subdivision (b)(2) extends past a plaintiff's 26th birthday claims against a nonperpetrator defendant who is or was in a specified relationship with the perpetrator -- "employee, volunteer, representative, or agent" -- and who, "knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice" of the perpetrator's "unlawful sexual conduct" and "failed to take" preventative measures to "avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future" by that perpetrator. The statute's enumeration of the necessary relationship between the nonperpetrator defendant and the perpetrator implies that the former was in a position to exercise some control over the latter.


The Estate writes in their latest demurrer that Robson has not made any allegations that the companies had alleged knowledge of "unlawful sexual conduct" before the alleged abuse began or at any time before the 1993 allegations:

ou0484.jpg


So the only thing I can imagine is an attempt to use the Chandler allegations as a "reason to know" but with Safechuck not even that could work, since his claim is that his abused stopped in 1992.

And even if the Judge ruled that the unproven Chandler allegations were "a reason to know" there's still the question: so what were MJ's companies who were solely owned and controlled by MJ supposed to do? Especially when Robson and his mother were among MJ's fierce defenders. The Chandler allegations were very public, Robson and his mother knew about them, there was no hiding of information about past allegations here. People like Norma Staikos or John Branca had no control over Michael and his relationship with the Robsons, which was pretty voluntary by the mother even after the 1993 allegations.

Here is what Marzano said about that at the October 1 hearing:

344scx5.jpg


9i6xk3.jpg



This sounds so ridiculous to me. Whatever positions Staikos, Sherman or Branca had in the companies, Michael was their boss. He could hire and fire them, not the other way around. They had no power or right to move MJ to any position or to order him to not to meet children or whatever.

And BTW, based on the Estate's latest demurrer Robson's lawyers did not manage to discover any other owner of the companies than MJ:

2aesc1x.jpg


No one in that company had any control over MJ or had any right to hire or fire him or to move/remove him to/from positions or situations.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yeah, it's all just desperate stuff to try and make sure they feel they have a hand around the estate's throat. The estate knows it's a bluff though. They knew the probate cases were bluff's 2 years ago, they still know that now.

Remember though, these people in the estate they have no proof knew anything about the abuse, who it would seem barely even visited his ranch personally, these are the real bad guys here that Wade hates and wants to go after. Thanks to his cousin we know it's this lawsuit which is the real cleansing healing one, because it's all about exposing how people who worked for MJ and made money with/for him were the real bad guys in this equation while they let it all happen - you know, people exactly like his mother.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It could be contingency basis, it's actually pretty common. At least one currently active case is on a contingency basis. KJ's lawyers took it contingency basis. Mann apparently "paid" his lawyer by the MJ stuff he bought from Vaccaro. Last photo shoots documentary has a lawyer who is also a partner in the documentary - hence they don't pay him for services. HTWF managed to retain legal counsel - by constantly finding a new one when the previous ones left for nonpayment.

I did not see your response when I posted previously.

You have listed several examples of what others have done to retain legal counsel. Retaining legal counsel can be a costly endeavor. How interesting that Robson and Safechuck's funding of their legal team has been a well kept secret for approximately two years. If their legal team was contingency based, their legal team would have said so publicly because it would give the impression they have a strong belief in their clients' fabrications.

Their legal team is most likely not contingency-based. As I replied to Gerryevans, knowing the benefactor(s) would bring clarity to this attempt to fleece Michael's estate.

By the way, which current case is contingency based?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Retaining legal counsel can be a costly endeavor.

yes and it can also be very cheap or even free.

If their legal team was contingency based, their legal team would have said so publicly because it would give the impression they have a strong belief in their clients' fabrications.

may or may not happen. I don't remember KJ's lawyers making any public statements about that to the media. I think we saw it on their website and wondered and later Alan Duke confirmed it.

How interesting that Robson and Safechuck's funding of their legal team has been a well kept secret for approximately two years.

Not that interesting for me. It's not like that's a public info, you wouldn't expect the person or the lawyer to blab about it. the only reason we learned about the others is because there has been a reason to mention that info. for example in HTWF case we have seen lawyer after lawyer asking to be excused due to nonpayment. That showed us many lawyers were paid initial retainer fee and then not paid. When last photoshoots lawyer was challenged, the firm filed a declaration saying they can't afford another lawyer and this lawyer/producer was providing services for free. Mann's lawyer situation was learned 2-3 years after that lawsuit concluded only recently when Vaccaro during his bankruptcy claimed Mann got some MJ items from him and then gave them to his lawyer as payment for legal services. Anyway what I'm trying to say how the lawyers are being paid isn't commonly public knowledge, it would only become public if/when there's a payment dispute.

Their legal team is most likely not contingency-based.

maybe, may it is contingency basis. it is possible lawyers take cases for fame and putting their name out there. they could be paying their legal teams or perhaps someone else is funding this. there's no evidence any way and all we have is our opinions and speculations.

As I replied to Gerryevans, knowing the benefactor(s) would bring clarity to this attempt to fleece Michael's estate.

allow me to state the obvious. Clearly you are believing a third party ( I assume AEG probably?) is financing these lawsuits. If that's the case, obviously they would keep that information under wraps and even probably try funding methods that cannot be tracked back to them. No fan investigation or sleuthing can uncover such information - at least through legal and public channels. So I guess the best we could do is assume and speculate.
 
ivy;4092877 said:
I don't remember KJ's lawyers making any public statements about that to the media. I think we saw it on their website and wondered and later Alan Duke confirmed it.

???

Panish did not need to make an announcement and there was no need for confirmation from Duke or otherwise. It was and is clearly on their website they are contingency-based.

Not that interesting for me.

Be that as it may, you are consistently suggesting this team is contingency-based. Any particular reason?

Anyway what I'm trying to say how the lawyers are being paid isn't commonly public knowledge, it would only become public if/when there's a payment dispute.

As I said, it is public knowledge when a legal team is contingency-based because retaining legal counsel can be a costly endeavor. Stating a legal team is contingency-based also fosters the belief that the team believes their client’s cause(s).

I never suggested AEG was the benefactor. I have however, maintained this is most likely not a contingency-based team. Those who consider themselves investigators have successfully discovered quite a bit of varied, valuable information that is shared in the online community. Hopefully they will accept the challenge and attempt to discover who has a vested interest in fleecing the MJ estate.

By the way, which current case is contingency-based?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

There you go. So it could be a matter of who arranged him to go to Paris. Assuming MJJ Productions was involved, it could be a reason why he is suing that companies.

If that's the case there is not a thing he could name as reason to know about any unlawful sexual contact. It was long before 1993 and noone at the time accused MJ of anything.
Not to mention it was him and his mother who wanted to go with MJ on the tour. Noone forced them to be there.
One of the most tragic aspect of these BS allegations is that MJ's accusers were his FANS!
Chandler totally idolized him as a kid, so did Robson and Safechuck. Arvizo also wanted to be with him even after their final "escape" from Neverland. He actually threw a tantrum
after their "final escape" in March that he wanted to go back to Neverland. After all that molestation, intoxication, head and stomach aches, false imprisonment he wanted to be with MJ.

This was not like with Sandusky who targetted vurnerable boys who were in a way dependent on him. Remember when he told one of them I'm gonna send you home!
With MJ it was the other way around. The kids and their parents wanted to be around him, if we believe Joy robson's testimony they even "fought over him"
one becoming jealous of the other if they saw MJ paid more attention to the other.
I guess because they liked to be molested.
Chandler could have simply chosen to visit his father during those weekends. But he wanted to be with MJ instead. Why if he was so abused by him?
It's ridiculous.


So based on this what they need to allege is that MJ's companies knew about MJ engaging unlawful sexual conduct in the past.

Which means if the judge allows this nonsense to go on trial he would de facto argue that everyone had to know that MJ was guilty of the Chandler allegations
despite the fact that he wasn't even charged let alone convicted despite so many kids defending him including under oath, despite his strong and consistent denial and despite the many red flags in the Chandler story
and thus Robson and his mother also had to know about unlawful sexual conduct but they are somehow not responsible for going back to MJ over and over again and consistently defending him.
This is so absurd it should be made into a Monty Python movie.


Can someone explain what the judge's ultimate problem with the complaint was during the Oct 1 hearing?
Just that they didn't name any cause of action?
Reading the transcript it's not clear to me.

It's obvious that Robson didn't name any reasonable step the companies should have taken.
What on earth should they have done?
Tell the Robsons to cut of contact with MJ? And they sure would have listened and changed their mind about MJ? Because the Chandler thing was not enough to achieve that but Norma Staikos's opinion would have changed everything?
Tell the police that they believed the Chandlers? How would that have stopped any unlawful sexual conduct when Sneddon said the reason why MJ was not indicted was that Chandler refused to cooperate with the grand juries.


I don't understand why the Estate didn't argue that Robson and his mother were with MJ because they wanted to not because the companies forced them.
It was not something that the companies controlled in any way.
It was their own decision and they were with MJ because they liked to be with him - like a bunch of other people.
this was not a situation where the Robsons were dependent on MJ in any way or where not visiting MJ would have had any negative consequence to their lives.

They also failed to argue why the 1993 allegations were absolutely NOT a reason to know that MJ engaged in any unlawful sexual conduct and the Robsons agreed with that.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

double post
 
Tygger;4092878 said:
Be that as it may, you are consistently suggesting this team is contingency-based. Any particular reason?

I'm merely stating possibilities by the use of "could be". I'm not claiming anything to be correct or one possibility being more likely than the other. As for general reasons why anyone could take these case as a contingency basis can include

- publicity : as any case related to MJ brings the lawyers publicity, a tool to get their names out there
- belief of other party will pay their legal fees because of a settlement or a favorable verdict.
- the expected payout is so large that they feel it's worth taking the risk (ex: such as in AEG case they were aiming for over Billion dollars. Lawyers might think possibility of such a big payout can warrant the risk of accepting the case on contingency basis).


Stating a legal team is contingency-based also fosters the belief that the team believes their client’s cause(s).

could be one of the reasons (as I listed above as well) but so what? just because lawyers believe their client's cause doesn't mean they can or will win the case. You don't need to look to any further than KJ- AEG case for that. I'm sure Panish & Boyle completely believed KJ's cause but that wasn't enough for them to win the case.

I never suggested AEG was the benefactor. attempt to discover who has a vested interest in fleecing the MJ estate.

Allow me to be more direct. You haven't necessarily have written it explicitly but first let me start by what I understand from your posts. You don't believe the lawyers are contingency basis, you don't believe Robson/safechuck is or can pay their fees. You think there's a third party - who may that be - funding this lawsuit. I imagine you don't think this third party does that for the good of their heart and/or that they believe Robson. So correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand what you written as saying there is a third party who is funding this lawsuit, who is paying Robson/Safechuck to lie about these accusations.

If I'm correct in understanding you, then the situation you suggest is an illegal situation, it's a conspiracy. those affidavits, declarations, depositions are done under oath with the threat of perjury. forget the estate side, it's using time and resources of a court. At least 3 people (robson, safechuck and the mystery benefactor) are conspiring to do something illegal. If that's the case, I don't think the information you ask to be public or can be uncovered by any fan sleuthing to a certainty. Very simply put, people who do illegal things cover their tracks. But anyway.

As for your question - take a guess. Isn't there a currently active case (not talking about Robson/Safechuck) that makes you think "how are they affording a lawyer"? that case is contingency basis.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

item4.rendition.slideshowHorizontal.05_neverland.jpg


5 / 9
In the master bedroom, white linen covered the walls, and the fireplace had a white-painted mantel and columns and blue-and-white Portuguese tiles. The mahogany four-poster bed was made for the house.

Michael Jackson had a generous heart. Most kid's who visited Michael's master bedroom had never visited such wealth, as in "there is more happiness in giving, then in receiving." Then like Judas Iscariot, people became greedy towards another's generosity!
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Can someone explain what the judge's ultimate problem with the complaint was during the Oct 1 hearing?
Just that they didn't name any cause of action?
Reading the transcript it's not clear to me.

He did not see a cause of action alleged and he wanted a cause of action before they would get into the issues around CCP 340.1(b)(2).


I don't understand why the Estate didn't argue that Robson and his mother were with MJ because they wanted to not because the companies forced them.

I do not know the limitations of the demurrer phase, do you?
Perhaps there is a depth of arguments that they cannot get into at this stage, only if the complaint survives demurrer and goes to the summary judgement stage.

Here at the demurrer stage there are allegations made which the Court needs to accept as true for the purpose of the demurrer. If the Estate wants to challenge those claims - that's for the summary judgement stage. At least that is how I understand the process. Is that right, Ivy? So I think a discussion of Robson's mother and what she did or did not do may be appropriate at the summary judgement stage.

As I understand it now the Estate can only give a legal reply to whatever Robson alleges - ie. show by law and legal precedents why that claim is not sufficient to survive demurrer even if that is true. To say the claim is not true is not for the demurrer stage.

They also failed to argue why the 1993 allegations were absolutely NOT a reason to know that MJ engaged in any unlawful sexual conduct and the Robsons agreed with that.

They did argue that.

72vtdj.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

He did not see a cause of action alleged and he wanted a cause of action before they would get into the issues around CCP 340.1(b)(2).

Once there is a cause of action shouldn't Robson still state what the companies should have done?
How could the judge decide whether the companies failed to do reasonable steps when Robson doesn't even specify what those steps should have been?


They did argue that.

72vtdj.jpg

Not during the hearing. It's just a footnote in their response.
They didn't stress it during the hearing.
And this is exactly what Marzano is using against them. that because he was accused the companies had reason to know that he sexually abused others.
This is such a bullshit argument and I don't even understand why the judge considered it even a remotely valid argument. Everyone who is accused should be considered a criminal just because they are accused?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Not during the hearing. It's just a footnote in their response.
They didn't stress it during the hearing.
And this is exactly what Marzano is using against them. that because he was accused the companies had reason to know that he sexually abused others.
This is such a bullshit argument and I don't even understand why the judge considered it even a remotely valid argument. Everyone who is accused should be considered a criminal just because they are accused?

During the hearing they were answering the Judge's questions. The Judge was stuck at point 1, ie. that there is not even a cause of action. Thus they did not go into a detailed discussion of CCP 340.1(b)(2).

1qiu07.jpg


2ppyk2v.jpg


mwcjmp.jpg



The Estate's lawyer Jonathan Steinsapir did state that he did not think Robson could meet the requirements of CCP 340.1(b)(2).

2rqmzpc.jpg



So there was no detailed discussion of CCP 340.1(b)(2) and that's why the Estate did not make detailed arguments about that. The Judge said he cannot discuss CCP 340.1(b)(2) until there is a cause of action.

Once there is a cause of action shouldn't Robson still state what the companies should have done?
How could the judge decide whether the companies failed to do reasonable steps when Robson doesn't even specify what those steps should have been?

I guess we will see if he states anything and if that is enough or not.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

During the hearing they were answering the Judge's questions. The Judge was stuck at point 1, ie. that there is not even a cause of action. Thus they did not go into a detailed discussion of CCP 340.1(b)(2).

1qiu07.jpg


2ppyk2v.jpg


mwcjmp.jpg


Do you have a link to the second am. complaint which did not include a cause of action?
I wonder what the judge referred to when he said I see what the defendants alleged to have done.
 
Back
Top