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

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

I think saying they didn't do enough would make a bit more sense if they weren't doing so well in court, and so far they are.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think saying they didn't do enough would make a bit more sense if they weren't doing so well in court, and so far they are.

It is far from over.
 
ivy;4092917 said:
- 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).

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.

Allow me to add fact:

Panish was a contingency-based lawyer before Michael’s passing. Panish was a contingency-based lawyer before he encountered the Jackson beneficiaries. Panish continues to be a contingency-based lawyer after his encounter with the Jackson beneficiaries. Simply put: Panish was, is, and continues to be a contingency-based lawyer and one of the U.S. most successful. That is why he was chosen. His website currently touts a 99% success rate over five years. I believe we know who encompasses the 1%.

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.

Let us reverse the logic for a moment.

Robson stated he has not been able to work because of his mental state. Is he exhausting monies saved? Maybe, maybe not. I do not remember reading commentary about Safechuck’s current financial status however; he cannot clearly state when he worked for an MJ company. Could this legal team believe in Safechuck’s claim so much they are willing to go through the civil process without that very important, specific clarity in his claim free of charge? Maybe, maybe not.

Is it more clear how a third party may be necessary to fund legal counsel for Robson and Safechuck?

It is not illegal for a third party to fund another’s legal counsel. What you are suggesting is the third party (provided there is one(s)) knows for fact Robson and Safechuck are fabricators. That was not my suggestion, that is yours.

Those who have read Robson and Safechuck’s claims are quite aware they are fabricators who are attempting to fleece MJ’s estate after reading the claims. You yourself have stated several times you believe they are attempting to force a settlement which equates to a fleecing attempt after reading the claims. I believe we all agree a settlement will not happen because these civil claims will most likely not be allowed. Thus, the only viable option is appeals which are not free of charge provided this legal team is not contingency-based.

Are there not some supporters of Robson (and Safechuck) who are participating in a gofundme project currently? Would they do so if the lawyers were publicly known as contingency-based?

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.

ivy;4092843 said:
At least one currently active case is on a contingency basis.

You stated as fact that there is a current case that is contingency-based and I would like to know which case that is. It is illogical reasoning to question how legal counsel is being retained and safely assume the counsel is contingency-based.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Tygger,

we discussed the same topic about 100 pages before and I said what I wanted to say so I'm not going to repeat myself.

Are there not some supporters of Robson (and Safechuck) who are participating in a gofundme project currently?

wait? what? and if that's the case, doesn't it goes against your position that there is a benefactor involved here?

You stated as fact that there is a current case that is contingency-based

trust me it's a fact and not an assumption or speculation. I'm not at liberty to say more. But it shouldn't be that hard to understand what I'm talking about.
 
ivy;4064624 said:
Well here's good news

Judge skeptical on man’s late claim against Michael Jackson estate
POSTED BY COLLEEN PARK ON DECEMBER 16, 2014 IN HOLLYWOOD | 1 VIEWS | LEAVE A RESPONSE

A judge expressed skepticism Tuesday about whether a man who alleges he was abused as a child by Michael Jackson can file a late claim against the singer’s estate, but took the matter under submission and said he would rule later.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff noted that James Safechuck told his mother in 2005 about the alleged molestation and broke ties with the pop star.

The judge also noted that Safechuck that year rejected Jackson’s request to testify on his behalf when the singer was on trial on sexual abuse charges involving another young man — allegations for which the entertainer was acquitted.

“Mr. Safechuck said, ‘No, I won’t testify in your criminal trial and don’t call me again,”‘ Beckloff said.

Safechuck did not file his petition for a late claim against the Jackson estate until August.


Attorneys for the estate maintain Safechuck had 60 days to file the claim after he began to understand what allegedly happened to him after seeing a May 2013 television interview with Wayne Robson, who also claims he was sexually abused by Jackson as a child.

Safechuck’s attorneys maintain he did not fully comprehend what happened until he obtained therapy and that therefore he is not bound by the 60-day statute.

Howard Weitzman, an attorney for the Jackson estate, has said Safechuck’s claims should be dismissed.

“Mr. Safechuck’s request to file a late claim against the Jackson estate so he can recover money from Michael’s beneficiary will hopefully be rejected,” Weitzman said previously. “This is a person that made his claim five years after Michael died, more than 20 years after the incidents supposedly happened and has given sworn testimony that Michael never did anything inappropriate to him.”

Safechuck, 36, alleges he was abused by the King of Pop after the two appeared together in a late-1980s Pepsi commercial, when Safechuck was 10.

“(Jackson) engaged in a calculated course of conduct to lure both (Safechuck) and his parents into a false sense of security and normalcy that was far from reality,” Safechuck’s attorneys allege in the court papers.

They claim Jackson “was successful in his efforts to the point that (Safechuck) endured repeated acts of sexual abuse of a heinous nature and was brainwashed by the decedent into believing they were acts of love and instigated by James himself rather than the decedent.”

Jackson had Safechuck dress like him to the point the boy looked like a “miniature version” of the singer, Safechuck’s attorneys’ court papers state.

“After the first incident (Safechuck) regularly began sleeping in (Jackson’s) bed in his hotel room during the rest of the ‘Bad’ tour in 1988,” Safechuck’s attorneys’ court papers state.

Safechuck alleges the pop star went molested him about 100 times for four years up until he reached puberty.

Last year, the 31-year-old Robson, an Australian former-choreographer, also filed a petition for a late claim against the estate, alleging Jackson sexually abused him at a young age.

According to Safechuck’s attorneys’ court papers, their client was able to gain “insight” from Robson’s claim and then obtained psychiatric help that has allowed him to come forward with details of the “loathsome nature of his childhood sexual relationship with (Jackson), the effects of which he has buried for decades.”

Jackson died June 25, 2009, of acute propofol intoxication.

— City News Service

http://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2014/...e-claim-michael-jackson-estate-alleged-abuse/

I checked some pages back and I came across this article. I forgot about it. I think Safechuck will have even harder time establishing the companies claim.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate


So they said that the companies owned a duty of care to Robson?
But his mother, who was by the way employed by MJJ Productions, didn't.
Get it.

In what way did those companies owned a duty of care to him?
Does he have to specify that for the judge to accept that they indeed owned a duty of care or it's enough to claim that they did?

It's also interesting that he claimed he didn't know the names of those who should have taken reasonable steps to prevent the abuse
but he is nevertheless sure that those unknown people are totally responsible for his abuse.


And this:
"It was an unspoken rule not to enter decedent's room while he was there"

This reminds me of Blanca Francia who for whatever reason didn't know about this rule and just managed to walk in just when Robson was in the shower with MJ
and Star Arvizo also not being bothered by that "rule" when he just happened to walk in at the right moment.
And MJ sleeping in Evan Chandler's and June Chandler's house because obviously neither Evan or June could walk in at any time they wanted.
And apparently MJ was not only not concerned about having a witness in the same bed in Neverland he didn't care about Evan's son being a potential witness either.

BTW do you remember anyone ever testifying that they saw do not disturb signs on the door?
Noone ever mentioned that not even Sneddon and he lied as much as possible to convict MJ.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff noted that James Safechuck told his mother in 2005 about the alleged molestation and broke ties with the pop star.

And in answer to this Safechuck changed his story in his next declaration now claiming that he did not tell his mother in 2005 that he was molested (just some vauge thing about MJ being a "bad man"). How does that look?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

In what way did those companies owned a duty of care to him?
Does he have to specify that for the judge to accept that they indeed owned a duty of care or it's enough to claim that they did?

It's also interesting that he claimed he didn't know the names of those who should have taken reasonable steps to prevent the abuse
but he is nevertheless sure that those unknown people are totally responsible for his abuse.

I think these are the things the Judge asked them to clarify in their Third Amended Complaint.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And in answer to this Safechuck changed his story in his next declaration now claiming that he did not tell his mother in 2005 that he was molested (just some vauge thing about MJ being a "bad man"). How does that look?

Like a big fat lie?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Another spit in the face he's gonna get and deserve for changing stories 10 years ago that's for sure.:pth:
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think allegedly saying MJ was "a bad man" in 2005 is good enough compared to what Beckloff said about Wade. James admits he was aware of the 2005 criminal case and he claims he thought MJ was bad.

I wonder why he didn't file his civil suit earlier.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And in answer to this Safechuck changed his story in his next declaration now claiming that he did not tell his mother in 2005 that he was molested (just some vauge thing about MJ being a "bad man"). How does that look?


For everyone with a brain it looks like ****ing liar changing his story whenever he is caught in a lie.
Same happened to Chandler same happened to Arvizo same happened to Robson.

No way Safechuck's probate claim will be allowed and they know it.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

we discussed the same topic about 100 pages before and I said what I wanted to say so I'm not going to repeat myself.

Exactly. I understand you may not have interest but, you are very insistent in repeating this legal team is contingency-based despite facts suggesting otherwise.

wait? what? and if that's the case, doesn't it goes against your position that there is a benefactor involved here?

No. It negates your contingency-based position. Those supporters believe this legal team is being funded. They are simply not aware of who is funding the team; Robson, Safechuck, and/or otherwise.

trust me it's a fact and not an assumption or speculation. I'm not at liberty to say more. But it shouldn't be that hard to understand what I'm talking about.

It is fact that a current case is contingency-based, you are fully aware of which case it is, and you cannot disclose such information.

How is it and how did you become privy to this information but, others are not? If you (and others) are privy to this information, it is a bit illogical to believe I would understand what you are speaking of without difficulty. Would you be able to tell me exactly whose case is contingency-based in a private message? I promise to join you in protecting the particular party's identity and not reveal their (and your) secret.
 
The problem with deceptive people is that they will always have a hard time remaining consistent. They will always get caught in lies, discrepancies, inconsistencies, and misstatements. It’s very hard to remember or keep track of something that never happened whereas real-life traumatic events that really occurred are hard to forget. Of course there will be a few missing details because as time passes, memory gets fuzzier, but there will be no lies because there is no reason to lie because the event really did happen. But with fraudulent people, their own words will end up betraying them.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Very well said. Also their ego betray them. And WR's got a huge ego.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So they said that the companies owned a duty of care to Robson?
But his mother, who was by the way employed by MJJ Productions, didn't.
Get it.

In what way did those companies owned a duty of care to him?
Does he have to specify that for the judge to accept that they indeed owned a duty of care or it's enough to claim that they did?

I don't even know why duty of care is relevant here. This is the law in question:

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.

Robson apparently tries to argue that not only 340.1(b)(2) but (a)2 and a(3) applies to them. (a)2 is where duty of care is mentioned. But I do not understand how they are trying to make it apply to them when (b)(1) clearly says: "No action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday." With the exception of what is described in (b)(2). So to me legally (b)(2) is the main issue, not (a)2 or a(3) that by (b)(1) is not even relevant here.

Maybe in case they invoke (b)(2) they still have to also fulfill the requirements in (a)2 and a(3)? Maybe. In that case, I understand the duty of care talk. So yeah, maybe that's the answer. He has to fulfill the requirements of all of those paragraphs: (a)2, a(3) and (b)(2). So let's see:

It is possible that the companies had a duty of care over Robson - after all he was a minor who was employed by them. That's not the difficult part for them to claim. The difficult part is everything else:

"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"

"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"

So what is the wrongful, negligent or intentional act by the companies? I think that this is what the Judge had a problem with - that he did not see what exactly these wrongful, negligent or intentional acts allegedly are.

In his Second Amended Complaint Robson claims that the companies allegedly "facilitated" meetings between MJ and him "for the purpose of Decendent engaging in childhood sexual abuse of Plaintiff".

He also claims that the companies were MJ's "co-conspirators, alter egos, aiders, abettors and agents for the childhood sexual abuse".

And "failure to take reasonable steps to prevent Decendent from engaging in childhood sexual abuse".

These are the things he alleges about the companies, but it seems the Judge wanted something more tangible. Claiming the companies were "co-conspirators etc." in child abuse and did not take reasonable steps is just a very general statement, there is no concrete cause of action put behind it. What did they do to be "co-conspirators"? In what way they did not take reasonable steps to prevent abuse? The only a bit more concrete claim is that they allegedly "facilitated" meetings between MJ and Robson "for the purpose of Decendent engaging in childhood sexual abuse of Plaintiff". But I guess even that would need some back story as to how that supposedly happened. How did the companies know that the meetings were allegedly "for the purpose of sexual abuse"? (And then let's not forget the point that a lot of those meetings had nothing to do with the companies. Robson's mother took Robson to meet Michael and left him alone with him long before they were employed by the companies.)

And it seems at the hearing on October 1, they only got this far and did not even discuss (b)(2) in detail. (b)(2) would give them even more problems as we discussed before. How did the companies knew, had a reason to know or were on notice about alleged abuse? Was Michael even an "employee, volunteer, representative, or agent" of these companies? He definitely wasn't an employee or volunteer. I do not know the legal definition of "representative" and "agent" but in the Second Amended Complaint Robson says the companies were MJ's agents: "In doing the acts complained of herein, Decendent acted individually and through the instrumentalities of MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, who were his co-conspirators, alter egos, aiders, abettors and agents for the childhood sexual abuse".

So was MJ their agents or were they his agents? Which one is it? Can you have it both ways? There is a lot of circular reasoning in Robson's complaint - as the Estate points it out in its demurrer.
And of course there is the question of whether the companies "failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct" and of course this leads to the already discussed issues of control etc.


BTW, everything Robson accuses these companies of doing would apply to his mother tenfold. So why doesn't he blame her? But even though he doesn't blame her, logically this would make Joy even more responsible than MJ's companies. So anyone who thinks about this a bit more deeply could see this. But I guess for the prospect of money Joy does not mind to be thrown under the bus a little bit as a horrible mother who "facilitated" the abuse of her own son. Or they think no one will notice this logical consequence that if MJ's companies are guilty then so is Joy Robson - actually ten times as much.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Maybe in case they invoke (b)(2) they still have to also fulfill the requirements in (a)2 and a(3)? Maybe.


Definitely they have to if they meet the requirements of (b)(2). If not, the whole thing is dead.
The question is which comes first? The Estate's demurrer totally focused on (b)(2) not (a)2 and a(3) while you say that the judge had
problems with (a)2 and a(3).

Let's assume that the judge decides they meet (b)(2). Then Robson will have to prove (a)2 and a(3) for summary judgement?



It is possible that the companies had a duty of care over Robson - after all he was a minor who was employed by them.


Is that a general rule in the US? If you are employed by someone he or she has a duty of care over you? Or only if you are a minor?
Does that duty of care apply to the employee's life outside of the company too? Like him visiting Neverland just of have fun?
Certainly not.



So what is the wrongful, negligent or intentional act by the companies? I think that this is what the Judge had a problem with - that he did not see what exactly these wrongful, negligent or intentional acts allegedly are.

In his Second Amended Complaint Robson claims that the companies allegedly "facilitated" meetings between MJ and him "for the purpose of Decendent engaging in childhood sexual abuse of Plaintiff".

Logically that would indicate that the judge did not accept that just because the companies facilitated meetings between them they were for the purpose of sexual abuse.
If Robson claims that he has to prove that the companies not only knew about Chandler but knew about Robson's abuse too which would contradict his claim that noone other than himself and MJ knew about it.
And if Robson admits that the companies didn't know he was being abused then how the heck was their role in making those meetings possible a negligent act?


So was MJ their agents or were they his agents?

Yes this seems to be grasping for straws. He was the sole owner and president of both companies. Since when are those the same as "representative agent"?

Which one is it? Can you have it both ways? There is a lot of circular reasoning in Robson's complaint - as the Estate points it out in its demurrer.

Yes they did talk about the whole he controlled the companies but the companies controlled him nonsense but they didn't mention your argument about them being each other's agents. And it's a good point. I found this definition and according to this MJ should have been employed by the companies for them to be liable and of course he was not:


agency
the relationship of a person (called the agent) who acts on behalf of another person, company, or government, known as the principal. "Agency" may arise when an employer (principal) and employee (agent) ask someone to make a delivery or name someone as an agent in a contract. The basic rule is that the principal becomes responsible for the acts of the agent, and the agent's acts are like those of the principal

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2370

Also, they failed to explain how the companies failed to

"prevent or avoid placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment"

This absolutely does not apply to Robson's situation and if they cannot argue that the companies failed to do this they cannot possibly meet (b)(2).
But I don't understand why the Estate ignored this point.

p.s. reading All that Glitters the most obvious thing that book reveals is that Evan Chandler and his wife Nathalie were out of their minds. They almost sound like Gutierez.
They are in love???? WTF? It didn't occur to them that Jordie was not a willing participant? WTF?? He was concerned that Jordie might be gay? WTF?? Thank God they were both clothed? WTF?? Cody tells them Michael Jackson did bad things to Jordie and they don't even ask what bad things?? WTF??
He won't do anything while Cody is in the room so it's fine to leave him there with the boys? WTF??
A 5 year old would understand that those are bad things but a 13 year old would not? WTF?
The whole story is mindblowingly absurd. No parent would behave like this if he or she indeed believes their kid is being molested.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

You stated as fact that there is a current case that is contingency-based and I would like to know which case that is. It is illogical reasoning to question how legal counsel is being retained and safely assume the counsel is contingency-based.

I would assume Ivy is speaking from the Michael-album-lawsuit from a member of this board.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The Estate's demurrer totally focused on (b)(2) not (a)2 and a(3)

They do address (a)2 and (a)3 at least in the case of first cause of action. We do not know if it was raised by Robson with other causes of action as well. But from this reply by the Estate to me it seems Robson still failed to make a viable negligence theory (at least the way the Estate represents it in its demurrer) and they just accuse the companies of sexually abusing Robson, which we know is impossible as a matter of law. (Corporations cannot commit sexual abuse. They can be negligent in allowing it or they can intentionally facilitate it but not commit it by themselves.)

35d6irl.jpg


Let's assume that the judge decides they meet (b)(2). Then Robson will have to prove (a)2 and a(3) for summary judgement?

I don't know how they could meet (b)(2) to be honest. Even if the Judge decides the Chandler allegations are "reason to know" and even if he decides MJ was an agent of his companies (very questionable to me), I cannot see how they can get around the problem of who was in control of whom. But then we may be missing something in the law or precedents, so I am prepared for anything.

I know the Judge said something about Robson meeting the three requirements of (b)(2) on a broad liberal reading, but I am not convinced of that and the Estate lawyer too felt the need to point out on October 1 that he did not think they met it or are able to meet it. Hopefully the Estate is right about that and when the Judge reads the precedents he will think so too.

They can discuss (b)(2), a(2) and a(3) both at demurrer or summary judgement stage. The way I understand is the diffence is that while at the demurrer stage everything Robson alleges needs to be accepted as true - and the task is to see whether what he claims is a viable case considering what the law says - at the summary judgement stage there can be certain evidence used to challenge certain claims. Like in the probate case where the Estate used Robson's e-mails against him. So if this survived demurrer I'd imagine the Estate would use evidence about Robson's mother knowing about the Chandler allegations, Robson and his mother denying abuse and defending MJ and so there was nothing the companies could do etc.

Is that a general rule in the US? If you are employed by someone he or she has a duty of care over you? Or only if you are a minor?
Does that duty of care apply to the employee's life outside of the company too? Like him visiting Neverland just of have fun?
Certainly not.

I don't know who and when has a duty of care in US law. I just say since Robson was a minor employee I can imagine there a company would have some sort of duty of care. I don't think with adult employees a company would have a duty of care.

I agree that the duty of care would only apply to activities within the company. Eg. video shoots, but not for private visits at NL etc.

If Robson claims that he has to prove that the companies not only knew about Chandler but knew about Robson's abuse too which would contradict his claim that noone other than himself and MJ knew about it.
And if Robson admits that the companies didn't know he was being abused then how the heck was their role in making those meetings possible a negligent act?

Good point. Possibly they could rely on the "reason to know"/"be on notice" part, rather than definitely "knowing". But as I have shown earlier the Supreme Court made it clear in a precedent case what that "reason to know"/"be on notice" means. They have to have a "reason to know/be on notice" of past unlawful sexual activity. So once again the only thing they can try to use there are the Chandler allegations and only after 1993. I am not even sure they can use those (it was never proven, MJ always denied it, Robson himself denied being abused when asked etc.) But even if they can then they face the next problem: what should or could the companies have done there esp. when Robson and his mother were supportive of Michael and Robson went on TV to defend him? The mother knew full well about those allegations by Chandler and despite of those he let her son hang out with MJ. So what should the companies have done? They had no control over Michael or his relationship with the Robsons and whether the mother would let her son hang out with MJ despite of the Chandler allegations. If Robson feels someone was negligent, perhaps he should try to sue his mother, but we all know that will never happen.

p.s. reading All that Glitters the most obvious thing that book reveals is that Evan Chandler and his wife Nathalie were out of their minds. They almost sound like Gutierez.

I think that they almost sound like Guiterrez is not a coincidence. I have this suspicion that Guiterrez has something to do with triggering those allegations. I suspect he was in Evan's ears before Evan constructed those allegations.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

"I think that they almost sound like Guiterrez is not a coincidence. I have this suspicion that Guiterrez has something to do with triggering those allegations. I suspect he was in Evan's ears before Evan constructed those allegations."[/QUOTE]

I think your right. Throughout most of these allegations, if not all, he pops up somewhere doesn't he? I wouldn't be surprised at all if at least his influence wasn't involved in this one.
 
Re. "duty of care".

The responsibility or the legal obligation of a person or organization to avoid acts or omissions (which can be reasonably foreseen) to be likely to cause harm to others.

Duty of care is owed by an accountant in correctly preparing a company's accounts, by an auditor in confirming an company's financial statements correctly present its financial position; by a director to shareholders in husbanding the enterprise's resources; by a manufacturer to consumers for the safety of product; and by every party to a contract to the other contracting parties. See also standard of care.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/duty-of-care.html#ixzz3cC86WY8G

So it does not have anything to do with Robson being a minor.

In the latest demurrer the Estate argues that Robson did not sufficiently alleged a duty:

4qhp2h.jpg



From the referenced precedent:

The church further assumed a duty to Jane by "holding Omemaga out to the public as a competent and trustworthy Roman Catholic Priest and counselor of high morals." Jane alleged the church breached its duty to her by exposing her to Omemaga "who was an unfit agent with dangerous propensities, and by not properly supervising [her]." She claimed the church "should reasonably have known of [Omemaga's] dangerous propensities as a child sexual exploiter" and "despite such knowledge, [the church] negligently retained and/or failed to supervise [Omemaga] in a position of trust and authority" where he was able to harm her. Jane said the church failed to provide reasonable supervision of Omemaga, failed to reasonably investigate him and to warn her. fn. 3

The church moved for summary judgment on the basis it was not negligent because it did not know and had no reason to suspect Omemaga posed any risk to parishioners prior to Jane's report. In essence, the church argued it had no civil duty to investigate its employees and the constitutional requirement separating church and state barred Jane's civil action for negligent hiring and supervision of a priest.

Edward Peters (Peters) stated he has a doctoral degree in canon law and is the director of the office for canonical affairs for the San Diego diocese. Peters declared "one of the grave canonical obligations which a man must undertake in order to become a priest is the commitment to celibacy .... Because Omemaga was ordained a Catholic priest in the Philippines before coming to San Diego, there was no duty on the part of the Diocese of San Diego to screen or test him for matters relating to sexuality, unless and until a sexual problem manifested itself. Under canon law, priests, like the rest of the faithful, have a right to privacy.... While a pastor of a parish is responsible for coordinating the religious activities of associate pastors, the pastor has no right or duty under church law to search the rooms of associate pastors or to put them under surveillance, either during their free time or during the associate pastor's parish related activities."

Even if the church had learned of Omemaga's prior sexual affairs with adults, it is illogical to conclude the church should have anticipated [42 Cal.App.4th 1567] Omemaga would commit sexual crimes on a minor. More important, the legal duty of inquiry Jane seeks to impose on the church as an employer would violate the employee's privacy rights. Privacy is a fundamental liberty implicitly guaranteed by the federal Constitution (see Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479, 484-486 [14 L.Ed.2d 510, 514-516, 85 S.Ct. 1678]) and is explicitly guaranteed under the California Constitution as an inalienable right. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.)
[4a] The right encompasses privacy in one's sexual matters and is not limited to the marital relationship. (Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) 405 U.S. 438, 454-455 [31 L.Ed.2d 349, 362-364, 92 S.Ct. 1029].) Although the right to privacy is not absolute, it yields only to a compelling state interest. (Fults v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 899, 904 [152 Cal.Rptr. 210].) [3b] Here there was no compelling state interest to require the employer to investigate the sexual practices of its employee. [4b] Moreover, the employer who queries employees on sexual behavior is subject to claims for invasion of privacy and sexual harassment. (See Coit Drapery Cleaners, Inc. v. Sequoia Ins. Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1595, 1599-1600 [18 Cal.Rptr.2d 692].)
[3c] Similarly, Jane's contention the church should have required Omemaga to undergo a psychological evaluation before hiring him is unavailing. An individual's right to privacy also encompasses mental privacy. (Kees v. Medical Board (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1801, 1812-1813 [10 Cal.Rptr.2d 112].) We conclude the church did not fail to use due care in hiring Omemaga.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

They do address (a)2 and (a)3 at least in the case of first cause of action.

Just re-read the law and noticed that the entire claim is dependent on accepting that
Robson did not discovered that the that psychological
injury was caused by the sexual abuse until 2010 - three years before he filed his lawsuit.
But didn't the judge rejected that idea in his probate judgement and de facto stated that Robson in fact should have
reasonably discovered the effects of his abuse at least back in 2005?



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

"I think that they almost sound like Guiterrez is not a coincidence. I have this suspicion that Guiterrez has something to do with triggering those allegations. I suspect he was in Evan's ears before Evan constructed those allegations."



I certainly would like to know how he got those photos and documents and when he first contacted Chandler. I think right after he saw that National E. article about MJ and the Chandlers.
BTW the whole story of how Evan first became suspicious is a big fat lie and it's June Chandler's own testimony and Brett Barnes's testimony, both under oath, which prove that.
The Chandler book claims that June herself became concerned when she saw Brett Barnes on MJ's lap in his limo.
1. None of that shit happened Brett sat next to MJ not on his lap and he certainly didn't kiss him left and right.
2. June said in court that she never suspected any kind of sexual contact between MJ and Jordan or any other kid, period.

Using Brett Barnes is soooo Gutierez! And the boys named in the Chandler book as other victims also happen to be the exact same boys named by Gutierez.
Nevermind that all of them denied under oath that they mastrubated in front of MJ or anything. Gutierez decided that these particular boys were victims
so the Chandler and then Sneddon picked them up and but them in their own little story.

Everyone who actually knows the kids who were in MJ's life would wonder why these boys? Why not Sean Lennon, Mark Ronson, Frank Cascio, Corey Feldman, Alfonso Riberio
or Emmanuel Lewis? Why Spence, Safechuck, Robson, Barnes and Mac Culkin?
Totally random shit.

Anyway if Chandler lies about this incident what else was he lying about?

They also want the reader to believe that they remember long conversations word by word! Even if Ray Chandler had documented everything in real time after Aug 1993
how would they know what MJ and June and Evan and Jordan said before that?
Try to recall conversations you have with someone just a week ago. Do you remember the exact words? I sure don't.
But Chandler cites pages of dialogs which happened more than 10 years before this book was released!
bullshit.
This book just like Chandler's molestation is just one of many Evan's "screenplays".
Certainly the most profitable one.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Just re-read the law and noticed that the entire claim is dependent on accepting that
Robson did not discovered that the that psychological
injury was caused by the sexual abuse until 2010 - three years before he filed his lawsuit.
But didn't the judge rejected that idea in his probate judgement and de facto stated that Robson in fact should have
reasonably discovered the effects of his abuse at least back in 2005?

He claims that he discovered psychological injury or illness resulting from the alleged abuse in May 2012 when he went into therapy.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Talking about Brett Barnes. In his testimony in 2005 Brett was asked about Wade. He was asked if he knew Wade Robson and he said just a little. When talking about the kids who hang out with Michael he mentioned Mac and the Cascios. I got the impression from Brett's testimony that Wade wasn't even around Michael a lot. Definitely not as much as Brett or the Cascios. Brett hardly even knew him. IMO Wade was not even as close to Michael as the Cascios or Brett. But he wants to tell us that MJ set up a company just to molest him and be with him. Except he was hardly with him compared to some other families like the Cascios.

And thinking further about this issue with the companies and "reason to know" etc. Let's say for argument's sake that the 1993 allegations were "a reason to know". So that would put any alleged abuse for which the companies could theoretically be made responsible between 1993-1997 (now, I am ignoring all other aspects like the issue of control etc. for argument's sake). We also said (and I think it is true) that any abuse for that the companies could theoretically be made responsible should happen during activities related to the company (they cannot be made responsible for private visits etc). Can Robson even allege company related activities with him and MJ between 1993-1997? I mean the videos in which he participated were shot in 1991-1992. The commercials (LA Gear etc.) were also shot before 1993. Did he even do any professional work with MJ between 1993 and 1997? He was signed to MJ's record label but MJ did not personally work on his record, videos etc.

I don't think that the case should get this far because there are other, bigger problems with the claim that the companies were responsible (whether before or after 1993), but this is yet another point to add to those other issues.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Guiterrez whole "job" is going around finding "victims" we all know his history in south america of accusing high profile ppl. inorder to support his nambla friends. has the old story about him contacting the robsons on some malibu broadwalk was it? looking for victims back in the day
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Indeed and I read Jermaine's book that Guiterriez approached to Robson and his mother telling them that Michael might be a p******** gave them his business card and his mother was really suspicious of Guiterriez and called Michael about that character.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Guiterrez whole "job" is going around finding "victims" we all know his history in south america of accusing high profile ppl. inorder to support his nambla friends. has the old story about him contacting the robsons on some malibu broadwalk was it? looking for victims back in the day


yep... he's the catalyst for it all...He was also friends with a lot of MJ's Neverland staff back in the day like Francia Blanca.. The whole thing was a set up.. He is who Chandler was referring to in that tape I believe.. He started it all. I still wonder why this day none of MJ's lawyers ever mention this leech? MJ sued Victor and won a civil suit against him for that fake 'videotape' story from 1994 which never existed.. He filed for bankruptcy and fled the country because he owed MJ like 2.3 million dollars. MJ's folks should've buried his behind and made him pay up.
 
Back
Top