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

[castor]

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

He claims that he discovered psychological injury or illness resulting from the alleged abuse in May 2012 when he went into therapy.

Yes he claims that but didn't the judge shut that down in his probate judgement when he referred to his 2005 testimony?

Also, I remember an article at the beginning of this whole mess where they said Robson will name Branca and McClain as defendants in his lawsuit
if the court or the Estate reject his probate claim.

That's not possible, is it?
Only if the Estate had rejected the claim after the court allowing it could Robson do that?
Or am I wrong?

 

[jaydom7]

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.

Yep! Mike should've nipped that in the bud back then with him.. Guitierrez was standing by watching all the kids MJ hung with and approached them and their parents with lies and allegations. Chandler bought into it because he was jealous greedy and a wicked sob..

 

[HIStory]

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

Yes he claims that but didn't the judge shut that down in his probate judgement when he referred to his 2005 testimony?


This part of the judgement doesn't mean Robson can apply e. estoppel on Branca and McLain in his lawsuit, does it?

What does this mean? That Robson can accuse Branca and McLain of threatening him like they were MJ? That would be absurd.

???

Why would it mean that? The probate case was dismissed. He cannot sue the executors/Estate.

And pay attention to the wording of CCP 340.1. (a):

...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...

On contrary to the Probate Code this one does not relate to when he allegedly realized he was allegedly abused, but to when he discovered that psychological injury or illness he claims to have is allegedly related to childhood sexual abuse. Even if someone says he should have known in 2005 that he was allegedly abused, he still can claim (and he does claim that) that he only discovered in therapy in 2012 that his psychological problems are related to his alleged abuse.

 

[jaydom7]

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

???

Why would it mean that? The probate case was dismissed. He cannot sue the executors/Estate.

And pay attention to the wording of CCP 340.1. (a):



On contrary to the Probate Code this one does not relate to when he allegedly realized he was allegedly abused, but to when he discovered that psychological injury or illness he claims to have is allegedly related to childhood sexual abuse. Even if someone says he should have known in 2005 that he was allegedly abused, he still can claim (and he does claim that) that he only discovered in therapy in 2012 that his psychological problems are related to his alleged abuse.

which is bs

 

[HIStory]

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

which is bs

I agree it's BS. But the point is that this is a different set of rules (CCP) than the Probate Codes (PC). Here, his problem is that 340.1. (a)(1) does not apply to him because as a matter of law in a civil court you cannot sue a natural person who is dead so the (a)(1) can only apply to defendants who are alive. (a)(2) and (a)(3) does not apply to him because (b)(1) says that those can only be applied to plaintiffs who are under 26 years of age. So he needs to allege facts consistent with (b)(2) to be able to sue:



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.

 

[jaydom7]

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

I agree it's BS. But the point is that this is a different set of rules (CCP) than the Probate Codes (PC). Here, his problem is that 340.1. (a)(1) does not apply to him because as a matter of law in a civil court you cannot sue a natural person who is dead so the (a)(1) can only apply to defendants who are alive. (a)(2) and (a)(3) does not apply to him because (b)(1) says that those can only be applied to plaintiffs who are under 26 years of age. So he needs to allege facts consistent with (b)(2) to be able to sue:



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.

Sounds to me like he doesn't meet any of these requirements.

 

[castor]

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.

Certainly that's what this interview with the Robsons would suggest:

The first 18 months in LA was really tough going. We had taken six suitcases and little money and knew no-one in LA, only Michael who spent much of the time away.

While Michael was their friend, he never interfered with Wade’s career … only to offer advice, but the ultimate decision was Joy and Wades’.

http://onwiththeshow.com.au/the-inside-story-on-life-in-michael-jacksons-shadow-1995/


He says absolutely nothing about how many times he was with MJ after 1990 and for how long he stayed with him.
We know from his 2005 testimony that the longest was one week or one and a half.
Of course contradicting Blanca Francia who said Wade was in Neverland once for 6 weeks.
And we know from Joy Robson's testimony that during the 17 years they were in the US there were only 4 occasions where they were in Neverland with MJ.

Can Robson even allege company related activities with him and MJ between 1993-1997?

Obviously he cannot claim that he was abused on the set so he claims that the meetings in MJ's condo and in Neverland were arranged by the company at MJ's request.
He did not specify any date just one in 1997 in the Sheraton Hotel. Why he was there and what the companies had to do with it, he doesn't tell.

The main problem with any such meeting is that of course his mother who could have said no we won't go no matter what and the companies certainly didn't force them to meet with MJ.
And of course Wade himself wanted to go! Hell he wanted.
He was just one of many who wanted to around MJ all the time and now he portrays it like it was the other way around.

???

Why would it mean that? The probate case was dismissed. He cannot sue the executors/Estate.

Yeah I figured that out myself by reading the rest of the ruling. I deleted that part of my post but it was too late you saw it. ldsmile:

Could you explain why the judge called Robson's claim that he was molested an undisputed material fact?
Obviously it was very much disputed by the Estate so what does undisputed fact mean in this context?
that it's undisputed that that's indeed what the plaintiff claimed?

 

[Tygger]

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

I would assume Ivy is speaking from the Michael-album-lawsuit from a member of this board.

I prefer not to assume however; I appreciate your response.

 

[HIStory]

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

Could you explain why the judge called Robson's claim that he was molested an undisputed material fact?
Obviously it was very much disputed by the Estate so what does undisputed fact mean in this context?
that it's undisputed that that's indeed what the plaintiff claimed?

It has to do with how Summary Judgement works:

The basic idea behind summary judgment is that issues based on undisputed facts do not require a trial. If the facts are undisputed, there are no issues for the jury to decide, and the court can issue judgment based on the facts set forth in the pleadings.

The plaintiff, defendant or both can make a motion for summary judgment. The moving party (the party seeking summary judgment) submits a statement of undisputed facts; the legal memorandum, which outlines the party's arguments, cites case law and explains the legal basis upon which the court should grant the motion; and any exhibits, which are supplemental documents that support the party's arguments. These supplemental documents may include deposition testimony, admissions (admitted facts) from witnesses, affidavits (a written statement of facts made by a witness under oath), documents received during discovery and other collaborating evidence including contracts, letters, emails and pictures.

What qualifies as an undisputed fact is not absolute. The non-moving party (the party defending the summary judgment motion) will argue that factual issues exist for a jury to decide, thus meriting a trial. If the court believes that the non-moving party has a chance of prevailing at trial, it must preserve the party's right to have a jury review and evaluate the evidence. Essentially, if a trial could result in the jury ultimately finding in favor of the non-moving party, summary judgment is inappropriate, and the court should deny the motion.

If the moving party can successfully argue that the undisputed facts and law make it clear that the other party cannot prevail at trial, the court should grant summary judgment, thereby ending the lawsuit. Sometimes, a court will grant summary judgment on only some of the issues, leaving the remaining issues for trial.

Summary judgment is appropriate to resolve questions of law and actions involving unambiguous contracts. However, it is generally not appropriate for issues involving motivation, intent, credibility or other subjective facts central to the underlying case.

Add to this what Steinsapir said in the October 1 hearing:

It's just the "even if we accept what he says as true" stance for the purposes of summary judgement. The Estate made it clear on numerous occasions both in court papers and in hearing (see the above) that they deny Robson's allegations.

 

[castor]

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

The plaintiff, defendant or both can make a motion for summary judgment. The moving party (the party seeking summary judgment) submits a statement of undisputed facts; the legal memorandum, which outlines the party's arguments, cites case law and explains the legal basis upon which the court should grant the motion; and any exhibits, which are supplemental documents that support the party's arguments. These supplemental documents may include deposition testimony, admissions (admitted facts) from witnesses, affidavits (a written statement of facts made by a witness under oath), documents received during discovery and other collaborating evidence including contracts, letters, emails and pictures.

So this means that Robson has nothing but the testimonies of tabloid whores to back up his claim.
He doesn't have photos, he doesn't have recorded phone calls, he doesn't have medical reports.
Just Blanca Francia and Charlie Michaels.
We know how easy it is to discredit those liars.

I find it funny that Blanca Francia had a special way to cathing MJ: he always saw him with a boy in bed while the two were half naked.
He saw that in MJ's bedroom with Robson and she saw that with Safechuck in the theater.
Except that at another time she said that she never saw MJ in the theater with any kid.
It's obvious that she or Gutierez invented this half naked in bed picture and simply injected into her story using the names of the boys Gutierez decided were victims.

The claims of course contradict Robson's own assertion that it was an unwritten rule that noone was allowed to enter his room while he was there.
But apparently Blanca Francia did enter not once but at least twice when MJ was in compromising situations. And he failed to hear the alarm TWICE. Very believable.

Did the Estate submitted Francia's desposition where she denied seeing anyone in the shower but MJ?
Did they submit Robson's testimony where he denied ever being in the shower with MJ?

 

[barbee0715]

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

Did the Estate submitted Francia's desposition where she denied seeing anyone in the shower but MJ?
Did they submit Robson's testimony where he denied ever being in the shower with MJ?

Maybe I'm confused but do they even have to do that at this point?

 

[castor]

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

Maybe I'm confused but do they even have to do that at this point?

They don't have to but Robson didn't have to either and they knew all too well that those testimonies have nothing to do with the SOL they still did for one reason:
to convince the judge that he is indeed a poor victim so he should look over the whole issue of SOL and stuff.

I don't like it that the Estate has not submitted anything to counter those tabloid whores. Nevermind the law the judge should know that Robson's allies are just as dubious as Robson himself because then he should be less likely to bend over backwards to accommodate Robson.

 

[passy001]

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

They don't have to but Robson didn't have to either and they knew all too well that those testimonies have nothing to do with the SOL they still did for one reason:
to convince the judge that he is indeed a poor victim so he should look over the whole issue of SOL and stuff.

I don't like it that the Estate has not submitted anything to counter those tabloid whores. Nevermind the law the judge should know that Robson's allies are just as dubious as Robson himself because then he should be less likely to bend over backwards to accommodate Robson.

I think you are moving way ahead of yourself. at this point of the process the focus is about the applicability of the law in terms of statutes of limitation. so it's got nothing to do with the merits of the claims. plus, the estate has repeatedly denied those allegations. anything else is completely unnecessary.

 

[HIStory]

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

Barbee is right. This was a summary judgement. This wasn't like a full trial where all aspects of the case would be discussed. Castor, please try to understand what Summary Judgement is about before you keep on accusing the Estate of not doing their job properly. From a quote from the Wikipedia article on Summary Judgement:

From a tactical perspective, there are two basic types of summary-judgment motions. One requires a full evidentiary presentation, and the other requires only a more limited, targeted one.

Second, a different and very common tactic is where a defendant seeks summary judgment on a plaintiff's cause of action. The key difference is that in this latter situation, the defendant need only attack one essential element of the plaintiff's claim. A finding that the plaintiff cannot prove one essential element of its claim necessarily renders all other elements immaterial and results in summary judgment for the defendant.

It was not a full evidentary presentation but the second type where the Estate attacked the claim that Robson's is within the statutes of limitations or is entitled to equitable estoppel. So this was the full focus of this summary judgement, not whether Robson's allegations are true or not. That Robson submitted old testimonies which were irrelevant from the POV of the statutes of limitations does not mean that the Estate should have allowed itself to be dragged into that game.

They don't have to but Robson didn't have to either and they knew all too well that those testimonies have nothing to do with the SOL they still did for one reason:
to convince the judge that he is indeed a poor victim so he should look over the whole issue of SOL and stuff.

And did that strategy work for Robson?

The Estate focused on what was relevant for the Summary Judgement. If the Estate had said they wanted to focus on other things rather than the statutes of limitations they would have risked the case to go to trial. Why? Well, because questions like whether Blanca Francia was telling the truth or not or whether Wade Robsons was telling the truth or not are exactly the type of questions which would be decided by a trial jury and not by a judge on summary judgement. So please try to understand the legal process before you keep ranting about what the Estate should have done differently.

 

[AliCat]

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

Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff ruled on it Tuesday, saying the claim is untimely and should be dismissed.

Robson's attorney, Maryann Marzano, said via e-mail that her client plans to appeal the ruling, saying the molestation claim will be pursued against Jackson's business entities.

Marzano, meanwhile, wrote that Robson, 32, was incapable of filing his legal action any sooner due to the psychological damage he suffered.

In an April hearing, Marzano argued that the seriousness of the claims being lodged against Jackson's estate warranted a full evidentiary hearing. However, Jackson estate attorney Jonathan Steinsapir argued that the law doesn't allow liability for a person's actions to transfer to their estate in perpetuity.

This just proves what has been said all along, Robson is angry that Jamie King was hired and Robson was not.

 

[castor]

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

It was not a full evidentary presentation but the second type where the Estate attacked the claim that Robson's is within the statutes of limitations or is entitled to equitable estoppel. So this was the full focus of this summary judgement, not whether Robson's allegations are true or not. That Robson submitted old testimonies which were irrelevant from the POV of the statutes of limitations does not mean that the Estate should have allowed itself to be dragged into that game.

That's fine from a technical viewpoint but this is, like it or not, is an emotional issue. Which is exactly why Robson filed those testimonies to make the judge feel sorry for him.
It didn't work for the probate claim because the law as so obviously not on their side but the civil case is different. There the judge already showed some inclination to bend over backwards
and a judge who understand that the plaintiff is full of shit and was never a victim is less likely to do that. That's just the reality of it because the judge is human not a Vulcan.

The Estate focused on what was relevant for the Summary Judgement. If the Estate had said they wanted to focus on other things rather than the statutes of limitations they would have risked the case to go to trial. Why? Well, because questions like whether Blanca Francia was telling the truth or not or whether Wade Robsons was telling the truth or not are exactly the type of questions which would be decided by a trial jury and not by a judge on summary judgement. So please try to understand the legal process before you keep ranting about what the Estate should have done differently.

They shouldn't have argued that Francia wasn't telling the truth. Robson was not arguing about that either. They simply filed those papers but said nothing about them. Just to let the judge know.
The Estate should have just let the judge know that Francia was full of shit.
With that info on his mind he might approach the civil case differently than someone who believes that Robson indeed had a legitimate eyewitness.
Robson wanted to plant those seeds they never argued that their case should be allowed because Francia said this or that. The Estate shouldn't have done that either. Just file those testimonies along with the other evidence they filed. Let the judge know that Robson in fact has no valid evidence to back up his ugly claims.

Both in court and in the media the Estate handles this matter like it's only a legal issue. And it's not. And they don't seem to get it or they don't care.
It's totally like Branca's lame answer during the 60 minutes interview. He should have used the opportunity to put that myth to rest instead he gave a lukewarm wishy-washy response letting the interviewer get away with her nasty innuendo.

 

[HIStory]

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

Castor, I suggest that we judge how effective the Estate has done their job in the hindsight of its outcome and not in advance.

And you cannot predict a Judge's state of mind. You say the submission of Blanca Francia's testimony might sway him in Robson's favour, but then it might just get him irritated that he gets bombarded with irrelevant stuff and he may see that as an attempt to distract and as an attempt to hide the fact that they have no real argument. He already said in October 1 for example that he did not see the point in dragging the previous allegations into it, so he might not be so happy about side issues that are not relevant for an argument. In any case, hopefully he will remain as professional as possible.

Also you are making a lot of assumptions and then think those assumptions are facts. Eg.

Robson was not arguing about that either. They simply filed those papers but said nothing about them.

That is not true. They submitted that as a part of their "undisputed facts" supporting their opposition of the summary judgement. See below.

Just to let the judge know.
The Estate should have just let the judge know that Francia was full of shit.

You still do not seem to understand what a summary judgement is about and how it works. If the Estate starts arguing about the credibility of Blanca Francia, rather than focusing on statutes that would have probably put this case on trial, since credibility issues are for a trial jury, not a summary judgement. Robson submitted those statements by Blanca Francia as a part of his "undisputed facts", not independently from everything as you seem to imagine. If the Estate submitted statements and testimonies to the contrary in that moment Blanca Francia's statements become disputed facts - ie. something that needs to be decided at a trial, not on summary judgement. So the kind of strategy that you suggest would have almost certainly put this case on trial.

This does not mean the Estate accepted those statements as true. They made it clear several times at hearings and in their court papers that they deny Robson's allegations, but they will have to argue some points for the purpose of summary judgement from the POV "even if this is true (which we do not think it is but let's say for argument's sake)". So they will not get into the game of starting to dispute things which have nothing to do with the statutes of limitations. Perhaps Robsons intent with submitting such things was exactly to get the Estate start disputing those and drag the Estate into an argument that would have pushed this case through to trial. I am glad they did not get into that and remained focused.

 

[castor]

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

Castor, I suggest that we judge how effective the Estate has done their job in the hindsight of its outcome and not in advance.

And you cannot predict a Judge's state of mind. You say the submission of Blanca Francia's testimony might sway him in Robson's favour, but then it might just get him irritated that he gets bombarded with irrelevant stuff and he may see that as an attempt to distract and as an attempt to hide the fact that they have no real argument. He already said in October 1 for example that he did not see the point in dragging the previous allegations into it, so he might not be so happy about side issues that are not relevant for an argument. In any case, hopefully he will remain as professional as possible.

He didn't find that totally irrelevant since he did refer to the 1993 case and the Francia case, among other things, as to why Robson could meet (b)(2).
Also, given how people and especially Americans generally react to child sex abuse allegations it's not unreasonable to assume that the judge is more likely to sympathize with a plaintiff he believes he was indeed a victim. Robson and his lawyers know that all too well.

That is not true. They submitted that as a part of their "undisputed facts" supporting their opposition of the summary judgement. See below.

They submitted those testimonies in writing yes. But they never even mentioned them during the hearing.

You still do not seem to understand what a summary judgement is about and how it works. If the Estate starts arguing about the credibility of Blanca Francia, rather than focusing on statutes that would have probably put this case on trial, since credibility issues are for a trial jury, not a summary judgement. Robson submitted those statements by Blanca Francia as a part of his "undisputed facts", not independently from everything as you seem to imagine. If the Estate submitted statements and testimonies to the contrary in that moment Blanca Francia's statements become disputed facts - ie. something that needs to be decided at a trial, not on summary judgement. So the kind of strategy that you suggest would have almost certainly put this case on trial.

That's obviously incorrect. Just by disputing Francia's court testimony with her deposition wouldn't have changed the reasons why this claim was rejected.
In fact the judgement didn't include any of those "undisputed facts". It referred to other undisputed facts", not the Francia and Michaels "facts".
Following your logic the Estate denying that Robson was ever abused - and they did deny it both in writing and during the hearing - should have taken the case to trial.
What would have happened is that the judge would have ignored the Estate's documents regarding Francia just like he ignored them on Robson's side.
It wouldn't have changed the ruling but it would have informed him that Francia was a liar.

This does not mean the Estate accepted those statements as true. They made it clear several times at hearings and in their court papers that they deny Robson's allegations

Which pretty much contradicts your claim that if the Estate had disputed Robson's facts the case would have gone to trial.
In the ruling Robson's claims are named "undisputed facts" despite the Estate pretty much disputed them.
Again, disputing other facts like Francia's testimony wouldn't have changed the ruling because they are irrelevant to the question whether Robson was within statutes or not.

So they will not get into the game of starting to dispute things which have nothing to do with the statutes of limitations. Perhaps Robsons intent with submitting such things was exactly to get the Estate start disputing those and drag the Estate into an argument that would have pushed this case through to trial.

No way that would have pushed the case to trial because nothing would have changed the fact that his claims not not timely and there is no case law supporting his e. estoppel argument.
They submitted those testimonies for one reason: to convince the judge that Robson was indeed a victim and thus make him bend over backwards and create a precedent.

 

[HIStory]

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

He didn't find that totally irrelevant since he did refer to the 1993 case and the Francia case, among other things, as to why Robson could meet (b)(2).

This however has nothing to do with that document that Robson submitted several months later about Blanca Francia's testimony.

"Undisputed facts" is a legal term in summary judgement. It does not necessarily contain only claims which really are undisputed, but for strategical reasons or for a different focus (eg. here the focus was on statutes of limitations) a party may leave some of those claims simply unchallenged for the purpose of summary judgement. Robson submitted Francia's testimony as a part of their "undisputed facts". The Estate would have had to reply to that submitting testimonies to the contrary among their "undisputed facts". This would have made Francia's testimony disputed right there - ie. something for a trial jury to decide about.

In American legal practice summary judgment can be awarded by the court before trial, effectively holding that no trial will be necessary. Issuance of summary judgment can be based only upon the court's finding that:

1. there are no disputes of "material" fact requiring a trial to resolve, and
2. in applying the law to the undisputed facts, one party is clearly entitled to judgment.

To defeat a summary-judgment motion, the non-moving party only has to show substantial evidence that a dispute of material facts exists, regardless of the strength of that evidence. For example, if one side can produce the testimony of "a dozen bishops", and the other side only has the testimony of a known liar, then summary judgment is not appropriate. Deciding on the relative credibility of witnesses is a question for the factfinder at trial.

Following your logic the Estate denying that Robson was ever abused - and they did deny it both in writing and during the hearing - should have taken the case to trial.

Which pretty much contradicts your claim that if the Estate had disputed Robson's facts the case would have gone to trial.
In the ruling Robson's claims are named "undisputed facts" despite the Estate pretty much disputing them.

It does not contradict anything. The Estate denied it in other documents and in hearings, not among their "undisputed facts". They did address that in the October 1 hearing. The part that I quoted earlier.


You are right that it probably still would not have gone through due to the statutes, but to go back and forth about Francia's testimony here was totally irrelevant and the Judge knows that too. I get it that you think that the Estate is doing a crap job but I will rather wait and see the conclusion of these cases before I judge whether their strategy was right or wrong. And with that I am out of this discussion because this is starting to go around in circles, just like when you were aldebaran, and I am not interested in that.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

you know there's a big difference and someone having a law degree and understanding the law and interpreting the law, then somebody who's on the internet complaining about what they should be doing.

 

[castor]

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

It does not contradict anything. The Estate denied it in other documents and in hearings, not among their "undisputed facts". They did address that in the October 1 hearing. The part that I quoted earlier.

Is there any difference? Did Robson claim that he was molested among their "undisputed facts"?
As far as I know he claimed that in his complaint just like the Estate claimed that he was not molested in their written response.

You are right that it probably still would not have gone through due to the statutes, but to go back and forth about Francia's testimony here was totally irrelevant and the Judge knows that too.

It's relevant for one reason: unchallenged the judge may believed that Robson was indeed a victim of horrible abuse and thus more inclined to allow the civil case if the law can be twisted to accommodate Robson. They submitted the testimonies with the civil case in mind too.
I agree that it was not necessary to challenge those "facts" to win the probate case.

I get it that you think that the Estate is doing a crap job but I will rather wait and see the conclusion of these cases before I judge whether their strategy was right or wrong.

I never said they are doing a crap job I said they are handling the case like a bunch of technocrats. Just like they are handling it in the media.

you know there's a big difference and someone having a law degree and understanding the law and interpreting the law, then somebody who's on the internet complaining about what they should be doing.

Keep in mind these are the same bozos who made MJ settle in 1993, Branca and Weitzman. Brilliant interpretation of the law, wasn't it?
This is the same Weitzman who in 2005 was on TV telling everyone that he CHOOSES to believe MJ is not a pedophile.
You don't see any problem with that, do you?
They didn't care about MJ's image then they don't care about it now. They cared about money then they care about it now.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Castro, there are other lawyers involved beside Weitzman, so let's hope they are smarter than him and less corrupt. I don't blame you, Weitzman is not someone I trust.

 

[HIStory]

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

Is there any difference? Did Robson claim that he was molested among their "undisputed facts"?
As far as I know he claimed that in his complaint just like the Estate claimed that he was not molested in their written response.

Yes, there is a difference, but I am not going to try to explain summary judgement to you again. If you don't understand you don't understand. I am also not interested to keep discussing what the Judge MAY think IN YOUR OPINION. Those are just your speculations. I am done with this discussion.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Is there any difference? Did Robson claim that he was molested among their "undisputed facts"?
As far as I know he claimed that in his complaint just like the Estate claimed that he was not molested in their written response.




It's relevant for one reason: unchallenged the judge may believed that Robson was indeed a victim of horrible abuse and thus more inclined to allow the civil case if the law can be twisted to accommodate Robson. They submitted the testimonies with the civil case in mind too.
I agree that it was not necessary to challenge those "facts" to win the probate case.



I never said they are doing a crap job I said they are handling the case like a bunch of technocrats. Just like they are handling it in the media.




Keep in mind these are the same bozos who made MJ settle in 1993, Branca and Weitzman. Brilliant interpretation of the law, wasn't it?
This is the same Weitzman who in 2005 was on TV telling everyone that he CHOOSES to believe MJ is not a pedophile.
You don't see any problem with that, do you?
They didn't care about MJ's image then they don't care about it now. They cared about money then they care about it now.

You forget "bozo" Michael had to agree to the settlement. I'd rather but my trust in lawyers who know know what they are doing them someone sitting in front of a computer screen saying what they should be doing

 

[HIStory]

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

I get the distrust in Weitzman based on 1993 or 2005, but what was the problem with Mez? Because according to Castor (or was that Aldebaran? ) he too did not do his job well enough. LOL.

I'd agree that there are some aspects of these cases that fans know better than the Estate or even Mez. But I'd hope they know US law and how courts work better than we do here.

 

[castor]

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

Castro, there are other lawyers involved beside Weitzman, so let's hope they are smarter than him and less corrupt. I don't blame you, Weitzman is not someone I trust.

Yes, one of those other lawyers managed to say one of the dumbest things anyone could considering the circumstances, which then of course was picked up by the media and even presented as THE reason why
Robson's claim was denied.

That property cannot follow liability forever.

That argument was totally unnecessary to win the case. The whole point about the English nobleman was unnecessary.


Noone who believes in MJ's innocence and wants everyone to accept that would utter those words.
It was a lawyer's argument. Not someone's who was a lawyer AND cared about MJ's image.

You forget "bozo" Michael had to agree to the settlement.

No he didn't. I understand the whole argument about taking the civil case out of the picture but he didn't HAVE to agree.
And TM said that if he had been his lawyer no way he would have advised him to settle.
MJ himself said that he regretted that settlement.

I get the distrust in Weitzman based on 1993 or 2005, but what was the problem with Mez? Because according to Castor (or was that Aldebaran? ) he too did not do his job well enough. LOL.

???
I never said anything about TM not doing a good job. What are you talking about?

Yes, there is a difference, but I am not going to try to explain summary judgement to you again.

It's not that I don't understand it's that I never saw any document where Robson submitted his claims about molestation as "undisputed facts".
Did you see such a doc?
I only saw his complaint.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

If you think Michael had no clue in terms of that settlement then you're dreaming.

 

[castor]

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

If you think Michael had no clue in terms of that settlement then you're dreaming.

Who said that? He obviously had enough and obviously didn't want a depo without knowing whether he would be charged or not.
But he still had a choice.
Do you think TM would have told him to settle? He said it was one of the biggest mistakes MJ ever made.
And Weitzman settled the Francia case too. He cared about MJ so much, obviously.

 

[HIStory]

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

???
I never said anything about TM not doing a good job. What are you talking about?

You did not go on about how Mez should have told the jury in 2005 that MJ was asexual? Oh, must have been "your brother" then. LOL.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Anyway I have a question. I'm sure I asked this before but is Roberson saying Michael formed Mjj Productions just to molest him?