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

[ivy]

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

I wonder where the Estate's lawyers are going with Wade's doctors meeting records this should be good.

Yeah, I wonder what's the purpose of them asking for Robson's medical papers. Not that I would not like to see them too.

probably to establish a timeline, to see how many sessions he had, what is the diagnosis etc. the doctor who gave the certificate of merit is important - as Estate's quote shows. Robson was over 26 yrs old and the only way he could file a case is if a doctor says he just realized he was abused. I imagine they want to challenge that "just realized" part especially give Robson doesn't claim repressed memory.

And where did he allege those "facts" because he sure not did allege any such "facts" here. All he alleged was some vague innuendo supposedly by Staikos, not actual knowledge of sexual abuse. :smilerolleyes:

probably at third amended complaint that we didn't see because it never showed up on the system. remember these are treated as "facts" in this stage as the judge is required to accept everything Robson claims as true.

 

[HIStory]

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

probably at third amended complaint that we didn't see because it never showed up on the system. remember these are treated as "facts" in this stage as the judge is required to accept everything Robson claims as true.

Robson lists the allegations that he claims support his arguments in this opposition and there are no any such "facts" to be seen anywhere. (See page 3-4 of this opposition. He lists all his "facts" there that he thinks support the "reason to know" thing.) Why would he go on about vague stuff like Staikos supposedly claiming things like "that kid (MJ) better be glad I understand his problem" rather than list the strong part of his allegations (eg. a claim about how Staikos supposedly had actual knowledge of abuse) if he had such strong "facts"? So IMO there are no significant other allegations than the ones listed in this opposition.

 

[ivy]

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

So IMO there are no significant other allegations than the ones listed in this opposition.

Oh I agree with that. correct me if I'm wrong, staikos testified in front of grand jury in 1993 right? there were some statements others claimed that came from her. I'll assume she denied it all - given grand jury didn't charge MJ. So all he has probably the third party hearsay statements about Staikos which she denied.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think he has any evidence or facts to support him. It's just that for now judge has to accept everything he says as true.

edited to add: Do we have any current info about staikos? is she still alive? in USA? If this is allowed to proceed, it looks like she would be a significant witness for both sides.

 

[HIStory]

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

Yes, Staikos testified in 1994. I also think that many of those statements credited to her here actually come from third parties, not from her. Possibly Neverland 5 or some of these other usual suspects.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Why did not Sneddon put her on the stand if he thought she would repeat what she supposedly said before 1993? He did not hesitate to bring people from MJ's camp who lost in a previous civil trial, changed their stories multiple times even under oath and were paid by tabloids. Why Staikos was not of interest to him?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Good point ^

I think she didn't really say these things or maybe not in this context

 

[HIStory]

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

Why did not Sneddon put her on the stand if he thought she would repeat what she supposedly said before 1993? He did not hesitate to bring people from MJ's camp who lost in a previous civil law, changed their stories multiple times even under oath and were paid by tabloids. Why Staikos was not of interest to him?

Yes, Staikos is not even listed by the prosecution in that big motion in 2005 to introduce 1108 testimony. So obviously she has not made any claims that could have been used by Sneddon for anything.

 

[Soundmind]

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

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jackson-case-das-sleazy-witness

I believe these two liars are the source . Can you please let us know what exactly are they claiming Staikos said and to whom?

 

[HIStory]

From an Joy Robson interview in 1994:

Life in LA, since moving there in September 1991, has been a far cry from their relatively quiet suburban lifestyle in Brisbane and, at times, Joy has been tempted to pack the six bags they took with them and head home, but it was not to be. “Michael told us when we were first considering a move to LA, to `follow our heart’, and it felt right to go,” said Joy. “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. And, we virtually had to start from scratch with Wade’s career because he was unknown, but we persisted and eventually – though difficult – we found a good theatrical and dance agent, and started trying out at auditions.”

So MJ brings them to the US and his companies employ them with the sole purpose of abusing Wade. Except MJ spends much of his time away.:smilerolleyes:

And here is Wade's own account from 2005 of how they contacted MJ when they came to the US:

18 So I met him after one of his concerts in

19 Brisbane, Australia. And it was just like in a

20 meet-and-greet sort of room. And we met, and I was

21 in my whole, you know, “Bad” outfit and everything.

22 He was sort of laughing and tripping out on my

23 outfit and asked if I danced. I said, “Yeah.” And

24 he asked me to perform with him in the show the next

25 night.

26 So after -- it was like the end of the

27 concert, I pulled up, performed in the show with

28 him. The next -- the next -- I think within the 9092

1 next couple of days, my mother and I went to visit

2 him at his hotel room, and we stayed for a couple of

3 hours. It was in Brisbane, Australia. Just talking

4 about what I want to do. And then that was kind of

5 it at first.

6 And then for the next two years, we didn’t

7 have any contact at all. And I continued pursuing

8 my dance career in Australia. And then the company

9 that I was with, the dance company, was traveling to

10 America to do a performance at Disneyland.

11 So we all went. Came out, did that

12 performance. As I said, we’d had no contact with

13 Michael or anything. Somehow my mother got in

14 contact with Michael’s secretary at that time, who

15 was Norma Stokes.

16 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I’m going to object

17 to the narrative form of the answer.

18 THE COURT: Sustained.

19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: After your mother got in

20 contact with Norma Stakos, what happened next?

21 A. She talked to Michael about -- we wanted to

22 see if we could hook up with him again and meet him

23 again. She talked to Michael. Michael remembered

24 me from when I met him when I was five years old,

25 wanted to meet me again.

26 So I was out there with my mother, sister,

27 my father, and grandparents. We all went to meet

28 him at Record One Recording Studios. And this 9093

1 was -- this was ‘89.

2 Q. Where is Record One Recording Studios?

3 A. I don’t remember exactly. It’s somewhere in

4 the valley, yeah. In California. Yeah.

5 Q. And what happened next?

6 A. We met up with him. He was in between, you

7 know, working on music and that sort of thing. He

8 was doing a photo shoot at the time at the studio.

9 We took some photos with him. My family and I all

10 went into his -- sort of like the green room, and

11 played him some videotapes of all the dancing stuff

12 that I’ve been doing over the last two years. And,

13 you know, he was just really excited, checking out

14 everything I had done. And then by the end of the

15 time, he invited my family and I up to the ranch

16 that weekend.

And now this is represented as MJ's companies "luring" Robson into MJ's world? :smilerolleyes:

 

[Soundmind]

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

I do not know but I have a feeling they will claim Norma said what they are claiming she had said to Joy Robson.

 

[HIStory]

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

Can you please let us know what exactly are they claiming Staikos said and to whom?

1) The first claim is about Quindoy.

2) IMO the second goes: "(Someone) stated that when (Staikos) took charge of operations at NL Ranch..."
I remember to have heard this story before but I do not remember now which disgruntled ex-employee claimed this. A female guard apparently. Charli Michaels? I don't know.

3) IMO: "(Someone) stated (Staikos) was the one..." ... "and that (Staikos) would arrange for limousines..."

4) "(This could be either Staikos or someone else, but I rather think the latter) stated that she first heard of Jackson's reputation..."
"(Staikos) told Ms. (someone) that she should never leave..." .... "and also told Ms. (someone) that "that kid (Jackson) better be glad I understood his problem."

"(someone) and (someone) both stated that (Staikos) was the one who was "in charge" at Neverland Ranch and that (Staikos) had the authority to set security protocol with respect to..."

"(Someone) stated that (Staikos) had forced Jackson to agree to Ms. (someone)'s termination against Jackson's wishes and (someone) stated that (Staikos) would terminate any ranch employee who got close to Jackson or anyone close to Jackson."

"(Staikos) arranged a meeting..."

"(Staikos) also told Robson's mother that she was not to speak to any employees... and reprimanded Ms. (someone) and Mr. (someone) for speaking to Robson's mother."

The redacted names here are also Staikos.

"Defendants exerted a significant degree of control over Jackson, primarily through (Staikos). (Staikos) was both the (I think here is the position that she held at MJJP) and Jackson's (personal assistant), and was (???)."

"(Staikos) arranged to have Robson's mother..."

"almost certainly instructed Mr. (Quindoy) to drive... during which trip Mr. (Quindoy) witnessed..."

"These allegations demonstrate that (Staikos) wielded a great deal of influence over Jackson's business and personal affairs, and was "in a position to control Jackson and stop the alleged abuse."

"Defendants almost certainly had actual knowledge of Jackson's abuse through (Staikos)..."


I think these are all third party claims of what Staikos supposedly said or did. Nothing really seems to come from Staikos herself. Staikos was in charge of dealings with employees at NL and some held grudges against her, just like against MJ. For example Phillip LaMarque claimed on the stand she was supposed to give them good references and she did not and that she failed to pay their overtime. So some of these employees had these sort of disputes with Staikos which is a motive for them to portray her as some sort of shady enabler of MJ.

I think much of it is a lot of hot air and do not support Robson's arguments. Things like Staikos arranging meetings between Robson and MJ, instructing guards not to stop MJ's car at the gate, instructing Quindoy to drive Robson to NL etc, are not allegations (let alone proven ones) that she had actual knowledge of abuse.

 

[HIStory]

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

I do not know but I have a feeling they will claim Norma said what they are claiming she had said to Joy Robson.

What are they claiming she said to Joy Robson?

 

[LindavG]

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

I do not know but I have a feeling they will claim Norma said what they are claiming she had said to Joy Robson.

That would be very convenient. At this point Joy Robson has to know that Wade's allegations are bullshit because his narrative of their relationship with MJ (both personal and professional) is so far from what actually happened. While Wade may claim he was "unwilling and unable to accept he was abused", what is Joy's excuse for defending MJ all these years and supposedly lying for him under oath in 2005? Interesting indeed that they barely mention her even though she played a very active role in his life and career.

But I don't think even they would be stupid enough to claim Norma told all these things to Joy because that would be very problematic for them. Unlike MJ's employees, Joy Robson actually did have the power to keep Wade away from Michael. If she was made aware of Michael's alleged "behaviour" with young boys and she did nothing to protect Wade from it, she is actually far more culpable than the companies and it would beg the question why Wade, in his pursuit of justice, did not sue his mother instead.

 

[Soundmind]

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

What are they claiming she said to Joy Robson?

Nothing at this point. It just a feeling I have they will be desperate enough to claim the person she supposedly talked with about MJ was Joy. Because so far no one ever claimed Staikos said anything bad about MJ.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

If they're going to say she told it to Joy (stupid move) why didn't JOY do anything? lol.

 

[HIStory]

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

Also thinking about this argument that Staikos allegedly fired someone against MJ's will and that proves she had control over MJ. Like I said I do not believe that any firings really happened against MJ's expressed wish no matter what they communicated to that person. The reality is that MJ was the boss and if he had really wanted someone to stay that person would have stayed. He definitely had the right and authority to veto any firings if he had really wanted to. And here we are talking about employees that MJ was not on friendly terms with. Obviously someone like LaMarque would not be as close to him as someone like the Robsons. So I guess the hiring and firing of such employees was more in the hands of Staikos. But the Robsons were his friends, there was no way that Staikos could have fired them against MJ's (and their own) wish. The complaint states several times actions in which MJ supposedly instructed Staikos to do this or that regarding the Robsons. So that does not seem to me like Staikos had control over MJ, not the other way around.

 

[Soundmind]

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

That would be very convenient. At this point Joy Robson has to know that Wade's allegations are bullshit because his narrative of their relationship with MJ (both personal and professional) is so far from what actually happened. While Wade may claim he was "unwilling and unable to accept he was abused", what is Joy's excuse for defending MJ all these years and supposedly lying for him under oath in 2005? Interesting indeed that they barely mention her even though she played a very active role in his life and career.

But I don't think even they would be stupid enough to claim Norma told all these things to Joy because that would be very problematic for them. Unlike MJ's employees, Joy Robson actually did have the power to keep Wade away from Michael. If she was made aware of Michael's alleged "behaviour" with young boys and she did nothing to protect Wade from it, she is actually far more culpable than the companies and it would beg the question why Wade, in his pursuit of justice, did not sue his mother instead.

Well, this is the same excuse the haters use whenever they are faced with this question ; why the Chandlers refused to cooperate with the police in 1993 after the settlement if their son was indeed molested. "the father sold his son, does not mean Jackson was innocent". They want this case to be heard by a jury where their chances will be good to very good regardless of how Joy will come across to the jurors. This is a sacrifice they are willing to make. Dont forget that those who believe MJ was a molester believe he bought the families before he started molesting their kids. .

 

[Soundmind]

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

If they're going to say she told it to Joy (stupid move) why didn't JOY do anything? lol.

"She did not believe Staikos because he cried ,weeped and begged her to trust him , that she was blinded by his power and celebrity , that she really trusted him, that he was cunning and manipulative ...etc "
Do you believe they would think twice before they go this route if this is what will get them the fortune they are dreaming of ? There is no one to hold joy accountable for perjury , she knows that , her son knows that. They will claim his mother was negligent but this does not release Jackson from being responsible.

 

[HIStory]

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

If they're going to say she told it to Joy (stupid move) why didn't JOY do anything? lol.

Exactly. I don't think them claiming that Staikos told them incriminating things about MJ would accomplish anything for them. I mean in that case the Estate might argue that it would mean that Staikos actually did whatever was in her power to stop the abuse - ie. she informed the mother. Staikos was not Robson's mother, she was not his guardian, Joy was. So from then on it would be Joy's responsibility alone if she refused to do anything with that "knowledge".

And this would also require a complete change in Joy Robson's story. Like Linda said while Wade may claim "inability and unwillingness to realize he was abused" what would Joy's excuse be for straight up lying on the stand if they are going to claim something like this now? What would be her excuse for not doing something to protect her son? And in that case what would be Wade's excuse of trying to sue MJ's companies instead of trying to sue Joy? It would only make them even more transparent than they already are and like I said I don't think legally it would accomplish anything for them.

And trust me they do not want to implicate Joy. So far all signs point to that they are trying to keep her away from everything as much as possible.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Also thinking about this argument that Staikos allegedly fired someone against MJ's will and that proves she had control over MJ. Like I said I do not believe that any firings really happened against MJ's expressed wish no matter what they communicated to that person. The reality is that MJ was the boss and if he had really wanted someone to stay that person would have stayed. He definitely had the right and authority to veto any firings if he had really wanted to. And here we are talking about employees that MJ was not on friendly terms with. Obviously someone like LaMarque would not be as close to him as someone like the Robsons. So I guess the hiring and firing of such employees was more in the hands of Staikos. But the Robsons were his friends, there was no way that Staikos could have fired them against MJ's (and their own) wish. The complaint states several times actions in which MJ supposedly instructed Staikos to do this or that regarding the Robsons. So that does not seem to me like Staikos had control over MJ, but the other way around.

Did Michael actually fire each person who worked for his company? I think he let others do that. Frank fired Tatiana Thumbtzen, does it mean he was in control of Michael's life? I know some people say it was against Michael's wishes but who can possibly know that? I think he didn't mind. You know CEOs don't fire everybody in their company, they're most likely to order others to do it or give them the authority to make their own decision because they have a direct contact with the employees. Can they prove Michael insisted that this person needed to stay?

 

[Soundmind]

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

He did not fire Grace personally. He supposedly asked Tohme to do it.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

"She did not believe Staikos because he cried ,weeped and begged her to trust him , that she was blinded by his power and celebrity , that she really trusted him, that he was cunning and manipulative ...etc "
Do you believe they would think twice before they go this route if this is what will get them the fortune they are dreaming of ? There is no one to hold joy accountable for perjury , she knows that , her son knows that. They will claim his mother was negligent but this does not release Jackson from being responsible.

Most of what I think respect already wrote in her respond to me but I'm going to add this - Joy is a biased witness and this is a case of "he said she said" (hearsay) it's their words against MJ's? Staikos? It doesn't look good for Wade if the only person who says she heard that Staikos said something is his own mother... Let's just say I hope they put it on Joy.

He did not fire Grace personally. He supposedly asked Tohme to do it.

I was thinking about that but I wasn't sure and I couldn't find the source.

 

[HIStory]

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

Did Michael actually fire each person who worked for his company? I think he let others do that. Frank fired Tatiana Thumbtzen, does it mean he was in control of Michael's life? I know some people say it was against Michael's wishes but who can possibly know that? I think he didn't mind. You know CEOs don't fire everybody in their company, they're most likely to order others to do it or give them the authority to make their own decision because they have a direct contact with the employees. Can they prove Michael insisted that this person needed to stay?

MJ hated confrontation, but I don't think any firings could happen against his expressed wishes. That he was the boss of these people and not the other way around is a simple fact. He had the right and authority to veto any firings he wanted. IF he really wanted that. The Tatiana example is a good one. Apparently Tatiana was told that she was fired against MJ's wishes (and apparently she still believes that or pretends to believe that), but if MJ had really wanted to keep her around there was nothing that Dileo could have done against that. I'm pretty sure firing her was not against MJ's wishes. It was probably at his order and instruction. But he hated to be the "bad guy" for anyone so he blamed those things on others and pretended like he had nothing to do with such firings.

 

[ivy]

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

I have asked Lynande from Vindicate MJ V.2 her opinions about the redacted names.

1) The first claim is about Quindoy.

2) IMO the second goes: "(Someone) stated that when (Staikos) took charge of operations at NL Ranch..."
I remember to have heard this story before but I do not remember now which disgruntled ex-employee claimed this. A female guard apparently. Charli Michaels? I don't know.

Executive Administrator for MJJ Productions is Norma Staikos. first one is definitely Quindoy. Staikos is also the one allegedly told "not to leave kids alone" with MJ. staikos is also mentioned in the second one as the person who took charge of operations. Lynande also thinks the female guard is Charli Michaels.

3) IMO: "(Someone) stated (Staikos) was the one..." ... "and that (Staikos) would arrange for limousines..."

4) "(This could be either Staikos or someone else, but I rather think the latter) stated that she first heard of Jackson's reputation..."
"(Staikos) told Ms. (someone) that she should never leave..." .... "and also told Ms. (someone) that "that kid (Jackson) better be glad I understood his problem."

First one is again Staikos. Orietta Murdock claimed Staikos told her never leave her kid with MJ. Lynande says most of these claims are mentioned in Gutierrez book.

"(someone) and (someone) both stated that (Staikos) was the one who was "in charge" at Neverland Ranch and that (Staikos) had the authority to set security protocol with respect to..."

"(Someone) stated that (Staikos) had forced Jackson to agree to Ms. (someone)'s termination against Jackson's wishes and (someone) stated that (Staikos) would terminate any ranch employee who got close to Jackson or anyone close to Jackson."

"(Staikos) arranged a meeting..."

yep all about staikos

"(Staikos) also told Robson's mother that she was not to speak to any employees... and reprimanded Ms. (someone) and Mr. (someone) for speaking to Robson's mother."

Lynande thinks Ms. someone is Charli Michaels , mr. someone is Chacon or Abdool.

The redacted names here are also Staikos.

"Defendants exerted a significant degree of control over Jackson, primarily through (Staikos). (Staikos) was both the (I think here is the position that she held at MJJP) and Jackson's (personal assistant), and was (???)."

"(Staikos) arranged to have Robson's mother..."

"almost certainly instructed Mr. (Quindoy) to drive... during which trip Mr. (Quindoy) witnessed..."

"These allegations demonstrate that (Staikos) wielded a great deal of influence over Jackson's business and personal affairs, and was "in a position to control Jackson and stop the alleged abuse."

"Defendants almost certainly had actual knowledge of Jackson's abuse through (Staikos)..."

yep all staikos and Quindoy was the driver.

I think these are all third party claims of what Staikos supposedly said or did. Nothing really seems to come from Staikos herself. Staikos was in charge of dealings with employees at NL and some held grudges against her, just like against MJ. For example Phillip LaMarque claimed on the stand she was supposed to give them good references and she did not and that she failed to pay their overtime. So some of these employees had these sort of disputes with Staikos which is a motive for them to portray her as some sort of shady enabler of MJ.

I think much of it is a lot of hot air and do not support Robson's arguments. Things like Staikos arranging meetings between Robson and MJ, instructing guards not to stop MJ's car at the gate, instructing Quindoy to drive Robson to NL etc, are not allegations (let alone proven ones) that she had actual knowledge of abuse.

and most of it is hearsay. and right now it is easy to make such claims and judge have to accept it. but how will he back anything if this is allowed to proceed further? Quindoy is dead and where are the rest of these people who made these claims in 1993? Staikos especially.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

Wow. it sums it up when they are relying on the likes of quindoy and the neverland five.talk about scraping the barrel . and quindoys dead. never knew knew that. good news of the day.i think stakos is in facebook so shes around

im sure the neverland five will have no prob enjoying another 15 mins of fame for a few bucks. its very intrezting sneddon didnt call stakos. did he ever attempt to use her at all or at least depose her. then again it was murdoch who made the claims

 

[HIStory]

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

Executive Administrator for MJJ Productions is Norma Staikos. first one is definitely Quindoy. Staikos is also the one allegedly told "not to leave kids alone" with MJ. staikos is also mentioned in the second one as the person who took charge of operations. Lynande also thinks the female guard is Charli Michaels.

Interesting if it is Charli Michaels because those claims are not in the prosecution's 2005 motion. So these must come from either some earlier deposition (and there must be a reason why those claims were not brought up by the prosecution in 2005) or from some tabloid, or Gutierrez's book. That is really the lowest of low if they use Gutierrez's book or tabloids for source.

 

[ivy]

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

^^

Well Lynande told me most of these are in Gutierrez's book. I haven't read it myself but it wouldn't surprise me that they are recycling old and discredited claims.

 

[LindavG]

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

Well, this is the same excuse the haters use whenever they are faced with this question ; why the Chandlers refused to cooperate with the police in 1993 after the settlement if their son was indeed molested. "the father sold his son, does not mean Jackson was innocent". They want this case to be heard by a jury where their chances will be good to very good regardless of how Joy will come across to the jurors. This is a sacrifice they are willing to make. Dont forget that those who believe MJ was a molester believe he bought the families before he started molesting their kids. .

Throwing his mother under the bus will certainly not do Wade any favours with the jury either. It makes it blatantly obvious that he is not that concerned with "justice" for what happened to him. Joy Robson had the knowledge, power and responsibility to protect her son from Michael but did absolutely nothing about it and actually encouraged their relationship. But instead Wade decides to go after Michael's employees and has to go through all this trouble just to explain how it even makes sense that they could influence his relationship with Michael in any way.

I find it quite curious that Joy moved back to Australia after living in the US for 20+ years just when Wade came out with his allegations. Can she be deposed when she's living abroad?

 

[ivy]

I find it quite curious that Joy moved back to Australia after living in the US for 20+ years just when Wade came out with his allegations. Can she be deposed when she's living abroad?

Has she though? She in on FB and on October 2014 she wrote "see you at LA Casting" to someone and "see you next time I'm in Oz" to anyone. It looks like she's in LA to me.

As for the rest here is some information

Deposing a U.S. Citizen Residing in a Foreign Country. If the witness in a foreign country is a U.S. citizen or resident, then 28 U.S.C. § 1783 governs the issuance and service of a subpoena. The U.S. can compel a citizen or resident to testify, which is considered a civic duty, even when he lives abroad. See Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 438, 76 L. Ed. 375, 52 S. Ct. 252 (1932) (“t [cannot] be doubted that the United States possesses the power inherent in sovereignty to require the return to this country of a citizen, resident elsewhere, whenever the public interest requires it, and to penalize him in case of refusal.&#8221.

Deposing a Foreign National. Depositions of foreign nationals vary by country. Several countries are members of the Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad for Civil or Commercial Affairs (the “Hague Convention&#8221, which was enacted to smooth differences between countries’ civil law systems. In general, you will need to draft a Letter of Request, which is then issued by the court in which your case is pending to the foreign central authority designated for these requests. You’ll want to consult a specific guide to the Hague Convention to obtain specific information about how to proceed and to check if the foreign country has any special requirements.

 

[SarahJ]

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

According to her linked in page, she's a talent agent at Jamie Ferrar Agency in Valley Village, California. Not sure when she last updated her page though. There doesn't seem to be that much on it.
Not sure if I can post the link, but just Google her name and Linked In and she pops right up.