Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
If the judge thinks Robson satisfied (b)(2) then he gets the green light?
Doesn't he have to meet (a)(1) or (a)(2) too?
And does Robson want to set a precedent here too given that there is not one case he could cite to support his argument?
Also, where are all those quotes by Murdoch, Staikos etc. from? Does anyone have a clue?
saw this under probate case summary
07/08/2015 at 08:30 am in department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Hearing on Demurrer(to James Safechuck's AmendedPetition for Order to File aLate Creditor's Claim
edited to add: a previous document has shown the date as July 21
http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MJ-signed.pdf
And what does this mean? that the hearing has been delayed? Why?
There is part in Safechuck's declaration that is such an obvious and blatant lie I don't understand why he would include this in his story since it's so easy to refute it:
During the course of the trial I received a call from decedent's attorneys and his assistant. Evvy Tavasci. they asked me again if I would testify at the trial as they needed me to refute testimony given by the cooks at Neverland Ranch. I told them "let them say that I don't want to be involved". the lawyer cut off the call abruptly.
There was no testimony involving Safechuck at all, the judge didn't allow it because Sneddon didn't have anyone who said they saw anything sexual between him and MJ!
Quindoy was dead anyway and even if he had testified he would have been easily impeached with his and his wife's interviews where they didn't say a bad word about MJ and were all smiles while talking about MJ and kids in Neverland and that MJ acted pretty much like a kid himself. They also sued MJ for overtime pay and they wanted to sell stories to tabloids. They would have been ridiculous witnesses.
And TM definitely didn't call Safechuck so which lawyer did and why would he have called him during the trial at all?
And "the lawyer cut off the call abruptly. "?? Come on. This sounds like a stupid B movie.
And this:
I learned on the news that decedent had died. When I found out I felt sad because I realized I would never have the opportunity for a normal relationship with him.
Imagine Aaron Fisher saying: when I heard Sandusky died I felt said because I realized I would never have the opportunity for a normal relationship with him.
It's simply mindblowing what these leeches want everyone to believe. Why would anyone be interested in a normal relationship with someone who abused him 100 times?
When I saw the story (Robson), the nagging feat of exposure again reared up in me and I thought "Oh no now I'm exposed!"
Why would he think that just because Robson sued the Estate he was "exposed"? Robson didn't even mention his name anywhere in his complaint or in his interview.
I did not have an epiphany pr "aha!" moment after seeing Wade's story, but I began thinking for the first time that I needed to seek
psychiatric help.
Didn't Marzano use this exact same language with regard to Robson? That he didn't have an aha moment?
Why did he start to think he needed help after seeing Robson's lawsuit when he said he took Xanax during his wife's pregnancy and had panic attacks in the past?
Much more likely that he saw Robson may make millions with those claims so he thought I should try it myself.
Until I began therapy I didn't realize how sick it was that decedent had done the things he did to me as a child.
Jesus Christ, another one pretending to be a retard. At age 30 he didn't understand that sex with kids was sick. He totally needed someone to explain that to him. Somehow he didn't realize that it was sick even though he believed Gavin Arvizo was a victim. A victim of what? Something that was not sick but expression of love?
