Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
So basically they want the court to set a precedent and they say as much at the end of the document.
Going back to the beginning of it:
As alleged "acts of Jackson that support" Safechuck's argument for equitable estoppel are the following:
MJ allegedly psychologically manipulated and intimidated Safechuck to remain quite about the alleged abuse ("if you tell anyone, your life will be over"). Allegedly these words resonated "deeply within Safechuck's youthful mind and became a part of who he was." This "powerful indoctrination" (LOL) "was reinforced immesurably" by the fact of MJ's global icon status with "godlike authority" and all the usual nonsense about MJ being godlike and all powerful etc. This allegedly made Safechuck live all his life in fear that his life would be coming to an end if he ever got exposed. It did not end when Safechuck was an adult, not during the 2005 trial, nor when MJ died, instead: "Only after seeking therapy has Safechuck finally begun to come to terms with the incredible harm to his psyche caused by Jackson's abuse, and to face the intense fear he carried with him for almost his entire life." (Obviously seeing Robson filing a multi-million dollar civil claim was very, very threpeutic and helpful to him in realizing this and "coming to terms with it", I guess...)
As for a legal argument to me it seems, that they basically want the court to ignore Probate Code 9103.
In their opinion equitable estoppel should be applied to Safechuck and that defeats the time limitations in PC 9103 and CCP 366.2.
The four elements of equitable estoppel are:
They claim they meet all of those (I personally don't think so, but let's see):
(1) MJ allegedly threatened Safechuck that his life would be over, which demonstrates MJ "knew the facts" and that "he was committing wrongful sexual acts with Safechuck". (Remember at this stage all of Safechuck's claims have to be treated as if they were true.)
(2) MJ allegedly indoctrinated Safechuck into believing he was a consensual participant, the alleged sexual acts were Safechuck's idea bla-bla-bla and he intended Safechuck to act upon those threats (ie. not to tell anyone). MJ allegedly continued to indimidate Safechuck in 2005 trying to "intimidate him into testifying on Jackson's behalf and warning Safechuck of the dire consequences which would ensue if the truth came out."
(3) This is where I see a problem for Safechuck to claim equitable estoppel. (3) is:
"the party asserting estoppel must be unaware of the true facts". So let's see their little gem in support of this element:
His allegations are just all over the place. As we remember first he claimed he told his mother in 2005 that he was abused. Then when the Judge pointed out that it's a problem for his claim, he backtracked about it in his next declaration saying he did not really tell his mother in 2005 that he was abused only that MJ "was a bad man" and "something bad happened". Marzano must have forgot about that now, because in this document once again she mentions that Safechuck allegedly told his mother in 2005 that he was abused. On page 2 of this same complaint:
Even his lawyer seems to be confused by these web of lies by now. LOL.
In any case, the argument that they use for the 3rd element of estoppel is in direct contradiction with whatever he alleges happened between him and his mother in 2005. Even if he is allowed to change his story and he now claims he just told his mother that MJ "was a bad man" and "something bad happened", that would still contradict what he claims in support of the 3rd element of equitable estoppel that he was "unaware of the illicit, non-consensual nature of the molestation and wrongful sexual, and the harm that they caused him, until he sought therapy as an adult". If he wasn't aware of the wrongfulness, illicit, non-consensual nature of such acts why exactly did he think and say MJ was a bad man and something bad happen?
(4)
Yeah, neither 1993 or 2005 or even MJ's death managed that breakthrough. Robson talking about a multi-million dollar lawsuit with such allegations was exactly what was needed for him to go to therapy and to achieve a breakthrough. How convenient. But of course the Court has to treat his allegations as true no matter how nonsensical. Except when his own claims elsewhere beat his argument for the 3rd element of equitable estoppel. I think that is the most problematic element for him.
But also (4). That one logically does not make any sense to me. He
DID NOT achieve a breakthrough in therapy
AFTER PC 9103 expired. As per his own allegations he went into therapy in May 2013. The 60 days time limit of PC 9103 starts
when Safechuck himself claims that he has all the "facts", all the knowledge etc. required to file a complaint.
It's him giving the start sign to those 60 days. So how could it have expired by the time he went into therapy and his therapist no doubt told him that his psychological illness is linked to alleged abuse? That's when it started. That he did not file within 60 days of that (or at the very latest within 60 days of contacting Robson's lawyers) is no one's fault but his own and his lawyers'.
His legal argument is that that the question of whether estoppel can be applied to overcome statutes of limitations is an issue that to be determined by the trier of fact. I know that a trial is a "trier of fact" but is a summary judgement also? So is his argument that it necessarily has to go to trial or just that it necessarily has to pass demurrer?
And when his own claims defeat one of the elements of equitable estoppel (3) then is a "trier of fact" really required? If that would be so this whole back and forth about demurrer and summary judgement would not make any sense since once he claimed equitable estoppel it should go to trial automatically. I somehow doubt that is the case.
They cite a precedent where apparently the plaintiff claimed insanity and her mental capacities were such that she could not make a timely claim.
So this is how desperate they are. His lawyers basically compare him to a mentally disabled person. Later in the complaint they cite another case where the plaintiff tried to claim insanity. Bravo. But I guess they know how it looks, so later in the complaint they feel the need to point out that they do not claim that Safechuck is insane. LOL.
Then they talk a lot about CCP 340.1 trying to act as if that is the law that applies to them here instead of PC 9103. Obviously because CCP 340.1 would give them a 3 year time frame to file a lawsuit from the time Safechuck claims he discovered that psychological injury or illness was caused by the alleged abuse. But as we have seen when talking about these laws in Robson's case this only applies to defendants who are still alive. So what they are doing is basically arguing for the spirit of the law, which is - in their opinion - that courts do everything to be supportive of equitable estoppels in child abuse cases. Here they use a precedent case called DeRose vs. Carswell which is the other case they cite where apparently the plaintiff tried to claim insanity and this is where Robson's lawyer feels the need to emphasize that they do not claim insanity in Safechuck's case (the part I quoted above). LOL.
Then they say:
That's OK. But he claims he went into therapy when he heard about Robson's lawsuit, in May 2013. Then he contacted Robson's lawyers in October 2013. They did not file until May 2014. No matter how hard they try to ignore PC 9103 that law gave them every opportunity to file a lawsuit under normal statutory limits
when Safechuck says he was aware of all the facts needed for his lawsuit. Obviously as soon as he saw Robson and felt he needed therapy and his therapist told him this was sexual abuse he would know not only that he was allegedly abused but also that it's wrong and illicit and also that his psychological problems are allegedly related to that. How the heck would it make sense to claim otherwise? And under PC 9103 he could have filed a lawsuit within normal time limits. There is just no need for equitable estoppel here.
But at the very latest by October 2013 he would really, really, really have every "fact" (legal, psychological, everything) needed for his complaint. For God's sake he is contacting Robson's lawyers obviously because he wants a lawsuit. And those lawyers would obviously explain to him his legal possibilities and whatever is required to file a timely complaint. So at the very least they should have had to try to file within 60 days of October 2013. Obviously this wasn't a Plaintiff that did due dilligence in order to try to file a timely complaint under normal, statutory laws.
But this is simply not true. Like I said above, under 9103 he did have a chance to file under normal statutory limits - within 60 days of
when he himself claims (May 2013) he connected the dots between his psychological problems and alleged abuse and he missed that through no one else's fault but his own and his lawyers'. They just try so hard to ignore PC 9103 and make laws apply to him that do not apply here, just because that would be more convenient for him. That's what they are basically doing. Incredible.
Then they admit that in all probate cases where equitable estoppel was applied so far it dealt with the conduct of the representatives of the Estate, not the alleged conduct of the dedendent. But they bring other civil cases where equitable estoppel was applied due to the alleged conduct of a deceased person. However I fail to see how those cases should be relevant here. I mean the reason why in this case he should allege something about the Estate representatives' conduct rather than MJ's is because the problematic period for him is between May 2013 and May 2014. According to his own claims he connected his psychological problems to his alleged abuse in May 2013, at latest with the help of his therapist. Or at the very, very latest with the help of his lawyers in October 2013. From then on the law (PC 9103) gave him 60 days to file which he missed. So he should allege something about why he missed that when he already knew all about the wrongfulness of alleged abuse, psychological injury, heck in October 2013 he obviously also knew he had a legal case. So here he should allege something about the Estate or MJ doing something to him which stopped him from filing within those 60 days. MJ was dead so he obviously could not do anything and he cannot claim any such thing about the Estate either.
And BTW, that he claims he was afraid of MJ's celebrity, fame, fans, whatever is not a reason for equitable estoppel. Estoppel arises from something the defendant or his Estate allegedly did, not out of outside circumstances.
They cite further precedents which have totally different circumstances than Safechuck's case. Actually those precedents themselves state that "the issue (of equitable estoppel) is determined from the totality of the circumstances". Which is exactly what speaks against Safechuck being entitiled to equitable estoppel IMO.
