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

[barbee0715]

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

I never thought it was AEG either but I've always thought the timing of the different suits were meant to force a settlement.

I've run across some bizarre stuff this week while reading tributes to Michael in other places. One that said Branca was behind the whole 93 thing just to bring Michael down. Jeez.

But tabloids and hater sites are a possibility. I don't see Marzano doing this for free especially since they know they don't really have a case. BUT maybe she's another Sneddon who thinks that she'll become famous and rich beyond belief if she can manage to being down the biggest musical icon of our time.

 

[HIStory]

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

I think even if they do not win and do not get a settlement for the lawyers it is still publicity. And if they win it's a LOT of money for all of them - including the lawyers. So maybe that possibility of big money - or in worst case for them even just the publicity of a high profile case for the lawyers - is enough for them to take the case on a contingency basis. Of course, I do not know if it is on contingency basis and no matter how much we speculate we will never know, I guess. "Secretly" I hope it is not on contingency basis and their lawyers will suck these fraudsters dry before this case ends. But I tend to think it's probably on contingency basis or at small expense just because of the publicity this gives the lawyers (and of course the possibility of very big money if they win).

But I also think the lawyers expected bigger publicity when they took these cases. I think they probably anticipated a 1993/2005 style bash fest of MJ and that type of publicity, not realizing that public mood is different now when MJ is not alive any more. They really tried to fuel that type of mood against MJ in the media. Remember Gradstein's "monster" comments on TMZ or Marzano commenting tabloid articles and calling MJ all kind of inflammatory names. I think they really tried to blow it up into some big scandal in terms of publicity but all those attempts failed so far.

 

[Soundmind]

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

I wont be surprised if at some point it is revealed that Rupert Murdoch played a role in the allegations against MJ.

 

[Tygger]

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

I have always questioned who is funding this legal team. I never believed this to be a contingency-based effort by this legal team.

There is not enough publicity to warrant tabloids funding this doomed venture and there has not been a consistent tabloid reporting of this fleecing of the Estate. I am not aware of fervent PR efforts by the legal team to retain a spotlight of sorts on their efforts/causes and no outlet seeking their commentary minus court dates. Supporters of Robson/Safechuck must be very financially stable if they are funding their legal team.

Robson's financial information posted here is not necessarily evidence he is funding his defense as much as he is attempting to fund himself and his family with meager employment opportunities. It also does not explain Safechuck's financial picture and his ability to fund this legal team for his claims.

I believe one day, the truth will be revealed. The question is if it will be shocking.

 

[ivy]

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

the most expensive portion of a case is discovery and trial. Right now it wouldn't cost much to maintain this lawsuit. Look to case summary for the civil case and you will see complaint - opposition to demurrer - amended complaint - opposition to demurrer and motion to quash. the probate case had discovery motions.

there has been multiple research has done and if a case ends quickly (settlement or dismissal) costs would be $1000 to $7,500. after discovery phase it could raise up to $36,000. with a trial it could go up to $110,000. expert witnesses if the most expensive element.

according to court statistics, malpractice is the most complex type of case requiring over 450 attorney hours. research also shows that trial phase requires 1/3rd to 1/2 of attorney hours and discovery requires 1/5th to 1/4th of attorney time. Everything before that takes less than 15% of attorney time.

anyway what I'm trying to say right now the legal costs could be easily afforded by Robson and Safechuck and I don't think anyone expect this to make to trial/discovery.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Are you seriously suggesting that this case has only cost the estate $ 1,000 to $ 7,500? !

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I think she's seriously suggesting that these are the general market costs at the current stage of the case.

 

[ivy]

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

Are you seriously suggesting that this case has only cost the estate $ 1,000 to $ 7,500? !

I wrote the costs for plaintiffs aka Robson / safechuck per court statistics.

when Michael Amir Williams lost his case after 2 rounds of complaints and 18 months, he was ordered to pay Estate's legal costs which was $4365. I don't believe such costs include lawyer fees.

anyway in short what I was trying to say, this phase (complaint to demurrer) is the cheapest phase and can probably be afforded by Robson/ Safechuck. the most expensive phases - discovery, deposition, expert witnesses, trial preparation, trial - is yet to come and I don't think even they expect it to come to those phases.

or in other words, I don't get why "contingency basis" or "someone funding it" seems to be the only two options. I was trying to say "they could be paying for it themselves as the costs wouldn't be that high yet".

 

[Tygger]

Seems this is a more interesting discussion than the gross earnings from the fourth accounting.

anyway in short what I was trying to say, this phase (complaint to demurrer) is the cheapest phase and can probably be afforded by Robson/ Safechuck. the most expensive phases - discovery, deposition, expert witnesses, trial preparation, trial - is yet to come and I don't think even they expect it to come to those phases.

You believe the legal team knew this was doomed from the onset? The minimal publicity they received was satisfying enough to complete a doomed venture on a contingency-basis? Please do not forget the threatened appeals that should be factored into Robson/Safechuck’s legal team costs’ estimations.

There are costs to an attorney’s time regardless of the percentage of the time utilized. Tis fine for anyone choosing to believe this doomed venture is economical or contingency-based for Robson/Safechuck. I chose not to believe this is contingency-based and continue to do so. Any portion of monies spent by the Estate to combat these claims is a success to these plaintiffs and/or whomever may be financially supporting this fleecing of the Estate. I would however be careful in comparing the costs of this venture to Williams’ costs. Williams did not venture to be successful in encouraging four precedents. There is information regarding Weitzman's costs in the fourth accounting.

 

[ivy]

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

You believe the legal team knew this was doomed from the onset?

No, I'm saying and have always said that their play has always been trying to force a settlement. I don't think Robson/Safechuck and their lawyers planned for a discovery, trial prep and trial. If they expected a settlement early in the process that could explain why Robson/Safechuck funding their own legal actions and/or why the lawyers might have taken this on contingency basis.

Last week danny posted a link to VMJ blog by Helena. Helena has been one of the people who have been very critical of AEG. And even her blog post states she doesn't believe AEG would be funding this anymore. It serves no benefit to them.

Now I know you never came and flat out said AEG is funding this but you have been suggesting "someone" is funding these lawsuits. So my question to you is who do you think is funding these lawsuits and why would they be funding it? Care to elaborate?

 

[Tygger]

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

No, I'm saying and have always said that their play has always been trying to force a settlement. I don't think Robson/Safechuck and their lawyers planned for a discovery, trial prep and trial. If they expected a settlement early in the process that could explain why Robson/Safechuck funding their own legal actions and/or why the lawyers might have taken this on contingency basis.

And yet they continue two years later. Humans generally prefer not to lose. I do not view this legal team as an exception; especially after two years on a contingency-basis with no true, dependable publicity as a substitute for monies. There is most likely another motivating factor and I believe it is monetary.

Last week danny posted a link to VMJ blog by Helena. Helena has been one of the people who have been very critical of AEG. And even her blog post states she doesn't believe AEG would be funding this anymore. It serves no benefit to them.

If I remember correctly, Helena was banned pre-AEG trial. A link to her blog is in this thread?

Now I know you never came and flat out said AEG is funding this but you have been suggesting "someone" is funding these lawsuits. So my question to you is who do you think is funding these lawsuits and why would they be funding it? Care to elaborate?

I have been quite clear and I am kind enough to answer your question. A benefactor would be someone(s) with enough financial funding and interest in fleecing the Estate as the venture was doomed from the start.

Michael had such enemies during his lifetime and it continues after his passing. It could be anyone(s) of his enemies who attacked Michael during his lifetime and is now attacking his estate or did not have the courage and/or opportunity to attack Michael during his lifetime and now has the opportunity to attack his estate (similar to the plaintiffs and their claims).

 

[ivy]

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

I have been quite clear and I am kind enough to answer your question. A benefactor would be someone(s) with enough financial funding and interest in fleecing the Estate as the venture was doomed from the start.

not really an answer to my question though. you are still talking about an unnamed "benefactor" and I'm asking you to name the specific benefactor you think behind this and explain the reason why now. Otherwise what you say is way too general to mean anything.

ps: unnecessary jabs will rarely (or never) result in questions asked being answered.

 

[Tygger]

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

Ivy, you asked me this question several times in this thread and I was always kind enough to answer. If the answer is too general for your taste, simply ask yourself what name(s) would be considered satisfactory as an answer?

You previously stated you believe this to be a contingency-based legal team for Robson AND Safechuck. Therefore, there is no name that would truly be satisfactory. The response to any name would include logic as to why you believe that name could not be a benefactor as you believe there is no benefactor.

P.S. Please be kind enough to remind me where I may have offended you so I can understand your reaction better.

 

[la_cienega]

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

yes. they are patronising the judge and here is me hoping the judge calls them out when he eventually dismisses these kangaroo cases.

for safechuck and robson lawyers, the real objective has always been to get the cases to trial so they can smear MJ. They know the media/tabloids (who may be sponsoring these suits) are waiting in the background for that so they can sully MJ reputation. These frivolous cases are essentially extortion tactics. and it's becoming clearer now.

They've always known they can't take it to trial.

What this is about is trying to get the estate to shut them up forever with $$$$ and an NDA. Wade even states that in his statement, that he needs to tell the truth as loudly as possible. Basically, "Pay me lots of money and make me sign an NDA so I won't trash MJ to every tabloid and talkshow and book show across the lands." They expected the estate to pay up.

So far it's revealingly desperate - remember when Wade wanted court documents from 2005 so he could find proof of his abuse as well as proof of the reasons why he was unable to come forwards for years and who were the witnesses and people who knew it was happening? And then didn't find a single thing about that and hasn't said a word about it since?

The whole "insanity" thing as well, Wade cited that in one of his original docs. He cited a case where someone's child was denied knowledge of who they were. So they didn't know their real identity growing up and that this was why they hadn't been able to file legal docs in time. Wade's lawyer claimed the abuse meant basically the same thing had happened to Wade. Desperate.

This will have cost them more than a few thousand though, the legal fees of just talking to a lawyer for a few hours on the phone is expensive enough.

 

[ivy]

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

Ivy, you asked me this question several times in this thread and I was always kind enough to answer. If the answer is too general for your taste, simply ask yourself what name(s) would be considered satisfactory as an answer?

You previously stated you believe this to be a contingency-based legal team for Robson AND Safechuck. Therefore, there is no name that would truly be satisfactory.

first of all I never had a certain opinion about this topic. I said the lawyers could be contingency basis. Mentioning it as one possibility - not the only possibility. Just a few posts above and before, I said Robson/Safechuck could be paying their own lawyers. So it demonstrates that I don't have a fixed opinion in this regard, mainly writing possibilities and could be convinced in any way.

As for the "benefactor" issue, I'm asking you to give me specifics and convince me. Right now, the scenario you provide is way too general to be convincing and honestly doesn't make much sense to me. You claim the benefactor knew this was doomed and yet 4 years after MJ's death funded a complaint against MJ because they hate MJ. Well given that MJ is deceased, MJ's enemies should know that nothing they do could hurt MJ, he is gone. And funding a complaint knowing that it is doomed doesn't make sense at all.

Let's me even more blunt. The only benefactor suggested by fans was/is AEG. This suggestion was supported by some logic at the time. AEG was facing a trial, this claim could have taken attention away from AEG trial - it did for a week or so but that's all. Some argued making such claims would effect MJ's income capacity hence reducing damages amount - it never came up during the trial and/or jury never came to that step. As the time went on, AEG claim became weaker. Like I mentioned Robson's claims did not benefit them in their lawsuit. Furthermore they were successful in their defense, so further claims - meaning safechuck- and continuing this serves them absolutely no purpose. That's why I mentioned Helena, even a person who was strongly against AEG and believed AEG's involvement in Robson claims, doesn't believe AEG would be funding it anymore. Because well it doesn't make sense. Because you and other fans aren't claiming someone truly believes Robson and helps him with his complaint. You and other fans believe this benefactor is funding lies to hurt MJ/ MJ Estate (false claims are illegal). If that's your belief, you need to support it with explaining who is that benefactor that funds something illegal to hurt a deceased person and how are they benefiting from these claims especially they know it is doomed from start. I can't answer the question for you because I can't think of anyone benefiting from this the way you describe it. If you think someone is benefiting from this in some way or format, you'll need to tell me who and how so that I can think about it and see if it makes sense.

Now I don't know why you never give a name and dance around the topic. Perhaps you don't have an idea of who this benefactor might be, perhaps you have just a general idea and cannot come up with a name, perhaps you have a name in mind but don't want to write it publicly, or perhaps you don't want to write a name to portray yourself neutral. who knows? I'm just trying to understand the logic here.

 

[gerryevans]

I’m not getting the benefactor logic at all. Of all persons for a benefactor to support, they get behind someone who actually is on record, and in a trial no less, adamantly denying MJ ever did anything inappropriate to him. If this case is not contingency, these benefactors have spent tens of thousands in lawyer fees over the last couple of years on a case that they themselves have to see at this point has little chance of being won, and has generated very little interest in the media or general populace.

I can understand WR’s lawyers not giving up especially if it’s strictly contingency because it’s hard to work on something for two years and then just stop and give up. It took a 5 month trial for Panish to give up with the AEG suit. The benefactors’ bill would probably already be in the six figures. For them to continue to shell out money, with no hopes of getting a return on their investment in any form, just makes no sense to me. If they are doing it out of sheer hate and with MJ being dead for years now, they surely are just loons with deep pockets.

But try as I might, I can’t think of anyone rich who has the kind of sick hatred or interest necessary to CONTINUE backing this effort, knowing they’re just blowing their cash.

Looney WR should hit whoever it is up for a personal loan. Maybe, he can do a documentary on them. Call it “Crazy and Crazier”. The Dumb and Dumber movies have already been done.

 

[Lil]

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

^^I agree, the idea of someone supporting Robson and Safechuck financially to make these claims makes no sense no matter what way you look at it. At the same time I simply can't come up with a reason for the both of them to wait with making their claims as long as they did, not just the fact they missed every deadline there was for making the claims, but especially the 60 days one as they were the ones who marked the start of those 60 days. I too think it's all about a settlement for them, but that doesn't explain why they basically destroyed their own case.. There is just no logic to this whole thing :mello:

 

[ivy]

They've always known they can't take it to trial.

What this is about is trying to get the estate to shut them up forever with $$$$ and an NDA. Wade even states that in his statement, that he needs to tell the truth as loudly as possible. Basically, "Pay me lots of money and make me sign an NDA so I won't trash MJ to every tabloid and talkshow and book show across the lands." They expected the estate to pay up.

this is exactly what I think too. and that's what I meant yesterday with saying they didn't expect or plan this to go to discovery or trial. It's not that they think they have no chance, it's just that they aimed for a settlement. and still they might think a settlement is a possibility if any of these cases survive demurrer - explaining why they still continue. Even TMez thinks Estate won't take this to trial, so it is probable that Robson/Safechuck and lawyers might be thinking if they survive demurrer - especially at the civil case, they would get a settlement.

there are several things that support this. for example why the original complaint was filed under seal. Probably a way to say to Estate "you can make this go away without anyone even finding out what the complaint was about". this didn't happen as TMZ probably blew that plan away. Media hasn't been much interested in this. Only they have 3 sources (ROnline, S.Brown and Dimond) to circulate their claims. RO went out of their way to come up with "anal rape" headline. It required them either read the hater and/or fan sites, or decipher themselves what the relevant law codes were referring to. Then came Safechuck. All in my mind to force Estate into a settlement.

This will have cost them more than a few thousand though, the legal fees of just talking to a lawyer for a few hours on the phone is expensive enough.

to clarify, I wasn't saying it costed them a few thousand for sure. Those numbers came from court statistics. Regardless of the money amount, it doesn't change the fact that this phase (from initial complaint to demurrer) is the cheapest phase for a case. Trial, trial prep and discovery are the parts that require the most time and money.

From real life experience I have seen two instances where lawyers have took over cases on contingency basis (even when they don't normally do). One was a wrongful termination lawsuit against a major corporation. Lawyers assumed the firm would settle rather than going through a lawsuit and they were right. Second example is wrongful death lawsuits which come with major payouts and many law firms believe accepting such lawsuits on a contingency basis is worth the risk. It's also possible that Robson/Safechuck to pay for it themselves if they expect millions and millions in a settlement or even as future income from selling their stories to media. So anything is possible.

For them to continue to shell out money, with no hopes of getting a return on their investment in any form, just makes no sense to me. If they are doing it out of sheer hate and with MJ being dead for years now, they surely are just loons with deep pockets.

This! Exactly the idea that the benefactor is someone who hates MJ or his enemy doesn't make sense at all. There's no way to hurt MJ now as he is gone. So yeah I agree if that's the argument here then this will be a "loons with deep pockets" situation.

AEG claim made sense for a little while as I explained in previous post. But it makes no sense now.

But try as I might, I can’t think of anyone rich who has the kind of sick hatred or interest necessary to CONTINUE backing this effort, knowing they’re just blowing their cash.

Neither can I. That's why I'm asking for a name and more specifics. Who is this benefactor, what is their goal, why now, how is anyone benefiting from this all?

Also to be honest, I don't necessarily see a benefit in this situation. Sure accusations against MJ isn't good but like you pointed out neither media nor public seems to pay much attention. Estate seems to be in good shape continuing to earn money. It doesn't look like these accusations had resulted in much negativity. So what's the goal here? What's the benefit?

At the same time I simply can't come up with a reason for the both of them to wait with making their claims as long as they did, not just the fact they missed every deadline there was for making the claims, but especially the 60 days one as they were the ones who marked the start of those 60 days. I too think it's all about a settlement for them, but that doesn't explain why they basically destroyed their own case..

60 days only apply to probate claims. I think they always knew / believed the civil case was the more likely one to survive.

 

[LastTear]

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

Thanks for the updates and explainations everyone.

I also don't believe there is a benefactor, however I do believe there might be a source behind the Robson supporters on social media, perhaps someone like DD, as they are so hateful - idk, (it sounds silly when you write it down lol) maybe there are just people who hate for the sake of it without knowing or choosing to educate themselves.

 

[Tygger]

Because you and other fans aren't claiming someone truly believes Robson and helps him with his complaint. You and other fans believe this benefactor is funding lies to hurt MJ/ MJ Estate (false claims are illegal). If that's your belief, you need to support it with explaining who is that benefactor that funds something illegal to hurt a deceased person and how are they benefiting from these claims especially they know it is doomed from start. I can't answer the question for you because I can't think of anyone benefiting from this the way you describe it. If you think someone is benefiting from this in some way or format, you'll need to tell me who and how so that I can think about it and see if it makes sense.

You and other fans???

First, I do not need to do any activity you listed including respond. However; I am kind enough to respond as it continues discussion which is very important on a discussion board.

Second, you stated this reasoning of an illegal activity previously and I responded previously it is not illegal to support Robson/Safechuck because there are those who believe them. Are you suggesting the legal team does not believe their clients? If not, why suggest a possible benefactor(s) does not.

Third, it is quite clear the venture was doomed from the start as it hinges on four precedents to succeed to trial. Even if one believes your settlement theory/contingency-based theory, it is quite clear a settlement will not happen and this legal team has threatened to continue to an appeal process. There has to be motivation to continue despite the dismal legal odds and the minimal publicity both of which most in this thread agree upon including yourself. Despite the statistics posted on court fees, I do not believe anyone on this board will confuse it with the cost of a legal team.

If this case is not contingency, these benefactors have spent tens of thousands in lawyer fees over the last couple of years on a case that they themselves have to see at this point has little chance of being won, and has generated very little interest in the media or general populace.

When has hatred been logical? As I stated above, a possible benefactor(s) most likely believes in Robson/Safechuck’s cause just as their supporters do. Also, as stated above, Michael cannot be hurt. His estate can however and that is done financially.

I can understand WR’s lawyers not giving up especially if it’s strictly contingency because it’s hard to work on something for two years and then just stop and give up. It took a 5 month trial for Panish to give up with the AEG suit. The benefactors’ bill would probably already be in the six figures. For them to continue to shell out money, with no hopes of getting a return on their investment in any form, just makes no sense to me. If they are doing it out of sheer hate and with MJ being dead for years now, they surely are just loons with deep pockets.

If monies is not the motivation, what is? Panish's team is a well-known U.S. based contingency-based legal team with a 99% success rate so they can fund themselves and their success supports their reputation. They were/are contingency-based and achieve successful verdicts for their clients before the Jackson beneficiaries and after. I cannot state the same for Robson/Safechuck’s legal team. A bleak financial situation was posted for Robson in this thread but, not for Safechuck. Maybe one can find that Safechuck is financially stable and funding both of their doomed legal activities.

 

[ivy]

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

Second, you stated this reasoning of an illegal activity previously and I responded previously it is not illegal to support Robson/Safechuck because there are those who believe them. Are you suggesting the legal team does not believe their clients? If not, why suggest a possible benefactor(s) does not.

Third, it is quite clear the venture was doomed from the start as it hinges on four precedents to succeed to trial.

correct me if I'm wrong. You state "the venture was doomed from the start" and you argue a benefactor supporting this case. Added all together, I take it to mean that you argue that someone is supporting a case that they know cannot be successful. Am I wrong? Plus the AEG benefactor claim (not coming directly from you) always assumed AEG paid Robson to lie. It didn't assume they believed Robson and/or supported such claims for the goodness of their heart. So added all together I understand it as someone paid Robson to lie (illegal) and supporting a claim that cannot succeed. Or do you suggest that this benefactor truly believes the claims? I guess you need to be a little more direct in expressing yourself if it is causing a misunderstanding on my/our part.

Are you suggesting the legal team does not believe their clients?

No I'm not. but lawyers believing their clients isn't really a requirement of the US legal system.

First, I do not need to do any activity you listed including respond.

I was merely trying to understand you but you are absolutely right. I do exercise my right to not respond/ignore as I please. You can too anytime you want. This is a free country and discussion board.

 

[HIStory]

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

RO went out of their way to come up with "anal rape" headline. It required them either read the hater and/or fan sites, or decipher themselves what the relevant law codes were referring to.

Didn't RO publish that article when there were those interrogatories which inevitably revealed the specific allegations to the public? I believe that was the main purpose of those interrogatories - to get those details out to the public in order to raise negative publicity for MJ -, because otherwise it did not make any sense to me to grill the Estate about "admitting to" things that Robson claims were going on between him and MJ behind closed doors. I think that was another attempt by them to start a smear campaign in the media because they know that it's such salacious allegations that the tabloid media are interested in. Robson and his family members (Chantal and I think Amanda too) posted and spread that article on their FB pages. So I think it was an attempt to boost their negativity campaign in the media but it failed again, because other than RO no one else have really picked it up.

I agree that this is all a game to somehow pressure a settlement. Like you said, initially they wanted to file under seal so all of Robson's talk later about the need of speaking his "truth" is a bunch of nonsense. It only became about speaking his "truth" after TMZ got wind of the story, but initially they tried to file it under seal, citing the privacy interests of the defendant, no less. After they saw that the Estate was not going to pay them off quietly the tactic changed to trying to pressure them into a settlement with bad publicity.

60 days only apply to probate claims. I think they always knew / believed the civil case was the more likely one to survive.

Maybe it's just me but I still cannot see how the civil case has more chance to survive. Yes, it does not have the 60 days limit, but it has other problems which are just as big. For one, how can one make a company responsible for something that they did not have any control over? Doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[wendijane]

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

Your like head lice wade ?
Itchy bitch always scratching yappin about for nothin'

 

[gerryevans]

When has hatred been logical? As I stated above, a possible benefactor(s) most likely believes in Robson/Safechuck’s cause just as their supporters do. Also, as stated above, Michael cannot be hurt. His estate can however and that is done financially.

You're right, hatred isn't logical, at least not the kind of hate some shadowy benefactor or biased supporter for this case would have to have. I'm thinking now of the crazed person who sat in a church bible class a couple of weeks ago here in the states and killed worshippers for no reason other than his totally illogical hatred. So if that kind of benefactor is paying these lawyers, then yeah there is a possibility that a twisted loon is out there with deep pockets, who got together with the most illogical plaintiff to stage a molestation case years after MJ's death, to hurt the estate and in essence his mother and his children.

But I simply do not believe that is the case here. I think these lawyers took this case on contingency because of the fame of Michael Jackson and they thought there might be a significant settlement, especially considering what happened in '93, which brings us to what instigated the case in the first place. Greed.

I believe Robson's emotional problems left him in a state where he didn't want to work anymore and thought pursuing MJ would result in an settlement to set him up for life. That he, nor his lawyers, thought it all out as clearly as they should initially is evidenced by it first being said he had repressed memory to subsequently he always knew what MJ allegedly did to him, but he did not know it was sexual abuse. Geez, just writing the words suggest the lunacy of this case. Safechuck, like the lawyers, jumped on board. For cash. That's what this case has always been about for the plaintiffs and a mixture of cash and getting a possibly higher profile name for the lawyers. I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I believe Robson's emotional problems left him in a state where he didn't want to work anymore and thought pursuing MJ would result in an settlement to set him up for life. That he, nor his lawyers, thought it all out as clearly as they should initially is evidenced by it first being said he had repressed memory to subsequently he always knew what MJ allegedly did to him, but he did not know it was sexual abuse. Geez, just writing the words suggest the lunacy of this case. Safechuck, like the lawyers, jumped on board. For cash. That's what this case has always been about for the plaintiffs and a mixture of cash and getting a possibly higher profile name for the lawyers. I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise.

And with the time it took them to file the lawsuit you would think they would have at least had the basic "facts" established.

 

[ivy]

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

Maybe it's just me but I still cannot see how the civil case has more chance to survive. Yes, it does not have the 60 days limit, but it has other problems which are just as big. For one, how can one make a company responsible for something that they did not have any control over? Doesn't make any sense to me.

you know we discussed this before. I don't see it going to a trial but it wouldn't surprise me if the judge allows discovery - meaning allow it to survive demurrer.

 

[Tygger]

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

Added all together, I take it to mean that you argue that someone is supporting a case that they know cannot be successful. Am I wrong?

And when has such an action become illegal? I have been clear the reasoning for a benefactor is not Robson fabricated claims AND those claims would most likely be unsuccessful.

No I'm not. but lawyers believing their clients isn't really a requirement of the US legal system.

I have never suggested this legal team and/or possible benefactor did not believe the Robson/Safechuck. You can suggest it if you like.

I was merely trying to understand you but you are absolutely right. I do exercise my right to not respond/ignore as I please. You can too anytime you want. This is a free country and discussion board.

You did not post my sentence that followed. You have stated you are not partial however; you have given several suggestions why you believe this is cannot funded by a benefactor, is contingency-based, and/or affordable for Robson and Safechuck to fund for themselves. Regardless, as you said, it is your right to respond when you like which places responsibility for your actions on you. Therefore, your suggestion that I may have offended you without providing the instance as your reason to not respond is illogical and uncalled for.

But I simply do not believe that is the case here. I think these lawyers took this case on contingency because of the fame of Michael Jackson and they thought there might be a significant settlement, especially considering what happened in '93, which brings us to what instigated the case in the first place. Greed.

Apologies, however; this argument does not explain why this legal team is threatening an appeal process with minimal publicity and no possibility for a future settlement. What is motivating them to continue?

 

[HIStory]

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

Apologies, however; this argument does not explain why this legal team is threatening an appeal process with minimal publicity and no possibility for a future settlement. What is motivating them to continue?

There could be several reasons. Appeals, if needed, might have been included in the initial deal with Robson/Safechuck. Or even if the chance for winning/settlement is small they still want to hold on to that chance because if they are successful it means huge money and they might be willing to take the risk for that potentially huge money. Or even if the case has not blown up as big as they hoped for it is still publicity. Or they may see it as a professional challenge: a difficult case which would be a great reference for them professionally if they managed to turn it around. Or they do get paid some by Robson/Safechuck. Or a mixture of the above. Lawyers can have many motivations. Especially in a high profile case like this.

I do not believe in the secret benefactor theory because I do not see how it would work. How? Some mysterious benefactor comes up with the idea that they would ruin the MJ Estate's business by accusing MJ with molesting some kid? For that to happen they should have contacted several guys who were around MJ as children to see which one of them would be willing to do this. So were they so lucky that the first guy they approached, Robson, was willing? If he was not the first guy they approached then there should be other guys out there who were approached before him but were not willing. So why did they not go to the Estate to report about some mysterious benefactor making its rounds and making them such illegal offers?

You say the benefactor may not see it as illegal but may believe Robson. And how did that support happen then? I mean Robson's allegations went public in May 2013. The public did not know about them before and Robson already had his lawyers then, obviously - they filed his lawsuit. Before May 2012, according to his story, not even Robson himself knew he was allegedly abused and never told anyone before that. We know from his e-mail in September 2012 that he was talking about legal action at least then. He might have not found his eventual lawyers yet, but he was thinking about legal action. So we have the May 2012-September 2012 period where Robson might have reached out to some benefactor to support his planned lawsuit financially. This version of events would suggest that the benefactor's support of Robson has to do with Robson reaching out for financial support to fund a lawsuit and he managed to convince someone to believe and support him. So in this version the motivation, on the benefactor's part, is simply believing in a cause, not the desire to ruin MJ and his Estate out of hate.

I am not saying it is impossible, but until there is no evidence for this theory I'll stick with Occam's razor and go with more simple explanations of how he is funding his lawsuit. I think both the version that he is funding it from his own pocket and the version that he managed to find a lawyer that took the case on contingency basis are more simple explanations than a conspiracy theory about mysterious third party benefactors.

 

[ivy]

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

You have stated you are not partial however; you have given several suggestions why you believe this is cannot funded by a benefactor

never said "cannot". I said I'm not convinced about the presence of a benefactor. The discussion also showed that I'm not the only one thinking like that. and I feel like you are saying conflicting stuff. Last night this benefactor was a MJ enemy/hater. Today they believe robson's claims. So are we looking for someone who is enemy of MJ and genuinely believes these claims?

Therefore, your suggestion that I may have offended you without providing the instance as your reason to not respond is illogical and uncalled for.

I haven't said you offended me, I referred to your jabs on this thread. you know it, I know it so let's not insult our intelligence, okay?

 

[Tygger]

I am not saying it is impossible, but until there is no evidence for this theory I'll stick with Occam's razor and go with more simple explanations of how he is funding his lawsuit. I think both the version that he is funding it from his own pocket and the version that he managed to find a lawyer that took the case on contingency basis are more simple explanations than a conspiracy theory about mysterious third party benefactors.

That is not the simpler explanation; it is the version you prefer. There is no evidence to support your versions either. When attempting to reason a possible benefactor(s) you seem to complicate the issue so your preference seems simplier. For example:

This version of events would suggest that the benefactor's support of Robson has to do with Robson reaching out for financial support to fund a lawsuit and he managed to convince someone to believe and support him. So in this version the motivation, on the benefactor's part, is simply believing in a cause, not the desire to ruin MJ and his Estate out of hate.

Why is this scenario in the first sentence difficult to believe? In second sentence, you complicate matters by attempting to separate supporting Robson from distaste for Michael which can manifest itself in a supported financial attack on his estate. You have reviewed hater sites and their commentary so you are aware there are persons who are supportive of Robson and have a dislike for Michael because they view him as being capable of what he was accused of.

Support of the contingency-based theory and/or the Robson/Safechuck funding their legal team theory relies heavily on possibilities at the start of the venture which is flawed. One must move past the events of 2012 and explain the reactions of 2015 that include threats of future legal action with no possibility to turn the events in Robson/Safechuck’s favor. None.

There seems to be no logical reason for one to continue with a doomed venture when there is no possibility for a settlement, continued funding is necessary to pursue an appeal which is the only viable option for both claimants, and there is minimal publicity. With this reality, a contingency scenario seems unlikely. With Robson's bleak financial situation it would seem another (others) is funding his venture. I have not seen any posts regarding Safechuck's financial situation however; Safechuck's claims support Robson's so it is not unlikely his venture is being funded as well.

So are we looking for someone who is enemy of MJ and genuinely believes these claims?

Ivy, we had this discussion before. What is confusing you? You and Respect77 have reviewed commentary from hater sites. You know such people exist and it is not an either/or characterization for them.

I haven't said you offended me, I referred to your jabs on this thread. you know it, I know it so let's not insult our intelligence, okay?

You did not post my preceding sentence. I have not offended you and there is no instance of such offense. This means your suggestion without offense and instance of offense is illogical and uncalled for.