[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

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.

and how do you explain KJ continuing with an appeal and even supreme court when the odds were against her?

With Robson's bleak financial situation

what makes you think his financial situation is bleak? Given both he and his wife seems to be involved in hobbies rather than an actual jobs, one might argue that their financial situation is good and they don't need to maintain real jobs. Unless of course you think the benefactor is also funding their living expenses?

You and Respect77 have reviewed commentary from hater sites. You know such people exist and it is not an either/or characterization for them.

so you think Desiree is funding this efforts? Yes there are such people but those are a few obsessed trolls, they don't have the means to fund anything.

This means your suggestion without offense and instance of offense is illogical and uncalled for.

I guess one offence I take is that people ask questions without even bothering to read. I don't get how the first question could be gross earnings when it's the first piece of information I wrote. To me that's disrespectful of other's time and effort in bringing you that information. Then as you pointed out today, people aren't required to respond to anything on demand and they can take their time. Bringing any issues to another unrelated thread is also totally unnecessary so is the "I am kind enough to answer your question" jabs. But if you prefer me to act like I don't understand your hints/veiled jabs, sure I'll pretend. Whatever makes you happy.

 

[Tygger]

and how do you explain KJ continuing with an appeal and even supreme court when the odds were against her?

Not a good comparison. There were legal analysts among others who questioned the jury’s verdict so I can understand her legal team pursuing it. As we know the appellate lawyer’s fee was capped so the pursuit was cost effective as well. I do not believe anyone can say the same for Robson/Safechuck’s legal team pursing four precedents. Minus Mesereau, there is not much legal analysis or interest in Robson/Safechuck's claims. Most view those claims as the fabrications they are which is why there is minimal publicity.

what makes you think his financial situation is bleak? Given both he and his wife seems to be involved in hobbies rather than an actual jobs, one might argue that their financial situation is good and they don't need to maintain real jobs. Unless of course you think the benefactor is also funding their living expenses?

Have you read the posts in this thread about what may be his financial status? Interesting that you did not suggest Robson being financially stable to others during that discussion a few pages back but, are attempting to suggest such to me because I believe he may have a benefactor(s).

so you think Desiree is funding this efforts? Yes there are such people but those are a few obsessed trolls, they don't have the means to fund anything.

???

First, I did not mention Desiree and I would not mention him/her. Second, there are such people who do believe these claims and have distaste for Michael. They should not be limited to online posters/bloggers.

As for the rest of your post: I did not jab you and I did not bring an issue from another thread however; after reading your issues with my posts in another thread it is clear it was your decision not to answer my initial questions for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with my posts.

Re-read the summary you posted on this forum and then re-read my questions. Three of my seven questions referred to the pages you yourself admitted to omitting and that you did not make that disclaimer on this forum. As for my first question, gross earnings would appear in the pages you omitted AND you did not post the earnings on this forum or elsewhere. If you did post it, anyone could simply repost the figure without looking to a schedule. Re-read the thread and you will see you did not find questions from other posters disrespectful despite they most likely did not read the current document/summary and/or previous ones.

A bit unfortunate because it thwarts discussion. No worries here because I understand it was your decision. It would be beneficial to others in the thread if you would send a PM with any further issues you may have with my posts.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

Something I thought about: Wade is claiming that MJ showed him adult magazines, I assume to groom him, yet claims he was immediately molested on his second night. That doesn't add up.

 

[ivy]

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

As for the rest of your post: I did not jab you and I did not bring an issue from another thread

uhm you did. you could have taken your own advice and pm'd me.

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

As for my first question, gross earnings would appear in the pages you omitted AND you did not post the earnings on this forum or elsewhere.

uhm I did. net income and gross income are the first two numbers I ever wrote.

Schedule D shows net income from trade or business during third accounting period (Jan 2013- Dec 2013) at $40,333,827. (Gross income is $67,407,156).

there I kindly answered your question.

A bit unfortunate because it thwarts discussion.

I agree that it's quite unfortunate that you choose to start the accounting thread issue on this thread (see above quote). Good job in thwarting the discussion. Kindly stop blaming me for responding to something you started unnecessarily.

are we done? so how about taking your own advice and pm me if you have further issues on this topic? or will you choose to continue this thing you started?

 

[HIStory]

That is not the simpler explanation; it is the version you prefer.

It IS the simpler explanation because Plaintiffs' paying their own lawsuits or contingency based cases are the usual ways of funding a lawsuit not conspiracies with third parties. Of course conspiracies may happen sometimes but for me to believe in them I need more evidence than "I just prefer them over the more simple and more usual ways of funding a lawsuit".

So now you think haters fund him? That would suggest haters knew about his pending lawsuit before he hired his lawyers in March 2013. So how do you think that happened? He saw those hater websites and e-mailed those people to finance a lawsuit in which he would ruin MJ's reputation and make them happy? Risking that a bunch of strangers might run their mouth and blow everything before it happened?
Sorry but that's not a simpler explanation that to me than he just reached in his own pocket or found a lawyer who would take it contingency basis.

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.

We do not believe and hope that they will not be successful but that does not mean his lawyers see it that way as well. They might see a chance for them or they might see it as a professional challenge which is difficult but if they are successful it may give them not only money but would add to their professional reputation as well.

With Robson's bleak financial situation

I think you are twisting the information a bit that was posted here. The article posted said he lost a lot of money due to breaching contracts and not fulfilling contracts, but also said he did have his reserves. So they are probably not on the verge of financial collapse yet. The tendency is probably that he is losing money as time goes by and as he does not seem to have a stable job, but they are probably not yet at the point where they lost everything. Also his sister still works, his mother still works so they might give him money for now. But obviously no income and big spending (Hawaii is expensive!) cannot go on forever so to sustain his lifestyle on the long run and for the rest of his life (which is his goal) requires him to accuse MJ and try to extort money from his Estate. I can imagine he convinced himself he had a big chance of winning this case and maybe he still keeps convincing himself of that (although as we have seen now he has started to look for jobs), so it's not far fetched to think that any money he may spend on his lawsuit now he views as an investment that would bring back multiple times as much if he is successful. Yes, there is the risk that it will not bring back anything but we are not in his mind to know how big he thinks that risk is or how much he believes he can win.

This "who funds him" question seems to be the only thing that interests you in this case, but to me this is a side issue, to be honest. If evidence of some sort of third party funding comes up I'll listen but for now I find the idea quiet in the realm of conspiracy theories and I'd rather deal with facts here.

 

[Tygger]

It IS the simpler explanation because Plaintiffs' paying their own lawsuits or contingency based cases are the usual ways of funding a lawsuit not conspiracies with third parties.

And this is where you complicate a scenario. Why introduce a conspiracy?

So now you think haters fund him?

That was Ivy’s suggestion, not mine.

We do not believe and hope that they will not be successful but that does not mean his lawyers see it that way as well. They might see a chance for them or they might see it as a professional challenge which is difficult but if they are successful it may give them not only money but a big professional success.

Successful how? They will not succeed in going to trial, there will be no settlement, and the appeal process will most likely not be successful.

I think you are twisting the information a bit that was posted here.

You must have similar twisted thoughts as well. Your first sentence in response to 1978’s FB post is requoted below. Most would consider such bleak.

I guess money is starting to run out.

This "who funds him" question seems to be the only the only thing that interests you in this case, but to me this is a side issue, to be honest.

Interesting. I have been quite clear about my interests in these claims and lack thereof. I remember having a discussion with you earlier in this thread that had nothing to do with a possible benefactor.

 

[HIStory]

And this is where you complicate a scenario. Why introduce a conspiracy?

And how did it possibly happen then in your opinion? Please take the facts of the timeline of this case into account!

That was Ivy’s suggestion, not mine.

Really? So you did not suggest haters might be behind it? See this post: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page816?p=4097445&viewfull=1#post4097445

If you now backtrack and do not think any more that haters might be behind it then who do you think this mysterious third party benefactor is?

Successful how? They will not succeed in going to trial, there will be no settlement, and the appeal process will most likely not be successful.

That's our hope. That does not mean his lawyers and/or Robson think the same.

And let's put it this way:

According to you is it is illogical for Robson and his lawyers to decide to continue the case unless they are funded by somone else, because they do not seem to have much chance, so why would they spend their money and time on a doomed effort? But then it is logical for a third party to invest in this same doomed effort and pay their bills? It's the same lawsuit with the same chances, no matter who funds it.

You may suggest that this third party benefactor is a fanatic who will go to the end with this lawsuit no matter what, just out of hatred for Michael and/or his Estate. But then why can't we suppose the same about Robson? That he can be so desperate for this money (after all his whole financial future on the mid and long term depends on it!) that he will go to the end with it, no matter what?

You must have similar twisted thoughts as well. Your first sentence in response to 1978’s FB post is requoted below. Most would consider such bleak.

Me saying "I guess money is starting to run out" does not lead to the big conclusions that you jumped to namely that Robson is surely totally unable to fund his own lawsuit or that it cannot be contingency based. He lives in Hawaii, that in itself is expensive, so no we are not talking about a person who is already out of money. But it is very logical to see the middle and long term consequences of someone not having a job and not wanting to work for the rest of his life but wanting to maintain this same lifestyle. Money running out is a process where he can see his reserves decrease but that does not mean he is already totally out of money. In fact, seeing his reserves decrease may only make him more desperate to continue with this lawsuit and pin his hopes on hitting the jackpot so that he will not have to work any more but still maintain a luxury lifestyle for the rest of his life.

 

[AliCat]

What If Jimi Hendrix Didn’t Die?

In the summer of 1977, he is contacted by Quincy Jones and asked to play guitar on Michael Jackson’s Off The Wall but declines.

JANUARY 1979 – MARCH 1980
In 1979 Jimi records an album with famed producer Quincy Jones entitled Nightvisions. This marks Jimi’s first foray into electronic-based dance music. Jones is coming off the highly successful Off The Wall release and Hendrix’s career had been weaning. Jones influences Hendrix to use drum machines and synthesizers. Hendrix–always wanting his music to appeal more to a black audience–was more than willing to follow Jone’s lead in the studio. The album has guest appearances by Chaka Kahn, Kathy Sledge, and Sly Stone. It was a crossover hit and opened Jimi up to an entirely new audience while alienating some of his long time fans. The album reaches #9 on the charts.
https://bumslogic.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/what-if-jimi-hendrix-didnt-die/

Quincy Jones was from Seattle, same as Jimi Hendrix. Jones was a close friend with guitarist Jimi Hendrix, both attended Garfield High School. Jones commented that Jimi was dying to play jazz. He used to come over to the house and sit under the grapefruit tree and stuff. He was a reflexive person, I knew his Daddy. https://books.google.com/books?id=o...i hendrix attend same% 20high school&f=false

Quincy also worked with Frank Sinatra and Michael sat in on a recording session.

[video=youtube;b_l_N9mlcm4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_l_N9mlcm4[/video]​

This is the problem with Wade Robson, he thinks too much like Evan Chandler. Evan wanted Michael to finance Evan doing films, which never really transpired, because Evan had no talent, he just wanted Michael's money. Wade is the same, he just doesn't have the talent to be amongst the greats, like Jimi Hendrix or Michael Jackson, Wade is not in that league. Even Paul McCartney recognized Jimi's talent when Paul tells the story at his concert about Jimi asking for Eric Clapton to come up on stage to tune his guitar!

Here's to Michael's cousin, Jimi Hendrix, playing his rendition of the Star Spangled Banner, with the 4th of July recently celebrated in this country...

[video=youtube;sjzZh6-h9fM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjzZh6-h9fM[/video]​

 

[Tygger]

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

And how did it possibly happen then in your opinion? Please take the facts of the timeline of this case into account!

Your suggestion below seems fine. If this was reality, do you realize his relatives would be considered benefactors???

Also his sister still works, his mother still works so they might give him money for now.

Really? So you did not suggest haters might be behind it? See this post: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/th...=1#post4097445

I am not backtracking at all. As I said to Ivy, I do not believe haters should be limited to those participating with online blogs/forums.

Me saying "I guess money is starting to run out" does not lead to the big conclusions that you jumped to namely that Robson is surely totally unable to fund his own lawsuit or that it cannot be contingency based.

It is a theory I am inclined to believe and you do not. You have not shown your theories to have a more factual basis than mine by taking the "facts of the timeline of this case into account" either.

 

[ivy]

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

Really? So you did not suggest haters might be behind it? See this post: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page816?p=4097445&viewfull=1#post4097445

If you now backtrack and do not think any more that haters might be behind it then who do you think this mysterious third party benefactor is?

tygger always maintained it was haters / enemies of MJ. twice she mentioned "hater sites" as example. When I asked her if she is suggesting a certain blogger is funding it, she said she is not limiting it to bloggers/people online.

so it leaves us with someone who hates MJ, who believe molestation claims but aren't necessarily online and posting/blogging.

 

[HIStory]

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

It is a theory I am inclined to believe and you do not. You have not shown your theories to have a more factual basis than mine by taking the "facts of the timeline of this case into account" either.

I am just using Occam's razor and not looking for complicated scenarios where there are more simple scenarios and explanations. Unless there is evidence otherwise which there isn't.

 

[Tygger]

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

I am just using Occam's razor and not looking for complicated scenarios where there are more simple scenarios and explanations. Unless there is evidence otherwise which there isn't.

Those are complications you create and there is no evidence your theories are correct either.

By the way, do you believe a relative can be a benefactor?

 

[Soundmind]

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

My understanding from every post Tygger makes is that the estate's executors are behind everything bad that happened or could happen to the estate. Tygger at some points hinted that the only benefactors of this mess are the lawyers and guess what Branca is a lawyer. So , Tygger, I believe, wants to say that Branca is funding them because the more lawsuits , the more money he and his legal buddies make . Bleeding the estate dry is not going to affect Branca who is making money either way but it is affecting the beneficiaries( Tygger of course cares more about Katherine's share than that of the "non-jackson" kids) so that's why Branca should be removed and replaced with the honorable Randy Jackson.

 

[HIStory]

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

Those are complications you create and there is no evidence your theories are correct either.

No, they aren't complications that I create. Introducing third party benefactors would introduce their motives for paying someone else's lawsuit and all that and that definitely complicates the scenario compared to when we are dealing only with Robson's own motives.

By the way, do you believe a relative can be a benefactor?

I like the way how you are moving the target during discussions. Not long ago these possible mysterious benefactors were Michael's or the Estate's enemies out of hate, now that I mentioned Robson's mother and sister you are suddenly talking about them. They are Robson's family and families often support each other and that does not have to do with any hate for MJ or the Estate or any desire to ruin the Estate or MJ's image that would more to do with the simple fact of them being Robson's family and family members being supportive of each other.

 

[Tygger]

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

No, they aren't complications that I create.

They are complications you create.

They are Robson's family and families often support each other and that does not have to do with any hate for MJ or the Estate or any desire to ruin the Estate or MJ's image that would more to do with the simple fact of them being Robson's family and family members being supportive of each other.

Did you forget what his claims are? Why would his relatives care about a man they believe harmed Robson as a child? Unless you are suggesting they do not believe Robson but, in this scenario, support his legal claims financially.

 

[marc_vivien]

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

The Biggest Conspiracy Is There Is No Conspiracy

 

[Tygger]

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

My understanding from every post Tygger makes is that the estate's executors are behind everything bad that happened or could happen to the estate. Tygger at some points hinted that the only benefactors of this mess are the lawyers and guess what Branca is a lawyer. So , Tygger, I believe, wants to say that Branca is funding them because the more lawsuits , the more money he and his legal buddies make . Bleeding the estate dry is not going to affect Branca who is making money either way but it is affecting the beneficiaries( Tygger of course cares more about Katherine's share than that of the "non-jackson" kids) so that's why Branca should be removed and replaced with the honorable Randy Jackson.

Waiting for you to prove any of the nonsense you claim above....

 

[HIStory]

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

Did you forget what his claims are? Why would his relatives care about a man they believe harmed Robson as a child? Unless you are suggesting they do not believe Robson but, in this scenario, support his legal claims financially.

Like I said you are moving the target. You very obviously did not mean family members supporting each other when you talked about these mysterious third party benefactors. That is clear to see for anyone who will read your previous posts here. But if you now only mean family support by this third party benefactor support then I can see a possibility of support there, but I don't find that as anything so extraordinary that it will have to be brought up all the time suggestively, the way you bring it up suggesting other interests behind these lawsuits than Robson's own interests. A family is basically one unit, their interests are the same or very close, there are strong emotional ties between a mother and a son and often a mother will even support a son knowing he's a liar. If you only meant this kind of support that is more plausible to me than some unidentified mysterious benefactors for unindentified reasons, just for the sake of creating conspiracy theories.

 

[Tygger]

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

Like I said you are moving the target.

No. I have maintained I believed a benefactor theory as you maintained this is contingency-based or being funded by Robson/Safechuck. I never stated who I felt the benefactor(s) is/was. You (and others) created a conspiracy theory and attributed it to me when I never posted a conspiracy scenario. That is what is clear and if it is not clear, it is because it was complicated for whatever reasons. Sometimes complications are preferred to what is simpler if those complications seem to support another view.

Glad you have come to realize a relative can be a benefactor. Provided the relative has strong emotional ties as you are suggesting, they would have distaste for a man their relative claims hurt them as a child and would want to support the harm of such a man's estate. They would not believe their relative is fabricating their claims.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Waiting for you to prove any of the nonsense you claim above....

Even you know what you want others to believe is nonsense. No matter what you say, the Jacksons would never be hired as executors of MJ's estate. As for proofs, I dont fee obliged to prove your theory. It is your cause so fight for it yourself just be clear , some are dumb to believe this is all the making of Branca.

 

[HIStory]

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

Provided the relative has strong emotional ties as you are suggesting, they would have distaste for a man their relative claims hurt them as a child and would want to support the harm of such a man's estate. They would not believe their relative is fabricating their claims.

Interestingly enough Robson's family does not seem to have a distaste for Michael. Here is a post that his cousin made about two years ago:

Thereis also many people who knew what Michael was doing, and potentially
facilitated it because he was making them money, who are still alive,
and still profiting from Michael's estate. People for example who
organised for Wade to come from Australia to America, and other children
like Wade.


I don't have anger for Michael, he had a very
troubled life (although it doesn't excuse what he did). But there was
people around Michael who at the very least turned a blind eye, and
those are the people that make me very upset

I think the cousin possibly believed Robson (I just don't think Robson walks around telling everyone in the wider family and friends' circle that he is a liar - if anyone knows he is making it up that would only be his closest relatives IMO, like Joy, Amanda and Chantal), but he was echoing sentiments here that Wade probably told him (he mentions earlier in this post to have talked to Wade about it) and how Wade probably reasoned his lawsuit to his family. The cousin said:

"I did not understand why Wade didn't just come out with it and not seek
any compensation. But I totally agree that this is how the law works,
and how wrongdoing is recognized.

After talking with Wade, I can
now see that there is some sort of need to receive recompense when you
are a victim and asking for compensation is part of his healing. He also cannot work in his profession anymore because it is so psychologically linked to Michael for him. What most people don't understand is that the same indoctrination about the abuse Wade received was the same indoctrination to be successful and well known in the entertainment industry, "Be the best, or be nothing".

These elements are also echoed in Robson's lawsuit and other court docs, so these seemed to be things Wade was telling his family members who are not close enough to know he is lying.

Of course this raises a whole lot of problems, for example if you were abused the horrendous and violent and manipulative ways Wade claims he was abused how come you would not be angry with the person who allegedly committed those horrible crimes but you would rather be angry with people who run his Estate today and whom you struggle to even link to the alleged abuse in your lawsuit? In more simple terms: you would have to be angry with your mother for turning a blind eye, not with John Branca.

They do not make sense but these seem to be the sentiments that Robson was spreading in his family and not hate for Michael. More hate for his Estate.

As for his closest relatives, Joy, Chantal and Amanda, there are two possibilities - or two and a half:

1) They are too mislead and lied to by Wade and they believe him.

In that case they may (and should) have hatred for Michael but I do not see an intense hate (see the quote above from the cousin).

2) They know he is a liar but they are similarly corrupt morally and they support him nevertheless.

It would not be far fatched. After all what kind of person you are can be heavily determined by what kind of person your parents are. How they raised you. If Wade thinks schemes like this are OK if you see a way of benefitting from them that mentality may well come from how he was raised by his mother. So they may be similarly morally corrupt people, for all we know.

2 and a half) Wade did try to mislead them and tell them he was abused. They act as if they believe him but deep down they know it's BS, they just support him out of family loyality.

In a way it's similar to 2) but slightly different because here we would have a scenario where they would know he was lying deep down but would not say it in his face but act like they believe him to not to upset him and the family peace. This too is morally corrupt IMO, because my opinion is that you cannot allow a lie as serious as this run free when you know or suspect it's not true, not even if your own son is telling it.

It's not possible for us to tell which version is true for them. There are a lot of kind of family dynamics and psychological dynamics between people and them really believing Wade is surely not the only possibility there.

 

[LastTear]

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

a) I don't really understand why at this stage WR would necessarily need financial backing and b) Even if he did it wouldn't necessarily mean it's sinister - just people who believe that they will get their money back with interest.

We we don't even know what arrangements WR may have made with his lawyer!

Not to derail but as a comparison - one could ask the same question of the fan and her lawsuit against the estate!

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I guess it's time for our seasonal going round in circles fest
:juggling::bounce::juggling:

 

[ivy]

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

Mod note : Please refrain from personal attacks. If it continues prepare for post deletion.

 

[Tygger]

Respect77, I appreciate your response however, I am unsure why this is being complicated. I previously said a benefactor could be a person(s) who did not have the opportunity or lacked the courage to attack Michael during his lifetime and saw such opportunity to attack his estate as Robson/Safechuck are currently doing. I am unsure why there is a need to show it is an either/or situation; someone does not have distaste for Michael but, is willing to attack his estate. Some refer to such person(s) as estate boycotters who should not be confused with a possible Robson/Safechuck benefactor(s). I believe it is extremely difficult to prove an either/or situation here without personally knowing the Robson family dynamics. Your post shows Robson cousin echoed the wording of Robson’s lawsuit which most likely means his words were rehearsed and those words derive from claims many view as fabricated.

Not to derail but as a comparison - one could ask the same question of the fan and her lawsuit against the estate!

You may have missed previous posts regarding that lawsuit in the thread. We are to assume it is contingency-based. You may be fortunate enough to receive confirmation that it is in a PM.

Soundmind, how fortunate for you that your posts are not considered personal attacks but, valuable and valid contributions to the thread by moderators. Because your posts are deemed somehow acceptable and you are unable to provide proof on your own, I believe you can request the support you clearly need here. I patiently await the posts complete with proof you and your support group provide.

 

[LastTear]

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

Thank you Tygger, I keep having to play catch up so I am missing some parts of conversations. Not that I was concerned with the actual answer of funding more that if we were to choose to think a certain way then many cases could seem more sinister. Perhaps if WR were to go to trial it would be on a no win no fee basis.

I think your last paragraph is a little unfair on the mods here, what makes you think Ivy's comment wasn't directed at Soundmind?

 

[ivy]

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

You may be fortunate enough to receive confirmation that it is in a PM.

I don't provide "confirmation" via PM for any matter and it's not like anyone else ever needed or asked for PM "confirmation" to understand what I was saying in any matter.

I think your last paragraph is a little unfair on the mods here,

thanks but no need. everyone sees the mod warning and tygger's passive aggressive comment is her way criticizing the mod action (mod note) - which is actually against rules as well and she is also encouraging the continuance of such personal exchanges when clearly a mod asked parties to stop.

 

[Tygger]

Last Tear, as you can see moderators have been in the thread and posted but, did not remove Soundmind’s original post, my response to Soundmind, or Soundmind’s response to me. Why would it be unacceptable for me to respond to Soundmind’s second response? If Soundmind’s posts are acceptable as per moderation, there should be no issue with my response to acceptable posts.

I support this decision and I am awaiting that proof from the group that shows I stated an executor was Robson/Safechuck's benefactor among other ridiculous claims. It seems to take time to gather such proof but, I have proven to be quite patient in these recurring matters.

 

[Soundmind]

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

It seems my posts hit a nerve . How many times have you posted that this is only benefiting the lawyers on BOTH SIDES . Why do you play around words? You claim there is a conspiracy then you refuse to say who is behind the conspiracy and dismiss everything others say.Your hatred toward the executors is well known and documented, you have never missed an opportunity to blame Branca. You have accused him of everything under the sun. I do believe this is your theory.

 

[Tygger]

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

Soundmind, I am patient.

Hopefully you understand repetition is not proof. Take some time and research my posts. If you cannot find what you are looking for easily or the task becomes difficult for you, request assistance and then return with what you and your support group discovered. Should be very simple to do because this activity is simple.