Latest on MJJC

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

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

Tygger, a mod posted a warning and stated that anything further could result in post being removed, posts aren't removed often and usually only after warnings are repeatedly ignored. It's human nature for you to want to respond I never said that you shouldn't, but you are not being singled out here yet I get the impression that you feel that you are. You have to admit that you do give as good as you get. Perhaps I have missed more but I fail to see Soundminds 'support group' either. Just draw a line under it and move on.
 
Last Tear, I do not share others’ views on how Robson/Safechuck is funding their legal team. This is the results of not sharing others’ views on a less-than, earth-shattering topic.

If one does not appreciate another's posts, they should utilize the report function.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Guys - we would communicate privately with the relevant parties once mod team can have a discussion among themselves. Any moderation of posts will also wait for that discussion to happen & mod team make a decision.

However as I wrote before it is time to stop this and get back on topic. any further off topic derailment would result in mod action.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't want to derail the thread at all bc I also want to weigh in on some of the comments here. And I'm using a phone so it is difficult to write.
But it just came over as breaking news that B. Cosby's depositions in 2005 were released by the judge bc they were requested by the AP. The media (tv) is not reporting the full story but that's not what I'm concerned about.
I thought depositions were sealed when you have a sealed settlement.
I know a lot of Chandler info was allowed in the Arvizo case , but have any of the depositions in the Chandler case been released in full. If not, are they protected.
 
In the Chandler case I think neither Michael or Jordan were deposed yet. Evan was, I think and of course some others, like employees. I don't think those depositions were ever released in their entirety, we only know about some of their contents from the 2005 trial where they would be brought up. For example during Blanca Francia's testiomony it was brought up that in 1993/1994 in one of her depositions she admitted she did not see Robson in the shower with MJ. Or during Adrian McManus' testimony it was brought up that in 1993/1994 in her deposition she never said anything bad about MJ and said she would have no problem leaving her son alone with him. So depositions were discussed in 2005 to show changing stories and inconsistencies from some of the witnesses. But no, I don't think they were released in full.


The big news regarding Cosby is that according to AP he basically admitted his guilt in a deposition in 2005. Obviously no such thing ever happened with Michael otherwise it would have been used against him in 2005. Whatever was important from those depositions I am sure made it to the trial in 2005.

ETA: Here is the Judge's reasoning for allowing Cosby's deposition to go public:

Today saw the unsealing of documents from the 2005 civil suit in which Andrea Constand said Bill Cosby drugged and raped her while she worked at Temple University. The unsealing followed a request from the Associated Press, which Cosby’s legal team fought it on the groundsthat Cosby isn’t a “public” person. Federal judge Eduardo C. Robreno agreed to open the records, citing, among other factors, the comedian’s longstanding morals crusade, which, in Robreno’s view, diminishes his right to privacy. From Robreno’s memo (with citations removed and emphasis added):

This case, however, is not about Defendant’s status as a public person by virtue of the exercise of his trade as a televised or comedic personality. Rather, Defendant has donned the mantle of public moralist and mounted the proverbial electronic or print soap box to volunteer his views on, among other things, childrearing, family life, education, and crime. To the extent that Defendant has freely entered the public square and “thrust himself into the vortex of th[ese] public issue,” he has voluntarily narrowed the zone of privacy that he is entitled to claim.
Click to expand...


http://deadspin.com/here-are-the-documents-bill-cosby-didnt-want-you-to-rea-1716083975

So it doesn't seem like you can go to a court and simply ask for a sealed deposition documents. You need a Judge's order for that and the Judge needs to see a reason for that which trumps whatever privacy and other rights the defendant, plaintiff, witnesses etc. have.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^thank you, respect. I thought that was the case, but I have most of this stuff in my "head" and you all are much more knowledgeable of all the facts.
I know this is totally different but also know how easily all media can twist.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The suggestion about family member's supporting one another, the advantage being money, based upon a lie, has been proven since 1993, starting with the Chandler's. This is why Jordan Chandler will never come forth and tell the truth, he'd have to give up his money that Michael settled in 1994, even though two grand juries did not find evidence against Michael for molesting Jordan. Even when June Chandler was on the witness stand, in 2005, during the 2005 trial involving the Arvizo's, June would not budge and divulge anything contrary to her son being in the wrong.


June+Chandler.jpg
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
In the Chandler case I think neither Michael or Jordan were deposed yet. Evan was, I think and of course some others, like employees. I don't think those depositions were ever released in their entirety, we only know about some of their contents from the 2005 trial where they would be brought up. For example during Blanca Francia's testiomony it was brought up that in 1993/1994 in one of her depositions she admitted she did not see Robson in the shower with MJ. Or during Adrian McManus' testimony it was brought up that in 1993/1994 in her deposition she never said anything bad about MJ and said she would have no problem leaving her son alone with him. So depositions were discussed in 2005 to show changing stories and inconsistencies from some of the witnesses. But no, I don't think they were released in full.


The big news regarding Cosby is that according to AP he basically admitted his guilt in a deposition in 2005. Obviously no such thing ever happened with Michael otherwise it would have been used against him in 2005. Whatever was important from those depositions I am sure made it to the trial in 2005.

ETA: Here is the Judge's reasoning for allowing Cosby's deposition to go public:



http://deadspin.com/here-are-the-documents-bill-cosby-didnt-want-you-to-rea-1716083975

So it doesn't seem like you can go to a court and simply ask for a sealed deposition documents. You need a Judge's order for that and the Judge needs to see a reason for that which trumps whatever privacy and other rights the defendant, plaintiff, witnesses etc. have.
Click to expand...
the difference with Bill is he NEVER did anything out of his own mouth to defend himself either. MJ did and even had a trial and all evidence including 1993 came in and it was clear MJ was innocent. Bill pretty much admitted in that deposition.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Respect, remember how Ray spoke in his book about how they were deliberately leaking stuff from the depositions etc into the media because they had to play the media game? They were violating everything back then, not caring about even the legalities of it all, knowing MJ was helpless.

If they had anything remotely incriminating in any deposition, it wasn't only leaked, it was used with the media in 1993+, used in their book, and used in court in 2005. Everything is out there. There is nothing secretive that reveals MJ's guilt in any court document or it would be claimed by everyone.

It still makes me laugh when you have Stacy Brown trying to peddle some mess about MJ having spent $200 million to pay off people and that it's all in court documents that nobody's ever claimed or used or seen, and which in fact prosecutor's basically even stated didn't exist in 2005. It's amazing how there's these two supposed long term real victims coming out and yet they still can't find a single damning fact to rub together, so they have to resort to always inventing something must exist in ~~secret~~ docs nobody can see.

The only evidence kept private is that which exonerates MJ.

The Cosby case only shows the stark differences involved - this evidence was revealed after 47!!!!! women had come forwards to claim Cosby had sexually assaulted them. 47 women. Some of them famous or well known.

And MJ? Still just Jordan, the Arvizo's, tickling of whatshisface, and now Wade/Safechuck. For some reason MJ started aggressively molesting children from when he was a 30 year old man in 1988-1996 and then stopped cold turkey for almost a decade before molesting Gavin 2-5 times in 2003 (he still doesn't even know how many times he was abused), and then nothing again until his death. And the things that made them keep quiet? Nothing with Jordan as he blabbed right away, that maid's son claimed MJ gave him money (it's weird how MJ never gave any of the other kids money??? guess they all forgot to include that in their own stories), Gavin was drunk and would never have known he was abused unless his brother Starr conveniently had walked in on them every time, Safechuck was threatened his life would be ruined and didn't find that upsetting until 20 years after the fact, and Wade kept quiet because a prophecy meant he was never in the state to realize it had been abusive for 20 years either.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Probate notes shows this:
Court Convened at: 8:30 AM 7/13/2015
BP117321 1002 JACKSON, MICHAEL JOSEPH - DECEDENT
Letters of Administr
MOTION-QUASH
Petitioner(s): Robson, Wade
Attorney(s): Gradstein, Henry
Continuance Number: Continuance From:
Last Date Changed: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:19:32 AM

Is that about the doctor that the estate wants to hear, but Wade's team doesn't want because they want to use him in trial?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Bubs said:
Is that about the doctor that the estate wants to hear, but Wade's team doesn't want because they want to use him in trial?
Click to expand...

yes.

and I'm pretty sure that hearing moved to july 20 as well.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
In the Chandler case I think neither Michael or Jordan were deposed yet. Evan was, I think and of course some others, like employees. I don't think those depositions were ever released in their entirety, we only know about some of their contents from the 2005 trial where they would be brought up. For example during Blanca Francia's testiomony it was brought up that in 1993/1994 in one of her depositions she admitted she did not see Robson in the shower with MJ. Or during Adrian McManus' testimony it was brought up that in 1993/1994 in her deposition she never said anything bad about MJ and said she would have no problem leaving her son alone with him. So depositions were discussed in 2005 to show changing stories and inconsistencies from some of the witnesses. But no, I don't think they were released in full.


The big news regarding Cosby is that according to AP he basically admitted his guilt in a deposition in 2005. Obviously no such thing ever happened with Michael otherwise it would have been used against him in 2005. Whatever was important from those depositions I am sure made it to the trial in 2005.

ETA: Here is the Judge's reasoning for allowing Cosby's deposition to go public:



http://deadspin.com/here-are-the-documents-bill-cosby-didnt-want-you-to-rea-1716083975

So it doesn't seem like you can go to a court and simply ask for a sealed deposition documents. You need a Judge's order for that and the Judge needs to see a reason for that which trumps whatever privacy and other rights the defendant, plaintiff, witnesses etc. have.
Click to expand...
I agree. Everything even media lies were throw at MJ. So if anything like Cosby existed, it would have came out in court. Really, the media was "protective" of Cosby compare to MJ whom the media was ready to trash MJ for $$$ even with lies until MJ even had to say he would sue especially ABC at the time.
 
new documents - http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Robson-signed.pdf

Lawyers For Michael Jackson’s Estate Blast Wade Robson Over Psych Report Fight — ‘This Is Absurd’
Posted on Jul 13, 2015 @ 4:11AM

Wade Robson has hit a snag in his amended complaint of rape against the late superstar Michael Jackson and his production companies.

Robson, who testified in 2005 that Jackson was not guilty of abusing but changed his story and claimed the pop singer raped him over a seven-year period in the 1990s, is resisting the defendant’s attempts to access his psychological reports.

According to the motion, Robson is attempting “to quash a subpoena for documents issued by Defendants.” Robson, 32, argues the production companies are attempting to pass off a subpoena disguised as a premature exchange of expert information — or a big fishing expedition.

“This is absurd,” blast the defendants in legal documents. “As the Court can see, the subpoena is a subpoena — it is not a request for expert information.”

“That Robson is attempting to shut down discover that will go to the key issue of Robson’s credibility raises further serious concerns about Robson’s credibility and motivations for filing this suit,” reads the scathing legal document. “One cannot help but asking, ‘What is Robson so concerned about this Doctor disclosing?'”

As Radar reported, Robson first attempted to go after Jackson’s estate in May, but a judge in the case dismissed the molestation charges.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

First this looked like a side-issue to me, but I'm starting to be interested in why the Estate want this so much - what do they know? And why Robson does NOT want to allow the subpoena of his psych so much?

The nerve of Robson's lawyers saying this is premature discovery when they were given all kind of irrelevant and lengthy discovery before - including access to 2005 Neverland search material, testimonies etc.

This is interesting:

2wh2ef4.jpg


So Robson did consult with other lawyers before meeting Gradstein and Marzano. Wow. And he had the nerve to lie in the Probate Case about not knowing about the Estate before March 4, 2013. So what did he consult with those other lawyers about? The weather?

This too is interesting:

Clipboard02.jpg


Clipboard03.jpg



And:

Clipboard03.jpg


Clipboard01.jpg


"along with documents other doctors have disclosed in this case, which tend to show that Robson's motivations for filing this action four years after Michael's death were not as pure as he would like a Court and jury to believe".


Hmm. I wonder what are those other documents by other doctors.




Maybe I'm wrong but this looks to me as if the Estate is not only on the defensive any more but they are on the offensive now.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Very interesting. Why is he against the estate accessing the records of this particular doctor when he did not have a problem submitting other doctors' reports to the court?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think it further confirms that WR was expecting a quick and easy settlement!
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think it`s the first time that Radar posts a article that is not Robson-friendly
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This is beyond great. The Estate is going after him with both barrels now.
Best reading I've had in a long time. Applause.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
This is interesting:

2wh2ef4.jpg


So Robson did consult with other lawyers before meeting Gradstein and Marzano. Wow. And he had the nerve to lie in the Probate Case about not knowing about the Estate before March 4, 2013. So what did he consult with those other lawyers about? The weather?
Click to expand...

you pointed out two things that stood out to me. This is the first one. He consulted other lawyers. I'm quite interested about who those lawyers were and why didn't they took the case.


"along with documents other doctors have disclosed in this case, which tend to show that Robson's motivations for filing this action four years after Michael's death were not as pure as he would like a Court and jury to believe".
Click to expand...

This is the most interesting thing for me. I'm curious about the details. Is this Estate's take on what they have seen or is there a doctor - a third party - that's suspicious of what Robson claims?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Also interesting that the Estate feels that unless they can get sight of these documents now, they may never be able to, even if the case came to a full hearing. Sounds very 'underhand' by Wade's side....


(Lines 26-28 and 1-2)
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

myosotis said:
Also interesting that the Estate feels that unless they can get sight of these documents now, they may never be able to, even if the case came to a full hearing. Sounds very 'underhand' by Wade's side....


(Lines 26-28 and 1-2)
Click to expand...

Doesnt it just!

I did chuckle a little at the estate quoting Hernandez v Superior Court right back at him.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Consulting other lawyers before. where have we heard that before!!
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Robson is so out of touch with his arrogance that it makes him appear idiotic (not that he isn't already) and it's nice to see publicly how much his delusion has backfired.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I hope the judge grants them Estate's request. It looks like something that would be very helpful if Wade Robson is planning another media tour
 
Last edited:
I was looking to the timeline Respect77 posted at other site and something stood out to me

Here is the timeline based on his court papers and other facts we know for sure:

Some time in 2010 - First approached about Cirque which he turns down (no reason given)
Some time in 2010 - Jamie King is hired to direct MJ Immortal (article dated November 3, 2010: https://www.cirquedusoleil.com/en/pr...j-presale.aspx)
November 2010 - Son born
December 2010 - Offered to direct Step Up 4
April 2011 - He's out of the movie citing personal reasons
April-August 2011 - 1st nervous breakdown
Early 2011 - Charles Joron from Cirque "considers" giving him an offer about Immortal, but he tells him it needs to be validated by MJ Estate.
First quarter of 2011 - Meets with Branca about Cirque plans.
May 16, 2011 - Starts cognitive therapy for about a month. Does not make allegations.
May 21, 2011 - Sends e-mail to Estate telling them he wanted to do the Cirque show "badly".
Mid-July, 2011 - Returns to work with "former sense of invincibility".
July 30, 2011 - Announces he's gonna direct Cirque du Soleil's MJ show.
http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/11/wade-r...-soleil-video/
March, 2012 - 2nd nervous breakdown
Mid-April, 2012 - Starts insight-oriented therapy with another therapist.
May 8, 2012 - Makes allegations to his therapist, the first time ever.
September 7, 2012 - Sends e-mails to relatives and friends about a “transformation al time” in his life.
March 2013 - Hires attorneys Gradstein and Marzano.
May 1, 2013 - Files complaint.
Click to expand...

this part

May 16, 2011 - Starts cognitive therapy for about a month. Does not make allegations.

Mid-April, 2012 - Starts insight-oriented therapy with another therapist.
May 8, 2012 - Makes allegations to his therapist, the first time ever.

Why did the change therapists? Could it be possible the first one didn't buy what he was telling and could that first one be the reason why Estate said what they did?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This is getting more and more interesting. Watching WR trying to keep his case going while it appears to be slowing unraveling. As they say the devils in the details. Details it appears that Wade is desperately trying to keep hidden. It sure does read as if the Estate is on the offensive and just a wee bit pissed.
 
The Estate’s legal team requested the billing records for all three doctors Robson had conversations with and/or Robson’s legal team had conversations with.

I would like to know who paid for these three doctors’ services as well.
 
Tygger;4098573 said:
The Estate’s legal team requested the billing records for all three doctors Robson had conversations with and/or Robson’s legal team had conversations with.

I would like to know who paid for these three doctors’ services as well.
Click to expand...
For the last week or so I've been re-reading Aphrodite Jones' Conspiracy book, mainly to give it another shot because I wasn't real thrilled with it) but last night I got to the part where Tom had Feldman on the stand asking about the Chandler case and brought up the fact that Feldman had many multi-million dollar cases that were on a contingency basis.

So because of that, I am inclined now to believe that Marzano is doing the same-and it is a contingency based case-just the salacious remarks that she makes in both the legal docs and to the press makes me believe she is nothing more than a high priced ambulance chaser-who is deluded into thinking that this case (like Sneddon did) will get her fame and fortune. Really, what could be better than a "victim" like this-someone that everyone already knows used to be mentored by Michael and had already achieved success at a young age. Why would he lie? He has too much to lose-It's not just some unknown family that no one has ever heard of, you know?
 
Barbee0715, I disagree. The Estate’s legal team is requesting that information for a reason. If they discover who paid for those doctors’ services, I would like to know as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top