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

[ivy]

Confirmed as suspected.

From Radar Online

New Hope: Wade Robson Wins Legal Victory In Michael Jackson Sex Abuse Suit
Posted on Sep 28, 2015 @ 13:43PM

Michael Jackson‘s alleged sex abuse victim, Wade Robson, has won a legal victory in his lawsuit against the late singer’s companies.

A judge dismissed Robson’s X-rated molestation claims against the singer’s estate back in May, but he subsequently filed an amended complaint against Jackson’s production companies over similar claims of rape.

Lawyers for Jackson’s estate asked Judge Mitchell Beckloff to dismiss the claim against the companies because the statute of limitations had expired.

But in a written ruling, Judge Mitchell Beckloff ruled in favor of Robson. He wrote, “Plaintiff Wade Robson has alleged sufficient facts of a business environment connection between him and defendants. Certainly, there are allegations Michael Jackson sexually abused plaintiff prior to any business relationship.”

“Defendants arranged for Wade Robson and plaintiff’s mother’s immigration to the United States. Plaintiff’s residency in the United States and involvement with Michael Jackson was facilitated and promoted by defendants,” the documents state. “Defendants employed plaintiff and his mother to promote the sexual abuse. The demurrer on the issue of statute of limitations is overruled on the grounds set forth above.”

Now, the claim can proceed to summary judgment, but Robson still has numerous legal hurdles to overcome before the case would even proceed to trial.


Story developing.

 

[MJresearcher]

“Defendants arranged for Wade Robson and plaintiff’s mother’s immigration to the United States. Plaintiff’s residency in the United States and involvement with Michael Jackson was facilitated and promoted by defendants,” the documents state. “Defendants employed plaintiff and his mother to promote the sexual abuse. The demurrer on the issue of statute of limitations is overruled on the grounds set forth above.”

Well that'll be interesting, how exactly do they intend to prove that abuse happened?

 

[Soundmind]

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

what will happen at summary judgment?

 

[wendijane]

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

You are an ignorant pig I hope you choke

 

[LindavG]

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

"Wade Robson Wins Legal Victory In Michael Jackson Sex Abuse Suit" - Most people are just going to read this headline and jump to conclusions. The media are so manipulative *sigh*

 

[KOPV]

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

SMH!!! get so tired of this crap... Like there has not been enough BS to deal with regarding Michael Jacksons legacy.. evil money driven people make me sick...

 

[Amaya]

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

Goddammit no... things were looking so good, too.

 

[SarahJ]

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

I understand its not over until its over and this whole thing could still be tossed, but dammit! This whole thing is so sickening. People who knew him, worked with him, claim to revere him as their muse etc...need to stop burying their head in the sand and start defending this man's character publicly. Because I personally don't feel enough do.
I'm rambling...It's just so maddening.

 

[TinnyandOdd]

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

As much as I am disappointed by the current scenario, try not to lose hope yet. This isn't our first rodeo defending these kind of ridiculous allegations, and it (unfortunately) probably won't be our last. Remember, MJ settled this kind of case in 93 which had a lot of people thinking he was guilty because of it and people still believed in and defended him. Same similar scenario in 2005. I have seen some fantastic, intelligent, and inarguable facts from pro defenders over the years about every allegation, and if this case is anything to go by so far, we'll just have to continue to educate ourselves on the facts and continue to make them known. The Internet is a powerful tool. 10 years ago we didn't have access to people like Ivy or MJJJustice or MJAllegations. Look at us now. I don't have a lot of faith in our justice system, and I certainly have no faith in the way the media has reported and will continue to report this story, so as much as I hope this goes in favour of Jackson, be prepared to start defending him all over again, because it's up to us as fans to continue removing the stains from his name. I have learned more in the past 10 years from fans then I have from any other source, so just remember that our voice matters, even when it feels like it doesn't. Karma always has a way of coming back around in the end.

 

[SarahJ]

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

As much as I am disappointed by the current scenario, try not to lose hope yet. This isn't our first rodeo defending these kind of ridiculous allegations, and it (unfortunately) probably won't be our last. Remember, MJ settled this kind of case in 93 which had a lot of people thinking he was guilty because of it and people still believed in and defended him. Same similar scenario in 2005. I have seen some fantastic, intelligent, and inarguable facts from pro defenders over the years about every allegation, and if this case is anything to go by so far, we'll just have to continue to educate ourselves on the facts and continue to make them known. The Internet is a powerful tool. 10 years ago we didn't have access to people like Ivy or MJJJustice or MJAllegations. Look at us now. I don't have a lot of faith in our justice system, and I certainly have no faith in the way the media has reported and will continue to report this story, so as much as I hope this goes in favour of Jackson, be prepared to start defending him all over again, because it's up to us as fans to continue removing the stains from his name. I have learned more in the past 10 years from fans then I have from any other source, so just remember that our voice matters, even when it feels like it doesn't. Karma always has a way of coming back around in the end.

You are right and thank you for that. As frustrating as it is for all of us though, imagine being him going through all he did time after time after time. And all in front of the world's stage. Strongest, most amazing human being I've ever had the fortune to come across.

Karma needs to step up it's game though. It's sure taking it's time.

 

[Tygger]

But in a written ruling, Judge Mitchell Beckloff ruled in favor of Robson. He wrote, “Plaintiff Wade Robson has alleged sufficient facts of a business environment connection between him and defendants. Certainly, there are allegations Michael Jackson sexually abused plaintiff prior to any business relationship.”

“Defendants arranged for Wade Robson and plaintiff’s mother’s immigration to the United States. Plaintiff’s residency in the United States and involvement with Michael Jackson was facilitated and promoted by defendants,” the documents state. “Defendants employed plaintiff and his mother to promote the sexual abuse. The demurrer on the issue of statute of limitations is overruled on the grounds set forth above.”

Difficult to believe the judge wrote these comments seriously. This is such a dangerous precedent if allowed to survive summary judgment. Michael was vindicated in 2005. The estate lawyers cannot defend Michael against these charges. I will re-quote my previous comment.

If the judge allow this precedent for Robson, I will believe he has a vested interest in keeping this estate embroiled in litigation and therefore, probate.

 

[barbee0715]

Defendants arranged for Wade Robson and plaintiff’s mother’s immigration to the United States. Plaintiff’s residency in the United States and involvement with Michael Jackson was facilitated and promoted by defendants,” the documents state. “Defendants employed plaintiff and his mother to promote the sexual abuse.
.

Was this sentence about plaintiff being employed to promote sexual abuse in documents referring to Wades amended claim or did Beckloff write that sentence in his ruling?

I'm disappointed and disgusted. I understand Tinny, that we will have to continue to defend him and yes we are lucky there's so much information on the internet. I never dreamed I'd be able to go to FBI.gov one day and read a 350 page report on this.

At the same time, there's a heck of a lot of garbage on the internet as well-some really horrific stuff.

This needs to end now and by the courts because if it doesn't, there will be a new accuser every few years. And it will be people we never would expect. Beckloff has made Michael even easier prey.
I say the Estate
needs to pull out the big guns now and Wade needs to prove it!

Edit to add: just read Tygger's comment and I'm angry enough to agree about the judge. Can this ruling be appealed now that we have a new judge?

 

[SarahJ]

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

Six years after his death and it's still open season on Michael Jackson and very few other than the fans have the courage to speak the truth out loud.

 

[ivy]

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

Remember at the demurrer stage the judge is required to accept everything Robson claims as true and only determine if there is a legal basis to bring a lawsuit.

I wrote about this several times before - I mentioned it is possible for this to survive demurrer. Given the judge needs to accept everything Robson says as true and the Estate cannot bring any counter evidence at demurrer stage (they can only argue law, rules, limitations etc.), this is not that unexpected that the judge believed there was enough here to allow this to go to the discovery phase. Now everything will change. It will become all about evidence, counter evidence, witnesses and defense and most probably Robson's claims will fail at the summary judgment phase.

 

[CaptainEoLove85]

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

Wake me up when it's over. :doh:

 

[Tygger]

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

Civil Lawsuits for Sexual Abuse

In California, the filing of a civil claim of sexual abuse must be made within 8 years of the age of majority (meaning before your 26th birthday). However, California is one of 28 states that have adopted an extension of the statute of limitations based on the "discovery" of child sexual abuse or its effects. While nearly every state has a basic suspension of the statute of limitations while someone is a minor, many states have recently adopted these new "discovery" extensions specifically designed for cases of sexual child abuse. The discovery rule allows for civil lawsuits to go forward when they are "within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse.

This rule was designed to counter the problem of prosecuting molesters who's victims had repressed the memories for decades, long after the statute of limitations expired. Now, upon "discovery" of the memories of abuse (often through therapy), a person has 3 years to file a claim.

After the Catholic Church abuse scandals, California also enacted a law that allows for lawsuits against people whom were aware of the unlawful sexual conduct by their "employee, volunteer, representative, or agent", and failed to take "reasonable steps" to prevent it. Upon his discovery of this person or entity, a plaintiff has one year to sue. - http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/california-statute-of-limitations-on-sexual-abuse.html

Does anyone remember if Robson was within the statute of limitations?

If he was, it is understandable that these fabricated claims were allowed to see summary judgment.

If not - and based on the quotes from the judge - I cannot see why these claims were allowed to continue.

Edit to add: just read Tygger's comment and I'm angry enough to agree about the judge. Can this ruling be appealed now that we have a new judge?

Yes however; most will not appeal at this phase.

 

[ivy]

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

Does anyone remember if Robson was within the statute of limitations?

If he was, it is understandable that these fabricated claims were allowed to see summary judgment.

In California, the filing of a civil claim of sexual abuse must be made within 8 years of the age of majority (meaning before your 26th birthday). - He was over 26 (and so is Safechuck)

upon "discovery" of the memories of abuse (often through therapy), a person has 3 years to file a claim. - Well this depends on how you define discovery. If you go with they always knew, then they are late. if you think discovery means when he reportedly had a nervous break down and went to therapy, then he is within 3 years.

California also enacted a law that allows for lawsuits against people whom were aware of the unlawful sexual conduct by their "employee, volunteer, representative, or agent", and failed to take "reasonable steps" to prevent it. Upon his discovery of this person or entity, a plaintiff has one year to sue. - and this is the exception that Robson have focused on. That MJ company through Norma Staikos knew or had a reason to know and had power to do something but didn't.

 

[barbee0715]

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

California also enacted a law that allows for lawsuits against people whom were aware of the unlawful sexual conduct by their "employee, volunteer, representative, or agent", and failed to take "reasonable steps" to prevent it. Upon his discovery of this person or entity, a plaintiff has one year to sue. - and this is the exception that Robson have focused on. That MJ company through Norma Staikos knew or had a reason to know and had power to do something but didn't.

Poor Norma-I feel sorry for her. First she's harassed and badgered by Joy Robson for who knows how long, to obtain green cards for the family-and now this.

 

[Tygger]

California also enacted a law that allows for lawsuits against people whom were aware of the unlawful sexual conduct by their "employee, volunteer, representative, or agent", and failed to take "reasonable steps" to prevent it. Upon his discovery of this person or entity, a plaintiff has one year to sue. - and this is the exception that Robson have focused on. That MJ company through Norma Staikos knew or had a reason to know and had power to do something but didn't.

Would Estate lawyers foolishly argue SOL if Robson was within SOL? I am left to assume Robson is not within SOL for the above. Therefore, what about Robson’s civil claim is so extraordinary that it should be allowed despite not being within the SOL?

 

[HIStory]

Guys, please calm down!

This is nothing that wasn't expected and the Judge simply ruled about whether Robson made sufficient allegations to pass demurrer. In his opinion these allegations that he made are sufficient to pass demurrer:

But in a written ruling, Judge Mitchell Beckloff ruled in favor of Robson. He wrote, “Plaintiff Wade Robson has alleged sufficient facts of a business environment connection between him and defendants. Certainly, there are allegations Michael Jackson sexually abused plaintiff prior to any business relationship.”

“Defendants arranged for Wade Robson and plaintiff’s mother’s immigration to the United States. Plaintiff’s residency in the United States and involvement with Michael Jackson was facilitated and promoted by defendants,” the documents state. “Defendants employed plaintiff and his mother to promote the sexual abuse. The demurrer on the issue of statute of limitations is overruled on the grounds set forth above.”

For those who are not familiar with the legal process it may come across from the RO article that the Judge made a judgement about that "Defendants employed plaintiff and his mother to promote the sexual abuse" (but it does NOT mean that. It simply means that Robson made that allegation and for the purposes of the demurrer the Judge is required to treat that as a fact. Those are the rules at the demurrer stage. The ruling is simply about that the Judge found that allegation sufficient for the lawsuit to pass demurrer. So in the Judge's eyes apparently the fact that Robson alleged that

- there was a business connection between him and defendants (that is true)
- Defendants arranged for Wade Robson and his mother to immigrate in the US (that is true)
- Plaintiff’s residency in the United States and involvement with Michael Jackson was facilitated and promoted by defendants (that is true)
- Defendants employed plaintiff and his mother to promote the sexual abuse (that is NOT true - but Robson made this allegation and at this stage the Judge is required to treat it as a fact)

("Certainly, there are allegations Michael Jackson sexually abused plaintiff prior to any business relationship" - this part is more a reference to the Estate's argument because the law requires that alleged sexual abuse should arise as a result of the relationship between the company and the plaintiff. The Estate pointed out that Robson alleges that the sexual abuse started before he was employed by the companies. I guess this sentence is followed by some "But..." and it will be interesting to see what it is.)

We will need to see the full ruling because in the article there is nothing about the main arguments that the Estate made about "knowing or reason to know" or whether the companies had the right to control MJ and were even in the position to stop any alleged abuse. Maybe the Judge considers it enough to pass demurrer that there is an allegation that the Companies facilitated the sexual abuse of Robson and the rest he considers a subject for summary judgement.

At least RO also added that Robson still has several obstacles to tackle before it can go to trial.

 

[HIStory]

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

Does anyone remember if Robson was within the statute of limitations?

If he was, it is understandable that these fabricated claims were allowed to see summary judgment.

If not - and based on the quotes from the judge - I cannot see why these claims were allowed to continue.

Tygger, we have discussed the laws that are at play here over and over again in this thread. Eg.

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...?p=4093017&highlight=commencement#post4093017

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page771?p=4091846&viewfull=1#post4091846

It is CCP 340.1 and since he is surely outside of every other statutes of limitations he focuses on (b)(2):

340.1. (a) In an action for recovery of damages suffered as a
result of childhood sexual abuse, the time for commencement of the
action shall be within eight years of the date the plaintiff attains
the age of majority or within three years of the date the plaintiff
discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological
injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by
the sexual abuse, whichever period expires later, for any of the
following actions:
(1) An action against any person for committing an act of
childhood sexual abuse.
(2) An action for liability against any person or entity who owed
a duty of care to the plaintiff, where a wrongful or negligent act by
that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual
abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.
(3) An action for liability against any person or entity where an
intentional act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the
childhood sexual abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.
(b) (1) No action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision
(a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday.
(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.

However, the article does not mention anything the Judge said regarding this law - which law is the whole basis on which Robson is trying to sue the companies. So we will have to see the full reasoning to see what the Judge says about the things which were the actual arguments of the Estate. From the RO article it seems he simply took the position that an allegation that MJ's companies facilitated Robson's abuse was enough for it to pass demurrer. I don't think that would be enough to pass summary judgement, however, because in summary judgement that claim would get under more scrutiny - including whether the companies knew or had a reason to know anything and then whether they were in the power to control MJ and whether they failed to take reasonable steps that they were supposed to take etc.

 

[Tygger]

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

Respect77, was I part of those discussions? wink

Thank you for the links. I will review when I have a moment.

 

[myosotis]

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

Painful though it is, perhaps summary judgement will be a more 'permanent' way of defeating these claims, because the claims will be more thoroughly examined and shown to be false??? (I'm trying to look on the 'bright side' of a dark situation : ( )
The press won't be able to continue insinuations by saying that these claims were only dismissed because they were 'out of time'.

 

[Bubs]

Ivy, do you get full ruling?

“Defendants arranged for Wade Robson and plaintiff’s mother’s immigration to the United States. Plaintiff’s residency in the United States and involvement with Michael Jackson was facilitated and promoted by defendants,” the documents state. “Defendants employed plaintiff and his mother to promote the sexual abuse. The demurrer on the issue of statute of limitations is overruled on the grounds set forth above.”

If it wasn't so maddening, I would laugh at that paragraph. I wonder how Wade is going to prove that defendants were promoting Wade's involvement with MJ when it all promoting came from Robson's side, and another big hurdle is to prove how defendants were promoting the sexual abuse?

Painful though it is, perhaps summary judgement will be a more 'permanent' way of defeating these claims, because the claims will be more thoroughly examined and shown to be false??? (I'm trying to look on the 'bright side' of a dark situation : ( )
The press won't be able to continue insinuations by saying that these claims were only dismissed because they were 'out of time'.

Yeah, I didn't like the idea that Wade could go on tabloids telling that the claims were rejected because time limitations, so I agree that perhaps summary judgement or even trial is better.

 

[Bubs]

Remember at the demurrer stage the judge is required to accept everything Robson claims as true and only determine if there is a legal basis to bring a lawsuit.

I wrote about this several times before - I mentioned it is possible for this to survive demurrer. Given the judge needs to accept everything Robson says as true and the Estate cannot bring any counter evidence at demurrer stage (they can only argue law, rules, limitations etc.), this is not that unexpected that the judge believed there was enough here to allow this to go to the discovery phase. Now everything will change. It will become all about evidence, counter evidence, witnesses and defense and most probably Robson's claims will fail at the summary judgment phase.

It feels so unfair that somebody can make all sort of claims and judge has to accept everything as true, while opponent can only argue law, rules and limitations:-(
Thats a bit like you are guilty until proven not guilty.

The only silver lining is that next step is where the real evidence comes to play, and I'm certain that it will beneficial to Michael.

Do we know the date for summary judgement?

- Plaintiff’s residency in the United States and involvement with Michael Jackson was facilitated and promoted by defendants (that is true)

How that was promoted by defendants?

 

[HIStory]

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

If it wasn't so maddening, I would laugh at that paragraph. I wonder how Wade is going to prove that defendants were promoting Wade's involvement with MJ when it all promoting came from Robson's side, and another big hurdle is to prove how defendants were promoting the sexual abuse?

I think possibly these are the questions that the Judge has and why he allowed to go it through to summary judgement. At the demurrer phase we have Robson's claim that the "Defendants employed plaintiff and his mother to promote the sexual abuse". This is a claim that Robson claims but he does not need to prove it at the demurrer stage. The Judge is simply required to accept that allegation as "true".

A deeper scrutiny of the issue - eg. How did the companies allegedly "promote" such a thing? What did they do or what they did not do? etc. - is maybe a subject of summary judgement in the Judge's mind. For example, during summary judgement the Estate might bring in former testimonies, police interviews etc. by Joy Robson and others and even depose her again, to show that it were the Robsons who pressured Michael and his companies to get them green cards. Or to show that Joy Robson was fully aware of the Chandler case, there was nothing hidden from her by the companies. Or to present the chain of command within MJ's companies and show that Michael was the sole owner of his companies and he had control over Norma Staikos not the other way around. Etc.

These things cannot be presented during a demurrer phase, but they can be presented during summary judgement.

Do we know the date for summary judgement?

Probably a lot of things will happen before there is a hearing set for summary judgement. The Estate will file its request for a summary judgement. They will probably have discovery. There might be depositions. Robson will file replies etc. etc. And then there will be a summary judgement hearing set.

 

[HIStory]

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

How that was promoted by defendants?

Well, MJ's companies helped the Robsons to move to the US. Helped them get green cards etc. Yeah, the wording "promoted" is not accurate because that is not true that way. It was the Robsons who pushed MJ and his companies for green cards etc. But again, this is something for the summary judgement to present, I guess.

Note: Did you guys notice Radar Online's title: "New hope". They do not even pretend to be unbiased in this. They are totally talking from Robson's perspective.

 

[wendijane]

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

You disgusting fool
This will turn around you'll be spitting for help. you'll see.

 

[Bubs]

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

Well, MJ's companies helped the Robsons to move to the US. Helped them get green cards etc. Yeah, the wording "promoted" is not accurate because that is not true that way. It was the Robsons who pushed MJ and his companies for green cards etc. But again, this is something for the summary judgement to present, I guess.

Note: Did you guys notice Radar Online's title: "New hope". They do not even pretend to be unbiased in this. They are totally talking from Robson's perspective.

Elizabeth ?@StatenStories Sep 17
@jenheger The Radar website has published many stories based on gossip, not court docs. Some of the most filthy disgusting lies came from it

jen hutton heger ?@jenheger Sep 17
@StatenStories MJ stories are based on court docs.Have 2 report both sides

Jen Heger's reply was joke of the day. Yeah, they do report from both sides but Radar is on Wade's side.
Radar is such a leftover from 90's:smilerolleyes:

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

New Hope: Wade Robson Wins Legal Victory In Michael Jackson Sex Abuse Suit

Isn't it great how Radar Online are doing their best to hide on whose side they are?