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

[HIStory]

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

But based on this ruling Safechuck doesn't have a chance even to pass demurrer IMO. Robson passed based on the business relatinship between MJ's companies and him and his mother, that the companies helped them immigrate etc. but Safechuck does not even have that.

 

[ivy]

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?

It's not that clear cut. While we can all agree that he was over 26 when he filed the lawsuit, for the exceptions it is possible for different people to have different opinions. Like I said before when did he discover the abuse? Did he always knew about it or did he just discover it after therapy? Also what about the companies? could they known about the alleged abuse and do something or couldn't know it? Depending on your answer - or more importantly depending on judge's opinion - he might be or not be within SOL.

And that's exactly what happened here. Robson claimed he recently realized he was abused - after his nervous breakdowns and therapy in 2013. He also claimed people from MJ companies should have known about the abuse and some of them had power to do something about it. Estate obviously argued the opposite. So as it wasn't clear cut, there had been a demurrer. Plus personally I wouldn't call trying any and all options available to try to get this case dismissed as foolish.

As respect explained wonderfully, this was expected by us. Robson alleged the companies knew or should have known and had power to do something. Judge was required to accept his claims as true for the purpose of demurrer. Estate wasn't allowed to bring any counter defense yet. So based on the business relationship between Wade and MJ Companies (his greencard, his work relationship), judge concluded there was enough for it to survive demurrer. Now there will be discovery, now Estate will be able to bring counter arguments, evidence and witnesses and the balance will change at summary judgment.

Ivy, do you get full ruling?

no not yet. It isn't on the system yet but I'm checking it regularly.

Do we know the date for summary judgement?

probably first thing that will happen is a scheduling for discovery and summary judgment. Probably there will be a protective argument (if there isn't one already). Then it will go quiet for several months - when discovery / depositions etc are happening. Only thing we will most probably hear will be motion to compel - if there are discovery disputes. Summary judgment will only happen after that.

But based on this ruling Safechuck doesn't have a chance even to pass demurrer IMO. Robson passed based on the business relatinship between MJ's companies and him and his mother, that the companies helped them immigrate etc. but Safechuck does not even have that.

Safechuck claimed companies paid for his travel and employed him, didn't he? He is still trying for the same thing. We'll see if it'll work out for him or not.

 

[jaydom7]

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

Well Summary judgement is good because the estate can then bring their evidence which includes testimonies, police interviews, depositions and Joy's own words that she is the one who was contacting Norma Staikos for the green cards.. In addition to Wades's own under oath depositions.. Does he think he will never have to answer to his 2005 testimony? His mother testified at the trial too and she is the one that told Mesereau that she wanted the green cards didn't she? The summary judgement should be in the estate's favor.. How could the defendants be promoting sex abuse when Wade and his mother said nothing happened anyway? Demurrer is basically the plaintiffs complaint without a defense.. It doesn't work that way in summary judgement.. And again where is Joy's responsibility in this? was she promoting her own child for sex abuse? we know there was no sex abuse but if there was where was she at and what did she do about it? How will he answer that?

 

[barbee0715]

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

^^A good way to put it. Demurrer is nothing but plaintiffs complaint without defense.
I think it gets confusing (and frustrating) for me because from the first day of this thread, members have brought actual evidence disputing each and everything Wade has tried to claim.

Unbelievable how slow the legal system can work. And of course Wade is also sabotaging his own case by running out of time and money and going back to work even though he claimed he could never work again.

 

[PoP]

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.

:rantingNO!!! You B@$^@#%$!!! I knew you're gonna screw it up!!! YOU B@$^@#%!!!:ranting

 

[HIStory]

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

Safechuck claimed companies paid for his travel and employed him, didn't he? He is still trying for the same thing. We'll see if it'll work out for him or not.

Well, yeah, but he never made a claim that he was employed by the companies so he probably cannot allege any such thing. So it is a lot weaker connection than in Robson's case who was employed by the companies.
And actually MJJV did not even exist yet during the period of JS' alleged abuse.

 

[jaydom7]

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

^^A good way to put it. Demurrer is nothing but plaintiffs complaint without defense.
I think it gets confusing (and frustrating) for me because from the first day of this thread, members have brought actual evidence disputing each and everything Wade has tried to claim.

Unbelievable how slow the legal system can work. And of course Wade is also sabotaging his own case by running out of time and money and going back to work even though he claimed he could never work again.

I am sure the estate has made a note of his working again after claiming that he wouldn't be able to be in the entertainment field ever again. also radar online even admits there are still numerous legal hurdles to overcome, which means they are well aware that summary judgment is where the defense can present their case and it's also where evidence from Joy and Wade himself will demonstrate they were the ones wanting contact with MJ and his companies for Wade's career.. I think Joy admitted herself at the 2005 trial that she contacted Norma and MJ's people to get green cards to come to the US for Wade's career.

 

[Bubs]

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

I am sure the estate has made a note of his working again after claiming that he wouldn't be able to be in the entertainment field ever again. also radar online even admits there are still numerous legal hurdles to overcome, which means they are well aware that summary judgment is where the defense can present their case and it's also where evidence from Joy and Wade himself will demonstrate they were the ones wanting contact with MJ and his companies for Wade's career.. I think Joy admitted herself at the 2005 trial that she contacted Norma and MJ's people to get green cards to come to the US for Wade's career.

I think someone from MJJC contacted on estate and sent them videos of Wade "not being able to work in the entertainment field", so they are aware.

If I remember right, the estate already mentioned Joy being the one pushing the contact in one of their documents?
Maybe Respect or Ivy remembers which document?
Anyways, I sure hope that we get to read their summary judgement as that is going to be boom to Wade.


Ivy, do you know what was this
09/21/2015 at 08:30 am in Department 51, Mitchell L. Beckloff, Presiding
Ruling on Submitted Matter - Overruled
Thats from Wade's case.

I read it like there was ruling made, but it was overruled:scratch:

and this one:
11/03/2015 at 10:00 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MOTION-SUMMARY JUDGMENT

That cannot be Robson case, as its too early?

 

[jaydom7]

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

I think someone from MJJC contacted on estate and sent them videos of Wade "not being able to work in the entertainment field", so they are aware.

If I remember right, the estate already mentioned Joy being the one pushing the contact in one of their documents?
Maybe Respect or Ivy remembers which document?
Anyways, I sure hope that we get to read their summary judgement as that is going to be boom to Wade.


Ivy, do you know what was this
09/21/2015 at 08:30 am in Department 51, Mitchell L. Beckloff, Presiding
Ruling on Submitted Matter - Overruled
Thats from Wade's case.

I read it like there was ruling made, but it was overruled:scratch:

and this one:
11/03/2015 at 10:00 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MOTION-SUMMARY JUDGMENT

That cannot be Robson case, as its too early?

oh okay.. I knew I read somewhere that Joy was the one pushing the contact.. I thought I read it in her own testimony from the trial.. I knew there she said they were rarely around MJ and when they were at Neverland he was never there half the time. I know I've read her testimony somewhere.

 

[HIStory]

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

oh okay.. I knew I read somewhere that Joy was the one pushing the contact.. I thought I read it in her own testimony from the trial..

It comes from that prosecution motion in which they tried to introduce "witnesses" for their case in 2005. It was in Orietta Murdock's section:

 

[jaydom7]

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

It comes from that prosecution motion in which they tried to introduce "witnesses" for their case in 2005. It was in Orietta Murdock's section:

so did Joy ever say it though? she was very involved I know that much and the fact that Wade's attorneys are ignoring her and acting like she was so clueless is so fraudulent. Her son was 7 or 8 where was she doing all of these negotiations etc? Wasn't she Wade's agent?

 

[KOPV]

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

^ But wait....


That would mean that she was pimping her son right? I mean IF MJ was doing what Robson says he did (according to dates) BEFORE moving to the states.. and was all on Michael about green cards to move to Cali....

Where is the lawsuit against her?

ok, ok... Lets give the mother the benefit of the doubt and say she didn't know anything within the few times that Michael met wade (or before they met)... lets say hypothetically Wade didn't say anything at the time.. Once Michael would be back in the U.S. and his mom is saying "were moving to U.S. for a better life" not ONCE did he show uncomforted about Michael?

fast forward time... They get on there feet with MICHAELS help, Michael helps Wade get into the dance industry which further changed his life.. Wade than dedicates countless shows to Michael, reps him for basically 2 decades and then turns...

Why praise someone that hurt you for so long when it benefits you?

He used his name to get in the door of the dance industry and become successful and now trying to destroy his name to get more..

 

[HIStory]

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

so did Joy ever say it though? she was very involved I know that much and the fact that Wade's attorneys are ignoring her and acting like she was so clueless is so fraudulent. Her son was 7 or 8 where was she doing all of these negotiations etc? Wasn't she Wade's agent?

This is what Joy said during her testimony re green cards:

21 Q. Now, what was this issue -- you needed him

22 as a sponsor for what purpose?

23 A. To remain in the United States. We --

24 permanent residence. To be able to have a green

25 card, we had to have someone sponsor us into the

26 country.

27 Q. Did you go to him and ask him if he would be

28 your sponsor? 9292



1 A. I talked to him about it, and he said he

2 would do whatever he could to do. He just

3 instructed his office to do whatever was needed.

4 Q. To your knowledge, what was done to help

5 you?

6 A. An offer -- they put me on their books as an

7 employee of the company.

8 Q. Did Mr. Jackson have to actually sign

9 anything to be your sponsor, if you recall?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And did you ask him to do that?

12 A. Yes. Pretty much. Basically I asked for

13 help. So that was the only way we could stay, so,

14 yes.

15 Q. And he did help you, right?

16 A. Yes, he did.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I agree and don't forget that Wade's guardian (aka his mother Joy Robson) was encouraging her son's relationship with MJ, so what was anyone in the MJ companies supposed to do? As far as the companies and anyone else were concerned, Joy Robson and her son were as aware as them to the Chandler's case (the alleged "reason to know") - or even more. There was already somebody looking after Wade - his mother - and he actually talked to the police and defended Michael in two grand juries in 1993-1994. His mother kept her business and personal relationship with Michael and his companies, kept sending her daughter and son to visit Neverland and was an active supporter of Michael. Knowing that, what could anyone in the companies do? If she didn't have a "reason to know", why would they? How can they possibly hold more responsibility than the child's own mother? If the son and his mother denied abuse and the police was already involved, what else could people do?

 

[ivy]

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

Ivy, do you know what was this
09/21/2015 at 08:30 am in Department 51, Mitchell L. Beckloff, Presiding
Ruling on Submitted Matter - Overruled
Thats from Wade's case.

I read it like there was ruling made, but it was overruled:scratch:

yes that's the ruling we mentioned and radar confirmed. it shows that judge overruled Estate's demurrer request.

and this one:
11/03/2015 at 10:00 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MOTION-SUMMARY JUDGMENT

That cannot be Robson case, as its too early?

that's El-Amin case . it's been on calendar for a long time.

discovery depositions etc at robson take will take several months. summary judgment can't be that early IMO.

 

[Tygger]

I think it gets confusing (and frustrating) for me because from the first day of this thread, members have brought actual evidence disputing each and everything Wade has tried to claim.

What I find frustrating is this was a doomed venture from the first day. This begs the question, at least for me: what is the purpose?

Several parties have and continue to benefit from these false claims because it is going through the legal process. While there is solace in focusing on the legalities and achieving a desired result of four claims dismissed, this attack on the estate has caused the beneficiaries to suffer undeservedly so. They would only receive solace and closure on this issue if they knew those who truly orchestrated it.

I know it is not a favored discussion for this thread, but I would be remiss in not voicing my view while having the opportunity to do so. While some fans have attempted to discover who may be funding Robson/Safechuck’s legal team, they have encountered obstacles and have not discovered a satisfactory answer. I encourage those fans to keep seeking answers. Maybe an investigative journalist or such will discover the truth. Regardless, the truth always is revealed and it will explain why this expensive, doomed venture was pursued.

(Ivy, you twisted my words a bit in your response to me but, no matter. The more things change…)

 

[Soundmind]

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

double post

 

[Soundmind]

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

I believe Joy said under oath that she had never asked her son whether MJ did anything wrong to him. At the time I thought that was a very very strange answer from her. This answer will come back to haunt her in this case. She neglected the simple things regarding her son's safety while trying to hold strangers responsible for things her son and herself denied constantly and vehemently to the media, to the police and to jurors.

The Casicos said that when the allegations surfaced they did ask their children although they had known MJ for almost ten years at the time. However, according to Joy's own testimony she did not bother.

 

[HIStory]

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

^ And if Wade was really molested shouldn't he be MAD at his mother for not protecting him better? Instead he is all cool with his mother but is trying to blame companies who he is struggling to even link to the alleged abuse. This tells me everything.

 

[jaydom7]

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

This is what Joy said during her testimony re green cards:

welp right there she admits she asked for Michael's help.. so how were the companies fostering abuse if his own mother was asking MJ for help to stay in America.

 

[jaydom7]

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

^ And if Wade was really molested shouldn't he be MAD at his mother for not protecting him better? Instead he is all cool with his mother but is trying to blame companies who he is struggling to even link to the alleged abuse. This tells me everything.

exactly! she's the one that said she wanted to stay in the US and she is the one that asked MJ for help.

 

[ivy]

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

Got the ruling.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/283138843/Robson-Demurrer-Ruling

Edited to add: Judge clearly explains what we were discussing. He needed to accept what Robson said as true and he says he made enough specific claims. Whether those claims true or not needs "factual determination in a proceeding beyond demurrer".

 

[jaydom7]

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

Got the ruling.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/283138843/Robson-Demurrer-Ruling

Edited to add: Judge clearly explains what we were discussing. He needed to accept what Robson said as true and he says he made enough specific claims. Whether those claims true or not needs "factual determination in a proceeding beyond demurrer".

factual determination which is summary judgment in which the estate lawyers can lay out their defense including court room testimonies from Joy, Norma and everyone else involved.

 

[terrell]

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

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

Remember Radar is TABLOID. This ruling is in no way a "win" as Radar puts its.

 

[HIStory]

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

factual determination which is summary judgment in which the estate lawyers can lay out their defense including court room testimonies from Joy, Norma and everyone else involved.

Also, like we speculated the Judge expects things such as a representation of the culture and structure at the companies - things which clarify more who controlled whom and how.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

^^A good way to put it. Demurrer is nothing but plaintiffs complaint without defense.
I think it gets confusing (and frustrating) for me because from the first day of this thread, members have brought actual evidence disputing each and everything Wade has tried to claim.

Unbelievable how slow the legal system can work. And of course Wade is also sabotaging his own case by running out of time and money and going back to work even though he claimed he could never work again.

That the way i see it because he is sue companies who are not ppls.

( in the bold part)

 

[barbee0715]

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

Got the ruling.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/283138843/Robson-Demurrer-Ruling

Edited to add: Judge clearly explains what we were discussing. He needed to accept what Robson said as true and he says he made enough specific claims. Whether those claims true or not needs "factual determination in a proceeding beyond demurrer".

When Wade started this a few years ago, I had almost wanted it to go to a trial-only to quash this whole thing once and for all and get rid of the asterisk beside Michael's name.

But, provided there's a win, the summary judgement could be the next best thing. And I don't see how it couldn't be a win, just looking at all the evidence you guys have been retrieving and posting for the last few years. Like I said, every single one of Wade's allegations have been torn to ribbons by all of you. I expect no less from the attorneys working for the Estate.

Thank you Ivy and Respect-and everybody else-for getting us through all this legalese.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

What really frustrates me about this is how many people in the general public don't know that everything a plaintiff alleges in a demurrer has to be treated as fact even if it isn't, so many people will be tripped up when they read about this case in the media for that reason. Because of that I'd taken a screenshot from the judge's ruling to use if I get stuck in a discussion with someone who has made that mistake. We know this well because it's discussed so much but others don't. It very much annoys me that Radar Online don't include this fact in their articles about this but it's not like that surprises me anyway, it's clear that they're on Robson's side of this; the way their headlines and articles are written proves as much. Since Robson's case is such a mess and there's so much evidence disproving claims he's made I can't say I'm that worried about this surviving a demurrer.

 

[barbee0715]

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

What really frustrates me about this is how many people in the general public don't know that everything a plaintiff alleges in a demurrer has to be treated as fact even if it isn't, so many people will be tripped up when they read about this case in the media for that reason. Because of that I'd taken a screenshot from the judge's ruling to use if I get stuck in a discussion with someone who has made that mistake. We know this well because it's discussed so much but others don't. It very much annoys me that Radar Online don't include this fact in their articles about this but it's not like that surprises me anyway, it's clear that they're on Robson's side of this; the way their headlines and articles are written proves as much. Since Robson's case is such a mess and there's so much evidence disproving claims he's made I can't say I'm that worried about this surviving a demurrer.

It's not just Radar Online-it's just the media period. Mainstream news used to have journalistic integrity and they would tell you facts only-but they've all gone the tabloid/opinion way due to readereship = money.
It also gets me when people point out this and that are in legal documents, when they are in actuality just allegations and claims-and of course, they're legal documents-they are filed at the courthouse. That doesn't make them true or actual evidence of truth.

I just read Ivy's full ruling-anybody know off the top of their heads where in this thread Norma telling someone to keep their child away from Michael was discussed? I guess it was in Wade's THIRD Amended complaint-I'm just having a little trouble finding it.

 

[SarahJ]

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

It's not just Radar Online-it's just the media period. Mainstream news used to have journalistic integrity and they would tell you facts only-but they've all gone the tabloid/opinion way due to readereship = money.

Media has always used propaganda to one degree or another. There has always been instances of distorted facts throughout their history. There was the truth vs the version of the truth they wanted to present for whatever their purpose was. While yes there was and still are those who try to present facts, not modified or distorted but just straight facts, I suspect with the ownership of the media becoming tighter and tighter it will only become harder for them to be able to get them out there.

It now has become an industry for corporate profit, news as entertainment and to promote whatever agenda they want with influence of PR firms becoming stronger and in many cases writing the articles themselves which are then presented as from the publication, not to mention copy and paste journalism since their all owned by the same corporation anyway.

Radar may be in WR's bed now, but if they think it's going to be too costly supporting him, they'll turn on him in a heartbeat.