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

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

Respect77, one cannot serve two masters. wink

It seems you may not have understood the full response as you pulled one sentence out of context. That can be viewed as a form of deflection.

As I said, I am not suggesting anything has to be discussed here and I would not suggest it. I am allowed however to express my views. In this case however; it is not my view, it is a fact as LindavG recognized.
 
Tygger;4109872 said:
Respect77, one cannot serve two masters. wink

It seems you may not have understood the full response as you pulled one sentence out of context. That can be viewed as a form of deflection.

Then please explain who are the "those" in "One would believe those whose support and loyalty is to Michael’s executors before Michael would have recognized an attack on his estate from day one."
 
respect77;4109873 said:
Then please explain who are the "those" in "One would believe those whose support and loyalty is to Michael’s executors before Michael would have recognized an attack on his estate from day one."

If you know for fact where my support and loyalty lies, you should be able to answer that question yourself.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

As always, not giving straight answers to straight questions.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

As always, not giving straight answers to straight questions.

Ah, confirmation you did not understand the full response. Move along.
 
Safechuck ruling is also confirmed

Jackson accuser can’t file late claim against estate, said Judge

Published on Thursday, 01 October 2015 13:25
Written by City News Service
Print
0 0 0

Michael Jackson

October 01, 2015


City News Service





A man who alleges he was sexually abused as a child by Michael Jackson cannot file a late creditor claim against the singer’s estate, according to a judge’s ruling obtained this week. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff ruled Sept. 21 that James Safechuck’s petition is barred by the statute of limitations. He heard arguments from attorneys July 20 before taking the case under submission.



Safechuck did not file his petition for a late claim against the Jackson estate until August 2014. Safechuck said a key moment in his realization that he was a molestation victim was when he saw a May 2013 television interview with Wade Robson, who also claimed he was sexually abused by Jackson as a child. Attorneys for Jackson’s estate maintained Safechuck had 60 days thereafter to file the claim. Safechuck’s attorneys countered that he did not fully comprehend what happened until he underwent subsequent counseling and therefore was not bound by the 60-day statute.



Safechuck, 37, alleged he was abused by the King of Pop after the two appeared together in a late-1980s Pepsi commercial, when Safechuck was 10. Safechuck’s attorneys alleged in court papers that Jackson “engaged in a calculated course of conduct to lure both (Safechuck) and his parents into a false sense of security and normalcy that was far from reality.”



They claimed Jackson “was successful in his efforts to the point that (Safechuck) endured repeated acts of sexual abuse of a heinous nature and was brainwashed by the decedent into believing they were acts of love and instigated by James himself rather than the decedent.”



Safechuck alleged the pop star molested him about 100 times over four years until he reached puberty. Last year, the 33-year-old Robson, an Australian former-choreographer, also filed a petition for a late claim against the estate, alleging Jackson sexually abused abused him at a young age. According to Safechuck’s attorneys’ court papers, their client was able to gain “insight” from Robson’s claim and then obtained psychiatric help that allowed him to come forward with details of the “loathsome nature of his childhood sexual relationship with (Jackson), the effects of which he has buried for decades.”



Beckloff also denied Robson’s petition. Both Robson and Safechuck have also filed civil suits against business entities controlled by Jackson before the singer’s June 25, 2009, death at age 50. In a separate ruling on Sept. 21, Beckloff denied a motion by the attorneys representing the Jackson companies to dismiss Robson's civil suit.
 
^

Attorneys for Jackson’s estate maintained Safechuck had 60 days thereafter to file the claim. Safechuck’s attorneys countered that he did not fully comprehend what happened until he underwent subsequent counseling and therefore was not bound by the 60-day statute.

So he went to lawyers but still did not fully comprehend "what happened". Whose intelligence are they trying to insult?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^



So he went to lawyers but still did not fully comprehend "what happened". Whose intelligence are they trying to insult?

The intelligence of the haters lol
 
ivy;4109890 said:
Safechuck ruling is also confirmed

Jackson accuser can’t file late claim against estate, said Judge

Published on Thursday, 01 October 2015 13:25
Written by City News Service
Print
0 0 0

Michael Jackson

October 01, 2015


City News Service





A man who alleges he was sexually abused as a child by Michael Jackson cannot file a late creditor claim against the singer’s estate, according to a judge’s ruling obtained this week. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff ruled Sept. 21 that James Safechuck’s petition is barred by the statute of limitations. He heard arguments from attorneys July 20 before taking the case under submission.



Safechuck did not file his petition for a late claim against the Jackson estate until August 2014. Safechuck said a key moment in his realization that he was a molestation victim was when he saw a May 2013 television interview with Wade Robson, who also claimed he was sexually abused by Jackson as a child. Attorneys for Jackson’s estate maintained Safechuck had 60 days thereafter to file the claim. Safechuck’s attorneys countered that he did not fully comprehend what happened until he underwent subsequent counseling and therefore was not bound by the 60-day statute.



Safechuck, 37, alleged he was abused by the King of Pop after the two appeared together in a late-1980s Pepsi commercial, when Safechuck was 10. Safechuck’s attorneys alleged in court papers that Jackson “engaged in a calculated course of conduct to lure both (Safechuck) and his parents into a false sense of security and normalcy that was far from reality.”



They claimed Jackson “was successful in his efforts to the point that (Safechuck) endured repeated acts of sexual abuse of a heinous nature and was brainwashed by the decedent into believing they were acts of love and instigated by James himself rather than the decedent.”



Safechuck alleged the pop star molested him about 100 times over four years until he reached puberty. Last year, the 33-year-old Robson, an Australian former-choreographer, also filed a petition for a late claim against the estate, alleging Jackson sexually abused abused him at a young age. According to Safechuck’s attorneys’ court papers, their client was able to gain “insight” from Robson’s claim and then obtained psychiatric help that allowed him to come forward with details of the “loathsome nature of his childhood sexual relationship with (Jackson), the effects of which he has buried for decades.”



Beckloff also denied Robson’s petition. Both Robson and Safechuck have also filed civil suits against business entities controlled by Jackson before the singer’s June 25, 2009, death at age 50. In a separate ruling on Sept. 21, Beckloff denied a motion by the attorneys representing the Jackson companies to dismiss Robson's civil suit.

latest

[SIZE=+3]HA! Take that STABchuck!!![/SIZE]
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Ah, confirmation you did not understand the full response. Move along.

You're not going to play your usual game of making a provocative statement, wait for someone to challenge you on it, write a vague and evasive response and then complain that everyone misunderstands you, are you? Because I think we are all over that.

I might not always agree with your views but I'd have more respect for them if you just came out and expressed them and stood by them, instead of constantly insinuating things and then backpeddling. All it does is derail the topic of discussion and sometimes it appears that is your intended purpose.

Take this as constructive criticism (because that's what it is) rather than an ad hominem. I think you have something of value to add to this forum but your way of communicating is not helping. If you believe something, just come out and say it, don't hide behind semantics.
 
LindavG, monies are being funneled away from the beneficiaries to fund the defense of frivolous claims against the estate. Such actions equate to a financial attack.

There is absolutely nothing unclear and/or provocative about those statements which are facts. One can agree or disagree with a fact but, it remains a fact.

Allow me to summarize the responses to said facts:

You yourself replied it was a fact and there was nothing to discuss about said fact. I agreed. Another responded about support and loyalty to someone other than Michael which is not the topic of the thread. My response to latter seemed to interest another to respond only to the off-topic portion and not the factual statements I originally posted. And now you resurrect the off-topic portion…

Posting off-topic posts whose only purpose is to speak negatively about the postings and/or the perceived character of one member in an attempt to garner public support from other members is a very familiar sport that you are participating in. It is called online bullying and it is a game I do not play but, others do when confused about how to respond.
 
Tygger;4109920 said:
LindavG, monies are being funneled away from the beneficiaries to fund the defense of frivolous claims against the estate. Such actions equate to a financial attack.

There is absolutely nothing unclear and/or provocative about those statements which are facts. One can agree or disagree with a fact but, it remains a fact.

Yes, but we both know that you were implying something by mentioning that fact. You said that "that is rarely discussed in some online fan communities for particular reasons" which is deliberately vague, and when I asked what is there to discuss you said "Nothing. (...) I am not suggesting anything has to be discussed here and I would not suggest it." So why mention it at all? Everyone knows that Michael's Estate has to pay legal fees because they are being sued. Clearly you think this is worth discussing otherwise you wouldn't say that people have particular reasons not to discuss it. So again I ask you, what is there to discuss? And what possible reasons do you think people have to avoid this discussion?

While it is a fact that the allegations constitute a financial attack on the Estate, the significance you give to this is entirely a matter of personal opinion. I am far more concerned about the attack on Michael's reputation and about the effect these horrible allegations have on his family and friends and I feel the Estate has an obligation to defend Michael no matter the financial cost.

Allow me to summarize the responses to said facts:

You yourself replied it was a fact and there was nothing to discuss about said fact. I agreed. Another responded about support and loyalty to someone other than Michael which is not the topic of the thread. My response to latter seemed to interest another to respond only to the off-topic portion and not the factual statements I originally posted. And now you resurrect the off-topic portion…

This seems to happen to you a lot, huh? Do you never wonder why that is?

Posting off-topic posts whose only purpose is to speak negatively about the postings and/or the perceived character of one member in an attempt to garner public support from other members is a very familiar sport that you are participating in. It is called online bullying and it is a game I do not play but, others do when confused about how to respond.

Oh please, my comment had nothing to do with online bullying. But please continue with your condescending posts, the ignore button is there for a reason :)
 
LindavG, you contradict yourself when you say the statements in my posts are vague to only later respond you and I both know what I am implying by stating particular facts. If you know what I am implying, it cannot be vague. I would suggest you be kind to others in your future and simply state what it was you and I seem to both know to prevent confusion that may occur in others.

You backtrack when you say the statements in my posts are “hardly a topic for discussion” to only later attempt to engage me in discussion by asking no less than three questions about the post that you yourself deemed not discussion-worthy earlier.

Bullying by definition is anyone who attempts to gain influence over another for the purposes of doing what the aggressor prefers. Your off-topic post whose only purpose was to speak negatively about my posts and your perceived character of myself is not factual or original. You have seen and supported such posts by others. Maybe you have tired of reading and supporting other bullying attempts and decided you want and can be the aggressor. It seems you believed (and maybe hoped), with a little support, you could be the one to somehow encourage me to post as you would prefer.

Interesting that you would derail a thread by bullying another online - purposefully by doing it publicly - instead of simply discussing the confirmation of Safechuck’s probate claim being dismissed or at the very least thanking that post. I would not know that if I used the ignore feature. wink
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Good news with the ruling. as expected but you never know with judges interpretations. now the company claims. all or nothing
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I want to remind everyone about a very important MJJC rule

6. Personal insults/attacks on our members or MJJC will not be tolerated.
You are welcome to Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully. Critical conversation is expected when you disagree but do not be rude and please do not personally attack or insult our members individually or the board collectively. This includes personal insults, name calling, telling members to sit down, shut up etc., or questioning members integrity or fanhood if they don't agree with your view.

Time-outs aka temporary bans are given so that the people will think and change their behavior. Continuing the exact same behavior after a time-out will eventually only result in a permanent ban. So I strongly caution against calling people not MJ fans (in any variation) and question their integrity. Similarly do not start and/or continue off topic discussion. Also this is a discussion board, so discussions and heated debates are normal. Be prepared to have people disagree with you and express it.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Posting off-topic posts whose only purpose is to speak negatively about the postings and/or the perceived character of one member in an attempt to garner public support from other members is a very familiar sport that you are participating in. It is called online bullying and it is a game I do not play but, others do when confused about how to respond.

Perhaps the reason you seem to be "bullied" is because you goad people on? It seems you don't get along with anyone on this board, and I can list numerous members off the top of my head that have had run-in's with you, myself included, which is why I chose to stop engaging with you entirely. That's all I'll say about that.

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

Do you think we will see a copy of Beckloff's actual ruling. There were some interesting points in the Robson ruling that pointed out how Wade tripped himself up.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Probate rulings aren't available online. The only way to get them either someone makes an in person request at LA courthouse and/or media posts it. I imagine it would be pretty much same as the Robson one.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Good news with the ruling. as expected but you never know with judges interpretations. now the company claims. all or nothing


I second this yes good news. :) You are right it the companies turn. Here we will see what happen next but we do know that Wade and his lawyers are now trying to look for a reason to know. I do not see how Wade is going to prove this to find someone in Michael companies to say their knew or was aware this was going on and nothing was done about it here again we will have to wait and see what will happen. I just want this nightmare to end it time to let go of this. Michael names is being drag through the mud again the man is not here to defend himself it just so unfair Michael family has been through enough where will it end:(
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Similarly do not start and/or continue off topic discussion.

TinnyandOdd for your review.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Tygger - You are in no position to criticize anyone's off topic posts. Replying to an off topic post and continuing/restarting the derailment after the other person already stopped it and the discussion turned to the actual topic is more problematic than the initial off topic post. If a warning is needed, moderators will give it. If you want to alert the moderators to a specific post, report it. Don't play the moderator.

Everyone - This has been the second moderator warning on this thread. Don't make me post another warning and take moderator action - including post deletion, infractions etc. All of you move on and only post about the topic at hand.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So now that Safechuck's creditor claim was denied, is he completely out of the picture or can he still join Wade's lawsuit as a "witness" to Michael's abuse? Can Wade use Safechuck's story as "evidence" of prior wrongdoing in his own lawsuit even though it's never been proven in court?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So now that Safechuck's creditor claim was denied, is he completely out of the picture or can he still join Wade's lawsuit as a "witness" to Michael's abuse? Can Wade use Safechuck's story as "evidence" of prior wrongdoing in his own lawsuit even though it's never been proven in court?

He filed a civil lawsuit too. He's not out of the picture yet.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^
Just a technical correction. Actually he filed a notice of a civil lawsuit at the same time he filed his probate complaint. But it was recently he started the whole civil case process. I'm personally expecting Estate to file a demurrer but probably results won't be much different than Robsons. Although I agree with respect77's older post. Safechuck has weaker business connection with MJ companies.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Is the civil case covered by the same statue of limitations. ie a matter of course for it to be dismissed?

and how does the lae allow a case against a deceased? or doesnt it unless its mj!?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Is the civil case covered by the same statue of limitations. ie a matter of course for it to be dismissed?

and how does the lae allow a case against a deceased? or doesnt it unless its mj!?

Since these questions come up in every other page I put a summary of the legalities into the News Only thread:

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...-ONLY)/page3?p=4110160&viewfull=1#post4110160
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Thanks you Respect77
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Thanks alot. i got a bit confused thought there was an extra suit when u were talking about the civil case. so its just the company lawsuit that remains. yes the suit against mj the person but that will be thrown
 
Back
Top