Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Safechuck filed an amended complaint which Ivy sent to me so I ran through it. The new elements in it are: He added five earlier witness testimonies from 1993-1994. These are the following.
1) Mark Quindoy's witness testimony from September 22, 1993 in which he claims he witnessed MJ touch Safechuck's crotch in the jacuzzi and Norma Staikos allegedly telling his wife not to leave children alone with MJ.
2) They quote another witness statement from April 15, 1994. Some female security guard saying that Staikos changed the security protocolls when she took charge. Before that the protocoll was to stop MJ's car at the gates and see if he was alright, not being kidnapped etc. but then it changed to Staikos calling the ranch before MJ arrived and just let him through. This person also testified MJ was often accompanied by a young boy. And that she once witnessed a young boy hiding between the seats in MJ's car. It is also claimed by this person that once when MJ arrived unannounced to Staikos and Staikos learnt about it she went ballistic. (Since this is a female security guard I suspect this is one of the Neverland 5, either Charli Michaels or Melanie Bangall.)
3) They quote a witness statement by Blanca Francia in October 1993 witness in which she said that Staikos "was the person who arranged things with the children and their families". She is quoted saying that Staikos "was in charge" and that she was forced to sign a confidentiality agreement. (LOL, as if that is some shady thing when you work for a famous person.)
4) April 18, 1994 witness statement of a woman (I think Orietta Murdock) is quoted saying Staikos told her "never leave (name-possibly her son) alone with Michael Jackson" and that "That kid [DECEDENT] better be glad I understand his problem." She claimed she was later terminated by Staikos and MJ later supposedly admitted to her that Staikos forced him to agree with it against his wishes.
5) They also quote someone's witness testimony from February 15, 1994 saying Staikos fired anyone who got too close to MJ.
They use these to try to show Staikos had "a significant degree of control over DECEDENT's affairs in her capacity as the Executive Director of MJJ Productions."
IMO no matter what anyone says she did not have control over MJ. An employee having control over the sole owner and president of the company is nonsense. MJ hated confrontation, so he always let the dirty work of firing to others while acting innocent about it, but whatever he supposedly told an employee that got fired, the reality is that he had control over Norma, not the other way around.
And one another new point:
"70. In late-1995 - early-1996, Plaintiff was again employed by MJJ Productions as a director for a short 35 mm film, which was shot at Neverland. Plaintiff's employment on this shoot is reflected in a memorandum from the producer John Lugar to Evvy Tavasci at MJJ Productions."
This wasn't in the previous complaint. So at age 18 Safechuck was still hanging out at Neverland? After all that "abuse"? They are trying to make it look like MJ abandoned him after he reached puberty but then there is a lot of evidence of that not being the case at all, so I guess they had to admit to all these things. I mean MJ hired him for the HIStory trailer, for Earth Song, hired private film teachers for him from NYU in directing or screen script writing. Some abandoning!
The addition seems to be for the purpose of saying Safechuck was employed by MJJP. But this was when he was 17-18 years old. How does it help him?
At the beginning of the complaint he also mentions to have been employed by MJJ Ventures but doesn't say when:
MJJ Ventures was founded in 1991, so it only could have been after that, but since all specific work mentioned in his complaint is when he was older (HIStory trailer, Earth Song, 35 mm film), I suspect if he was ever employed by these companies, only after the alleged abuse ceased. So how does it help him?
More to the point. Their legal argument. They claim four causes of action:
1)
(BTW, MJJ Ventures was founded in 1991, so two and a half years after Safechuck claims his sexual abuse started. So how could then it, as a company, have knowledge of previous sexual abuse before Safechuck's alleged abuse started?)
2)
Notice that they do not mention an employment. They claim MJ's companies have responsibility because they arranged dinners with MJ or travels.
3)
4)
But to me it just looks like they are parroting the law. They claim the companies had prior knowledge of MJ allegedly sexually abusing children before Safechuck, but nowhere in their complaint they show that. Company gossip or beliefs or vauge remarks by employees do not qualify as one of the precedent cases showed. There have to be actual complaints - they don't have to be formal complaints, they can be informal - but there have to be complaints about actual sexual abuse. Not just people thinking MJ hanging out with young boys was weird. The usual suspects who are quoted to have "witnessed" things, like the Quindoys, all made their claims at the height of the media frenzy during the Chandler allegations and they all said they never reported their claims before to anyone. So that cannot be made the company's responsibility either.
Two, no, they did not show that the companies had control over MJ. Like I said above whatever MJ allegedly told a fired employee, in reality the boss and the sole owner has control over the employee. When a person has power over you to hire or fire you, has the right to instruct you then who has the control? You? Norma Staikos was MJ's boss? Did Norma Staikos have power to place MJ in certain positions? And what should Norma Staikos have done when MJ instructed her to send a car for the Safechucks and bring him and his family to him? What exactly he should have done? What exactly she should have done when MJ instructed MJJ Productions to pay for their accomodation on tour and stuff like that? To me it sounds like such a nonsense.
Just reading this sentence it sounds so crazy:
So MJ was the president/owner of his companies and in that capacity the company had the ability to control over his business and
personal affairs? So not the owner controls his company but his company controls him? And even his personal affairs? How does this make any sense?
Also to claim that MJ had access to Safechuck through and because of these companies is nonsense. His parents had no problem with MJ being around their son, MJ obviously did not need any companies to have access to Safechuck.
