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

[redfrog]

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

So why would anyone even entertain those? why would anyone lower themselves to this level of desperation?

Because like it or not most people are morons when it comes to MJ and do not think logically about this bullshit case like you do
and judge MJ based on what they see in the media!
And Robson wants to poison the minds of as many people as possible so if there is a trial they will go there
with the same attitude as they have about Cosby: now it's our opportunity to finally get this ****ing child molester.
The Estate should not pretend that it doesn't matter what is going on in the media! It does.
Their response to the child porn BS was pathetic.
Their response to the 200m for 20 victims was pathetic.
Their response to the FBI files was pathetic.
They should realize that public opinion is what drives or kills MJ's earning potential.
Not fighting the allegations in the media is suicide, period.

My response would be "I'll see you in court".

Yeah, while they are tying to avoid a trial, right?
They don't want to see this in court at all. And it doesn't matter what is happening in court anyway.
What matters is what is happening out there in the real world! And MJ is getting slaughtered by these horrible lies that is what happening
and the Estate is doing nothing to fight against it.

Now you are just being silly. These are serious lawsuits. They won't compromise any ongoing lawsuit by unnecessary chatting with fans.

I am not talking about chatting. Just informing us what is going on in court as they must know that we lost access to the process
after Beckloff was moved. The Estate wants our money but they can't publish a few tweets about what is going on?
The very reason why they should inform us where things stands is that these are serious lawsuits and could kill MJ's legacy once and for all.

We know there is no such thing as forbidding anyone in a settlement to testify at a criminal trial. In fact, that would be against the law and no one can be punished for testifying at a criminal trial even if he had signed a settlement. I am not sure what is the situation regarding civil trials and whether former settlements could forbid anyone from talking at a civil trial, but in the Chandler settlement the only requirement is that if they ever get a subpoena or any other request for information they notify MJ's lawyers.

The confidentiality is about media and public confidentiality, not about court testimonies.

But as I see, this letter by these lawyers isn't even about the court case. It seems like they are actually talking about being released to freely talk in the media. That's nonsense. A case has to be played in the courtroom, not in the media. Just shows they are trying to turn this into a media circus, not a court case.

Exactly. And these lawyers know that all too well and they should know that this tactic could be used against them if there is a trial
which makes me believe that they don't believe there will be a trial and so they try everything they can to get a settlement.
I just don't see any other reason why they would do something this stupid.

And why does Robson have new lawyers? His old ones gave up? Or he has the old ones and the new ones at the same time?
What's the point of that?

 

[barbee0715]

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

Jeez. Well, this explains everything about the Radar stories. Wade has hired the nasty big dogs. Think the Estate needs to do the same. (Looking at the pitiful unconstitutional decisions the judge is making in the Cosby case, it's a good idea).

 

[ILoveHIStory]

With Trial Date Approaching, Michael Jackson Accuser Wade Robson Wants An End To Secrecy

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...robson-wants-an-end-to-secrecy-300298602.html

PDF FILE HERE

Robson's new legal team asks the Jackson Estate to release other alleged Jackson victims from confidentiality agreements

LOS ANGELES, July 14, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Attorneys for director, dancer, and choreographer Wade Robson, the former Michael Jackson protégé who has accused the late pop superstar of sexually abusing him from the time he was seven until he turned 14, are asking the Jackson Estate to release the families of other young boys victimized by Jackson from the confidentiality agreements they signed as a condition of receiving huge monetary settlements.

"If Michael Jackson truly had nothing to hide, then the Jackson Estate should have nothing to fear from allowing the families they paid off to speak out freely," said Robson's new lead counsel, John C. Manly of the Irvine, CA, law firm of Manly, Stewart & Finaldi.

With the clock ticking down towards the March 2017 trial date for Robson's civil action against MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, the business entities that employed both him and Jackson when the abuse occurred, Robson has shifted his legal effort into high gear by bringing on Manly and partner Vince W. Finaldi to shepherd his lawsuit through trial. Experienced litigators who specialize in child sexual abuse cases, the two attorneys have helped to win more than $1 billion in trial and settlement awards for sexual abuse victims over the past 20 years.

In a letter sent today to attorneys representing the Jackson Estate, Manly noted that under California law it is "illegal to make a child sex abuse settlement confidential" and that "many large institutions in the business of protecting children have publicly released alleged victims from their confidentiality obligations when child molestation allegations have been settled." He went on to point out that "it is widely recognized that only in secrecy can child sex abuse flourish and continue." (A link to a copy of the full letter is below.)

Robson's case, originally filed in 2013, is being heard in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Named one of California's "Top 100 Attorneys" and one of California's top 30 Plaintiff Lawyers by the Los Angeles Daily Journal, John C. Manly is California's preeminent attorney representing victims of sexual abuse. Vince Finaldi, a Martindale-Hubbell AV® Preeminent™ rated litigator, ranked at the highest level of professional excellence, also specializes in sexual abuse cases.

Over the past decade, Manly and Finaldi have been heavily involved in many of the most significant sexual abuse actions litigated across the nation, including a number of prominent cases involving the Los Angeles Unified School District and numerous actions against predator priests and the church officials who protected them in Catholic dioceses in Alaska, California, Delaware, and Oregon. In the process, they not only helped to collect more than $1 billion in damage awards on behalf of sexual abuse victims, but their work has also led to policy and procedural reforms for youth and charitable organizations that help to keep kids safe.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Edit edit

 

[Justthefacts]

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

I love it when these lawyer's talk like Michael is still alive. Cases are won in court not in the media.

 

[redfrog]

Jeez. Well, this explains everything about the Radar stories. Wade has hired the nasty big dogs. .

What makes you think they are big dogs? Did they win anything in court or just got settlements?

I guess they are still chasing those imaginary FBI files made up by the Mirror.

That was not the Mirror but the Sunday People another sick British tabloid.

Cases are won in court not in the media.

I wish that was so simple.
MJ won in court in 2005 and lost everything including his life. People don't care about the verdict
when this is going on at the same time:

One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History



It was five years ago today that twelve jurors unanimously acquitted Michael Jackson on various charges of child molestation, conspiracy and providing alcohol to a minor. It is difficult to know how history will remember the Michael Jackson trial. Perhaps as the epitome of western celebrity obsession. Perhaps as a 21st century lynching. Personally, I think it will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in journalistic history.

It’s not until you find yourself digging through newspaper archives and re-watching hours of TV coverage that you truly understand the magnitude of the media’s failings. It was industry-wide. No doubt, there were certain reporters and even certain publications and TV stations that overtly favored the prosecution, but many of the media’s shortcomings were institutional. In a media obsessed with soundbites, how to you reduce eight hours of testimony into two sentences and remain accurate? In an era of rolling news and instant blogging, how do you resist the temptation to dash out of the courtroom at the earliest opportunity to break news of the latest salacious allegations, even if it means missing a slice of the day’s testimony?

Looking back on the Michael Jackson trial, I see a media out of control. The sheer amount of propaganda, bias, distortion and misinformation is almost beyond comprehension.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

 

[ivy]

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

And Robson wants to poison the minds of as many people as possible so if there is a trial they will go there
with the same attitude as they have about Cosby: now it's our opportunity to finally get this ****ing child molester.

I don't think that it would happen. In 2005 the trial happened under extreme media interest and negative coverage. the jurors were able to come to a fair and correct decision.

They should realize that public opinion is what drives or kills MJ's earning potential.
Not fighting the allegations in the media is suicide, period.

yet the accounting documents show that the Estate income is good. We discussed this before in great detail. Personally I think everyone have made their minds long long ago. Hence none of these new stories create significant effect on the legacy or the earning potential.

I am not talking about chatting. Just informing us what is going on in court as they must know that we lost access to the process
after Beckloff was moved. The Estate wants our money but they can't publish a few tweets about what is going on?
The very reason why they should inform us where things stands is that these are serious lawsuits and could kill MJ's legacy once and for all.

They have no idea about how I get the files so they probably have no idea about the effects of Beckloff move. Plus we didn't exactly lost access. Case summary still shows us what is happening in Robson case - which is none. Safechuck case isn't under case summary so we are a little blind there. I lost online access to the documents but Beckloff's own clerk told 2 days ago there haven't been any recent filings in these cases. So again we missed nothing. Whatever is happening the last few weeks doesn't seem to be a legal situation in court. It's something that is playing out in media. So I think Estate is seeing it at the same time as we do. (check the letter's date, it's yesterday)

The suggestion that Estate publicly mention their strategies, developments to keep fans buying stuff happy can comprise a case. Michael didn't share legal updates when he is alive and you are giving your money to get new releases not for legal updates.

 

[HIStory]

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

The irony of this headline.

With Trial Date Approaching, Michael Jackson Accuser Wade Robson Wants An End To Secrecy

I hope no one would forget when Robson requested this:

Initially Rovbson wanted to get his case sealed citing the privacy interests of the defendants as a reason. Ie. he wanted secrecy. Now that the Estate did not offer him a quiet and quick settlement he wants to suddenly "end the secrecy". Can Robson be more phoney and trasnparent? LOL.

 

[HIStory]

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

That was not the Mirror but the Sunday People another sick British tabloid.

Sunday People is the Sunday edition of the Mirror.

 

[HIStory]

Pretty interesting article about Robson's new lawyer. Seems aggressive and shady.
There are links within the article with further information.

Contingency Lawyer John Manly

Church-suing contingency lawyer John C. Manly

No one can deny the awful harm wrecked upon innocent youth by Catholic priests. However, high-profile contingency lawyer John C. Manly has repeatedly voiced outrageous statements and wild falsehoods about the scandal and the Catholic faith. Manly's venom against the Catholic Church cannot be overstated. Some will conclude that his mean-spiritedness and dishonesty can only be categorized as vile.
For example, see/click our articles:
• "John Manly Compares Being a Catholic Priest To Being a Train Conductor for
Auschwitz" (w/ SHOCKING AUDIO)
• "Wealthy John Manly: Poor People in Africa Go to Church Because They 'Are in
 Desperate Need'"
• "John Manly, Lawyer For Alleged Church Abuse Victims: 'Just Give Me the Money'"
• "John Manly Sanctioned By Judge For 'Unacceptable' Conduct"
• "SHOCK STORY: Notorious Church-Suing Lawyer Obtained Clients by Phoning
Parishioners and 'Fishing for Victims'"

http://www.themediareport.com/hot-topics/attorney-john-c-manly/

 

[HIStory]

SHOCK STORY: Notorious Church-Suing Lawyer Obtained Clients by Phoning Parishioners and ‘Fishing for Victims’

November 13, 2012 By TheMediaReport.com

Unethical conduct for financial gain? Southern California contingency lawyer John C. Manly

Southern California contingency lawyer John Manly, who has pocketed millions of dollars by suing the Catholic Church, has now admitted that his office has obtained clients for abuse lawsuits by making unsolicited phone calls to Catholic Church parishioners.
This startling new revelation in the Catholic Church abuse narrative was exclusively reported by Sue Nowicki at The Modesto Bee newspaper.
According to Nowicki's piece, numerous individuals in the Diocese of Stockton (Calif.) have said that they received unsolicited phone calls to their homes from a woman hired by Manly. These calls, they claim, left them to conclude that Manly was "fishing" for victims in the case of an accused Catholic priest, Fr. Michael E. Kelly.
Manly has admitted that he hired the woman, but only to "investigate" Kelly.
Busted?
The obvious question for Manly is this: For what other reason would a Church-suing contingency lawyer "investigate" a Catholic priest except to garner clients?
Confronted with the charge that he was "fishing for victims," Manly, of course, denied the claim.
"We don't call people and ask if they want to be in lawsuits," Manly said in part to Nowicki. "That's not happening; it's not what we do. What we are doing is investigation. 'Did you ever see anything that was odd with Father Kelly?' That's how we got our first client."
So Manly has pretty much admitted that he found his first client against Fr. Kelly by "investigating" areas where the cleric worked. Wow.
The phone calls revealed
Some recipients of the phone calls from Manly's employee say the calls left them "infuriated and disgusted." Nowicki reports:

"[One recipient said] she was given the 'strong impression' that if she said her son, now 32, was interested in filing a lawsuit, 'they would have jumped all over that. They were going to find something (against Kelly), regardless if there was any cause for action.'"
​

And another:

"[Another woman] tried to tell [the caller] that she has known Kelly for three decades and described his positive influence on her sons. 'She told me she has found 10 more victims … She was going on and on and tried to convince me that I was stupid and didn't realize this was going on. I finally had to hang up on her.'"
​

Are these calls legal?
In her article, Nowicki reveals, "According to the state Bar Association, it is unethical for attorneys to make calls soliciting clients for financial gain." Indeed, it will be interesting to see if the California bar says anything about Manly's actions. (In 2006, by the way, Manly was sanctioned by a judge for "unacceptable" conduct.)
Thomas Beatty, a lawyer who has represented Fr. Kelly, questioned the calls' legality:

"I think it's an inducement into making false claims. I don't think that mass telephoning at every church and every school that (Kelly has) served at to drum up business is a proper way to do things."
​

Yet another recipient of a phone call sums up how many would feel after such an episode:

"As a teacher, I feel vulnerable. If former students from 20 years ago can be gathered over the phone to make statements against former teachers, we're all at risk, including police officers, doctors, nurses, coaches, etc."
​

About the accused priest



The target of Manly's ire, Fr. Kelly, has repeatedly and vehemently denied any and all accusations that he ever abused anyone. "The allegations are completely and totally false," Kelly has recently said. "They NEVER happened. Never. They are utterly untrue."
In addition, Kelly passed a polygraph test in 2007 that concluded that he was being truthful when he said that had never abused anyone over his 35 years in the priesthood.
Unfortunately for Fr. Kelly, a civil jury earlier this year decided that Fr. Kelly should be held liable for the abuse of a now-adult male who says he was abused by Kelly in the mid-1980s. The accuser invoked the discredited theory of "repressed memory," and Manly corralled a psychologist from Connecticut to take the stand and testify that the bogus psychological theory was actually true. Shockingly, the jury bought into it.
The Diocese was forced to settle this first case for $3.75 million. Now ever since, not surprisingly, new accusations are popping up.
Stay tuned.
Kudos to Sue Nowicki at The Modesto Bee for some great work.

http://www.themediareport.com/2012/11/13/john-manly-fished-victims-fr-michael-kelly/



One of the comments:

I praised Manly once for being able to use the word collective in a sentence with out wretching. He did it.
Not that anyone here likes the truth.
John Manly is to the right of Attila the Hun and Pub. He was the kind of Conservative planning to fly back to Florida to investigate the hanging chad vote count to make sure them ther Democrats wouldn't pull a fast one. He personaly told me so. He'd booked his flight.
Joelle Castix in my early dealings with her before she became SNAP Queen of the Western U.S. Australia and Guam, worked for Manly. They were both little right wing darlings. She tried to steal me from my lawyer saying "I wish you'd gotten a better lawyer" as she sat next to John Manly at the first SNAP convention in St Louis. This is long years before Joelle became Mrs SNAP West.
Let's see rabid Catholic Conservatives suing the Church???? SNAP was created by rabidly Catholic Conservative Dominican nuns; and little Tommy Doyle was and still is a conservative Dominican priest. Where's the radicals, the leftys organizing the victims to get a better deal for our selves than a 40% cut to a lawyer.
I thought your contra point in this musical was that it was the leftists or the liberals who were controling victims suing. Make up your minds. You can't have it both ways.
Or is this the time we pretend that you lot and Billie Donahue are the real center of the Catholic road. If that's true then I just saw Atilla passing out Mao's little red book.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

I'm having a hard time figuring this out. They want the estate to give them a list or let people talk?

 

[ivy]

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

I'm having a hard time figuring this out. They want the estate to give them a list or let people talk?

Let people talk to the media if they want and publicly release the number of alleged victims and total settlement monies.

It seems the public media story they are referring to is the "$200 M to 20 victims " lie story.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Thanks Ivy.

 

[ILoveHIStory]

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

... so... at the end of the day aka this case.... there will be NO settlement, NO alleged victims, NO hush money, NO other witnesses than those from the 1993/2005 case, so... its still the repeating BS stories, recycled info dated up to 1993... so... what a surprise it is going to be for the Robson lawyer team that nothing new will be released and reached, and the only thing will be the confrontation with the media and haters with the previous info and court facts and evidence.

... and we all can use Aphrodite Jones and other relevant sources to reload the guns of justice.

 

[redfrog]

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

I don't think that it would happen. In 2005 the trial happened under extreme media interest and negative coverage. the jurors were able to come to a fair and correct decision.

That was a criminal trial with a living defendant whose life would have been finished with a guilty verdict.
This is a civil case AFTER years of horrible stories which have been far worse than anything I've seen during the trial.
Animal abuse, child torture, child porn stories didn't go around the world then. Neither did stories about 24, 20 paid off victims, whatever number they prefer on any given day. The smear campaign against MJ escalated I bet the next headline will be that had a human shredder in Neverland. Unlike in 1993 2005 they are now portraying him as sadistic child and animal abuser.
What I have seen on the net the effects of these stories are horrible. They are doing it because they know it
works.

They have no idea about how I get the files so they probably have no idea about the effects of Beckloff move.
Plus we didn't exactly lost access. Case summary still shows us what is happening in Robson case - which is none.

How difficult would it be for them to read this forum?
After all we are just the very people who most care most about MJ's legacy. They want our money but don't care about what we know
or don't know about the very cases which could destroy that legacy?
A lot of things must have happened since Jan except it doesn't show up in the case summary.
It's shouldn't even be your job to get that info. The Estate should keep us informed, period.
But frankly, looking at their actions since 2009 it's obvious that Branca/Weitzman don't give a **** about the fans and don't give a **** about MJ's reputation either.

I lost online access to the documents but Beckloff's own clerk told 2 days ago there haven't been any recent filings in these cases.
The suggestion that Estate publicly mention their strategies, developments to keep fans buying stuff happy can comprise a case.

That's fine but what does RECENT mean? It has been months since the Estate filed the preliminary defense.
It didn't compromise the case when we had access to the documents. We even had access to the transcripts of one of the hearings.
What difference would it make if we had the same now?
How would it compromise the case if they informed us what is going on with the Safechuck demurrer? Did it vanish in the ether?

We were not in the dark in 2003-2005. First of all the media was all over the case and some reporters actually reported the facts. Secondly, MJ did fight against the most outrageous lies coming from the media , including that child porn and photos of nude boys were found. He also reacted to the leaked grand jury transcripts and the leaked Francia settlement. But the Estate somehow can't do the same now, except release weak lameass statements which actually makes people believe that the story must be true because if it wasn't the Estate would forcefully refute it with facts.

Sunday People is the Sunday edition of the Mirror.

The Sunday People is published by Trinity Mirror and was bought by the Mirror group along with the Daily Herald,
but the Sunday Mirror is the Sunday edition of the Daily Mirror not the Sunday People.

Now that the Estate did not offer him a quiet and quick settlement he wants to suddenly "end the secrecy"..

Because it's not that MJ was subjected to the one of the most prolonged and most public investigations and trials in history.
Everything is so secret about him still. :blink:

Pretty interesting article about Robson's new lawyer.

Dylan Howard's twin?

 

[Justthefacts]

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

What is eye rolling to me is that these people have seemed to forgotten that Michael is dead. You can't hurt him with bad PR like Feldman and Sneddon did you can't ask him questions you can't punish him you can't do a damn thing to him. His estate is still making money hand over fist and his kids have proven to be his strongest advocates. So when you say stuff like what's Michael hiding, dead people can't hide anything. And none of this crap has anything to do with what blame does the companies have.

 

[terrell]

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

I never understand why you want Estate to try these cases in the media. It's pathetic when Robson lawyers do it , it's pathetic if Estate responds similarly.

Think like this, if Robson lawyers weren't so desperate for publicity, they wouldn't have sent such a worthless letter.

Stop a moment and read and think:

- Their source is media reports. So they are looking for the "imaginary victims" they heard from tabloids. Tabloids!!
- They don't even know if these "alleged victims" want to talk. They just want them to be able to talk if they want.
- Settlement cannot stop any of these "alleged victims" from testifying in court. So a "release from settlement" is meaningless as far as the case goes. But that's not their point , they don't care about these people testifying. They just want them to be able to talk to media if they want.
- They also ask Estate to publicly state settlements and amount of money paid in these settlements. They already got such info back in 2014. So they just want Estate to contribute to negative stories about MJ.

So why would anyone even entertain those? why would anyone lower themselves to this level of desperation? My response would be "I'll see you in court".



Now you are just being silly. These are serious lawsuits. They won't compromise any ongoing lawsuit by unnecessary chatting with fans.

Ps : do you still have multiple accounts/personalities here?

THANK YOU! And many media outlets did not even talk abut Wade when he did the Today show; and the few who did was not buying his story. He defended MJ from teenager to adult even AFTER death IN THE COURT OF LAW. And he did a GREAT cross examine and did not look as if he was trying to cover up and hide something. End of story. Wade is just looking like a nut who now wants to make money off of MJ now that MJ is gone. That is how LOGIC thinking people sees him. I do not are about haters, internet trolls, etc. Good thinking people know the deal. And lets not forget in part in the celebration of MJ life tribute on MTV dancing with Janet. In the court with this kind of stuff up against him, Wade will be laughed out of court.

 

[HIStory]

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

And none of this crap has anything to do with what blame does the companies have.

They are going in circles. How many times they want to rehash this fake story about supposed "dozens of paid off victims"? There was the original Sunday People article. Then Stacy Brown's rehash of it one year later. Now this. And when the original Sunday People article came out, Robson's lawyer Maryann Marzano was quick to jump on it and comment on it saying it "proved" Robson's allegations. Yet, they never once mentioned the story or any of those never before seen alleged victims in their court documents. That's because this is all just for the media hype and manipulation.

All they try to stir in the media is this story and the "child porn" lie. They never talk about Robson's actual case. They never give a factual report of what is actually happening in court. No wonder there is so much misinformation out there when the media is focused on sensationalism rather than presenting facts. The world would need more Linda Deutsches and less Radar Onlines.

 

[ILoveHIStory]

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

I would bet everyting I have that Robson and his lawyer team are here as members reading the threads.

 

[terrell]

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

I would bet everyting I have that Robson and his lawyer team are here as members reading the threads.

Let them. They have nothing. And to "quote" a fake story-that even a JUDGE SIGN off for a statement to be made to point out it was not true- will only make Wade and his lawyer look more shady in court. And trying to use the media will make it worst.

 

[ivy]

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

That was a criminal trial with a living defendant whose life would have been finished with a guilty verdict.
This is a civil case AFTER years of horrible stories which have been far worse than anything I've seen during the trial.

first of all "worse than anything I've seen during the trial", really? Did you forget Dimonds etc how they dedicated all of their shows calling MJ guilty non stop? Sorry that time was a lot worse. And if anything people have more sympathy for the deceased people. Let me give you a bit of information. There is something called Q score. They use it to measure celebrity's popularity. MJ's was lowest in 2005. He had the lowest ever score for any celebrity,brand etc. Since his death his Q score is steadily increasing.

Animal abuse, child torture, child porn stories didn't go around the world then.

Going around the world is irrelevant to jury. Jury is selected from California. As I said the 2003 allegations were heavily reported in USA. It didn't taint the jurors then. I don't think jurors will be tainted now to support a person with a credibility issues against a deceased person. a 15 year old cancer survivor was a sympathetic "victim". A grown man who repeatedly denied abuse but now realizing what abuse is quite hard to believe and suffer from serious credibility issues.

How difficult would it be for them to read this forum?
After all we are just the very people who most care most about MJ's legacy. They want our money but don't care about what we know
or don't know about the very cases which could destroy that legacy?
A lot of things must have happened since Jan except it doesn't show up in the case summary.
It's shouldn't even be your job to get that info. The Estate should keep us informed, period.

Now this is just silly and makes no sense. Whatever happens show at the case summary. Every day we post updates about cases solely based on the case summaries. It's not my "job" , it's something I do voluntarily. No celebrity alive or dead, keeps their fans informed about the legal cases. Michael didn't do it when alive. Don't come up with crazy expectations and then complain. and again you spend money to buy the releases. It doesn't entitle you information about internal dealings of Estate. It's absurd and exactly like saying "I gave Apple money to buy an Iphone, they should keep me updated about all the legal cases they face".

That's fine but what does RECENT mean? It has been months since the Estate filed the preliminary defense.
It didn't compromise the case when we had access to the documents. We even had access to the transcripts of one of the hearings.
What difference would it make if we had the same now?
How would it compromise the case if they informed us what is going on with the Safechuck demurrer? Did it vanish in the ether?

I don't know if you are thick or doing this just to be annoying. Estate doesn't provide any documents to anyone. If they did, it would be same thing as we accuse Robson and Safechuck about - leaking. I just recently established a way to get the court documents as needed in person. Recent means a few months. Unfortunately cases moves slow. Robson demurrer also took 15 months in total - basically due to discovery issues. After the discovery issues resolved it took 6 months. We are just around that (6 months) timeline for Safechuck. I'm quite sure a ruling would get reported by media.

PS: I know you are here under multiple accounts. It would be better if you come clean and ask your accounts to be merged. Or you might lose all your accounts.

 

[ivy]

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

Just to demonstrate that the case summary indeed works to show what's happening at Robson case

 

[8701girl]

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

The estate can't make anyone "get out of a confidential agreements" cuz if has nothing to do with them! It's either up to the cops or the "alleged" victims themselves LOL

 

[CaptainEoLove85]

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

So how does Wade afford these lawyers or will afford them when he loses?

 

[HIStory]

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

So how does Wade afford these lawyers or will afford them when he loses?

Apparently this lawyer takes a lot of cases on contingency basis - ie. getting paid only if he wins either the case or gets a settlement. I think for any lawyer it is worth the risk when there is potentially high money to be made and/or it is a case with potentially big publicity.

These lawyers seem to be pretty much fond of publicity, based on their website.

 

[HIStory]

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

Wow, is that letter for real? Is that really the language used from someone who has trained in law school for eight years? It doesn't come across well at all. If that letter is anything to go by, I don't think Wade's new representation are anything to fear.

I agree that the letter's lamguage is very unprofessional and seems deliberately be emotionally manipulative ("little boys", "little children" etc.). However, I would not underestimate them. They did win several big cases - although most of them seem to be rather settlements than actually winning the court case. Unfortunately with child abuse cases emotions are flying high and a skillful emotional manipulator can win cases, especially civil ones with the lesser burden of proof.

 

[HIStory]

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

Perhaps you're right and the "unprofessional" letter is merely them showing their hand to the estate?

It's for publicity, nothing else. The lawyer is already doing his rounds in the media, giving interviews. Here is the next one:

Lawyers seek Aust Michael Jackson victims


July 15, 20164:40pm


Peter MitchellAAP





A new US legal team representing choreographer Wade Robson is planning to fly to Australia to interview Michael Jackson sexual abuse victims or witnesses to any of the late pop star's acts.




Brisbane-born Mr Robson has waged a three-year battle in the Los Angeles Superior Court after making the shock announcement he had been abused by the self-described King of Pop from the age of seven through to 14.

Mr Robson, 33, has filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson's business entities, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures.

A trial, where Mr Robson will give evidence, is scheduled for March.
"We will, in all likelihood, be going to Australia," Mr Robson's new lead lawyer, John Manly, told AAP on Thursday.
"This case is a worldwide case and we will be doing some travelling.
"Most people don't know that even though they were abused in Australia, Britain or Morocco or wherever, they have a right to seek counsel in the US against a corporation.
"Mr Jackson is dead and you can't sue him or his estate, but his corporation is alive and well."
Mr Robson was a five-year-old dance prodigy in Australia when he was befriended by Jackson.
He was Jackson's star witnesses at the King of Pop's 2005 molestation trial in California, swearing under oath Jackson never abused him.
But Mr Robson said it was not until Jackson's 2009 death and the birth of his own son he understood he had been abused.
"Michael Jackson was an incredible musician, an incredible dancer, he changed music and the music business, and he is also a pedophile," Mr Manly said.
Mr Manly, who has led a legal crusade against the Catholic Church and other sexual abusers the past 20 years and has collected more than $US1 billion for victims, said most male survivors deny they were abused for years.
"What happened to Wade is what I'll call survivor 101," Mr Manly said.
Mr Manly is requesting Jackson's estate release other Jackson victims from confidentiality agreements they signed as a condition of large monetary settlements.
"The standard of proof is we have to prove the corporation knew or had reason to know that Mr Jackson was a pedophile before or during the time he was abusing Wade," he said.
"I want to go to the people responsible, the corporate officials and others involved who knew and did nothing - the people who stood by and watched those children be walked into that bedroom.

"There were many.
"It wasn't just Wade.
"I also want victims to know it is safe to talk.
"You will be protected."
Robson was one of the world's best known dance choreographers, working with Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears, had his own show on MTV and was a judge on America's So You Think You Can Dance.
But Mr Manly said Mr Robson has been unable to work since coming to terms with his abuse.
"When you fully come to grips with the fact you were raped as a child, let me assure you after going through this thousands of times, it's earth-shattering," Mr Manly said.
"You don't just get over it.

http://www.news.com.au/world/breaki...s/news-story/83943af41d94c41c02317789654f2be7


Victim fishing. Someone should tell them Sneddon already did this. Multiple times actually. In 1993. In 2003-2005. Though they might hope the promise of money might be more effective in making "victims" suddenly "remember" or "realize" abuse.

Australia. I guess they are still hoping for Brett to turn. I wonder if Joy Robson's lame attempt at Brett recently on FB was already a part of that fishing process. Marocco. Omer? LOL. Good luck with that.

They don't have a case, so they try to make a settlement happen by lisiting many "victims" and by blowing it big in the media.

They are obviously hoping that with the promise of winning a lot of money they can create many "victims". Enough to put so much pressure on the Estate that they would settle the case.

"I want to go to the people responsible, the corporate officials and others involved who knew and did nothing - the people who stood by and watched those children be walked into that bedroom.

How about Joy Robson, Mr. Manly? Corporate defendants are responsible but Robson's own mother, who actually was the one "walking her son into that bedroom", isn't? Ridiculous.

"The standard of proof is we have to prove the corporation knew or had reason to know that Mr Jackson was a pedophile before or during the time he was abusing Wade," he said.

So this shows the summery judgement phase is still ongoing. They are still in the process of discovery regarding that matter.

Oh, and so we are back to the tale that Wade is unable to work any more. Shouldn't that read: too lazy to work any more and wants a luxury retirement by lying about MJ?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

don't think that it would happen. In 2005 the trial happened under extreme media interest and negative coverage. the jurors were able to come to a fair and correct decision.

------------------'

Personally i think thats alot more chance of them siding wade money when its a civil suit. They balance of probability is nothing. No one has the chance of going to prison wrongly. Mj isnt here so a "guilty" verdict wont hurt him.you have jurrors who have their minds made up from the last 20 years and if they feel hes guilty of everything else this is a nice easy way of getting some "justice" for at least one victim. Reminds me of the schaffell case and how jurrors sided in alot of the case with schaffel and made comments abouts mj that made you think well he was never gonna win that was he!


Correct me if im wrong but theres nothing to stop ppl who got settlements contacting this lawyer and testifying. I presume the law that states a settlement cant stop soemeone from testifying in a crim case also applies to a civil case?? If so then its obviously nothing more than a tacky publicity stunt

 

[Bubs]

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

"I have read numerous media reports of multiple monetary or non-monetary settlements allegedly paid to little boys..."

I suppose they refer that Stacy Brown garbage piece "MJ paid 200 million hush money" that was flying across media:doh:

What about that California code thingy that they say it is illegal to make child abuse settlements confidential?
I cannot see such a thing in this list?
http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=01001-02000&file=1003-1008

Already the language is manipulative. "Little children", "little boys" - several times. A reference to "multiple" victims, "dozens of little boys" several times. How disappointed they will be when they learn that there is only Chandler and Francia and those are well known to the public, moreover were discussed at the criminal trial? But I don't think that's what they mean. They are probably still chasing the phantom victims of the Mirror's fake FBI files article. But then they may as well as know they don't exist. They just want to stir publicity for the case and once again create a manipulative narrative in the media. (I can already see the tabloids as interpreting it as "proof' of MJ paying off dozens of alleged victims.)

I noticed the same thing straight away. Cleverly worded insinuation and manipulation.