Latest on MJJC

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

MOR316 said:
Hi all :)

I was wondering could anyone shed some light on this article for me?
https://www.theatlantavoice.com/art...ndoras-box-examines-michael-jackson-behavior/

This is the first I've heard about this. Never heard of Stacy Brown or anything about arguments at someone's wedding. I also know Joy Robson never said anything about MJ "crying like a baby"

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

1. 'While Safechuck declined to testify for Michael' - Safechuck did no such thing. He was never ASKED to testify in 2005 as the judge ruled his testimony would be irrelevant to the case. Judge Melville ruled Safechuck out, before the trial ever started.

2. MJ was so 'keen' to see Wade, that Joy testified as follows in court in 2005:

My memory is, in the entire time we've lived here since 1991, we've only been at the ranch with Michael on four occasions in 14 years. Every other time we've been here without him.
Would that be the same for your son?
Yes.
Click to expand...

Similarly in 2017, Joy testified at her deposition (on film) as follows:

In '92, Michael had promised Wade the 'Jam' video, and then I wasn't hearing from him. and I kept calling Norma and saying, you know, What's going on? He's supposed to be doing the 'Jam' video. Michael promised him this.
And she said 'let me find out'
And I just didn't hear, and I didn't hear, and then he (Wade) was actually up for another job, so I was calling her saying 'Are we doing the 'Jam' video or not?'
Click to expand...

Stacy Brown can write as much fiction (for money) as he likes, it doesn't change the truth as told in court under oath. He is very careful not to name so-called 'sources' , who he keeps deliberately vague ('a gf of Jermaine's / 'a teenage family member') and he knows that none of the Jacksons will come forward to complain about his lies because that only draws more attention to him.

He's writing for money and to an agenda. His words are worthless.
 
Last edited:
myosotis said:
1. 'While Safechuck declined to testify for Michael' - Safechuck did no such thing. He was never ASKED to testify in 2005 as the judge ruled his testimony would be irrelevant to the case. Judge Melville ruled Safechuck out, before the trial ever started.

2. MJ was so 'keen' to see Wade, that Joy testified as follows in court in 2005:



Similarly in 2017, Joy testified at her deposition (on film) as follows:



Stacy Brown can write as much fiction (for money) as he likes, it doesn't change the truth as told in court under oath. He is very careful not to name so-called 'sources' , who he keeps deliberately vague ('a gf of Jermaine's / 'a teenage family member') and he knows that none of the Jacksons will come forward to complain about his lies because that only draws more attention to him.

He's writing for money and to an agenda. His words are worthless.
Click to expand...
That fool does not know nothing about Michael.
 
Re: [TMZ] New child molestation claim by Wade Robson

Is there a thread specifically for the Arvizo trial?
 
Re: [TMZ] New child molestation claim by Wade Robson

Elton-Cetera said:
Is there a thread specifically for the Arvizo trial?
Click to expand...

There doesn't seem to be much - mainly videos (if you do an 'Advanced' search for '2005' in the title.

There's this short thread:

https://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/90430-The-2005-Trial-The-Facts/page2?highlight=2005+trial

and there's also background info links here (MJ legal cases):

https://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/...-discussion)-Chandler-Arvizo-Robson-Safechuck
 
Just on this...

Latoya claimed that she and her mother had seen checks written out for “lots of money” to the families of her brother’s alleged child victims. Her mother, Katherine, “was so disgusted that she wrote a letter in which she used (a homophobic slur) to describe Michael,” Latoya alleged.

Katherine vehemently denied “every word Latoya had to say.”

She’d been brainwashed, the Jacksons said.

For this reporter and one-time close family friend, their denials were shattered years later when the Jackson family forfeited possession of a storage unit upon being sued in 2002.

That storage unit, Jermaine and Katherine would admit to me, contained “those checks and that letter” Latoya had spoken of.
Click to expand...

This 'cheque' myth is so stupid. It's truly ridiculous how this is so often mentioned. Cheques would have protected MJ against absolutely nothing. If MJ had written a cheque to a family to 'keep quiet', that family would have been free to sell their story to the media or even sue MJ to get more money.

It also makes absolutely no sense for MJ to have been dishing out cheques left right and centre, then when Evan Chandler comes along refuse to pay him to go away. Not paying Evan would have opened a can of worms for all these supposed families that received cheques to come out of the woodwork.

Also, where are these families that received cheques? Not a single one decided to go to either the media or police. Sneddon also was unable to track any of them down. The prosecution even had access to MJ's financial records.

I've even seen haters still grasp on to LaToya's claim of a cheque being written out to one boy's family who's Father had a garbage disposal company... a.k.a Safechuck. Haters, with their usual terrific logic, fail to see how the Safechucks receiving a cheque totally contradicts James's entire story.

Another aspect is why on earth would Katherine and LaToya have seen any cheques? We're to believe that MJ was writing these cheques out and just leaving them lying around before they were sent to families?
 
^ From 'themichaeljacksonallegations':

Is LaToya’s claim supported by James Safechuck’s allegations?
You might have noticed in the above linked interview that LaToya said she saw these supposed checks in 1984. In an interview with Gerlando Rivera on February 21, 1994 she further specified the story and said that the checks she saw were written to a boy whose father was a “garbage collector”.

From this information Michael Jackson’s detractors (among them journalist Diane Dimond) concluded that the boy in question was James Safechuck, since it is his father who had a waste collection company. Jackson detractors then use the current Safechuck allegations as evidence of LaToya’s 1993 claims being true (or LaToya’s claims as support for Safechuck’s allegations).

In reality, nothing in this story adds up. James Safechuck’s current allegations do not confirm LaToya’s “hush money” suggestion at all, nor do LaToya’s 1993 claims confirm the Safechuck allegations. On the contrary! Even now, the Safechucks do not claim that at any time they received hush money from Jackson. James Safechuck’s allegation is that he never told his parents about his alleged abuse until he was an adult, so of course his parents could not have received “hush money” to be silenced in the 1980s.

Moreover, the Safechucks have not befriended Michael until 1987 and LaToya claimed in her interview above that she saw the checks in 1984.

The closest story that comes to this from the Safechuck allegations is the story of a loan the Safechucks got from Jackson to buy their house. They mentioned it in the documentary Leaving Neverland. However, that story does not align with LaToya’s. First of all, the Safechucks did not claim it to be hush money. This is what James’s mother, Stephanie Safechuck said in Leaving Neverland about the loan:

“We wanted to buy another house, and Michael gave us a loan at a very low percentage rate. My husband had already had a deposition. We were on Michael’s camp. My son also for Michael. And after that was all said and done is when Michael forgave the debt. Michael said, “No, I don’t want you to pay me anymore,” um, “It’s a gift.” So, he did buy us a house. It’s just coincidental, he wasn’t buying us off, but the timing’s right there. Just sounds bad. Yeah.” [2]

According to the loan documents recovered since, the loan was given to the Safechucks by Michael Jackson on May 11, 1992 and it was in the sum of $305,000 (not $1 million, like the sum in LaToya’s story). It is a proper loan, that the Safechucks should have returned. (The John Branca, named as the Trustee of the NL Trust named in the document was a lawyer representing Michael Jackson, and is currently one of the executors of his Estate.)

...it was given much later than the time LaToya could have seen such checks. LaToya left her family’s home in Encino/Hayvenhurst in May 1988. She was then completely estranged and isolated from her family by her abusive husband-manager, Jack Gordon. [3] [4] She could not have seen and discussed checks in the family home after May 1988. But James Safechuck’s alleged abuse did not even start until June 1988, according to his own story, so obviously no check before that could have been hush money for his alleged abuse.
Click to expand...

https://themichaeljacksonallegation...allegations-back-up-what-latoya-said-in-1993/
 
COMMON SENSE ALERT!!! Does anyone actually believe that Michael would just have a “million dollar” check just lying around where LaToya or even his mother could see it? I don’t even leave $50 checks lying around. Some things are just obviously a lie and a person doesn’t have to be a genius to know that LaToya’s bogus claim is pure bull@#$&.
 
COMMON SENSE ALERT!!! Does anyone actually believe that Michael would just have a “million dollar” check just lying around where LaToya or even his mother could see it? I don’t even leave $50 checks lying around. Some things are just obviously a lie and a person doesn’t have to be a genius to know that LaToya’s bogus claim is pure bull@#$&.
 
somewhereinthedark;4292829 said:
COMMON SENSE ALERT!!! Does anyone actually believe that Michael would just have a “million dollar” check just lying around where LaToya or even his mother could see it? I don’t even leave $50 checks lying around. Some things are just obviously a lie and a person doesn’t have to be a genius to know that LaToya’s bogus claim is pure bull@#$&.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And you can believe MJ was rarely around her because he was busy in the studio, on the road, etc. Also, as jealous as Latoya was towards MJ success, Latoya would have put that in her book "Growing Up Jackson" in 1989. She was telling lies in that book according to some; so you think if something like that was true, Latoya would not had it in that book? I think not. She & Jack was using MJ's name to help sell her "playbook" books and everything else for her.
 
Latoya always been jealous of mike. that why I don't trust her with somethings neither did mike. through i'm glad at the end she did stick up for her brother and got out of that bad relationship.
 
At which court hearing stage will the Estates lawyers demonstrate to the court about the train station fallacy? That it was non-existent during Safechucks claimed abuse period 1988-1992? That Safechuck has perjured himself and must be penalized if the claimed abuse continued well into 1994-95 when the train station existed? It still mind-boggles me that he and Robson choose to appeal and still go forward with their lawsuits if they have not made any amendments in their lawsuits. Because Safechuck still claimes to be abused between 1988-1992?
 
john13th said:
At which court hearing stage will the Estates lawyers demonstrate to the court about the train station fallacy? That it was non-existent during Safechucks claimed abuse period 1988-1992? That Safechuck has perjured himself and must be penalized if the claimed abuse continued well into 1994-95 when the train station existed? It still mind-boggles me that he and Robson choose to appeal and still go forward with their lawsuits if they have not made any amendments in their lawsuits. Because Safechuck still claimes to be abused between 1988-1992?
Click to expand...

As in the earlier hearings (this case is only going on because of the extended statute of limitations) the new judge will decide if the case meets the criteria to go to trial. The criteria are based on the offences claimed, and the fact that the MJJ Companies (and unnamed 'does' - MJJ employees at the time) are being sued. (Each case is a separate complaint, so their law firm wants to combine them to try to 'cloud the issue' on evidence like this.)

The Estate has already shown that the MJJ Companies were not 'in control of' Michael ie he was the overall 'controller', so suing the MJJ companies looks pointless anyway. I think they are still trying to claim 'negligence by employees'....

If there are reasons for the judge to decide that either case should not continue (there are lots of legal considerations here) then the case can be thrown out again before it goes to trial. The result of that is that the full evidence will not be heard in court and 'guilters' will be able to say 'the case was only thrown out because....'

There is a looooong way to go yet, because the Estate and complainants are both doing new 'discovery' about each other first- eg the complainants are pursuing the 'tour' aspects and no doubt wanting to interview those employees. So maybe another 12-18 months before any decisions are made about trial or no trial.

(I'm sure the MJ Estate lawyers will pursue 'the railway station issue' when they question Safechuck in his deposition).

Edited to add Safechucks 'negligence' claims, as an example:
Complaint for damages for:
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Negligence
Negligent Supervision
Negligent Retention/ Hiring
Negligent Failure to Warn, Train or Educate
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

and a screen cap. of the legal claims about the MJJ Companies and employees as a single 'CSA procurement and facilitation organisation'.:

zVsaLid.jpg
 
Last edited:
myosotis said:
As in the earlier hearings (this case is only going on because of the extended statute of limitations) the new judge will decide if the case meets the criteria to go to trial. The criteria are based on the offences claimed, and the fact that the MJJ Companies (and unnamed 'does' - MJJ employees at the time) are being sued. (Each case is a separate complaint, so their law firm wants to combine them to try to 'cloud the issue' on evidence like this.)

The Estate has already shown that the MJJ Companies were not 'in control of' Michael ie he was the overall 'controller', so suing the MJJ companies looks pointless anyway. I think they are still trying to claim 'negligence by employees'....

If there are reasons for the judge to decide that either case should not continue (there are lots of legal considerations here) then the case can be thrown out again before it goes to trial. The result of that is that the full evidence will not be heard in court and 'guilters' will be able to say 'the case was only thrown out because....'

There is a looooong way to go yet, because the Estate and complainants are both doing new 'discovery' about each other first- eg the complainants are pursuing the 'tour' aspects and no doubt wanting to interview those employees. So maybe another 12-18 months before any decisions are made about trial or no trial.

(I'm sure the MJ Estate lawyers will pursue 'the railway station issue' when they question Safechuck in his deposition).

Edited to add Safechucks 'negligence' claims, as an example:
Complaint for damages for:
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Negligence
Negligent Supervision
Negligent Retention/ Hiring
Negligent Failure to Warn, Train or Educate
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

and a screen cap. of the legal claims about the MJJ Companies and employees as a single 'CSA procurement and facilitation organisation'.:

zVsaLid.jpg
Click to expand...

I think Safechuck is waaay out on thin ice and he is taking extremely big risk on pursuing this lawsuit when it will come a point in time where he is going to be deposed by the Estate - just like they did with Wade and Joy on camera - and be asked about the train station. What makes he think that that it won't be mentioned by the lawyers? Isn't he afraid of being exposed of committing perjury and therefore be penalized for lying about the end date of abuse, if he is going to be maintaining of being abused in the train station which could not happen until 1994-95? The Estate could take the video deposition of him and make a new documentary just like with 'Lies of Leaving Neverland'. I would be very surprised if he even read through his whole lawsuit and the information about the penalty of committing perjury when he signed the lawsuit. It seems like he doesn't have a clue about it.
 
He case will get thrown out as he never worked for the companies. Will it even get to a depo stage? Yes id love to see him deposed and love to see it leaked.?
 
elusive moonwalker said:
He case will get thrown out as he never worked for the companies. Will it even get to a depo stage? Yes id love to see him deposed and love to see it leaked.?
Click to expand...

One thing I don't get is why R/S are saying that MJJ Companies are reasonable for what happened to them when they never worked for MJJ Companies. How can they sue someone they never worked for and claim they were responsible for it?
 
Robson had a contract. Cause they cant sue anyone else (well their mothers!). Cant sue mj/estate so sues the companies and claims they had a duty of care. Knew but did nothing. Its their only option. No point sueing individuals as they have no money
 
john13th said:
I think Safechuck is waaay out on thin ice and he is taking extremely big risk on pursuing this lawsuit when it will come a point in time where he is going to be deposed by the Estate - just like they did with Wade and Joy on camera - and be asked about the train station. What makes he think that that it won't be mentioned by the lawyers? Isn't he afraid of being exposed of committing perjury and therefore be penalized for lying about the end date of abuse, if he is going to be maintaining of being abused in the train station which could not happen until 1994-95? The Estate could take the video deposition of him and make a new documentary just like with 'Lies of Leaving Neverland'. I would be very surprised if he even read through his whole lawsuit and the information about the penalty of committing perjury when he signed the lawsuit. It seems like he doesn't have a clue about it.
Click to expand...

More lawsuits means more time for his defence lawyers to make up new stories for the press. I doubt the Estate want to prolong things. It's been over 7 years since Wade's first claims as it is. The bigger 'perjury' is the whole gamut of his abuse claims, of which the train station is a minuscule part.
 
Update from fans on twitter:

Case Update:

Estate expects another 6 months of discovery in Wade's case and 10 months in Safechuck's case.

JS case still faces other non-time related demurrer issues.

Estate will submit new motion for summary judgment after discovery if JS case is still alive. Same w/ Wade's.
Click to expand...

This means:
... we likely won't hear anything definitive before Christmas for Robson and next May-ish for Safechuck, when the Estate asks for summary judgement (ie case dismissal).

Not sure what the 'non-time-related demurrer issues' are for Safechuck....but likely to be related to his non-employment by MJJ Companies.
 
Last edited:
I know right it feels like in a hundred years this will be over
 
Safechuck is using a made up 'mentor program' under MJJ Companies that was used as under-age sex procurement. Of course he can't name employees or show any evidence of an existance of a mentor program under MJJ Companies because it never existed.
 
Bieber is also now facing some rediculous abuse allegations. People will lie about anything especially when $ is involved.
 
But the press are giving Beiber a pass but not mj that's so unfair
 
Link to Joint Statement of Case Status (Robson and Safechuck) which will be in court tomorrow. (With thanks to fans on twitter).

We've seen this before. It mentions that Robson's Discovery into MJJ 'companies and current and former employees and agents, persons most knowledgeable and custodians of records' is likely to take 6-12 months, and Safechuck's Discovery to take 12-24 months, 'given that both were 'acting as an employee, the range of locations (of abuse) and the vast number of witnesses in the case(s).' :doh:

http://mjjr.net/docs/WadeJamesStatusReportJune2020.pdf
 
myosotis said:
Link to Joint Statement of Case Status (Robson and Safechuck) which will be in court tomorrow. (With thanks to fans on twitter).

We've seen this before. It mentions that Robson's Discovery into MJJ 'companies and current and former employees and agents, persons most knowledgeable and custodians of records' is likely to take 6-12 months, and Safechuck's Discovery to take 12-24 months, 'given that both were 'acting as an employee, the range of locations (of abuse) and the vast number of witnesses in the case(s).' :doh:

http://mjjr.net/docs/WadeJamesStatusReportJune2020.pdf
Click to expand...

So in legal speak what does this mean? I'm assuming it means that because of lack of evidence more time is needed for R/S to build up a case or it will get thrown out of court?
 
Each side is just collecting info/evidence at the min.finaldi is fishing so will try to take aslong as possible. nothing really to do with it been thrown out of court or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top