passy001;4183910 said:
Comments on the bold part, Robson never solved the control issue. The only reason the judge allowed his case to survive the demurrer is because he was an employee of MJ companies.
He solved it to survive demurrer which is Safechuck's current objective. So most likely he will do what Robson did
and allege that Norma had some control over MJ and fired someone without his approval.
Safechuck shoot himself in the foot with these knew causes of actions because they actually
changed what he had to allege regarding control.
He could go back to general negligence but even with that he still has the duty of care issue and he cannot solve that without changing his story once again and telling a bold faced lie that he was actually hired by the companies between 1988 and 1992.
passy001;4183910 said:
then robson still have to face the issue of whether MJ companies knew and could have known that robson was allegedly abused. robson will be quick to point out the 93 allegations settlement,
He is using the depositions and police interviews of the usual suspects not just the settlement to establish that Norma knew kids were abused. I think that's a credibility issue, Murdoch vs. Norma, Quindoy vs. Norma etc.. Judge cannot decide that only a jury could.
There is still the issue of what reasonable steps the companies could have taken to protect Robson
when despite the 93 allegations his mother saw no reason to "protect" him from MJ.
Robson's Safechuck's argument in light after their post 93 actions is beyond absurd, but
the judge has not said anything about this so far.
Regarding Norma and "reason to know" I recently noticed something in Philip Lemarque's testimony I overlooked before.
He said in court that he didn't tell anyone about the Culkin incident because "who would believe me".
But then he said this:
16 Q. You never went to Miss Staikos and said, “I saw something improper going on,” right?
18 A. We didn’t have to do that. She knew about it.
20 Q. So she was with you watching it?
21 A. No.
So noone would believe me but I knew that Norma knew MJ abused kids that's why I didn't tell her.
Clearly, Lemarque accidentally revealed that he was aware of this notion that Norma was covering up for MJ.
Where did he get it from? The Lemarques were among Gutierrez's "sources" and are "quoted" in his book.
"When I was working for Michael I saw him with Jimmy Safechuck, " said Estella Lemaruqe.
The ranch manager, Norma Staikos, told me firmly: Estella, each time the Safechucks came
you had to treat them so well that you almost kissed their asses. They are the only ones
the only ones that could change [that is hurt] Michael".
page 146
of course Norma said no such thing and not even Lemarque said such a thing
if she had Robson and Safechuck would be using it now quoting Lemarque's police interview. It's pure Gutierrez fiction.
Just like the Quindoys and Murdoch the Lemarques had issues with Norma over overtime pay and references.
Gutierrez systematically contacted disgruntled employees and supplied them with ammunition they could use
against MJ and Staikos. It wasn't cleared up during the trial exactly when was the first time the Lemarques tried
to sell the Culkin story but it sounded like it was even before 93.
