Page 1112 of 1112 FirstFirst ... 112612101210621102111011111112
Results 16,666 to 16,680 of 16680

Thread: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

   
  1. #16666
    Points: 58,768, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    respect77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    14,847
    Points
    58,768
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    19,408
    Thanked 34,097 Times in 8,753 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    Quote Originally Posted by passy001 View Post
    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, but that is not enough because those were just allegations which MJ always denied. also those allegations happened after his alleged abuse. on top of that MJ was acquitted of all charges in 2005.
    Also what did the companies fail to do in 1993 that they were supposed to? The requirement here is to inform the parents when they have knowledge/reason to know that one of their employees had such allegations against him. This passage is used against churches and schools in other cases when they hide the fact from parents that one of their employees has had such allegations against him. In this case, however, Joy Robson knew full well, the whole world did. There was nothing that was hid from her regarding the Chandler allegations - everything played out in the media and she and her son were active participants in defending MJ. And while knowing about the Chandler allegations full well Joy Robson continued to let her son sleep in MJ's room and both her and her son were adamant that nothing ever happened. So once again, what were the companies supposed to do there? And if his allegations are true then why doesn't Robson sue his mother for gross negligence instead of the companies?

  2. #16667
    Points: 2,507, Level: 30
    Level completed: 38%, Points required for next Level: 93
    Overall activity: 48.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    580
    Points
    2,507
    Level
    30
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 447 Times in 199 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    Quote Originally Posted by passy001 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by passy001 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by redfrog; 16-02-2017 at 05:41 AM.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to redfrog For This Useful Post:


  4. #16668
    Points: 19,137, Level: 87
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 213
    Overall activity: 99.5%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First Class10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    myosotis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,781
    Points
    19,137
    Level
    87
    Thanks
    3,503
    Thanked 3,147 Times in 1,080 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    Quote Originally Posted by redfrog View Post
    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.
    .
    I think he has to prove more than 'Norma had control over MJ'...The judge's comments suggest that he has to show that Norma (or whoever Safechuck claims was responsible) had control over the company/ies.

    http://
    'We may not change the world in one day but we still can change some things today, in our small way.'[/SIZE][/SIZE]

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to myosotis For This Useful Post:


  6. #16669
    Points: 10,043, Level: 66
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 7
    Overall activity: 23.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsCreated Album picturesVeteran10000 Experience Points
    #MJforever57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Louisville, ky.
    Posts
    2,871
    Points
    10,043
    Level
    66
    Thanks
    3,424
    Thanked 1,679 Times in 959 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    Let hope that doesn't happening because no big news stations has pick this mess up. I wish Matthew L did not have Wade on his show to tell this lie in the first place.



    You find that life is worth living if you just smile

  7. #16670
    Points: 58,768, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    respect77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    14,847
    Points
    58,768
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    19,408
    Thanked 34,097 Times in 8,753 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    Quote Originally Posted by myosotis View Post
    I think he has to prove more than 'Norma had control over MJ'...The judge's comments suggest that he has to show that Norma (or whoever Safechuck claims was responsible) had control over the company/ies.

    http://
    Good point. The Jugde let Robson survive demurrer to hear more about what Staikos' powers were, but here he says basically that even if we accept the claim that she could fire certain employees without MJ's consent (which is BS IMO, but for argument's sake) but that's not enough to support the kind of control that is needed here - ie. that she "had control over MJJ Productions such that she could have required MJJ Productions to take action on Plaintiff's behalf". She also did not have control to hire, fire or move MJ which is the kind of control you would need in a situation like this. MJ had the power to hire, fire or move Staikos, not the other way around.

    And yes, the Staikos obsession reeks of Gutierrez. All of these people have been in contact with Gutierrez and all of these people had an axe-to-grind against Staikos just as much as MJ because she was the one directly dealing with staff issues - including the firing of these people or arguments about their salaries etc.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to respect77 For This Useful Post:


  9. #16671
    Points: 2,507, Level: 30
    Level completed: 38%, Points required for next Level: 93
    Overall activity: 48.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    580
    Points
    2,507
    Level
    30
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 447 Times in 199 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    Quote Originally Posted by myosotis View Post
    I think he has to prove more than 'Norma had control over MJ'...The judge's comments suggest that he has to show that Norma (or whoever Safechuck claims was responsible) had control over the company/ies.
    Yes but isn't that because Safechuck alleged negligent hiring, negligent supervision/retention while Robson only
    claimed general negligence? The question is why for Robson it was enough to allege that Norma had some control
    while for Safechuck it would not be enough. Isn't it because Robson, before he hired Finaldi, didn't claim that
    MJ was hired, supervised, retained by the companies? Can't Safechuck drop those specific negligence claims
    and do what Robson did, just allege that the companies knew about abuse
    but did nothing to stop it even though Norma had some control , which is general negligence?

    Not that it would solve his other problems with duty.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to redfrog For This Useful Post:


  11. #16672
    Points: 19,137, Level: 87
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 213
    Overall activity: 99.5%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First Class10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    myosotis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,781
    Points
    19,137
    Level
    87
    Thanks
    3,503
    Thanked 3,147 Times in 1,080 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    Quote Originally Posted by redfrog View Post
    Yes but isn't that because Safechuck alleged negligent hiring, negligent supervision/retention while Robson only
    claimed general negligence? The question is why for Robson it was enough to allege that Norma had some control
    while for Safechuck it would not be enough. Isn't it because Robson, before he hired Finaldi, didn't claim that
    MJ was hired, supervised, retained by the companies? Can't Safechuck drop those specific negligence claims
    and do what Robson did, just allege that the companies knew about abuse
    but did nothing to stop it even though Norma had some control , which is general negligence?

    Not that it would solve his other problems with duty.
    True, and true.

    The phrases 'Between a rock and a hard place' and 'up a creek without a paddle' come to mind. That's what you get for lying......
    'We may not change the world in one day but we still can change some things today, in our small way.'[/SIZE][/SIZE]

  12. #16673
    Points: 2,507, Level: 30
    Level completed: 38%, Points required for next Level: 93
    Overall activity: 48.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    580
    Points
    2,507
    Level
    30
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 447 Times in 199 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    Quote Originally Posted by myosotis View Post
    True, and true.

    The phrases 'Between a rock and a hard place' and 'up a creek without a paddle' come to mind. That's what you get for lying......
    He should get a defamation suit for lying where his nasty connection to that pedo Gutierrez would be exposed.
    But I'm afraid it won't happen. The Estate doesn't care about MJ that much, or they don't trust a jury and afraid of the media coverage.
    I just wish they would go on the offensive , if they did and won that would help clear Mj's name.
    There is so much ammunition against Safechuck and Robson. And if Robson is not attacked I'm afraid
    he will continue to attack and make a career out of being a "'victim". He is evil and greedy and has no real job.
    He believed he hit the jackpot with this lawsuit, if he gets nothing out of it I doubt he will just quietly fade into the night.
    I wonder whether the Estate demanded any and all contact he had with the media regarding his allegations. To find
    out whether he already made tabloid money by selling "ideas" to Radar or other rags.
    Last edited by redfrog; 16-02-2017 at 03:38 PM.

  13. #16674
    Points: 58,768, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    respect77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    14,847
    Points
    58,768
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    19,408
    Thanked 34,097 Times in 8,753 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    Quote Originally Posted by redfrog View Post

    Trying to figure out the difference.

    The Judge says two things here as to what is the difference IMO.

    One is indeed the more specific negligence claims in Safechuck's recent complaint which weren't yet present in Robson's Third Amended Complaint (TAC) (still by Marzano and Gradstien). Although they are present in his Fourth Amended Complaint (already by Finaldi and Manly) - but in Robson's case that did not affect demurrer as it was made after that. If the Judge finds those allegations create a situation where "the concept of authority and ability to control is more acute" then it will also be a problem for Robson now on SJ.

    But the Judge says another thing here as well. That since Robson's TAC the Defendant's showed that as a matter of law no one at the companies could control MJ. Specifically the Judge refers to this in the Estate's demurrer:



    Apparently they haven't had this yet in the demurrer against Robson's TAC and that's another reason for the different ruling. But of course this is not good news for Robson either on Summary Judgement.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to respect77 For This Useful Post:


  15. #16675
    Points: 24,226, Level: 94
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 124
    Overall activity: 73.0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdrive

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona
    Posts
    10,332
    Points
    24,226
    Level
    94
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 2,892 Times in 1,284 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    yes he (Robson) should be counter sued, but I don't see the estate going through the hassle to do that...
    **He lives forever within us**

  16. #16676
    Points: 2,507, Level: 30
    Level completed: 38%, Points required for next Level: 93
    Overall activity: 48.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    580
    Points
    2,507
    Level
    30
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 447 Times in 199 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    Trying to figure out the difference.

    The Judge says two things here as to what is the difference IMO.

    One is indeed the more specific negligence claims in Safechuck's recent complaint which weren't yet present in Robson's Third Amended Complaint (TAC) (still by Marzano and Gradstien). Although they are present in his Fourth Amended Complaint (already by Finaldi and Manly) - but in Robson's case that did not affect demurrer as it was made after that. If the Judge finds those allegations create a situation where "the concept of authority and ability to control is more acute" then it will also be a problem for Robson now on SJ.
    So a complaint that in its current form wouldn't have survived demurrer is going through summary judgement.
    There should be a law prohibiting any amendment post-demurrer which renders the complaint legally insufficient.
    I hope that this maneuver at least will make the judge more likely to rule that Robson should pay the Estate's legal fees.
    BTW I ran into a hater who said Marzano didn't drop Robson/Safehuck Robson/Safehuck dropped Marzano to find a more competent lawyer. Hilarious. Copypaste Finaldi made things worse for them with these new negligence claims.


    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    But the Judge says another thing here as well. That since Robson's TAC the Defendant's showed that as a matter of law no one at the companies could control MJ. Specifically the Judge refers to this in the Estate's demurrer:



    Apparently they haven't had this yet in the demurrer against Robson's TAC and that's another reason for the different ruling. But of course this is not good news for Robson either on Summary Judgement.
    It's kinda confusing. The Estate stated in the TAC demurrer that MJ was the sole shareholder, too.


    Still there it wasn't enough, judge wanted evidence which is beyond the demurrer phase. So the Estate proved MJ was the sole shareholder during the Robson discovery. How can the judge use that evidence to rule on a demurrer? It's not that he took judicial notice of the fact that MJ was the sole shareholder. Or did he?

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to redfrog For This Useful Post:


  18. #16677
    Points: 58,768, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    respect77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    14,847
    Points
    58,768
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    19,408
    Thanked 34,097 Times in 8,753 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    Stating it is one thing, but apparently they only cited precedent law and legal support as to what it means for the control issue in the Safechuck demurrer. Also that statement was based on information and belief. I guess now they can make more definite statements about it due to the discovery in the Robson case. Maybe it's possible to point to that as the two cases are related.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to respect77 For This Useful Post:


  20. #16678
    Points: 2,507, Level: 30
    Level completed: 38%, Points required for next Level: 93
    Overall activity: 48.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    580
    Points
    2,507
    Level
    30
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 447 Times in 199 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    Quote Originally Posted by respect77 View Post
    Maybe it's possible to point to that as the two cases are related.
    Looks like it. The judge seems to accept that MJ was in full control as indisputable fact which makes it
    100% sure that Robson won't survive summary judgement.

  21. #16679
    Points: 58,768, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    respect77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    14,847
    Points
    58,768
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    19,408
    Thanked 34,097 Times in 8,753 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    This is what the Judge said in the Robson demurrer ruling.



    So it does seem like one of the reasons for the difference is that at the time those claims were made "on information and belief" and he needed more information about the structure and culture of the companies on Summary Judgement.

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to respect77 For This Useful Post:


  23. #16680
    Points: 19,137, Level: 87
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 213
    Overall activity: 99.5%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First Class10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    myosotis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,781
    Points
    19,137
    Level
    87
    Thanks
    3,503
    Thanked 3,147 Times in 1,080 Posts

    Default Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

    I know this quotation doesn't really belong here, but after what feels like many long years of trials (I'm thinking back to 04 and everything since), it just made me very sad:

    (From Joe, towards the end of a cruise)

    During my travels on the “Oasis of the Seas”, besides the elegant design and numerous amenities accorded me, what I will cherish the most are the numerous fans I got to spend time with. It is one thing to meet fans and another to intermingle with them, enjoy dinner at the marvelous restaurants on the ship managed by fans, spend time with the Captain only to realize he too had been influenced by Michael’s music. Michael’s music and persona traveled far and wide. How I wish he knew how much he was loved and cherished, the media certainly put a dent on his belief of being loved. Thank you all for keeping his legacy alive. God bless.

    http://www.jwjackson.com/day-7-hard-to-say-goodbye/
    'We may not change the world in one day but we still can change some things today, in our small way.'[/SIZE][/SIZE]

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to myosotis For This Useful Post:


Page 1112 of 1112 FirstFirst ... 112612101210621102111011111112

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •