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

[Soundmind]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It could be a false memory.

false memory of seven years of abuse ? wanna bet he gave the most disgusting details in his claim ?

 

[shelly_webster]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

false memory of seven years of abuse ? wanna bet he gave the most disgusting details in his claim ?

Yes, it happened.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

false memory of seven years of abuse ? wanna bet he gave the most disgusting details in his claim ?

Of course he did. They always do to make people gasp at the horrific nature of it all. When you read it you will be able to see similarities between it and the claims of the others. He will try to show the same patterns so that people say that the other kids said that so it must be true. The only foolish one was the tickler with that story, and to this day I really do not know why that kid was paid. Oh well water under the bridge.

 

[xosweetseducingsighsxo]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I'm not even gonna start on how upset I am. This is absolutely ridiculous. Society is condemning the sweetest guy in this whole freaking universe!!! I tell ya, I worry about the world today.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes, it happened.

I don't believe it could happen . I don't believe anyone can plant false memories in anyone's head unless they are a nutjob . if he is a nutjob he should be locked up and examined , he should not be allowed to make wild accusations and destroy people's lives. Particularly in this case I don't buy this crap at all.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Of course he did. They always do to make people gasp at the horrific nature of it all. When you read it you will be able to see similarities between it and the claims of the others. He will try to show the same patterns so that people say that the other kids said that so it must be true. The only foolish one was the tickler with that story, and to this day I really do not know why that kid was paid. Oh well water under the bridge.

God has a very special hell for Johnny Cochran , I blame no one but his for this mess, he got paid, his friend Feildman got paid and MJ was the only loser. He is still paying till this very minute

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't buy the false memories idea either, especially now that I found out there was something going on with Wade with 2 jobs. This claim sounds more like a deliberate plot to shake down an estate for money. I guess he felt he should be paid for all the work he did for Michael in praising him over the years.

 

[xosweetseducingsighsxo]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

God has a very special hell for Johnny Cochran , I blame no one but his for this mess, he got paid, his friend Feildman got paid and MJ was the only loser. He is still paying till this very minute

*claps* Preach!!!! You just took everything out of my mouth.

 

[jamba]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This does not add up. First, Evan was asking for 20 million $$ in August 93 from MJ before he took Jordan to the shrink to make the accusations. MJ knew that the threat was pay or have the accusation filed. So if he was guilty he would have paid rather than be exposed, but he did not. He insisted he was innocent, and made a very strong speech from NL, and he wanted the criminal case, if there was going to be one, to go before the civil suit. This is not something a guilty person would do, obviously. With the Arvizos, Sneddon claimed MJ took advantage of Gavin sexually after the Bashir documentary, so that would mean he had opportunities before that when Gavin came to NL, but only acted after the world was in an uporoar thinking he was guilty. This makes no sense whatsoever.

Neither Jordan nor Gavin could give dates or # of times they were molested. It was vague. In Jordan's interview with Gardener, he says he doesn't know how many times--Gardener asks for an estimate, Jordan says 15 times--that's safe to say. You think you'd remember. He was 13 and he is talking about his first sexual encounters, according to him.

About how many occasions did he do that?"
"I don't know but I can tell you where."
"Where did it take place?"
"In my father's house, his Hideout, my mother's house, and Neverland."
"Okay, so these are four different places, so obviously it had to happen at least four times. Right?"
"Oh yeah, of course."
"But I want you to give me a guess - - "
"Okay. More than fifteen, that's safe.

Gavin said to the grand jury 4 or 5 times. But in court he testified to 2 times. The charges were not credible, which is why MJ was found not guilty in 05.

Relating this to Wade, if people start to think MJ was guilty with Wade, it throws the other charges and the not guilty verdict into question. But to look at the Jordan/Gavin charges--they just don't add up, don't make sense.

btw, DD has posted her 2 cents on this--no surprises there of course.

 

[jamba]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Here's some more things that don't make sense to me. Jordan still wanted to go on the Dangerous Tour with MJ even though he claimed he had been molested. From the Gardener interview:

You still wanted to go on the tour?"
"Yes, at the time."
"Why is that?"
"Because I was having fun.

Gavin also did not want to leave NL, and he said so at the trial, b/c he was having too much fun.

Wade also obviously did not end the relationship even though he could have. No one was being forced yet thay wanted to be with MJ even though supposedly they were being molested. Does this make sense? Did Sandusky's victims want to stay with him b/c they were having too much fun?

 

[la_cienega]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

About how many occasions did he do that?"
"I don't know but I can tell you where."
"Where did it take place?"
"In my father's house, his Hideout, my mother's house, and Neverland."
"Okay, so these are four different places, so obviously it had to happen at least four times. Right?"
"Oh yeah, of course."
"But I want you to give me a guess - - "
"Okay. More than fifteen, that's safe.

Gavin said to the grand jury 4 or 5 times. But in court he testified to 2 times. The charges were not credible, which is why MJ was found not guilty in 05.

Right. And what's weird about Jordan is he claimed MJ started molesting him in May 1993 and then by June 1993 Evan was threatening him and MJ didn't spend much time with Jordan. So it's just a couple of weeks where any abuse could take place.

Gavin initially said it had been 7 times, then 5, then 2 that he was sure about.

From the timeline of the events there were only 7 non consecutive days where MJ and Gavin were in Neverland at the same time after their changed timeline.

Relating this to Wade, if people start to think MJ was guilty with Wade, it throws the other charges and the not guilty verdict into question. But to look at the Jordan/Gavin charges--they just don't add up, don't make sense.

Right.

Wade also obviously did not end the relationship even though he could have. No one was being forced yet thay wanted to be with MJ even though supposedly they were being molested. Does this make sense? Did Sandusky's victims want to stay with him b/c they were having too much fun?

They try to claim that they were too in love with MJ.

If that were the case their PTSD about it would have shown up much sooner - I think everyone remembers being young and in love and when that person wasn't available or wasn't interested or had moved on how devastating that was. Now think of it as a victim to something like this, it would be very traumatic for them at the time, and very noticeable.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

In the first interview he defended him in 1993, Wade doesn't look traumatized, scared or uncomfortable at all. He was 11 at the time and supposedly the abuse had already occur. Then he continued having the same pattern in later interviews being calm, comfortable, not looking traumatized at all.

 

[jamba]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Right. And what's weird about Jordan is he claimed MJ started molesting him in May 1993 and then by June 1993 Evan was threatening him and MJ didn't spend much time with Jordan. So it's just a couple of weeks where any abuse could take place. @la_cienega

Yes, he said it started while they were in Monaco for the WMA in May, so you're right--it was a short window.

Re their being 'in love'--Jordan was claiming brainwashing, that MJ said it was ok between friends, etc. But the whole thing does not add up--how can boys age 13 be brainwashed into thinking sex with an adult male is ok? Jordan only went to NL for the first time in Feb 93--so he was brainwashed pretty fast--record time!

The whole thing does not add up from start to finish--name one other example where the supposed victims of molestation remember no dates, no details, and want to stay with the abuser b/c they are having too much fun? (But still want a lot of $$$$).

Maybe we need to look at Joy more closely b/c the other parents--Evan and Janet--were total nut cases.

 

[jamba]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

On December 22, 1993, Jackson gave the following videotaped statement from his Neverland Ranch


There have been many disgusting statements made recently concerning allegations of improper conduct on my part. These statements about me are totally false. As I have maintained from the very beginning, I am hoping for a speedy end to this horrifying experience to which I have been subjected. I shall not in this statement respond to all the false allegations being made against me since my lawyers have advised me that this is not the proper forum in which to do that. I will say I am particularly upset by the handling of this matter by the incredible, terrible mass media. At every opportunity, the media has dissected and manipulated these allegations to reach their own conclusion. I ask all of you to wait to hear the truth before you label or condemn me. Don't treat me like a criminal because I am innocent.

I have been forced to submit to a dehumanizing and humiliating examination by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's department and the Los Angeles Police Department earlier this week. They served a search warrant on me which allowed them to view and photograph my body, including my penis, my buttocks, my lower torso, thighs and any other areas that they wanted. They were supposedly looking for any discoloration, spotting or other evidence of a skin color disorder called vitiligo which I have previously spoken about. The warrant also directed me to cooperate in any examination of my body by their physician to determine the condition of my skin, including whether I have vitiligo or any other skin disorder. The warrant further stated that I had no right to refuse the examination or photographs and if I failed to cooperate with them they would introduce that refusal at any trial as an indication of my guilt. It was the most humiliating ordeal of my life, one that no person should ever have to suffer. And even after experiencing the indignity of this search, the parties involved were still not satisfied and wanted to take even more pictures. It was a nightmare, a horrifying nightmare. But if this is what I have to endure to prove my innocence, my complete innocence, so be it.

Throughout my life, I have only tried to help thousands upon thousands of children to live happy lives. It brings tears to my eyes when I see any child who suffers. I am not guilty of these allegations. But if I am guilty of anything it is of giving all that I have to give to help children all over the world. It is of loving children of all ages and races, it is of gaining sheer joy from seeing children with their innocent and smiling faces. It is of enjoying through them the childhood that I missed myself. If I am guilty of anything, it is of believing what God said about children, 'Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of heaven.' In no way do I think that I am God, but I do try to be Godlike in my heart.

I am totally innocent of any wrongdoing and I know these terrible allegations will all be proven false. Again, to my friends and fans, thank you very much for all of your support. Together we will see this through to the very end. I love you very much and may God bless you all. I love you. Goodbye."

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It could be a false memory.

Or it could be deliberate lying. Why did Barry Rothman and Larry Feldman go with the Chandlers? There are lawyers who are willing to do that (or it's even the lawyer who encourages it!), knowing that their client is lying.

 

[marc_vivien]

http://www.lacba.org/Files/LAL/Vol26No5/1423.pdf


The plaintiff must also keep in mind that the statute of limitations changes when the defendant is a decedent. Code of Civil Procedure Section 366.2 sets forth a time limit of one year from the date of death for filing any type of claim, “whether arising in contract, tort or otherwise, whether accrued or not accrued” against a decedent, regardless of what the applicable statute would have been had the decedent survived. The creditor’s claim procedure tolls this one-year time bar, but most equitable principles do not.


Thus, all creditor’s claims should be filed within one year of death to toll the statute. This is a harsh truth that bears repeating: A plaintiff who does not file a claim in probate court within one year of a decedent’s death stands to lose the ability to recover forever against the decedent’s estate.

The case of Bradley v. Breen25 is illustrative. In Bradley, the former wife of a convicted child molester was sued by the victim for
“aiding and abetting” the molestation. The convicted child molester had died in prison prior to the suit, so the ex-wife filed a crosscomplaint for indemnity against the decedent’s estate. One would think that, at the very least, justice would require the estate of the perpetrator to contribute to the victim’s recovery. But the ex-wife did not file a claim in the decedent’s probate estate within one year of death, and thus recovery was barred, despite the fact that she was not sued for many years after his death and did not even have a claim to assert within the one-year period.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Of course he did. They always do to make people gasp at the horrific nature of it all. When you read it you will be able to see similarities between it and the claims of the others. He will try to show the same patterns so that people say that the other kids said that so it must be true. The only foolish one was the tickler with that story, and to this day I really do not know why that kid was paid. Oh well water under the bridge.

I'm sure they are studying the other allegations. It already was said he didn't tell because Michael told him they'd both go to jail. Mez pointed out in that podcast: "Haven't we heard that before? With the juvenile hall?" He was referring to Jordan. In the Gardner interview he said Michael threatened him that he (MJ) would go to jail and Jordan would go to a juvenile hall if this came out. The Robsons will try to make it look like Michael's modus operandi.

The funny thing is though that when Jordan was asked if he believed that threat he said no:

"Well, I didn't really believe it at the time, and I definitely don't now. But at the time I didn't really believe it but I said, okay, whatever, and just went along with it."

So he didn't believe it, just went along with it, whatever? Because it was fun, or what? :smilerolleyes:

So 13-year-old Jordan didn't believe such a crap, but Wade believed it all through these years?

I'm also sure they are studying all those claims by those low-life ex-employees Blanca Francia, Adrian McManus and now all of their stories will suddinly become true. Probably they study Victor Gutierrez's and Ray Chandler's books as well.

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

http://www.lacba.org/Files/LAL/Vol26No5/1423.pdf


The plaintiff must also keep in mind that the statute of limitations changes when the defendant is a decedent. Code of Civil Procedure Section 366.2 sets forth a time limit of one year from the date of death for filing any type of claim, “whether arising in contract, tort or otherwise, whether accrued or not accrued” against a decedent, regardless of what the applicable statute would have been had the decedent survived. The creditor’s claim procedure tolls this one-year time bar, but most equitable principles do not.

What does that mean for the Estate?

 

[marialovesmjj]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It's been said but we need to be careful about what we say because we don't know who's looking at the board. We don't want to give any ideas. We picked the 05 case apart and we know some of the SBPD were watching.

 

[marc_vivien]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

What does that mean for the Estate?

I think that it means Robson can not sue now. Because MJ is dead, rules changed. The CPP 366.2 states that any plaintiff
must file a claim against the decedent within 1 year of the death's date

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't believe it could happen . I don't believe anyone can plant false memories in anyone's head unless they are a nutjob . if he is a nutjob he should be locked up and examined , he should not be allowed to make wild accusations and destroy people's lives. Particularly in this case I don't buy this crap at all.

Planting false memories in someone's mind is more than possible. In fact it's not even that difficult and you don't have to be a nutjob for that.

Here there is a psychological experiment described where they made people believe a certain event happened in their childhood which did not. One week was enough to make 50% of those who participated in the experiment believe that! With more time probably the percentage would have been even higher.

This woman was led to "recover memories" of her father sexually abusing her when she was a child, which wasn't true.

This is also a great video about how it works and how suspectible memory is of manipulation

Now, I don't know if this is what happened with Wade or he's deliberately lying, but implanting false memories is more than possible.

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

Re: [Confirmed ] New child molestation claim by Wade Robson/ Estate Pg16 -#230 /Wades Atty Pg 28 -#

Post Removed

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think that it means Robson can not sue now. Because MJ is dead, rules changed. The CPP 366.2 states that any plaintiff
must file a claim against the decedent within 1 year of the death's date

Yes, but repressed memory is used exacty to get around that. Creditor's claims cannot be filed now, except if they are based on recent discovery. If Wade says he only recovered his memories recently that could be deemed "recent discovery". There's more than one reason why claiming "repressed memory" is too convenient for him.

 

[HIStory]

Here's some more things that don't make sense to me. Jordan still wanted to go on the Dangerous Tour with MJ even though he claimed he had been molested. From the Gardener interview:

You still wanted to go on the tour?"
"Yes, at the time."
"Why is that?"
"Because I was having fun.

Gavin also did not want to leave NL, and he said so at the trial, b/c he was having too much fun.

Wade also obviously did not end the relationship even though he could have. No one was being forced yet thay wanted to be with MJ even though supposedly they were being molested. Does this make sense? Did Sandusky's victims want to stay with him b/c they were having too much fun?

When haters tried to compare MJ to Sandusky they often brought up that boy who said he said he felt let down by Sandusky when he was sent back to the orphanage and he wanted to go back to Sandusky. But that was a whole different situation. That boy was an orphan. He said Sandusky was the only person in his life who ever cared about him - even if in a twisted way. That was a very vulnerable child. None of Michael's accusers were like that. They all had families to support them, they all had their own homes. The alternative to the alleged molestation wasn't an orphanage. And Sandusky's victims certainly did not have "fun" with their molester. Most of them tried to avoid him after it happened. They were angry with him.

Jordan in his psych interview actually says he was not affected by the molestation! He talks about it as if it's nothing!

"You still wanted to go on the tour?"

"Yes, at the time."

"Why is that?"

"Because I was having fun. At the time, the things Michael was doing to me, they didn't affect me. Like, I didn't think anything was totally wrong with what he was doing since he was my friend, and he kept on telling me that he would never hurt me. But presently I see that he was obviously lying."

"You're saying you didn't realize it could hurt you? Is that what you're - - "

"I didn't see anything wrong with it."

"Do you see the wrong in it now?"

"Of course."

"What is wrong as you see it?"

"Because he's a grown-up and he's using his experience, of his age in manipulating and coercing younger people who don't have as much experience as him, and don't have the ability to say no to someone powerful like that. He's using his power, his experience, his age – his overwhelmingness - to get what he wants."

He's totally unable to relate to it emotionally. When he's asked why it is wrong, he just talks about what "everybody thinks", not what he feels, not how it affected him personally! And he says it's wrong because MJ eventually would have dumped him. WTF?

"When you say it could have hurt you, how could it have hurt you?"

"Everybody thinks what he was doing could hurt, otherwise it wouldn't be a crime."

"Okay, how could it hurt? As you see it, how could it hurt you?"

"Because - that's a touchy subject, I guess. It separates you from any other people."

"How?"

"I don't know."

"Just your own guess."

"It could make me depressed or something, I don't know."

"Well, this is important. You say it's a crime. Why is it a crime?"

"Because, like I said before, he's using his experience, power, age - - "

"How could this have left you? If this had gone on and not been interrupted, how could you have ended up?"

"According to his pattern, I believe he would have left me and, sort of dumped me, I guess you could call it. And I would be, sort of, a vegetable."

I think this last paragraph is very telling. All these people were very possessive of Michael. They wanted to own him. When he didn't let them they became vindictive. Remember how the only time Gavin got upset on the stand was when he talked about how MJ avoided them? (Isn't it usually the other way around? Molested kids trying to avoid their molesters, not chasing them...) And here Jordan talks about the wrong thing in it being that MJ would have eventually dumped him. (I guess that Michael had such a "pattern" was told to them by Victor Gutierrez. Not true. Many of these kids remained his friends into adulthood.) And maybe this Wade case is another story of feeling entitled to everything that is Michael, if the rumours about the Cirque show are true.

Blanca Francia too was possessive of Michael. Another former maid, Francin Orosco said: "You could tell a lot that she had a little crush on him, very jealous of the other housekeepers. She didn't want no one close to Michael. There's a lot of jealousy there." And then she was fired and then, when the Chandler case came on she took her revenge.

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think this last paragraph is very telling. All these people were very possessive of Michael. They wanted to own him. Remember how the only time Gavin got upset on the stand was when he talked about how MJ avoided them? (Isn't it usually the other way around? Molested kids trying to avoid their molesters, not chasing them...)

I agree. That is the part that I will never understand. They only got mad when Michael didn't want to be around them anymore. How does that make sense when they were making such serious accusations about him? I know that some of Michael's usual haters love to make excuses for them. But still, that does not sound right to me.

 

[la_cienega]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think this last paragraph is very telling. All these people were very possessive of Michael. They wanted to own him. When he didn't let them they became vindictive. Remember how the only time Gavin got upset on the stand was when he talked about how MJ avoided them? (Isn't it usually the other way around? Molested kids trying to avoid their molesters, not chasing them...) And here Jordan talks about the wrong thing in it being that MJ would have eventually dumped him. (I guess that Michael had such a "pattern" was told to them by Victor Gutierrez. Not true. Many of these kids remained his friends into adulthood.) And maybe this Wade case is another story of feeling entitled to everything that is Michael, if the rumours about the Cirque show are true.

Joy Robson told June Chandler that kids would often get jealous when MJ spent more time with other kids instead of them, like they'd been replaced. June claimed this conversation "disturbed" her.

It made me wonder if Wade had felt that kind of jealousy and possession over MJ and in his mind this messed him up a bit. Like Corey Feldman who says he's been abused but actually says MJ was the person who was the worst one in his life because he "dumped" him as a friend after he was a teenager (not true) and it broke his heart - THAT'S how possessive kids could be over him. Without abusing him just not being 100% there for them and they got really mad about it with him to the point Corey thinks MJ damaged him more than his real sexual abuser!

I've wondered if Wade volunteered that kind of issue to the psychiatrist and then the psychiatrist decided it was because MJ had sexually abused him.

 

[marc_vivien]

Yes, but repressed memory is used exacty to get around that. Creditor's claims cannot be filed now, except if they are based on recent discovery. If Wade says he only recovered his memories recently that could be deemed "recent discovery". There's more than one reason why claiming "repressed memory" is too convenient for him.

I just don't agree with you.

366.2. (a) If a person against whom an action may be brought on aliability of the person, whether arising in contract, tort, orotherwise, and whether accrued or not accrued, dies before theexpiration of the applicable limitations period, and the cause ofaction survives, an action may be commenced within one year after thedate of death, and the limitations period that would have beenapplicable does not apply.

When a person dies, the rules change. It's the purpose of CCP 366.1, 366.2 & 366.3 and PC 9100 and 9103. The maximum to file a claim is one year.

http://www.fearnotlaw.com/wsnkb/print.php?id=18152

As a result of the 1990 amendments to the Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. decision a creditor, without actual knowledge of the four-month short term period (Â 9100), may be entitled to file a late claim (Â 9103) or seek remedies against distributees (Â 9352) and the personal representative. (Â 9053, 11429.) Creditors who have been given notice have four months to file a claim. (Â 9100.) However, the one-year period of Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2 is not tolled nor extended for untimely claims. (Levine v. Levine, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 1261; Dobler v. Arluk Medical Center Industrial Group, Inc., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at pp. 535-536) Furthermore, the late claims provisions do not apply when the one-year statutory time limit in Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2 has expired. (Â 9103, subd. (f); Interinsurance Exchange v. Narula, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1146.) Therefore, as the Court of Appeal has held, claim is not filed in a probate proceeding within either the claims filing period of section 9100 or within the one-year limitation period of Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2, a creditor will be forever barred from asserting a claim against the decedent. (Dobler v. Arluk Medical Center Industrial Group, Inc., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at pp. 535-536, fn. omitted; see also Bradley v. Breen, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at pp. 804, 806.) The one-year statutory limit in Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2 applies even if assets have been distributed and without or without notice to creditors. (Â 9100; Embree v. Embree (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 487, 494-495; Levine v. Levine, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1263-1265.) The California probate claims procedure which provides concrete protections for claimants when there is a failure to provide notice bears no material relationship to the Oklahoma process invalidated by the United States Supreme Court.

......


Under the tolling standards set forth above, it is clear that defendants failure to give notice pursuant to did not toll or extend the statutory period in Code of Civil Procedure 366.2 for bringing an action against the estate. No tolling or extensions occurred because the record clearly shows that none of the claims filed with defendant were timely filed under section 9100. In addition, there is no allegation that plaintiffs sought leave to file late claims pursuant to section 9103. If the one-year period had not expired, the issue of defendants conduct in failing to give notice could have been addressed: by a timely late claim petition (Â 9103); suing defendant as the personal representative (Â 9053, 9392; Venturi v. Taylor (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 16, 25); or suing the distributees of the estate. (Â 9352; see Embree v. Embree, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at pp. 494-496.) Thus, contrary to plaintiffs assertion to the contrary, the one year statutory time limit bars their claims when the complaint showed: the claims were untimely; no late claim petition was filed; and the action was commenced well over a year after the decedents death.

Read the case here http://law.justia.com/cases/california/caapp4th/73/798.html

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ I guess we will have to wait to see how WR's attorney argues for this late creditor's claim.

I don't see much chance for them to get far with it, but there must be a reason why they try. According to Mez Wade's lawyer is an experienced, accomplished one. But then maybe they know they don't have much chance with it and they just want to blackmail the Estate into a settlement, threatening with bad publicity and all.

 

[marc_vivien]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ I guess we will have to wait to see how WR's attorney argues for this late creditor's claim.

I don't see much chance for them to get far with it, but there must be a reason why they try. According to Mez Wade's lawyer is an experienced, accomplished one. But then maybe they know they don't have much chance with it and they just want to blackmail the Estate into a settlement, threatening with bad publicity and all.

Yes, It's an experienced lawyer. But he is not a probate lawyer or a sex abuse lawyer. He is specialized in ligitation/intellectual rights

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes, It's an experienced lawyer. But he is not a probate lawyer or a sex abuse lawyer. He is specialized in ligitation/intellectual rights

Well, I guess he still knows more about California law than we do (or at least than I do), so let's wait and see what their argument is.