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

[la_cienega]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I'd really like to think so, was there any outcry back then? For me it shows the complete lack of influence and power and sympathy mj had in media circles in those days. Runs completely counter to that ridic image of mj being this all powerful svengli type figure, evading justice with his $billions and contacts, able to keep an army of boys quiet. He really was at a low ebb at this time, not given any benefit of the doubt, yet wade didn't feel ready to come out with his allegations, i guess that spielberg prophesy hadn't kicked in.

They even had the baby dangling incident in there too if I remember, but I think they claimed MJ dropped the baby.

At the time testifying against MJ and claiming abuse was like claiming you'd been victimized by Jimmy Savile the way he is right now. MJ wasn't given any leeway at all. Everything about him could be said. He wasn't human at all. Wade had every pulling power in the world to not just do it, but obliterate MJ. MJ would've been done, zero, dust. Wade would've been a hero.

No, I don't think there was an outcry beyond fans being angry on forums. Now there would be an outcry, not just by fans I believe even, but if enough people were to post and circulate the actual facts deconstructing why such things are so poorly strung together then it would have an impact and the people who can make headways - some journalists prepared to go counterculture, and the people around MJ prepared to defend him could use them to make a more effective stand, because back in 2003-2005 it was not easy to find information to use to defend him.

Also, now with more known about MJ, this mythology built around him is much harder to preserve. The myth of "only boys" being friends/sleeping his room, the myth of how he was a potentially abusive father, the myth of him being gay (notice how that's not really accepted much anymore? no more Halperin exclusives, Thorson was not readily accepted, etc), etc All these things were accepted tropes and truths back then and though they still have a stronghold within the media people can speak positively about him now without having to apologize or explain it first. MJ's children are considered very credible too. I hope they are capable of effectively using the power they have when they need it.

 

[PoP]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Michael settled because he was advised to. Michael's business venture's were more important, the need to make money, than dealing with these allegation's.

Frank Dileo said that Michael regretted not dealing with the allegation's in 1993, because this hurt Michael's reputation, not dealing with the situation of Michael's innocence at the time. Settling for $15 million would cost Michael in the long run. Wade is just trying to repeat HIStory and the craziness needs to stop. Wade is nothing but a bully and trying his best to make the Estate of Michael Jackson his victim.

Exactly, Michael wanted to fight the allegations and settling isn't the best option as the advisors say, and he did fight in his 2005 trial and now he's gone that he can't defend himself. Only the fans and the Estate are gonna fight Wade off from keep on spewing lies again and again. Wade is NOT the victim, Michael is.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Listening the tapes of Corey speaking makes me realize why Jason Francia thought or still thinks he was molested and why is so easy to implant false memories of child abuse. That officer did a grossly and negligent questioning. Corey even told her he was molested by someone else and she just didn't give a f*ck, she kept insisting Michael did something inappropriate to Corey, ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING AND CORRUPT!

I remember a friend of mine told me about that SUV L&O show and I didn't wanna watch it. If that one was grossly biased and untrue, it made me start questioning the authenticity of the other episodes, I liked some of them and supposedly they were based on real cases.

 

[analogue]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

What's sick about the whole Corey situation is that the police actually had an opportunity to put a real child molester behind bars and protect children but they didn't want that. They just wanted to get Michael who was an innocent man

If these people stent more time focusing on the real child molesters instead of Michael then a lot more children will be safe in the world

 

[bluetopez]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Michael settled because he was advised to. Michael's business venture's were more important, the need to make money, than dealing with these allegation's.

Frank Dileo said that Michael regretted not dealing with the allegation's in 1993, because this hurt Michael's reputation, not dealing with the situation of Michael's innocence at the time. Settling for $15 million would cost Michael in the long run. Wade is just trying to repeat HIStory and the craziness needs to stop. Wade is nothing but a bully and trying his best to make the Estate of Michael Jackson his victim.

The settlement came only after they couldn't stop the Civil Case from going first before a criminal case. That's important to remember! I highly doubt a settlement would have ever happen if MJ 5th amendment rights were protected. I think it's a far more factual argument to use to explain to the general public why a settlement happened. Cause just sayin it was a business choice (even if it became true only after) makes it hard to show his innocence to some cause they think he bought his way out.

 

[jamba]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The settlement came only after they couldn't stop the Civil Case from going first before a criminal case. That's important to remember! I highly doubt a settlement would have ever happen if MJ 5th amendment rights were protected. I think it's a far more factual argument to use to explain to the general public why a settlement happened. Cause just sayin it was a business choice (even if it became true only after) makes it hard to show his innocence to some cause they think he bought his way out.

Good point. Also the judge ruled that there had to be an expedited trial due to the minor involved (who was 14 then but 13 when charges were filed and therefore had a right to an expedited trial in CA law, b/c as a minor if there was a longer trial he might forget the details). Expedited trial meant the defense had 3 months to prepare for the trial, with many witnesses. On top of that, Judge ruled that the criminal prosecutors (DA's of LA and SB) had a right to all info in discovery, meaning they could see everything that MJ would have put forth to defend himself in the civil case, and thus they would see how he would defend himself in a criminal trial, if there was one filed (it was in the investigation stages at that point). MJ's legal team made 4 requests to the judge and all were denied. He was in a double-jeopardy, denial of due process situation, denial of his constitutional protections. He was right to settle under those circumstances IMO. In fact, he really had no other option that would make any sense.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Good point. Also the judge ruled that there had to be an expedited trial due to the minor involved (who was 14 then but 13 when charges were filed and therefore had a right to an expedited trial in CA law, b/c as a minor if there was a longer trial he might forget the details). Expedited trial meant the defense had 3 months to prepare for the trial, with many witnesses. On top of that, Judge ruled that the criminal prosecutors (DA's of LA and SB) had a right to all info in discovery, meaning they could see everything that MJ would have put forth to defend himself in the civil case, and thus they would see how he would defend himself in a criminal trial, if there was one filed (it was in the investigation stages at that point). MJ's legal team made 4 requests to the judge and all were denied. He was in a double-jeopardy, denial of due process situation, denial of his constitutional protections. He was right to settle under those circumstances IMO. In fact, he really had no other option that would make any sense.

Yes, and this is what such programs should explain, if they were fair and not just after sensationalism. Such things are never properly explained to the public by the media.They just single-mindendly WANT MJ to be guilty instead of fair and balanced reporting.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

What's sick about the whole Corey situation is that the police actually had an opportunity to put a real child molester behind bars and protect children but they didn't want that. They just wanted to get Michael who was an innocent man

If these people stent more time focusing on the real child molesters instead of Michael then a lot more children will be safe in the world

Corey just published his book and it turns out one of the guys who molested him and/or Corey Haim was a guy called Marty Weiss who was convicted for child molestation in 2012. Authorities could have saved a lot of kids from being molested if they had paid attention to what Corey said in 1993 and were not just obsessively after MJ.

 

[Petrarose]

In court documents obtained by RadarOnline.com, Robson told how Jackson — who died at age 50 from an overdose of surgical anesthetic proposal — made his first sexual advances on the young child prodigy in the star’s bedroom in 1990, as the dancer’s older sister Chantal slept in the same room and often with his mother under the same roof.

^^Does this scenario sound familiar to anyone? Wade is so transparent.

 

[jamba]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It's interesting to speculate what was going on in the 1993 situation in August--when Evan made his threats and his demand for $$ or else. Pellicano started negotiations with Rothman re a $ amt. Evan wanted $20 million and Pellicano offered $350,000. The fact that these negotiations took place was a reason (or a justification) given for the DA in LA not pursuing the extortion charges that Bert Fields filed aginst Rothman and Evan in September. This complaint of extortion got Rothman dropped as Evan's lawyer and they ended up with Feldman, who IMO was worse and more cunning than Rothman (and stuck around for the Arvizos).

On the other hand, what choice did MJ have but to negotiate then? If he had immediately made an extortion charge, there would have been an investigation and a media swarming anyway. But he would have gotten the jump on Evan. Maybe they thought it would go away and MJ was in excruciating pain from that scalp surgery (what bad timing) and had to leave for the Dangerous tour all at the same time.

But if there was a time that he could have maybe changed the outcome, IMO it was in August before Jordan was sent to Dr. Abrams.

 

[bluetopez]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^It's still extortion to me. The fact that Evan wanted money period. Tom Sneedon just didn't care. MJ name would bring him fame and attention and that's all he really cared about!

 

[HIStory]

It's interesting to speculate what was going on in the 1993 situation in August--when Evan made his threats and his demand for $$ or else. Pellicano started negotiations with Rothman re a $ amt. Evan wanted $20 million and Pellicano offered $350,000. The fact that these negotiations took place was a reason (or a justification) given for the DA in LA not pursuing the extortion charges that Bert Fields filed aginst Rothman and Evan in September. This complaint of extortion got Rothman dropped as Evan's lawyer and they ended up with Feldman, who IMO was worse and more cunning than Rothman (and stuck around for the Arvizos).

On the other hand, what choice did MJ have but to negotiate then? If he had immediately made an extortion charge, there would have been an investigation and a media swarming anyway. But he would have gotten the jump on Evan. Maybe they thought it would go away and MJ was in excruciating pain from that scalp surgery (what bad timing) and had to leave for the Dangerous tour all at the same time.

But if there was a time that he could have maybe changed the outcome, IMO it was in August before Jordan was sent to Dr. Abrams.

To be honest I can't see how Pellicano coming back with an $350,000 offer makes it less of an extortion. That's the Chandlers argument that it was not an extortion, but "negotiations", but IMO in reality the extortion charge was not taken seriously simply out of prejudice against Michael by authorities. They decided from the get go that MJ was guilty and they were very hostile towards him all through the investigation. Also Lauren Weiss, the LA deputy DA was a good friend of one of Evan's lawyers Richard Hirsch - the lawyer who defended Evan against the extortion charges. There was just a lot of bias and prejudice on on the part of authorities.

If you read Ray Chandler's book I can't see how what happened can be interpreted in any other way than as an extortion.

According to the book, on August 9 (in answer to the $20 million demand) Pellicano came back with a counteroffer of $1 million to fund three screenplays written by Evan and Jordan. Pellicano later said the offer was a gesture on MJ's part that would allow father and son to work together and reestablish their relationship. Evan turned it down. Then on August 13 Pellicano’s next offer shocked Rothman and Evan: $350,000.

"Barry couldn't believe his ears. Pellicano was completely ignoring the rules of the game. Barry started at twenty million, Pellicano had countered with one million, surely the next number should be somewhere in between. And strange as it was that Pellicano had lowered his million dollar offer, it was even crazier that he refused to reinstate it when Barry told him that he had "busted [his] hump for three days...getting Evan to hopefully agree."

According to the book, on August 17 Pellicano called Rothman to find out if Evan accepted the offer.

"Barry told him no, but suggested again that Evan might be willing to take the original million dollar offer if Pellicano was willing to renew it. "It's never going to happen," the investigator insisted."

From all this to me it seems Pellicano only negotiated with them to keep them at bay, but he was never really serious about it. It's as if he's mocking them. Had Michael been serious about paying them off he could have made them go away for only $1 million in August, but he refused to pay them off.

"Fields and Pellicano already knew Evan was willing to negotiate. Why not pay him off and nip the nightmare in the bud while you've got the opportunity? Especially when you know your man is guilty of sleeping with little boys, at least. Not only do you avoid a civil suit, but also, more important, you buy your way around authorities by removing their star witness. Ten, twenty, thirty million? Money's no object. The deal could be a fait accompli within hours. And if it doesn't work, you can always come out swingin' anyway."

"On the morning of August 17, 1993, as he negotiated with Barry Rothman, Anthony Pellicano had in his possession a copy of the psychiatrists report with the names omitted. He held in his hand the future of the most famous entertainer in human history. Yet the tape is replete with examples of Pellicano refusing to compromise on what would amount to chump change to Jackson. Why take the chance of Michael's name ending up on that report and triggering an investigation?"

“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world's most famous entertainer, instead of the world's most infamous child molester.”

The Chandlers may want to call it "negotiations" and protest against the use of the word "extortion" all they want but that's all just semantics. If this is not an extortion then I don't know what is. For the authorities not to take it seriously and not dealing with MJ's complaint at all just shows how incredibly biased they were.

ETA:

The fact that these negotiations took place was a reason (or a justification) given for the DA in LA not pursuing the extortion charges that Bert Fields filed aginst Rothman and Evan in September.

Was it? Did they ever say that? As far as I know the extortion case was simply not moving foreward and in January when the settlement was made MJ retracted that complaint and that was it. I see that the Chandlers use this argument in their book - ie. "they negotiated with us so it wasn't an extortion" but that's just their defense. Like I said above I can't see how Pellicano negotiating makes it less of an extortion when it's clear from the above quotes that they tried to blackmail MJ into paying them or else his name would end up on a complaint with child molestation allegations. They even say that had he paid them in August then Michael could have spent the next ten years as the most famous entertainer instead of the most infamous child molester. Like I said, if that's not an extortion then nothing is.

Of course, authorities did not have Ray Chandler's book in 1993, but they surely could have figured all this out if they had taken that investigation seriously.

 

[la_cienega]

It's interesting to speculate what was going on in the 1993 situation in August--when Evan made his threats and his demand for $$ or else. Pellicano started negotiations with Rothman re a $ amt. Evan wanted $20 million and Pellicano offered $350,000. The fact that these negotiations took place was a reason (or a justification) given for the DA in LA not pursuing the extortion charges that Bert Fields filed aginst Rothman and Evan in September. This complaint of extortion got Rothman dropped as Evan's lawyer and they ended up with Feldman, who IMO was worse and more cunning than Rothman (and stuck around for the Arvizos).

On the other hand, what choice did MJ have but to negotiate then? If he had immediately made an extortion charge, there would have been an investigation and a media swarming anyway. But he would have gotten the jump on Evan. Maybe they thought it would go away and MJ was in excruciating pain from that scalp surgery (what bad timing) and had to leave for the Dangerous tour all at the same time.

But if there was a time that he could have maybe changed the outcome, IMO it was in August before Jordan was sent to Dr. Abrams.

Pellicano started the negotiations to CATCH them in the act of the extortion!

Most people don't seem to realize this.

He actually taped Rothman calling him on August 17th trying to negotiate just before they took Jordan in to see a therapist. He taped him talking about a 3 movie deal. Who seeks movie deals over their child's abuse?????

Pellicano stated that publicly right after the story came out, that he had started negotiating in an attempt to bait the Chandler's, he stated it in a Times interview, MJ's side were quick to admit to what had happened. They wanted to show the extortion.

On August 17th Pellicano spent the whole tape trying to get Rothman to explicitly state why MJ needed to pay this money - of course, Rothman refused to be caught saying anything, as Evan had told Schwartz, neither of them would be caught saying anything that could be held against him - something Rothman even states on the phone.

Pellicano would tape Rothman on the phone with him in order to demonstrate that Evan was seeking to negotiate movie deals over his son’s abuse.

The 25-minute tape was dominated by heated and sometimes profanity-laced exchanges between Pellicano and Rothman over the terms of a movie deal between Jackson and Evan Chandler. On the tape it’s expressed that Evan was angry because he felt Jackson's people had reneged on an earlier offer for a three-picture deal with him.

Pellicano repeatedly questions why the father has turned down his offer of a single movie development deal worth $350,000--money that Pellicano says would come "out of Michael's pocket." Pellicano had been attempting to get Rothman on the record explicitly making threats, but again, Rothman was careful not to say anything that could incriminate them. The closest either man comes to acknowledging that some accusatory undercurrent is at the heart of their conversation is when Pellicano says Michael "is innocent of any wrongdoing" and Rothman counters that his client "has a different opinion." No evidence or proof is alluded to, only simply that, a difference of “opinion.”

Knowing that the call is being recorded, Pellicano works hard to provoke responses from Rothman.

Pellicano is quoted as saying to Rothman: "I guess I'm correct in assuming your client has rejected the deal?"

"Your offer regarding the development deal for one project only is not acceptable, OK?"

Rothman says a single development deal would not be enough to satisfy his client because the boy's father wanted to scale back his dental practice to concentrate on movie projects and spend more time with his son. If that deal falls through, Rothman says, the father would be left in the lurch, having "unwound" his dental practice. There is no mention of any need for money to take care of psychiatric issues for Jordan in that state or any other.

"He doesn't have to unwind the practice," Pellicano responds.

"He does to spend time with (his son)," Rothman says, "which is the essence of why this offer is being made." Rothman says. "You know what I asked you to do and you can't do it, so what can I tell you?" Later, Rothman adds: "Make me a better offer. . . . More than one project--that's a better offer."

Pellicano says, "Convince me that it would be better for me to give him more than one deal. Convince me."

Rothman refuses to verbalize the threat, "That's a given."

Pellicano: "There's no given there."

Rothman: "I don't have to state the obvious and I'm not prepared to do so in this conversation." He cites concerns that whatever he says could end up as evidence against him in court.

"Listen," the Pellicano says at one point, "I've already told you that we think this is an extortion attempt from the beginning. I've already made those statements to you time and time again."

Rothman answers: "You can say that, Anthony, but there's a counterpoint to all of that."

Rothman seemed almost desperate at this point and told Pellicano that Evan might be willing to take the original million dollar offer if Pellicano would be willing to renew it.

"It's never going to happen," the investigator had responded.

Pellicano is the one to release all of this.

 

[AliCat]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

explain to the general public why a settlement happened

I am responding to this just based on what Thomas Mesereau stated in the "Frozen In Time Seminar"

They wanted him to get going in to his business life and stop getting derailed by this very salacious legal proceeding, and that he regretted doing it.

It's the "very salacious legal proceeding" that I draw attention to. Even Bert Fields has publicly stated he could've won the case, if the 1993 case had gone to trial.

The legal ramification's you draw attention to are nothing I am dissing. Just drawing attention to why I spoke out the way I did. It had nothing to do with lawsuits and jury trial's.

Frozen In Time Seminar: The Michael Jackson Cases

 

[seany]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Sorry folks, so has there been any update on this situation? I want it dead and buried already.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ The latest development was the decision on September 27 that the Judge will decide about the creditor's claim on June 2, 2014.

 

[jamba]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect, la cienega,

The extortion case was dropped by prosecutors and it was announced right before the settlement was announced. The reasons given were 1) negotiations took place and 2) the accusation of extortion was made too late--in mid-September. However, I fully and totally agree the prosecutors were just CYA with that and they did nothing to investigate the extortion charge--for example, no fricking search warrants on Evan or Barry Rothman, as opposed to massive search warrants on MJ. They never even questioned Evan and Rothman b/c they refused to answer questions. I agree that OF COURSE it was extortion--I was just giving the 'excuses' that the prosecutors gave for their despicable lack of investigation of the extortion charges.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Then I'd like to see those prosecutors try to explain away the things Ray Chandler writes in their own book...

It's shocking how all through these cases Michael's rights were violated left and right. And people think he was acquitted because of "celebrity justice"? Really? His "celebrity justice" was that the prosecution was highly prejudiced against him and that the media wanted to make him out to be guilty because of sensationalism.

 

[jamba]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Here is the article in the LA Times that talks about the dropping of the extortion charges in 94:


Boy's Father in Jackson Case Won't Be Charged : Investigation: Singer claimed parent of alleged molestation victim tried to extort money from him. D.A. says decision not to prosecute is unrelated to reports that settlement is near.
January 25, 1994|JIM NEWTON | TIMES STAFF WRITER

Amid signs that a lawsuit accusing Michael Jackson of sexually molesting a young boy may soon be settled, prosecutors announced Monday that they will not bring charges against the boy's father, whom Jackson and his advisers claimed tried to extort money from the entertainer.

"We've declined to file today criminal charges of attempted extortion," said Michael J. Montagna, a deputy Los Angeles County district attorney who heads that office's organized crime unit. "The evidence does not show that any crime has been committed."


The district attorney's decision, coming after more than five months of investigation, represents a major victory for the boy's family, whose representatives have denied the extortion allegations for months. The decision was criticized by Jackson's former private investigator but praised by the lawyer for the boy's father.

"We're pleased that the district attorney has confirmed my client is innocent of any wrongdoing," said the lawyer, Richard Hirsch. "Now all the parties can focus on the real issues in this matter."

Immediately after the sexual abuse allegations surfaced last summer, private investigator Anthony Pellicano, then employed by Jackson, publicly accused the boy's father and the father's lawyer of trying to extort $20 million from the singer. According to Pellicano, the boy's father went public with the allegations of abuse only after the extortion attempt failed.

Pellicano released two tape recordings to bolster the extortion claim, and Jackson later repeated the accusations. Jackson's advisers lodged a complaint with the Police Department, however, only after The Times reported that one had not been filed.

Montagna cited the Jackson camp's slowness to act on the extortion claim and its willingness to negotiate with the boy's father for several weeks as two reasons why prosecutors did not bring an extortion case. Montagna also said the discussions between Jackson's representatives and Barry K. Rothman, the attorney for the boy's father at that time, appeared to be attempts to settle a possible civil case, not efforts to extort money.

"It's not a crime for attorneys to try to settle a civil action," Montagna said. "The law actually favors trying to settle actions without going to court."

In an interview Monday, Pellicano sharply disputed the argument that the discussions were intended to settle a claim out of court.

"All during the conversations with Barry Rothman, he was stating that 'unless we get what we want, we're going to blow the lid off, we're going to go to the press, we're going to ruin him,' " Pellicano said. "That's a threat. I can't interpret that anyway but a threat."

Pellicano added that neither Rothman nor Gloria Allred, a prominent Los Angeles attorney who briefly represented the boy, filed a lawsuit, which Pellicano suggested was evidence that the conversations were not about settling a civil claim but were an extortion attempt. But the boy's current attorney, Larry R. Feldman, did file such a lawsuit last year and has pursued it aggressively.

The announcement Monday comes as signs appear to point to an imminent resolution of that lawsuit. Sources say lawyers on both sides are in settlement talks and that while they have nearly reached agreement, they continue to discuss a few issues.

Feldman would not take phone calls about the case Monday. His assistant would say only that he is expected to talk to the media today. Howard Weitzman and Johnnie Cochran Jr., Jackson's attorneys, also were unavailable.

After a court hearing Jan. 14, Superior Court Judge David Rothman announced that the attorneys had agreed to halt their public comments. Since then, they have declined to talk about the case, refusing to respond to a deluge of press inquiries.

But sources said Jackson will pay the boy at least $10 million in return for dropping the lawsuit. Estimates from people close to the negotiations range from about $15 million to about $24 million, with some of the money upfront and the rest in a trust fund for the boy.

If a settlement has been finalized by this afternoon, lawyers are expected to announce it at a news conference outside the Santa Monica courthouse, though sources say the attorneys will not disclose the agreement's terms. If no settlement is reached but discussions continue, the lawyers could announce a deal later this week, the sources added.

*

Even if the civil case is settled, that would not necessarily mean the end of Jackson's legal troubles. The Los Angeles Police Department and Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department have been investigating the sexual abuse allegations raised by the boy since July, and prosecutors from both counties are weighing the possibility of bringing criminal charges.

Settling the civil case would not affect their investigations unless the alleged victim stopped cooperating with authorities. Legal experts say that no such deal would likely be part of the formal civil settlement because it is illegal to obstruct an investigation or to "compound a crime."

Nevertheless, if the boy and his family determined that it was in the child's best interests to put the case behind him now that the lawsuit was resolved, legal analysts predicted that it could doom the criminal investigation. Under California law, children can be forced to testify against their will, but the law does not allow authorities to punish victims of sex crimes who decline to testify.

Although the announcement by the district attorney's office and the reports of an impending settlement in the civil case appeared almost simultaneously, prosecutors said that was a coincidence.

"The rejection would have been issued last week but for the earthquake," Montagna said. "There is no relation."

Pellicano--who no longer works for Jackson but who still fiercely proclaims the entertainer's innocence and opposes any effort to settle the civil case--scoffed at that and suggested that prosecutors and lawyers in the civil case are orchestrating an effort to dismiss all the cases.

"If you believe that," he said of Montagna's comments, "I'll sell you some bayou land."

http://articles.latimes.com/print/1994-01-25/local/me-15027_1_civil-case

 

[bluetopez]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

explain to the general public why a settlement happened

I am responding to this just based on what Thomas Mesereau stated in the "Frozen In Time Seminar"

They wanted him to get going in to his business life and stop getting derailed by this very salacious legal proceeding, and that he regretted doing it.

It's the "very salacious legal proceeding" that I draw attention to. Even Bert Fields has publicly stated he could've won the case, if the 1993 case had gone to trial.

The legal ramification's you draw attention to are nothing I am dissing. Just drawing attention to why I spoke out the way I did. It had nothing to do with lawsuits and jury trial's.

Frozen In Time Seminar: The Michael Jackson Cases

It was a business decision "for them" no denying that. But, IMO with MJ rights not being protected by a judge allowing a Civil trial first, he had to decide to do somethin to protect himself from double jeopardy! Because a criminal trial was definitely still a possibility! Be nice if when defending MJ people would mention this too, including T-Mez! I mean it aint to hard, after all their is evidence of MJs lawyers (before the settlement) tryin to stop the Civil case and gettin denied, it's even mentioned in the MJ Redemption book in detail! So there is no excuse for the media or Tom Sneedon's B.S!

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Thanks, Jamba.

When you read things like that it's easier to understand why Michael settled. He wasn't given one ounce of fairness by authorities.

Montagna cited the Jackson camp's slowness to act on the extortion claim and its willingness to negotiate with the boy's father for several weeks as two reasons why prosecutors did not bring an extortion case. Montagna also said the discussions between Jackson's representatives and Barry K. Rothman, the attorney for the boy's father at that time, appeared to be attempts to settle a possible civil case, not efforts to extort money.

Pellicano is right.

"All during the conversations with Barry Rothman, he was stating that 'unless we get what we want, we're going to blow the lid off, we're going to go to the press, we're going to ruin him,' " Pellicano said. "That's a threat. I can't interpret that anyway but a threat."

Like I said I'd like those investigators explain the things Ray Chandler wrote in his book about those "negotiations".

Pellicano added that neither Rothman nor Gloria Allred, a prominent Los Angeles attorney who briefly represented the boy, filed a lawsuit, which Pellicano suggested was evidence that the conversations were not about settling a civil claim but were an extortion attempt. But the boy's current attorney, Larry R. Feldman, did file such a lawsuit last year and has pursued it aggressively.

Again a good point by Pellicano, even though LA Times is trying to twist it. Feldman filed the lawsuit in September while all these alleged "negotiations" took place in August. So at the time of the "negotiations" indeed no lawsuits were filed, so what would they have settled?

 

[AliCat]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It was a business decision "for them" no denying that. But, IMO with MJ rights not being protected by a judge allowing a Civil trial first, he had to decide to do somethin to protect himself from double jeopardy! Because a criminal trial was definitely still a possibility! Be nice if when defending MJ people would mention this too, including T-Mez! I mean it aint to hard, after all their is evidence of MJs lawyers (before the settlement) tryin to stop the Civil case and gettin denied, it's even mentioned in the MJ Redemption book in detail! So their is no excuse for the media or Tom Sneedon's B.S!

Bert Fields never mention's that in this Interview, anything about a double jeopardy against Michael Jackson. I don't know.

2005-04-03 04:00:00 PDT Los Angeles -- "Follow it? I'm curious," Bertram Fields is saying about the Michael Jackson molestation case. "I rather liked him." Fields was one of a team of lawyers working for Jackson when he was charged with molesting a boy the first time around. Without his approval, Jackson settled, and Fields withdrew from the case. "I wrote him a letter saying, 'I can no longer represent you.' I think the world of Johnnie Cochran," he said of the celebrated lawyer who died last week and once represented Jackson. "Though I never would have settled that case. I think we would have won."

http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/JUST-THE-FACTS-Powerful-Hollywood-lawyer-2718212.php

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Bert Fields never mention's that in this Interview, anything about a double jeopardy against Michael Jackson. I don't know.

It doesn't really matter, the settlement was a big complex decision with many different pros and cons and with different opinions between mj's advisers. Legal reasons as bluetopaz points out, business and career reasons and also emotional reasons - the emotional and mental health of mj which wd have been severely impacted by the pressures of a trial, he had just come out of rehab. It's all important and all had to be weighed up by mj who had the final decision.

When you read things like that it's easier to understand why Michael settled. He wasn't given one ounce of fairness by authorities.


"Montagna cited the Jackson camp's slowness to act on the extortion claim and its willingness to negotiate with the boy's father for several weeks as two reasons why prosecutors did not bring an extortion case."

I agree totally. For an average joe, yes a willingness to negotiate with blackmailers and not an immediate going to the authorities, might look a little unusual. But a huge global superstar who gets these type of shakedowns all the time as this strata of person is a)mega rich and b) dependent totally on preserving their reputation and therefore vulnerable. Of course how mj handled it is basically textbook 101 of dealing with this type of damaging shakedown. Get a pi in to dig around, to assess the damage it might cause, to see how serious the blackmailers are. Maybe pc plod from tunbridge wells might be a bit clueless as to how this type of thing goes down, but the deputy da from los angeles?

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Corey feldman's autobio has been published and he talks at length about the sex abuse he and corey haim suffered in hollywood by adult males. He makes it very clear that mj was nothing but a positive influence in his life and never behaved inappropriately with him. It's an important story, as corey was obsessed with mj, was immensely vulnerable to predators as he had already been abused by men and so wdn't need any brainwashing, and yet mj only showed him understanding and support.

'Slowly, over a period of many years I would begin to realize that many of the people I had surrounded myself with were monsters,' he writes.

Interestingly, the only safe place he knew was with Michael Jackson.

'I was shattered, disgusted, devastated. I needed some normalcy in my life. So, I called Michael Jackson,' he recalls. The pair had been introduced by Spielberg.

'Michael Jackson's world, crazy as it sounds, had become my happy place. Being with Michael brought me back to my innocence. When I was with Michael, it was like being 10 years old again.'

He insists in the book that Jackson never abused him or tried to touch him sexually.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l#ixzz2iIqEACUv

 

[la_cienega]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Montagna cited the Jackson camp's slowness to act on the extortion claim and its willingness to negotiate with the boy's father for several weeks as two reasons why prosecutors did not bring an extortion case. Montagna also said the discussions between Jackson's representatives and Barry K. Rothman, the attorney for the boy's father at that time, appeared to be attempts to settle a possible civil case, not efforts to extort money.

"It's not a crime for attorneys to try to settle a civil action," Montagna said. "The law actually favors trying to settle actions without going to court."

In an interview Monday, Pellicano sharply disputed the argument that the discussions were intended to settle a claim out of court.

"All during the conversations with Barry Rothman, he was stating that 'unless we get what we want, we're going to blow the lid off, we're going to go to the press, we're going to ruin him,' " Pellicano said. "That's a threat. I can't interpret that anyway but a threat."

Pellicano added that neither Rothman nor Gloria Allred, a prominent Los Angeles attorney who briefly represented the boy, filed a lawsuit, which Pellicano suggested was evidence that the conversations were not about settling a civil claim but were an extortion attempt. But the boy's current attorney, Larry R. Feldman, did file such a lawsuit last year and has pursued it aggressively.

Beginning a civil lawsuit AFTER you've threatened to get money out of someone?

It's so ****ed the way they babies the Chandler's side. It's ridiculous.

I believe MJ's side must've thought that the Chandler's side was far too messed up to want to make it public, as they'd just be screwing themselves. But he hadn't understood that the Chandler's didn't care how bad they'd make themselves look to get any money.

 

[jaydom7]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That money didn't pay off for Evan did it? he blew his brains out and is suffering in hell where he belongs. No one even attended his funeral..

 

[bluetopez]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Bert Fields never mention's that in this Interview, anything about a double jeopardy against Michael Jackson.

So? He doesn't have to! But, it's a fact and evidence of it exsist! Which I have already explained and others!

Los Angeles -- "Follow it? I'm curious," Bertram Fields is saying about the Michael Jackson molestation case. "I rather liked him." Fields was one of a team of lawyers working for Jackson when he was charged with molesting a boy the first time around. Without his approval, Jackson settled, and Fields withdrew from the case. "I wrote him a letter saying, 'I can no longer represent you.' I think the world of Johnnie Cochran," he said of the celebrated lawyer who died last week and once represented Jackson. "Though I never would have settled that case. I think we would have won."

He didn't want the settlement to make him look bad being Mjs former lawyer, is all I get from this ignorant statement! I hate how they act like they don't know the real reasons! It's all about the lawyers! That's what really screwed MJ in the end. I mean the fact that they allowed MJ to get photos taken of his private parts is a good example of how poorly from the beginin this was handled, by old and new lawyers alike in the 93 B.S! So if Bert was that good MJ would have never let him go, now would he?!

 

[jamba]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The thing is there is a very cozy relationship with the city officials, like the DA, and the judges. I think judges tend to not want to ruffle the DA's and clearly the judge (forgot his name) in the 93 case was ruling consistently in a way that would favor the prosecutors. Maybe the judge did not want to go up against the DA's?? These people work together and stroke each other.

Same thing with Melville in 05. People said (T Mez for one) that that case never should have gone to trial b/c there was no evidence other than Arizos' word (same as in 93--no evidence except Jordan's word) in spite of the 100 search warrants. But Melville let it happen and there were so many unfair ruling in that case, including threatening MJ with revoking his bail and putting him in jail for the rest of the trial if he didn't get to court and this was after a fall and he was in the hospital. Also, at the end of the trial after the not guilty verdicts, the judge refused to return the photos that were taken in 93 of MJ's body. That I could never understand. Then allowing the Prior Acts etc. etc.

 

[RedMaryFlint]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Bert Fields never mention's that in this Interview, anything about a double jeopardy against Michael Jackson. I don't know.


2005-04-03 04:00:00 PDT Los Angeles -- "Follow it? I'm curious," Bertram Fields is saying about the Michael Jackson molestation case. "I rather liked him." Fields was one of a team of lawyers working for Jackson when he was charged with molesting a boy the first time around. Without his approval, Jackson settled, and Fields withdrew from the case. "I wrote him a letter saying, 'I can no longer represent you.' I think the world of Johnnie Cochran," he said of the celebrated lawyer who died last week and once represented Jackson. "Though I never would have settled that case. I think we would have won."

Bert Fields was the civil, not the criminal lawyer. His specialty is entertainment law. I doubt he would have had the same appreciation of the ramifications of revealing Michael's defense in civil court as Johnnie Cochran. We know how Sneddon used this type of information in 2005. He was able to keep exonerating witnesses such as Frank Cascio off the stand by threatening them with conspiracy charges. Plus, any admissions Michael made in defending himself in civil court could have been twisted into "evidence" in a criminal court. I think that Fields, who has won a number of high-profile defamation lawsuits for celebrities, is simply focussing on a civil case he thinks he could have won.

For an average joe, yes a willingness to negotiate with blackmailers and not an immediate going to the authorities, might look a little unusual. But a huge global superstar who gets these type of shakedowns all the time as this strata of person is a)mega rich and b) dependent totally on preserving their reputation and therefore vulnerable. Of course how mj handled it is basically textbook 101 of dealing with this type of damaging shakedown. Get a pi in to dig around, to assess the damage it might cause, to see how serious the blackmailers are. Maybe pc plod from tunbridge wells might be a bit clueless as to how this type of thing goes down, but the deputy da from los angeles?

In a coldly pragmatic sense, Pellicano's best move was not to go to the authorities and touch off the scandal himself, especially before he had solid proof of extortion. I believe he was trying to get the extortion threat on tape, and tactics such as dropping the settlement from $1 million to $350,000 were a deliberate attempt to provoke them into reissuing the threat so as to be taken more seriously. And given how Pellicano operated at the time, his end game even then may not have been to take the recording to the authorities, but to have let the Chandlers know he had it so it was time for them to hit the road. However, Pellicano's attempts to safeguard his client's reputation came up against the cynicism of law enforcement, who never seemed to regard the extortion accusation as anything other than a weak attempt to defend Michael against the allegations.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It's all about the lawyers! That's what really screwed MJ in the end. I mean the fact that they allowed MJ to get photos taken of his private parts is a good example of how poorly from the beginin this was handled, by old and new lawyers alike in the 93 B.S! So if Bert was that good MJ would have never let him go, now would he?!

Sadly, it's true. Michael's legal team was not on top of their game in that case. According to Ray Chandler's book Larry Feldman, the Chandlers' shrewed and cunning lawyer constantly made fun of their amateurish moves. For example, he says they could have delayed the case until January 1994 when Jordan turned 14 and then the Chandlers would not have been granted to move foreward with the civil trial before the criminal. How amateurish is it that they did not do it?

"On Monday we'll file a motion to compel his testimony, because he won't show up as planned, and a motion for priorities."
"Because Jordie's under fourteen?"
"Right. And if Weitzman or Fields had a ****ing brain in their heads and knew anything about how to litigate, they would have delayed this till Jordie's fourteenth birthday. Because then we'd be ****ed, because I wouldn't get this motion."
"What makes you so sure you'll get it?"
"Oh, it's an absolute right. Jordie is entitled to a trial within one hundred and twenty days. There's absolutely nothing anybody can do to stop it. I mean, I don't know if there's a case where that right has come up against the Fifth Amendment, but there's no question it's our statutory right. There's no discretion, the judge has to do it. He has to find us a courtroom. We're gonna argue to the court that we want a trial date by January tenth.
"They're out of control, Evan. They don't know what the hell they're doin'. If they were smart they would have ****ed around with me on jurisdiction and kept delaying this as much as they could to prevent themselves from having to answer. And they only had to **** around for a couple of months!"
"Then why did they choose to go ahead with this?"
"I don't think they know what they're doin'. They're kid's moves! But we'll know in three weeks if we get our motion. The worst is if they're granted a stay, then we go to the court of appeals. You think the Supreme Court is going to let this criminal stop this case for six years! No ****ing way!"

Truly sad that Michael paid big bucks to all those high profile lawyers and then they don't do their best to defend him.

I can only hope Weitzman wisened up since and he will handle the Wade Robson case better.