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

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

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

Not only that. He says he does it because he has to speak the truth. But when they initially filed his complaint they asked the Judge to seal it with this reasoning:


So where was the need to speak his truth when they tried to file his complaint under seal citing the privacy interests of the accused? Conveniently the need to speak "his truth" only arose after the media got wind of the case. Formerly they wanted to keep the case hush and "after 22 years of silence" he still wanted to keep it silent. He just wanted a quiet, secret pay-off, nothing else.

Actually, to speak his truth he would not have to sue. He would not have to try to get around statues of limitations with crazy claims such as not knowing about the administration of the Estate and only recently realizing he was abused. It would have been enough to write an open letter to a couple of newspapers, like Woody Allan's daughter did. Not judging whether she tells the truth or not about that case - money does not seem to be a motive in that family, but there could be other motives to accuse Woody, just pointing out if it's not about money but just to get "your truth" out there, a lawsuit is not even needed at all. But Wade was just the opposite. He tried to keep his lawsuit under seal. In other words to him the focus was on getting money, not speaking out about anything.

Yes. And I hope the Estate brings all of these things up if or when this case goes to trial. Because it could go a long way in showing what this mess is really about, in my opinion.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Not only that. He says he does it because he has to speak the truth. But when they initially filed his complaint they asked the Judge to seal it with this reasoning:

So where was the need to speak his truth when they tried to file his complaint under seal citing the privacy interests of the accused? Conveniently the need to speak "his truth" only arose after the media got wind of the case. Formerly they wanted to keep the case hush and "after 22 years of silence" he still wanted to keep it silent. He just wanted a quiet, secret pay-off, nothing else.

Actually, to speak his truth he would not have to sue. He would not have to try to get around statues of limitations with crazy claims such as not knowing about the administration of the Estate and only recently realizing he was abused. It would have been enough to write an open letter to a couple of newspapers, like Woody Allan's daughter did. Not judging whether she tells the truth or not about that case - money does not seem to be a motive in that family, but there could be other motives to accuse Woody, just pointing out if it's not about money but just to get "your truth" out there, a lawsuit is not even needed at all. But Wade was just the opposite. He tried to keep his lawsuit under seal. In other words to him the focus was on getting money, not speaking out about anything.

Wanted to keep the case hush hush out of privacy concerns for the guy you said abused you? :smilerolleyes:

 

[HIStory]

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

Wanted to keep the case hush hush out of privacy concerns for the guy you said abused you? :smilerolleyes:

Yep. And only after TMZ got wind of the case it suddenly became about Wade's need to speak out. :smilerolleyes:

 

[passy001]

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

When you file a civil suit, it means you want money. civil courts are where money disputes are resolved.

 

[Harry Osborn]

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

When you file a civil suit, it means you want money. civil courts are where money disputes are resolved.

That's true. And, while sometimes civil suits are appropriate and monetary compensation is a legitimate pursuit (say, if something cost you a lot of money and you want the cost reimbursed, or if the occurrence of some transgression is set to affect your way of life to a huge degree and you want monetary compensation in lieu of being able to work/live a normal life), for something like sexual abuse (where the obvious endeavour would be getting your abuser in prison), a civil suit is highly suspect.

 

[HIStory]

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

That's true. And, while sometimes civil suits are appropriate and monetary compensation is a legitimate pursuit (say, if something cost you a lot of money and you want the cost reimbursed, or if the occurrence of some transgression is set to affect your way of life to a huge degree and you want monetary compensation in lieu of being able to work/live a normal life), for something like sexual abuse (where the obvious endeavour would be getting your abuser in prison), a civil suit is highly suspect.

Someone from France mentioned here once that in many European countries you cannot sue for alleged sexual abuse. If you want to claim such a thing, it's a criminal matter. I find such legal systems much better. Unfortunately the monetary prospect for such allegations makes false child abuse allegation a whole industry in the US. And lives and people can be ruined with such allegations.

 

[SoCav]

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

Someone from France mentioned here once that in many European countries you cannot sue for alleged sexual abuse. If you want to claim such a thing, it's a criminal matter. I find such legal systems much better. Unfortunately the monetary prospect for such allegations makes false child abuse allegation a whole industry in the US. And lives and people can be ruined with such allegations.

Absolutely. And in addition, the increasing awareness of that among the general public also has the side-effect that real victims are faced with a lot more doubt. It's just messed up.

 

[CaptainEoLove85]

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

That's true. And, while sometimes civil suits are appropriate and monetary compensation is a legitimate pursuit (say, if something cost you a lot of money and you want the cost reimbursed, or if the occurrence of some transgression is set to affect your way of life to a huge degree and you want monetary compensation in lieu of being able to work/live a normal life), for something like sexual abuse (where the obvious endeavour would be getting your abuser in prison), a civil suit is highly suspect.

WR wouldn't have even been able to pursue it as a criminal matter since the accused is already dead (that makes his claims look even worse IMO.) The Estate was the next step, and so a civil suit being the only possibility. But I could think of a million better ways for him to get money. Suing MJ will always be the easy way out, and WR is all for the blame game. Although, I don't see how easy it can be for him consciously since he defended Michael so vehemently for so many years. I don't know how he wakes up in the morning.

 

[HIStory]

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

WR wouldn't have even been able to pursue it as a criminal matter since the accused is already dead (that makes his claims look even worse IMO.) The Estate was the next step, and so a civil suit being the only possibility.

Wade had almost 20 years to go for criminal charges while MJ was alive. He also had the opportunity to testify against the accused in a criminal trial in 2005. So no, a civil lawsuit was absolutely not the only possibility for him.

Even now, it is not the only possibility. Since he claims he does not do it for money but to be able to speak "his truth" a lawsuit was not even needed for that. If it's about speaking "his truth" he simply could have issued an open letter to let the world know, like Woody Allen's daughter did. Instead he filed a civil lawsuit and tried to keep it under seal. In other words, as opposed to what he claimed later, speaking out was not a priority to him, only money was.

 

[speechlesslove4michael]

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

Wade had almost 20 years to go for criminal charges while MJ was alive. He also had the opportunity to testify against the accused in a criminal trial in 2005. So no, a civil lawsuit was absolutely not the only possibility for him.

Even now, it is not the only possibility. Since he claims he does not do it for money but to be able to speak "his truth" a lawsuit was not even needed for that. If it's about speaking "his truth" he simply could have issued an open letter to let the world know, like Woody Allen's daughter did. Instead he filed a civil lawsuit and tried to keep it under seal. In other words, as opposed to what he claimed later, speaking out was not a priority to him, only money was.

Well said. Poor Michael

 

[analogue]

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

Someone from France mentioned here once that in many European countries you cannot sue for alleged sexual abuse. If you want to claim such a thing, it's a criminal matter. I find such legal systems much better. Unfortunately the monetary prospect for such allegations makes false child abuse allegation a whole industry in the US. And lives and people can be ruined with such allegations.

Good old Murica!

 

[Paris78]

Just saw that...

Nimue @Nimue9 · 6 h.

@barbarataylor15 looks like the hearing didn't happen, but it was not granted or denied. No new hearing was set.

 

[HIStory]

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

Can it be put off calendar because the request is not timely? I mean Wade seems to get ahead of himself with this request since the Judge has not even decided yet about the case going forward so can it be because of that or in that case the request would simply be denied?

And no news from the hearing on June 13?

 

[MattyJam]

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

off calendar adj. refers to an order of the court to take a lawsuit, petition or motion off the list of pending cases or motions which are scheduled to be heard. A case or motion will be ordered off calendar if the lawyers agree (stipulate) to drop it, if the moving party's lawyer fails to appear, if a suit is settled pending final documentation, or any number of procedural reasons for the judge to determine the case should not proceed at that time. A suit or motion can be put back "on calendar" by stipulation of the lawyers or upon motion of either party. (See: calendar)

I think it's been settled. If true, I really don't know how to feel about that...

 

[seany]

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

I think it's just down to the incompetency of Wades legal team to be honest. I wouldn't be surprised if no one turned up and that was the reason it appeared as 'off Calendar'

 

[GreenEyes]

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

I think it's been settled. If true, I really don't know how to feel about that...

You don't know that. People shouldn't even be assuming that and start spreading around false rumors.

It could be any number of things, including the age of these. It's way past the statute of limitations to even file these suits.

 

[Petrarose]

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

You don't know that. People shouldn't even be assuming that and start spreading around false rumors.

It could be any number of things, including the age of these. It's way past the statute of limitations to even file these suits.

Yes I was going to say something like that. Let's be careful and not post about settlements and get the rumors starting. Maybe someone might have an idea what happened like Ivy, or maybe one of them will spill something.

 

[GreenEyes]

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

Yes I was going to say something like that. Let's be careful and not post about settlements and get the rumors starting. Maybe someone might have an idea what happened like Ivy, or maybe one of them will spill something.

I know for a fact that creepy haters who run various MJ sites, would love to latch onto the word settlement. And they lurk here, believe me. We of all people, should not be the ones feeding into such info when there is absolutely no proof of it at all.

 

[GreenEyes]

Just saw that...

Nimue @Nimue9 · 6 h.

@barbarataylor15 looks like the hearing didn't happen, but it was not granted or denied. No new hearing was set.

I notice they filed a "Motion to Quash".

This is the legal definition of Quash: TO QUASH, practice. To overthrow or annul.
2. When proceedings are clearly irregular and void the courts will quash them, both in civil and criminal cases.

quash v. to annul or set aside. In law, a motion to quash asks the judge for an order setting aside or nullifying an action, such as "quashing" service of a summons when the wrong person was served.

 

[Petrarose]

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

^^I know, I know and there is no need for that conclusion based on the way the estate lawyers replied to the filing and all the inconsistencies and unbelievable statements from Wade's camp. Added to that we have them filing quietly first so the estate could have done something at that point, not wait till it went public.

 

[MJresearcher]

Just saw that...

Nimue @Nimue9 · 6 h.

@barbarataylor15 looks like the hearing didn't happen, but it was not granted or denied. No new hearing was set.

Here's the link the the court site where this information comes from:

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/casesummary.aspx?CT=CI#EVT

 

[ivy]

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

Motion to quash was filled by the Estate against Wade's request to get the 2005 files. No one can tell why it's taken off calendar. there's a million possible reasons. I don't get why MJ fans create rumors of settlement. Why would they settle without even trying to get it dismissed?

 

[MJresearcher]

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

Motion to quash was filled by the Estate against Wade's request to get the 2005 files. No one can tell why it's taken off calendar. there's a million possible reasons. I don't get why MJ fans create rumors of settlement. Why would they settle without even trying to get it dismissed?

I think people go into panic mode when they don't know what's happening. Maybe we should have a sticky in this part of the forum about how the legal process operates with these matters, many people don't know how these things work, I'm still learning. If people have a better understanding of how this works it might put them at ease and reduce the chance of them panicking about a settlement when there's no indication of it.

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

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

This is the second time a court hearing has been taken off calendar in this case. And both times it has come around a point when the Estate filed very important court documents, in my opinion. Personally, I don't like this at all.

 

[barbee0715]

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

There is absolutely NO way they would ever do that. They know, even better than we do, what an atrocious mistake that was. weitzman was around and involved then too. I remember watching him make press statements.
I have no doubt that if they can't get it dismissed, the Estate will fight tooth and nail.

 

[ivy]

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

actually I'll add this which probably would calm down the settlement talk

that "settlement agreement" has been on probate calendar since May 13 - "05/13/2014 Approval - Settlement Agreement".

It means settlement has to be achieved on or before May 13, documents filed on May 13 and a hearing is set for July 8.

Safechuck claim was only filed on May 9 ( 05/09/2014 MOTION - SEAL COURT RECORDS). Impossible to have a settlement in 4 days. Accompanying documents wasn't even filed until May 15. Amended petition was filed on May 15th. (05/15/2014 Notice - Probate (AMENDED NTC OF PET TO ALLOW FILING OF LATE CLAIM )
Filed by Attorney for Claimant )

Wade filed a response to Estate's motion to quash on May 21 - (05/21/2014 Opposition Document (Claimant Wade Robson's ... To Executors' Motiton To Quash Sub- poenas; Declaration of MaryAnn R. Marzano in Support Thereof )

There was a motion to quash hearing on May 23 (05/23/2014 at 08:30 am in Department 5, Reva Goetz, Presiding MOTION-QUASH - Matter continued)

These hearings for June 13 (motion to seal) and June 19 (motion to quash) stayed on calendar until the day they happened.

Logical conclusion - If this case was settled before/on May 13, there wouldn't be follow up motion filings (May 15, May 21) or hearings (May 23, June 13, June 19) being kept on calendar. There would be no need to file any motions or hold hearings about it. Hence logical conclusion is that settlement isn't about Robson or Safechuck.

To add to it : Lloyds case has been settled and parties filed their request for settlement on April 28 and May 2nd. The judge on that case signed and officially settled that case on May 5th. So I'm thinking the May 13 filing of the "settlement agreement" is related to the Lloyds case.

In 2 weeks we'll know for sure from the probate notes.

 

[ivy]

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

I think people go into panic mode when they don't know what's happening. Maybe we should have a sticky in this part of the forum about how the legal process operates with these matters, many people don't know how these things work, I'm still learning. If people have a better understanding of how this works it might put them at ease and reduce the chance of them panicking about a settlement when there's no indication of it.

I think the problem here is people is rushing to make assumptions with no real information. If only they wait until shortly before the hearing date they would know what the settlement is about but no people love to make assumptions.

The negative thing about this case is that we are all operating on one liner information and approaching to something like "off calendar" which might be due to many reasons such as a simple extension but assume the worst - again based on no real information but just assumption.

A more logical approach - such as my post above - gives us the likely answer. And even people cannot do that, they can use simple common sense rule - if MJ Estate had settled with an accuser, it would have been reported by the media. It's as simple as that.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

if MJ Estate had settled with an accuser, it would have been reported by the media. It's as simple as that.

Exactly! The press gets hold of things like that very quickly, it would be reported as soon as it happened. I'm not sure the estate will be stupid enough to settle this. I hope I'm right about that.

 

[MattyJam]

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

There is absolutely NO way they would ever do that. They know, even better than we do, what an atrocious mistake that was. weitzman was around and involved then too. I remember watching him make press statements.
I have no doubt that if they can't get it dismissed, the Estate will fight tooth and nail.

But it isn't 1993 anymore. As much as I loathe the idea of Robson receiving a dime from the estate, you have to consider the alternatives....

1. The case gets tossed out of court and Robson makes a killing selling salacious articles about MJ to the media, which is the last thing MJ's publlc image needs.

2. The case goes to court and MJ's name is dragged through the mud during the trial. Robson wins, bad for MJ's image, but we never hear from him again.

3. The case goes to court and Wade loses. Robson goes on a media rampage selling stories about MJ being a pedo.

Outside of a settlement, these are the only possible outcomes of this mess, none of which are particularly good for MJ. Maybe a settlement is best.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

But it isn't 1993 anymore. As much as I loathe the idea of Robson receiving a dime from the estate, you have to consider the alternatives....

1. The case gets tossed out of court and Robson makes a killing selling salacious articles about MJ to the media, which is the last thing MJ's publlc image needs.

2. The case goes to court and MJ's name is dragged through the mud during the trial. Robson wins, bad for MJ's image, but we never hear from him again.

3. The case goes to court and Wade loses. Robson goes on a media rampage selling stories about MJ being a pedo.

Outside of a settlement, these are the only possible outcomes of this mess, none of which are particularly good for MJ. Maybe a settlement is best.

It would be bad if Wade went and gave a heap of interviews, but I think it would be worse if he was given a settlement, many people would wrongly think this meant there was evidence of wrongdoing, the same as what they think about the settlement in the 90's. if there's no settlement people might be more inclined to see him as a money hungry liar since he'd get nothing from the estate. One thing that makes me sick about Wade is the way he's using and manipulating genuine abuse victims.