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

[ivy]

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

The question here is: what happens if the civil courts dismisses both MJ and his companies next month? does that mean that the lawsuit is tossed for good since there is none else attached to the civil suit? if robson says that he's reserving doe4 and doe5 for the executors, then why not naming them directly? probably because they have no legal basis until the probate court says so. in which case can the estate asks the civil court to dismiss the entire suit if there is no other party to the suit?

Yes he cannot add executors until the probate court allows him to file a late claim. Technically after the judge allows the late claim, he would submit his late claim to Estate in probate court, Estate would have the option to accept or deny it. Estate said they would deny it. Then Robson would have the option to sue Estate in civil court - aka take it to trial. That would mean naming the Doe 4 and Doe 5 as Executors.

For the rest of the question: It requires expert knowledge - which I don't have. I would think with no defendants remaining case should be dismissed for good but there's also unnamed doe defendants. I guess it's possible to keep it active and give him time to identify the doe defendants.

Even if the civil demurrers are granted and that case is dismissed for good. Robson can file another civil lawsuit against Estate if his late probate claim gets approved. so I agree with you that in reality this all depends to probate court/claim.

I feel the civil demurrers will be granted. I can't imagine the court allowing them to sue Doe1 (MJ) a deceased person. Similarly I feel corporations doesn't fit to any law. So this will all come to probate court and if the judge buys the equitable estoppel or not.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

I keep coming back to the probate claims and Wade reasons for not filing in time.

1. Was told by MJ in 1993 not to tell or we both will go to jail.
2. Just now remember in 2012 he was abuse by Michael Jackson for 7 yr.
3. The Estate did not inform his of their exist

I am sure i miss some he has so many reasons why he couldn't file his claim in time.
Is it just me but do anyone see this judge overwrite the 60 days that Wade miss and letting him use these reasons i know his job is not to decide weather Wade is telling the truth or not he job is to decide weather he has a case just a question i want to ask.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Yes he cannot add executors until the probate court allows him to file a late claim. Technically after the judge allows the late claim, he would submit his late claim to Estate in probate court, Estate would have the option to accept or deny it. Estate said they would deny it. Then Robson would have the option to sue Estate in civil court - aka take it to trial. That would mean naming the Doe 4 and Doe 5 as Executors.

For the rest of the question: It requires expert knowledge - which I don't have. I would think with no defendants remaining case should be dismissed for good but there's also unnamed doe defendants. I guess it's possible to keep it active and give him time to identify the doe defendants.

Even if the civil demurrers are granted and that case is dismissed for good. Robson can file another civil lawsuit against Estate if his late probate claim gets approved. so I agree with you that in reality this all depends to probate court/claim.

I feel the civil demurrers will be granted. I can't imagine the court allowing them to sue Doe1 (MJ) a deceased person. Similarly I feel corporations doesn't fit to any law. So this will all come to probate court and if the judge buys the equitable estoppel or not.

Thank you Ivy you just answer my question. It all will come down to the probate court because you are right i don't see a judge letting Wade sue Michael who is dead and his companies which have nothing to do with the lawsuit.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

So what is next is for him to win the probate claim that was file late in order for him to sue Doe 4 and Doe 5.

What about James is he waiting until Wade is done?

 

[HIStory]

There is another document that Ivy posted. That one is about the corporate defendants. Here is her summary on both documents: http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/283-robson-v-estate-september-2014-case-updates

Link to previous July 2014 case updates: http://www.dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/276-robson-v-estate-case-updates



Civil case updates


Estate had filed two demurrers (dismissal request stating there’s no legal basis for a lawsuit) and parties are getting ready for the demurrer hearing. Most current documents (added September 24[SUP]th[/SUP]) are Estate’s replies to Robson’s opposition to Estate’s demurrer requests. As I prepare this post court system isn’t showing Robson’s opposition documents (I’ll update this post if they become available) therefore this post is done based on what the Estate reply documents state about Robson’s opposition and their reply.

Hearing for these two demurrers is set for October 1[SUP]st[/SUP].


Doe1 (MJ) Demurrer

Document link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/241210020/Robson-Estate-Reply-Doe-1-Demurrer
Estate had filed a demurrer to dismiss MJ as Doe 1 defendant on the civil case simply arguing Doe1 / MJ is deceased and no court has jurisdiction to have a case or have power to enter judgment against him.
In their reply brief Estate states Robson doesn’t dispute he sued a deceased person and court has no jurisdiction over deceased people. Estate states Robson’s claims that he sued MJ as a placeholder for Estate makes no sense as the Executors are already Doe4 and Doe5 defendants.
Robson apparently also argues Estate has no standing to bring a demurrer on MJ’s behalf. Estate disagrees as the Executors are representatives according to MJ’s will and according to the probate code they can defend actions and proceedings against the decedent. Estate state contrary to Robson’s argument, Estate is the only party with the authority to appear on MJ’s behalf.
Based on the documents - and quite absurdly I must add - Robson also argues he didn’t serve MJ with the complaint. Estate states this is irrelevant as parties can choose to appear in an action without being served and they also point impossibility of deceased MJ being served. Estate again repeats that the court has no jurisdiction over a deceased person.

Corporate Defendants Demurrer

Document link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/241210019/Robson-Estate-Reply-Corporate-Demurrer


Estate repeats corporate entities aren’t persons and they cannot engage in childhood abuse. Such abuse claims can only be made against natural persons and not entities. Any claims about corporate entities cannot be filed after plaintiff’s 26[SUP]th[/SUP] birthday.

The reply brief gets very technical with focusing on 340.1 code and subsections. Robson in his opposition argues he doesn’t need to allege any duty of care or any intentionally tortuous act by the corporations. Throughout their reply Estate disagrees with this and cites the law and states it can only apply to parties who had a duty of care to the plaintiff.
Estate also points out again that corporate defendants had no control over their sole owner MJ. According to Robson’s allegations abuse started before Robson had any interaction with the corporations and there’s no allegation that the corporate defendants “knew or should know any unlawful sexual conduct by MJ”.
Second dispute arises from Estate’s argument that some of these claims (such as childhood sexual abuse) can only be brought against natural persons and not corporations. In his opposition Robson refers that he believes unnamed individuals are liable as direct perpetrators. Estate argues while Robson can try to identify those people, he has no right to keep corporations as defendants.

Probate Discovery issue
From the recent documents we also learn that on September 16, judge denied Estate’s motion to quash about 76 subpoenas served to Santa Barbara District Attorney and Sheriff’s office. This means Robson will be getting the discovery he wanted including the Neverland Ranch search report. Estate is also ordered to answer interrogatories. Documents mention Court instructed parties to meet and confer to draft a protective order. Email exchange shows that parties will be working on a protective order after September 24[SUP]th[/SUP].
A little note: There’s a little confusion about this discovery issue among fans. Robson is not seeking a discovery for a possible trial. He’s asking for discovery for his equitable estoppel claim. Robson claims he was subjected to mental manipulation by MJ and that’s why he couldn’t come forward within statute of limitations.

Possible extension in probate claim
As of now there’s a November 6 hearing set for Estate’s summary judgment motion about Robson’s probate claim. Robson’s lawyers wants rescheduling of this hearing based on judge’s September 16[SUP]th[/SUP] ruling about discovery issues. Robson lawyers want several weeks to get discovery and prepare their oppositions. Estate isn’t agreeing with this request and state their motion argues there’s no legal basis for Robson’s claims and Robson lawyers doesn’t need any discovery for reply, they only need to argue the law. It’s very possible that Robson will ask for a delay / extension in probate case.

Upcoming dates
October 1[SUP]st[/SUP] – Robson civil case hearing
November 6[SUP]th[/SUP]- Robson probate hearing
November 19[SUP]th[/SUP] – Safechuck probate hearing

 

[HIStory]

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

^ I like it when the Estate points out that all precedent cases that Robson cites actually support the opposite of what they argue for. LOL:

 

[#MJforever57]

Probate Discovery issue
From the recent documents we also learn that on September 16, judge denied Estate’s motion to quash about 76 subpoenas served to Santa Barbara District Attorney and Sheriff’s office. This means Robson will be getting the discovery he wanted including the Neverland Ranch search report. Estate is also ordered to answer interrogatories. Documents mention Court instructed parties to meet and confer to draft a protective order. Email exchange shows that parties will be working on a protective order after September 24th.
A little note: There’s a little confusion about this discovery issue among fans. Robson is not seeking a discovery for a possible trial. He’s asking for discovery for his equitable estoppel claim. Robson claims he was subjected to mental manipulation by MJ and that’s why he couldn’t come forward within statute of limitations.



This takes the cake now you are not going to use NL Report. but the judge ruler in Wade favor


We have a new term now for his equitable estoppel claim Robson claims he was subjected to mental manipulation by MJ and that’s why he couldn’t come forward within statute of limitations.

I hope a judge can see through this lie that Wade is telling you mean to tell me Michael had control over Wade telling hin what to do come on Michael has been gone for 5 yr and when Michael was alive Wade still didn't say anything and that was because he claim he didn't have any memory of the abuse until now in 2012 and he still didn't report it. I can't wait to see how this turn out.


So what Wade is saying he was afraid of Michael.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

And that good Respect77

 

[HIStory]

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

I wonder how the "compressed memory" and "he remembered when he remembered" stuff comes into the picture then. I know the info is coming from Pearl Jr. but I just don't think she made up such a thing. She actually mentioned a lot of things that are mentioned in these motions. For example, she mentioned the law that was created back in the early 1900s against the boxer Jack Johnson. That is the law that is about transporting someone under the age of 16 for the purpose of lewd acts. And it really is discussed:

So I wonder about how and where this whole "he remembered when he remembered" argument comes into the picture when otherwise he claims:

- he always knew, he just did not know it was illicit and non-consensual,
- he always knew, he was just afraid of going to jail because MJ told him they would both go to jail.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

I really believe this doctor planted this in Wade head he really doesn't have a case at all.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

I wonder how the "compressed memory" and "he remembered when he remembered" stuff comes into the picture then. I know the info is coming from Pearl Jr. but I just don't think she made up such a thing. She actually mentioned a lot of things that are mentioned in these motions. For example, she mentioned the law that was created back in the early 1900s against the boxer Jack Johnson. That is the law that is about transporting someone under the age of 16 for the purpose of lewd acts. And it really is discussed:




So I wonder about how and where this whole "he remembered when he remembered" argument comes into the picture when otherwise he claims:

- he always knew, he just did not know it was illicit and non-consensual,
- he always knew, he was just afraid of going to jail because MJ told him they would both go to jail.

Respect77 i really believe that Wade can't explain this because it never happen and if he remember then he would have details of how and when and where it happen if his memory came back.

 

[la_cienega]

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

If the "compressed memory" quote is true, then all our discussion about "repressed memories" comes back to being relevant, because that is essentially what it is. That they're claiming he managed to separate and compartmentalize his memory of the abuse (and all the ongoing threats and brainwashing he claims MJ gave him during each court case, which obviously didn't trigger the memories of the actual abuse) in order to cope and survive for 20 years, before suddenly becoming aware of it in 2013. That's essentially what the argument for "repressed memories" is.

And it's considered hooey fake psychology, because nobody who endured these kinds of things is capable of compartmentalizing it.

 

[Petrarose]

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

Has Wade side received the actual documents from the search yet?

 

[barbee0715]

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

Thinking loudly about this equitable estoppel. I realize that they hope that equitable estoppel would overwrite this 60 days limit. How much can equitable estoppel extend a statute? Or is it always individually decided in a case? But I still cannot see what circumstance would make it reasonable to apply equitable estoppel in this case. If they accept Robson's claim that MJ allegedly telling him in 1993 that they would both go to jail or that he was so brainwashed that he did not realize the illicit nature of anal raping a child until 2012 is a reason for equitable estoppel then they might as well as abolish statutes of limitations altogether. I mean from then on then anyone could claim outside of any statute that "well, I just realized I was abused and I wasn't able to realize it before because my abuser told me 20 years ago that we go to jail and I still believed it until I was 30, 40 or 100 years old and I did not know that anally raping a child was wrong anyway, I just learned it from my therapist now" and then anyone can go ahead with such allegations at any time, regardless of statutes of limitations. This would be a very bad precedent.

I ran across an article in the paper a few months ago that certain civil rights groups are trying to push for federal legislation to get rid of all statutes of limitations for sexual abuse cases-especially child molestation. And this was seen as great by various groups including some of the more famous ones.
I was looking at the statutes of limitations in all the states last night and they vary wildly-but some are quite lax-it looks like it's in response to the Catholic Church, Penn State, etc. Of course, my mind went straight to THIS case-and I think, too, that this would be an extremely bad move.

There are so many false allegations made for all sorts of reasons-revenge, money. With this, it could never end. Ever.

 

[barbee0715]

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

I really believe this doctor planted this in Wade head he really doesn't have a case at all.

I think you give Wade way too much credit. He thought this up himself, to get a piece of the pie, I'm sure of it.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

I ran across an article in the paper a few months ago that certain civil rights groups are trying to push for federal legislation to get rid of all statutes of limitations for sexual abuse cases-especially child molestation. And this was seen as great by various groups including some of the more famous ones.
I was looking at the statutes of limitations in all the states last night and they vary wildly-but some are quite lax-it looks like it's in response to the Catholic Church, Penn State, etc. Of course, my mind went straight to THIS case-and I think, too, that this would be an extremely bad move.

There are so many false allegations made for all sorts of reasons-revenge, money. With this, it could never end. Ever.

that's what those groups never tell you is how many child molestation claims end up being false

 

[ivy]

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

Has Wade side received the actual documents from the search yet?

You all ask hard questions. I don't think anyone can know / answer this for sure but we know judge made the ruling on September 16 and as far as I can see at least responses from Estate are due by October 21st. I would imagine DA and law enforcement would also provide documents in this time frame.

 

[Petrarose]

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

You all ask hard questions. I don't think anyone can know / answer this for sure but we know judge made the ruling on September 16 and as far as I can see at least responses from Estate are due by October 21st. I would imagine DA and law enforcement would also provide documents in this time frame.

Thanks. Sorry for asking the hard questions [smile]. I am just trying to figure out when we should expect one of those famous leaks even though we know a lot of the content. AEG case had documents that were not supposed to go public before the trial, and they were purposely leaked. Oh well let's see what happens next.

 

[HIStory]

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

To be honest they do not even need to "leak" anything technically, since most things there are public info already. But I'm sure Radar Online will be told to draw attention to everything there again and we will see articles about it and the media acting as if this is news and some new revelation.

 

[Bubs]

"Robson apparently also argues Estate has no standing to bring a demurrer on MJ’s behalf. Estate disagrees as the Executors are representatives according to MJ’s will and according to the probate code they can defend actions and proceedings against the decedent."

This case is as messy as they come, with no head or tail :bugeyed No wonder I cannot get a grip on this case as it is all over the place.

WR claims the estate cannot file demurrer on MJ's behalf, yet they wrote this: "As the executors should be well aware, however, they "stand in the shoes" of decedent and therefore can be held liable for decedent's actions"
WTF! Can they seriously say that the executors cannot represent MJ and file demurrer, but the same time say they can be held responsible of MJ's actions?

Talking about trying to have it both ways:bugeyed

----------------------------

"As of that date, the limitations period for claims against nonabusers expired on a victim's 26 th birthday"
The legislative amendment at issue here was passed in 2002 and took effect on January 1, 2003.   It retained the limitations period for actions against childhood sex abuse perpetrators at the later of age 26 or three years from discovery of the causal link between adult-onset psychological injury and the molestation.   The age 26 cap from the 1998 amendment was retained against nonabuser entities or persons (§ 340.1, subds.(a)(1)-(3), (b)(1)), with an exception carved out for one category of such defendants.  “f the person or entity knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent, and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by that person ․,” then the age 26 cut-off did not apply. (§ 340.1, subd. (b)(2).)   In those cases, the statute of limitations therefore became three years from the date of discovery.8 - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1553043.html#sthash.U8WQMDU2.dpuf

Is this what Wade is trying to use for his 26th birthday cut-off for suing entities?

Btw, that reference case, there is compressed memory issues too.

 

[HIStory]

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

^ You mean repressed memory issues? "Compressed memory" seems to be a Gradstein invention - at least in legal practice. Otherwise it's an informatics term.

But yes, this is what we are talking about. It's CCP 340.1:

340.1. (a) In an action for recovery of damages suffered as a
result of childhood sexual abuse, the time for commencement of the
action shall be within eight years of the date the plaintiff attains
the age of majority or within three years of the date the plaintiff
discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological
injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by
the sexual abuse, whichever period expires later, for any of the
following actions:
(1) An action against any person for committing an act of
childhood sexual abuse.
(2) An action for liability against any person or entity who owed
a duty of care to the plaintiff, where a wrongful or negligent act by
that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual
abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.
(3) An action for liability against any person or entity where an
intentional act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the
childhood sexual abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.

(b) (1) No action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision
(a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday.
(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.

This basically means:

One can file a lawsuit for alleged childhood sexual abuse until the age of 26, or within 3 years of reasonably discovering that plaintiff's psychological injury was a result of alleged childhood sexual abuse.

This is however for the suing of natural persons. (And one can only sue a living natural person.)

In case of companies it's (2) and (3) that applies about which further down (b) (1) says: "No action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision
(a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday."

Period.

There is no "within three years of discovering the abuse" in the case of companies, only the 26 years of age limit. That is because companies are not able to commit child abuse themselves as they are not natural persons. They can be negligent and not protect someone from child abuse - ie. knowingly turn a blind eye. And that is addressed in the next part of the law - and how and when that might lift the 26 years of age limit:

(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.

However this part clearly states that to be sued after the accuser reached the age of 26 a company has to have some kind of control over the alleged perpetrator. You can only sue a company if it knew about child abuse by one of its "employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps". This law was clearly made with cases like the Catholic Church in mind.

In the Robson case however MJ was not the employee, volunteer, representative, or agent of these companies but their sole owner. They did not have control over him - he had control over them.

Moreover, Robson also failed to establish how the companies should have known about alleged abuse and how they were negligent on failing to take reasonable steps. His only claim is that they brought him to the US which "facilitated his abuse". He argues that he does not have to allege tortious acts on the companies' behalf it's enough for him to allege "any intentional act which is a legal cause of a sexual abuse". This is clearly not true, according to the Estate, and they show it by citing the law that he does need to allege and prove tortious acts on the companies' behalf to be able to sue them:

Robson apparently also says that he "believes" there were other natural persons who assisted his alleged abuse, but he is yet to name them:

 

[#MJforever57]

If the judge dismiss MJ 2 companies and MJ then you are looking at the probate claim that all that is left.

Wade and his lawyer are trying to do every possible to get around the statute of limitations his story keep change lost of memory the judge rule in his favor for NL reports he hope to find that someone know about Michael abuse children and not saying anything about it he feel he has not be protect now Wade is going as far as to say that Michael cause him to not come forward and report the abuse now there is this mental manipulation by MJ and that’s why he couldn’t come forward within statute of limitations.


Either way you look at it Wade miss all of the deadline he knew in 2012 when his so call memory came back and he still didn't report and to use MJ as the reason why you still didn't report. I would love to hear how this judge will explain while he is maker his decsions about this case if it should go to court

 

[Justthefacts]

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

I'm waiting to see if Wade had the gumption, the gall the balls to name other people

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Respect77

Robson apparently also says that he "believes" there were other natural persons who assisted his alleged abuse, but he is yet to name them:


He believe Wade really hope that this will go to trial.

 

[la_cienega]

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

I'm waiting to see if Wade had the gumption, the gallo, the balls to name other people

I would love for him to.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

I think you give Wade way too much credit. He thought this up himself, to get a piece of the pie, I'm sure of it.

You are right just like Bubs said Wade case is all over the place. He has no case he is makeup things along the way.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

I'm waiting to see if Wade had the gumption, the gall the balls to name other people

Just one more lie to his story.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Respect77

There is no "within three years of discovering the abuse" in the case of companies, only the 26 years of age limit. That is because companies are not able to commit child abuse themselves as they are not natural persons. They can be negligent and not protect someone from child abuse - ie. knowingly turn a blind eye. And that is addressed in the next part of the law - and how and when that might lift the 26 years of age limit:





Good point that why i believe the judge will dismiss MJ two companies because their have nothing to do with it their are not a natural person and dismiss MJ because he is not a live person he is gone.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

That's not why I'm waiting

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Where was Wade mother Joy all this time when this alleged abuse was taking place?