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

[Bubs]

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

How come the same judge is handling both the civil and probate cases?

I asked the same question earlier

as the both cases are about the same issues they are combined and given to one judge. Given Beckloff is the judge for Estate matters he gets the case.

I'm starting to feel a bit iffy about judge.

Barbee0715, no Beckloff is not judge is Quincy case, this one is Michael L. Stern.

 

[ivy]

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

One thing I would caution is to not rush to conclusions as none of us really know and understand the law and the legal system perfectly. I understand no one here might care about Demann or MAW cases but they are examples of demurrer process. Both Demann (by Beckloff) and MAW (by another judge) were given multiple chances to amend their complaints. Looking to those examples, I'm not worried much about the chance to amend the complaint. If every other complaint was dismissed with no chance to amend but this was given the chance I would have been worried. But given every other complaint was given multiple chances to amend and so was this one, I wouldn't worry. Just being able to amend it, doesn't mean it would be allowed.

As for keeping MJ as a defendant I think this is exactly what we talked in the last few days- everyone including the judge know Robson is wanting to sue Estate and that's to be determined in probate case. Remember how some of us were commenting what would happen to he civil case if the judge dismisses Doe1 and corporate defendants? It looks like he's keeping the civil case open until whether the Estate can be sued or not is determined.

As for the corporate defendants, you are right. He made very general "sexual abuse" claims. Estate replied by saying such claims can only be made against natural persons. Estate also pointed out claims against corporations can be brought until he's 26 unless he can show they knew or should have known. My understanding Judge right now is saying Wade needs to make negligence claims against corporations, show they had a duty of care and even show they knew or should have known. As I said just because he's given a chance to amend doesn't mean he will be successful. I personally think he doesn't have any chance in this.

So what I'm trying to say is don't let stuff scare you especially when we don't know or understand the specifics.

 

[HIStory]

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

As for the corporate defendants, you are right. He made very general "sexual abuse" claims. Estate replied by saying such claims can only be made against natural persons. Estate also pointed out claims against corporations can be brought until he's 26 unless he can show they knew or should have known. My understanding Judge right now is saying Wade needs to make negligence claims against corporations, show they had a duty of care and even show they knew or should have known. As I said just because he's given a chance to amend doesn't mean he will be successful. I personally think he doesn't have any chance in this.

What about the argument that MJ was in control of those companies and not the other way around? The Judge seems to have completely ignored that argument. I mean all these points about negligence and duty of care are kind of moot if the case is not even that MJ was under the control of these companies.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

What about the argument that MJ was in control of those companies and not the other way around? The Judge seems to have completely ignored that argument. I mean all these points about negligence and duty of care are kind of moot if the case is not even that MJ was under the control of these companies.

But the whole issue of mj being the boss of the company is moot if wade/gradstein haven't even made a case that the company knew mj was a pedo and children needed protecting from him. That particular argument of who had control of who at mjj prods when it was used in the documents presupposed that mj was indeed an abuser and was abusing wade, and so the argument is that even then, the company personnel cd do nothing about it as mj was in control. Obviously for us that's not a great argument anyway, and the estate made it clear that they are just using it as just another string to their bow and not suggesting that mj was an abuser but just as a 'even if what you say is true, it still doesn't mean you have a case' argument.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Wow, this is shocking. The law is very clear on that you cannot sue a dead person so if I was sure of one thing that the Doe 1 thing had to be dismissed. It cannot be anything else based on the law. I'm not sure what kind of amendments be made to make MJ not dead.

But the Judge is bending over backwards to still somehow let it go ahead. Really, really disappointing. It seems this judge will do everything to appease Robson.

My feeling too how can you keep a dead man in a lawsuit? Respect77 i am in shock too i was hoping this judge would dismiss MJ two companies since their are not a person so you can't sue but this judge did something totally differance he put MJ as Doe 1 and he is keeping MJ for now and he is give Wade a second chance to better his case i just don't understand this.


Wade has miss every single deadline to file he has someway been able to keep this case going and for the judge to say i am keep MJ in this lawsuit for now takes the cake.

 

[HIStory]

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

But the whole issue of mj being the boss of the company is moot if wade/gradstein haven't even made a case that the company knew mj was a pedo and children needed protecting from him. That particular argument of who had control of who at mjj prods when it was used in the documents presupposed that mj was indeed an abuser and was abusing wade, and so the argument is that even then, the company personnel cd do nothing about it as mj was in control. Obviously for us that's not a great argument anyway, and the estate made it clear that they are just using it as just another string to their bow and not suggesting that mj was an abuser but just as a 'even if what you say is true, it still doesn't mean you have a case' argument.

OK, so I got it in the wrong order and first he needs to make a case for negligence, duty of care etc. and only if he does that we would get to the point of who controlled whom? OK, I get it.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

I wonder what kind of amendments Robson can make to make this lawsuit work.

There is no amendment that can be made to make a deceased MJ be alive. All they can do is to name other defendants. It seems there was no decision about the companies (at least no mention of them in the article), which I expected since the Judge allowed discovery. Since Robson claims it will be this discovery that will make him able to support his equitable estoppel. As we learnt from the Estate's motion Robson also said he was contemplating adding other individuals as defendants.

So I guess now they will need to make it clear who else they accuse and of what. They need to make clear allegations against MJ's companies and other people. They will have to establish how the companies are responsible and they will have to establish how any additional individual they add is responsible.

I am just shaking my head i can't believe this. This case should have been dismiss but this judge is going to let it keep going and he is giving Wade a chance to change this unreal.

 

[Bubs]

Ivy, what are the next steps in this civil case and probate case?

I have a question about this bit:
"However, Beckloff said lawyers for Robson will have to shore up the civil complaint in general for it to move forward. The judge said the case appears to be implying negligence, but that no such specific allegation is made in the complaint.
“I think there needs to be more facts or else it’s uncertain,” Beckloff said.
Robson attorney Maryann Marzano told Beckloff she will file an amended complaint."

I read half of William Wagener's report from court house, but left because he went full conspiracy mode :scratch: He said something that caught my attention too, which was that how often judge gives an instructions to either side how to proceed with the case? Like here he tells to plaintiffs side that he doesn't see enough stuff in their case, go home and amend it and then come back. Why he didn't instruct defence side that your demurrer wasn't strong enough, here is a few tips that helps you. Better yet, doesn't judges usually just read documents (demurrers etc) and then gives his ruling and thats that?

 

[#MJforever57]

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

This judge know that Wade case is weak so the way i see it if Wade can't bring fourth the prove that he was abuse by MJ then that is all she wrote and then the case will be dismiss.

 

[passy001]

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

OK, so I got it in the wrong order and first he needs to make a case for negligence, duty of care etc. and only if he does that we would get to the point of who controlled whom? OK, I get it.

That's correct. And unfortunately for Robson, this is where his mother (the elephant in the room) gets involved. there is no way he can make such claims without involving his mother. she will be deposed by the estate and that's if the case even goes that far.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

I think saying things like the judge knows it's weak or he thinks Michael got away with it that's why he is ruling this way is kind of pointless. No judge IMO is going to risk being shot down by a higher court or being removed from the bench out of personal feelings. In 05 Mudville made a lot of rulings using a judge's desecration he ruled far to much for Sneddon IMO but all of his rulings were based on law. Before we tar and feather the judge lets wait until we get more details

 

[Justthefacts]

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

That's correct. And unfortunately for Robson, this is where his mother (the elephant in the room) gets involved. there is no way he can make such claims without involving his mother. she will be deposed by the estate and that's if the case even goes that far.

She ran back to Australia before it popped off

 

[Bubs]

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

^^ She can be deposited from Australia, can't she?

When MJ was sued for some case, didn't he give his deposition from another country, so it should be the same for Joy Robson?

 

[HIStory]

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

Well, if Joy hid from deposition it would make it look bad for Robson. I mean if they are making these allegations they cannot get around the fact that his mother was a main player in the story. To try to totally remove her from the story and her even hiding would be a very bad look for them. If I just found out my son was molested I sure would not go into hiding and make myself unavailable for law.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

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

It's ridiculous Michael's companies are involved in this lawsuit if Robson's mother was the one pushing him to be in showbiz and whoring him around. She was the one who asked Michael and his companies to launch his career, she should be the one accused of negligence and not protecting her bastard son from the alleged abuse he "went through."

 

[Dunk96]

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

It's ridiculous Michael's companies are involved in this lawsuit if Robson's mother was the one pushing him to be in showbiz and whoring him around. She was the one who asked Michael and his companies to launch his career, she should be the one accused of negligence and not protecting her bastard son from the alleged abuse he "went through."

Exactly. Why she isn't being counter-sued by the Estate for negligence and not protecting Wade from "abuse" is quite hilarious.

 

[#MJforever57]

Ivy, what are the next steps in this civil case and probate case?

I have a question about this bit:
"However, Beckloff said lawyers for Robson will have to shore up the civil complaint in general for it to move forward. The judge said the case appears to be implying negligence, but that no such specific allegation is made in the complaint.
“I think there needs to be more facts or else it’s uncertain,” Beckloff said.
Robson attorney Maryann Marzano told Beckloff she will file an amended complaint."

I read half of William Wagener's report from court house, but left because he went full conspiracy mode :scratch: He said something that caught my attention too, which was that how often judge gives an instructions to either side how to proceed with the case? Like here he tells to plaintiffs side that he doesn't see enough stuff in their case, go home and amend it and then come back. Why he didn't instruct defence side that your demurrer wasn't strong enough, here is a few tips that helps you. Better yet, doesn't judges usually just read documents (demurrers etc) and then gives his ruling and thats that?

What this judge is telling Wade and his lawyers is you don't have enough proof for this case to move on you need to go and stared over again. IMO i feel this is going to be dismiss can't wait to hear how Wade and his lawyers are going to do this amended complaint.


That is another reason why i feel this judge is going to dismiss this case the Estate defend is strong enough and in the law that how i see it. Because you can't sue a dead man.

 

[metermaid]

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

i dont think he is going away if this gets tossed. books, interviews, etc. can the estate actually block a book? or he will find his way around it like the chandler uncle (was it uncle?) did. silver lining, most media isn't really touching this story. sorry if this has been covered already but the thread is 500+ pages long.

 

[Petrarose]

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

I see the judge was impressed with both sides:

Beckloff said attorneys on both sides have filed court papers with a solid level of support for their arguments that he does not always see from other lawyers.


^^OK if the plaintiffs had solid support for their arguments what happened here with the negligence?

I am wondering if the judge feels there is support for abuse, but no support for negligence, because which arguments had the strong support? Is it the estoppel, discovery arguments that he feels were backed by solid support?

This: "The judge said the case appears to be implying negligence, but that no such specific allegation is made in the complaint.
^^To me this suggests that Wade did not have negligence as an allegation & they are now going to put that allegation in.

 

[barbee0715]

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

If this had happened five years ago every newspaper, magazine, and the 6 o'clock news would be covering it. But since Michael has died it doesn't have the crazed coverage like the old days. Thank God.
We'll only see that if the case is allowed to proceed.

I'm trying to understand Beckloff s opinion about the negligence and trying to go back thru all these pages to get to the original claim.
Wade was harmed because of the 2 nervous breakdowns and can't work any more.
So the companies are negligent because they allowed the actions (the alleged abuse) that supposedly caused the nervous breakdowns in the first place? Does this sound remotely close?
I never understood the negligence with Chandler. So I'm having a hard time understanding this.

 

[Petrarose]

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

^^Anyone has the original claims handy. I too want to look at it again to see what exactly he claimed.

 

[barbee0715]

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

No judge IMO is going to risk being shot down by a higher court or being removed.
In 05 Mudville made a lot of rulings using a judge's desecration he ruled far to much for Sneddon IMO but all of his rulings were based on law. Before we tar and feather the judge lets wait until we get more details

I'm not trying to tar and feather the judge because he's been pretty fair in the past but it does seem like this time he's trying to give more leeway to the plaintiffs. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's not immoral or unethical.
I worked at a little community bank for 33 yrs that thru six or more mergers became one of the largest institutions in the country and was instrumental in the mortgage bubble that not only brought us down but caused the Great Recession. I wasn't on the loan side so I was blindsided as well.
My point is that even tho all those loans were done legally-thousands were not moral or ethical. (And I think some were not legal either.)
I think judges should be beyond reproach.

 

[Petrarose]

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

It would be interesting to compare the first filing with this new and improved one which will include the negligence with support.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Yes petrarose, I felt he was advising the plaintifs on how they could go forward with their case, claim negligence not sexual abuse.

 

[barbee0715]

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

Yes petrarose, I felt he was advising the plaintifs on how they could go forward with their case, claim negligence not sexual abuse.

ok. Maybe that's what I'm missing. It wasn't there in the first place but maybe separate emails and correspondence claimed negligence so he advised them to revise the complaint accordingly.

 

[bluetopez]

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

Hmmm...I don't see what other crap Wade can come up with to make this go forward? So imma stay hopeful that the Judge is making sure this don't get appealed, when it hopefully gets thrown out!? Cause I would hate it if yet again laws are being bent because it's MJ.

 

[bluetopez]

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

Yes petrarose, I felt he was advising the plaintifs on how they could go forward with their case, claim negligence not sexual abuse.

That would be something if that's all it would take?! SMH So unfair because at the end of the day Wade is claiming Sexual abuse either way, he will say Negligence is what got him molested. Oh the law....just change the wording and u get a case, maybe?

 

[HIStory]

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

I am wondering if the judge feels there is support for abuse, but no support for negligence, because which arguments had the strong support? Is it the estoppel, discovery arguments that he feels were backed by solid support?

I'm trying to understand Beckloff s opinion about the negligence and trying to go back thru all these pages to get to the original claim.
Wade was harmed because of the 2 nervous breakdowns and can't work any more.
So the companies are negligent because they allowed the actions (the alleged abuse) that supposedly caused the nervous breakdowns in the first place? Does this sound remotely close?
I never understood the negligence with Chandler. So I'm having a hard time understanding this.

The negligence claim is for the companies. You cannot accuse companies of sexual abuse as companies cannot commit sexual abuse. They can only be negligent and thus facilitate abuse.

But Robson so far has failed to establish how the companies were negligent and how they had a duty of care over him in which they were negligent. Robson simply made a vauge statement about the companies somehow being responsible for his abuse but never said how. Oh, he said they brought him to the US where he was allegedly abused so that somehow makes the companies responsible in his argument. But that's not so according to law. He has to allege tortious acts on the part of the companies to get them involved. To make the negligence claim work against the companies he has to show the companies knew about the alleged abuse and they deliberately facilitated it.
That's what the Judge is saying. He has to tell what exactly he accuses the companies of because so far he has not told. He also has to tell who else other than MJ he accuses and of what exactly. You cannot make a lawsuit go ahead on vague statements.

 

[jamba]

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

I am not convinced of this judge's fairness and reasoning abilities. IMO he should have removed KJ as guardian permanently after the fiasco with her abandoning her 3 wards for so long with a completely nonbelievable excuse as to why she did it. IMO he should have taken the guardianship of the kids out of the hands of the J family as a result of the actions that took place around that incident, including the letter challenging the will/estate etc., and designated a court appointed guardian in place of KJ (instead of that, he allowed another Jackson, not in the will either, to enter the scene. ) Just hope and pray he doesn't mess this one up in addition to his other poor decisions.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

The negligence claim is for the companies. You cannot accuse companies of sexual abuse as companies cannot commit sexual abuse. They can only be negligent and thus facilitate abuse.

But Robson so far has failed to establish how the companies were negligent and how they had a duty of care over him in which they were negligent. Robson simply made a vauge statement about the companies somehow being responsible for his abuse but never said how. Oh, he said they brought him to the US where he was allegedly abused so that somehow makes the companies responsible in his argument. But that's not so according to law. He has to allege tortious acts on the part of the companies to get them involved. To make the negligence claim work against the companies he has to show the companies knew about the alleged abuse and they deliberately facilitated it.
That's what the Judge is saying. He has to tell what exactly he accuses the companies of because so far he has not told. He also has to tell who else other than MJ he accuses and of what exactly. You cannot make a lawsuit go ahead on vague statements.

It's kind of putting the horse before the cart, accusing the companies of this type of negligence of facilitating abuse, as they haven't 'proved' mj was an abuser yet, there have just been unproven accusations. It's like they're skipping the little detail of whether mj is innocent/guilty and going straight to guilty and determining which 3rd parties shd be liable as well. I guess this is what happens when you're dead and it's open season - which is why there are strict time limits to protect their rights.