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

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

yes the Rolling Stone story is everywhere. The story of the innocent black man who remained on death row for 30 years is also everywhere. Lately, stories of falsely accused black men are on the rise. Still people are so dump to connect the dots. MJ was lucky to have the resources to defend himself . It seems some are upset he afford to defend himself and did not allow the system ( the police, the prosecutors and the judge) to take him down.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

seriously? like they are ethical.. I guess I was not following that story. Did Rollingstone falsely accuse someone of rape and then wrote a story about it even though it was false?

not quite. they wrote an article based on the victim's story without trying to collaborate or confirm what the victim claims. Later on it turned out the victim's story changed over time and couldn't be confirmed for sure. victim always maintained something happened, and something might have happened but probably not in the way that they reported.
 
respect77;4084532 said:
As for Stacy Brown, I promised to myself whenever he writes an article about MJ I will keep re-posting this tea about him. So that people know what kind of person they are listening to. It's just sad that people like this are freely allowed to ruin another person's reputation in the media. Shame on every media who reposts this guy's story without even background checking it!

Interesting. I am unsure why Brown has not been banned from this forum. From your attachment, it shows he is a predator and a successful one. He said exactly what those fans wanted to hear (unfounded tales of Michael’s personal life) as he continues to do now with his media postings.

Amaya;4084613 said:
The increase in interest in this case has me nervous. It reminds me of how the press suddenly began hyping up the end of the AEG trial. Do these people know something that we don't?

Yes. The media is waiting to see if this claim will be allowed and a precedent set. If this claim is allowed, the precedent has nothing to do with Robson/Safechuck’s faux claims of nefarious acts or Michael or his legacy. If allowed, it will mean Michael’s estate was purposely left vulnerable by the will/trust authors. If allowed, it will mean a man of Michael’s wealth did not have appropriate protection of his assets and other frivolous claims will be welcomed such as these. If allowed, Michael’s estate will financially crumble and there will be nothing remaining for his beneficiaries.

I cannot see any reason for this judge to allow the probate claim. None. If allowed, he has to be very detailed as to why he would allow the destruction of this estate because that is what these claims attempt to do.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

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

so we should find out tommoro?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I cannot see any reason for this judge to allow the probate claim. None. If allowed, he has to be very detailed as to why he would allow the destruction of this estate because that is what these claims attempt to do.
Good point. Beckloff is a probate judge after all and therefore supposed to be protective of the Estate. That's the main reason I'm infuriated he's let it drag out this far.
Infuriated is a gentle word here.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Local tabloids here are also copy & pasting the Mirror article. It is really annoying that there is no comment section of any kind. Everyone will now just believe it when they see it.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

No comments? How cowardly of them.
Is there anyway to find out how much attention these sites are getting without having to go on the site itself?
 
Tygger;4084664 said:
it will mean Michael’s estate was purposely left vulnerable by the will/trust authors.

care to elaborate how could creditor claims could have been avoided by what type of a will?
 
Paris78;4084633 said:
Taj Jackson @tajjackson3 · April 6th

Dear media, before you print/post stories about my family, please consider & question the "credibility" and "agenda" of your $ource. Thanks

Glad Taj still says something. Only person in public we have right now.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

How disgusting that worthless scumbag had the audacy to rehash an old crappy tabloid article. I guess he run out of money and Michael is cash guaranteed. :angry:
 
Barbee0715, I have always said that no one has benefited from this situation except the team of lawyers on both sides.

ivy;4084674 said:
care to elaborate how could creditor claims could have been avoided by what type of a will?

Care to explain how - if Michael’s assets are indeed invulnerable - Robson/Safechuck’s lawyers felt their clients had a remote chance to set a precedent and benefit from the MJ Estate?
 
Tygger;4084681 said:
Care to explain how - if Michael’s assets are indeed invulnerable - Robson/Safechuck’s lawyers felt their clients had a remote chance to set a precedent and benefit from the MJ Estate?

I did not say the assets are invulnerable. I don't think the assets could be invulnerable and any Estate could see creditor claims. So I asked you how do you think (what will, what setup etc) that's possible.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Mod note: While the moderators understand the dislike and anger towards Stacy Brown, please refrain from using words that could be offensive to a race. Thank you.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Both of these guys had 28 years to come forward but both waited until MJ is dead and cannot defend himself and they both are "dead" broke. :rolleyes:

Repressed memories my ass!!
 
Ivy, a basic Google search will give the strategies you seek and those are available to anyone; even those without Michael’s wealth. Some documents offer full protection of assets while others are effective at making creditors’ claims quite difficult and very expensive.

Suffice to say, Michael’s will/trust is not one of those documents. If one would like to suggest Michael’s will/trust is the latter characterization above, then, one may also reason someone is funding this doomed venture because this is most likely not a contingency-based, legal service and this claim(s), if allowed, will set a precedent.

Ask yourself if the authors of Michael's will/trust will utilize those same documents to protect their assets. I am positive the answer is no and that is why this is receiving media attention. If this claim is allowed, the MJ Estate is effectively open for any and all looters posing as creditors to succeed.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I'm over at my brothers house right now and he and his wife turned it on Entertainment Tonight. Called me in bc they were talking about this dam story.
I flipped the channel and told them it was nothing.
(I didn't feel like arguing tonight).

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

yeah Entertainment Tonight is owned by the same folks as the NY POST right.. I didn't watch the report at all.. I flipped the channel.. They all know good and damn well that Sneddon investigated MJ along with the FBI and there is no proof whatsoever of no cash payouts.. They know it.. If there were Sneddon would've used it.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Michael would have been arrested if he paid hush money, that's illegal. Didn't Sneddon spend millions of dollars searching for more "victims" around the world over the years and couldn't find any other? Didn't he also encourage more people to come forward in the 2005 trial but he just got Jason Francia's sorry ass? It was also Jordan Chandler's chance to "get justice" but he refused to testify.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

One of the things that piss me off the most since MJ died is that SB can just make shit up, and there is nothing that can be done about it, just because MJ died and according to CA law you can't defame a dead person, if there is anything that proves what a dumb law that is, it is MJ.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^speaking of defaming dead people, I got on a couple of those sites yesterday to help with comments but the ones I looked at either didn't allow comments or were only thru Facebook. Which I won't do.
BUT I noticed a story about Charlie Chaplin and his "sexual perversions" with his underage wife. Now hasn't he been dead at least 30 yrs?? And I'm pretty sure he married that wife back in the 1920s.
Maybe it really never ends.
 
Tygger;4084687 said:
Ivy, a basic Google search will give the strategies you seek and those are available to anyone; even those without Michael’s wealth.

you know you could have just named what you are talking about to ensure a more productive discussion. Anyway I'm gonna assume you mean irrevocable trust which is provides protection but it would have required the assets to be debt free. So yes there are some tools to protect the assets but I don't necessarily think using them was possible in MJ's situation. but anyway.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

you know you could have just named what you are talking about to ensure a more productive discussion. Anyway I'm gonna assume you mean irrevocable trust which is provides protection but it would have required the assets to be debt free. So yes there are some tools to protect the assets but I don't necessarily think using them was possible in MJ's situation. but anyway.

Yip, an irrevocable trust could have protected the catalog and other assets but clearly MJ chose not to utilize that option since he repeatedly used ATV and his other assets as collateral for loans. Once transferred into such a trust, the grantor relinquishes all rights of ownership of the asset(s).
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yip, an irrevocable trust could have protected the catalog and other assets but clearly MJ chose not to utilize that option since he repeatedly used ATV and his other assets as collateral for loans. Once transferred into such a trust, the grantor relinquishes all rights of ownership of the asset(s).

yep. MJ's will was actually arranged as a revocable trust with MJ being the trustee to avoid probate. However that did not happen as the assets were leveraged / had debt on them. Regardless neither a revocable trust nor avoiding probate could stop a creditor claim. irrevocable trust could but like I said given the loans on the assets I don't think that was possible either.
 
Ivy, that is not the only option and a basic Google search would show that. There is nothing negative about a basic Google search as we have learned from a previous lawsuit.

No one has a clue as to how much input Michael and/or any situation he was in had into the drafting of those documents if any. Suggesting that Michael being in debt is the reason that the documents are inferior is a poor excuse as he was not the author. When the documents were made public, many estate planners were shocked at how basic the documents were.

I would not wish those documents on my worst enemy let alone Michael. I am quite sure the author(s) of those documents would not use it to protect their assets either.

I explained how Robson/Safechuck’s lawyers saw their chance and it is because those documents made Michael’s assets vulnerable. Michael cannot be held accountable for these claims as they were purposely made after he passed. The true issue here is if this judge will allow these claims which will completely destroy MJ Estate.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

No one has a clue as to how much input Michael and/or any situation he was in had into the drafting of those documents if any. Suggesting that Michael being in debt is the reason that the documents are inferior is a poor excuse as he was not the author.

If it's not clear allow me to state that I'm not blaming Michael for Estate planning. I just said the loans on the assets limited the possibilities. As for the rest don't worry. I had hoped you would provide a specific scenario of what could be done in Michael's unique situation (rather than a very generic "there are options" response) but my interest has diminished.

I agree with you that if these claims are allowed, it could result in floodgates and that's exactly why I think they would not be allowed. Also there are many other stuff that could destroy the MJ Estate. Let's hope none of them happens.
 
Ivy, I have no reason to distrust the estate planners who commented after Michael’s will/trust was made public. I cannot remember any who supported these documents. I see no purpose in debating their views (and mine) on the documents.

We both agree that this will be a fatal blow provided these claims are allowed. I see no reason for this judge to set a precedent with Michael’s estate (or anyone else's estate for that matter). None. This has to end as only the legal teams are profiting from it. I believe the IRS/Estate are having settlement discussions which is a positive and can prevent the only other fatal blow I can think of.
 
As a bank branch manager for over 30 years, I dealt a lot with revocable trusts, irrevocable trusts and wills, estates, etc. I didn't do estate planning, but I had to take care of the accounts, etc. after the person died. I'm not aware of any other way to set up a will that would avoid something like this, but again, I'm only familiar with these trusts.
The only article I ever read about Michael's will and the trust he set up was in Kiplinger right after his death and it was quite complimentary. I saved the article:



http://www.kiplinger.com/article/re...te-planning-lessons-from-michael-jackson.html

4 Estate-Planning Lessons From
Michael Jackson


Learn from the pop icon’s concise plans for handling his assets and caring for his family.
By Jane Bennett Clark, July 2009


For a man who lived so controversial a life, Michael Jackson did something surprisingly sensible before his death.

He set up a smart estate plan.


Jackson’s will provides for the care of his loved ones. A separate document gathers his assets — said to be over $500 million, exceeding his debt by about $200 million - into a trust, ensuring that his affairs stay (mostly) out of the courts and (ideally) out of the public eye.


Far from being *****, the arrangements set the stage for an orderly disposition of his chaotic empire, says Todd Reinstein, an estate-planning lawyer in Los Angeles. And although challenges could roll in like the California surf, this plan is so well crafted that it just might hold up – unless another will emerges.


Here’s what you can learn about estate planning from the King of Pop.


Write a will.


A no-brainer? Actually, about two-thirds of Americans neglect to take on this basic estate-planning chore, allowing a judge to divvy up their assets by default according to state law. Had Jackson been similarly remiss, his property would have been split among his three children, as dictated by California law. Instead, he divided it the way he wanted to, reportedly leaving 40% of his estate to the kids, 40% to his mother, Katherine Jackson, and 20% to charity.


Jackson avoided potential misunderstandings by citing each of his children by name and by specifically excluding his former wife and mother of his two older children, Debbie Rowe, from any inheritance. That exclusion may not have been necessary, because the couple were no longer married, but it makes clear that Jackson purposely omitted her, rather than committing an oversight. Anna Nicole Smith, another celebrity with a tangled personal life, neglected to name her infant, Dannielynn, in her will, creating confusion as to her intent. Jackson made his choices clear.




Consider a living trust.


Along with a will, Jackson established a living trust, also called a revocable trust. This estate-planning tool lets you transfer all your property, including cars, bank accounts and real estate, into a separately owned entity—in Jackson’s case, the Michael Jackson Family Trust--while maintaining control as trustee. At your death, control transfers to your designated co-trustee or successor trustee. Most people, including Jackson, set up their will to “pour over” so that whatever property remains outside the trust at their death eventually is added to it.


The beauty of a living trust for some is that the assets it holds at the time of death avoid probate, a public process. “People who are not interested in having the media know how much they died with or to whom the money is going to be left always do a living trust to prevent media attention,” says Reinstein. Avoiding probate can also make sense for regular folks with significant assets or property in more than one state because it spares their heirs the aggravation of a prolonged legal process. “It saves a lot of money, time and hassle,” says David Shulman, an estate-planning attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.


Name a guardian.


In writing his will, Jackson created a legal framework for naming a guardian for his children, all of whom are minors. Without that document, the state—not Jackson-- would have made the choice about who would raise the kids. Jackson selected his mother as primary guardian and singer Diana Ross, his longtime friend and mentor, as backup. Although the court has to sign off on the selection, most judges abide by a parent’s wishes unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.


One big reason: The other biological parent demands custody. Unless he or she is deemed unfit or has given up parental rights, “the court is going to favor the surviving biological parent,” says Richard Barnes, an estate-planning attorney and author of Estate Planning for Blended Families (Nolo, $35). Rowe reportedly gave up her parental rights several years ago and later petitioned to have them reinstated, leaving the legal picture murky. She has yet to say whether she will seek custody. (The third child’s mother, a birth surrogate, has not come forward.)


As for Jackson’s choice of caregivers, he might have done better to pick someone younger than his 79-year-old mother, says Shulman. But, he adds, “with so much money involved, it’s not as if she will be driving the children to school and doing the actual work of raising them.” Most lawyers recommend that parents go with a trusted friend or relative who is reasonably close to their own age and circumstances. Jackson chose trust and continuity over relative youth.


Assemble a good team.


Known as an astute businessman, Jackson named a top-notch lawyer, John Branca, and a savvy business executive, John McClain, as co-executors of his will and co-trustees of the family trust (a third representative dropped out before Jackson died.). Despite a challenge by Katherine Jackson, Branca and McClain were awarded control of the estate by a California Superior Court judge until the next court hearing, in early August.


By relying on these and other experts, Jackson improved the odds that his wishes would play out, says Reinstein. “He had good legal advice. The estate plan was well drafted. He put two people in charge of the will and trust who he felt were sage, mature and had a great deal of expertise in how to handle what are probably considerable assets. He couldn’t have put his estate in a better position.”


Bottom line: “A good estate plan is very important,” says Reinstein. “I believe Michael Jackson has one in place.”




Read more at http://www.kiplinger.com/article/re...from-michael-jackson.html#3FBFg5MstO02R04b.99
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

"We are aware of recent false 'reports' regarding Michael Jackson having, among other things, paid over $200 million to 20 'victims,'" Weitzman told ET in a statement on Monday. "There is not a shred of evidence to support these ludicrous 'reports.' It is unfortunate that, even in death, Michael cannot be free of these types of allegations, but we are confident that the truth will prevail in the end, just as it did in 2005 when a jury fully exonerated him."

Howard Weitzman.
 
Back
Top