My notes to this:
Re. Quindoy. Quindoy first started to claim this after 1993. He never before claimed those things. So just because
in the hindsight of the Chandler allegations he started to claim things going back to 1990 it does not mean the the Companies as companies knew or had a reason to know about the things he alleged
in the hindsight. Did he report any of those alleged incidents to anyone at the time? Not at all. He first came up with those claims after the Chandler case and while trying to sell the story to tabloids for money.
I think the story about security guards being "instructed not to stop Jackson's car at the ranch gate (as they had in the past) when Jackson arrived with a young boy" containst two names. 1) Staikos who allegedly gave this instruction, and 2) some female security guard that made this claim about MJ allegedly smuggling in young boys that way.
I was just re-reading William van Valin's book. This is what he wrote about entry protocolls to Neverland:
Michael’s house was not visible from the gatehouse, where it was a requirement to stop and sign in before you were allowed to go any further into the Ranch. There was a specific form you had to sign saying that you would behave yourself at all times as befitted a guest and that you would absolutely never take any pictures while on the Ranch. As such, all cameras and cell phones that had the capability of taking pictures had to be left there and were to be picked back up on the way out.
However as later they became familiar with the guards they did not have to stop any more:
By this time, having been to the Ranch so frequently, we were usually waved on through rather than stopping to sign in. This visit was no exception and upon arrival we parked out in front of the house.
So I have a hard time to understand how it is some shady business if the guards are instructed not to stop Michael -
the owner of the ranch. And the whole story with some boy supposedly hiding from the guard between the seats is just so ridiculous. Again, once they are trying to tell us that MJ was hiding these boys, but then we see him walking around with them hand-in-hand in plain sight, talk about sharing bed with them on national TV etc. So if he was so open about being with kids in public why would he hide some boy from some guard? Does not make any sense.
I wonder who the guard is who claimed this. The only female guard I remember is Charli Michaels but I don't see this story in the prosecution's motion from 2005 where they attempted to introduce these testimonies. Since these stories always changed, doesn't mean she did not claim this at some other point or to some tabloid. (Charli Michael's first made her claims when she went on Hard Copy to sell a story and then she joing the Neverland 5 in their lawsuits, so she's another shady, disgruntled ex-employee.)
But from a strictly legal POV: again, how does Staikos insturcting the guards not to stop MJ's car at the gate constitutes of knowlede of sexual abuse?
Similarly claims of Staikos arranging meetings between MJ and children and their families - how does this mean she knew about alleged sexual abuse?
Like I said the main argument seems to be that Staikos allegedly fired employees against MJ's wishes and that means acc. to Robson that she had at least some control.
MJ was very non-confrontational and thus often (or rather always) when someone was fired he did it through someone else. And (I guess to avoid confrontation) he sometimes blamed it on someone else and told those people that it was not his wish to fire them. But being the owner and president of his company I am pretty sure Norma Staikos could not have fired anyone if it was REALLY against MJ's wishes. So what should Staikos have done in this situation acc. to Robson? Fire him and his mother against MJ's wishes? I would have loved to see that in practice! Surely both MJ
AND Robson's mother would have protested against that and Staikos would have been the one who would end up being fired at the end.
Also that Staikos "had the authority to set security protocol with respect to Jackson's visitors to the ranch" does not mean she had the right to tell MJ who to invite to his room or what to do. Nor does it mean she had knowledge about what was allegedly going on in MJ's bedroom.
"Robson was lured into Jackson's world through Jackson's relationship with Defendants".
LOL. So it wasn't his mother who deliberately seeked out MJ through MJJ Productions when they had a vacation in the US?
"(Staikos) arranged a meeting between Jackson and Robson in February 1990, which was immediately followed by Robson's first visit to Neverland Ranch, when Jackson's first acts of abuse of Robson occured."
It's amazing how they repeatedly leave out the fact about who contacted whom: it was Robson's mother, Joy Robson, who seeked out MJJ Productions and Staikos to contact MJ. The document does not make any mention of it at all! They try to make it look like it was the other way around.
And like I said above this is an interesting turn of events regarding Joy's story:
So not only Wade, but Joy too will change her story now? What is her excuse of supposedly not telling "the truth" under oath in 2005 then?
And regarding the visas again leaving out the fact that it was Robsons mother who repeatedly bugged MJ's companies for those green cards and visas.
While MJ used his companies to arrange certain things for the Robsons, to claim that the relationship between them was due to the companies and the business environment rather than some friendship outside of the companies, is ridiculous. It was Joy Robson who seeked out MJ when they vacationed in the US, not the other way around.
I think they are throwing everything but the kitchen sink which MAY be enough to pass demurrer (due the Estate not being able to present evidence to the contrary at this stage), but they will have big problems at least at the summary judgement stage.
