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

[HIStory]

First one is again Staikos. Orietta Murdock claimed Staikos told her never leave her kid with MJ. Lynande says most of these claims are mentioned in Gutierrez book.

Yes, Murdock. It would make sense if the quote is:

"(Orietta Murdock) stated she first heard of Jackson's reputation regarding children soon after she started working at MJJ Productions in (year). (Staikos) told Ms. (Murdock) that she should never leave her son alone with Jackson, and also told Ms. (Murdock) that "that kid (Jackson) better be glad I understand his problem."

Orietta Murdock was one of the people that Victor Guiterrez befriended.

After Gutierrez visited the conference of the “suspect organization” in 1986, the 2006 GQ article states, he started to “strike up friendships” with some of Jackson’s employees:

“For the next five years Gutierrez tracked down as many of Jackson’s current and former associates as he could. Being Latino himself helped – it was relatively easy for him to strike up friendships with Jackson’s El Salvadorean maid, Blanca Francia, who left Jackson’s employment in 1991, and the star’s Costa Rican PA (personal assistant), Orietta Murdock, who sued him for unfair dismissal in 1992.” [5]
​

It appears that Murdock was a source for the Chandlers about some things re. Michael when they created their story, eg. that draft about MJ's penis:

Another inference to a probable collaboration between the Chandlers and Gutierrez is the fact that a drawing allegedly made in October of 1993, by Jordan of Jackson’s private parts includes text that makes mention of the name “Orietta” twice. [More about that drawing in this article.] Jackson employed a personal assistant named Orietta Murdock whom he fired in 1992. Orietta Murdock, however, no longer worked for Jackson in 1993, when the star spent time with the Chandler family. Why would Jordan or any of the Chandlers make references to an “Orietta” while attempting to describe Jackson’s private parts? The link between Murdock and the Chandlers is Gutierrez. In the 2006 GQ article Orietta Murdock is mentioned as one of the Jackson employees that Victor Gutierrez befriended.

So from whom did she hear about MJ's "reputation with children" soon after she started working for MJJP? Her buddy Victor Guiterrez? Do the Robsons really want to go there? Because if yes, then why not mention Joy's own meeting with Guiterrez in 1992? I find it very interesting that that story is totally missing from their narrative, even though Joy felt the need talk about it to Jermaine in 2011. So I'm sure they have not forgotten about it and I'm sure the omission of it now is not accidental. And this is one of the reasons why I said earlier that the things that are omitted from their complaint are at least as interesting as the things they included and why I said that I don't think they are ready to implicate Joy.

That omission is really telling because if this was really about justice and if he really had been molested Wade should be furious at his mother for that incident. Furious! Only then it would be even more clear that the one who he should try to sue is not MJ's companies, but his mother. So that omission is very telling in many ways IMO.

And BTW, I agree with LindavG that Joy knows that her son is a scumbag liar and she's knowingly going along with the plot. I was wondering about it so far, but reading this document there is little doubt IMO. Stories that were told very differently in 2005 (Joy's own stories) now are turned into something else in this document. There is no way Joy would not wonder about the difference - in fact, her assistance is needed if they are going to change some of those stories and narratives now. So shame on this whole leech family! I wish MJ had not been so generous to them and had left them rot in Australia. It's hard to imagine a bigger betrayal than someone turning someone's generousity against that person.

 

[myosotis]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Interesting if it is Charli Michaels because those claims are not in the prosecution's 2005 motion. So these must come from either some earlier deposition (and there must be a reason why those claims were not brought up by the prosecution in 2005) or from some tabloid, or Gutierrez's book. That is really the lowest of low if they use Gutierrez's book or tabloids for source.

There is another book that Wade et al may be referencing: Dangerous Liaisons. I am guessing that the author 'referred to' or personally knows Gutierrez.

The book 'DL' mentions that '(Orietta) Murdoch was said to have filed a complaint on 29th January 1991 with the Equal Employment Department in California. She claimed she had been intimidated and fired for being black. Her immediate boss, housekeeper Norma Staikos had allegedly hired her thinking she was Latina, but discovered otherwise after seeing her much darker sister'. The book also mentions that Orietta was the one who said that Michael 'kept only letters from white, Latin and Asian children'.
There is a footnote in 'DL' that says that is is illogical for Staikos to have warned Murdoch not to leave her ten year old son with Michael, if he was not interested in black children.

Regarding the Chandler case, 'DL' says that Grand Juries heard many witnesses including Marlon and Miko Brando, Staikos, Murdoch, Bob Jones, Klein, Bill Bray, Gary Hearne, Mr and Mrs Pellicano, James DeBarge and Charli Michaels. So if all of these have already appeared before Grand Juries, presumably their testimony is still available in the records, and nothing can have been said that would prompt a criminal trial.

Can testimony from a Grand Jury be used as evidence in a Civil trial...ie to show 'suspicion or otherwise by Michaels' company employees'? (I agree that Michael appears very much 'in charge' of the companies and not vice versa).

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

There is another book that Wade et al may be referencing: Dangerous Liaisons. I am guessing that the author 'referred to' or personally knows Gutierrez.

The book 'DL' mentions that '(Orietta) Murdoch was said to have filed a complaint on 29th January 1991 with the Equal Employment Department in California. She claimed she had been intimidated and fired for being black. Her immediate boss, housekeeper Norma Staikos had allegedly hired her thinking she was Latina, but discovered otherwise after seeing her much darker sister'. The book also mentions that Orietta was the one who said that Michael 'kept only letters from white, Latin and Asian children'.
There is a footnote in 'DL' that says that is is illogical for Staikos to have warned Murdoch not to leave her ten year old son with Michael, if he was not interested in black children.

Regarding the Chandler case, 'DL' says that Grand Juries heard many witnesses including Marlon and Miko Brando, Staikos, Murdoch, Bob Jones, Klein, Bill Bray, Gary Hearne, Mr and Mrs Pellicano, James DeBarge and Charli Michaels. So if all of these have already appeared before Grand Juries, presumably their testimony is still available in the records, and nothing can have been said that would prompt a criminal trial.

Thanks. So yeah, that story (Staikos allegedly telling her not to leave her son alone with MJ) seems to come from Murdock.

Can testimony from a Grand Jury be used as evidence in a Civil trial...ie to show 'suspicion or otherwise by Michaels' company employees'?

I guess GJ testimony can be used, but only after discovery which would happen during the summary judgement phase. However suspicion, rumours are NOT enough. That's what the City of Los Angeles precedent case basically rules about:

Fourth, there are allegations that other police officers were aware of Kalish's pedophilic tendencies -- these are the "commonly known" allegations -- because of his open interest in young boys, the favoritism he showed to certain of the scouts, including the plaintiffs, his inappropriate fraternization with some scouts, including plaintiffs, both on the job and at his home, his alleged association with a known pornographer, and his trips to Thailand where he was observed in the company of a young boy, among other allegations.

These are much more specific allegations than someone supposedly telling someone else some vauge comment about not to leave her son alone with MJ. Here there are allegations that police officers were actually aware of defendant's pedophilic tendencies. And these were STILL not enough to beat the demurrer.

 

[passy001]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Thanks. So yeah, that story (Staikos allegedly telling her not to leave her son alone with MJ) seems to come from Murdock.



I guess GJ testimony can be used, but only after discovery which would happen during the summary judgement phase. However suspicion, rumours are NOT enough. That's what the City of Los Angeles precedent case basically rules about:



These are much more specific allegations than someone supposedly telling someone else some vauge comment about not to leave her son alone with MJ. Here there are allegations that police officers were actually aware of defendant's pedophilic tendencies. And these were STILL not enough to beat the demurrer.

Agreed here as well. all these allegations connecting sarkos are stickly found on hearsay. so I don't think that 's enough to demonstrate knowledge or reason to know. plus, allegations of 1993 were denied by MJ and later by the accuser after a settlement. so robson cannot possibly use that to claim MJ companies knew or had reason to know. a mere allegation or suspicion is not sufficient to put people on notice. it has to be based on undisputed fact. so robson is still facing the same roadblock in the demurrer phase.

as for the control criteria, robson faces the same problem. his allegation that Sarko fired an employee even against MJ wishes is also based on heresay. and I'm not sure that is enough to demonstrate that MJ companies had control over him even indirectly through another agent. he has to demonstrate with fact that MJ did not have full control of the companies. interestingly he claims in his motion that the burden is on the estate to prove otherwise. that is not true. he's the complainant and the burden rests on him to demonstrate that MJ companies had control over MJ.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think the only way to win this "had a reason to know" is when a person actually saw wrong doing first hand and still kept his mouth shut.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think the only way to win this "had a reason to know" is when a person actually saw wrong doing first hand and still kept his mouth shut.

I don't think so, I don't think the information has to be first hand. Law even refers "knew prior claims of abuse".

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't think so, I don't think the information has to be first hand. Law even refers "knew prior claims of abuse".

Alright. Does "prior claims of abuse" mean a legal claim or is it like "somebody said he was abused"?

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Well, church lawsuits should give us a pretty good idea about what is needed to establish that "knew or had a reason to know" standard. I think it requires someone to make an abuse claim but I'm not sure if that alone is enough or if the entities need to confirm it somehow.

 

[passy001]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Well, church lawsuits should give us a pretty good idea about what is needed to establish that "knew or had a reason to know" standard. I think it requires someone to make an abuse claim but I'm not sure if that alone is enough or if the entities need to confirm it somehow.

The estate covered that in their demurrer motion (see page 14).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/258435718/MJ-Estate-Robson-Civil-Case-Second-Demurrer

at the very best, past unproven allegations will put an entity on an "inquiry notice". and even then that would be insufficient. in order to qualify for the "knew or had reason to know" criteria, robson must show that MJ companies had information from which a reasonable person could conclude that actual abuse of children did occur. again MJ denied any wrong doing. so did the accuser. and add the fact that robson himself repeatedly denied any act of abuse for two decades. and you are now left here with a case whereby there was no information available that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that MJ did in fact abuse children.

 

[Doo Doo Head]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So what are the latest developments after the good news? Has there been any other tabloid stories, besides the supposed letter from Lord Janner -story?

 

[Tygger]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The estate covered that in their demurrer motion (see page 14).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/258435718/MJ-Estate-Robson-Civil-Case-Second-Demurrer

at the very best, past unproven allegations will put an entity on an "inquiry notice". and even then that would be insufficient. in order to qualify for the "knew or had reason to know" criteria, robson must show that MJ companies had information from which a reasonable person could conclude that actual abuse of children did occur. again MJ denied any wrong doing. so did the accuser. and add the fact that robson himself repeatedly denied any act of abuse for two decades. and you are now left here with a case whereby there was no information available that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that MJ did in fact abuse children.

Agreed.

I understand the purpose of playing devil's advocate when discussing a possible civil trial. However, in this instance, it suggest Michael could somehow be capable of a heinous act(s) (thus, suspicion and/or concern) when he was vindicated in 2005 of criminal charges and there was no admission of guilt whatsoever with the Chandlers' settlement before a civil trial.

This is not going to a civil trial. Neither will Safechuck's claims.

The only viable option are appeals.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Maybe im being thick here but how does someone firing another person AGAINST mjs wjshes show control. Doest the admittance that the action was against his wishes show she didnt have the power to fire someone.and went behind his back as he was the one actually incharge. because i presume the firing was recinded or there was some sort of rollocking ie its not your place to do it.kinda like with the bain issue.

its like groundhog day with all the sleezeballs from 93 names coming back ..wonder if in another 20 years chancers will keep using them

 

[passy001]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Maybe im being thick here but how does someone firing another person AGAINST mjs wjshes show control. Doest the admittance that the action was against his wishes show she didnt have the power to fire someone.and went behind his back as he was the one actually incharge. because i presume the firing was recinded or there was some sort of rollocking ie its not your place to do it.kinda like with the bain issue.

its like groundhog day with all the sleezeballs from 93 names coming back ..wonder if in another 20 years chancers will keep using them

robson is facing major problems with that argument as well. what he's attempting to show here could at best be described as employee insubordination. but that is not enough to show control by the corporations, at least over the actions of a boss. because at the end of the day, the issue of control is about influence. staikos was merely an employee who had no powers whatsoever to influence MJ conduct, and so could not have possibly done anything to prevent MJ from allegedly abusing children. for gods sake, MJ was her boss and could fire her anytime he wanted to. not the other way around.

also, robson in his own complaint states that Mj corporations were his "alter agos", meaning that MJ had such an dominant influence over his corporations that they could be seen as one of the same. so the idea of MJ corporations having control over MJ is even more absurd, as the estate called out in their demurrer motion (see page 13: http://www.scribd.com/doc/258435718/...econd-Demurrer ).

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think right now they are just trying to survive demurrer and using the requirement for the judge to accept everything they say as true.

For example they had a huge issue with Estate mentioning MJ was the sole owner and had full control over organizations. as for control they are like "look she fired someone without his approval so that shows "some" control". they are trying too hard and it is obvious if you pay attention.

Anyone that has worked in an organization knows how the power is divided. You can be responsible for a department, a certain job etc. and that could give you SOME power and control. But I don't know how someone rationally equal that to the control over the owner / big boss. For example it is not surprising that staikos or someone else managed Neverland and had some sort of power / control in decision making / hiring/firing. After all you wouldn't expect Michael personally handle a million things regarding his business, property etc. But then to expect Staikos had some sort of power on MJ himself is absurd. It's one thing that staikos fired some neverland employee, it's a whole another thing to expect her to say "nope you can't have kids over at Neverland" to MJ.

As for the people mentioned, not only these are old stories but most of it are told by third parties and therefore hearsay. I don't imagine the judge would allow the use of old depositions, interviews and testimonies. I'm not really knowledgeable about such details but if you remember during AEG trial, judge didn't allow them to use Murray's police interview and the only way to introduce anything Murray said was to have him to come testify. Assuming that would be the requirement here - that people actually testify/give recent depositions - I imagine most of these names mentioned would be hard to get to cooperate.

 

[myosotis]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

robson is facing major problems with that argument as well. what he's attempting to show here could at best be described as employee insubordination. but that is not enough to show control by the corporations, at least over the actions of a boss. because at the end of the day, the issue of control is about influence. staikos was merely an employee who had no powers whatsoever to influence MJ conduct, and so could not have possibly done anything to prevent MJ from allegedly abusing children. for gods sake, MJ was her boss and could fire her anytime he wanted to. not the other way around.

also, robson in his own complaint states that Mj corporations were his "alter agos", meaning that MJ had such an dominant influence over his corporations that they could be seen as one of the same. so the idea of MJ corporations having control over MJ is even more absurd, as the estate called out in their demurrer motion (see page 13: http://www.scribd.com/doc/258435718/...econd-Demurrer ).

I don't know if all Neverland staff had the same wording in their contracts. I don't know if MJJ ventures / Productions staff had similar contracts to Neverland staff. I guess more senior staff may have had more specific 'hire and termination' wording. However, interestingly, there is a copy of a N'land staff Confidentiality agreement from approx. 1994 on a well-known sales site. This includes under 'Remedies on p3:

'You are employed solely on an at-will basis, and thus may quit or be terminated at any time without cause and without advance notice. '

 

[Bubs]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I was wondering that Staikos firing someone. Wasn't there a case that MJ fired someone but Tohme brought him back, or was it the other way round? Can anyone recall this case?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

so robson cannot possibly use that to claim MJ companies knew or had reason to know. a mere allegation or suspicion is not sufficient to put people on notice. it has to be based on undisputed fact. so robson is still facing the same roadblock in the demurrer phase.

Well, church lawsuits should give us a pretty good idea about what is needed to establish that "knew or had a reason to know" standard. I think it requires someone to make an abuse claim but I'm not sure if that alone is enough or if the entities need to confirm it somehow.

From what I gathered from reading the precedent I think the criteria of "otherwise on notice" can be met for example when there is a complaint about an employee abusing children. The complaint however does not necessarily have to be a formal complaint. In fact, legislative history explicitely states that the language "otherwise on notice" was added "to address a concern that an entity might be able to avoid responsibility if a formal complaint had not been filed".

BSA, by contrast, argues that "otherwise on notice" means imputed actual notice -- that is, actual knowledge imputed to a principal based on actual or constructive knowledge, including both inquiry notice and reason to know, in the possession of the principal's agent.

[9] Because the phrase is admittedly ambiguous, we consult the legislative history. (Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 995, 1003 ["f the statutory language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider various extrinsic aids, including . . . the legislative history . . . ."].) "The language 'or was otherwise on notice' was added . . . to address a concern that an entity might be able to avoid responsibility if a formal complaint had not been filed." (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1779, as amended June 6, 2002, p. 10-.) The apparent purpose of this language was to prevent a nonperpetrator defendant from disclaiming knowledge of the unlawful sexual conduct of the perpetrator on the grounds that it had not been notified of this conduct through a formal complaint process where the evidence demonstrates that some other form of notice was provided.

Thus, the legislative history does not support either plaintiffs' claim that the "otherwise on notice" language imposes a duty of inquiry or BSA's claim that what the Legislature intended was imputed actual knowledge. We need not determine the precise contours of the phrase, however, because even if we were to assume arguendo that plaintiff's interpretation is tenable, they have failed to satisfy the further requirement that the nonperpetrator defendant have knowledge or notice of the perpetrator's past unlawful sexual conduct. [42 Cal.4th 549]

It is not enough, under the statute, as plaintiffs maintain, that knowledge or notice of conduct that does not amount to unlawful sexual conduct is sufficient to trigger a duty of inquiry, even if we assume that "otherwise on notice" refers to such a duty. The preliminary reference in subdivision (b)(2) to "unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent," is clarified by the subsequent language regarding the nonperpetrator defendant's failure to take preventative action "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 circumstances involving contact with children. (Italics added.)

Thus, construing the subdivision as a whole, the knowledge or notice requirement refers to[/b] knowledge or notice of past unlawful sexual conduct[/b] by the individual currently accused of other unlawful sexual conduct. Again, this construction of the statute is supported by the legislative history. In an analysis of the policy reasons supporting Senate Bill No. 1779, it was noted: "According to the proponents, many of the victims that would be covered under this bill were abused for years during their childhood, enduring hundreds of assaults from employees or agents that the employer knew or had reason to know had committed past unlawful sexual conduct but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent future occurrences." (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1779, as amended June 6, 2002, p. 9.)

[10] Fairly construed, then, subdivision (b)(2) requires the victim to establish that the nonperpetrator defendant had actual knowledge, constructive knowledge (as measured by the reason to know standard), or was otherwise on notice that the perpetrator had engaged in past unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and, possessed of this knowledge or notice, failed to take reasonable preventative steps or implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of future unlawful sexual conduct by the perpetrator.

And

Plaintiffs' argument impliedly concedes what is plain on the face of their complaints: that their complaints fail to allege that defendants had knowledge of Kalish's past unlawful sexual conduct with minors, which is the prerequisite for imposing upon these defendants liability for his subsequent sexual abuse of plaintiffs. That defendants had knowledge or notice of misconduct by Kalish that created a risk of sexual exploitation is not enough under the express terms of the statute. In the absence of sufficient allegations of knowledge or notice on the part of these defendants, their demurrers were correctly sustained and the actions against them properly dismissed. fn. 6

So what they have to be on notice about is "past unlawful sexual conduct with minors". Not other behaviour (hanging out with children, buying them gifts etc.) that led people to believe, speculate, gossip that the defendant might be a child molester. IMO before 1993 it's difficult for them to allege any such thing. Mark Quindoy might have claimed (in the hindsight) that he saw things before 1993 but how could that be translated into some sort of responsibility by the Companies when Quindoy, according to his own story, never told anyone before he started to sell his story to tabloids in 1993 on the wake of the Chandler scandal? A kid allegedly hiding in the backseat of MJ's car is not knowlede or notice of sexual abuse either. Staikos arranging meetings between kids, their families and MJ and sending limousines for them is also not a knowledge or notice of sexual abuse.

That Murdock stated that "she first heard of Jackson's reputation regarding children..." is too vauge to me. 1) From whom did she hear about MJ's reputation (because if it was Gutierrez, for example, then obviously MJ's companies have nothing to do with that - VG did not work at MJ's companies), 2) What was that alleged "reputation"? It is not specified, at least in this document. Based on what did he have that "reputation"? Based on people speculating about him because he hang out with kids? That is not enough. What has to be claimed is that he had that reputation because people had knowledge, were on notice about "past unlawful sexual conduct" by him.

That Staikos allegedly told Murdock not to leave her son alone with MJ is again vauge. No context given as to why, under what circumstances was this allegedly told and based on what? If it was said because MJ hanging out with kids raised suspicion in Staikos, obviously that's again not enough, because that is just speculation based on certain behaviour by MJ (hanging out with kids, buying them gifts etc.), not a knowledge of past sexual misconduct.

Staikos allegedly telling Murdock "that kid (MJ) better be glad I understand his problem" - what is this even supposed to mean? No context given again and very vague and I guess that is not accidental. I guess they are trying to make it look like that Staikos is referring to pedophilia being MJ's problem, but it requires a big stretch to derive that from this. It can mean a million things.

So IMO the only thing that the Judge might see as a "notice" is the 1993 allegations, because there you have a formal complaint filed against MJ for child sexual abuse. But then you have the question what were the companies supposed to do with that? And of course even more importantly, did they have the power, right or authority to do something that they did not do to prevent alleged abuse?
I don't think they did.

BTW, this precedent sheds light on the idea behind this law:

Furthermore, we agree with plaintiffs that the doctrine of less particularity may be especially appropriate in this setting. The legislative history of Senate Bill No. 1779 demonstrates the Legislature was particularly sensitive to cases of childhood sexual abuse in which the nonperpetrator defendant concealed from victims of that abuse its knowledge of the perpetrator's past acts of unlawful sexual conduct. "[C]laims of some victims were delayed because the employer withheld information from victims or lied to victims so the employers' negligence and wrongful conduct would not be discovered. This is a key distinction and policy justification for holding these wrongdoing employers liable past the victim's 26th birthday. In these cases, the evidence is not lost because the perpetrator of the abuse could not be found or his memories faded. Instead, the evidence is in the possession of the wrongdoing employer or third party, who knew or had reason to know of complaints of sexual misconduct against the employee or agent but failed to take reasonable [42 Cal.4th 551] steps to avoid future unlawful acts by that employee or agent." (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1779, as amended June 6, 2002, p. 9.)


[13] This recognition by the Legislature that one reason a plaintiff may remain ignorant of the nonperpetrator defendant's wrongdoing is because that defendant has withheld or concealed evidence of its wrongdoing argues strongly in favor of broader, rather than more restrictive, standards of pleading where subdivision (b)(2) is alleged to apply. In the appropriate case, a plaintiff should be able to rely on the doctrine of less particularity where he or she can plausibly allege that the nonperpetrator defendant withheld or concealed evidence of its knowledge or notice of the perpetrator's past unlawful sexual conduct with minors. fn. 5

Obviously this was not the case about the 1993 allegations. Those were very public allegations. They were not concealed from Wade or Joy Robson. In fact, they volunteered to go on TV to defend MJ. So the current accuser and his legal guardian knew about the allegations against MJ and denied that Wade was abused. MJ denied the allegations against him. Moreover, of course, he had control over his companies. So what the heck were those companies supposed to do?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I was wondering that Staikos firing someone. Wasn't there a case that MJ fired someone but Tohme brought him back, or was it the other way round? Can anyone recall this case?

Michael probably gave many people the power to fire another person, I bet even John Branca has done it at least once. It doesn't mean anything and I think they will have to prove it was against Michael's wishes. Not that I think the mere fact of her firing anyone means she had any kind of control over Michael'slife and personal decisions.


Staikos probably arranged many of Michael's meetings, not just with children.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Imo the companies were mj. there was no one higher than mj. no one was his boss. no one individual had a duty of car to protect robson from mj because no one individual in the companies out ranked him.I really dont see how you can use a vague term like the companies.who is the company? the individual that owns it?any of the staff hired by it. shouldnt robson be sueing stakos and others that knew things.didnt they have a duty of care to protect him seeing as they supposedly knew things.scraping the barrell is to good a term for this.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The whole MJ company lawsuit reeks big time for so many reasons. It's obvious that the only defendant here is still Michael Jackson and the payment will be on his Estate. For this case to look a little less crooked they should have sued more people for starters. Joy Robson, Norma Staikos and any other person who was allegedly involved with the companies and didn't save Wade from abuse. If someone has suffered from the company's negligence and then only base it on some individuals who may or may have not said something incriminating, why are they not in the lawsuit too? They had a personal liability to report any kind of wrong doing. Why was Norma Staikos mentioned so late? Why is it still so vague? Why isn't Joy mentioned at all? They should have been there on the first filing.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

robson is facing major problems with that argument as well. what he's attempting to show here could at best be described as employee insubordination. but that is not enough to show control by the corporations, at least over the actions of a boss. because at the end of the day, the issue of control is about influence. staikos was merely an employee who had no powers whatsoever to influence MJ conduct, and so could not have possibly done anything to prevent MJ from allegedly abusing children. for gods sake, MJ was her boss and could fire her anytime he wanted to. not the other way around.

also, robson in his own complaint states that Mj corporations were his "alter agos", meaning that MJ had such an dominant influence over his corporations that they could be seen as one of the same. so the idea of MJ corporations having control over MJ is even more absurd, as the estate called out in their demurrer motion (see page 13: http://www.scribd.com/doc/258435718/...econd-Demurrer ).

I agree. They seem all over the place with their arguments. It looks like they are trying to throw in everything, hoping that one argument would stick. In one moment Staikos has so much control that she supposedly can control MJ. In another moment the corporations are MJ's alter egos. At one point Robson even makes the argument that MJ's own knowledge of his alleged abuse constitutes a knowledge by the Companies. With that he basically says MJ=Companies. Then they try to dispute that MJ was the sole owner/president of the companies. At yet another part of their document they claim that MJ instructed Staikos/his companies to do this or that (meaning that MJ had the right to instruct Staikos to whatever he wanted).

I think right now they are just trying to survive demurrer and using the requirement for the judge to accept everything they say as true.

For example they had a huge issue with Estate mentioning MJ was the sole owner and had full control over organizations. as for control they are like "look she fired someone without his approval so that shows "some" control". they are trying too hard and it is obvious if you pay attention.

Yes, I agree that this is just about trying to survive demurrer. They know that at this stage the Estate's possibilities to challenge some of those claims are limited so they try to rely on that - eg. even trying to question whether MJ was the sole owner/president of the companies which is something I imagine would be easy to prove with legal documents. I think they know full well he was the sole owner/president, but this is just trying to survive demurrer and go to the next round.

Anyone that has worked in an organization knows how the power is divided. You can be responsible for a department, a certain job etc. and that could give you SOME power and control. But I don't know how someone rationally equal that to the control over the owner / big boss. For example it is not surprising that staikos or someone else managed Neverland and had some sort of power / control in decision making / hiring/firing. After all you wouldn't expect Michael personally handle a million things regarding his business, property etc. But then to expect Staikos had some sort of power on MJ himself is absurd. It's one thing that staikos fired some neverland employee, it's a whole another thing to expect her to say "nope you can't have kids over at Neverland" to MJ.

As for the people mentioned, not only these are old stories but most of it are told by third parties and therefore hearsay. I don't imagine the judge would allow the use of old depositions, interviews and testimonies. I'm not really knowledgeable about such details but if you remember during AEG trial, judge didn't allow them to use Murray's police interview and the only way to introduce anything Murray said was to have him to come testify. Assuming that would be the requirement here - that people actually testify/give recent depositions - I imagine most of these names mentioned would be hard to get to cooperate.

MJ was the owner and president of his companies. It's such an absurd thing to try to claim that an employee that MJ had the right to hire and fire would have control over him or would have control over whichever friends MJ intended to employ. It's obvious that an employee does not have the right to instruct her boss and employer. It's the other way around. In case they are trying to imply that the right thing from Staikos (or the Companies) would have been to fire Robson in order to protect him, that's just so absurd. How on Earth that would have played out? "Look, MJ has been accused of child molestation by Jordan Chandler. Now we are on notice that he is an alleged child molester. I am going to fire Wade to protect him. That he says nothing happened to him? That MJ denies the allegations? That Joy says nothing happened to her son? That MJ is my boss and he does not want them to be fired? That Joy/Wade do not want to be fired? Doesn't matter. I am going to fire Wade to protect him." That's just absurd and of course such a firing would have lasted for about 5 minutes - until MJ had taken them back and fired Staikos instead. Not to mention what kind of right she would have to fire the Robsons because the boss is accused of child molestation? That's not a reason to disadvantage the supposed "victim" by firing him from his job. Such a nonsense. In what other ways she could have protected Robson? She could not have instructed MJ not to meet them. She could have maybe refused to carry out MJ's orders (for example to send a limousine for Robson or something), but that would have resulted in her firing.Again shows that she was not in control of that situation, but MJ was. And based on what she would take such actions anyway, when the Robsons themselves say nothing happened to Wade and in fact, they defended MJ and they wanted to be with MJ?

 

[Tygger]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think right now they are just trying to survive demurrer and using the requirement for the judge to accept everything they say as true.

Not everything. Abuse claims yes, not flawed logic.

This is what the Estate lawyers argued against and I see no reason why they will not succeed in their argument.

(Please note I am not suggesting you said the estate would not be successful in thwarting a civil trial.)

 

[myosotis]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

While we are on the subject of control....I just happened to be listening to the recording of Michael's 'Dangerous' court hearing (in 1994?), and at one point he is asked who 'controls access to the vault...was it Norma Staikos'? Michael's voice goes up a scale in his very polite reply, but you can hear him thinking 'wtf?, Norma in control of the vault?, No!' It's quite amusing to listen to.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I would think any employee of the company, whether they were a secretary or an executive (even if you're scared of termination) would have had a moral as well as a legal obligation to act on any kind of real suspicion-Staikos would have had to report such a thing to the police or Child Protective Services, and an investigation would have been started long before Wade came into the picture. Obviously, there was no such suspicion, because Sneddon would have hauled her to court as well as an accessory to a crime.

Thank goodness this other case did not survive the demurrer-maybe this other case, Kalish, did turn out to be a pedophile, but the stuff they listed as being pedophilic tendencies-being around kids not your own and the list they gave for being suspicious-open interest in young boys, favoritism with certain scouts, trips with kids, etc. could be attributed to any foster parent, Big Brother or Sister, any Scout Leader, all coaches, babysitters, people like Audrey Hepburn, Danny Kaye, Danny Thomas, ME. That could all just be rumor, innuendo, and speculation, I'd think.

I'm glad there is a precedent out there-sure there must be more.

I have a question about this:

plus, allegations of 1993 were denied by MJ and later by the accuser after a settlement.

Are you saying that Chandler denied the allegations, because I don't think that happened. I know it's an internet rumor now, but it's just a rumor.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The accuser is Wade. He denied it , his mother denied it so why could the companies say or how anyone expected them to act when all parties ivolved denied any abuse had taken place.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The accuser is Wade. He denied it , his mother denied it so why could the companies say or how anyone expected them to act when all parties ivolved denied any abuse had taken place.

Thanks Soundmind. I misread that sentence in 2 different posts and I just couldn't think who the "accuser after the settlement" was besides Chandler.

But Wade yeah. He not only denied it for years but in the claim he said it happened but he didn't tell anybody either. So how would anyone know or act on it?? I think that one little bit ought to get him. Contradictions everywhere.
Thanks.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

While we are on the subject of control....I just happened to be listening to the recording of Michael's 'Dangerous' court hearing (in 1994?), and at one point he is asked who 'controls access to the vault...was it Norma Staikos'? Michael's voice goes up a scale in his very polite reply, but you can hear him thinking 'wtf?, Norma in control of the vault?, No!' It's quite amusing to listen to.

Can you tell us where that part is?

I would think any employee of the company, whether they were a secretary or an executive (even if you're scared of termination) would have had a moral as well as a legal obligation to act on any kind of real suspicion-Staikos would have had to report such a thing to the police or Child Protective Services, and an investigation would have been started long before Wade came into the picture.

Yes, but that is a civil duty as private persons outside of the bounds of the companies. Within the company they did not have the right to tell MJ what to do or seperate MJ (the boss and owner) from the Robsons. If they had suspicions they could have turned to the police or other authorities in their private capacity. If they failed to do so while allegedly having knowledge about sexual abuse Robson should sue them as private persons. Of course, he is not doing that because that's not where the money is.

The absurd thing in these allegations is that these disgruntled, tabloid-whoring ex-employees (Quindoy, Blanca Francia, Orietta Murdock, Charli Michaels) are used by the accusers in support of their claims, yet none of the accusers feel the need to sue them. For God's sake, some of these people claim they witnessed abuse or improper behaviour and they just stood by and never felt the need to report it to anyone until money was to be made of it in the tabloids! Tabloid money was enough motivation for them to tell a story, but protecting the kids was not enough motivation. When Quindoy claims he witnessed MJ fondle Wade but never told anyone, cannot be construed as the companys responsibility. Since Quindoy never reported it to anyone until tabloid money was to be made of it, that is his own responsibility. Blanca Francia claims she witnessed MJ and Robson shower together. But she never reported that to anyone until the 1993 allegations. She just stood by and watched and kept it to herself. Never occured to her that the kid should be protected. So why doesn't Wade sue Blanca Francia for negligence then? How interesting that these people never get sued for negligence, instead the accusers want to use them to sue MJ and his companies. Follow the money!

 

[myosotis]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ On the Dangerous tape, at 42.04, (in response to the question 'Does Norma Staikos have control over thevault') MJ asks 'What do you mean by 'control'? The lawyer then asks 'Does she allow certain people to access the vault?, and MJ says (voice rising in scale) Well, if they need a tape and she knows they are working on something for me, sure'.

 

[Bubs]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Michael probably gave many people the power to fire another person, I bet even John Branca has done it at least once. It doesn't mean anything and I think they will have to prove it was against Michael's wishes. Not that I think the mere fact of her firing anyone means she had any kind of control over Michael'slife and personal decisions.

Yes, I agree it would be stupid if they try to use that as proof Staikos has power over Michael.
Could Staikos fire Michael or anyone named in the lawsuit? No, then she/them doesn't have power over Michael.


I would like to know the full context in which Staikos allegedly said not leave kids.
Was it that she meant not to leave kids in NL because she (Staikos) would have to babysit(look after) them?

When Quindoy claims he witnessed MJ fondle Wade but never told anyone, cannot be construed as the companys responsibility. Since Quindoy never reported it to anyone until tabloid money was to be made of it, that is his own responsibility. Blanca Francia claims she witnessed MJ and Robson shower together. But she never reported that to anyone until the 1993 allegations. She just stood by and watched and kept it to herself. Never occured to her that the kid should be protected. So why doesn't Wade sue Blanca Francia for negligence then? How interesting that these people never get sued for negligence, instead the accusers want to use them to sue MJ and his companies. Follow the money!

They don't have money so Wade didn't bother suing them.
What is more interesting that media never asked them why didn't they go to police or report to child services, or at least child's mother?
The whole thing is as crazy as they come.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I would like to know the full context in which Staikos allegedly said not leave kids.
Was it that she meant not to leave kids in NL because she (Staikos) would have to babysit(look after) them?

That just comes from Orietta Murdock, so it may as well as be totally made up. But at the very least definitely taken out of context, IMO.