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

[barbee0715]

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

I am sorry, but just because something is posted by a fan it is not a reason to be censored. Fans cannot have an opinion now? Is there a disclaimer somewhere on those websites that MJ fans aren't allowed to post or what? And how are haters any less biased?

I think she meant by that, is that anything that is obviously written by an MJ fan is immediately discredited by anyone reading comments-they're just a rabid fan making up things-
just like we know MJFacts makes up things.

I think the things she meant were censored were links to other websites-like we do here with *******.


Adding: see-I just wrote out the name of that web site and it's censored.

 

[HIStory]

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

I think she meant by that, is that anything that is obviously written by an MJ fan is immediately discredited by anyone reading comments-they're just a rabid fan making up things-
just like we know MJFacts makes up things.

I think the things she meant were censored were links to other websites-like we do here with *******.


Adding: see-I just wrote out the name of that web site and it's censored.

Overly emotional fanboy/fangirl rants are of course never effective but then they usually do not delete those. They typically delete the effective and factual rebuttals...

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

We are the biggest threat to the tabloid filth and they know it .they throw stones to hide their hands.accusing us of being biast yet they are the most agenda driven one sided biggots you will ever find. We dont need to fabricate photos and blatently lie .the truth only has one story so why do they need to act as they do if they think they are so right.

You know we are in the right when they censor our comments. They cant handle the truth.

 

[ILoveHIStory]

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

Overly emotional fanboy/fangirl rants are of course never effective but then they usually do not delete those. They typically delete the effective and factual rebuttals...

Thats why its important to flag and report the haters, all MJ fans have to do that. We are not trolls, but we have to fight with the same guns.

MJ fans should use the most factual info, leave the personal feelings ... like "MJ did nothing" and angel-like things.... and the pathos of the fanship out of the discussion.

 

[ILoveHIStory]

... btw..., there are so many spanish and portugees website spreading BS about Mac....

Its ridiculously ineresting, more than 150 articles, and NONE in english or on the US or EU sites.

Its like intentionally made-up BS... and the tabloid media conspirators are waiting for Mac´s reaction and then.... creating more "new" articles.

The other ridiculous thing is how extremely the tabloid is pushing the molestation BS stories through the net.... spreading it like tabloid cancer, like a past and copy pattern.

This is the point where the intentional tabloid anti-jackson agenda was completely revealed....

I wonder who really in the latin america believe this, I dont read the sites, dont understand them, and dont want to translate them, but the discussions would be interesting to read.

 

[ChrisC]

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

I mentioned this in the "Debates with other People" thread, but I had spent time on Billboard, People and ABC News (a VERY MAINSTREAM newsite), about this story and all I did was state that Zonen had rebutted the fact that they found any child pornography and so did the Santa Barbara Sheriff's department. I was very polite, and civil and kept my cool.
But then a troll started harassing me, and about a week later I found all my comments were removed from ABC (his vile ones are still there) and I'm BANNED from ABC News.
The only thing I can think of is that the troll reported and flagged my comments, and they removed them and banned me without reading the actual conversation. I guess it could also be because I'm sure I used the word "porn" once or twice, but I don't think so. I'm pretty sure he did it.

I read that I can just change my IP address, but I have no idea how to do that, and isn't that connected to your computer somehow? But it is so blasted aggravating. There are lots of stories I comment on with ABC, not just Michael.

Gosh, that is so frustrating.

I see the way you approach situations here and always find you very polite, with a willingness to diffuse disagreements rather than meeting them head on.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Wade is running out of time does he have anymore lies to add to his stories this is really getting old. Going after Mac was a waste of time i wonder who next.

 

[analogue]

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

Wade is running out of time does he have anymore lies to add to his stories this is really getting old. Going after Mac was a waste of time i wonder who next.

Known how desperate Wade is, he'll probably go after Bubbles

 

[8701girl]

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

:lol: :lol: let's not give wade ideas plz lol

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

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

Aristegui Noticias has been the only big news media (I've been checking) who retracted for publishing the lies about Mac as factual but they took their retraction down. I don't get it

 

[HIStory]

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

Aristegui Noticias has been the only big news media (I've been checking) who retracted for publishing the lies about Mac as factual but they took their retraction down. I don't get it

But they also took the original article down, didn't they?

This article also denies the story: http://www.laprensa.hn/espectaculos/979321-410/michael-jackson-no-viol%C3%B3-a-macaulay-culkin-la-verdad-detr%C3%A1s-del-esc%C3%A1ndalo


In the international media the latest about him is his announcement that his band's next album will be their last and also there is an interview with him on Huffington Post. No mention of MJ: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/macaulay-culkin-interview_uk_57837051e4b07a99eadce150

 

[ivy]

Brace yourselves

With Trial Date Approaching, Michael Jackson Accuser Wade Robson Wants An End To Secrecy
Robson's new legal team asks the Jackson Estate to release other alleged Jackson victims from confidentiality agreements
LOS ANGELES, July 14, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Attorneys for director, dancer, and choreographer Wade Robson, the former Michael Jackson protégé who has accused the late pop superstar of sexually abusing him from the time he was seven until he turned 14, are asking the Jackson Estate to release the families of other young boys victimized by Jackson from the confidentiality agreements they signed as a condition of receiving huge monetary settlements.

"If Michael Jackson truly had nothing to hide, then the Jackson Estate should have nothing to fear from allowing the families they paid off to speak out freely," said Robson's new lead counsel, John C. Manly of the Irvine, CA, law firm of Manly, Stewart & Finaldi.

With the clock ticking down towards the March 2017 trial date for Robson's civil action against MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, the business entities that employed both him and Jackson when the abuse occurred, Robson has shifted his legal effort into high gear by bringing on Manly and partner Vince W. Finaldi to shepherd his lawsuit through trial. Experienced litigators who specialize in child sexual abuse cases, the two attorneys have helped to win more than $1 billion in trial and settlement awards for sexual abuse victims over the past 20 years.

In a letter sent today to attorneys representing the Jackson Estate, Manly noted that under California law it is "illegal to make a child sex abuse settlement confidential" and that "many large institutions in the business of protecting children have publicly released alleged victims from their confidentiality obligations when child molestation allegations have been settled." He went on to point out that "it is widely recognized that only in secrecy can child sex abuse flourish and continue." (A link to a copy of the full letter is below.)

Robson's case, originally filed in 2013, is being heard in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Named one of California's "Top 100 Attorneys" and one of California's top 30 Plaintiff Lawyers by the Los Angeles Daily Journal, John C. Manly is California's preeminent attorney representing victims of sexual abuse. Vince Finaldi, a Martindale-Hubbell AV® Preeminent™ rated litigator, ranked at the highest level of professional excellence, also specializes in sexual abuse cases.

Over the past decade, Manly and Finaldi have been heavily involved in many of the most significant sexual abuse actions litigated across the nation, including a number of prominent cases involving the Los Angeles Unified School District and numerous actions against predator priests and the church officials who protected them in Catholic dioceses in Alaska, California, Delaware, and Oregon. In the process, they not only helped to collect more than $1 billion in damage awards on behalf of sexual abuse victims, but their work has also led to policy and procedural reforms for youth and charitable organizations that help to keep kids safe.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...robson-wants-an-end-to-secrecy-300298602.html

 

[ivy]

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

Court system doesn't even show the new lawyers. and they did a press release.

there is a picture of the first page of the letter. I don't see the "full letter" as they claim.

Wade got a sexual abuse law firm. So that's interesting.

 

[HIStory]

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

Sounds like more fishing to me. There are two settlements. Jordan Chandler and Jason Francia. Both are well known. Francia testified in 2005 and Jordan could have too but never wanted. I doubt this will change now whether the Estate releases him or no.

The surprising thing to me is that it makes it look like it goes to trial? WTF?

The whole article reads like a PR piece for these new lawyers. Listing all their credentials etc. I guess that's also the reason behind the release of this letter to the media. Plus putting more pressure on the Estate by suggesting in the media that there are many, many paid off, "silenced" victims. Their reference is "media reports". LOL. I guess they are still chasing those imaginary FBI files made up by the Mirror.

 

[ivy]

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

The surprising thing to me is that it makes it look like it goes to trial? WTF?

Not that surprising. It survived demurrer. Now there is discovery. There will be a summary judgment and yes it could get dismissed at that time. However the summary judgment will happen only a few months before the trial date. So it makes sense for him or anyone to prep like it would go to trial.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I think the headline misleading. There wasn't a summary judgment yet, was there?

It looks like Wade has new lawyers, does that mean Gradstein and Marzano are out? And they base their request on media reports? :doh:

 

[ivy]

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

The whole article reads like a PR piece for these new lawyers.

It's a PR Piece. Look to the source, they released it to "PR Newswire". So it's a press release.

I think the headline misleading. There wasn't a summary judgment yet, was there?

Kind misleading yes. But not technically wrong. A trial date is set and it's getting closer.

 

[HIStory]

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

Not that surprising. It survived demurrer. Now there is discovery. There will be a summary judgment and yes it could get dismissed at that time. However the summary judgment will happen only a few months before the trial date. So it makes sense for him or anyone to prep like it would go to trial.

Oh, OK. So it is not a sure thing yet still it goes to trial? There is still the summary judgement. I thought we missed the judgement on that and it was given the go ahead. Hope not.

Well noted that these lawyers aren't only specialized in child abuse cases, but in settlements too. They are still pushing for that IMO.

Like I said, reads like a PR piece for them, parising them and all. So I think they released this letter to the media to stir shit in order to pressure the Estate. Legally such a letter does not make much sense. I mean, if you are in discovery, you ask through motions the release of information and documents. Not through letters leaked to the media. Also they refer to "media reports" as their source of information for these supposedly paid off, silenced victims. They are still chasing phantom victims.

The normal thing for this would be through court and motions to request all information regarding past settlements. When the Estate does it you can go through those and request then the release certain specific people from confidentiality agreements. This just reeks yet another propaganda piece.

 

[ivy]

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

Oh, OK. So it is not a sure thing yet still it goes to trial? There is still the summary judgement. I thought we missed the judgement on that and it was given the go ahead. Hope not.

I'm quite sure we didn't miss summary judgment. Summary judgment gets filed AFTER all discovery is completed - which generally puts it around 2 months before set trial date. So in normal conditions summary judgment shouldn't be happening until early 2017. And a summary judgment hearing/ruling would most certainly be reported by media.

Trial date was set around March 2016. So we are only 4 months into it. My best guess is document exchange is either happening or just completed. Which will be followed by depositions and later expert witnesses. Even the letter says the new lawyer is looking to public records. So that makes me think even the document exchange hasn't happened yet.

Legally such a letter does not make much sense. I mean, if you are in discovery, you ask through motions the release of information and documents.

they already asked for the such info through interrogatories.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

Still looking for a settlement i see. Desperate is as desperate does. Total P.R stunt to imply theres hundreds of settlements out there. Guess thats what happens when you run with the fake FBI file story

Go forth and multiply wade.

 

[ivy]

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

PDF of the full letter - http://origin-qps.onstreammedia.com/origin/multivu_archive/[Inbox]/Manly-Stewart-and-Finaldi.pdf

 

[HIStory]

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

From their website:

Our team of legal professionals at the firm has represented more than 150 clergy sexual abuse victims in California. Dozens of those clients are included in the $100 million settlement against the Diocese of Orange, the $660 million settlement against the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and the $198 million settlement against the Dioceses of San Diego. We've also fought for the rights of clients in Alaska, representing approximately 300 Native Alaskans in a $166 million settlement in a case against Jesuit Order, along with victims in the Diocese of Fairbanks.

http://www.californiasexualabusefirm.com/

Settlement, settlement, settlement.
What Robson is aiming for.

It seems to me in this case they are trying to achieve it through playing the media game in order to pressure the Estate with bad publicity. Maybe they were already the ones behind this latest Radar Online campaign.

they already asked for the such info through interrogatories.

Which is why it does not make any sense to refer to media reports as a source. The Estate surely answered those interrogatories, so they can go back there and read them. No need for letters leaked to the media.

The Estate of course won't get into this game of public back and forth with them in the media and they will possibly create a narrative of that the Estate is "hiding information". When in reality this has to be played out in Court not in the media. If they have a request they should make it in the Court system, not through the media. This has no other purpose than trying to create publicity for the case. But this shows the direction these new lawyers are trying to take the case. Playing the game in the media and manipulating the public by highly manipulative language rather than playing fairly in the courtroom.

 

[ivy]

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

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

From their website:



http://www.californiasexualabusefirm.com/

Settlement, settlement, settlement.
What Robson is aiming for.

It seems to me in this case they are trying to achieve it through playing the media game in order to pressure the Estate with bad publicity. Maybe they were already the ones behind this latest Radar Online campaign.



Which is why it does not make any sense to refer to media reports as a source. The Estate surely answered those interrogatories, so they can go back there and read them. No need for letters leaked to the media.

The Estate of course won't get into this game of public back and forth with them in the media and they will possibly create a narrative of that the Estate is "hiding information". When in reality this has to be played out in Court not in the media. If they have a request they should make it in the Court system, not through the media. This has no other purpose than trying to create publicity for the case. But this shows the direction these new lawyers are trying to take the case. Playing the game in the media and manipulating the public by highly manipulative language rather than playing fairly in the courtroom.

Totally agree respect its a P.R stunt nothing more. At least you know that when they continue with their games they know they have no case and are desperate for a settlement.

Do lawyers normally start their letters with greetings?

 

[redfrog]

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

"If Michael Jackson truly had nothing to hide, then the Jackson Estate should have nothing to fear from allowing the families they paid off to speak out freely," ]

Are they ****ing kidding me?
Because the Chandlers were so eager to "speak out freely"? Ray Chandler and Jordan Chandler both were
fighting against showing up in court!
Francias testified they talked and the Chandlers talked even after the settlement in their book, June Chandler
testified and noone else got money.
Noone was silenced noone was paid off. They were free to testify in a criminal court.
And don't they see the contradictions?
MJ didn't pay off Rosbon, didn't pay off Safechuck or the Arvizos.
But he somehow managed to silence dozens of families forever.
Not only ran into dozens of families who shut up and didn't want justice but
for some strange reasons he didn't even try the same with Safechuck, Robson and Arvizo.
Who the heck are they talking about?
they know full well that no such settlements exist!
They had all those "FBI files" and they know they are fake.
They had all the discovery from Zonen and co. if such settlements existed they would have got from them!


MJ shared a bed with DOZENS of little boys? How could Sneddon miss that?
And all those settlements when they looked for everything including his finances?

I still don't understand what happened to the Safechuck demurrer. That had to be decided by now.

And why is this asshole talk like there will be a trial? Can't someone contact the Estate and ask them WTF is going on?
When I sent an email to this address https://twitter.com/MJonlineteam/status/495273470742503424
the mailer demon returned it.

 

[HIStory]

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

If it is illegal to keep a child abuse settlement confidential then it should be no problem of asking the court to reinforce the law. So why exactly the need for such letters?

Already the language is manipulative. "Little children", "little boys" - several times. A reference to "multiple" victims, "dozens of little boys" several times. How disappointed they will be when they learn that there is only Chandler and Francia and those are well known to the public, moreover were discussed at the criminal trial? But I don't think that's what they mean. They are probably still chasing the phantom victims of the Mirror's fake FBI files article. But then they may as well as know they don't exist. They just want to stir publicity for the case and once again create a manipulative narrative in the media. (I can already see the tabloids as interpreting it as "proof' of MJ paying off dozens of alleged victims.)

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

They just want to stir publicity for the case and once again create a manipulative narrative in the media. (I can already see the tabloids as interpreting it as "proof' of MJ paying off dozens of alleged victims.)
---------------------
Imo thats exactly what it is and you know very well the headlines will be estate is refusing to hand over onfo on further settlements as if its fact and thats why they have released this P.R stunt.i just hope there are no shocks

Wouldnt it be nice if we had an estate and a law/P.R firm that were as bothered about their client and winning as that a**holes lawyers are. ?

7 years on this s*** is getting very tiring?

 

[redfrog]

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

The Estate should simply state the hard facts and expose these lowlives for their sinister tactics.
Which they won't because they never ever counter these blatant lies.
They could do the same as Robson and put out a press release with the facts but they won't.
They don't even level with the fans. They don't communicate what is going on.


All the Estate has is Weitzman, of all people, would defend MJ against these claims? Please no.

it is illegal to keep a child abuse settlement confidential

Oh so they also accuse MJ and the Estate of illegally keeping such settlements one after another after another
and somehow Sneddon and the media managed to miss that?

This case is in a very mad episode of Twilight Zone.

 

[ivy]

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

The Estate should simply state the hard facts and expose these lowlives for their sinister tactics.
Which they won't because they never ever counter these blatant lies.
They could do the same as Robson and put out a press release with the facts but they won't.

I never understand why you want Estate to try these cases in the media. It's pathetic when Robson lawyers do it , it's pathetic if Estate responds similarly.

Think like this, if Robson lawyers weren't so desperate for publicity, they wouldn't have sent such a worthless letter.

Stop a moment and read and think:

- Their source is media reports. So they are looking for the "imaginary victims" they heard from tabloids. Tabloids!!
- They don't even know if these "alleged victims" want to talk. They just want them to be able to talk if they want.
- Settlement cannot stop any of these "alleged victims" from testifying in court. So a "release from settlement" is meaningless as far as the case goes. But that's not their point , they don't care about these people testifying. They just want them to be able to talk to media if they want.
- They also ask Estate to publicly state settlements and amount of money paid in these settlements. They already got such info back in 2014. So they just want Estate to contribute to negative stories about MJ.

So why would anyone even entertain those? why would anyone lower themselves to this level of desperation? My response would be "I'll see you in court".

They don't even level with the fans. They don't communicate what is going on.

Now you are just being silly. These are serious lawsuits. They won't compromise any ongoing lawsuit by unnecessary chatting with fans.

Ps : do you still have multiple accounts/personalities here?

 

[HIStory]

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

They were free to testify in a criminal court.

We know there is no such thing as forbidding anyone in a settlement to testify at a criminal trial. In fact, that would be against the law and no one can be punished for testifying at a criminal trial even if he had signed a settlement. I am not sure what is the situation regarding civil trials and whether former settlements could forbid anyone from talking at a civil trial, but in the Chandler settlement the only requirement is that if they ever get a subpoena or any other request for information they notify MJ's lawyers.

The confidentiality is about media and public confidentiality, not about court testimonies.

^ That's for MJ, but there is a similar passage for the Chandlers.



But as I see, this letter by these lawyers isn't even about the court case. It seems like they are actually talking about being released to freely talk in the media. That's nonsense. A case has to be played in the courtroom, not in the media. Just shows they are trying to turn this into a media circus, not a court case.

Not that Jordan would talk to the media anyway. Maybe they could get Francia to tour the media with his BS - or that's what they hope for. But it seems to me they are rather fishing for those phantom victims of the Mirror and other tabloids. If they even believe that nonsense themselves. Otherwise it is just for stirring it in the media.