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

[Soundmind]

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

Thank you Ivy. I fully understand your point regarding the mandated reporter. However, we all know how the system works. They gave the judge an argument that is up for interpretation to base his ruling on, and if he was like the judges who headed the 1993 investigation and the 2005 trial looking for anything to push the accusers case, then their chances are good the judge will say they met this requirement.

As for how would they argue that the companies know, Francia and others had claimed that Norma knew. I am not sure whether the judge will dismiss Francia's allegations. This is a woman who got a settlement and cooperated with the police in 1993 and testified in 2005 against MJ. We know she is a liar, she has sold stories, and more importantly she was destroyed on the witness stand by MEZ, but whether she is credible or not is not something to be determined by the judge, or am I missing something? And I know it makes absolutely no sense to blame the companies for not doing something when his mother did not do anything, but in court would his mother "negligence" obsolve the companies from their responsibility toward him? This is a question that the jurors will have to answer not the judge. When Katherine wanted money from AEG she throw her son under the bus. Who to say those lawyers won't also argue that his mother was far from perfect but that does not mean he was not a victim.

What was the judge opinion about the companies controlling MJ? Did he give any indication of his intentions in this regard?

 

[myosotis]

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

But what exactly should they have reported?
Shouldn't Robson produce evidence that someone at those companies knew about any abuse before Chandler?
None of those employees reported anything to anyone before the Chandler case gave them the opportunity to
make money with tabloids.
And after Chandler what should they have reported?
That Robson was abused? When Robson and his family died that he was abused?

The main claim to prior alleged knowledge seems to me to be Staikos's reported comment to Murdock in 1989, about not leaving her son alone with MJ. Without that statement, I think he mainly seems to claim that 'someone should have known' because of reported observations (of Wade and Safechuck) by Quindoy and other staff, who made allegations afterwards, but did nothing to prevent 'harm' to Wade at the time (ie over the 7 years that Wade reportedly spent in MJ's presence)...hence the negligence claim against the companies and Does 5-60 (who are 'alter ego's) for MJ

 

[Soundmind]

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

The main claim to prior alleged knowledge seems to me to be Staikos's reported comment to Murdock in 1989, about not leaving her son alone with MJ. Without that statement, I think he mainly seems to claim that 'someone should have known' because of reported observations (of Wade and Safechuck) by Quindoy and other staff, who made allegations afterwards, but did nothing to prevent 'harm' to Wade at the time (ie over the 7 years that Wade reportedly spent in MJ's presence)...hence the negligence claim against the companies and Does 5-60 (who are 'alter ego's) for MJ

Where is this Murdoch witch? Is she still alive?

 

[Soundmind]

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

Where is this Murdoch witch? Is she still alive?

I googled her name. She is alive and willing to help them. So they know or had reason to know is about he said she said and it would be up to the judge.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

Is robson saying abuse happened after quindoy etc sold stories .therefore the companies were aware because of the staff selling stories.?

If its before then the only negligent parties are quindoy etc as any "normal" judge,person would come to the conclusion that you sue the individual who saw and did nothing.not the company who are supposed to be physcic?

 

[Soundmind]

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

Actually their new argument says that if the companies gave those employees training on what were their duties as mandated reporters they would have reported Mj earlier to the authorities. That's another claim they cite as cause of liability.
If a company sponsor a boy as a dancer and move him around the world while paying for the tickets and boarding the flights and paying for all bills related to him and his family, do not they owe him a duty of care? I am not sure whether he was traveling with Mj though. I am just trying to understand why some are dismissing this argument.

 

[redfrog]

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

As for how would they argue that the companies know, Francia and others had claimed that Norma knew.

When and where did Francia and other claim that? This is news to me.
There is nothing in Francia's testimony about Norma. And who are the others?

I googled her name. She is alive and willing to help them. So they know or had reason to know is about he said she said and it would be up to the judge.

How do you know she is willing to help them?
this bitch is mentioned in the Chandler book and it's obvious that the Chandlers lied
about her having a "treasure trove" of incriminating info.
She is also in Dimond's book totally contradicting the Chandler book.
She also talked to Hard Copy. There she said she never saw anything
inappropriate between MJ and boys.


Also, this claim out of context that he should not leave her son alone with MJ
how can this be evidence of anything?
If Norma didn't tell her because he is a molester then it could mean anything.
don't leave your son alone with him because he will like him more than he likes you. That's how kids react to MJ.
Don't leave your son alone with him because he will eat too much candy if he is with MJ, he does it all the time.

And wouldn't someone ask "why not?" if she tells her don't leave your son alone with him?
Why didn't she become suspicious and if she did what did she do then?

why would Norma warn her of all people out of all the people who worked for those companies?

Oh she had tied to Gutierrez, sued the company after she was fired and talked to the tabloid press
that explains why it was her.

The main claim to prior alleged knowledge seems to me to be Staikos's reported comment to Murdock in 1989, about not leaving her son alone with MJ. Without that statement, I think he mainly seems to claim that 'someone should have known' because of reported observations (of Wade and Safechuck) by Quindoy and other staff, who made allegations afterwards, but did nothing to prevent 'harm' to Wade at the time (ie over the 7 years that Wade reportedly spent in MJ's presence)...hence the negligence claim against the companies and Does 5-60 (who are 'alter ego's) for MJ

But why should the companies have known when those employees didn't report any such thing to anyone
before the Chandler allegations and after the Chandlers allegations Rosbon himself and his mother and sister all defended MJ?
Should Norma have gone to Joy robson and tell her hey your are lying Wade is being abuse so keep him away from MJ?
And then Joy would have realized hey really he is being abused thanks Norma I didn't know that now I will keep him away form MJ.

If the judge is not complete idiot he will rule that Norma had no authority or power to separate Robson from MJ.

Look at the Quindoys , they were all smiles while talking about MJ and kids in Neverland.
If they had seen those things no way they would be this happy about the whole thing.
This was of course before Chandler and the media was not yet interested in paying good money for
boy stories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l72nrd4jkjg

They are also mentioned in the PBS documentary, even the Sun's reporter said they threw MJ under the bus
for the mighty dollar. I hope the Estate digs every piece of dirt about these scums.
The very fact that Robson cannot name a single witness to any abuse who didn't try to profit from it and or had ulterior motives
should kill his credibility.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Murdoch was the maid. It would not make much deference. The same argument still holds true. It is a he said she said situation and it is up to the judge.

 

[Soundmind]

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

When and where did Francia and other claim that? This is news to me.
There is nothing in Francia's testimony about Norma. And who are the others?




How do you know she is willing to help them?
this bitch is mentioned in the Chandler book and it's obvious that the Chandlers lied
about her having a "treasure trove" of incriminating info.
She is also in Dimond's book totally contradicting the Chandler book.
She also talked to Hard Copy. There she said she never saw anything
inappropriate between MJ and boys.


Also, this claim out of context that he should not leave her son alone with MJ
how can this be evidence of anything?
If Norma didn't tell her because he is a molester then it could mean anything.
don't leave your son alone with him because he will like him more than he likes you. That's how kids react to MJ.
Don't leave your son alone with him because he will eat too much candy if he is with MJ, he does it all the time.
Don't leave your son alone with him

And wouldn't someone ask "why not?" if she tells her don't leave your son alone with him?
Why didn't she become suspicious and if she did what did she do then?

why would Norma warn her of all people out of all the people who worked for those companies?

Oh she had tied to Gutierrez, sued the company after she was fired and talked to the tabloid press
that explains why it was her.

how would I know she is willing to help them? She sold a story to the dailymail in 2014 calling Mj all sorts of names and declaring she would testify for wade.

Agree that her comments, assuming Norma did tell her that, could mean anything. But there is a possibility the judge would follow the steps of the 1993 and 2005 judges and interpret the laws in the most favorable way to the accusers. Other employees sued Mj and lost and sold stories, but the judge in 2005 still allowed them to testify, so?

 

[myosotis]

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

how would I know she is willing to help them? She sold a story to the dailymail in 2014 calling Mj all sorts of names and declaring she would testify for wade.

Agree that her comments, assuming Norma did tell her that, could mean anything. But there is a possibility the judge would follow the steps of the 1993 and 2005 judges and interpret the laws in the most favorable way to the accusers. Other employees sued Mj and lost and sold stories, but the judge in 2005 still allowed them to testify, so?

If she is one of the 'Does 6-50', Wade wants damages from her too....so she'd be silly to testify (for Wade)...?

('P prays for judgement against D's as follows:
.....
'Any appropriate punitive or exemplary damages against defendants MJJP, MJJV and Does 6-50')

 

[HIStory]

What does the mandatory reporters thing have to do with the fact that Robson sill has to prove the companies had control
and had reason to know that Robson or anyone else was abused?

Yes. Even if the Judge takes a VERY liberal interpretation of the mandatory reporter rule they will still have to fulfill the knew/reason to know and control requirements.

I was wondering too how liberal that liberal interpretation can be, because if it is too liberal then that would make 99% of the companies mandatory reporters which doesn't make sense. I mean a lot of companies have here or there contact with children outside of their main profile. They may organize events from time to time which involves children, family events, competitions etc. Does that make their employees mandatory reporters even if their day to day main operation isn't focused on children? Would be extremely odd if that was the case.

BTW, here is the word of the law. Robson cited (6), (7) and (8). I think (6) and (7) is clear nonsense as MJJP/V wasn't either a day camp or a youth center. The only one which requires a deeper analysis is (8).

(6) An administrator of a public or private day camp.
(7) An administrator or employee of a public or private youth
center, youth recreation program, or youth organization.
(8) An administrator or employee of a public or private
organization whose duties require direct contact and supervision of
children.
(9) An employee of a county office of education or the State
Department of Education whose duties bring the employee into contact
with children on a regular basis.

Did anyone's duties at MJJP/V require direct contact and supervision of children? That is the question. Sending them gifts at MJ's request is not a duty to supervise children. And just because a company organizes a dance competition it doesn't necessarily transfer a duty of supervision on the organizing company. The children (like Robson too) went with their parents who supervised them.

BTW, I found a list yesterday which interprets exactly (8). I am quoting the preceding and following points as well so that you see it is exactly (8) that they interpret that way.

Administrator of a public or private day camp

Administrator or employee of a public or private youth center, youth recreation program or youth organization

Administrator or employee of a public or private children’s organization

Employee of a county office of education or the California Department of Education, whose duties bring the employee into contact with children on a regular basis

http://mandatedreporterca.com/who/who.htm

So that list interprets (8) as "administrator or employee of a public or private children’s organization". MJJP/V weren't children's organizations. I know it is the law that matters and that maybe gives room for a more liberal interpretation, but at the end of the day it will have to make sense, otherwise most companies would be included in that. I would imagine there are precedent cases and official law interpretations where it becomes more clear how it is generally interpreted and used. That's why we will have to see the Estate's reply and arguments to this.

Plus, like Ivy said, even if MJJP/V should have had mandatory reporters they surely weren't Blanca Francia (a maid) or Mark Quindoy (a cook). Those jobs aren't mandatory reporter jobs, not even in organizations where there are mandatory reporters. Charli Michaels complained that she was admonished by Norma Staikos for talking to guests. So I guess her duties did not include being in contact with guests, including children. (Plus were they even employed by MJJP/V? It seems Blanca Francia at least wasn't. That's the only info we have so far.) You will have to look at the contracts of these people and what duties they had by contract (and by whom they were employed by in the first place) to decide whether they would be mandatory reporters.

The issue also becomes more complicated because much of Robson's alleged abuse supposedly happened at Neverland which was a private property, owned by MJ, not MJJP/V. So for whatever they claim happened there they should sue MJ as a private person, not MJJP/V. And MJ is dead.

The fact that he waited until decades after the alleged abuse took place – and three years after Jackson had died – has raised some eyebrows, but his lawyer says that Robson repressed the painful memories until 2012, after becoming a father to now 5½-year-son Koa.

(...)

"He started having all these things come up. This wasn't loving, normal behavior – things that the world just won't understand. If this were my child I would absolutely not be okay with it. This is sexual abuse. He went to a therapist."

What a moving, nice fairy-tale. Neither 1993 or 2005 or MJ's death in 2009 triggered those "painful memories", but they suddenly got triggered when Wade's career and personal life went downhill due to his familial mental illness. His alleged realization of abuse had nothing to do with the birth of his son. Here is the actual timeline of the events in his life:

Some time in 2010 - First approached about Cirque which he turns down (no reason given)
Some time in 2010 - Jamie King is hired to direct MJ Immortal (article dated November 3, 2010: https://www.cirquedusoleil.com/en/press/news/2010/mj-presale.aspx)
November 2010 - Son born
December 2010 - Offered to direct Step Up 4
April 2011 - He's out of the movie citing personal reasons
April-August 2011 - 1st nervous breakdown
Early 2011 - Charles Joron from Cirque "considers" giving him an offer about Immortal, but he tells him it needs to be validated by MJ Estate.
First quarter of 2011 - Meets with Branca about Cirque plans.
May 16, 2011 - Starts cognitive therapy for about a month. Does not make allegations.
May 21, 2011 - Sends e-mail to Estate telling them he wanted to do the Cirque show "badly".
Mid-July, 2011 - Returns to work with "former sense of invincibility".
July 30, 2011 - Announces he's gonna direct Cirque du Soleil's MJ show.
http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/11/wade-robson-michael-jackson-cirque-du-soleil-video/
March, 2012 - 2nd nervous breakdown
Mid-April, 2012 - Starts insight-oriented therapy with another therapist.
May 8, 2012 - Makes allegations to his therapist, the first time ever.
September, 2012 - Sends e-mails to relatives and friends about a “transformational time” in his life.
March 2013 - Hires attorneys Gradstein and Marzano.
May 1, 2013 - Files complaint.

So after the birth of his son he was still discussing MJ/Cirque jobs. When for whatever reason those fell through that's when his sudden "realization" came about.

The thing that Koa's birth triggered was a desire by Wade's wife Amanda to move back to Hawaii. She said that in a blog interview in Hawaii that when their son was born she started to feel a desire to move back to her birthplace to Hawaii.

But you cannot have a showbiz career from Hawaii. So that coupled with Wade's mental issues made them decide for an early retirement in Hawaii, but they would need financing for that. And that's what really triggered this money-grub.

attorney Vince Finaldi tells PEOPLE exclusively.

They are totally, absolutely trying to make it a media circus to put bad publicity pressure on the Estate and make them settle.

"What triggered the amendment complaint is our review of the files and materials, and our determination that [Jackson] was in fact operating MJJ Productions as a child sexual abuse procurement operation. That was unquestionably the second purpose of this business," Finaldi alleges. "He was using it to pay for gifts for kids and parents in order to groom them for later sexual abuse. He was using it to pay for trips for kids, for plane tickets, for hotels to bring them with him on concerts and to also employ some of these kids as 'dancers' – but he would also be putting them into his room and sleeping with them at night and sexually abusing them."

Who are "some of these kids" besides Wade? They so love to talk about him in plural to make it appear as if this was some common practice to employ children at MJJP/V. LOL. Wade was only employed so that his family could get the green cards. Because THEY wanted them and MJ was nice enough to help! But that's what you get for being kind to people in this morally corrupt world. And which one of MJ's other alleged victims were ever employed by MJJP/V? Some "child abuse procurement organization" if they never even employed the other alleged victims.

The claim is just ridiculous and the media shouldn't just uncritically run with it, when there is plenty of FACTUAL material to refute this narrative - starting with the fact that it was Joy Robson who reached out to Norma and begged for a contact to MJ, not the other way around. Yet, these lawyers ridiculously represent it as some "orchestrated" scheme to lure Wade's family. How was it orchestrated by the companies for Joy to contact them? Through black magic? Laughable.

According to Finaldi, Robson, 33, is intent on "getting answers as to why this happened. If you can't figure out why this was allowed to happen, you can't protect kids from this happening in the future in the entertainment industry in general. One of his main concerns is making sure that this does not happen again and kids are protected. He wants to get the real story out there."

Again, nice sob story. If it was truly about getting answers and protecting kids he would start by pointing out the responsibilty of his own mother. Norma is a madame, but her mother - who actually called Norma, who pushed for the green cards etc. - isn't responsible for anything? If Norma is a madame then Joy Robson is a pimp, period. No way around that. And as a parent, as a mother, as someone who directly allowed those sleepovers she would bear a lot more responsibility in it than anyone at MJ's companies. Why doesn't Wade shout THAT from the rooftops - if it is all about justice and bringing awareness to protect kids in the future? Instead of trying to make Norma responsible because she put them on the phone with MJ or sent a limo for them. Joy Robson knew exactly where Wade slept. SHE as Wade's primary care-giver and guardian allowed that. Both her and Wade denied any abuse. So how would Norma and MJJP/V be more responsible than Joy Robson?

Going through the rest of the amended complaint, there are more oddities, and more nonsense.

Paras 83- 84 includes more copy/pastes.
(I've used P for Plaintiff and D for Defendants)

In 83 it says 'P's employment and personal development has been adversely affected, P has lost wages... She suffered at the hands of D's and will continue to lose wages. ...
In 84 at about points 11-12 Plaintiff is twice referred to as 'her'

Good catch. With all the school references it already felt like a copy&paste patchwork, now this is the confirmation. LOL. They just took another case they had and they are trying hard to make this one fit into that.

This BS was invented by his former lawyers. Safechuck says the same thing that he had to look at this SECOND child
to realize that he was abused.

How convenient that BOTH of them had the same "realization" process, both triggered by the birth of their children. Yeah, that sounds likely. Especially when they had the same lawyers. LOL.

 

[Bubs]

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

Few things that I'm curios about, on page 26 they claim: in 1987, plaintiff won dance competition and got to meet MJ.
"Plaintiff alleges that these meets and greets were purposely orchestrated MJJP and MJJV as a sexual grooming..... bla bla blah"

I ask again, have they got no information that MJJV did not exist in 1987 as it was registered 02/26/1991, or does such a minor detail matter in this sea of bs?

Again, they mention that in 1990 when they came to family vacation to Cali, Joy contacted on Norma and she then arranged meet and greet, while Norma was acting on behalf of MMJP and MJJV to arrange this meeting. MJJV still did not exist in Feb 2 1990?

You gotta love love that bs they write about this family vacation.
"After performance, Plaintiffs mother contacted Norma, and MS Staikos arranged for Plaintiff to meet with MJ at the recording studio on the following day. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges was acting on behalf of MJJP and MJJV as a "madam" or "procurer"......."

Like seriously, if any members of the media read this claim, they should have some sense to call out the bs when they see it, or maybe reporters are too stupid to see anything wrong with above paragraph? I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry, it is so silly

On page 59 (120) "Defendants MJJP and MJJV....,owned Plaintiff a duty to not hire and/or retain MJ,...."

So funny, MJ sets up company, and that company had duty not to hire or retain MJ:scratch:

 

[myosotis]

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

The issue also becomes more complicated because much of Robson's alleged abuse supposedly happened at Neverland which was a private property, owned by MJ, not MJJP/V. So for whatever they claim happened there they should sue MJ as a private person, not MJJP/V. And MJ is dead.

I guess that's why they seem now to be considering adding Neverland as 'Sycamore Valley Trust' as a 'Doe'. Employees there (like cooks) may have supervised eg visiting children's lunches etc....when they had large groups outside?

 

[Bubs]

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

Murdoch was the maid. It would not make much deference. The same argument still holds true. It is a he said she said situation and it is up to the judge.

Wasn't she personal assistant or secretary?

 

[HIStory]

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

I googled her name. She is alive and willing to help them. So they know or had reason to know is about he said she said and it would be up to the judge.

I am not sure if such a vauge quote would be enough to establish a "reason to know". The Estate cited a precedent case earlier, it was about some police officer about whom his co-workers suspected and gossiped that he molested boys. He was spotted with boys in Thailand (a known paradise for pedophiles) and I think his co-workers even knew about him giving alcohol to boys while inviting them to his home. But this was still not enough to establish a "reason to know" acc. to that ruling. And the Murdoch quote is much, much weaker than that.

A "reason to know" for a company would be more like a report (official or unofficial, formal or informal, written or verbal) by someone that they saw or otherwise witnessed something or someone telling company officers (whether in the form of a formal or informal, written or verbal complaint) that something had happened to them at the hands of an employee. Company gossip or suspicion is not enough to establish a "reason to know".

But even if the Judge decided Murdoch's quote or something else establishes a "reason to know" there is still the control problem. For argument's sake let's say Norma knew something. So? What could she have done to MJ in her capacity at the company? She did not have the right to fire him or remove him from the position of being with children. All she could have done was to go to the police in her private capacity, but not as a company officer.

Murdoch was the maid. It would not make much deference. The same argument still holds true. It is a he said she said situation and it is up to the judge.

Murdoch was not a maid. She worked as an administrative assistant at MJJP between 1989 and 1991 and then sued MJ for "unfair dismissal". So someone with an axe-to-grind.

BTW, since Norma was the one who dealt with these issues - eg. firing people, handling their payments - I think that's why these people have an axe-to-grind not only to MJ but also to her, because she would be the one who directly fired them. So that's where all the nonsense thrown at her by these ex-employees comes from IMO.

Agree that her comments, assuming Norma did tell her that, could mean anything. But there is a possibility the judge would follow the steps of the 1993 and 2005 judges and interpret the laws in the most favorable way to the accusers. Other employees sued Mj and lost and sold stories, but the judge in 2005 still allowed them to testify, so?

Judges indeed have to interpret the law in the most favourable way to the accuser. The Judge even noted that in his ruling about the dismissal of the Estate's Demurrer in the Robson case.

Here is the full ruling BTW, since you asked what reasonings the Judge gave: https://www.scribd.com/document/283138843/Robson-Demurrer-Ruling

I guess that's why they seem now to be considering adding Neverland as 'Sycamore Valley Trust' as a 'Doe'. Employees there (like cooks) may have supervised eg visiting children's lunches etc....when they had large groups outside?

Supervising lunch is not the same as supervising children. No, cooks, maids aren't jobs normally where they have a duty to supervise children. Even in organizations where there are mandatory reporters.

 

[8701girl]

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

This thing is soooo messed up!!!


Why can't the judge see through wade's shit?!! ??

 

[redfrog]

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

how would I know she is willing to help them? She sold a story to the dailymail in 2014 calling Mj all sorts of names and declaring she would testify for wade.

Oh so she is still selling shit to tabloids. Now that makes her more credible.
She talked to Hard Copy and said she never saw anything inappropriate.
And in Dimond's book she said that she loved working for the company.
Well how could that be if she suspected that MJ abused kids?
Who would love working for a child abuser especially a mother?

In the Chandler book he supposedly said that she loved Michael but he needs to be stopped!
Well if she was so eager to stop him who come she didn't want to testify in 2005?

She is all over the place. She sued the company for wrongful termination, right?
And she lost.
And she hates Norma.
And let's not forget. She is Gutierrez's buddy.
Damn I hope if this goes to trial the Estate would finally expose all these Gutierrez's puppets
and how they collaborated with the NAMBLA supporter pedo advocate.

It's infuriating that the words of scums like her can be enough in the US legal system to drag someone through a trial.
How could stories sold to tabloids be evidence that someone is a molester when the supposed victim himself and his
family denies that he is a molester?

Any appropriate punitive or exemplary damages against defendants MJJP, MJJV and Does 6-50')

Doesn't Robson have the name the people who actually should have protected him by separating him from
MJ?
doesn't he have to explain exactly WHAT those people should have done to protect him?

This nonsense that they shouldn't have hired him and put him in close contact with children won't work, obviously.

 

[HIStory]

Great summary of the complaint on Ivy's website.

<header class="article-header clearfix"> [h=1] Sheer Absurdity of Wade Robson&#8217;s Revised Complaint (Includes Complaint Document)[/h] </header> <aside class="article-aside clearfix"> <dl class="article-info muted"><dd data-original-title="Written by " class="createdby hasTooltip" itemprop="author" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person" title=""> Admin </dd><dd data-original-title="Category: " class="category-name hasTooltip" title=""> Robson v. Estate </dd><dd data-original-title="Published: " class="published hasTooltip" title=""> <time datetime="2016-09-17T05:03:37+00:00" itemprop="datePublished"> 17 September 2016 </time> </dd><dd class="hits"> Hits: 8 </dd></dl> </aside>

fShare 0






This post won&#8217;t be my standard &#8220;summary of the court documents&#8221; blog post. I won&#8217;t be making a long list of legal aspects of the complaint. While I will refer to some elements in Robson&#8217;s new revised complaint, I will mostly write my personal take on the revisions. Consider this a disclaimer.



I regularly add the relevant court documents to my blog posts and you will find a copy of Robson&#8217;s proposed revised complaint below. You might wonder how I got this document. This time I didn&#8217;t get it from the court. I was able to get a copy because Robson&#8217;s new lawyers wrote a press release and added the document to it. In the less than 2 months they have been on the case, this is the second press release they have done with a negative document attached to it. This makes it clear that these new lawyers are attempting to try to this case in the media. Furthermore the once sealed and redacted complaint is no longer redacted. One can only assume they want the salacious media stories to force MJ Estate into a settlement.



Here is the document: https://www.scribd.com/document/324151013/Wade-Robson-Motion-To-Amend-Complaint



On September 7, Robson lawyers email Estate lawyers saying they want to amend Robson&#8217;s complaint. Simply put they want to remove the sexual abuse causes of action and add negligence causes of action. Estate replies they believe it is too late to amend the complaint and say they won&#8217;t agree to a new complaint. Therefore Robson lawyers file a motion with the court asking the court to allow them to proceed with a new revised complaint. In their motion they add a copy of their proposed revised complaint. A hearing on this matter will be heard on October 7[SUP]th[/SUP] and the judge will decide if he will allow a revised complaint or not.



The causes of action on the revised complaint are intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent supervision, negligent retention/hiring, negligent failure to warn, train or educate and breach of fiduciary duty.



There is some interesting stuff in the document. First you see how Robson lawyers try to justify allowing the amended complaint and how they claim Estate wasn&#8217;t ready to depose Robson so they can&#8217;t say it&#8217;s too late to amend the complaint. This is serious twisting of what happened a few weeks ago. Estate didn&#8217;t say they weren&#8217;t prepared, they wanted to get the results of the mental examination before they depose Robson. At that time Robson&#8217;s new lawyers had delayed the mental examination for 3 weeks and wanted to depose Robson 1 day after the mental examination. That didn&#8217;t give enough time to get the report for the mental examination.



Robson lawyers state this case had &#8220;voluminous pleadings and thousands of documents&#8221; produced during discovery. However the complaint makes it obvious that none of these thousands of documents uncovered anything new. The usual suspects are mentioned in the complaint: Quindoy, Michaels, Francia, Murdock and so on. All of these people were used in previous instances and all of them face serious credibility issues.



From the media you probably heard that Norma Staikos has been called a &#8220;madame&#8221; or &#8220;procurer&#8221; of a child sexual abuse victims for MJ. Here is the back story for that claim:



In 1987 aged 5, Robson wins a dance competition run by MJJ Productions and briefly meets Michael. According to the complaint these meet and greets were &#8220;sexual grooming mechanisms to acquire minor sexual abuse victims disguised as charitable events for minors&#8221;. It&#8217;s important to note that Robson&#8217;s mother was present in this so called &#8220;sexual grooming&#8221; meet and greet and in 2005 she testified that meeting wasn&#8217;t substantial and it was just a &#8220;how are you, it&#8217;s a pleasure to meet you&#8221; type of thing.. Then nothing for the next 2 years. The &#8220;sophisticated child sexual abuse organization&#8221; totally forgot about this kid they acquired through their evil intentioned dance competition and exposed to a &#8220;sexual grooming&#8221; meet and greet. Keep that in mind.



2 years later in 1990 aged 7, Robson comes to US with his dance company. His family members (mother, father, sister and grandparents) accompany him as they want to turn the trip into a family vacation. Robson&#8217;s mother calls Norma Staikos who then arranges for Robson to meet with Michael in a recording studio. Robson lawyers claims this meet and greet &#8220;purposely orchestrated&#8221; by Norma Staikos. Hold on a minute. Didn&#8217;t Robson&#8217;s own mother call and asked for a meeting with Michael? How is that orchestrated by Staikos? And how does that make her a &#8220;madam&#8221; or a &#8220;procurer&#8221; if she was only responding to Joy&#8217;s request?



By the way if it&#8217;s not the clear, &#8220;the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known&#8221; is actually a secretary/ assistant doing her job. Personally I see no sophistication or &#8220;purposely orchestrated mechanisms&#8221; in a secretary / assistant making calls and travel arrangements situation.



Robson lawyers can&#8217;t seem to make up their minds about the relationship between MJ and the companies. On one page MJ is listed as &#8220;president/owner&#8221;, &#8220;representative/agent&#8221; of the companies. On another page the companies become MJ&#8217;s &#8220;co-conspirators, collaborators, facilitators and alter-egos&#8221; of MJ. Then MJ was hired by MJ Companies &#8220;as a singer, dancer, entertainer, teacher, mentor, and coach to in part mentor and train minors in entertainment industry&#8221;. So now Michael becomes &#8220;an employee, managing agent, agent, officer, director and/or servant of such and/or was under the companies complete control and/or supervision&#8221;. Then in the causes of action part, Robson lawyers list what should have been done in regards to negligent supervision, retention, hiring etc. These include stuff like: the companies should have done an adequate investigation into MJ&#8217;s background before hiring him, they shouldn&#8217;t have placed MJ in a function or environment in which he would had contact with kids, warn families about MJ&#8217;s dangerous propensities and unfitness, investigate, supervise and monitor MJ and even not retain &#8211; aka fire- him



You can't really appreciate the absurdity of Robson lawyers arguments until you imagine what they suggested happening in real life. Let&#8217;s try it, shall we: MJ forms a company, a company named after him. He hires Norma and others to work for his company. He pays their salaries. Norma who is working for Michael sets out to hire employees, agents, "mentors" for MJJP. How about Michael? He is a talented guy. Yes let's hire Michael at a firm he owns. Norma is supposed to run a background check on Michael, otherwise she will be negligent in hiring. If there were any red flags, she shouldn't have hired him. How would that go? "Sorry Michael, we can't hire you at a company you own, you didn't pass the background check". Imagine Michael managed to get hired by his own company. Then it's Norma's responsibility to supervise Michael because he is now a measly employee. Uh oh imagine some concerns were raised by other employees, now Norma needs to act. Remember Robson lawyers says she needs to put Michael in positions that he cannot interact with kids and/or supervise him when with kids. Michael finds a really talented young kid and wants to sign him up to his music label. Norma says: "Sorry Michael you cannot sign young people to your record label, why don't you stick with adults?" Michael wants to invite his friends including kids to his private residence. He calls Norma his personal assistant/secretary to arrange it. "Sorry Michael can't do it. You can't have kids over to your house. Or at least I need to send someone to monitor you while you spend time with kids". Then comes the dreadful day. After a "reasonable suspicion" Norma calls Michael to her office "I'm sorry Michael, you don't fit with MJJP's ethics and wholesome image. We will have to let you go. You are fired. Oh by the way don't forget to pay my salary." Poor Michael just accepts what Norma says. Seriously though, in what world can this even possibly happen?


Oh and it doesn't end there. Add to the mix that Michael was the owner and president of the companies and the companies were his alter-ego per the complaint then it becomes like this: Michael Jackson formed a company. Michael negligently hired himself to work for his company. Michael the owner was supposed to supervise Michael the employee and not place Michael the employee in a position where he has contact with children. And Michael the boss is negligent because he didn&#8217;t do that and he didn't stop Michael the employee when his behavior was inappropriate. Mind blown, right?
I can&#8217;t help but wonder, where is Wade&#8217;s mother Joy Robson in all of this? For example Norma Staikos is accused of intentionally placing Wade&#8217;s mother and sister at a hotel across the street while Wade stayed with Michael in his apartment and was sexually assaulted. Why couldn&#8217;t Joy as his mother say No to this? Even if we assume and accept that Joy was a total failure as a parent to take care and protect her kid, it doesn&#8217;t end there. Robson&#8217;s own documents state that MJ Companies applied for a work visa for Joy Robson, she was also to be an employee of MJ Companies and she was acting as Wade&#8217;s manager. I imagine as the manager of Wade, it was her job to supervise Wade and his interaction with other people including MJ. Why not accuse Joy of negligence as well after she was both an employee of MJ companies and was paid to manage Wade?




Then we see Robson lawyers trying so so hard to try to make mandated reporters argument work. The child abuse protection laws define some people as mandated reporters. These people are generally people who spend time with kids regularly or people who can see/hear/learn signs of child abuse during their work. They would include people like teachers, child care center employees, law enforcement, doctors, nurses, priests etc. One part of the law states that &#8220;An administrator or employee of a public or private organization whose duties require direct contact and supervision of children&#8221; is also a mandated reporter per law. So in order to fit with this suddenly MJ Companies are presented as &#8220;operated a program in that at least in part catered to children and required defendants&#8217; employees interact with, be in contact with and supervise minor children&#8221;. That&#8217;s why all throughout the document you see references made to Michael as &#8220;teacher&#8221;, &#8220;mentor&#8221; and Robson being called a &#8220;student&#8221;, MJJP being called a &#8220;school&#8221;. If I&#8217;m being honest, some parts of the document read like a copy/paste from a school case.



There is a reason for that though. The lawyers repeatedly mention they are specialized in child sexual abuse cases. Their press releases mention the settlements they got for such cases. Both of these are true statement. However when you go to their websites, you will see that the most of the child sexual abuse cases they handle are against churches or schools. These cases have a very common style. Churches and the schools select and hire the priests and teachers. It is indisputable that churches/schools are responsible for hiring, supervising and retention of priests and teachers. Kids are exposed to these priests and teachers through the church or school. If they get abused and if the church and school knew about abuse and did nothing there is a very clear duty of care and negligence. So those cases are a lot more straightforward and even more slam dunk. Churches and schools tend to prefer to settle rather than going through a public trial.



So I think this is why these lawyers are trying so hard and so desperately to portray MJJP and MJJV as a school. But if you ask me, it doesn&#8217;t work, it makes no sense. MJJP/ MJJV simply do not fit the profile or organizations whose duties require direct contact and supervision of children.
As for the damages part, Robson lawyers tells us how special Robson is as he achieved success in many diverse areas. According to the complaint unfortunately this had ended and Robson couldn&#8217;t become an international superstar. So they ask for "past, present and future general and special damages, punitive damagesm statutory damages, costs of suit, attorney's fees, and interest as allowed by law". So just tens of millions of dollars.



In the damages section, we catch Robson and his lawyers in a blatant lie. They claim Robson is &#8220;unable to continue directing in any manner or capacity whatsoever&#8221;. However this is not true. Robson registered his Wade Robsons Creations webpage in 2014. He does documentaries, commercials, wedding videos, music videos and so on. His website says &#8220;Let&#8217;s create something great together!&#8221; He posted 60+ videos since 2014. In the last year he released two dance short films named &#8220;Flight&#8221; and &#8220;Life in Color&#8221;. So not only he is more than capable to direct, he can also do entertainment related dance videos. To be fair, he doesn&#8217;t seem to be working on good paying and/or big projects but I guess you don&#8217;t have to if you expect a big payout from Bank of Michael Jackson. Still no matter how you roll the dice &#8220;unable to continue directing in any manner or capacity whatsoever&#8221; is a blatant lie.
What&#8217;s even more unbelievable is that while his lawyers were filing this motion to amend his complaint, making claims he can&#8217;t work at all and ask for significant amount of money, Robson was posting on his Facebook about a music video he will be directing next week on September 21/22, 2016. Shortly after his lawyers sent the press releases to the media to start the salacious media spin, Robson deleted his Facebook post. Too late buddy, it was already screen capped.

Now if Robson or his lawyers ever stumble upon to this blog post, they might be tempted to delete his website, videos and such. Don&#8217;t bother though. Every single one of them are too copied and saved. Or actually go ahead and delete it. I would love to do &#8220;here is all the things Robson has deleted and trying to hide&#8221; post.



Finally Robson lawyers state they have no issue if the judge allows the amended complaint and it means a delay in the case schedule. According to CA civil code, a case has to be brought to trial within 5 years. This means Robson case has be tried by May 2018 latest. Robson lawyers say that this gives them ample of time to amend the complaint and go through the process of discovery and such before that date. However if you remember just a few weeks ago Robson&#8217;s own lawyers wanted to depose him as soon as possible as they feared he was a high suicide risk. Now they have no problems with delays and waiting for the trial to happen. Isn&#8217;t it amazing that how quickly someone can overcome a fake suicidal risk?

http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/ro...revised-complaint-includes-complaint-document

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Blake Mcgrath about Michael

:lol:

 

[terrell]

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

This thing is soooo messed up!!!


Why can't the judge see through wade's shit?!! ??

I believe he will but he has to still listen being the judge even if he knows something is BS.

 

[terrell]

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

Again, this is why I love this site. facts with REAL documents to back it up. This is what TRUTH is all about. LIES is about changing stories and speaking about things that have nothing to do with proving someone did anything. This is the differences with people who think Mike was guilty. They are the ones claiming something happen YET they have nothing to back it up only with name calling, speculations, bias thinking, etc. The truth is the BURDEN OF PROOF and this proof is with Michael and showing him even more as an innocent man. If MJ was guilty (which he was not), it would NOT take all of this changing of stories, a bunch of uncreditable people, money changing, back and fourth, etc to prove it.

 

[myosotis]

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

Great summary of the complaint on Ivy's website.



http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/ro...u Ivy........Wish the press would pick it up!

 

[myosotis]

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

Doesn't Robson have the name the people who actually should have protected him by separating him from
MJ?
doesn't he have to explain exactly WHAT those people should have done to protect him?

This nonsense that they shouldn't have hired him and put him in close contact with children won't work, obviously.

I think he has to name everyone in the final submissions for summary judgement...so by November.

 

[Goddess4Real]

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

What also needs to be included in the time line is Wade and Joy''s contribution to Jermaine's "You Are Not Alone" I think it needs to be highlight that they were still defending MJ, and were willing participants in that book, and that no one put a gun to there heads.

 

[Goddess4Real]

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

Jermaine said that Joy had told him that they had been approached by that scumbag Victor, who told them that he was investigating MJ for being a pedo in 1992. Jermaine also thanked them in his credits.

It further highlights to me how eager The Robsons were to be involved in MJ related projects. Wade's so called breakdown had nothing to do with abuse.....it's because he was rejected by the estate....and his deluded ego couldn't take it....plus missing out of that lucurative contract that a rival of his got over him (Jaime King....who also replaced him on that Britney tour)....it ain't 2001 anymore music styles change, cheographers like him are no longer in much demand, or have replaced by younger/edgier talent and those dance show's have run its course. Instead of adapting to the changes in his career....he decides to take this route, and it's beyond sad.

 

[HIStory]

Jermaine said that Joy had told him that they had been approached by that scumbag Victor, who told them that he was investigating MJ for being a pedo. Jermaine also thanked them in his credits.

Yep. And this story is also on VG's own book (only with his own twist on it, of course) - so it is confirmed by both sides. It probably did happen.

Here it is from Jermaine's book:

&#8220;Venice Beach is one of those laid back towns I've always avoided because of its crowds. It's a log jammed tourist trap at weekends with its mime artists, psychics, performing dogs, rappers, musicians and dancers all taking their chance on the ocean front boardwalk. One weekend, Wade Robson was one of those street performers, trying out his moves. He was about 10 and he, his sister and mother Joy were still regular guests at Neverland and had set up home in a condo in West LA. Michael had used Wade, with Macaulay Culkin, on his Black or White video, but he was still an anonymous face in the crowd, especially in Venice Beach. There was no way anyone should have known who he was, let alone linked him with his mentor.

Until, that is, some "freelance writer" named Victor Gutierrez sidled up to his mother and explained that he was investigating Michael Jackson for "being a pedophile." How did he know who she was? Joy took his business card and immediately phoned Michael's office. It was early summer 1992 - a year before any formal allegation or police investigation and a butterfly started to beat its wings near the beach.&#8221;

I find it very interesting that Wade omitted this story from his complaint and it is easy to see why. Because this would actually make Joy personally, as the mother, guardian, care-giver the most responsible of all and absolve the companies of responsibility. She would be the one with information about MJ allegedly being a pedo, not Norma Staikos. Someone directly warned her, as the mother of the kid, and she kept allowing Wade sleep in MJ's bedroom, which indicates she did not believe the story and probably she gave that impression to MJ's office as well. So what should MJ's office (possibly Staikos) have done when the mother of the kid sees no problem and defends MJ? Of course, this besides the "little" problem of Staikos or any other employee of MJ not even having the right to supervise MJ or move him from his "job" in which he met the Robsons.

Like I said, it is an interesting omittion from his complaint and another one that makes his true intentions very transparent. And it is not "justice" and "truth". Seeking "justice" and "truth" would involve very strongly the responsibility of his mother. Because if what Wade claims is true (which it isn't) then there is no one alive who is more respobsible for it than Joy Robson. But he cannot sue his mother for millions of dollars.

And if they would suddenly want to embrace VG's claims now, that would open a whole new can of worms - as to the role of VG in the allegations against MJ and how he orchestrated most of it, at least that early 90s part and how virtually everyone who claimed things about MJ (the Chandlers and all the sleazy employees who claimed to have "seen" things) were connected to him.

And if someone would think VG was just someone who was "onto something" - no, he wasn't. He was a sleazy, manipulative liar and that was proven in the MJ vg. VG civil case.

Declaration by private investigator Eric Mason.

Hell, even Jordan Chandler distanced himself from him and his book. LOL.

 

[Bubs]

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

Thanks Ivy for your summary - awesome:clapping:

Like Myosotis mentioned it, I too wish someone is the media has sense to post it.

 

[Goddess4Real]

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

Yup those Robsons have "selected" memory issues, and desperate people do desperate things.....like making up bogus abuse claims for $$$$$$$$$$

 

[passy001]

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

Great post, Ivy. Love your work, as always.

Please can you send the estate your screen caps. I'm sure they will appreciate a lot.

Hope the estate contacts facebook, snapchat, youtube, and twitter, and subpoena the data tracing the activities of robson as part of the discovery process. Maybe they did already. but will be nice if someone sends them a reminder.

It's obvious that this lawsuit is a fraud, so i'm wondering if there must be some criminal element to it that can be used to prosecute robson in a criminal court.

 

[Goddess4Real]

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

Especially all the projects Robson has been doing since MJ's death, and his so called "breakdown."