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

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

It would be bad if Wade went and gave a heap of interviews, but I think it would be worse if he was given a settlement, many people would wrongly think this meant there was evidence of wrongdoing, the same as what they think about the settlement in the 90's. if there's no settlement people might be more inclined to see him as a money hungry liar since he'd get nothing from the estate. One thing that makes me sick about Wade is the way he's using and manipulating genuine abuse victims.


I couldn't give a toss about Wade, I only want what's best for MJ and his legacy. As a firm believer in his innocence and a lifelong fan of his music, I just want this thing to go away quietly and with minimal fuss. If that means a settlement, then so be it.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Unfortunately it's hard for me to imagine any 100% good outcome for MJ in this other than Wade and James being utterly exposed as liars and being completely and mercilessly destroyed in court. But even if that happened that would not guarantee that the public would finally see the light about these allegations and even just about Wade/James' case. I mean you can hardly have a more ridiculous case than the Arvizo's when you take a look into it, but most people still believe it, because most people simply do not take that look into it. They just read some tabloid headline about Jesus Juice and what not and they run with that out of context slacious soundbite and think it proves something, without even knowing anything substantial about the case. That's just human nature. Most people are like that and that is why so many believe these allegations. And as we know the media never was fair to Michael in their reporting about these cases either.

So for these reasons, I can actually see Matty's point. Though I'd personally hate a settlement, but it's true that the alternatives aren't very good either. Either MJ's name is gonna get dragged through the mud in a court or in paid interviews and books that James and Wade will give if their case gets thrown out. I'd hate to see Wade and James rewarded for the BS they pulled but if there is a "good" thing in a settlement that is that it would at least shut them up. No media interviews, no books.

The downside is that people would stupidly consider it as a sign of guilt. Another downside is that more people could see it as an easy way to extort the Estate and more may come up with similar allegations in the hope of a pay-off. Just like all of these other allegations are a direct result of the 1994 settlement. And that way it may never end.

The thing about it being a "sign of guilt": yes, we all know that stupid argument. In this case maybe it would be more easily explained though that with Michael being dead how would it be fair to expect his Estate to be able to fight these allegations? It's very hard to fight such allegations even with the accused being around, let alone when he's not around any more. That is why IMO it would be unfair if the Judge let it go forward. It's not like other cases either where alleged victims come forward after someone's death because they did not have an opportunity before. Both Wade and James had their chances to participate in a criminal trial and testify against MJ - as adults.

Also consider the other side: what a settlement would mean about Wade and James? Right now they claim they do it to speak out, to tell "their truth". We know that is not true from the simple fact that Wade initially wanted to keep his lawsuit sealed and so does James. Wade cited the privacy interests of the accused as an argument to keep his lawsuit sealed. That is absolutely not consistent with the claim he does it because he needs to speak his truth. He did not want to speak his truth. He just wanted to quietly get paid off. After TMZ got wind of the case he then went to Today's Show to claim he does it to speak his truth. And that he will not go away for money. Now, how would it then look like for them if they settled? It would prove once again that Wade lied when he said it was not about money and he would not go away for money. So a settlement actually is just as much a bad look for them as it is supposedly for MJ. But of course we know what the media would focus on. Just like about the Chandlers they never ask why someone whose child was supposedly molested would rather want money than see the alleged molester in jail.

So I'm not sure how this can turn out well for MJ in any way. Unfortunately.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

You raise some interesting points Respect. At this stage, the estates primary focus should be on protecting MJ's public image as much as they can. It isn't about proving his innocence anymore, because he isn't even around to fight that fight. Most people have already made their minds up about Michael, but suffice to say, more media coverage of MJ being a pedo would certainly be damaging not only to his overall public image but also his future earning potential. You only have to look at the contrast in public opinions on MJ pre-death and post-death. In the years before his death many people outside of the core fanbase had a negative opinion on MJ. There were a lot of snarky, snide remarks from DJs and late night chatshow hosts, many celebrities who now speak fondly of MJ were deadly silent about him back then, not wanting to show any support prior to his death.

I would hate to see the likes of Robson and Safechuck undo all the good work the estate has done since 06/25. The public has a tremendous amount of goodwill for MJ now, they need to protect that, if not for the sake of MJ's memory, then for his future earning potential. After all, these people are businessmen first and foremost.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes, I agree, I'm just not sure what is the best way to protect MJ's public image. There is some more goodwill towards him than before his death, but there's still much media out there drooling to publish something negative about him and destroy even his memory. See the fake FBI files article last year that spread through the media like wildfire. At least we had some articles on websites like CNN trying to refute it, but the damage was done. I still see people citing that story as if it's fact.

For now I think the best perhaps would be if the Judge threw out the complaint of Wade and James. Actually, that would be the only fair decision as far as I am concerened as I find it extremely unfair to force the Estate into a court case about it and to force them to try to defend MJ with their hands tied behind their backs - ie. with the accused himself not being around. It just would feel extremely unfair and unjust considering the fact that both James and Wade had plenty of opportunities - including a criminal trial - to make these allegations while MJ was alive and could have faced his accusers in a more fair setting.

Of course, if it got thrown out it would not be over because Wade/James then would want to make their money of this in other ways - ie. selling stories and writing books. That's almost guaranteed with the tabloid culture this world unfortunately has. I'm sure they would also point out how their case was thrown out on a "technicality" (statues of limitations). On the other hand if the case goes to court and they lose, it's the same outcome: then they will go to the media selling stories, crying about "celebrity justice", just the usual crap. And if they win the court case that would just be very bad from every aspect. (And this is a civil case, with not much burden of proof, so anything can happen.)

No matter how I look at it everything has a downside and I'm not sure which one would be the best for MJ's public image.
 
If there is any consolation in all this mess, it's the fact that the Estate has the law on their side. These two claims are way past the statute of limitations. They expired a LONG time ago.

As seen by what just happened with this famous case below. The judge promptly dismissed all 4 cases due to the statute being expired. The Estate has to push this.

Sex-Abuse Lawsuit Against Ex-Elmo Puppeteer Is Dismissed

A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Thursday that the statute of limitations had expired before the action was filed.

By: Lynette Holloway

Posted: June 21 2014 8:23 AM

A federal judge in Pennsylvania dismissed a lawsuit against former Sesame Street puppeteer Kevin Clash on Thursday, saying it had not been filed before the statute of limitations expired, Reuters reports.


U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner in Harrisburg, Pa., dismissed the suit filed last year by a man “who accused Clash, 53, of engaging in a sexual relationship during visits to New York that began in 2004, when the man was 16,” Reuters reports.


It was not the first time a judge has dismissed a suit against Clash, formerly the longtime voice of Elmo on the children’s TV program Sesame Street. A New York judge previously dismissed three lawsuits brought against the puppeteer by men who accused him of sexually abusing them when they were underage. The New York judge also said the statute of limitations had run out in those cases, the report says.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/cul...eer_kevin_clash_sex_abuse_suit_dismissed.html
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Just listening to the latest edition of King Jordan Radio (it took place today so it's fresh): http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan...rse-lee-geraldine-hughes-celebrate-mj-5-years

Mez appeared on it once again and at about 46-47 minutes he is being critical of how Weitzman and Branca handled the Chandler and Francia cases (advising MJ to settle) and he says this puts a bad feeling in him about these ones as well. He seems to think that if the Judge does not throw it out they will settle, based on their history. He also says Gradstein (the lawyer of Wade and James) is a very smart and aggressive lawyer who certainly knows the history of Weitzman and Branca advising MJ to settle with Chandler and Francia and that's what he counts on here as well. He also revealed an interesting new info which is that the law firm Weitzman was a partner in was a part of MJ's team in 2005 but they quit shortly before the trial. Mez says we would have to ask them their reasons but he felt it was because they did not think they would win.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Just listening to the latest edition of King Jordan Radio (it took place today so it's fresh): http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan...rse-lee-geraldine-hughes-celebrate-mj-5-years

Mez appeared on it once again and at about 46-47 minutes he is being critical of how Weitzman and Branca handled the Chandler and Francia cases (advising MJ to settle) and he says this puts a bad feeling in him about these ones as well. He seems to think that if the Judge does not throw it out they will settle, based on their history. He also says Gradstein (the lawyer of Wade and James) is a very smart and aggressive lawyer who certainly knows the history of Weitzman and Branca advising MJ to settle with Chandler and Francia and that's what he counts on here as well. He also revealed an interesting new info which is that the law firm Weitzman was a partner in was a part of MJ's team in 2005 but they quit shortly before the trial. Mez says we would have to ask them their reasons but he felt it was because they did not think they would win.

I think (hope) that branca will feel differently now. a) because it would undercut most of what he is trying to do with the Estate and b) becuase he has the experience from last time...he has seen the lasting effects of settling, and hopefully will learn from that mistake. Settling could open the floodgates to who knows how many chancers who maybe visited Neverland once (on a kids day out), and subsequently developed 'memory ' issues.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I have to disagree with Mez to an extent. One you can't ignore the fact that Johnnie C was buddies with Larry Feldman and right after the shakedown he did legal workfor Johnnie C for free. So for him to blame Branca who was not even Michael's attorney in 93 and Howard and leave out Johnnie C IMO is wrong. And all of the sudden I am feeling his need to lash out against Howard and John knowing he is buddies with Randy
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I have to disagree with Mez to an extent. One you can't ignore the fact that Johnnie C was buddies with Larry Feldman and right after the shakedown he did legal workfor Johnnie C for free. So for him to blame Branca who was not even Michael's attorney in 93 and Howard and leave out Johnnie C IMO is wrong. And all of the sudden I am feeling his need to lash out against Howard and John knowing he is buddies with Randy

He did mention Coachran but the focus is on Weitzman and Branca obviously because they are the ones now in charge of the Estate who will decide what to do with these recent allegations. Coachran is dead, so he will not play any role in this one. Mez was talking from the perspective of what Weitzman and Branca might do and based on their history he feels they might go for a settlement if the Judge lets it go ahead and he feels that Gradstein knows their history with settlements too and that's what he is counting on.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

He did mention Coachran but the focus is on Weitzman and Branca obviously because they are the ones now in charge of the Estate who will decide what to do with these recent allegations. Coachran is dead, so he will not play any role in this one. Mez was talking from the perspective of what Weitzman and Branca might do and based on their history he feels they might go for a settlement if the Judge lets it go ahead.


Well in that case I will say I am more then sure they saw the damage a settlement did to Michael and to his career so IMO I don't a settlement happening
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Why should they employ a criminal defense attorney who I am sure has other work to do and IMO again is way to close to Randy Jackson
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Just listening to the latest edition of King Jordan Radio (it took place today so it's fresh): http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan...rse-lee-geraldine-hughes-celebrate-mj-5-years

Mez appeared on it once again and at about 46-47 minutes he is being critical of how Weitzman and Branca handled the Chandler and Francia cases (advising MJ to settle) and he says this puts a bad feeling in him about these ones as well. He seems to think that if the Judge does not throw it out they will settle, based on their history. He also says Gradstein (the lawyer of Wade and James) is a very smart and aggressive lawyer who certainly knows the history of Weitzman and Branca advising MJ to settle with Chandler and Francia and that's what he counts on here as well. He also revealed an interesting new info which is that the law firm Weitzman was a partner in was a part of MJ's team in 2005 but they quit shortly before the trial. Mez says we would have to ask them their reasons but he felt it was because they did not think they would win.

I was listening in to the show last night as well and that killed me to hear. Just a little more about what he said. Tom was saying that if the judge doesn't throw out the case, then based on history, in his opinion, he thinks that Branca & Weitzman will settle because they are afraid they will lose the case. That does not mean that will be the case- who knows, they could surprise us and try to fight it- but he was simply giving us his opinion.

I wanted to call in and ask Tom about this, but of course, I didn't think of it until after the show. But, even if the judge doesn't throw this out, how can they be afraid of losing this case? It doesn't matter how "good" Gradstein is, Robson and Safechuck have no case. Maybe it's different being in the middle of it all as they (Brance/Weitzman) are, and I'm sure I/we don't know everything, but I still don't understand how they can be afraid of losing this case. If they give any kind of settlement, it will be an absolute disgrace and slap in the face.

But anyway, it's all contingent on the decision the judge makes, so no use in jumping to conclusions. Let's just hope the judge is smart and makes the right decision.


Sorry, I don't mean to barge in on the conversation like this :lol: I just wanted to give my two cents :D
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I was listening in to the show last night as well and that killed me to hear. Just a little more about what he said. Tom was saying that if the judge doesn't throw out the case, then based on history, in his opinion, he thinks that Branca & Weitzman will settle because they are afraid they will lose the case. That does not mean that will be the case- who knows, they could surprise us and try to fight it- but he was simply giving us his opinion.

I wanted to call in and ask Tom about this, but of course, I didn't think of it until after the show. But, even if the judge doesn't throw this out, how can they be afraid of losing this case? It doesn't matter how "good" Gradstein is, Robson and Safechuck have no case. Maybe it's different being in the middle of it all as they (Brance/Weitzman) are, and I'm sure I/we don't know everything, but I still don't understand how they can be afraid of losing this case. If they give any kind of settlement, it will be an absolute disgrace and slap in the face.

But anyway, it's all contingent on the decision the judge makes, so no use in jumping to conclusions. Let's just hope the judge is smart and makes the right decision.


Sorry, I don't mean to barge in on the conversation like this :lol: I just wanted to give my two cents :D



But he is lumping Branca into 93 when Burt Feilds was Michael's lawyer. Branca did not come back until after the talks were going on I think.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If the California state court ignores the obvious state law regarding the statute of limitations on this case, then it needs taken to the Supreme Court of California to enforce the laws in that state regarding filing of claims against the deceased.

It's expired. Why is this still even going on?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Tom Mez BTW has every right to feel the way he feels. Because he knows given in like that really hurt Michael.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I wanted to call in and ask Tom about this, but of course, I didn't think of it until after the show. But, even if the judge doesn't throw this out, how can they be afraid of losing this case? It doesn't matter how "good" Gradstein is, Robson and Safechuck have no case. Maybe it's different being in the middle of it all as they (Brance/Weitzman) are, and I'm sure I/we don't know everything, but I still don't understand how they can be afraid of losing this case. If they give any kind of settlement, it will be an absolute disgrace and slap in the face.

I think it's like what he said about Weitzman's law firm pulling out of the case before the trial started in 2005. Mez said he felt they did that because they did not believe they would win. Of course, he could be wrong about that and they might have had another reason. But if that was really their reason then that was obviously wrong because they did win the case and the Arvizos did not have a case.

With Mez we know from the way he talks about Michael that he absolutely believes in Michael's innocence. I have no doubt about that when I hear him talk. He doesn't just say that because that is his obligation (in fact, right now it's not his obligation to still talk about the case, so he could have just moved on and not say anything at all about it), but because he truly believes in Michael. Now, with Weitzman I'm not that sure. Yes, he did say MJ was innocent and he did defend him when he was asked, but I do not feel the same conviction in him as I do in Mez, so I don't know what he really thinks and whether he is as sure as Mez is. It's not about the case being strong. The Arvizo case was not strong either. It's just that these type of cases are very risky. Often it comes down to he said-she said and you can never predict whom a jury will believe. Not even in a criminal case, but in a civil case it's even more risky because the burden of proof is a lot less. So there might be lawyers who are less willing to take that risk and therefore are more in favour of settlements.

I have to say though that in this case it would be a bit understandable, for the reasons we just talked about today - ie. Michael is not here to defend himself and this would make his defense increasingly more difficult.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If they settle , more and more will come forward with similar claims. There is no way an appeal court will allow this case to go forward , they simply don't believe in MJ's innocence if they settle.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think Tom is wrong with this one. Maybe Weitzman did leave because he thought they couldn't win, but NOW it's been proven they can win. And the evidence was overwhelmingly false and corrupt. There's nothing different now except those same fake, lying witnesses from before. It's a winnable case and they should definitely fight to the death.
To me, this is the single most important thing to fight for in Michael's legacy.

Look at how his reputation has recovered. At the time of his death, 99% of the MAINSTREAM media were still not wasting the opportunity to point out the molestation stuff, the paternity of his kids, the rejection of his race, using the words freak, bizarre, strange, odd every single chance they got. Lo and behold, they look at the numbers the next morning after the memorial service and a BILLION people had watched it. A billion people don't watch a memorial service for somebody they REALLY think is a child molester. The media had it wrong.
A child molester doesn't get more than 15,000 roses at his grave.

Branca, Weitzman and co will fight this and all upcoming extortionists.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

But even if the court doesn't allow the late creditors claim, there is still the civil suit.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think Tom is wrong with this one. Maybe Weitzman did leave because he thought they couldn't win, but NOW it's been proven they can win. And the evidence was overwhelmingly false and corrupt. There's nothing different now except those same fake, lying witnesses from before. It's a winnable case and they should definitely fight to the death.
To me, this is the single most important thing to fight for in Michael's legacy.

Look at how his reputation has recovered. At the time of his death, 99% of the MAINSTREAM media were still not wasting the opportunity to point out the molestation stuff, the paternity of his kids, the rejection of his race, using the words freak, bizarre, strange, odd every single chance they got. Lo and behold, they look at the numbers the next morning after the memorial service and a BILLION people had watched it. A billion people don't watch a memorial service for somebody they REALLY think is a child molester. The media had it wrong.
A child molester doesn't get more than 15,000 roses at his grave.

Branca, Weitzman and co will fight this and all upcoming extortionists.


Steve Cochran left the defense team before the trial began. It is true that he and Weitzman worked for the same firm at one point, but Wetzimen left that firm in 1995 to become executive vice president of MCA. So make of it what you will
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I couldn't give a toss about Wade, I only want what's best for MJ and his legacy. As a firm believer in his innocence and a lifelong fan of his music, I just want this thing to go away quietly and with minimal fuss. If that means a settlement, then so be it.

I believe a settlement would be terrible for Michael's legacy, it could open the door for more people to try the same, and since anyone who gets a settlement would no longer be able to speak about it in the media it would be seen as the estate trying to shut people up. People are still very ignorant about what settlements mean so they'd see it as an admission of guilt. At least if they fight it and don't go down the road of a settlement people won't think the estate is trying to keep people quiet.
 
Last edited:
Gold Pants Girl;4023739 said:
But even if the court doesn't allow the late creditors claim, there is still the civil suit.

In California, there is a VERY strict statute of limitations for civil suits, as well.

Here is the info on it. This is why I am feeling really confidant these cases are going nowhere.

If I would have known that T. Mez was answering questions last night, I would have called in to ask him about this.

-------------------------------------------------------


The Deadly Deadline for Suing Decedents: California’s Toughest Statute of Limitations in Trust, Probate, Estate, and Civil Cases
By Stewart R. Albertson on April 30th, 2012
Posted in Breach of Contract, Litigation, Probate & Estate Litigation, Trust Litigation

Statutes of limitations scare me—and they should scare you too. If you don’t file a lawsuit within the applicable statute of limitations, you’re done, case over. For example, legal malpractice cases must be filed within one year, most personal injury actions within two years, and medical malpractice actions within one or three years. That analysis changes if you intend to sue a public entity, and in that case, you may only have six months. Confused? I know I am.

Once you determine which statute of limitation applies to your case, you may be surprised to learn that in California all claims are subject to the toughest statute of limitation when suing someone who has died.

Under California law, there’s an absolute one-year statute of limitations to bring a lawsuit against someone who’s died—no matter the underlying statute of limitations. For example, you generally have four years to bring a lawsuit for breach of written contract. But if the person breaching your contract dies, you no longer have four years—you only have one year to file suit. This one-year statute comes up all the time in California Trust, Probate, Estate, and Civil litigation.

For example, there are times when a married couple creates a revocable Trust that cannot be revoked (in whole or in part) by the surviving spouse after the death of the first spouse. Yet, notwithstanding this requirement, the surviving spouse may take all the assets out of the revocable Trust and transfer them to a new Trust she creates. This is a breach of Trust because it violates the Trust terms and the new Trust may favor different beneficiaries than the old one did. Maybe the old Trust made gifts to the husband’s children, whereas the new Trust only favors the wife’s children. So the husband’s children sue the successor Trustee of wife’s new Trust after wife dies.

But that is a mistake. In fact, it’s a fatal mistake because the successor Trustee has no legal liability for the wife’s breach of Trust. The correct procedure is to sue the deceased wife’s estate. But under California’s statute of limitation for suing deceased individuals, a lawsuit against wife’s estate must be filed before the one-year anniversary of her death. Most of the time, husband’s children miss this deadline and file, if at all, after the statute has run. Too late—case over. The one-year statute of limitations will defeat the deceased husband’s children from recovering the property.

Thus, the one-year statute of limitations can be a powerful weapon to defeat lawsuits, or an impossible hurdle to overcome in prosecuting a lawsuit, against a decedent—depending on which side of the case you find yourself. Even where longer statutes of limitations would otherwise apply to a case if the decedent had continued living, this one-year limitation prevails. You are now forewarned!
http://www.albertsondavidsonpost.co...ions-in-trust-probate-estate-and-civil-cases/
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I'm emailing Mr. Mesereau right now and I'm going to ask him to respond to me in regard to the statute of limitations on filing suits against the deceased in California, and how that could potentially affect this case.

If he emails me back with any info, I will share. I've spoken to him personally before and he's a really nice person.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I believe a settlement would b terrible for Michael's legacy, it could open the door for more people to try the same, and since anyone who gets a settlement would no longer be able to speak about it in the media it would be seen as the estate trying to shut people up. People are still very ignorant about what settlements mean so they'd see it as an admission of guilt. At least if they fight it and don't go down the road of a settlement people won't think the estate is trying to keep people quiet.

I agree. This whole thing right now is the Estate's ultimate chance to show that they do not put up with seeing Michael being slandered. Now is their time to do right by him as a person. And in addition, they have more on the line with this mess than just Michael's reputation. The Estate's business interests now and in the future are at stake. So for the sake of their business and their respect for Michael, they need to step up tough and defend Michael or they will lose everything, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

WHOA in no way a settlement is best! o_O SMH Who cares if Wade or James go on TV and talk crap! What matters here is what they can prove in a courtroom under the law and I know they can't cause it's all BS! Settling this would be horrible for MJs Image even more so than before, and no way will haters and the media will ever let that down, that his own Estate settled! That would be an embarrassment and I sure as hell wouldn't want nothing to do with supporting the Estate ever again! They must understand that protecting MJs image is far more important and will help build his Estate even more, not the opposite! A fight in court is best if it gets there? If it doesn't and gets thrown out because of the statute of limitation then that is also great! Because after all Wade/James waited yrs after telling authorities Mj did nothing wrong and Wade in the 05 trial went further and testified for MJ. That's something that can't be forgotten!
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

In California, there is a VERY strict statute of limitations for civil suits, as well.

Here is the info on it. This is why I am feeling really confidant these cases are going nowhere.

If I would have known that T. Mez was answering questions last night, I would have called in to ask him about this.

-------------------------------------------------------



http://www.albertsondavidsonpost.co...ions-in-trust-probate-estate-and-civil-cases/


But that's the trick exactly in Wade's lawsuit: he does not sue Michael there. He sues his companies. And those companies never ceased operating, so I don't think there is a statue of limitations there.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I hope this shit just goes away, preferably NOT as a settlement. For today, I want to put this as far out of my mind as I can, pretend it doesn't exist, and just focus on the good.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I still think a settlement would be the worst move to make. Sure WR and Safechuck could talk to media heads afterwards if they win or lose, or the judge dismisses the case, but I doubt it would be all over the news big time like a settlement would. People latch onto that, as 1993 showed.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

But that's the trick exactly in Wade's lawsuit: he does not sue Michael there. He sues his companies. And those companies never ceased operating, so I don't think there is a statue of limitations there.

There is a statue of limitation for everything except murder. so even if they are operating the statue of limitation does still apply. Unless the judge buys his claim that he just realized the harm which is ridiculous.
 
Back
Top