Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Robson filed his opposition on June 17. So the Estate was real quick to reply (June 23). Also very to the point.
Main arguments:
1) Robson was not exposed to Michael as an Inherent Part of an Environment Created by the Relationship Between Michael and the Corporate Defendants.
The Estate points out that when the alleged abuse began (1990) MJJ Ventures did not even exist (it was founded in 1991). "Accordingly, Robson has all but conceded that he has not, and cannot, allege that MJJ Ventures comes within 340.1(b)(2)."
As for MJJ Productions, the Estate points out that a dance competition organized in 1987 does not bring the company within the scope of 340.1(b)(2). Robson does not allege that there was any abuse in 1987. All they (he and his mother) had was a "meet-and-greet" with MJ after Wade won the competition. Then they did not have any contact with him until 1990 when it was
Robson's mother who sought out MJ through Norma Staikos, not the other way around.
2) The Corporate Defendants Did Not Have a Right to Control the Alleged Perpetrator Such They Could Have Prevented the Alleged Abuse.
- Michael Was In Complete Control of the Corporate Defendants.
Apparently Robson tries to backtrack on some of the statements they made earlier in their papers:
- The Corporate Defendants Did Not Have a Right to Control Michael; Thus, They Could Take No Steps to Prevent the Alleged Abuse.
The Estate points out that Robson remarkably ignored to address one precedent case in his opposition, namely Joseph vs. Johnson which specifically states that the requirement is not what someone should have done or should have not done in Plaintiff's opinion but whether Defendant had the
right to control the alleged perpetrator. So Robson saying that Staikos should not have left him alone with MJ, should not have arranged for him to go to NL etc. is not enough. Did Staikos have
the right to control MJ? No.
3) The Allegations Do Not Support the Argument That the Corporate Defendants Knew, or Had a Reason to Know, of Past Unlawful Conduct.
The only "weak" point of the Estate's argument IMO is the argument about the 1993 allegations. The "otherwise on notice" requirement the way I see it does not require that a complaint on which the "on notice" requirement is based on has to be a proven allegation. It only requires a complaint (formal or informal), period. However that's where the good news end for Robson IMO. Because even if we accept the 1993 allegations as the companies being "on notice" the question still remains: did they then fail to do something that they should have done and - importantly - that was within their power and right to do to avoid Robson's alleged abuse? No, there is no such a thing alleged. Robson does not say what the companies were supposed to do when both him and his mother denied abuse and when both him and his mother volunteered to defend MJ. Also let's not forget the City of Los Angeles precedent where the Supreme Court expressly stated that the key reason behind (b)(2) is cases where the Defendants conceal information about past complaints against a Perpetrator. Which was not the case here - the Robsons knew about the Chandler allegations, nothing was concealed from them. And then, of course, there is the whole question of whether the companies had even any right to end or limit the relationship between MJ and the Robsons, when MJ is the companies sole owner and president and when neither MJ OR the Robsons wanted to end or limit that relationship. The companies did not have any right or power to influence that.
