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

[PopOfKing]

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

Got the ruling.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/283138843/Robson-Demurrer-Ruling

Edited to add: Judge clearly explains what we were discussing. He needed to accept what Robson said as true and he says he made enough specific claims. Whether those claims true or not needs "factual determination in a proceeding beyond demurrer".

Exactly!

I've been lurking for some time, checking for updates here. This ruling is NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT and was what I and others expected. It was the correct ruling as regards the demurer. Based on everything we know the chances of Blobson surviving a summary judgment are extremely poor. Yes, this thing drags on but it will be over soon. And %$#!@ Radar, dismal tabloid.

 

[HIStory]

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

I just read Ivy's full ruling-anybody know off the top of their heads where in this thread Norma telling someone to keep their child away from Michael was discussed? I guess it was in Wade's THIRD Amended complaint-I'm just having a little trouble finding it.

Yes, it was in the Third Amended Complaint and we have discussed it here before. The claim probably comes from Orietta Murdock: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page798?p=4095272&viewfull=1#post4095272

 

[PoP]

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

Exactly!

I've been lurking for some time, checking for updates here. This ruling is NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT and was what I and others expected. It was the correct ruling as regards the demurer. Based on everything we know the chances of Blobson surviving a summary judgment are extremely poor. Yes, this thing drags on but it will be over soon. And %$#!@ Radar, dismal tabloid.

Although I'm still angry over that ruling and had a change of heart at the judge, but my mom told me to pray for the truth to come out and Robson will soon be found out and lose. As the saying goes it isn't over til' it's over.

 

[barbee0715]

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

Yes, it was in the Third Amended Complaint and we have discussed it here before. The claim probably comes from Orietta Murdock: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page798?p=4095272&viewfull=1#post4095272

Thank you. I don't know how you found it so fast but I really appreciate it.
Going back it looks like this strictly came from Murdoch so I assume this is nothing but heresay??

 

[terrell]

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

Although I'm still angry over that ruling and had a change of heart at the judge, but my mom told me to pray for the truth to come out and Robson will soon be found out and lose. As the saying goes it isn't over til' it's over.

The truth already came out. It came out in 2005 during MJ's trial. It was very clear Michael was set up. Even people who once thought he was guilty changed their minds. Many of the stuff from 1993 came into that trial as well. MJ had everything thrown at him and you can see the lies and that is why he got a "NOT GUILTY" verdict. MJ was treated worst than a serial killer and was given no special treatment (MJ even had to warn some of the media who were printing lies) by no one. Michael EARNED his verdict and proved it IN COURT.

 

[jaydom7]

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

Thank you. I don't know how you found it so fast but I really appreciate it.
Going back it looks like this strictly came from Murdoch so I assume this is nothing but heresay??

yep because I bet Norma will never admit saying anything like that.

 

[terrell]

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

It's not just Radar Online-it's just the media period. Mainstream news used to have journalistic integrity and they would tell you facts only-but they've all gone the tabloid/opinion way due to readereship = money.

Media has always used propaganda to one degree or another. There has always been instances of distorted facts throughout their history. There was the truth vs the version of the truth they wanted to present for whatever their purpose was. While yes there was and still are those who try to present facts, not modified or distorted but just straight facts, I suspect with the ownership of the media becoming tighter and tighter it will only become harder for them to be able to get them out there.

It now has become an industry for corporate profit, news as entertainment and to promote whatever agenda they want with influence of PR firms becoming stronger and in many cases writing the articles themselves which are then presented as from the publication, not to mention copy and paste journalism since their all owned by the same corporation anyway.

Radar may be in WR's bed now, but if they think it's going to be too costly supporting him, they'll turn on him in a heartbeat.

Notice only radar is the only one talking about this. although I can not stand the overall media, I think most of them know this is BS now. what CREDITABLE news outlet do you see talking about this? NONE. No creditable outlet talk about Wade when first spoke, not even trashing Nancy Grace (she have gotten a taste of her own medicine since Jackson case. She even settle a case with the woman who committed suicide and Nancy was blamed. That was not Nancy's fault-that woman was unstable from the start- but Nancy and CNN still settle it.).

 

[HIStory]

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

Thank you. I don't know how you found it so fast but I really appreciate it.
Going back it looks like this strictly came from Murdoch so I assume this is nothing but heresay??

I don't know if she said that in an interview with the police or it comes from other sources such as tabloids or VG's book. We will see what type of documents will be introduced about this by either side.

Putting aside the credibility issues with Murdock (her credibility is not something that can be decided about in summary judgement) I find this very vague and without a context and - based on the precedent cases that were mentioned in the Estate's documents - I don't think it is enough to support a "reason to know" but the Judge probably wanted to give them the opportunity to try to give this some sort of context and elaborate on it.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

^ And if Wade was really molested shouldn't he be MAD at his mother for not protecting him better? Instead he is all cool with his mother but is trying to blame companies who he is struggling to even link to the alleged abuse. This tells me everything.

You are reading my mind i am saying the same things why is Wade not mad at his mother if this so call abuse happen. Something is wrong with this picture. Joy was the one to contract Michael first common sense would tell you if this man was abuse your son why ask him for help find somebody else. It is going to come down to Joy like it was mention alots of stories are going change from what we heard in 2005. What you do in the dark will come to the light.

 

[KOPV]

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

It baffles me how in a court of law people can get so caught up with the "evidence" and the hoopla around it that basic common sense gets overlooked....

 

[terrell]

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

You are reading my mind i am saying the same things why is Wade not mad at his mother if this so call abuse happen. Something is wrong with this picture. Joy was the one to contract Michael first common sense would tell you if this man was abuse your son why ask him for help find somebody else. It is going to come down to Joy like it was mention alots of stories are going change from what we heard in 2005. What you do in the dark will come to the light.

He is not mad with his mother because this nonsense never happen to him. That is why Wade went on to DEFEND Michael even a few years after MJ died; now all of a sudden, Wade I coming out with this nonsense to see how far he can go with it to make a buck and looking stupid to people who have the common sense to see through it. I see the MTV tribute that Janet did in 2009 and it ticks me off to see Wade dancing in the video and now trying to do this to MJ. IF MJ was alive, this fool would not be doing this, but like when someone die, moochers and folks who think they can get something will mistreat the dead because in their eyes, the person is no longer physically here and so they do not care. This is not limited to famous folks either. My stepmother was nice to us until my father died and she wanted to take his estate from us and she wrote a fake Will that we had to protest. She knew what my father stood for and what he wanted for his kids; and when he died, the other side of my step mother came out.

 

[terrell]

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

It baffles me how in a court of law people can get so caught up with the "evidence" and the hoopla around it that basic common sense gets overlooked....

Not really. The courts sometimes knows some claims sound and are bogus but when people makes claims, the courts must allow the accuser "accusations" to be heard and viewed even if they know it is BS.

 

[KOPV]

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

^ I know... lol!

I never said anything regarding accusations being heard or not heard.. Just saying that while hearing evidence it can be easy to be so focused on "exhibit A", "exhibit B" etc. that people can forget the simplicity of common sense..


For example when the Arvizo's and team accused Michael on specific dates - then it was proven Michael was in Florida... They changed the dates!!! Common sense says "Ok this is BS"... Everyone should have known there in the beginning this is stupid.. But it was just looked at as a document "exhibit A" and I don't think once on post interviews did one juror mention that as a "WTF" moment in the trial... They still with all the evidence that showed MJ's innocence spent significant time in deliberation.. All common sense said "DUH, he didn't do it"

 

[#MJforever57]

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

I agree and don't forget that Wade's guardian (aka his mother Joy Robson) was encouraging her son's relationship with MJ, so what was anyone in the MJ companies supposed to do? As far as the companies and anyone else were concerned, Joy Robson and her son were as aware as them to the Chandler's case (the alleged "reason to know") - or even more. There was already somebody looking after Wade - his mother - and he actually talked to the police and defended Michael in two grand juries in 1993-1994. His mother kept her business and personal relationship with Michael and his companies, kept sending her daughter and son to visit Neverland and was an active supporter of Michael. Knowing that, what could anyone in the companies do? If she didn't have a "reason to know", why would they? How can they possibly hold more responsibility than the child's own mother? If the son and his mother denied abuse and the police was already involved, what else could people do?

Your post is so clear now Wade and his lawyers are trying to use reason to know but that is not going to help Wade. If there is no proof that someone in Michael companies was aware or should have know this was going on then that the end of it what more can be done?

If it come out that Joy knew her son was lying about this and went along with it if i was the Estate i would sue her for everything she got because if it was not for Michael the Roberson would have nothing.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Not really. The courts sometimes knows some claims sound and are bogus but when people makes claims, the courts must allow the accuser "accusations" to be heard and viewed even if they know it is BS.

You are right here. We knew the judge had to take Wade words as true no surprise there because that is the law. When this first stared out Wade wanting to sue Michael but you can not sue a dead man so the next things was to sue MJ companies because Wade work there. So now Wade has to proof reason to know which could be hard to prove. If Wade lawyers can't show evidence that somebody in MJ companies was aware this was going on end of case close up camp lick your wounds and more on

 

[Tygger]

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

The truth already came out. It came out in 2005 during MJ's trial. It was very clear Michael was set up. Even people who once thought he was guilty changed their minds. Many of the stuff from 1993 came into that trial as well. MJ had everything thrown at him and you can see the lies and that is why he got a "NOT GUILTY" verdict. MJ was treated worst than a serial killer and was given no special treatment (MJ even had to warn some of the media who were printing lies) by no one. Michael EARNED his verdict and proved it IN COURT.

Thank you for the reminder. I wish more remembered Michael was vindicated in 2005. With that in mind, it means the primary purpose of Robson/Safechuck's false claims are nothing more than a successful draining of funds from the beneficiaries. I do not foresee reimbursement.

 

[KOPV]

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

Considering Mike was found not guilty I wish there was a way that any public forum/entity would not be allowed to give off the impression he is guilty or even joke about him and children without legal liability.. Considering it is more than making fun of someone it is jeopardizing someones public image and the estates & families potential earnings..


With there being laws virtually about everything, THAT is one that should be the case.. No public figure on TV or Radio be able to trash his name in the name with notations of inappropriate behavior with children. NO one should be allowed!

 

[dannyboy72]

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

^ I know... lol!

I never said anything regarding accusations being heard or not heard.. Just saying that while hearing evidence it can be easy to be so focused on "exhibit A", "exhibit B" etc. that people can forget the simplicity of common sense..


For example when the Arvizo's and team accused Michael on specific dates - then it was proven Michael was in Florida... They changed the dates!!! Common sense says "Ok this is BS"... Everyone should have known there in the beginning this is stupid.. But it was just looked at as a document "exhibit A" and I don't think once on post interviews did one juror mention that as a "WTF" moment in the trial... They still with all the evidence that showed MJ's innocence spent significant time in deliberation.. All common sense said "DUH, he didn't do it"

yeah the changing timeline was a huge discrepancy. That alone was enough for any jury to acquit Jackson on all counts because it shows that these people conveniently changed the timeline when the evidence contradicted what they were saying. Had these allegations been true, that never would have happened.

 

[terrell]

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

Thank you for the reminder. I wish more remembered Michael was vindicated in 2005. With that in mind, it means the primary purpose of Robson/Safechuck's false claims are nothing more than a successful draining of funds from the beneficiaries. I do not foresee reimbursement.

Most people remember the verdict and felt MJ was innocent but the haters get the press and talk the most.

 

[analogue]

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

Considering Mike was found not guilty I wish there was a way that any public forum/entity would not be allowed to give off the impression he is guilty or even joke about him and children without legal liability.. Considering it is more than making fun of someone it is jeopardizing someones public image and the estates & families potential earnings..


With there being laws virtually about everything, THAT is one that should be the case.. No public figure on TV or Radio be able to trash his name in the name with notations of inappropriate behavior with children. NO one should be allowed!

Sadly, a lot of comedians can joke about that, because they always hide behind the ''You need to take a joke'' argument. They always flip it around and make the people objecting to them look like the bad guys/girls

Those comedians weren't even joking about Michael anyway. They were down right attacking him, but if you call them out on it, they always hide behind their trusty ''you can't take a joke'' shield.

 

[PoP]

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

Most people remember the verdict and felt MJ was innocent but the haters get the press and talk the most.

Yeah, they've been feeding on poison for far too long.

 

[Tygger]

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

Most people remember the verdict and felt MJ was innocent but the haters get the press and talk the most.

I understand however; that is not the reason some fans continue to believe Michael would somehow be vindicated through these particular legalities. Unfortunately, some have to be reminded Michael was already vindicated.

What is happening here is a financial attack on the estate, nothing more. Monies that should be for the beneficiaries are being utilized to drag these claims through the legal process with full knowledge Robson/Safechuck will NOT see a civil trial. That is rarely discussed in some online fan communities for particular reasons.

 

[ILoveHIStory]

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

When Wade started this a few years ago, I had almost wanted it to go to a trial-only to quash this whole thing once and for all and get rid of the asterisk beside Michael's name.

But, provided there's a win, the summary judgement could be the next best thing. And I don't see how it couldn't be a win, just looking at all the evidence you guys have been retrieving and posting for the last few years. Like I said, every single one of Wade's allegations have been torn to ribbons by all of you. I expect no less from the attorneys working for the Estate.

Thank you Ivy and Respect-and everybody else-for getting us through all this legalese.

I am NOT sure, if the attorneys for the Estate are doing/reading/researching/analyzing the same as many of members here are doing.

I would prefer to contact the Estate and provide them all the facts and evidence found by the "fans" here.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Your post is so clear now Wade and his lawyers are trying to use reason to know but that is not going to help Wade. If there is no proof that someone in Michael companies was aware or should have know this was going on then that the end of it what more can be done?

If it come out that Joy knew her son was lying about this and went along with it if i was the Estate i would sue her for everything she got because if it was not for Michael the Roberson would have nothing.

Yes and not just anyone who worked in the companies, it has to be someone who had power over Michael.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

Naming a company is a total cop out. obviously we know why because its trying to sue the estate under another guise. if u are saying the company should have protected then you need to name names ie norma or miko knew and should have protected me but that would mean sueing individuals and not the company and those individuals dont have millions.and as others said the company needs to have power over the accused individual. The power to stop things. but seeing as mj was the company there was no one higher than him,no one to be negligent in protecting sh.. head. going by that logic his mother is the most negligent. so you are back to sueing individuals who dont have much money. its not as if the robsons were unaware of 93 and you could argue it was norma etc duty to warn.they were well aware and defended mj like no other.

which ever way u look the argument doesnt work.urgh why even bother .

 

[LindavG]

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

What is happening here is a financial attack on the estate, nothing more. Monies that should be for the beneficiaries are being utilized to drag these claims through the legal process with full knowledge Robson/Safechuck will NOT see a civil trial. That is rarely discussed in some online fan communities for particular reasons.

What is there to discuss? What you just wrote is a factual statement, hardly a topic for discussion unless you think there is another way to handle this case so it won't cost the beneficiaries any money?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

What is happening here is a financial attack on the estate, nothing more.*
--------------

What is happening here is mj being accused of child rape and good knows what else.im more concerned about the attack on mj on a personal level. once again hes been labeled as a u know what. if they were only asking for $1 it wouldnt make what they are doing any better.

you saying its a financial attack on the estate and nothing more certainly shows were your loyalty a support lies

 

[Bubs]

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

There is a Branca haters online community that often talks about how Branca made Robson to do this, and also they feel sorry for Wade for him putting himself through this ordeal because Branca is evil man:rofl:


I personally don't think we need to get involved that kind of conversation here on MJJC:bugeyed

 

[Tygger]

What is there to discuss?

Nothing. I said it was not discussed on some online communities. It has been discussed on others and not the simple ones Bubs referred to. I am not suggesting anything has to be discussed here and I would not suggest it.

you saying its a financial attack on the estate and nothing more certainly shows were your loyalty a support lies

No, it shows confusion of my statements.

It is not an attack on Michael on a personal level because he has passed. The estate legal team cannot defend Michael’s personal actions, only his estate. This is a financial attack on the estate. One would believe those whose support and loyalty is to Michael’s executors before Michael would have recognized an attack on his estate from day one.

 

[HIStory]

One would believe those whose support and loyalty is to Michael’s executors before Michael would have recognized an attack on his estate from day one.

Or maybe you are simply wrong assuming about other fans that their support and loyalty is to Michael's executors before Michael.