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

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

The the next important stuff is coming on around 23th of September - Safejunk amended complaint, and Robson case summary judgement on November?

I was looking at Wade's new attorneys website and they had list of cases won, only 1 went to trial and jury decided the end result, few of them settled few days into trial, but rest of them never saw court room (as Ivy said it already, those were against schools and church), so they will do all the tricks in the book for this case to be settled before.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The the next important stuff is coming on around 23th of September - Safejunk amended complaint, and Robson case summary judgement on November?

yep. Some time after Safechuck files his amended complaint, a demurer should follow. Summary judgment process would have 3 filings: Summary judgment, opposition and reply.

I haven't talked to Betty yet but my goal is to get summary judgment motion, at least the first motion that estate files. If we do that we can get Safechuck's amended complaint at that time as well. It would be good if we can get the opposition to summary judgment to have a better idea about how the judge might rule but I'm not making any promises.

As it requires in person request and multiple trips at times to get documents, from now on what I get will be limited to most important stuff and sometimes we'll need to wait.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If Safechuck loses the demurrer will he have to pay the Estate?
They didn't have to pay after losing the probate case. Why?

Plaintiffs in the US only have to pay if they lose summary judgement in civil cases?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If Safechuck loses the demurrer will he have to pay the Estate?
They didn't have to pay after losing the probate case. Why?

Plaintiffs in the US only have to pay if they lose summary judgement in civil cases?

1. we don't know if they had to pay after probate or not. probate documents were never online and it is not always clear what each document is about from case summary. they might have been asked to pay or not, we cannot be sure. although we consider these cases of probate and civil separate, I think the parties see it as one big case. so they might wait and ask for costs at the end of civil trial.

2. no they don't only have to pay after a summary judgment. Michael Amir Williams case was dismissed at demurrer and he was asked for the legal costs. So legal costs can be demanded whenever a case is lost. (ps: it is also possible for parties to agree each party be responsible for their own costs)

3. it is important to realize that even though one party might ask the other party who lost the case to pay for their legal costs but whatever they pay won't be the full legal expenses. Only certain things are reimbursed.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

whatever... there aint no way he's going to win this!!!
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

so they will do all the tricks in the book for this case to be settled before.

It was always about settlement. I can't imagine them thinking they can win this. The only advantage they have is this is a civil case with less burden of proof. But mainly it would be Wade making an accusation with other people denying it. I don't think people like norma etc would be helpful to him. and wade will have cerious credibility issues.

I'm intrigued about his lawyer change. Looks like it happened mid discovery and Robson is the one that changed lawyers as Gradstein and Marzano still represent Safechuck. I imagine this new lawyers specialize at sexual abuse with billions of dollars of settlement looked attractive to him. But like I said I feel anyone can get a settlement from the church.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

You got that right.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It was always about settlement. I can't imagine them thinking they can win this. The only advantage they have is this is a civil case with less burden of proof. But mainly it would be Wade making an accusation with other people denying it. I don't think people like norma etc would be helpful to him. and wade will have cerious credibility issues.

I'm intrigued about his lawyer change. Looks like it happened mid discovery and Robson is the one that changed lawyers as Gradstein and Marzano still represent Safechuck. I imagine this new lawyers specialize at sexual abuse with billions of dollars of settlement looked attractive to him. But like I said I feel anyone can get a settlement from the church.

Maybe Wade was looking for lawyer that fulfil his "special" needs=money.
From his law firm website:
"$3.8 million settlement against Diocese of Stockton and unanimous jury verdict on all counts against Defendant Father Michael Kelly, after 10-week trial. Plaintiff, after recovering his 25-year-old repressed memories, alleged that he was sexually abused by Fr. Kelly as a child."


Btw, that is the only case that they advertise in their site that actually saw trial till the end.
They do have at least court experience from 1 case.
 
Bubs;4164973 said:
Maybe Wade was looking for lawyer that fulfil his "special" needs=money.
From his law firm website:
"$3.8 million settlement against Diocese of Stockton and unanimous jury verdict on all counts against Defendant Father Michael Kelly, after 10-week trial. Plaintiff, after recovering his 25-year-old repressed memories, alleged that he was sexually abused by Fr. Kelly as a child."


Btw, that is the only case that they advertise in their site that actually saw trial till the end.
They do have at least court experience from 1 case.

I looked up this case. Some interesting info there too about Robson's law firm and their questionable practices.

Ex-priest says he’s innocent

By Alex MacLean / The Union Democrat

<time itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2012-09-18T12:01:16">Published Sep 18, 2012 at 12:01PM /<time itemprop="dateModified" datetime="2015-08-23T20:33:37"> Updated Aug 23, 2015 at 08:33PM
</time></time>

A former Catholic priest has denied allegations that he molested an altar boy while ministering at a San Andreas parish from 2000 to 2002, and local supporters have rallied around him.


Michael Kelly, who left for his native Ireland earlier this year after being found liable of sexual abuse in a 2007 lawsuit, said Monday in an email sent to The Union Democrat that he couldn't discuss many details of the case but fiercely denied any wrongdoing.


"Never, ever did I molest IN ANY WAY this person," Kelly wrote in the email. "The allegations are completely false as are ANY allegations of my molesting anyone at any time. It never happened. Never."


Meanwhile, a number of parishioners and friends have signed up with a group publicly defending the former Mother Lode priest, citing positive personal experiences and questionable evidence used by attorneys.


More than 1,200 church and community members have joined the "Friends of Father Kelly," a grassroots advocacy group formed in 2007 when the first civil lawsuit against former Lockeford priest Michael Kelly was filed in San Joaquin County Superior Court, according to organizers.


"Now, Friends of Father Kelly is focusing its mission of coordinating communication flow and stressing fact-based information," the unincorporated group stated in a news release Friday. "The efforts aim to keep supporters and the community updated on developments; promote fair and balanced reporting in the media; and raise public awareness of a growing trend of falsely accused priests."

Kelly served as a priest at various Central Valley and Mother Lode parishes since the 1980s. He ministered at St. Patrick's Parish in Sonora from 1987 to 1997, where he also oversaw a youth soccer league.

In the 2007 lawsuit, Fairfax resident Travis Trotter, a 38-year-old airline pilot, accused Kelly of molesting him while an altar boy at Stockton's Cathedral of the Annunciation between 1984 and 1985.

A San Joaquin County jury found Kelly liable of the abuse allegations in April of this year. He fled to his native Ireland the day after the verdict, citing stress-related health issues. The Diocese of Stockton on April 20 settled the case for $3.75 million.

Trotter's Irvine attorney John Manly announced last week the filing of a new civil claim against Kelly and the diocese, alleging the former priest sexually abused a then-12-year-old Calaveras County altar boy.

The civil claim for damages further alleges that high-ranking Stockton Diocese officials conspired to conceal past allegations of abuse against Kelly and ignored a psychiatric evaluation that suggested he shouldn't be allowed to minister to children or families with children.


"This accusation five years ago in Stockton was the first time there had ever been a hint of scandal about him," said Paul Neumann, of Modesto, spokesman for Friends of Father Kelly. "To us, the idea that he had been a predator all these years was simply implausible."

Neumann, who has known Kelly for 38 years, said a number of people in Calaveras and Tuolumne counties have joined the group in support since the newest allegations surfaced shortly after Kelly left the country in April.

Calaveras County Sheriff's detectives are conducting an investigation into the accusations stemming from Kelly's time at St. Andrew's Parish in San Andreas, but prosecutors have yet to file criminal charges.

"Because he was found liable (in the 2007 case) and the judgment was so large, we thought there would be similar cases that would come forward without corroborating evidence and based specifically on repressed memories," Neumann said.

Kelly's supporters have criticized the use of "repressed memories" as evidence. They were the basis for the 2007 lawsuit against Kelly and other similar lawsuits against the Catholic Church.

Experts debate the legitimacy of forgotten, and later retrieved, memories of childhood abuse.

According to the American Psychological Association, some clinicians have theorized the rare phenomenon occurs as a way for a victim to shelter himself or herself from a painful memory. Others argue that convincing "pseudomemories" of events that didn't actually happen can be constructed during therapy process.


"I'm sure there are some very awful things that have happened and priests that have committed terrible abuses, but not this one," said Sonora resident Gloria Carrillo.

Carrillo has known Kelly since he started ministering at St. Patrick's in 1987, and said she never noticed any signs of abuse. She said Kelly would have dinner with the family at their home and interact with their children, but never in an inappropriate manner.

Carrillo joined the Friends of Father Kelly group in 2007 to keep up with the latest developments in the Trotter case, but became more involved just before Kelly testified in the trial earlier this year.

Around this time, Carrillo claims she received a call from someone with the Manly & Stewart law firm asking if her son, who was in eighth grade when Kelly arrived in Sonora, wanted to participate in an upcoming lawsuit.

"I left that call feeling like, if I had wanted my son to participate, they would find those memories whether they existed or not," Carrillo said, noting she regrets not writing down the exact date and time of the call and the name of the representative.

Vince Finaldi, an attorney with Manly & Stewart, denied the call ever happened.

"I'd like to get that person's name and get them to say that under oath," he said.

Finaldi also noted that the new case involving the San Andreas victim doesn't revolve around repressed memories.

"This kid is young, he's only 24 years old, he didn't repress anything. It's a red herring to detract from the real issues," Finaldi said. "How many different victims need to come forward that have specific recollections of it happening?"

The Stockton Diocese has 30 days to respond to the civil complaint filed Sept. 11, and then attorneys for both sides can begin taking depositions and subpoena witnesses. Finaldi said Kelly will eventually be deposed in Ireland if it comes to that.

The Calaveras County Sheriff's Office launched a criminal investigation of Kelly inApril when the accusations of abuse in San Andreas surfaced.

Sgt. Chris Hewitt said the report was given to the District Attorney's Office months ago. Prosecutors are still conducting their own investigation and have yet to file any criminal charges against Kelly, according to the office.

Tuolumne County Sheriff's Sgt. Jeff Wilson said he was unaware of whether any possible Tuolumne County victims had come forward.

http://www.uniondemocrat.com/csp/me...calNews/story.csp?cid=3797169&sid=753&fid=151
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I find Trotter's repressed memory story less than believable. He could be a fabricated "victim" or an opportunist bandwagoner.
Apparently Kelly was found liable because of the "where there is smoke there is fire" mentality.
There was never any hard evidence that Kelly raped Trotter.

This is why it would be crucial to explain in a civil court why MJ shared his bed with kids and why he didn't consider it sexual at all.
and why the Chandler and Arvizo stories were bogus and why all those media stories were bogus.
Jurors would have those things on their minds, whether they would come up in court or not.


Jury members found Kelly liable after seven weeks of testimony. Because it was a civil trial, Trotter's legal team did not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt abuse had occurred; they had to prove it was more likely than not that the molestation and rape occurred.

"This case has always been (based) on no hard evidence," said David Edwards, who served as jury foreman.

Edwards of Tracy said the jury looked at complaints by various parents at different parishes where Kelly served.

"For me there just was just too much inappropriate behavior by Father Kelly," said Edwards, 47. "It was just too hard to dismiss."

http://www.recordnet.com/article/20120421/A_NEWS/204210316

Do you think these scum lawyers are going around talking to every man who ever had some contact with MJ as a child and trying to convince them that he touched them?

I wonder why lawyers like these are not disbarred.
 
Last edited:
Re: Wade Robson / James Safechuck Case - Creditor/civil claim against MJ Estate ( NEWS ONLY)

^ Background update...

Since Robeson's family Is being deposed within the month, Wade Robson is going around to family members grooming and telling them the story to tell in court.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Now he want his family to lie for him let see how this turn out.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I find Trotter's repressed memory story less than believable. He could be a fabricated "victim" or an opportunist bandwagoner.
Apparently Kelly was found liable because of the "where there is smoke there is fire" mentality.
There was never any hard evidence that Kelly raped Trotter.

This is why it would be crucial to explain in a civil court why MJ shared his bed with kids and why he didn't consider it sexual at all.
and why the Chandler and Arvizo stories were bogus and why all those media stories were bogus.
Jurors would have those things on their minds, whether they would come up in court or not.

I hope you realize your conflicting logic here. On one hand you say the priest was found guilty with no hard proof due to "where there is smoke there is fire" mentality. and then you suggest telling the jurors about other allegations, sharing the bed etc. What would stop them from "where there is smoke there is fire" mentality?

First of all personally I don't think the fans should want this to go to trial. In civil cases the burden of proof is much lower. Jurors only need to think it's more likely to be true than not true. That means jurors only need to be 51% sure. That's significant difference to a criminal case that requires without reasonable doubt. Further he said - she said lawsuits are also challenging because most of the time they lack any hard proof. That's why civil cases would be more prone to "when there is smoke there is fire" mentality. I also see jurors with much more simple and direct approach to matters. After all they aren't MJ fans to start with. So some details and level of information that are important for fans would be way too much and too specific for the jurors. I think those will go over their heads.

Furthermore this going to trial and even Estate winning the case wouldn't have a major effect on perceptions. We saw this after the criminal trial that ended with a not guilty verdict. You didn't see the haters go "okay he is not guilty". A trial even won would result in sensational and negative headlines.

If this goes to trial - let's hope not - I'm quite sure Robson / Safechuck lawyers would try their best to bring past accusations, testify for each other and even find others to testify for them. All for increasing their credibility and make jurors think it is "more likely" to be true as multiple people made/making similar claims. Estate on the other hand would try to keep the cases separate and fight against mentioning any past allegations. They would try Robson and Safechuck claims evaluated independently on their own.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

and then you suggest telling the jurors about other allegations, sharing the bed etc. What would stop them from "where there is smoke there is fire" mentality?


Do you honestly believe that they could get 12 Americans who have no idea that MJ shared his bed with kids and was accused and settled before? Americans already know about the smoke it's not that the Estate would introduce it to them. And Robson will talk about bedsharing a lot and his lawyers will repeat slept with boys slept with boys as many times as they can you can bet on it. The only question is how the Estate would respond. A shocking number of Americans believe that bedsharing is proof of molestation and Robson is banking on that.

In civil cases the burden of proof is much lower. Jurors only need to think it's more likely to be true than not true. That means jurors only need to be 51% sure. That's significant difference to a criminal case that requires without reasonable doubt. Further he said - she said lawsuits are also challenging because most of the time they lack any hard proof. That's why civil cases would be more prone to "when there is smoke there is fire" mentality. I also see jurors with much more simple and direct approach to matters. After all they aren't MJ fans to start with.

This is precisely why it would be critically important to convince the jury that all the crap they heard about MJ in the media, the settlement, the "sleeping with boys", the child porn are not true. I don't think for a second that they could get 12 or even 9 jurors who are at least not sceptical about MJ's innocence because of those widely promoted misconceptions.


Furthermore this going to trial and even Estate winning the case wouldn't have a major effect on perceptions. We saw this after the criminal trial that ended with a not guilty verdict. You didn't see the haters go "okay he is not guilty". A trial even won would result in sensational and negative headlines.

There is nothing anyone can do about that. But if MJ lost in court that would be a bigger than ever hit on his legacy especially given the horrific nature of Robson's story.
If he wins that would be the fourth victory in court against assholes who accused him. Winning in court with a lower burden of proof while he is not even here to defend himself could convince some people that his accusers are indeed full of shit. The best would be if the case is thrown out and Rosbon/Safechuck goes the **** away forever. But if it goes to trial it's either victory or bust.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Jury members found Kelly liable after seven weeks of testimony. Because it was a civil trial, Trotter's legal team did not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt abuse had occurred; they had to prove it was more likely than not that the molestation and rape occurred.

"This case has always been (based) on no hard evidence," said David Edwards, who served as jury foreman.

Edwards of Tracy said the jury looked at complaints by various parents at different parishes where Kelly served.

"For me there just was just too much inappropriate behavior by Father Kelly," said Edwards, 47. "It was just too hard to dismiss."

http://www.recordnet.com/article/201...NEWS/204210316
I feel sorry for this priest, as he is adamant that he is innocent-and gave quite a strong statement about it-and he has a huge amount of supporters that refuse to believe it. That says a lot.

I have to wonder what this "too much inappropriate behavior" was that made them find him guilty-
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Do you honestly believe that they could get 12 Americans who have no idea that MJ shared his bed with kids and was accused and settled before?

Yes - partially.

I don't know why you have this weird perception that American live, breathe, pay attention and memorize these allegations and/or negative stories about Michael. That's not the reality. I interact with a lot of average Americans -who aren't fans- that know my love for Michael. I talk to them at times as to see the pulse of public. The most they know is that Michael faced some accusations but they know no specifics. Similarly they don't even know the names of Michael's albums for example. These non fan people have no interest in following any news - good or bad- about Michael. So there are non-fans out there who only knows Michael as a talented artist that did the moonwalk, sang Thriller and had some troubles.

I don't think for a second that they could get 12 or even 9 jurors who are at least not sceptical about MJ's innocence because of those widely promoted misconceptions.

Actually this theory was proven wrong in 2005. According your logic majority knows everything and skeptical. It was a widely publicized trial with "prior bad acts" allowed. If you claim it was impossible for the jury to be impartial, they wouldn't have found him not guilty. If there were 12 jurors in 2005 who were impartial, you can find 12 jurors who will be impartial today as well.


Americans already know about the smoke it's not that the Estate would introduce it to them. And Robson will talk about bedsharing a lot and his lawyers will repeat slept with boys slept with boys as many times as they can you can bet on it.

As I mentioned in my previous post, sure Robson will want to mention those however whether or not that will be allowed will depend on the "motion in limine" determined just before trial. And this gets dismissed before a trial as we hope this becomes irrelevant.

A shocking number of Americans believe that bedsharing is proof of molestation and Robson is banking on that.This is precisely why it would be critically important to convince the jury that all the crap they heard about MJ in the media, the settlement, the "sleeping with boys", the child porn are not true.

Another conflicting statements. If "Americans believe bed sharing to be proof of molestation" how are you going to convince them otherwise? It's one thing to convince people who are impartial, it's quite different thing to get people who believe to guilt to change their minds. Furthermore what you are suggesting is retrying to 2005 trial again in a civil court.

Furthermore I hope you know that there are no requirement no address all claims in a defense. This is a case against companies and it will require to show that the companies knew the abuse, had power to do something about it but did nothing. A defense strategy of even only showing that companies had no control over Michael could result in a win as it means Robson not satisfying a required element.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Wouldnt any trial be about the companies and whether they owed him a duty of care etc etc. Mj is not on trial like of his claim directly against the estate.red is talking as if mj is on trial ala 2005 when that isnt what the case is about. Imo the bottom line of it is about if the company had control over mj ie the company was his boss.thats whats gonna be argued over
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Wouldnt any trial be about the companies and whether they owed him a duty of care etc etc. Mj is not on trial like of his claim directly against the estate.red is talking as if mj is on trial ala 2005 when that isnt what the case is about. Imo the bottom line of it is about if the company had control over mj ie the company was his boss.thats whats gonna be argued over

While MJ's name was removed from the case, but I understood that this case is about whether companies owned Wade duty of care and they didn't do anything stop MJ molesting Wade. If they lose the case, to put it in plain language, it means that company is guilty for not trying to stop MJ, and MJ is declared guilty despite never having a say in the court for his defence. So if company is found guilty, so is MJ, so in a way, MJ is on trial too.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

When I think back of the AEG civil trial at the end the Jury got a "check list" where they had to answer each question with a "yes" or a "no". Once they said "no" to one of the questions that's where the whole thing stopped and AEG was found not liable. If they had said "yes" to all questions that's when AEG would have been found liable.

I imagine this would be the same here. So the Jury of course would have to answer a question about whether they believe MJ molested Robson (it probably would be the first question on such a "check list"). If they say "no" it stops there as there is no case that the companies can be found liable for. If they say "yes" that still doesn't mean Robson won though. Then they go to the next questions which would be about the companies' responsibilities. If they say "yes" to all questions about whether the companies were in any way responsible for Robson's abuse that's when he wins. If the the Jury says "no" the the questions about the companies' responsibilites then Robson still loses. So theoretically it is possible that everyone loses to a certain extent and no one really comes out of it as a winner.

I personally cannot see how on Earth the companies could be found responsible. To me it would require a lot of mental gymnastics to make the companies' responsible. What worries me, however, is that the Jury might still label MJ a "molester" - and that based on this low burden of proof that a civil trial requires which I find unfair in the case of criminal matters (and especially with the defendant not being here to defend himself). We can see that sometimes a "no smoke without fire" argument is enough to sway a civil trial Jury in cases like this. And especially if at the end they would still decide for a "not liable" verdict for the companies they might find it easier to answer the first question with a "yes", knowing that their verdict at the end wouldn't depend on this question anyway so it doesn't really matter in terms of the outcome of the trial.

On the other hand I am not sure if a situation where they put "yes" next to that first question but eventually came back with a "non liable" verdict would be as detrimental to MJ's legacy as Redfrog believes it would (final nail in the coffin and things like that). People already made up their minds about MJ. Whoever believes he is guilty will continue to believe so and whoever believes he is innocent will continue to believe so, regardless of what a civil trial Jury replied to a question. Sure it wouldn't be positive. Sure it would cause some harm. I am also sure Robson and his lawyers would try to communicate it as a "victory" even if deep down they'd be fuming because their goal really is the money. But the verdict still would be "not liable" and from a PR point of view that's harder to use than a "liable" verdict. Most people do not really understand the legal details and technicalities, nor do they care. And those who do will maybe also understand why this trial would actually be unfair to the defendant. He is not here to answer, to defend himself. He is being tried on criminal allegations but based on the lax burden of proof in a civil case. And so on and so forth. So while this would be something that I am sure haters would try to plaster all over as some huge victory for them, in reality it wouldn't really IMO. It would be a shallow "victory" based on a lax burden of proof and the absence of the defendant.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

There's still a huge problem with the case moving forward and it's the fact it's not certain if a crime was ever committed at all. No matter what responsibilities the companies did or didn't hold the verdict has to first determine whether or not Wade was abused. This is an extremely unfair situation for the same reason you can't sue a dead man. I can't see how a fair trial can possibly happen with this case.
 
Wade whole case is build on the companies that the companies had a responsible to take care of him basically what Wade is saying that the companies let Michael abuse him and did nothing about it but there is a problem companies are not ppls the companies did not control Michael Michael own the companies he was in control so you go back to you can not sue a dead man. Like Ivy mention in her post this can come up in summary judgement and this case could be dismiss.


Respect 77 you said it all in your post i couldn't have said it better it unfair because Michael is not here to answer to these bogus lies.

Wade has took a page from the Candler book for sure.

There's still a huge problem with the case moving forward and it's the fact it's not certain if a crime was ever committed at all. No matter what responsibilities the companies did or didn't hold the verdict has to first determine whether or not Wade was abused. This is an extremely unfair situation for the same reason you can't sue a dead man. I can't see how a fair trial can possibly happen with this case.

You are so right. We are hearing only one side of the story. That why i can't see a judge moving this to a trial it would be so unfair.

. Imo the bottom line of it is about if the company had control over mj ie the company was his boss.thats whats gonna be argued over

This is Wade case right here this can come up in summary judgement and if Michael was in control of his companies end of case because you can't sue a dead man.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Wouldnt any trial be about the companies and whether they owed him a duty of care etc etc. Mj is not on trial like of his claim directly against the estate.red is talking as if mj is on trial ala 2005 when that isnt what the case is about. Imo the bottom line of it is about if the company had control over mj ie the company was his boss.thats whats gonna be argued over

There's still a huge problem with the case moving forward and it's the fact it's not certain if a crime was ever committed at all. No matter what responsibilities the companies did or didn't hold the verdict has to first determine whether or not Wade was abused.

I disagree with that. I don't think it's needed or it's not that Estate plans to do. I think they made it very clear in their papers to dismiss MJ as Doe 1 defendant.

Now the priest case mentioned on this thread recently was in phases, first to determine if the priest is liable and then determine if the church was liable. However I think Estate would do everything to avoid to determine if MJ was liable or not. I believe it would be more like an approach at AEG trial. They didn't start that trial by determining if Murray was liable first and then evaluating AEG's behavior. Testimony did not include anything about the specifics of Murray's actions. I think it that case it was the 4th question on jury form to determine if murray caused michael harm and the very last question to determine how each party shared responsibility.

Personally if this goes to trial I don't think Estate would go into any specifics of any accusations, or try a molestation claim in a civil court. I imagine they would focus on attacking credibility of Robson and then companies relationship with both MJ and Wade, duty of care, what they knew or not knew.

In other words I would certainly hope a verdict form that would start with if mj could be considered as an agent of the companies, and if the companies could have controlled him. and a no answer to either of those would stop the deliberations right there- which we expect to happen. then the verdict form to continue if michael caused harm to wade, if yes then asked question to determine if the companies have liability. and if that is also yes comes the determination of damages.

So technically I think this case can be won without any determination of the abuse claims.


I imagine this would be the same here. So the Jury of course would have to answer a question about whether they believe MJ molested Robson (it probably would be the first question on such a "check list").

you wouldn't want that to be the first question though. Sure like I said in the priest example, it started with that but in AEG trial it started with if AEG hired murray, if murray was incompetent, if aeg knew he was incompetent and the 4th question asked if murray harmed Michael. So I think the best thing would be a general start to understand the relationship between mj and the companies such as if MJ was an employee, agent of the companies. In other words first determine if the companies had responsibility over the actions of mj (any actions) and if they had any control over him - generally speaking not talking about molestation claims. Only after that is established you would want to ask if jurors think MJ liable for molestation, if companies knew it and if they failed to take action to prevent it.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^I agree. I'd be pretty shocked if the first question was about Michael molesting Robson. It should be about control at the company, period.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

you wouldn't want that to be the first question though. Sure like I said in the priest example, it started with that but in AEG trial it started with if AEG hired murray, if murray was incompetent, if aeg knew he was incompetent and the 4th question asked if murray harmed Michael. So I think the best thing would be a general start to understand the relationship between mj and the companies such as if MJ was an employee, agent of the companies. In other words first determine if the companies had responsibility over the actions of mj (any actions) and if they had any control over him - generally speaking not talking about molestation claims. Only after that is established you would want to ask if jurors think MJ liable for molestation, if companies knew it and if they failed to take action to prevent it.

I know we are speculating and really don't know what is going to be asked, but I find it hugely unfair that jurors might be asked if they believe Wade was molested by, companies know it and did nothing. This is so wrong. Michael is not here to defend himself, but somebody can claim in the court that this dead person is guilty.
Where is "innocent until proved guilty" thingy and shouldn't accused have his/her say in the court before innocent/guilty verdict is decided.

MJ was removed as defendant from this case, so there shouldn't be any questions as whether he is guilty or not.

Sorry my rant Ivy, it wasn't directed at you or your opinion, just felt upset the whole scenario.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

There is no way no how a jury will believe that the Estate "knew" about molestation... First and foremost they have to show without doubt that MJ did something.. Which cannot be proven (cuz it didn't happen) and was acquitted for allegations in the past. THAN if they are fooled to believe they have to buy into the estate knowing??? Hell no, aint gonna happem.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Wad and his lawyers are claiming that the companies had control over MJ and let this happen and did nothing about it but if MJ had control over his companies end of case because you can not sue a dead man.


I agree with Bubs too there should not be any jury questions whether Michael is guilty or not that would be unfair Michael is not here to defend himself.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ There's no logic in paying damages when it's not certain there is an actual victim or that a crime was ever committed. The case can't end in the responsibility question unless of course the answer for it is "no". If for some reason the answer is "yes" for the responsibility then it has to continue to the next question which is the unfair part about this case. If it ever goes to trial.

Thank you Ivy for clarifying the phase part. I agree that it should be like that and not the other way around. I know the Estate's interest is to avoid determining if MJ was liable or not. However, I think Wade's lawyers are going to rely mainly on that since they don't have anything but sensational claims.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

In summary judgement it going to come down to rather the companies control MJ or MJ was the owner of the companies. Who had a reason to know that this was happening and nothing was done about it.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

First and foremost they have to show without doubt that MJ did something..

in a civil trial it's not "without doubt". The standard is "more likely to be true than not true"
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ maybe reword what I mean.. the jury has to feel sure that molestation happened to accept the idea of a company knowing of the act happening.. if they were doubting MJ doing anything than there would be 0 chance of them believing the estate knew of something that didn't happen.
 
Back
Top