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

Rhilo

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
2,816
Points
0
The estate really needs to win this one or it will open up the floodgates to other false accusers trying to make money off Michael. It really sucks.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,270
Points
0
The estate really needs to win this one or it will open up the floodgates to other false accusers trying to make money off Michael. It really sucks.

I agree. i hope after this his name is more protect and this won't never happen again.
 

ChrisC

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
3,293
Points
63
The estate really needs to win this one or it will open up the floodgates to other false accusers trying to make money off Michael. It really sucks.

We said it was over when Wade and James were thrown out.

Unfortunately I don't think that will ever be the case.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
You think Wade/James will win the case this time?

The case is against the MJJ companies and it is highly unlikely that they can show that the MJJ companies are responsible for any of their allegations.
Assuming they lose, 'guilters' will say that it's only because they couldn't show that 'the companies are responsible'. So in that sense, 'it will never be over'.

(Entirely ignoring that both defended MJ in 1993, and both could have made any allegations directly against MJ at any time following 1993 (or even earlier). But of course a criminal trial would have meant needing a 'beyond reasonable doubt' proof and having no financial payout.)
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
The case is against the MJJ companies and it is highly unlikely that they can show that the MJJ companies are responsible for any of their allegations.
Assuming they lose, 'guilters' will say that it's only because they couldn't show that 'the companies are responsible'. So in that sense, 'it will never be over'.

(Entirely ignoring that both defended MJ in 1993, and both could have made any allegations directly against MJ at any time following 1993 (or even earlier). But of course a criminal trial would have meant needing a 'beyond reasonable doubt' proof and having no financial payout.)

That wont fly with the guilters if they say that. It will only look more like a witch hunt as it is now. MJ was given no special treatment and that excuse wont fly no more from haters/guilters.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
We said it was over when Wade and James were thrown out.

Unfortunately I don't think that will ever be the case.

Wont happen. YOu can sue for ANYTHING in America even if it is a lie and we know it is a lie.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
My point is more, this will never be over. Unless there's a bombshell.
Beating this dead horse is getting tiresome. people are tired of it. I see finally some media are questioning the creditability Biden's accuser in print now. During the metoo, some thought they had to go along with it everyone making a claims and fear in questioning them and fear going against it. it is now changing. I said if people go along with everyone just making an accusation, it is going to backfire and start to effect someone you do like. And now look, it happen. This is why "believe all accusers" is nonsense. I will believe EVIDENCE and FACTS, NOT claims unless it is a family member of mine and something of facts prove to me that family member is lying.
 

Mikky Dee

Sunset Driver, Midnight Rider
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
3,018
Points
63
The estate really needs to win this one or it will open up the floodgates to other false accusers trying to make money off Michael. It really sucks.

First of all, I don't believe they can possibly win......it would be an extreme failure of the justice system if they did, because they have absolutely nothing in their "arsenal" except lies and fakery. Secondly, these two are the last trickle of accusers, in my opinion, not part of a floodgate. The statute of limitations is likely to affect any others who might be looking for a pay day and the Estate has demonstrated time and time again that it will not pay quick settlements to anyone making claims of this nature. So many shady lawyers (like Zonen and Sneddon) and film makers (like Reed) have tried to find more accusers over the years and have been met with only abject failure. Even Finaldi's "Jane Doe" evaporated, almost as quickly as she appeared, for whatever reason. I am quietly confident that these two charlitans will not see one red cent of MJ's money and in fact, will have to pay what they already owe the Estate and more. I hope they have to pay it until they die.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
First of all, I don't believe they can possibly win......it would be an extreme failure of the justice system if they did, because they have absolutely nothing in their "arsenal" except lies and fakery. Secondly, these two are the last trickle of accusers, in my opinion, not part of a floodgate. The statute of limitations is likely to affect any others who might be looking for a pay day and the Estate has demonstrated time and time again that it will not pay quick settlements to anyone making claims of this nature. So many shady lawyers (like Zonen and Sneddon) and film makers (like Reed) have tried to find more accusers over the years and have been met with only abject failure. Even Finaldi's "Jane Doe" evaporated, almost as quickly as she appeared, for whatever reason. I am quietly confident that these two charlitans will not see one red cent of MJ's money and in fact, will have to pay what they already owe the Estate and more. I hope they have to pay it until they die.

Agreed, except the new extended Statute of Limitations in California allows complainants until 5 years after discovery to file a civil lawsuit. (and Discovery can be from an adult 'psychotherapy' experience, as we have seen).

The statute is also suspended for 3 years from 1st Jan 2020, so anyone can file at any time up to 31 Dec 2022 regardless of the time of Discovery.

(I don't have much faith left in human nature, as regards the extent to which people are prepared to go to get a chance to make a few $millions. )
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13,016
Points
83
I believe they are not trying to win, I believe Finaldi is pressuring for a settlement with the new law and pressure from negitive press... - aint gonna happen
 

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,675
Points
48
Mikky Dee;4288661 said:
I am quietly confident that these two charlitans will not see one red cent of MJ's money and in fact, will have to pay what they already owe the Estate and more. I hope they have to pay it until they die.

What’s the legal situation over there, can R&S possibly go to jail if they fail to pay back the money they owe the Estate?
 

PoP

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
6,556
Points
63
Country
Canada
ScreenOrigami;4288711 said:
What’s the legal situation over there, can R&S possibly go to jail if they fail to pay back the money they owe the Estate?

Nothing happened, the case will resume until the outbreak blew over. They should be in jail for perjury anyways.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
ScreenOrigami;4288711 said:
What’s the legal situation over there, can R&S possibly go to jail if they fail to pay back the money they owe the Estate?

They both seem to have houses that they could possibly sell to raise money (and still buy a smaller house). Maybe Safechuck's mom can sell hers to help out....:cool:

And then there's the money they probably made from 'Leaving Neverland' - if they received any following the Kew Media debacle.

Google says this:
In most United States legal contexts, if you cannot afford to pay a judgment against you, it becomes a debt more or less like any other debt. It can go to a collections agency, they can sue to collect on it, eventually garnish wages or property, and in most cases it would be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

So I guess depending on the final sums involved, bankruptcy is a possibility. If that 'discharges' (cancels) the debt, it seems that jail isn't a possibility.** :(

This article seems to confirm that both a 'lien on property' and 'wage garnishment' are possible in CA.:

Ways to Collect:

After you get a money judgment against someone else, you can enforce that judgment. If you win, you can file a lien on the other person’s property. Then you can “foreclose” on that lien. This means that you force the other person to sell the property and pay you with that money.

If there’s a lien on property (like a house or a car), it shows up on the record of title. This makes it very hard to sell.

You can also get a wage garnishment against the person who lost. This means that money will be taken out of every paycheck until you are paid in full. Both of these ways to collect will show up on the other person’s credit report.

http://www.scscourt.org/self_help/civil/lawsuits/after_trial.shtml


**The matter of bankruptcy discharging (cancelling) the whole debt seems complicated.

It seems that court fees might be exempted from being discharged (so you have to pay):
(17)  for a fee imposed on a prisoner by any court for the filing of a case, motion, complaint, or appeal, or for other costs and expenses assessed with respect to such filing, regardless of an assertion of poverty by the debtor under subsection (b) or (f)(2) of section 1915 of title 28 (or a similar non-Federal law), or the debtor's status as a prisoner, as defined in section 1915(h) of title 28 (or a similar non-Federal law)

but attorney fees might not be exempted ie may be discharged with bankruptcy (so you don't have to pay). (See 19Biii)

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-11-bankruptcy/11-usc-sect-523.html
 
Last edited:

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,270
Points
0
Two men who accused Michael Jackson of sex abuse are expected to return to court next month to take action against firms linked to the late star.

Wade Robson, 37 and James Safechuck, 42 - who appeared in the documentary Leaving Neverland last year - are reportedly going to sue MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures.

Both Wade and James claim they were molested as children by the late popstar.

According to The Sun, the men want to prove the allegations were true and reveal that firm bosses were aware, or should have been.

Michael Jackson's estate is still exempt from facing legal proceedings.

“We’re finally back in the courtroom," their attorney Vince Finaldi is reported by the publication to have said.

“We were supposed to have a hearing a couple of weeks ago, but it has been delayed due to the coronavirus – so we have another date set for June.

“It will be the first hearing in the case. It’s a new judge and it will be resolved one way or another. We are preparing for a trial later in the year.”

Both Wade and James previously attempted to sue the companies in 2013 and 2014.

However, their case was thrown out in 2017 after a trial judge said they had waited too long to file the allegations.
At the time Californian law required claimants to file before they turned 26 - but Wade and James were both in their thirties.

This changed at the beginning of 2020, when a new law came into effect that allowed victims of sexual abuse to sue until they are 40 years old.

Both Safechuck and Robson detailed a string of abuse claims in the 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland.

Michael Jackson's estate and his family have continued to deny the sex abuse claims.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-abuse-accusers-21965677
 

elusive moonwalker

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
26,838
Points
48
Amazing how a tin pot hearing. One of dozens thats as non news worthy as the rest gets reported on. Agenda?what agenda?
 

ChrisC

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
3,293
Points
63
At least they're reporting that it's the companies that are being sued.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
LOL, I wish this applied to complainants too- it might put a crimp in Reed's filming, at least in the short term.... :laughing:

L.A. County judges and other staff required to wear face masks in courts due to coronavirus

All Los Angeles County Superior Court bench officers, which include judges, will be required to wear face coverings while on the bench or inside courthouse public areas, the court announced Saturday.

“The Court is committed to protecting the health and safety of the public, attorneys, justice partners, judicial officers and employees,” Presiding Judge Kevin C. Brazile said in a statement.

Each judicial officer has been provided with two face masks, as have court employees, who also are required to wear face coverings, the court said in a news release.

“By mandating that bench officers wear face coverings, we will also decrease the chances of an asymptomatic Judge or Commissioner spreading the virus to others,” Brazile said.

The court is exempt from the county’s order requiring people to wear face masks in public but has strongly encouraged their use, according to the news release. Paper masks are provided at courthouse entrances for members of the public who don’t have one, the release said.

The effort is the latest aimed at slowing the spread of the coronavirus as officials try to balance the need to maintain essential court functions with the safety of attorneys, judges, prosecutors and defendants.

Last month, county courts launched a program to conduct arraignments via video in a bid to reduce courthouse traffic by cutting down on prisoner transfers. In March, Brazile barred public access to the courts and delayed for 90 days all misdemeanor hearings for defendants who are out of custody. Marquee trials, including the murder trial prosecution of New York real estate scion Robert Durst, have also been delayed.

https://www.latimes.com/california/...-officers-required-face-coverings-courthouses
 

ChrisC

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
3,293
Points
63
LOL, I wish this applied to complainants too- it might put a crimp in Reed's filming, at least in the short term.... :laughing:

Wasn't there a stipulation that he doesn't film any of the witnesses faces?
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
Wasn't there a stipulation that he doesn't film any of the witnesses faces?

Yes, but I don't think that applies to the complainants (R and S) - not if he wants to make a film...

(I'd like to see the entire MJ Estate legal team turn up in MJ masks just for the h4ll of it...)
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,270
Points
0
I actually like that idea. they can wear face masks and be 6ft from everyone. just everyone need to stay safe and if they have health problems to Really stay at home.
 

PoP

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
6,556
Points
63
Country
Canada
myosotis;4289704 said:
Yes, but I don't think that applies to the complainants (R and S) - not if he wants to make a film...

(I'd like to see the entire MJ Estate legal team turn up in MJ masks just for the h4ll of it...)

Yeah, they’ll see what it’s like to be Michael when we wears masks in public almost everywhere he goes.
 

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,017
Points
63
MOR316;4289796 said:
Hi all :)

I was wondering could anyone shed some light on this article for me?
https://www.theatlantavoice.com/art...ndoras-box-examines-michael-jackson-behavior/

This is the first I've heard about this. Never heard of Stacy Brown or anything about arguments at someone's wedding. I also know Joy Robson never said anything about MJ "crying like a baby"

Thanks in advance

FTR, Stacy Brown is a lying weasel and a tabloid hack in the same manner as Dieann Demond. He manipulates and makes up stories. During the 2005 farce of a trial, SB worked hand in hand with DD and the racist agenda driven prosecutor- Sneddon. Stacy Brown and Dieann Demond were the main culprits feeding lies to the public and mainstream media. Stacy is as much trash as D. Demond. These two were pictured having a “celebration” lunch with the prosecutors BEFORE the verdict was reached. This was how sure they were that their AGENDA/conspiracy had worked against Michael. These two and the rest of the conspirators and media have never forgiven Michael because he was found 100% INNOCENT and they didn’t get their “payday”.
 
Top