Latest on MJJC
[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe
- Thread starter Jackson Rules
- Start date
myosotis
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 4,224
- Points
- 48
From fans on twitter (Report from a fan who attended court last Friday). Includes minor edits for clarity:
''So court was interesting on Friday. As James and his wife were there. Larry Nimmer was also filming. Dan Reed was also present in the court filming.
Judge asked everyone if they have read his tentative? Estate goes first and agrees with the judges tentative. They talk about special relationships and fiduciary duty and cite some cases.
Judge asks Estate atty. if he feels these issues have been combined when should be looked at separately? Estate atty. says 'Yes' .
Judge asks there’s an allegation that the companies were created for mentoring youth - does the court take it as truth?
Estate atty. says 'No. Cause there are no facts to allege that MJ could and should have fired himself'.
Judge asks if they should take the allegation that companies were there to mentor youth in entertainment as true?
Estate atty. says 'No, because no facts support it. The idea that MJ could retain himself and supervise himself is not negligence law. We are only here cause MJ is dead. They would be going after him and if they win a judgment then will go after him and his companies.
Finaldi adds nothing new to argument saying MJJ Companies should have protected kids and MJ can fire himself.
Judge says but MJJ Ventures wasn’t created till 93 and plaintiff (James) alleged abuse ended in '92, so even if I side with you wouldn't the companies have had to be created (by 92)?
Finaldi says 'No, because as long as the abuse occurred during that time of engaging in activities involving kids that is our position'. Judge says he won’t rule today. And the court will take it under submission.
Next up was Wade vs Doe.
Finaldi rehashed the same claims he argued last time. He is mad that the court has ordered him to pay. Talks again about (Estate deposition atty) and how he felt she was coaching Leroy and how he called Finaldi a d-bag and an ambulance chaser. ''I want court to see my evidence.''
Judge tell him he understands Finaldi's position but he calls it like he sees it and has an obligation to bring it up to holding lawyers accountable for their actions and when he sees unprofessional conduct, and says I make no apology even if you are mad. You didn’t meet and confer properly and brought an unsuccessful motion and that’s why the court imposed a fine.
Judge continued 'Your party conduct will not be tolerated and that doesn’t violate your right for due process'.
Finaldi says 'it’s important cause the 'Daily Journal' wrote about me and it’s affecting my business. I suspended the deposition but he called me a d-bag'.
Judge says you (it??) were off the record. Finaldi then says 'Well if I was wrong why would they allow Branca to sit for a deposition?'
Judge said 'I’m going to impose that you pay $9200 and you have 30 days to pay it.'
Fan Comment: ''Sitting in that court room seeing James there and thinking how lucky he was that he got to hang out with MJ, yet here we are 11 years after his death and you're suing him for money. Disgusting! When he noticed the cameras rolled he looked like a sad puppy. We need to see what happens next and how the judge will rule.
When court ended Dan Reed ran out of the court room so fast. Him and his assistant hightailed it out of there. Maybe something to do with their subpoena last time. Which I witnessed and had no idea and thought he was getting transcripts early and thought to myself 'Hey Not fair I want them too -why does he get them?' Only after this week did I realize what a historical moment I witnessed - that I saw Dan Reed getting a subpoena.
Forgot to mention that a journalist of the Daily Journal was in court to cover the sanctions portion. I spoke to the journalist and he’s a guy who writes for the legal articles dept. He wasn’t aware it was the MJ case and was just there to cover sanctions.''
''So court was interesting on Friday. As James and his wife were there. Larry Nimmer was also filming. Dan Reed was also present in the court filming.
Judge asked everyone if they have read his tentative? Estate goes first and agrees with the judges tentative. They talk about special relationships and fiduciary duty and cite some cases.
Judge asks Estate atty. if he feels these issues have been combined when should be looked at separately? Estate atty. says 'Yes' .
Judge asks there’s an allegation that the companies were created for mentoring youth - does the court take it as truth?
Estate atty. says 'No. Cause there are no facts to allege that MJ could and should have fired himself'.
Judge asks if they should take the allegation that companies were there to mentor youth in entertainment as true?
Estate atty. says 'No, because no facts support it. The idea that MJ could retain himself and supervise himself is not negligence law. We are only here cause MJ is dead. They would be going after him and if they win a judgment then will go after him and his companies.
Finaldi adds nothing new to argument saying MJJ Companies should have protected kids and MJ can fire himself.
Judge says but MJJ Ventures wasn’t created till 93 and plaintiff (James) alleged abuse ended in '92, so even if I side with you wouldn't the companies have had to be created (by 92)?
Finaldi says 'No, because as long as the abuse occurred during that time of engaging in activities involving kids that is our position'. Judge says he won’t rule today. And the court will take it under submission.
Next up was Wade vs Doe.
Finaldi rehashed the same claims he argued last time. He is mad that the court has ordered him to pay. Talks again about (Estate deposition atty) and how he felt she was coaching Leroy and how he called Finaldi a d-bag and an ambulance chaser. ''I want court to see my evidence.''
Judge tell him he understands Finaldi's position but he calls it like he sees it and has an obligation to bring it up to holding lawyers accountable for their actions and when he sees unprofessional conduct, and says I make no apology even if you are mad. You didn’t meet and confer properly and brought an unsuccessful motion and that’s why the court imposed a fine.
Judge continued 'Your party conduct will not be tolerated and that doesn’t violate your right for due process'.
Finaldi says 'it’s important cause the 'Daily Journal' wrote about me and it’s affecting my business. I suspended the deposition but he called me a d-bag'.
Judge says you (it??) were off the record. Finaldi then says 'Well if I was wrong why would they allow Branca to sit for a deposition?'
Judge said 'I’m going to impose that you pay $9200 and you have 30 days to pay it.'
Fan Comment: ''Sitting in that court room seeing James there and thinking how lucky he was that he got to hang out with MJ, yet here we are 11 years after his death and you're suing him for money. Disgusting! When he noticed the cameras rolled he looked like a sad puppy. We need to see what happens next and how the judge will rule.
When court ended Dan Reed ran out of the court room so fast. Him and his assistant hightailed it out of there. Maybe something to do with their subpoena last time. Which I witnessed and had no idea and thought he was getting transcripts early and thought to myself 'Hey Not fair I want them too -why does he get them?' Only after this week did I realize what a historical moment I witnessed - that I saw Dan Reed getting a subpoena.
Forgot to mention that a journalist of the Daily Journal was in court to cover the sanctions portion. I spoke to the journalist and he’s a guy who writes for the legal articles dept. He wasn’t aware it was the MJ case and was just there to cover sanctions.''
Last edited:
NatureCriminal7896
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2019
- Messages
- 10,259
- Points
- 0
good.
MOR316
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2020
- Messages
- 63
- Points
- 0
https://twitter.com/MJJRepository/status/1318732438605004800
1 down, 1 to go!*
*Well, I'd like Reed to get an absolute grilling too!
1 down, 1 to go!*
*Well, I'd like Reed to get an absolute grilling too!
elusive moonwalker
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2003
- Messages
- 26,838
- Points
- 48
nned Tweet
TSCM
@MJJRepository
·
5h
BREAKING: The demurrer in Safechuck's case has been SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND on ALL CAUSES OF ACTION.
MJ's side has won in their court pleadings.
https://mjjr.net/docs/2020-10-20-Final-Ruling-Safechuck-Demurrer.pdf
JAMES SAFECHUCK'S CASE, pending any further appeals, is OFFICIALLY DISMISSED FROM THE COURT.
TSCM
@MJJRepository
·
5h
BREAKING: The demurrer in Safechuck's case has been SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND on ALL CAUSES OF ACTION.
MJ's side has won in their court pleadings.
https://mjjr.net/docs/2020-10-20-Final-Ruling-Safechuck-Demurrer.pdf
JAMES SAFECHUCK'S CASE, pending any further appeals, is OFFICIALLY DISMISSED FROM THE COURT.
From Motown To Your Town
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2017
- Messages
- 77
- Points
- 6
elusive moonwalker;4307218 said:
So, going forward his case is done, unless they appeal? LOL This is great news.
Dangerous1991
Proud Member
What about damages doe false accusations? Are they unable to do that?
I am not a nasty person, but I don't just want these dismissed, I want the estate to bury them and make the rest of their living days hell for what they have done.
elusive moonwalker
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2003
- Messages
- 26,838
- Points
- 48
They will have to pay the estate legal fees
Channel 4 can go ? it self. Fake woke media who try to be down with whatever is the in thing of the day. BLM only matters to them when your surname aint Jackson.
Channel 4 can go ? it self. Fake woke media who try to be down with whatever is the in thing of the day. BLM only matters to them when your surname aint Jackson.
Robbsaber01
Proud Member
All fans rn :
myosotis
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 4,224
- Points
- 48
Appeal confirmed (and it seems TMZ cannot spell 'ludicrous', which is ironic as this IS ludicrous).:
and a reminder:
''A court of appeals answers the question: did the (trial) court make a legal error in deciding the case? Therefore, the court of appeals will not hear testimony from live witnesses or consider new evidence. The court reviews only the written record generated in the (trial) court — the documentary evidence admitted, the transcript of the testimony, and the affidavits and discovery materials filed with the court.''
https://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/863/
and a reminder:
''A court of appeals answers the question: did the (trial) court make a legal error in deciding the case? Therefore, the court of appeals will not hear testimony from live witnesses or consider new evidence. The court reviews only the written record generated in the (trial) court — the documentary evidence admitted, the transcript of the testimony, and the affidavits and discovery materials filed with the court.''
https://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/863/
Last edited:
SeeingVoices
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 153
- Points
- 28
Fantastic news!!
I'm not in the least bit surprised that the major media outlets are reporting the subpoena served to Reed to deflect the latest defeat.
Their agenda is clearly to illustrate that the estate are trying to block the 'truth'. It's obviously designed to portray the estate to be a powerful force that cannot be beaten.
If they reported the dismissal is would further dimish J&W's credibility and their profitable narrative would no longer be effective with the public.
Although I'm certain that LN2 will still go ahead the latest outcome will not be nearly as compelling and it will be more difficult for Reed to convince that an impartial judge has dismissed the case due to no merit.
I wish for the day when the media start to turn the tide on J&W and hold them accountable.. That would involve real journalism though..
I'm not in the least bit surprised that the major media outlets are reporting the subpoena served to Reed to deflect the latest defeat.
Their agenda is clearly to illustrate that the estate are trying to block the 'truth'. It's obviously designed to portray the estate to be a powerful force that cannot be beaten.
If they reported the dismissal is would further dimish J&W's credibility and their profitable narrative would no longer be effective with the public.
Although I'm certain that LN2 will still go ahead the latest outcome will not be nearly as compelling and it will be more difficult for Reed to convince that an impartial judge has dismissed the case due to no merit.
I wish for the day when the media start to turn the tide on J&W and hold them accountable.. That would involve real journalism though..
myosotis
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 4,224
- Points
- 48
Michael Jackson: Court dismisses lawsuit from accuser James Safechuck
A US judge has dismissed a lawsuit from one of Michael Jackson's accusers, who claimed Jackson's companies allowed the star to abuse him and other children.
James Safechuck has said the singer started abusing him when he was 10.
In 2014, he sued MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, and has alleged they "were created to, and did, facilitate Jackson's sexual abuse of children".
But the judge dismissed the case, saying the companies didn't have a duty of care for Mr Safechuck.
Mr Safechuck was one of two men who accused the late pop star of abuse in last year's Leaving Neverland documentary.
In his lawsuit, he said Jackson abused him hundreds of times at his homes and on tour in the late 1980s and early 90s.
MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures were set up by Jackson to run his career. But in the lawsuit it was claimed: "The thinly-veiled, covert second purpose of these businesses was to operate as a child sexual abuse operation, specifically designed to locate, attract, lure and seduce child sexual abuse victims."
Mr Safechuck also featured with Jackson in a Pepsi commercial and often appeared on stage with the singer.
Mr Safechuck's lawyer Vince Finaldi told BBC News: "He was an employee that was working on behalf of them as a dancer and entertainer on the stage with Michael.
"Because he was a minor, and he was an employee working for them, they had a duty to protect him. That's our argument."
California judge Mark Young disagreed, saying the companies weren't directly responsible for causing emotional distress, and were not able to control Jackson, because he controlled the companies and everyone they employed. Corporations cannot be direct perpetrators, he said.
Mr Safechuck, who is seeking unspecified damages, will appeal.
Jackson vehemently denied the abuse. Mr Safechuck (a child at the time) reportedly gave a witness statement defending Jackson when allegations against the singer first emerged in 1993.
Mr Finaldi is also representing Wade Robson, who appeared in Leaving Neverland too, in a separate lawsuit, which is expected to reach trial next summer.
Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed is reportedly making a sequel about the pair's legal battles. Deadline reported on Wednesday that Jackson's companies had taken legal action against the film-maker.
Jonathan Steinsapir, representing MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, declined to comment on the latest ruling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54636636
A US judge has dismissed a lawsuit from one of Michael Jackson's accusers, who claimed Jackson's companies allowed the star to abuse him and other children.
James Safechuck has said the singer started abusing him when he was 10.
In 2014, he sued MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, and has alleged they "were created to, and did, facilitate Jackson's sexual abuse of children".
But the judge dismissed the case, saying the companies didn't have a duty of care for Mr Safechuck.
Mr Safechuck was one of two men who accused the late pop star of abuse in last year's Leaving Neverland documentary.
In his lawsuit, he said Jackson abused him hundreds of times at his homes and on tour in the late 1980s and early 90s.
MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures were set up by Jackson to run his career. But in the lawsuit it was claimed: "The thinly-veiled, covert second purpose of these businesses was to operate as a child sexual abuse operation, specifically designed to locate, attract, lure and seduce child sexual abuse victims."
Mr Safechuck also featured with Jackson in a Pepsi commercial and often appeared on stage with the singer.
Mr Safechuck's lawyer Vince Finaldi told BBC News: "He was an employee that was working on behalf of them as a dancer and entertainer on the stage with Michael.
"Because he was a minor, and he was an employee working for them, they had a duty to protect him. That's our argument."
California judge Mark Young disagreed, saying the companies weren't directly responsible for causing emotional distress, and were not able to control Jackson, because he controlled the companies and everyone they employed. Corporations cannot be direct perpetrators, he said.
Mr Safechuck, who is seeking unspecified damages, will appeal.
Jackson vehemently denied the abuse. Mr Safechuck (a child at the time) reportedly gave a witness statement defending Jackson when allegations against the singer first emerged in 1993.
Mr Finaldi is also representing Wade Robson, who appeared in Leaving Neverland too, in a separate lawsuit, which is expected to reach trial next summer.
Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed is reportedly making a sequel about the pair's legal battles. Deadline reported on Wednesday that Jackson's companies had taken legal action against the film-maker.
Jonathan Steinsapir, representing MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, declined to comment on the latest ruling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54636636
NatureCriminal7896
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2019
- Messages
- 10,259
- Points
- 0
James and Wade most definitely need some kind of displace. i'm not saying dismiss is bad but these guys did so much. not only them but a whole lot of other people and companies deserve some kind of displace what they did to michael. i hope they all do. Orpah pretty much got her's.
myosotis
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 4,224
- Points
- 48
Delusional journalist - words fail me. 'Die Hard' fans have been reading court docs for decades.... We never believed these two false accusers for an instant! And Piers Morgan made Reed seriously uncomfortable with his questions about why LN had no representation from the estate or Jackson family. All Reed could stutter was 'Well, Wade and James aren't dead'!!!
Michael Jackson fans ‘won’t stop’ until singer is proven ‘innocent’ as he trends on Twitter
The late pop legend trended on social media today.
Michael Jackson fans have swarmed to Twitter to defend the late singer as “innocent”.
The pop legend suddenly began trending on social media today (October 21), alongside the hashtag ‘#MJInnocent’.
It comes after a judge dismissed one of Michael’s Leaving Neverland accusers, James Safechuck, over his alleged abuse claims.
Safechuck previously claimed in the documentary that he was sexually assaulted by the star when he was a minor.
However, a judge has since ruled that Safechuck and his legal team presented no facts to support their key argument.
What did Michael Jackson fans say?
Following the news, fans took to Twitter to defend their hero.
One wrote: “He’s been innocent since day one and we will stop at nothing to prove that. #MJInnocent.”
Another said: “Make no mistake about it, James Safechuck having his flimsy case full of endless fantasies and lies thrown out of court is a HUGE victory for Michael Jackson and the falsely accused.
“Media’s deceptive headlines and silence on the decision does not change this! #MJInnocent.”
A third added: “#MJInnocent Always has been, always will be.”
A fourth stated: “Michael jackson didn’t deserve what he has been through and he is innocent totally and proven innocent, the world need to hear it #MJInnocent.”
Leaving Neverland aired on Channel 4 last year.
The film left die-hard fans convinced the late King of Pop was a paedophile.
Fans revealed on social media they had been left nauseous over the claims and media personalities such as Piers Morgan have questioned whether he may have been a serial abuser.
Jackson always denied the claims and his family fiercely denounced the documentary, saying in part: “Michael Jackson was and always will be 100% innocent of these false allegations.”
Leave us a comment on our Facebook page @EntertainmentDailyFix and let us know what you think of this story.
https://www.entertainmentdaily.co.u...r-is-proven-innocent-as-he-trends-on-twitter/
Michael Jackson fans ‘won’t stop’ until singer is proven ‘innocent’ as he trends on Twitter
The late pop legend trended on social media today.
Michael Jackson fans have swarmed to Twitter to defend the late singer as “innocent”.
The pop legend suddenly began trending on social media today (October 21), alongside the hashtag ‘#MJInnocent’.
It comes after a judge dismissed one of Michael’s Leaving Neverland accusers, James Safechuck, over his alleged abuse claims.
Safechuck previously claimed in the documentary that he was sexually assaulted by the star when he was a minor.
However, a judge has since ruled that Safechuck and his legal team presented no facts to support their key argument.
What did Michael Jackson fans say?
Following the news, fans took to Twitter to defend their hero.
One wrote: “He’s been innocent since day one and we will stop at nothing to prove that. #MJInnocent.”
Another said: “Make no mistake about it, James Safechuck having his flimsy case full of endless fantasies and lies thrown out of court is a HUGE victory for Michael Jackson and the falsely accused.
“Media’s deceptive headlines and silence on the decision does not change this! #MJInnocent.”
A third added: “#MJInnocent Always has been, always will be.”
A fourth stated: “Michael jackson didn’t deserve what he has been through and he is innocent totally and proven innocent, the world need to hear it #MJInnocent.”
Leaving Neverland aired on Channel 4 last year.
The film left die-hard fans convinced the late King of Pop was a paedophile.
Fans revealed on social media they had been left nauseous over the claims and media personalities such as Piers Morgan have questioned whether he may have been a serial abuser.
Jackson always denied the claims and his family fiercely denounced the documentary, saying in part: “Michael Jackson was and always will be 100% innocent of these false allegations.”
Leave us a comment on our Facebook page @EntertainmentDailyFix and let us know what you think of this story.
https://www.entertainmentdaily.co.u...r-is-proven-innocent-as-he-trends-on-twitter/
NatureCriminal7896
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2019
- Messages
- 10,259
- Points
- 0
no hate or anything but why you post a negative article? you know how the media are. let us as fans, friends, and family of michael enjoy the good news.
CherubimII
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6,915
- Points
- 113
Michael Jackson Exonerated as Judge Dismisses James Safechuck Case, Wade Robson Will Be Next
by Roger Friedman - <time itemprop="dateCreated" class="entry-date updated" datetime="2020-10-21T22:16:54+00:00">October 21, 2020 10:16 pm</time>
https://www.showbiz411.com/2020/10/...james-safechuck-case-wade-robson-will-be-next
Michael Jackson should be pleased wherever he is today. The first of two cases brought against him posthumously by men who said they were abused by the singer in their teens was dismissed.
The case of James Safechuck was dismissed on demurrer, meaning just through paperwork, on Tuesday.
Judge Mark Young wrote, explaining demurrers: When considering demurrers, courts “are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.”
You can read the Judge’s complete finding here. But he didn’t buy that Safechuck, as a child, worked for Michael Jackson or his companies, and that Jackson failed “to warn, train, or educate” him. Safechuck’s case, like that of his pal Wade Robson, was concocted to get money from the Jackson estate because Michael– who died suddenly– failed to leave them anything in a will.
The judge wrote that: “Plaintiff [Safechuck] alleged that Jackson was “hired” by Defendants to coach, teach, and mentor minors interested in the entertainment industry. Setting aside Plaintiff’s allegation that Jackson was the President of both Defendants, Plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts detailing what such mentorship looked like (or was supposed to look like) from 1988 through 1992.”
The case has been tossed and it’s not coming back. Howard Weitzman, Jackson’s estate lawyer, said in a statement to Showbiz411: “We are pleased that the court agreed that James Safechuck case should be dismissed because [they] had no grounds to pursue his lawsuit.”
Robson’s case will be decided next. Each of these men participated in the disastrous documentary “Leaving Neverland,” in which they described– without evidence or backing or a chance for the estate to refute–child molestation at the hands of Michael Jackson. This was a decade after they’d attended Jackson’s funeral, many years after Robson testified for Jackson in a child molestation trial. They each seemed motivated to find money at the expense of truth.
The documentary, shown on HBO, has been derided by Jackson fans who’ve meticulously pulled it apart and examined all the testimony of Safehuck and Robson. It’s like having a thousand Perry Masons working at once. :yes:
Now the film’s director, not satisfied to have participated in one painful farce, is trying to make sequel. Since the Jackson estate is still suing HBO, it’s unlikely he’ll find a home again there anytime soon.
by Roger Friedman - <time itemprop="dateCreated" class="entry-date updated" datetime="2020-10-21T22:16:54+00:00">October 21, 2020 10:16 pm</time>
https://www.showbiz411.com/2020/10/...james-safechuck-case-wade-robson-will-be-next
Michael Jackson should be pleased wherever he is today. The first of two cases brought against him posthumously by men who said they were abused by the singer in their teens was dismissed.
The case of James Safechuck was dismissed on demurrer, meaning just through paperwork, on Tuesday.
Judge Mark Young wrote, explaining demurrers: When considering demurrers, courts “are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.”
You can read the Judge’s complete finding here. But he didn’t buy that Safechuck, as a child, worked for Michael Jackson or his companies, and that Jackson failed “to warn, train, or educate” him. Safechuck’s case, like that of his pal Wade Robson, was concocted to get money from the Jackson estate because Michael– who died suddenly– failed to leave them anything in a will.
The judge wrote that: “Plaintiff [Safechuck] alleged that Jackson was “hired” by Defendants to coach, teach, and mentor minors interested in the entertainment industry. Setting aside Plaintiff’s allegation that Jackson was the President of both Defendants, Plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts detailing what such mentorship looked like (or was supposed to look like) from 1988 through 1992.”
The case has been tossed and it’s not coming back. Howard Weitzman, Jackson’s estate lawyer, said in a statement to Showbiz411: “We are pleased that the court agreed that James Safechuck case should be dismissed because [they] had no grounds to pursue his lawsuit.”
Robson’s case will be decided next. Each of these men participated in the disastrous documentary “Leaving Neverland,” in which they described– without evidence or backing or a chance for the estate to refute–child molestation at the hands of Michael Jackson. This was a decade after they’d attended Jackson’s funeral, many years after Robson testified for Jackson in a child molestation trial. They each seemed motivated to find money at the expense of truth.
The documentary, shown on HBO, has been derided by Jackson fans who’ve meticulously pulled it apart and examined all the testimony of Safehuck and Robson. It’s like having a thousand Perry Masons working at once. :yes:
Now the film’s director, not satisfied to have participated in one painful farce, is trying to make sequel. Since the Jackson estate is still suing HBO, it’s unlikely he’ll find a home again there anytime soon.
myosotis
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 4,224
- Points
- 48
NME: (I thought Reed had said LN2 would look at earlier cases, not the 'fan backlash'.)
Court dismisses lawsuit from Michael Jackson accuser James Safechuck
Safechuck appeared in the 2019 documentary 'Leaving Neverland'
A lawsuit filed against one of Michael Jackson’s companies by one of the men who accused the late singer of sexual abuse has been dismissed.
James Safechuck, who featured in the 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, sought damages from MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, who he accused of “facilitating” the singer’s alleged sexual abuse of children.
On Wednesday (October 21), judge Mark Young ruled that neither firm had “a duty of care” toward Safechuck and could not be held responsible for the alleged abuse.
Safechuck, who is now 42, alleges that the pop icon began abusing him when he was just 10 years old.
As the BBC reports, Safechuck filed his suit against MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures in 2014, claiming that both companies “were created to, and did, facilitate Jackson’s sexual abuse of children”.
In his ruling, California judge Young said that Jackson controlled the companies and their employees, meaning that they were not able to control the star’s alleged actions.
Reports have claimed that Safechuck now plans to appeal the decision.
Safechuck outlined the alleged abuse in Leaving Neverland alongside Wade Robson, who alleged he was also molested as a child in the early 1990s.
Both men say they were befriended by the singer and abused at his Neverland ranch in Santa Barbara, California between the ages of 7 and 10.
Dan Reed, who directed the 2019 documentary, is said to be filming a sequel which will focus on the fallout from the first film and the intense backlash it attracted from some of Jackson’s biggest fans. He has reportedly faced legal challenges over the sequel from both MJJ productions and MJJ Ventures.
Jackson, one of the best-selling artists of all time, reached an out of court settlement of $25 million in 1994 with the family of Jordan Chandler, who had accused him of molesting the youngster.
A case file was closed several months later after prosecutors cited a lack of evidence to proceed without testimony from the Chandler Family.
In December 2003, Jackson was also charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of intoxicating a minor with alcoholic drinks, with the charges related to 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo.
Jackson denied the charges and was acquitted in 2005 after a lengthy four-and-a-half month long trial.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/cour...chael-jackson-accuser-james-safechuck-2794710
Court dismisses lawsuit from Michael Jackson accuser James Safechuck
Safechuck appeared in the 2019 documentary 'Leaving Neverland'
A lawsuit filed against one of Michael Jackson’s companies by one of the men who accused the late singer of sexual abuse has been dismissed.
James Safechuck, who featured in the 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, sought damages from MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, who he accused of “facilitating” the singer’s alleged sexual abuse of children.
On Wednesday (October 21), judge Mark Young ruled that neither firm had “a duty of care” toward Safechuck and could not be held responsible for the alleged abuse.
Safechuck, who is now 42, alleges that the pop icon began abusing him when he was just 10 years old.
As the BBC reports, Safechuck filed his suit against MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures in 2014, claiming that both companies “were created to, and did, facilitate Jackson’s sexual abuse of children”.
In his ruling, California judge Young said that Jackson controlled the companies and their employees, meaning that they were not able to control the star’s alleged actions.
Reports have claimed that Safechuck now plans to appeal the decision.
Safechuck outlined the alleged abuse in Leaving Neverland alongside Wade Robson, who alleged he was also molested as a child in the early 1990s.
Both men say they were befriended by the singer and abused at his Neverland ranch in Santa Barbara, California between the ages of 7 and 10.
Dan Reed, who directed the 2019 documentary, is said to be filming a sequel which will focus on the fallout from the first film and the intense backlash it attracted from some of Jackson’s biggest fans. He has reportedly faced legal challenges over the sequel from both MJJ productions and MJJ Ventures.
Jackson, one of the best-selling artists of all time, reached an out of court settlement of $25 million in 1994 with the family of Jordan Chandler, who had accused him of molesting the youngster.
A case file was closed several months later after prosecutors cited a lack of evidence to proceed without testimony from the Chandler Family.
In December 2003, Jackson was also charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of intoxicating a minor with alcoholic drinks, with the charges related to 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo.
Jackson denied the charges and was acquitted in 2005 after a lengthy four-and-a-half month long trial.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/cour...chael-jackson-accuser-james-safechuck-2794710