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

This guy works for Jennifer Keller's law firm. This is great.

"His notable cases include leading a 47-defendant prosecution of a transnational organization involved in murder and large-scale cocaine trafficking, a 38-defendant racketeering case against a Mexican Mafia-linked street gang, and an 18-defendant Medicare fraud scheme totaling $20 million orchestrated by Eurasian organized crime."

Jerk Cheapchuck and Waste Robberson, watch out!
 
"His notable cases include leading a 47-defendant prosecution of a transnational organization involved in murder and large-scale cocaine trafficking, a 38-defendant racketeering case against a Mexican Mafia-linked street gang, and an 18-defendant Medicare fraud scheme totaling $20 million orchestrated by Eurasian organized crime."

Jerk Cheapchuck and Waste Robberson, watch out!
Jerk cheapchuck & waste robberson 😂
 
Wtf is carpenter thinking trying supenoea the lapd ...is he dumb or qhat
 
Iirc, this was supposed to start at 10am (US West Coast time) 29th October 2024. :unsure:

@MJJRepository

"Robson and Safechuck Case Update:

Tomorrow 10/29 is another trial readiness hearing for the judge to review timelines, case statuses, and to consider a tentative trial date.

Both sides have already proposed a 2026 trial timeline but differ by 2-6 months in key motion deadlines."


GbA9--KWUAASz0K



GbA-A4rXgAAHscG
"
 
In the ongoing legal proceedings involving Michael Jackson’s estate and allegations from James Safechuck and Wade Robson, there is an ongoing debate about the trial timeline. Attorneys for the Estate have requested to push the trial date further back, a motion that Carpenter, representing the plaintiffs, opposes. The court has not yet ruled on this scheduling dispute.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate


I remember reading about this prog and just googled it now. It's so shocking to me how blatently modelled on the chandler and arvizo accusations it is - to me it is a case of libel. It was broadcast right in the middle of the convening of the grand jury looking into the arvizo allegations so i guess they felt mj's lawyers wd be otherwise engaged. I know jurors aren't allowed to watch the news or read about the case in the media, but are they told not to watch any tv drama progs in case some producer decides to 'dramatise' the allegations they're currently mulling over? Only in america, no way cd a high rating tv drama do this here about a highprofile case, something so close to a real life case wd be seen as in contempt of court.

It has a boy being suspected by the outside authorities of being molested, he's taken and questioned, names his abuser but the parents have accepted $$$ and a confidentiality agreement from the billionaire abuser and so the boy recants. The authorities can't get round the confidentiality agreement and the family disappear. Then we have a girl cancer victim who also makes allegations, but it turns out they're false and the mother is lying about the cancer. Abuser gets off to molest again. Lol, it seems that the media were already aware of the huge doubts about the arvizos and their story but wanted to reinforce that it doesn't mean that mj was innocent and that his guilt was confirmed by the one who got paid off, chandler - which basically is the story that alot of the public believe to this day. Interesting that the dramatisation doesn't show that the parents of the first boy blackmailing the abuser by threatening to go public with claims of molestation, when that failed going public with a heavyhitting lawyer, and only after 5 months of police and legal activity resulting in no charges, does the abuser pay a settlement, gets a confidentiality agreement preventing the family talking to the media but leaves the family perfectly free to pursuse a criminal case. But they decide not to and plan to write a book instead. Maybe those details don't dramatise so well.
I know this particular thing I'm replying to is more than a decade old. But the reason I'm doing so is because I happened to unfortunately catch it airing on Pop today. I wasn't the one specifically watching, my dad was, because there was an SVU marathon on, and I was just sitting down to eat breakfast. And this episode was airing, and I immediately saw it for what it was. It was such thinly veiled slander, especially because it's always operating the way that all L&O episodes on all the various shows operate, that the suspect is always guilty. In addition with basically combining the Chandler and Arvizo allegations into one, it was also mocking Michael's statement about how the police manhandled him in 2003, saying that plucking of his hairs from his scalp was "brutalizing", with Stabler going "If you were brutalized, you'd know it, and it'd be because of me." It also repeats the lie that Jordie's description of Michael's genitalia was confirmed, which of course is wrong.

Just about everything done with their Michael stand-in was shrill mocking and jeering, saying that all of his statements and comments are "so absurd and ludicrous, this guy clearly did it!" Even when they used the girl stand-in for Gavin showing that her grandmother was deliberately making her sick through Munchausen by proxy and had deliberately done a frameup, Benson just screams "You ruined the investigation! Now no actual victim will ever be believed because of you!" And then afterwards, all the other characters sneer and call him the "Teflon Pedo."
 
Last edited:
20 December 2024 - trial conference, 8.30am US West Coast time (approx. 1.30pm GMT).


Ge7nxrCbwAELiLa


@andjustice4some
"Reminder: On 12/20, there is a trial readiness conference for the Robson/Safechuck case against the MJ companies. Carpenter originally claimed he might not be able to be there, but for right now, it's still on the calendar. Hopefully a trial date will be set at this hearing."


@MJJRepository
"At the last hearing, the judge also advised appointing a special master for the discovery phase.

This would alleviate the burden of the court from having to weigh the many anticipated discovery challenges and motions, only joining to review the referee's findings & conclusions."

"For example, a lot of court time was consumed over Wade's reluctance to turnover discovery.

This led to many lengthy filings between parties and months of back-and-forth, before the judge ruled that Wade needed to hand over more material.

A referee can streamline that process."



 
Trial date in November 2026!
Yes. Finally!



@andjustice4some
"Regarding the Safechuck/Robson lawsuit against the MJJ companies, the judge has ordered a trial date of November 23, 2026. Next hearing is on March 14, 2025."

"If you're interested in this case, one person you should know about is the retired Hon. Gerald Rosenberg, who will be the discovery referee prior to the trial."


GhcghflacAEvIrF




Ghc0jiracAEEBbU





 
Last edited:
Can't wait for another ''found not guilty'' for the 300th times
Because it's a civil suit, it's practically a coin toss which way it will go. At least this is my understanding. They need very little evidence to suggest this may have happened, as opposed to a criminal trial where the burden of proof is much higher.
So unfortunately there is a very good possibility that Robson and Safechuck will win.
 
Because it's a civil suit, it's practically a coin toss which way it will go. At least this is my understanding. They need very little evidence to suggest this may have happened, as opposed to a criminal trial where the burden of proof is much higher.
So unfortunately there is a very good possibility that Robson and Safechuck will win.
If they only had to convince the jury that they were abused, it would be one thing, but the lawsuit is not against MJ, it's against his companies, so they also have to prove that MJ's companies are responsible for the abuse. It's so ridiculous and so obviously just a way to get around the fact that they can't sue MJ because he's dead that I really doubt they'll manage to convince a jury of that, even with a low burden of proof.
 
Because it's a civil suit, it's practically a coin toss which way it will go. At least this is my understanding. They need very little evidence to suggest this may have happened, as opposed to a criminal trial where the burden of proof is much higher.
So unfortunately there is a very good possibility that Robson and Safechuck will win.
How will Safechuck convince the jury that he was allegedly abused everyday in a room upstairs of a train station that provably didn't even exist during his allege abuse period between 1988 and 1992? Is there even any hesitation that the Estates lawyers will raise that issue when cross-examining him on the stand?
 
How will Safechuck convince the jury that he was allegedly abused everyday in a room upstairs of a train station that provably didn't even exist during his allege abuse period between 1988 and 1992? Is there even any hesitation that the Estates lawyers will raise that issue when cross-examining him on the stand?
Yeah, post Jay-Z, these allegations seem downright ridiculous and easy to pick apart.

Like the adage of "Believe all victims" is finally being recognized for what it is actually, "Believe all accusers", which a lot of people are gonna start to weigh on and realize, no, that doesn't make sense.

It's a more modern idea that is proving flawed in practice, majority of the time.
 
Because it's a civil suit, it's practically a coin toss which way it will go. At least this is my understanding. They need very little evidence to suggest this may have happened, as opposed to a criminal trial where the burden of proof is much higher.
So unfortunately there is a very good possibility that Robson and Safechuck will win.
Didn't know about that. Thanks for letting me know! I just hope the TRUTH comes to light.
 
Yeah, post Jay-Z, these allegations seem downright ridiculous and easy to pick apart.

Like the adage of "Believe all victims" is finally being recognized for what it is actually, "Believe all accusers", which a lot of people are gonna start to weigh on and realize, no, that doesn't make sense.

It's a more modern idea that is proving flawed in practice, majority of the time.
It's not just Michael, of course. I mean, the entire Neil Gaiman situation, which was spearheaded by a media company that has ties to TERF ideology and has a major incentive to attack one of the biggest supporters of trans rights as well as critics of J.K. Rowling for how she has degenerated into bloviating hatred, had skin in the game looking for something to discredit him in revenge for Rowling. They just happened to find ex sex partners who were bitter and thus had great incentive to lie about the relationships, to use as the grist for that mill. Not to mention how there is such a puritanical seed in society that condemns anything that isn't vanilla sex. And need we forget about how Gaiman privately left Scientology, hasn't said anything against it yet, but there's always the chance he'd join Leah Remini's crusade against the church? David Miscavige is paranoid as hell about that, and would have great incentive to take out someone before they're a threat.

Gaiman is well known as a progressive figure, who is a voice for the voiceless, is a proud and ardent feminist, and works on behalf of victims of sexual violence the world over. And he's supposed to have been like Jimmy Savile, someone who could "hide his true self for so long?" Even though people like Savile and Jared Fogle's "good deeds" were only superficial while Gaiman, like Michael, seemed to have it etched in his bones, meaning he'd have to be the world's greatest Method actor to pull it off?

Now come on, what's more likely here?
 
Can someone explain to me what happened now????!!
If you're referring to asking about Gaiman, there was a podcast entitled "Master" which basically claimed that Gaiman is a sadist who uses BDSM as a cover to engage in NXIVM-like behavior, in "master-slave relationships," and that he was rough, engaged in sex without consent, and just simply brutalized people. A week ago, there was an article in New York magazine that has been claimed as corroboration, fleshing out the allegations further, accusing Gaiman's wife of being a Ghislaine-like figure. Gaiman was accused of savagely raping someone when she had a UTI, and so forth.

Notably, the podcast came out from Tortoise Media, which is affiliated with TERF ideology, and Gaiman was a vocal critic of J.K. Rowling's crusade against trans people; these people also engage in kinkshaming and act like anything that isn't vanilla sex is automatically wrong, much the same as was used in the false allegations against Armie Hammer and Marilyn Manson. Let's also not forget that Gaiman is a former Scientologist, and while he left quietly, David Miscavige clearly fears anyone will turn and become a vocal critic. Remember the manufactured rape smear against director and former Scientologist Paul Haggis, who also famously left the church because he disagreed with their stances on gay people?

Gaiman was dropped by Dark Horse Comics and some adaptations of his work are now paused. He is now being called the next Jimmy Savile, the next Jared Fogle, and in some quarters, the next Michael. But Gaiman has always been a vocal progressive ally, advocating for victims of sexual violence, working in organizations like RAINN, continually evolving and growing with regards to diversity and representation in his works and accepting of fan feedback. In short, for him to be truly as monstrous as Savile and Jared, Gaiman would have to be a Method actor more obsessive than Heath Ledger, to the point of embodying that mask 24/7, and then, without warning, suddenly dropping it out of a clear blue sky. And given how we know Michael was someone who was the absolute personification of goodness, compassion, generosity and sincerity but was then villainized into something truly monstrous, well, it doesn't take long to get the point.

For too long, we have essentially been living in The Crucible, where allegations equal truth and no one gets a chance to defend themselves Al Franken was deprived of his chance to defend himself in a Senate ethics hearing, and it had ramifications that billowed outward. Taking down the likes of Garrison Keillor, James Franco, Aziz Ansari, Johnny Depp, Hammer, Shia LaBeouf, Manson, Twiggy Ramirez, David Ellefson, John Lasseter, Joss Whedon, Jonathan Majors, Steven Tyler, Nick Carter, Justin Roiland, Dan Harmon, Jimmy Iovine, Axl Rose, Don Henley and now Gaiman. And even cases without sexual misconduct have been distorted out of proportion, trying to just merely chip away at their hard-earned reputations. People like Ellen, Drew Barrymore, Lizzo, Tara Strong and so forth have been victimized. Hell, even Dave Grohl is being attacked and dragged under simply because he admitted to having a love child. As if that erases his legacy of charity, good works and all around niceness! It's still Dave!

For too long, we've lived in this world. But until the likes of Jay-Z and Justin Baldoni, no one was willing to step up to the plate and play John Proctor. Nor even to play Reverend Hale. They were too busy playing Thomas Putnam or Danforth or Hathorne or Tituba or, God forbid, Abigail Williams. People are supposed to lay down and die, apologize for things that didn't happen, cede to lies and call them truth, and just disappear. You couldn't fight for your good name because, "If they really were so nice as they claimed, they wouldn't fight back and revictimize the accusers. They wouldn't deflect reponsibility." In other words, if you're accused of murder you didn't commit and have the evidence to prove it, don't say anything. In fact, go and plead guilty. As a matter of fact, strap yourself into the gurney and volunteer for the lethal injection.
 
Some people are guilty, some people are innocent. This isn't some us vs them narrative I'm trying to do it. I'm just saying, innocent until proven Guilty.
 
Some people are guilty, some people are innocent. This isn't some us vs them narrative I'm trying to do it. I'm just saying, innocent until proven Guilty.
You'll get no argument from me there. But it's extremists that completely throw away due process and the rule of law and say "If you don't automatically believe, you're a rape apologist" that are turning it into us vs. them. The fact that there've been these notable real casualties, falsely accused, is notable, so it makes it seem quite plausible that Gaiman is now among them.

Of course, Michael suffered the most out of all these people, especially since he was already a tabloid target as a freak even before the allegations, so they were just hostile to him from the start. Whatever these current victims have gone through doesn't compare to what Michael was subjected to.
 
You'll get no argument from me there. But it's extremists that completely throw away due process and the rule of law and say "If you don't automatically believe, you're a rape apologist" that are turning it into us vs. them. The fact that there've been these notable real casualties, falsely accused, is notable, so it makes it seem quite plausible that Gaiman is now among them.

Of course, Michael suffered the most out of all these people, especially since he was already a tabloid target as a freak even before the allegations, so they were just hostile to him from the start. Whatever these current victims have gone through doesn't compare to what Michael was subjected to.
Michael is really the only artist I take up for when it comes to allegations. I just have no loyalty to any of the others.

I truly believe Michael was close to celibate really, not disinterested in sex, not asexual, homosexual, not a virgin for sure. Just, it was not something he emphasized so heavily like many celebs do behind their closed doors, illicit, legal, or otherwise.
 
If you're referring to asking about Gaiman, there was a podcast entitled "Master" which basically claimed that Gaiman is a sadist who uses BDSM as a cover to engage in NXIVM-like behavior, in "master-slave relationships," and that he was rough, engaged in sex without consent, and just simply brutalized people. A week ago, there was an article in New York magazine that has been claimed as corroboration, fleshing out the allegations further, accusing Gaiman's wife of being a Ghislaine-like figure. Gaiman was accused of savagely raping someone when she had a UTI, and so forth.

Notably, the podcast came out from Tortoise Media, which is affiliated with TERF ideology, and Gaiman was a vocal critic of J.K. Rowling's crusade against trans people; these people also engage in kinkshaming and act like anything that isn't vanilla sex is automatically wrong, much the same as was used in the false allegations against Armie Hammer and Marilyn Manson. Let's also not forget that Gaiman is a former Scientologist, and while he left quietly, David Miscavige clearly fears anyone will turn and become a vocal critic. Remember the manufactured rape smear against director and former Scientologist Paul Haggis, who also famously left the church because he disagreed with their stances on gay people?

Gaiman was dropped by Dark Horse Comics and some adaptations of his work are now paused. He is now being called the next Jimmy Savile, the next Jared Fogle, and in some quarters, the next Michael. But Gaiman has always been a vocal progressive ally, advocating for victims of sexual violence, working in organizations like RAINN, continually evolving and growing with regards to diversity and representation in his works and accepting of fan feedback. In short, for him to be truly as monstrous as Savile and Jared, Gaiman would have to be a Method actor more obsessive than Heath Ledger, to the point of embodying that mask 24/7, and then, without warning, suddenly dropping it out of a clear blue sky. And given how we know Michael was someone who was the absolute personification of goodness, compassion, generosity and sincerity but was then villainized into something truly monstrous, well, it doesn't take long to get the point.

For too long, we have essentially been living in The Crucible, where allegations equal truth and no one gets a chance to defend themselves Al Franken was deprived of his chance to defend himself in a Senate ethics hearing, and it had ramifications that billowed outward. Taking down the likes of Garrison Keillor, James Franco, Aziz Ansari, Johnny Depp, Hammer, Shia LaBeouf, Manson, Twiggy Ramirez, David Ellefson, John Lasseter, Joss Whedon, Jonathan Majors, Steven Tyler, Nick Carter, Justin Roiland, Dan Harmon, Jimmy Iovine, Axl Rose, Don Henley and now Gaiman. And even cases without sexual misconduct have been distorted out of proportion, trying to just merely chip away at their hard-earned reputations. People like Ellen, Drew Barrymore, Lizzo, Tara Strong and so forth have been victimized. Hell, even Dave Grohl is being attacked and dragged under simply because he admitted to having a love child. As if that erases his legacy of charity, good works and all around niceness! It's still Dave!

For too long, we've lived in this world. But until the likes of Jay-Z and Justin Baldoni, no one was willing to step up to the plate and play John Proctor. Nor even to play Reverend Hale. They were too busy playing Thomas Putnam or Danforth or Hathorne or Tituba or, God forbid, Abigail Williams. People are supposed to lay down and die, apologize for things that didn't happen, cede to lies and call them truth, and just disappear. You couldn't fight for your good name because, "If they really were so nice as they claimed, they wouldn't fight back and revictimize the accusers. They wouldn't deflect reponsibility." In other words, if you're accused of murder you didn't commit and have the evidence to prove it, don't say anything. In fact, go and plead guilty. As a matter of fact, strap yourself into the gurney and volunteer for the lethal injection.
What does this got to do with mj though??? I mean tj and some of the Jackson crew are saying things on twitter like " can't they leave him alone!!!" I was like wtf is going on????
 
Michael is really the only artist I take up for when it comes to allegations. I just have no loyalty to any of the others.

I truly believe Michael was close to celibate really, not disinterested in sex, not asexual, homosexual, not a virgin for sure. Just, it was not something he emphasized so heavily like many celebs do behind their closed doors, illicit, legal, or otherwise.
I think his first time was with Lisa Marie but someone on Facebook said his first time was with Diana Ross!!
 
What does this got to do with mj though??? I mean tj and some of the Jackson crew are saying things on twitter like " can't they leave him alone!!!" I was like wtf is going on????
In THAT case, the alleged claims about the script of the biopic is probably the big news. I seriously doubt the story at all, for what it's worth.

I personally do feel that these particular claims against certain people are no less malicious than those against Michael. But some will say "I just focus on Michael, I don't have anything to say or think about these others."
 
Back
Top