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

Hess

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
11,158
Points
63
^^^^

Great news. - Hope the media will pick it up and write about it. Those liars should pay for all the damage they've done.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,225
Points
48
Also from fans on Twitter re. court penalties for failed motions to reconsider protective orders for deponents:

The judge also moved Finaldi's "motion for reconsideration" re: Spence/Fox/Chandler/Marks to Dec. 4.

Finaldi had reserved Mar-Apr for these motions. Pending the resolution, he still owes Spence/Fox $6,270—not to be confused with the $9,200 awarded for his other failed motion.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2017
Messages
77
Points
6
elusive moonwalker;4307218 said:
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.

So, going forward his case is done, unless they appeal? LOL This is great news.
 

Hess

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
11,158
Points
63
Hopefully all this nonsens can once and for all come to an end.

Just sad The Estate/MJ - can't sue them for all these stupid accusations.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
James appealing is 99% a waste of his time now. He has lost in the past and now even under the new CA Law and with all the lies that has been exposed, james need to go and have a seat
 

Dangerous1991

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
348
Points
18
Location
Kent, England
Hopefully all this nonsens can once and for all come to an end.

Just sad The Estate/MJ - can't sue them for all these stupid accusations.

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
26,815
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.
 

PoP

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
6,495
Points
48
Take that STABchuck!

giphy.gif
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,225
Points
48
Appeal confirmed (and it seems TMZ cannot spell 'ludicrous', which is ironic as this IS ludicrous).:

DcY3Vr8.jpg



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:

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
He can say he will appeal all day, all lawyers say that and i will be surprise if he does because the chances of winning is next to zero and the estate is not going to settle to just get him out of thier hair.
 

SeeingVoices

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
125
Points
0
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..
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
They are making themselves look like fake media. It is still early so i am going to see who report tonight and tomorrow. At least TMZ posted it
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,225
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
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,310
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
4,225
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/
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,310
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
6,311
Points
63
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: :cool:

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.
 

Hess

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
11,158
Points
63
Money Money Money...

It so obvious what they are after...

Reaching for fortune and fame.... - disgusting with these two liars.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
myosotis;4307314 said:
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 &#8216;won&#8217;t stop&#8217; until singer is proven &#8216;innocent&#8217; 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 &#8220;innocent&#8221;.

The pop legend suddenly began trending on social media today (October 21), alongside the hashtag &#8216;#MJInnocent&#8217;.

It comes after a judge dismissed one of Michael&#8217;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: &#8220;He&#8217;s been innocent since day one and we will stop at nothing to prove that. #MJInnocent.&#8221;

Another said: &#8220;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.

&#8220;Media&#8217;s deceptive headlines and silence on the decision does not change this! #MJInnocent.&#8221;

A third added: &#8220;#MJInnocent Always has been, always will be.&#8221;

A fourth stated: &#8220;Michael jackson didn&#8217;t deserve what he has been through and he is innocent totally and proven innocent, the world need to hear it #MJInnocent.&#8221;

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: &#8220;Michael Jackson was and always will be 100% innocent of these false allegations.&#8221;

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/
That is the UK media for you. most people thought LN was BS
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,225
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&#8217;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 &#8220;facilitating&#8221; the singer&#8217;s alleged sexual abuse of children.
On Wednesday (October 21), judge Mark Young ruled that neither firm had &#8220;a duty of care&#8221; 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 &#8220;were created to, and did, facilitate Jackson&#8217;s sexual abuse of children&#8221;.
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&#8217;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&#8217;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
 
Top