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

[Annita]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And I think he is obliged to view those allegations as facts at this phase, but .

I think this can`t be true. How should it go further? Shell jury also decide about the neglience-claim in assumption the allegations are true? Or shell jury in absence of Michael Jackson and without the possiblitlyy to defend himself at frst decide he is a pepdohile and then about nelgiene-claim.

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Well the ball is in Wade court now the judge has told them what he want in order for this case to go forward because right now it is not enough to move on. I don't believer Wade and his lawyers will be able to deliver even if their add negligence Wade will still have to give details on how he was abuse by MJ and his companies.


IMO i really don't see Wade and his lawyers coming back with what their need to make this case go forward and then the judge will have no other choice but to dismiss due to not enough proof to back up allegations.


Wade and his lawyers will not be able to appeal this case because their would give a change and their fail that how i see it i could be wrong.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The Judge does not make decisions about what he thinks about the merit of the allegations, esp. in this phase. He simply looks at the lawsuit and he sees whether there is a case based on what is alleged. And I think he is obliged to view those allegations as facts at this phase, but Ivy, correct me if I'm wrong. Although, of course there need to be some foundation for those allegations, so if they are very obviously lies then he may decide about the merit of some claims, but generally it's not up to him to decide about the merit of a case, but up to the jury. He only decides about whether there is a case based on what is alleged. At this moment it seems Robson was not even able to make allegations based on which he would have a case sufficient enough to go ahead.

Correct.

One of documents refer to that as " we recognize the law requires the court to assume the truth of the allegations solely for purposes of this demurrer".

So it's not judge's job to access the allegations or credibility of Robson and so on. At this phase he takes the allegations on face value - even assuming them to be true- and only trying to decide if there's a legal basis of it to be brought to court. A demurrer claims regardless of the truth of the accusations, there is not sufficient grounds to justify legal action. So the judge right now should only be looking to the law, nothing else.

Good news is that Judge's comments sounds like he doesn't think Robson has sufficient grounds for a legal action. Bad news is that judge gave him a chance to amend his complaint. We don't know if the amended complaint will be sufficient or not. We'll see.

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Correct.

One of documents refer to that as " we recognize the law requires the court to assume the truth of the allegations solely for purposes of this demurrer".

So it's not judge's job to access the allegations or credibility of Robson and so on. At this phase he takes the allegations on face value - even assuming them to be true- and only trying to decide if there's a legal basis of it to be brought to court. A demurrer claims regardless of the truth of the accusations, there is not sufficient grounds to justify legal action. So the judge right now should only be looking to the law, nothing else.

Good news is that Judge's comments sounds like he doesn't think Robson has sufficient grounds for a legal action. Bad news is that judge gave him a chance to amend his complaint. We don't know if the amended complaint will be sufficient or not. We'll see.

So the law say you can't sue a company it is not a person and you can not sue a dead person because their are not alive and can't answer to the charge this is the law right?


I like this part in the bold Ivy.

Even those the judge is give Wade and his lawyers a change to do the amended complaint which i don't think their will come back with anything but you are right we'll see.

 

[Albion]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If the case is thrown out will the Estate be able to stop Wade appearing on talk shows or in written media continuing to make these vile claims?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If the case is thrown out will the Estate be able to stop Wade appearing on talk shows or in written media continuing to make these vile claims?

I don't think they can do anything against that. There's no law protecting deceased people from slander. Unfortunately.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I am curious about how the plaintiffs will present the negligence piece and how the estate will respond, and I hope something significant happens before December 31st. I wonder if this last ruling by the judge will cause the attorney to take another look at Chuck's case in reference to negligence?

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So the law say you can't sue a company it is not a person and you can not sue a dead person because their are not alive and can't answer to the charge this is the law right?

No, you can definitely sue a company as Mrs. Jackson sued AEG for negligence. So I'm just trying to make sure I understand this-Wade's original suit was suing the company for abuse? And the judge is telling him to revise it and make the charge negligence?
It wouldn't take much to establish that the companies hired both Wade and Jimmy too(for the Bad Tour and other appearances) and they have an obligation to take care of their minor employees. All companies that employ minors would have that obligation. So that part is a given.
But is that what the problem is? Or is it to revise because of the statute of limitations?

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So I'm just trying to make sure I understand this-Wade's original suit was suing the company for abuse? And the judge is telling him to revise it and make the charge negligence?

Yes he sued the companies for sexual abuse and estate pointed out such claims can only be made against natural people. For example Church doesn't abuse kids, it's the priests who are doing the abuse.

It wouldn't take much to establish that the companies hired both Wade and Jimmy too(for the Bad Tour and other appearances) and they have an obligation to take care of their minor employees. All companies that employ minors would have that obligation. So that part is a given.
But is that what the problem is? Or is it to revise because of the statute of limitations?

well I think duty of care would be a factor so is forseeability. negligence should be substantial factor in causing harm and Estate have pointed out Robson claims abuse started before corporations ever came into the picture. Whether or not corporations could have controlled MJ would also be a factor. Plus the statue of limitations. Estate stated in their papers he can only file a lawsuit until he's 26 yrs old unless he can claim corporations knew or should have known the abuse.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It wouldn't take much to establish that the companies hired both Wade and Jimmy too(for the Bad Tour and other appearances) and they have an obligation to take care of their minor employees. All companies that employ minors would have that obligation. So that part is a given.
But is that what the problem is? Or is it to revise because of the statute of limitations?

The nature of the negligence that he has to claim is well defined in the law:

(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.

The companies hiring him in itself does not make them negligent. What he needs to prove is not that he was hired by the companies - we all know he was and if that was enough to show negligence on the companies part then the lawsuit would already have gone through. What he needs to show is in the above paragraph. That the companies knew or had a reason to know about his alleged abuse, that the companies were in the position to take reasonable steps to avoid it but they did not. That's the kind of negligence we are talking about. Not the companies hiring him. Hiring someone is not a negligent or tortious act.

And as you can see above the law says the relationship between the company and the accused has to be such that the company has to have control over the accused. Which is not the case here since MJ was the sole owner of these companies, not "an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent".

Robson did not even allege a course of action on the companies' part that would claim something like what is in the above paragraph about them. IMO that's what the Judge talked about when he said Robson needs to show some type of negligence. Not establishing duty of care. Duty of care in itself means nothing and he probably already established that since he did say he was employed by MJJP and MJJV. Duty of care however is not the crucial point here. That in itself does not prove negligence.

 

[Ramona122003]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The nature of the negligence that he has to claim is well defined in the law:



The companies hiring him in itself does not make them negligent. What he needs to prove is not that he was hired by the companies - we all know he was and if that was enough to show negligence on the companies part then the lawsuit would already have gone through. What he needs to show is in the above paragraph. That the companies knew or had a reason to know about his alleged abuse, that the companies were in the position to take reasonable steps to avoid it but they did not. That's the kind of negligence we are talking about. Not the companies hiring him. Hiring someone is not a negligent or tortious act.

And as you can see above the law says the relationship between the company and the accused has to be such that the company has to have control over the accused. Which is not the case here since MJ was the sole owner of these companies, not "an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent".

Robson did not even allege a course of action on the companies' part that would claim something like what is in the above paragraph about them. IMO that's what the Judge talked about when he said Robson needs to show some type of negligence. Not establishing duty of care. Duty of care in itself means nothing and he probably already established that since he did say he was employed by MJJP and MJJV. Duty of care however is not the crucial point here. That in itself does not prove negligence.

That is the part I don't get. If Wade's own mother and family saw nothing wrong, how would the Michael's company know anything? I mean, Wade's family was in his house and going by Wade's own words his sister was in the room when Michael raped him and noticed nothing. It is a strange double standard here.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The nature of the negligence that he has to claim is well defined in the law:



The companies hiring him in itself does not make them negligent. What he needs to prove is not that he was hired by the companies - we all know he was and if that was enough to show negligence on the companies part then the lawsuit would already have gone through. What he needs to show is in the above paragraph. That the companies knew or had a reason to know about his alleged abuse, that the companies were in the position to take reasonable steps to avoid it but they did not. That's the kind of negligence we are talking about. Not the companies hiring him. Hiring someone is not a negligent or tortious act.

And as you can see above the law says the relationship between the company and the accused has to be such that the company has to have control over the accused. Which is not the case here since MJ was the sole owner of these companies, not "an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent".

Robson did not even allege a course of action on the companies' part that would claim something like what is in the above paragraph about them. IMO that's what the Judge talked about when he said Robson needs to show some type of negligence. Not establishing duty of care. Duty of care in itself means nothing and he probably already established that since he did say he was employed by MJJP and MJJV. Duty of care however is not the crucial point here. That in itself does not prove negligence.

ok. Thank you and Ivy too. This is what I was getting at. I knew it wasn't the simple hiring but thought it was maybe the negligence claim due to the fact that the company knew they had a "child predator" in their midst.
I didn't realize Wade did not add that part.
I'm just trying to get back to the basics since so much stuff had been said and leaked and I was confused as to what the judge was actually looking at finally.
I really appreciate the clarification.
Is there a deadline for amendment.

 

[Member Service]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I classify it as a personal blog and not a competing website but it's okay. That's why I personally don't refer or link to it.

Not correct, personal blogs are that "personal" thus about yourself, Your site's content is about Michael Jackson has news/info about Michael Jackson thus is in direct competition with MJJC and its Michael Jackson news/info pages.

This rule is nothing personal and has been in place for many years to protect MJJC by not taking valued traffic away from it to other site's especially in these difficult times and endless decline since the passing Of Michael, your's like many others on our disallow list are classed as Michael Jackson fan sites, thus not permitted - sorry :/

I hope that clears your's or anyone else concerns.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This isn't about proof or evidence. It's not judge's job to determine if there's a proof about it - at least not right now. Judge just looks to the complaint on it's face value and determines if it fits to the law and if there's a question for the jury.

Yes, i would say it is about evidence - that is the whole issue the judge apparently has about wade's complaint - as yet he has provided no facts or evidence to support his claim that the companies should be held liable for his sexual abuse. All he's done so far is allege he has been sexually abused, he doesn't seem to have given details about how the companies knew about this abuse and did nothing to prevent it but just facilitated it. The judge deciding on the credibility/validity of such evidence is another issue entirely.

Well, mj was accused by three boys while he was alive and two more came forward after his death, regardless of what we know about the credibility of them all, this is probably more than enough for a judge to belive Wade might have been abused and should have the right to be heard by a jury This is a crime that has realy no defence and on the previous cases none of the accusers had to provide any evidence except credibility. If what ivy is saying is true that he does not have even to provide names then as i said it is obvious the judge just told them what he wanted from them to allow this case to go forward, add negligence to their lawsuit. Wade was employed, his employer had a duty toward him. Thats it.

No, really soundmind, far more is needed than that. Wade has got to provide facts to back up a claim that these companies knew of unlawful sexual misconduct by mj, otherwise he has no case - the judge has said as much. And what on earth can wade claim to support that? - the entire world knew that mj was accused of sexual misconduct but allegations aren't enough. Mj was acquitted, he was never found to have broken the law; noone who knew mj, apart from some neverland employees, have ever said that they knew him to be an abuser. So this case definitely isn't an easy one for wade to get past a summary judgement which is why gradstein is all bluster trying to make out in front of the judge that it's a done deal and common knowledge that mj was a pedo.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Not correct, personal blogs are that "personal" thus about yourself, Your site's content is about Michael Jackson has news/info about Michael Jackson thus is in direct competition with MJJC and its Michael Jackson news/info pages.

This rule is nothing personal and has been in place for many years to protect MJJC by not taking valued traffic away from it to other site's especially in these difficult times and endless decline since the passing Of Michael, your's like many others on our disallow list are classed as Michael Jackson fan sites, thus not permitted - sorry :/

I hope that clears your's or anyone else concerns.

Thanks for this and I was already aware and it's fine like I already said. I respect the rule and hence never personally link or refer to it. However I wish a partnership was possible rather than classification of "direct competition" but what can you do. Anyway thanks again.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Is there a deadline for amendment.

I'm thinking 30 days but I didn't double check so I might be wrong.

 

[Bubs]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

10/06/2014 at 08:30 am in department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion Hearing(for terminating sanctions

There is something going on in court house today, but I don't know what because probate notes weren't posted yet. Can somebody check later to which case that hearing is related and post probate notes here or whatever case it is related to?

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^
That's related to Tohme case I believe. and it's about Tohme not being able to depose McClain. McClain has some health issues.

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Just like Respect77 said here

The law

(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.


That the companies knew or had a reason to know about his alleged abuse, that the companies were in the position to take reasonable steps to avoid it but they did not. That's the kind of negligence we are talking about. Not the companies hiring him. Hiring someone is not a negligent or tortious act.



That why i believe Wade and his lawyers will not be able to proof this and that the judge will have no choice but to dismiss this lawsuit.

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That is the part I don't get. If Wade's own mother and family saw nothing wrong, how would the Michael's company know anything? I mean, Wade's family was in his house and going by Wade's own words his sister was in the room when Michael raped him and noticed nothing. It is a strange double standard here.

I find this hard to believe in the bold it just doesn't add up.

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If Michael's companies was not here at the time Wade claim this abuse took place how can he sue the companies for negligence?

 

[Bubs]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If Michael's companies was not here at the time Wade claim this abuse took place how can he sue the companies for negligence?

He named 2 Michael's companies in his claim, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures.
MJJ Ventures was registered 02/26/1991 and MJJ Productions 10/30/1979. Ventures was set up a year later than alleged abuse started so that is off the wall claim.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Was Wade signed to both companies?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Was Wade signed to both companies?

Yes, and he claims MJ set up MJJV to molest him. :smilerolleyes:

From the Estate's Reply to Robson's motion:

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Just outrageous, isn't it.

 

[MJresearcher]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes, and he claims MJ set up MJJV to molest him. :smilerolleyes:

I couldn't help but laugh when I read this. MJ would not need to set up another company to spend time with Wade or have him involved in projects. Wade's mother was already making sure they were spending time together by moving to America. This is one of the craziest things in this lawsuit, but I suspected this would happen. The longer it goes on and the more Wade and his lawyers talk, the more crazy this case looks. A lot has been said about the judge letting Wade amend his complaint, and although the process is slow and frustrating the good thing about this is if the case eventually gets dismissed nobody will be able to say with a straight face that Wade wasn't given a fair chance to present his case, the judge has given Wade plenty of chances. It also means that if the case gets dismissed every chance Wade had to prove his claims will have been exhausted, and if it still gets dismissed people can rest assured that it was because he had nothing to prove his claims with, and that it would not be a case of a celebrity having something go in their favour (even when they're deceased).

I'm thinking of the general public here, if they know Wade was given a fair shake they won't be able to complain that it had anything to do with MJ being a rich celebrity as the reason why the case was dismissed. We look at things very differently here because we know what's happened with this case and past cases, most people in the general public don't, so even though I'm frustrated with how this case is currently going, it's good for the public who don't know much about this to see.

 

[Ramona122003]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I couldn't help but laugh when I read this. MJ would not need to set up another company to spend time with Wade or have him involved in projects. Wade's mother was already making sure they were spending time together by moving to America. This is one of the craziest things in this lawsuit, but I suspected this would happen. The longer it goes on and the more Wade and his lawyers talk, the more crazy this case looks. A lot has been said about the judge letting Wade amend his complaint, and although the process is slow and frustrating the good thing about this is if the case eventually gets dismissed nobody will be able to say with a straight face that Wade wasn't given a fair chance to present his case, the judge has given Wade plenty of chances. It also means that if the case gets dismissed every chance Wade had to prove his claims will have been exhausted, and if it still gets dismissed people can rest assured that it was because he had nothing to prove his claims with, and that it would not be a case of a celebrity having something go in their favour (even when they're deceased).

I'm thinking of the general public here, if they know Wade was given a fair shake they won't be able to complain that it had anything to do with MJ being a rich celebrity as the reason why the case was dismissed. We look at things very differently here because we know what's happened with this case and past cases, most people in the general public don't, so even though I'm frustrated with how this case is currently going, it's good for the public who don't know much about this to see.

Actually, reading this reminds me of how all of Michael's supposed victims are special little snowflakes. Jordan was the love of his life, Wade got an entire company devoted to him so Michael can screw him, Chuck actually got married to Michael, and Gavin got in a documentary and love cards. I guess only Jason wasn't special enough to get nothing special.

Edit: Actually, Jason did get one-hundred dollars per sexual abused, so he did get something.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Ha-well you can't say all of these guys don't have huge egos. It's like all the people that say they were Michael's best and only friend.

 

[SarahJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And none of them blame him for it either....:doh:
What a crock of "you know what" this whole thing is. Reads like a bad "B" movie script.

 

[Ramona122003]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And none of them blame him for it either....:doh:
What a crock of "you know what" this whole thing is. Reads like a bad "B" movie script.

Or afraid of him for that matter. Gavin outright said on the stand that he didn't fear Michael. He can't strike fear in his victims, but can silent someone for twenty-five years and even get them to testify for him.

Huh, Michael's magic I guess.