Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Michael Jackson's news in English. Your updated reference for Michael Jackson's news in English language from all around the world. Rumors, gossip and true facts. And a lot of Michael Jackson's beautiful pictures.
Rispondi
Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 dicembre 2020, 9:30

Deejay 1.0
@Mizerygutz

Wade Robson "I was abused 100 of times"
Wade's mother under oath (before her son was refused the job directing MJOne and all are on the brink of bankruptcy) "Out of all the times we visited Neverland Jackson was only there 4 times"

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 5 gennaio 2021, 9:02

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some
The MJ Estate claims that Reed is a "private cinematographer" rather than a documentarian, and that anyone who produces a film that is one sided disqualifies them from media credentials.

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 5 gennaio 2021, 9:22

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some
@MJJRepository
"Specifically, Reed is in possession of highly relevant documents and electronically stored information, e.g., hours-and-hours of footage where the plaintiffs in this case, along with their families, were interviewed at-length..." - MJ Estate court doc

Immagine




TSCM
@MJJRepository

Their objection to him filming in the court drives that point home plus quotes article that mention his lack of documentarian efforts in LN.
"Reed has aligned himself with the plaintiffs, gone on media tours, even done photo shoots of the 3 of them. "

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 5 gennaio 2021, 10:03

TSCM
@MJJRepository

In Dan's world it takes 40+ hours of footage to produce a film that pretends to show a raw & unrehearsed narrative by two accusers.
- 22 hrs. filmed with Wade across 3 days & reshoots.
- 16 hrs. filmed with James across 2 days.
- 4-6 hours filmed with James 17 months later.

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 6 gennaio 2021, 12:48


Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 9 gennaio 2021, 9:24

TruthSeeker
@TruthSe95700255

Feb. will be an exciting month!
The 4th will be the next stage of the #MJvsHBO case &
The 24th will be the next hearing for Wade’s case.



TSCM
@MJJRepository

And it's a REALLY BIG hearing for Wade in which we could learn (at least tentatively) if the judge will be tossing his case on summary judgment, or alternatively summary adjudication, or allowing it to proceed in any fashion.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 28 gennaio 2021, 9:07

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 1 febbraio 2021, 8:44

TSCM
@MJJRepository
Excerpt from Joy's depo—officers always lied to create victims.
"officer talked to Wade about FACT that he'd BEEN A VICTIM & this is was pedos do. Said 'you have done nothing wrong. you can tell us.'"
This dispels Wade's lie that he believed he'd go to jail if he said anything

Immagine



TSCM
@MJJRepository
Replying to
@MJJRepository
In order to believe Wade's robotic 2012+ telling of events, Joy has to convince herself that Wade reached peak Oscar-winning actor status by age 7.
He was "very convincing...we all believed you" from the first time they visited Neverland until years after MJ's death (1990-2011).
Immagine
Immagine
Immagine



TSCM
@MJJRepository
Replying to
@MJJRepository
When Joy testified in 94, Sneddon lied by saying he had nude pics of Wade on MJ's bed hoping to get her to flip.
Aside from these fraudulent tactics (same w/ Jason, Brett, Corey) it proves Joy was the highest "responsible party" ever at suspecting abuse—but Wade isn't suing her.
Immagine
Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 febbraio 2021, 9:14

MJJJusticeProject #1Billion4MJ
@MJJJusticePrjct

Revisiting Karlee Barnes testimony- What can we discern? Barnes fam visited Neverland and Michael Jackson was there 80/90% of the time! Contrast to Robson family visited Neverland 50+times and MJ was on property only 4 times. DO THE MATH.

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 4 febbraio 2021, 8:51

TSCM
@MJJRepository
The reach Finaldi makes to show conspiracy of MJ's companies is funny.
Like Evvy:

- She performed many job duties
- Staff signed confidentiality agreements on hire
- She sent Joy 2 fan gifts in Australia
- No training on CSA or in the handbook
Hundred points symbolProof of facilitation of CSA

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine


Wade, James, Dan & Finaldi avoid telling these stories (with personal names attached) in public interviews and non-court settings. In LN you don't hear anyone's name mentioned but MJ's.
In court, theories can be presented with great leeway & minimal repercussions, unfortunately.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 4 febbraio 2021, 20:15


Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 10 febbraio 2021, 9:19

TSCM
@MJJRepository

BET was the only outlet to call out Wade's "Brillo Pad" racism-laden lie.
This excerpt from
@ProfessorCrunk
(2013) tells of a similar encounter from a white friend in a racist home, who always assumed African American hair felt "like a Brillo pad!" before actually touching any.

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 11 febbraio 2021, 15:09

@MJJRepository
Wade Robson Case Update:

As anticipated, today Finaldi filed his opposition to the estate's motion for summary judgment.
The estate has until the end of next week to file a reply, before it is heard by the judge on February 24.
Wade's case failed on summary judgment in 2017.




TSCM
@MJJRepository
It is basically the same tired arguments he has attempted to make since 2016. Throwing in Sneddon's "Prior Bad Acts" filings and witnesses that were declared worthless in 1994, dismantled on the stand in 2005, and at times even back-tracked and were hostile to Finaldi in 2016-17.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 11 febbraio 2021, 15:25

TSCM
@MJJRepository

Alongside Finaldi's exhibits—mostly unsupportive of Wade's claims—he submitted 98 pages of "statements" kicking off w/ these zingers.
I'm sure that Wade (on a career decline since mid-2000s) was still on his way to "international superstardom" before he realized he was abused.
Immagine





Justice for The Falsely Accused
@JuliaBerkowitz1
Here it is from Wade's own complaint how their contact to Pellicano came about. They called Norma!
Immagine



TSCM
@MJJRepository

Finaldi is so desperate that, in his opposition to the summary judgment, he adds the FAKE STORY that Hearne removed evidence from MJ's home in 93 at Pellicano's orders.
Gary Hearne confirmed this was FALSE in Finaldi's depo. This occurred AFTER raid—he read warrant TO Pellicano.
Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 16 febbraio 2021, 9:50

MJJJusticeProject #1Billion4MJ
@MJJJusticePrjct

Finaldi's grasp of reality is even less than Wade's- Follow
@MJJRepository
for detailed analysis- They keep digging themselves into a deeper hole with incessant lies. Timeline is important. They ignore MJ living in NY, 1st marriage/divorce, 2nd marraige & birth of his firstborn -

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 febbraio 2021, 8:24

TSCM
@MJJRepository
WADE ROBSON CASE UPDATE: In addition to the estate's reply filed today, they also made 14 objections to Finaldi's previously submitted exhibits.

The arguments include reasons of hearsay, improper authentication and lack of foundation/personal knowledge.

https://mjjr.net/docs/2021-02-19-Eviden ... ctions.pdf



TSCM
@MJJRepository
Replying to
@MJJRepository
"WR is essentially claiming that a person who suspects that he himself may have criminal tendencies has a duty not to allow himself to work at his own companies—WR is alleging MJ negligently supervised himself given that he was supposedly on notice of his own dangerousness."

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 23 febbraio 2021, 9:04

TSCM
@MJJRepository
·
WADE ROBSON CASE HEARING RESCHEDULED:

In light of the recent passing of of Jon Steinsapir's daughter, and with agreeance from the judge and Finaldi, the planned Feb. 24th hearing has been rescheduled to April 20, 2021 which was the next open court date.
https://mjjr.net/docs/2021-02-22-Resche ... gement.pdf

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 5 marzo 2021, 21:09

TSCM
@MJJRepository

Finaldi realized in 2016 there was a major problem with the volumes of emails Wade concealed (while claiming only one).
His attempt to save face was to hilariously claim 100s of emails & book were attorney-protected works.
Including all the ones to Joy, Amanda, Chantel, Shane.

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 13 marzo 2021, 9:46

MJJJusticeProject #1Billion4MJ
@MJJJusticePrjct
Wade Robon's LIED in his sworn declarations to the Court. Court determined his sworn statements were not credible. Yet HBO wants you to swallow his statements about Michael Jackson, hook, line and sinker.
Immagine

Immagine

Immagine


Wade varied excuses he gives for testifying as Main and FIRST defense witness for Michael Jackson in 2005 - courtesy of
@Hammertonhal
#pickme
Immagine

In 2008, Robson told Access Hollywood, "He's always been a friend to me, that's what a friend does, tell the truth" sooo- A friend is person who tells the truth, until its no longer financially feasible to do so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE1_6SZeQwk&t=1s

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 18 marzo 2021, 9:42

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some
Exciting news:
@jin_chohan
from the upcoming Trial By Media documentary, applied for and was granted rights to film on the Robson case! We are all hoping for summary judgement and a subsequent dismissal on April 20, 2021. Big thanks to Jin!


Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 30 marzo 2021, 20:58

TSCM
@MJJRepository
WADE ROBSON CASE UPDATE:

Dan, Amos Pictures & estate arrived at a mutual agreement regarding their subpoenas for discovery.
As such, Dan/Amos withdrew their motions to quash & estate withdrew those two subpoenas.
Estate's motion for summary judgment in Wade's case is April 20.

Immagine

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 1 aprile 2021, 11:50

Just a reminder.




TSCM
@MJJRepository
2016 Lawyer Switch-Up:
June 23—Estate tells Marzano about big deficiencies in Wade's discovery ("one email").
July 13—Lawyers drop-out, replaced by Finaldi.
July 26—Finaldi claims Wade found 100s more items but insists most are privileged.
2017—Court orders turnover of docs.
Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

"By Oct. 2016, Robson had already incorrectly represented that he had produced all responsive documents on 2 separate occasions."
This is a detail guilters cannot defend. Wade deliberately and repeatedly withheld evidence and misrepresented what he had, until final court order.
The majority of discovery and revelations in Wade's case came not from Wade supplying it, but from 3rd parties who had copies of the correspondence.
When the estate originally planned to depose Wade he still hadn't revealed he had shopped a tell-all or worked w/ Joy on details.


When anyone on the guilter side—including Wade himself—suggests he filed lawsuit & starred in a feature film because he wanted to be transparent and get the truth out on a public platform...
It should always be pointed out that Wade even deceived his OWN attorneys w/ omissions.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 aprile 2021, 12:45

TSCM
@MJJRepository

WADE ROBSON CASE UPDATE: Request to delay trial start date.
Due to February's unplanned 2 month delay of the summary judgment hearing, a mutual request was made to delay the trial start to Aug 16.
This would only be applicable if Wade's case isn't dismissed—hearing on April 20.

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 18 aprile 2021, 9:14

TSCM
@MJJRepository

Replying to
@ArdeleanRoxana2
and
@jamster83
What is revolting is that Finaldi DID try to get a hold of the photographs of MJ's penis.
He literally requested them from LAPD believing he was entitled to them.
Imagine if he had gotten them in any way. Suddenly Wade and James would be able to describe MJ's body to a 'T'.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 aprile 2021, 9:41

TSCM
@MJJRepository

WADE ROBSON CASE UPDATE: There has been a DELAY in the Motion for Summary Judgment hearing, originally scheduled for tomorrow.
A new date has been scheduled for APRIL 26, next Monday.
Details are not yet available regarding the cause for this delay.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 21 aprile 2021, 8:26

https://www.showbiz411.com/2021/04/20/c ... HPiyn3kICU

Case Against Michael Jackson Brought by Wade Robson Tentatively Dismissed by Judge, Basis of “Leaving Neverland” Documentary

by Roger Friedman - April 20, 2021 10:44 pm


EXCLUSIVE Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young has tentatively dismissed the last of the cases brought by choreographer Wade Robson against the Estate of Michael Jackson. A final ruling will come after a hearing on April 26th.

Robson’s cases against Jackson, his Estate and companies were based on an out of left field claim that he’d been sexually harassed and abused by Jackson when he was a child. But Robson had testified in Jackson’s defense in his 2005 child molestation trial and continued to sing his praises after he died. It was only in 2013 when Robson had been rejected by the Estate to do work on Jackson projects that he made the claims. The claims then became the basis of the documentary “Leaving Neverland.”

Robson was joined in his lawsuit by James Safechuck, who also made the sexual molestation claims, appeared in the documentary, and so on. His case was dismissed last year.

Keep refreshing as I add some points from the case. But as you read through the judge’s decision, you’ll see the words “no triable issue.” The case has been essentially tossed.

The judge’s tentative ruling is here as follows.

Basis for Motion

Defendants seek summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication as follows:

All causes of action fail as a matter of law, because there is no triable issue as to any material fact sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that Defendants’ allegedly tortious acts or omissions were “a legal cause of the [alleged] childhood sexual assault,” Code Civ. Proc. §§ 340.1(a)(2) & 340.1(a)(3), in order for the causes of action to come within the scope of subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(3) of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 (and the causes of action are therefore untimely); and/or as required by the elements of the substantive causes of action themselves (all of which require legal causation, i.e., proximate causation).

The Second through Fifth Causes of Action, all of which are based in negligence, fail as a matter of law because there is no triable issue as to any material fact sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that Defendants had duties of care towards Plaintiff as alleged in the Complaint.

The Second Cause of Action for “Negligence” in the Complaint based on the negligence per se doctrine fails as a matter of law, because there is no triable issue as to any material fact sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that any of the pertinent employees of Defendants were mandated reporters under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA), Penal Code §§ 11166 et seq. in effect at the time. Also, the negligence per se doctrine does not create a duty of care in any event; it only sets the standard of care when duty has first been established independently. There is no duty of care here.

The Third and Fourth Causes of Action for “Negligent Retention/Hiring” and “Negligent Supervision” in the Complaint fail as a matter of law, because there is no triable issue as to any material fact sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that Defendants had the duty or ability to decline to hire Michael Jackson in the first place, to fire him or to supervise him. There is also no triable issue as to any material fact sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that the alleged tortious conduct by Jackson against Plaintiff arose out of or was generated by the employment relationship between Jackson and the Defendants.

The Fifth Cause of Action for “Negligent Failure to Train, Warn, or Educate” fails as a matter of law, because there is no triable issue as to any material fact sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that Defendants had a duty to train, warn or educate Plaintiff, his parents, the authorities, Defendants’ employees, or anyone else about the dangers of sexual abuse generally or about the alleged dangers of Michael Jackson specifically.

The First Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) fails as a matter of law, because there is no triable issue as to any material fact sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that Defendants themselves (as opposed to, allegedly, Michael Jackson personally) engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct. Also, this cause of action fails because, as alleged by Plaintiff, it is a claim for “direct perpetrator liability” and is therefore not cognizable under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 (and is therefore untimely). There is no triable issue as to any material fact showing otherwise.

The Sixth Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty fails as a matter of law, because there is no triable issue as to any material fact sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that Defendants were in a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff and/or that fiduciary duties were breached.

In addition, and in the alternative, Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings as to each cause of action because they contend that the operative Complaint does not, and cannot, allege facts sufficient to constitute valid and timely causes of action for each cause of action.

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“The supporting papers shall include a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts which the moving party contends are undisputed. Each of the material facts stated shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denial of the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(b)(1); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(c)(2) & (d).)

“The opposition papers shall include a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts contended by the moving party to be undisputed, indicating if the opposing party agrees or disagrees that those facts are undisputed. The statement also shall set forth plainly and concisely any other material facts the opposing party contends are disputed. Each material fact contended by the opposing party to be disputed shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. Failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for granting the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437b(b)(3) (emphasis added).)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) The moving party is entitled to summary judgment if they can show that there is no triable issue of material fact or if they have a complete defense thereto. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfiend Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

In analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(2):

A defendant or cross-defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. The plaintiff or cross-complainant may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.

When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the Court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except evidence to which the Court has sustained an objection, as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. (Avivi, 159 Cal. App. 4th at 467.)

“A moving defendant now has two means by which to shift the burden of proof under subdivision (o)(2) of section 437c to the plaintiff to produce evidence creating a triable issue of fact. The defendant may rely upon factually insufficient discovery responses by the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the cause of action sued upon…. Alternatively, the defendant may utilize the tried and true technique of negating (‘disproving’) an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” (Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598. See also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).) A moving defendant must show that plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain evidence to prove a cause of action, which is more than simply arguing that there is an absence of evidence. (Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891.) A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(f)(1).)


EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS[1]

Plaintiff submits 24 objections to the evidence offered in support for the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff submits objections to the declaration of John Branca, (1-15) the testimony of Jolie Levine (16-19) and Gayle Goforth (20), and certain exhibits (21-24)

Declaration of John Branca

Objection no. 1 – sustained

Objection no. 2 – overruled

Objection no. 3 – sustained in part “after he spoke to Paul McCarthy about the subject.”

Objection no. 4 – sustained

Objection no. 5 – sustained

Objection no. 6 – overruled.

Objection no. 7 – overruled.

Objection no. 8 – overruled.

Objection no. 9 – overruled.

Objection no. 10 – overruled.

Objection no. 11 – overruled.

Objection no. 12 – overruled.

Objection no. 13 – overruled.

Objection no. 14 – overruled.

Objection no. 15 – overruled.

Deposition testimony of Jolie Levine

Objection no. 16 – overruled.

Objection no. 17 – overruled

Objection no. 18 – overruled

Objection no. 19 – overruled.

Deposition testimony of Gayle Goforth

Objection no. 20 – overruled.

Objections to exhibits

Objection no. 21 – overruled (Defs.’ Exhibit 18.)

Objection no. 22 – overruled (Defs.’ Exhibit 19.)

Objection no. 23 – overruled (Defs.’ Exhibit 21.)

Objection no. 24 – sustained (Defs.’ Exhibit 22.)

Defendants submits 14 objections to the evidence offered in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Declaration of Alex Cunny

Objection no. 1 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 22)

Objection no. 2 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 23)

Objection no. 3 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 24)

Objection no. 4 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 25)

Objection no. 5 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 26)

Objection no. 6 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 31)

Objection no. 7 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 32)

Objection no. 8 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 38.)

Objection no. 9 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 39.)

Objection no. 10 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 40.)

Objection no. 11 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 41.)

Objection no. 12 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 42.)

Objection no. 13 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 44.)

Objection no. 14 – sustained. (Pl.’s Exhibit 45.)

Request for judicial notice

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of Exhibits 35, 36, 41, 44, 48, and 50.

The Court takes judicial notice of Exhibit 35. The Court takes judicial notice that Exhibit 36 exists but does not take judicial notice of hearsay statements contained therein. The Court takes judicial notice of Exhibits 48 and 50 as court records but does not take judicial notice of hearsay statements contained with the Court’s rulings. The Court denies the request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 41 and 44 since the Court sustained evidentiary objections to these documents.

Analysis

Second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action – Negligence claims

Plaintiff Wade Robson alleges four distinct negligence causes of action, including (1) the second cause of action for negligence, (2) the third cause of action for negligent supervision, (3) the fourth cause of action for negligent retention/hiring, and (4) the fifth cause of action for negligent failure to warn. The elements of negligence are (1) the existence of a legal duty of care, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) proximate cause resulting (4) in an injury. (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.)

Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff cannot prove proximate cause. Defendants further argue that under section 340.1, “legal cause” is required, which cannot be proven in this case. “In an action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault . . . for any of the following actions: . . . (2) An action for liability against any person or entity who owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, if a wrongful or negligent act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault that resulted in the injury to the plaintiff. [or] (3) An action for liability against any person or entity if an intentional act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault that resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1(a)(2), (3).) “Proximate cause is legal cause, as distinguished from the layman’s notion of actual cause, and is always, in the first instance, a question of law.” (Tate v. Canonica (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 898, 901.) However, “It becomes a question of fact when conflicting inferences or conclusions can be drawn from the evidence within the area of proximate cause as legally defined.” (Ibid.)

In opposition, Robson argues that Defendants attempt to provide a “cart before the horse” analysis with respect to “legal cause.” The Court agrees that it does not need to address the issue of legal cause unless the Court finds that there is a duty owed by the Corporations to Robson. Therefore, the Court first addresses Defendants’ duty arguments.

Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, on the negligence causes of action because Defendants did not owe Robson a legal duty. Defendants contend that there was no special relationship that would give rise to a legal duty for the Corporations to protect Robson from the alleged molestation, and as such, Defendants cannot be held liable for mere nonfeasance. In response, Robson argues that Civil Code section 1714 and the special relationship doctrine created a duty in this case. Robson argues that Defendants had an affirmative duty to protect him as a child from foreseeable sexual abuse from Jackson because of this special relationship. Robson’s basis for the special relationship is that Defendants’ hired Robson.

Duty is a question of law for the court. (Conti v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1226.) “‘[A]s a general rule, one owes no duty to control the conduct of another, nor to warn those endangered by such conduct.’” (Id. at 1226 [quoting Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1129].) The “special relationship” doctrine is an exception to this general rule. (Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 627 [Citations omitted.].) “Special relationships also have defined boundaries. They create a duty of care owed to a limited community[.]” (Id. at 621.) For example, a duty arising out of a “special relationship” in the context of a university is limited and “extends to activities that are tied to the school’s curriculum but not to student behavior over which the university has no significant degree of control.” (Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 627.) “A basic requisite of a duty based on a special relationship is the defendant’s ability to control the other person’s conduct. [Citation.].’” K.G. v. S.B. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 625, 631 [quoting Smith v. Freund (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 466, 473].) “The absence of an ability to control is fatal to a claim of legal responsibility.” (Todd v. Dow (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 253, 259.)

Defendants argue that there are no facts, or even disputed facts, that give rise to a special relationship between Robson and the Defendants. Defendants contend that the undisputed evidence demonstrates that the Corporations had no ability to control the behavior of Michael Jackson, and as a result, there is no special relationship. Defendant MJJ Productions was incorporated in California in 1979 as “Michael Jackson Productions, Inc.” and its name was changed to “MJJ Productions, Inc.” in 1982. (UF 6 [Branca Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, Exs. 1-4].) Jackson was MJJ Productions’ sole shareholder at all times until his death. (UF 7 [Branca Decl. ¶ 10; Ex. 21 ¶ 8].) MJJ Ventures was incorporated in 1991. (UF 8 [Branca Decl. ¶ 16; Exs. 6-9].) Jackson was also MJJ Ventures’ sole shareholder at all times until his death. (UF 9 [Branca Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. 22 ¶ 8].) Defendants argue and present undisputed evidence that during all times relevant to this case until June 1, 1994, Jackson was the sole director of both Corporations. (UF 46, 51 [Branca Decl. ¶¶ 12, 16; Exs. 3, 9].) Defendants also present evidence that on June 1, 1994, as sole shareholder and director of both Corporations, Jackson increased the size of the Board of Directors of both Corporations from one director to four directors, with Jackson, John Branca, Marshall Gelfand (Jackson’s business manager), and Sandy Gallin (Jackson’s talent manager) as the four directors of both Corporations. (UF 47, 52 [Branca Decl. ¶¶ 12, 18; Exs. 5, 10].)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the evidence demonstrates that Defendants did have control over Jackson and chose to not exert it. (Citing PMF 1-19.) In support of this position, Plaintiff relies upon evidence submitted by Defendants’ containing the governing language of MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, as well as the number of directors on the boards of each entity. (See PMFs 4 -10.). Plaintiffs argue that this shows that Defendants had the ability to control Jackson and chose not to exert it. Plaintiff also argues that certain employees of Defendants’ had the ability to control Jackson. Finally, Plaintiff contends that Defendants had a duty to protect foreseeable victims of child sexual abuse such as himself.

In reply, Defendants argue that this evidence does not create a triable issue of material fact as to control. Defendants argue that under Corporations Code section 603(d) and Corporations Code section 303(a), Jackson had the power to remove members of the respective boards at will because he was the sole shareholder of the companies. Corporations Code section 303 provides, “Any or all of the directors may be removed without cause if the removal is approved by the outstanding shares . . ..” (Corp. Code, § 303(a).). In support of this position that Jackson had complete control, Defendants point to Plaintiff’s own evidence that on prior occasions Jackson had in fact overruled two employees. (See Cunny Decl., Ex. 7 74:22-75:17 (Vol. 3).)

The issue for the Court on summary judgment/adjudication is whether Defendants have shifted the burden, and if so, whether Plaintiffs have raised a disputed issue of material fact as to whether Defendants owed Plaintiff a legal duty. The issue of legal duty in this matter centers on whether there are disputed facts as to whether Jackson had complete legal authority over Defendants, or whether Defendants could control Jackson’s business affairs or personal life. As set forth herein, the Court concludes that there are no disputed relevant facts as to this issue. A combination of the California Corporations Code, and the undisputed fact that Jackson was the sole director (until June 1994) and shareholder of the Corporations, leads the Court to conclude that Defendants had no actual ability to control Jackson. As the sole shareholder of both Defendants, Jackson had the sole authority to remove any and all of the board members without cause or notice, and reinstate himself as the sole board member. (Corp. Code §§ 303(a) and 603(a).) Thus, even when there were three additional board members appointed in 1994, they all served at the pleasure of Michael Jackson. Any attempts at discipline would be futile because Defendants had no legal ability to control Jackson. (Cf. Coit Drapery Cleaners Inc. v. Sequoia Ins. Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1595, 1605 (in dicta, the court recognized the futility of a corporation attempting to discipline or supervise its majority shareholder who was also its president and chairman of the board.)

As to other employees exerting control over Jackson, Plaintiff’s evidence in support of this contention does not support that position, or create a material issue of disputed fact as to control. For instance, in PMF 15, Plaintiff states that “Defendants’ employees were required to follow Staikos’ [a employee of Defendants] instructions, even if Jackson himself gave different orders. Staikos’ orders controlled” and relies upon the testimony of Charli Michaels to support this position. Michaels’ testimony, however, does not support the broad and powerful proposition offered in PMF 15. Michaels was referring to Staikos’ instructions not to deliver items into Jackson’s bedroom, but to leave them in the kitchen, even if Jackson asked otherwise. (See Cunny Decl., Ex. 3 163:24-164:10 (Vol. 2).) Moreover, Defendants’ objection that the answer misstated the witness’ testimony was preserved at the deposition and is well taken. (Id., Ex. 3 164: 11-12.) As such, Michaels’ testimony does not support the contention that Defendants’ employees could control Jackson’s personal or professional life other than the placement of packages arriving at the residence. Moreover, while Ms. Staikos or Mr. Bray had the authority to hire and fire employees of the Defendants, there is no evidence that they held power over Jackson or his personal actions.

The lack of control is further illustrated by the location where the abuse is alleged to have occurred – Neverland Valley Ranch and a condominium nicknamed “The Hideout,” which were owned solely by Jackson and not by the corporate Defendants. (See FAC ¶¶ 22 and 25; UMF 10.) Defendants submit evidence that they had no authority to govern Jackson’s ingress and egress from these locations, control who visited him at these locations, or govern procedures regarding visitors to these locations. (UMF 12; Branca Decl., ¶ 24.) While Plaintiff disputes this fact, Plaintiff does not submit any evidence in support of that position, other than Defendants’ corporate structure and board of directors, which is irrelevant to this issue. (Plaintiff’s Resp. to UMF 12; PMF 4-10.) Plaintiff does not submit any evidence that Defendants could control Jackson’s behavior at these two locations.

Since Plaintiff cannot create a material issue of disputed fact as to the existence of a special relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff, Plaintiff would be required to show misfeasance on the part of Defendants. In his opposition, Plaintiff conflates misfeasance and nonfeasance. As stated, liability or duty “may not be premised on a defendant’s nonfeasance if the defendant did not create the peril.” (Todd, 19 Cal. App. 4th at 260.) Plaintiff’s reliance on Lugtu v. Cal. Highway Patrol, (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 703 is misplaced since that matter involved misfeasance, or the creation of the peril, specifically, the officer’s directing of the driver to stop in a center median of the freeway where they were later struck by a truck. (Id. at 716-17.) The facts submitted by Plaintiff do not support the conclusion that Defendants created the peril (i.e. Jackson), but at most, after Plaintiff and Jackson had connected (UF 14-17 and 19-21), and after Plaintiff was first molested by Jackson (UF 22-23), Defendants provided transportation, security and similar services. (PMF 25-28 and 51-56.)

There is no evidence supporting Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants exercised control over Jackson. The evidence further demonstrates that Defendants had no legal ability to control Jackson, because Jackson had complete and total ownership of the corporate defendants. Without control, there is no special relationship or duty that exists between Defendants and Plaintiff. In addition, there is no evidence of misfeasance by Defendants. Thus, Plaintiff’s negligence claims fail and Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication on the second through fifth causes of action.
First Cause of Action: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary adjudication on the first cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate “extreme and outrageous conduct” by Defendants. In support of this position, Defendants point to paragraphs 88 and 89 in the fourth amended complaint and argue that there is nothing outrageous about a sole shareholder, in this case Jackson, holding a position of authority that permits that person to conduct his own business affairs. Defendants also point to evidence that contradicts Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 88. Defendants argue that they did not put Jackson in positions of authority and that the evidence shows that Jackson created and had ultimate control over the corporations as a result of being the sole shareholder. (UF 7, 9, 45, 49, 50, 54.) Defendants further argue that corporations are not “persons” under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1(a)(1) and cannot be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress under that code section, citing Boy Scouts of America National Foundation v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 428, 445. Defendants also contend that the evidence does not show that Plaintiff was procured by the corporations. (UF 13-23.). Defendants also argue that they cannot be held vicariously liable for their employee’s torts.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants are liable because they facilitated the abuse and procured children for Jackson. (Opp. 19-20; PMF 24-32 and 39-82.) Plaintiff does not argue, or put forth evidence, in support of his complaint’s allegations set forth in paragraphs 88-89 regarding Defendants placing Jackson in a position of authority or failing to supervise Jackson. Plaintiff also argues that an institution can be held liable, relying upon Hightower v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 759. In reply, Defendants argue that they cannot be held directly liable under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1(a)(1) and that such claims fail as matter of law under Boy Scouts of America.

In Boy Scouts of America, the Court of Appeal in the context of the statute of limitations rejected liability for IIED for a corporation under section 340.1(a)(1). (Boy Scouts of America, 206 Cal.App.4th at 444-45.) The Court explained, “Even assuming that plaintiffs’ action was brought against the Boy Scouts in the capacity of perpetrators (whether as aiders and abettors or as child procurers under Penal Code section 266j), the Boy Scouts remain, as alleged in the complaint, corporate entities to which subdivision (a)(1) of section 340.1 does not apply.” (Id. at 445; see also Pen. Code, § 266j [“Any person who intentionally gives, transports, provides, or makes available, or who offers to give, transport, provide, or make available to another person, a child under the age of 16 for the purpose of any lewd or lascivious act as defined in Section 288, or who causes, induces, or persuades a child under the age of 16 to engage in such an act with another person, is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a term of three, six, or eight years, and by a fine not to exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000).”]) The Court reasoned that 340.1(a)(1) did not apply to the Boy Scouts because the legislature omitted entities from that subdivision — “[a] ‘person’ for purposes of subdivision (a)(1) may not be defined to include an entity defendant. [Such] interpretation is confirmed by the legislative history of section 340.1, subdivisions (a)(1)–(3) and (b)(1).” (Id. at 447.) While Plaintiff relies upon Hightower, 142 Cal.App.4th 759, that matter involved section 340.1’s limitations period, and the delayed discovery rule and not the entity exclusion of section 340.1. Hightower, 142 Cal.App.4th at 768.

Since Plaintiff admits that he is attempting to hold Defendants directly liable under a theory of procurement, i.e. direct liability for sexual abuse, and since such claims are not available against entities, Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication on this claim.
Sixth Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary adjudication on the sixth cause of action because there is no triable issue of material fact as to whether a fiduciary relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants existed or whether those fiduciary duties were breached.

“Whether a fiduciary duty exists is generally a question of law. [Citation.]” (Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1599, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 361.) A fiduciary relationship is created when a party either (1) knowingly undertakes to act on behalf and for the benefit of another, or (2) enters into a relationship which imposes that undertaking as a matter of law. (City of Hope Nat. Med. Ctr. v. Genentech, Inc., (2008) 43 Cal.4th 375, 386 (2008).) “In general, employment-type relationships are not fiduciary relationships. (Amid v. Hawthorne Community Medical Group, Inc. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1383, 1391.) In the absence of a fiduciary relationship, there can be no breach of fiduciary duty as a matter of law. (O’Byrne v. Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 797, 811–812.)

Defendants argue that there is no evidence that Defendants either undertook an act or entered into a relationship that would impose such a duty. Defendants argue that the evidence demonstrates that there were two potential relationships that Plaintiff had with Defendants. Robson appeared in three music videos for Jackson, and Robson was part of a rap group that released an album on a label created by MJJ Ventures. (UF 60 – 61.) Defendants argue that this sort of relationship, performer – studio/record company are not fiduciary in nature citing Wolf v. Superior Court (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 25. Defendants also argue that there is no evidence that Plaintiff was placed under the care and supervision of either corporation. Defendants contend that it is undisputed that the corporations were not child care businesses. (UF 63-64.).

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that as a minor employee, he entered into a confidential and trusting relationship with Jackson. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants had physical custody of Plaintiff through Jackson. Plaintiff contends Defendants were child care businesses. In reply, Defendants argue that there is no evidence that Plaintiff was in a confidential relationship with Defendants individually apart from Jackson. Defendants argue that the evidence shows that the relationship with Jackson arose independent of the corporations, and prior to Plaintiff’s employment. (UF 13-23, 31, 33, 34.)

Once again, the issue for the Court is whether there are any disputed facts that could potentially give rise to the creation of a fiduciary duty. Here, there is no evidence that Plaintiff was in a trusting relationship with the individual corporate Defendants, even if there is evidence of such a relationship with Jackson. (See PMF 48-56 (concerning Jackson only).) Plaintiff further argues that Defendants and Jackson had physical custody of Plaintiff, who was a minor. Plaintiff, however, has not alleged any facts demonstrating that Defendants had a duty to control the conduct of Plaintiff as a parent would or that Defendants had physical custody of Plaintiff. (See Poncher v. Brackett (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 769, 773–774 (raw allegations that parents stood in relation of loco parentis insufficient as a matter of law.) Since the undisputed evidence shows that Plaintiff did not enter into a relationship with Defendants that would impose a fiduciary duty, Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication on this cause of action.

[1] The Court notes that Plaintiff included full deposition transcripts. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1116(b) provides, “Other than the title page, the exhibit must contain only the relevant pages of the transcript. The original page number of any deposition page must be clearly visible.” (CRC Rule 3.1116(b).) Plaintiff does not cite entire depositions. Plaintiff should have only included the portions that were cited in the opposition, and should have highlighted the relevant portions in “a manner that calls attention to the testimony.”

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 21 aprile 2021, 8:38


Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 21 aprile 2021, 9:10

TSCM
@MJJRepository

TENTATIVE RULING: Judge GRANTS Estate's Motion for Summary Judgment to DISMISS WADE'S CASE!
In Judge Young's tentative ruling, he has FULLY AGREED WITH THE ESTATE'S arguments and REJECTED All OF FINALDI'S.
FULL ORDER: https://mjjr.net/docs/2021-04-20-Summar ... tative.pdf
(Final ruling TBD after 4/26!)

To reiterate, this is a positive step but as I mention it remains a TENTATIVE RULING until after the judge hears from both sides, next Monday.
The judge will consider the in-person arguments and can adjust his tentative ruling if he feels a compelling argument has been made.

Avatar utente
Davidejam
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 3687
Iscritto il: 16 luglio 2006, 21:45

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da Davidejam » 21 aprile 2021, 19:51

fin
A volte è meglio tacere e sembrare stupidi che aprir bocca e togliere ogni dubbio!

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 24 aprile 2021, 21:39

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some

For Monday (4/26) court hearing, possible attendees:
Larry Nimmer: Videographer for Estate
Jin Chohan: Videographer (confirmed)
Jon Steinsapir: Lead Estate attorney (confirmed)
Vince Finaldi: Attorney for WR
Wade Robson
John Branca: Estate executor
TMZ (was at one hearing)

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 25 aprile 2021, 12:15


Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 26 aprile 2021, 21:08

TSCM
@MJJRepository
Stay tuned for official order. Roger has posted a quote from estate:

“As of today, a summary judgment AGAINST Wade Robson has been granted 3 different times by 2 different judges... Wade Robson has spent the last 8 years pursuing frivolous claims in different lawsuits..."

Showbiz 411
@showbiz411

@MichaelJackson fans, it's over-- MJ Absolved: Second Accusation of Molestation is Dismissed By Court in Final Ruling https://showbiz411.com/2021/04/26/micha ... nal-ruling via @showbiz411



Leaving Neverland Facts
@NeverlandFacts

"Leaving Neverland,” the documentary in which two men accused Michael Jackson of child molestation, has been repudiated in court." https://showbiz411.com/2021/04/26/micha ... nal-ruling via
@showbiz411


andjustice4some
@andjustice4some

Our friend
@karmousaG
took diligent notes and will post them later today. We thank her for all of her hard work. We also thank
@Eckhardsson
for attending court as well.


andjustice4some
@andjustice4some

IT'S OVER. WADE ROBSON'S CASE DISMISSED ON FINAL RULING!!


JJ (Square One OUT NOW on Prime & Tubi)
@JJ_Moonwalker

IT'S OFFICIAL WADE ROBSON IS DISMISSED FOR THE THIRD TIME AND THE FINAL TIME!
WADE ROBSON AND JAMES SAFECHUCK ARE BOTH DISMISSED FOR THE THIRD TIME AND THE FINAL TIME
IT'S OVER


Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 26 aprile 2021, 21:53

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some
“This decision of Judge Mark A. Young suffers from the same fatal flaws as the prior decision of prior Judge Mitchell Beckloff, which we were able to overturn on appeal," says Finaldi. This is a LIE. They received an appeal because of a change in CA law.
Immagine


TSCM
@MJJRepository
Replying to
@MJJRepository
These cases will now have to be appealed on entirely different grounds.
James' has to appeal the demurrer on the six specific causes, unrelated to statute of limitations.
Wade has to appeal the summary judgment on the six specific causes, whether any of them may be triable.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 27 aprile 2021, 8:11

“As of today, a summary judgment AGAINST Wade Robson has been granted three different times by two different judges of the Superior Court.
“Wade Robson has spent the last 8 years pursuing frivolous claims in different lawsuits against Michael Jackson’s estate and companies associated with it. Robson has taken nearly three dozen depositions and inspected and presented hundreds of thousands of documents trying to prove his claims, yet a Judge has once again ruled that Robson’s claims have no merit whatsoever, that no trial is necessary and that his latest case is dismissed,” said Jonathan Steinsapir, attorney for the Estate of Michael Jackson.
Previously, the case brought by James Safechuck against the Jackson estate was thrown out.
Robson and Safechuck not only sued Jackson but participated in the HBO documentary directed by Dan Reed in which they alleged molestation years after Jackson died. Oprah Winfrey bought their story hook, line, and sinker, and conducted interviews with them allowing the men to allege accusations without any solid evidence. Now the court has ruled against them. It’s over.
https://www.showbiz411.com/.../michael-jackson-absolved...


Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 27 aprile 2021, 13:31

I see flying pigs - an English newspaper actually being positive. Wonders will never cease.

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 27 aprile 2021, 13:40

You have to laugh.


Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 28 aprile 2021, 9:01

Keen Zhang

#MJInnocent Local Henan fans present flowers ordered from all over China to a MJ statue for another court victory against liars. We always believe in him! Love you forever Michael!

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 28 aprile 2021, 10:14

https://news.sky.com/story/michael-jack ... d-12288621

Michael Jackson: Leaving Neverland accuser Wade Robson becomes second man to have lawsuit dismissed
Wade Robson made his claims in the Leaving Neverland documentary alongside James Safechuck, who has also had his case dismissed.

Tuesday 27 April 2021 23:12, UK

A man who made allegations of sexual abuse against Michael Jackson in a high-profile documentary has had a lawsuit over his claims dismissed.

Wade Robson's case is the second to be dismissed by a Los Angeles judge, who ruled against a similar lawsuit by fellow accuser James Safechuck in October.

Both men appeared in the HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, which aired in 2019, claiming in graphic detail that they were abused by Jackson when they were children.

Immagine

The pop star died in 2009, aged 50, and his family has adamantly and repeatedly denied the men's allegations.

Robson, who first brought legal proceedings back in 2013, was suing two of the late singer's businesses, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, saying they had a duty to protect him.


Advertisement
But on Monday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark A Young granted the Jackson estate's request to dismiss the claims.



"There is no evidence supporting plaintiff's contention that defendants exercised control over Jackson," the judge wrote.

"The evidence further demonstrates that defendants had no legal ability to control Jackson, because Jackson had complete and total ownership of the corporate defendants."

Vince Finaldi, attorney for Robson and Safechuck, said the ruling has "fatal flaws" and will be appealed.

"If allowed to stand, the decision would set a dangerous precedent that would leave thousands of children working in the entertainment industry vulnerable to sexual abuse by persons in places of power," he said in a statement.

Robson, now a 38-year-old choreographer, met Jackson when he was five years old and went on to appear in the star's music videos.

"Wade Robson has spent the last eight years pursuing frivolous claims in different lawsuits against Michael Jackson's estate and companies associated with it," Jackson estate attorney Jonathan Steinsapir said in a statement after Monday's ruling.

"Yet a judge has once again ruled that Robson's claims have no merit whatsoever, that no trial is necessary."

Lawsuits by Robson and Safechuck had previously been dismissed by a different judge in 2017, as the statute of limitations had expired. But an appeals court revived the legal actions in 2019 after California governor Gavin Newsom signed a new law giving those who allege childhood sexual abuse longer to file lawsuits.

The Jackson estate has brought its own lawsuit against HBO that is now in private arbitration.

In 2005, Jackson was acquitted on charges of molesting a different boy, a 13-year-old, at a trial in California.

He had always denied any allegations he was involved in abusing underage boys.

His Neverland Ranch, in California, was sold in December 2020 for $22 million (£16 million).

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 29 aprile 2021, 9:59

TSCM
@MJJRepository

Wade/James Excuses: Lying face
CP video of JS? <taped over>
Blood-stained underwear? <thrown out>
Wedding vows? <missing in action>
Self-incriminating calls? <never recorded nor reported to DA>
Wade's subpoena? <he doesn't remember>
Any CP? <never found, even FBI's scrub of drives>

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 30 aprile 2021, 10:27

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some

I didn't even know this happened. Finaldi/Robson told the Estate they had ONE day to depose Robson or they had to forfeit. They are really something else.

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 maggio 2021, 9:38

Immagine

Howard Weitzman, claiming that Victor Gutierrez is the "true author of (Robson's and Safechuck's) fictional tales.."

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 3 maggio 2021, 9:37

karmousaG
@karmousaG
The judge makes a tentative ruling but gives the other side a chance to explain why the court made a mistake. If the arguments are valid then the court could change their ruling .The Judge asked if everyone had read the tentative.

The estate said they agreed with the tentative. Finaldi then says that everything we have to say regarding motion for summary judgement has been briefed. The morning papers contain the facts and evidence needed to make a forest decision and read the tentative

Finaldi continues the decision sets a dangerous precedent leaving 1000s of children vulnerable to sexual abuse by people in power within corporations in the state of California. The courts ignores evidence and misinterprets legal precedent and is wrong across the board

Finialldi continues by saying that judge Beckloff adapted the same suffered analysis and is incorrect. He continues to say it will become an issue for the court of appeals and the Supreme Court.

The judge asks Finaldi if he would like to go over specifics or mistakes he believes the court made. Finaldi says that they have been comprehensive and with 100s of pages of documents everything we have to say we have already said.

Jonathan Steinsapir the estate lawyer tells the Judge they had a causation for all 6 causes of action and the way the tentative is set up only notes it with respect to negligence claims. He wanted to confirm the judge recognized the issue raised .and the Judge says I do.

Jon says they submit on the tentative and the Judge then says to Finaldi that the courts decision doesn’t open the door to endangering 1000”s of children. Since Michael Jackson passed away their only recourse is to go after and sue the entities.

Judge continues the court has concluded that despite what you submitted the ruling is a matter of law and the companies structure and control. Or lack of control over Michael Jackson. Makes it impossible to have this go to trial.

Judge continues that there’s a difference in what your saying Mr. Finaldi and how the court ruled. He says I’m not opening the door to thousands of children being abused it’s about factual limitations and lack of control over entities..

Judge continues your trying to hold companies liable for conduct of someone who passed away. Finaldi says he understands the issue but that he’s been doing this his whole career and disagrees. The judge then says the tentative will be the final ruling.

This was a short hearing but the outcome was very positive and a big step in vindicating Michael Jackson across the board.

I would like to thank
@MJJRepository
for her time, energy and efforts in keeping us informed and her extensive knowledge on the cases. Thank you
@andjustice4some
for everything u do and especially being my messenger when I can’t come on Twitter and pass information along.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 7 maggio 2021, 8:59

TSCM
@MJJRepository
✔ Plaintiff Wade Robson shall recover NOTHING from Defendants.
✔ FINAL JUDGMENT is hereby entered in this action in favor of Defendants, and against Plaintiff Wade Robson.
✔ Defendants shall RECOVER THEIR COSTS OF SUIT herein from Plaintiff Wade Robson.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Immagine
Immagine


Finaldi will waste another 1-2 years feeding the cases through appeals.
Except this time each judgment was decided based on the six causes and triable actions, last time it was just time statutes.
He will then try to take it to en banc & supreme court, they will not hear it.

The final order in James' case was similar.
The estate will now get to tally up expenditures from both cases and file separate claims in each.
Of course Finaldi will appeal again to delay the inevitable. But eventually they'll have to fork it all over.
Quote Tweet
TSCM
@MJJRepository

· Oct 29, 2020
SAFECHUCK UPDATE: This week the judge issued formal order, adding more salt to the wounds. Popcorn
"Plaintiff James Safechuck SHALL RECOVER NOTHING from Defendants..."
"Defendants SHALL RECOVER THEIR COSTS of suit herein."
Amount owed to estate TBD.
Finaldi still plans to appeal.
Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 8 maggio 2021, 9:22

TSCM
@MJJRepository

JAMES SAFECHUCK APPEALS UPDATE: Finaldi Requests Delay
As previously predicted, Finaldi requested a two month delay to file his opening brief. This is related to Safechuck's appeal that he originally lodged last December.
He now has until July 26th, 2021 to file.

As far as I am concerned, this is yet another delaying tactic. Nothing is going to change but I guess it means they have longer to sweat before deciding how on earth they are going to pay back the expenses of the estate as they have to meet all costs.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 28 maggio 2021, 16:26

TSCM
@MJJRepository
APPEALS UPDATE: Chandler & Marks
After Finaldi lost his motions to depose Lily & Tabitha last year, he appealed.
A 3-panel court—Grimes, Wiley, Ohta—reviewed his appellate claims.
"Petitioner does not establish entitlement to extraordinary relief."
DENIED.
Finaldi Flop

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 giugno 2021, 21:26


Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 5 giugno 2021, 9:05

TSCM
@MJJRepository

WADE ROBSON CASE UPDATE: Memorandum of Costs
The estate has filed a revised request for expense reimbursement in Wade's case to the tune of $112,960.25—up $40,000+ from the original pre-appeal award.
This is separate from sanctions already imposed
https://mjjr.net/docs/2021-06-02-Robson ... -Costs.pdf
Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 10 giugno 2021, 9:34

@MJJRepository

DAN, 2 MONTHS AFTER LN HYPE: No one has come forward yet.
Instead of celebrating no victims, he's dismayed nobody wrote saying they were.
molested. He wanted Arvizos in LN2—"astonished MJ was acquitted." How impartial.
Very relieved Weitzman rejected his ploy to gain credence.

Immagine

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 21 giugno 2021, 9:16

A wonderful, well researched blog.

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2021/ ... he-estate/

Michael Jackson and his foes: TWO MAJOR WINS BY THE ESTATE
JUNE 20, 2021
tags: $1.5 billion, Anthony Pellicano, David Geffen, deposition, Estate, Howard Weitzman, IRS, James Safechuck, John Branca, taxes, Wade Robson
by Vindicatemj (Helena)
Resuming writing for this blog after a long hiatus is not easy, but I will nevertheless try. And the first question I ask myself 12 years after Michael Jackson’s death is where we are now as to his legacy and his name?

Judging by the comments here and there, only the inquisitive managed to go beyond the superficial propaganda of that fantasy piece called “Leaving Neverland” and the tall tales told by the media. This does not surprise me because most of the mainstream media has turned into fake news delivering sheer propaganda, and unfortunately the public tends to swallow it uncritically.

And this is no surprise either as millions have proven themselves unable to interpret facts correctly even when flatly facing them and even in much easier cases than the intricate scam around Michael Jackson.

At first the media tested their massive fakes on the poor Jackson and then continued with everything else playing people for fools, alas.

An example of the media duping the public is the way they reported on Anthony Pellicano’s release from prison in March 2019.

DEPOSITIONS
I mention his name because the recent MJ Estate memorandum asking Wade Robson to pay around $113,000 in legal costs now that he lost his civil case against the Estate, listed two Pellicano’s depositions taken in August 2020, which sounds to me as a sheer sensation.
Immagine
A quick reminder of Pellicano’s role in MJ’s life: he was hired by Michael Jackson’s lawyer Bert Fields to investigate the Chandlers’ case in 1993 and agreed to handle it only after warning Michael that he’d better not be guilty or he, being a father of nine children, would “fuck him over”:

Pellicano reveals that when he agreed to work for Jackson during the star’s 1993 child-molestation case, he warned Jackson that he’d better not be guilty.

“I said, ‘You don’t have to worry about cops or lawyers. If I find out anything, I will f–k you over.”

We know that Pellicano didn’t “f—k him over” because he didn’t find a single proof of Michael Jackson’s guilt. Since then Pellicano has never said a negative word about Michael, even when a tabloid offered him half a million to lie about Jackson.

However when reporting Pellicano’s release after he served 16 years in a federal prison on wiretapping charges, every media outlet thought it necessary to reshuffle the old fakes that Pellicano quit “in disgust” when he allegedly found some “dark secrets about MJ” and mentioned that Michael did “far worse things to young boys than molest them”.

A sample of it:

“He was disgusted by truths even darker than those alleged in Jackson’s molestation scandal. “I was offered $500,000 to tell the whole story by a tabloid, and I declined, even though, while incarcerated, I needed the money.”

[the Hollywood Reporter]

Well, the dark truths Pellicano did find, only they were not about Michael Jackson, but about the Chandlers family and this is how it was originally reported by the Daily Beast in 2011 in a chart which is now certainly defunct because it mentions damning information about the accuser’s family:
Immagine
As to things “far worse than molestation” it is possible that Pellicano did say it, only it is obviously a figure of speech and anyone with a little bit of brains realizes that he didn’t mean murder (the only thing that is worse) but something different – probably the fact that these youngsters were first taken to the top of the world where they basked in the reflection of Michael’s fame, and then felt inevitably frustrated when they had to return to their routine life. So when other youngsters were only stepping into life in anticipation of all the good awaiting them, those few had to live with a feeling that their best times were over and the future held nothing comparable to their brilliant moments beside Jackson – no more royalty and Hollywood stars to meet …….what a frustration!

And Pellicano did indeed quit the 1993 case and probably even ‘in disgust’, but this was done in solidarity with his boss Bert Fields, who was dismissed and replaced by Johnny Cochran, and any negative feeling Pellicano might harbor was not for Jackson, but for the opportunistic ways of Johnny Cochran and his team, of which his Carl Douglas is an example.

In other words, it is an established fact that Anthony Pellicano was completely, totally and absolutely sure of Michael’s innocence and this is why he wanted the Chandler case to be tried in the court of law. Actually Michael himself insisted on a trial (only imagine insisting on your own trial!), however Cochran was inclined to settle the case from the very moment he was retained. The OJ Simpson trial was looming ahead, so Cochran didn’t focus too much on Jackson. And he was also so much awestruck by Larry Feldman, the Chandlers’ lawyer, that as soon as the Chandler’s case was over, he hired him as his own attorney – all of which was of course disgusting to Pellicano who is known for a rare and exceptionally strict personal code of honor.

This is the real truth about Anthony Pellicano’s take on Michael Jackson. It has been discussed in this blog many times over and is backed up by numerous sources. So when the current media perpetuate lies about Pellicano and MJ, it means that the media propagandists lie about them knowingly, and this alone testifies to their nefarious goals.

One day we will probably have access to the transcripts of Anthony Pellicano’s depositions in Robson’s case and I genuinely look forward to that day.

So if we go back to the question “where we are” at the moment the answer is that on the surface everything is the way it used to be – the media goes on lying, and the lazy and the infantile swallow the toxic stuff spoonfed to them by the official propaganda.

A disgusting sight.

But none of these people notice that the actual environment around Michael Jackson has drastically changed and it happened due to two major wins made by MJ’s Estate in the past few months.

Only those who are masterminding this massive anti-Michael campaign surely took notice of their failures and must be furious at their plan falling flat in its key elements. As to the smearing campaign against Jackson being orchestrated by someone from behind the scenes, this fact cannot be even disputed.

TWO MAJOR WINS
The first massive win is the recent MJ Estate’s victory over the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) which claimed back in 2013 that the Estate owed them $702,000,000 in underpaid taxes. The ludicrous claim forced the Estate to petition the US Tax Court and litigate the case in which they prevailed. The Tax Court judge leaned towards the Estate’s valuation of Michael Jackson’s assets, so the sum to be paid by the Estate after the court’s ruling this May should be no more than $50 mln, which is a fraction as compared to the initial IRS demands.

And the second major win is the recent dismissal by the US Superior Court of Wade Robson’s case against Michael Jackson’s companies as having no merit and not deserving of a trial. I place this event second because to me it is indeed secondary to the IRS case.

Though seemingly different I see the two cases as absolutely interconnected as both pursue the same goal – that of ruining the MJ Estate. In my opinion the financial factor was the crux of both matters, and even Robson’s complaint was meant not only to shred Michael Jackson’s reputation into pieces and enrich the accuser beyond measure, but to also rob the Estate of everything they had.

And I do mean everything as the creditor’s claim filed by Robson’s lawyers with the probate court was reportedly for 1.62 bln Australian dollars (the equivalent of 1.5bln in US dollars). This news was first published in the Australian media, hence the difference in the sum.

Up to today the notorius filmmaker Dan Reed goes around telling the gullible public some nonsense about Robson and Safechuck not seeking any money at all, let alone $1.5 bln. – as they allegedly “just wanted their experience of abuse put on the court record”. If you listen to him any money award in the civil court is just an unintended consequence of litigation
To be fair to the sceptics, the sum of $1.5 billion claimed by Robson was indeed so stunning that even Michael Jackson’s fans didn’t believe it, thinking it to be a mistake and that Robson’s demands were confused with the gross amount of everything the Estate had earned by that time ($600 mln) plus the cost of Michael’s share in the ATV catalog thought to be worth around $1bln then.

But it wasn’t a mistake, and I see no reason for doubt that Robson indeed demanded the sum of $1.5 billion.

When on May 1st, 2013 his legal papers for a late creditor complaint were filed with the probate court, everything was very much hush-hush on Robson’s part as the papers were filed under seal and his then lawyer Granstein even said that they did not ask for any specific amount of money, making it unclear why they filed the creditor’s claim at all.
Immagine
But the sole purpose of a creditor’s claim is to demand a certain amount of money – see the special Judicial Council form DE-172 any such claim requires and taken by me from the official Judicial Council website.
Immagine
Just one look at this standard form makes it clear that it is impossible to file a creditor’s claim without specifying the sum wanted by the claimant and this means that Robson’s lawyers lied.

A little later Robson filed a civil lawsuit against the Estate and its companies MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, which were named “co-conspirators” responsible for the alleged abuse. At some point the allegations were made public in their most graphic detail, and the huge sum demanded by Robson under the creditor’s claim seemed even instrumental in manifesting the gravity of the accusations.

It was at this point that the media reported that the creditor’s claim was for 1,62 billion Australian dollars:
Immagine
The Estate’s lawyers did not comment as they discarded the allegations as rubbish from their very start, but occasionally they did mention that both Robson and Safechuck demanded hundreds of millions dollars in their lawsuits.

For example, five years later, on February 7, 2019 Howard Weitzman, attorney for the Jackson estate, wrote a 10-page letter to HBO chief executive Richard Plepler criticizing Leaving Neverland as journalistically unethical and this is where he wrote about the two guys’ demands in black and white:


“Given that they were both seeking hundreds of millions of dollars against the Estate, they had hundreds of millions of reasons for aligning their stories” [from Howard Weitzman’s letter to HBO, Feburary 7, 2019]
Immagine
…contrary to Robson’s and Safechuck’s lawyers’ predictions when they first filed their lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars in 2013, no “flood” of further identifiable “victims” ever came forward beyond these two” [Howard Weitzman’s letter to HBO]
Also remember Robson’s note “It’s time to have mine” and the fact that he was infuriated that the job of directing Michael Jackson’s ONE went to Jamie King (as Cirque du Soleil and John Branca didn’t think him qualified enough for it)

Also remember the amount of money he wanted for his book that was so large that no publisher would accept it.

All these things testify to Robson’s enormous appetite for money and to his possible desire to take revenge on the Estate, though at his deposition he certainly “didn’t remember” any of it.

Q. BY MS. KLEINDIENST When I spoke to Mr. Nevins on the phone he volunteered to me that you had demanded a large amount of money for your book. Are you saying that he’s lying?
THE WITNESS: Tell me again what he said I said.
Q. That you were demanding a very large amount of money for your book.
A. Not true.
Q. The last sentence says, “It’s time for me to get mine!” Do you know what you meant by that?
A. I don’t.
To me there is no question that Robson did demand a huge sum and possibly even wanted everything the Estate had, which was thought to be around $1.5 bln at that time, and that he possibly even intended to plunge the Estate into a deep debt.

Actually making Michael Jackson penniless has been the most coveted goal of some people since the moment in early 90s when he made really powerful enemies in Hollywood and entertainment industry.

In other words, I regard Robson’s and Safechuck’s heinous lies not as something separate but as a part of a long and multi-faceted campaign aimed at turning Michael’s name and fortune into ashes and attempting to force the Estate into no less than bankruptcy.

You may wonder who on earth would be so intent on trying to deprive Michael and his Estate of all their money?

As to who is the most probable force behind orchestrating this never-ending anti-Michael Jackson campaign, there are several posts in this blog – here and here and here and here and here are only some of them.

The modus operandi of this person is always the same and is pursuing two goals simultaneously. These are 1) damaging the reputation of the designated victim beyond repair and 2) financial ruin of the victim so that nothing is left of his fortune but a pile of dust. Otherwise the revenge plans are not complete.

And the third notable feature of those plans is that they are always carried out by someone else.

The malice of this operator is legendary and there are numerous examples of his revenge taken on lots of other people, including Walter Yetnikoff, the long-time President of CBS Records under whose guidance Michael Jackson thrived, and Michael Ovitz, the one-time entertainment mogul who had the misfortune to be regarded by this person as an enemy and whose money and success were gone for the only reason that they had different views on family life. And many, many others.

In fact even Anthony Pellicano seems to have also fallen victim to this person’s campaign against Michael Ovitz (which his foe actually admitted). Pellicano was working for Ovitz when he was first sentenced for illegal possession of weapons that belonged to a client and were kept in his evidence safe:

“The FBI guys asked if there was anything in there that could hurt them,” he recalled of the raid.

“I opened the safes and left the lab, completely forgetting about the C-4 and two grenades that were locked in one of my evidence safes. Well, you can imagine the result of that.”

After serving the initial 30-months sentence for possessing those weapons and just weeks before his scheduled release Pellicano was charged with racketeering and wiretapping, and was sentenced to another 15 years in prison.

To see the severity of the sentence, compare it with a similar case of private investigator Ernie Rizzo who openly boasted of exactly the same methods, but was only stripped of his PI license and even went on working as an investigator after being sentenced to a “work-release program”. Incidentally Ernie Rizzo was also a one-time investigator for Evan Chandler and was Pellicano’s rival.

See how all these seemingly unrelated factors are actually tightened into one knot? Someone wanted to keep Pellicano behind bars until his dying day so that he didn’t tell the real truth about all the rope-pulling done by the powerful few, while the unsuspecting public is fed by the media with kindergarten fairy tales.

Getting back to the main point again let me make a conclusion after 12 years of studying the Michael Jackson case: the life-long smearing campaign of Michael and now his Estate is aimed not only at the irreparable damage to their reputation but also at their total and unconditional financial ruin.

This conclusion is also confirmed by the lurid claim made by the Internal Revenue Service right at the time when Wade Robson made his.

THE IRS CLAIM
An extremely interesting point about the IRS claim is not only its timing, which coincided with Robson’s claim almost to the day, but the fact that they also demanded from the Estate a crazy amount around a billion dollars.

According to Tax Court documents IRS wanted $505.1 million in taxes and $196.9 million in penalties plus the accrued interest. All of it totaled $702 million (plus the interest to be added to it).

At some point the IRS claim reached the unholy figure of $1.1 billion and this happened in the course of litigation when Michael’s image and likeness were adjusted upward by $434 million, one of his Trusts by $469 million and the other Trust by $58 million.

In case you are interested in details here is an excerpt from the Forbes article about the IRS whose figures were mostly rejected by the Tax Court judge in May this year:

Michael Jackson’s Estate Mostly Prevails In Valuation Fight With IRS

May 4, 2021

“Jackson died in 2009 and the Tax Court case has been going on since 2013. The Estate and the IRS narrowed their differences over the years leaving just three assets for Judge Holmes to value. There were two bankruptcy remote trusts NHT II and NHT III and Jackson’s likeness and image.

In the litigation the Estate valued the likeness and image at $3,078,000, The IRS had likeness and image at $161,307,045. Judge Holmes went with $4,153,912.

The estate, in Tax Court, argued that NHT II was worthless because of the debt it was buried under. [ ] Judge Holmes [ ] agreed with the estate that there was not enough value to overcome the debt. IRS had NHT II at $206,295,934.

The estate valued NHT III whose principal asset was an interest in a production company called Mijac jointly owned with Sony at $2,267,316. The IRS had NHT III at $114,263,615, Judge Holmes leaned toward the IRS on that one coming in at $107,313,561.

The notice of deficiency that prompted the petition that got the litigation rolling had much more dramatic adjustments. They totaled over $1.1 billion with image and likeness adjusted upward by $434 million, NHT II by $469 million and NHT III by $58 million. [ ]

In short, both IRS claim and Robson’s complaint demanded from the Estate the sums revolving around a billion dollars each.

And both came at a time when the Estate must have invested millions in their second Cirque du Soleil show (2013) called “ONE”, and devoted to Michael Jackson same as “IMMORTAL” that opened two years prior to that, in October 2011 (the Tax Court documents say that the ‘Immortal’ show was sponsored by Cirque du Soleil).

‘COINCIDENCES’
To see that something is not right about the various coincidences of that period look at the dates of the events that took place in the highly condensed spring of 2013.

February 21– the Estate of Michael Jackson and Cirque du Soleil announce that “Michael Jackson ONE” directed by Jamie King will start its preview performances on May 23, 2013 and have its official premiere on June 29, 2013.

March 21 – the judge dismisses AEG’s appeal and rules the trial to go ahead.

March 21 – Wade Robson puts his LA house up for sale for $789,000 and enjoys much luck with it as just a week later he sells it for $825,000 at a price higher than the asking price by $36,000.

April 30 – the AEG trial begins. The Estate is no party to the litigation as it is Katherine Jackson’s lawsuit against AEG Live. The media is having a field day with the sum of $40 bln allegedly demanded by Katherine Jackson. During the trial it turns out that the complaint itself never specifies any sums and that the above figure was taken from a draft of the lawyers’ statement that was not even filed with the court and was never seen by Katherine Jackson. The correct sum calculated and claimed by her lawyers was $1.5 bln.

April 30 – Robson’s lawyers sign his late creditor’s claim with a probate court, and it also amounts to the sum of $1.5 bln as discussed above. Following the usual practice the text of the complaint does not specify the sum wanted by Robson and only enumerates the type of damages he requests (“compensatory damages, punitive damages, an award of interest, an award of attorneys’ fees, the costs of suit and further relief the Court deems appropriate). The demand for $1,5 billion was stated only in the creditor’s claim which in Robson’s case was filed with the court.
Immagine
Immagine
May 7 – Robson’s allegations go public.

May 10 – Robson files a civil complaint against the Estate.

May 13 – the Internal Revenue Service sends the Estate a “Notice of Deficiency” disclosing the deficiency in the amount of $505,142,894 and intending to charge the additional $196,910,310 in penalties “plus interest to be computed at the legal rate on the amount due”. This happens four years after Michael Jackson’s passing.

May 16 – Wade Robson goes on national TV.

May 23 is the date of preview performances for the Michael Jackson “ONE” show, which was first announced at the end of February that year.

In other words, the spring of 2013 is virtually packed with all sorts of coincidences:

Robson puts up his house for sale on the day he learns that the AEG trial will go forward
his creditor’s claim is signed the same day as the AEG trial starts
Robson wants $1.5 billion from MJ’s Estate for the alleged abuse which he vehemently denied only 8 years earlier, same as Katherine Jackson wants $1.5 billion from the AEG for the death of her son
in the midst of it all the IRS sends a note of deficiency to the Estate claiming immediate payment of $702,000,000 plus interest in “underpaid taxes”
and all of it happens right before the premiere of the new Cirque du Soleil show in which the Estate has surely invested a lot of money.
Impressive, isn’t it?

I remember those events and my disbelief at the intensity of it all, when all those blows kept coming one after another. We can imagine that a similar feeling of a sudden avalanche of unimaginable money claims overwhelmed the Estate executors too.

Not only did the two complaints amount to the unheard of sum of a billion each, thus wiping away twice the sum the Estate had at that moment, but their timing right before the premiere was putting the show at a huge risk and threatened to deprive the Estate of the future earnings too…

The first impression of this avalanche was that it was a way for AEG Live to intimidate the Jackson family and divert public attention from their trial. However what restrained me from denouncing it as AEG’s foul play was that this company is no fool to expose itself so openly and the fact that both claims were targeted not at the Jackson family, but the Estate. Besides that the IRS claim also looked like something separate and coming from a seemingly independent US tax agency, so the whole picture was not yet clear.

But as the dust settled all those coincidences as well as the magnitude of those claims began to point to something different.

With AEG Live now gone from the scene, what stood out was Robson’s and Safechuck’s continuous legal saga financed year after year by we-don’t-know-who and the still ongoing IRS fight with the Estate for all the money they had.

On top of that came the ‘Leaving Neverland’ movie which was somehow obtained by no other than David Geffen for a private screening with Oprah Winfrey, done obviously for publicity sake and well in advance before the movie was shown to the general public.

Someone was definitely on a war path against MJ’s Estate so that it would lose all its past and future revenue due to the massive legal claims and bad publicity, same as someone wanted total Michael Jackson’s ruin through legal claims and bad publicity when he was alive.

But could anyone have the power to manipulate and influence the federal agency like the IRS led by the Commissioner appointed by President himself?

At first the idea looked impossible, but only until the moment when the news came that the IRS estimation was based on the appraisal of one person only and this person (Weston Anson) was caught in several lies during litigation, which greatly undermined his credibility.

THE SOLE APPRAISER
Here is another piece from Forbes explaining that in his 271-page memo released on May 3, 2021, Judge Holmes of the U.S. Tax Court didn’t mince words as regards Weston Anson:

The first hint that things will not go well for the IRS comes on page 59 when Judge Holmes discusses the credibility of Weston Anson, the sole appraiser used by the IRS, who had been caught in a lie about whether he had previously worked for the IRS. Judge Homes indicated that the hit to credibility affected the judge’s factfinding.

That was on page 61. On page 133 Judge Holmes really gives it away when discussing Anson’s valuation of Jackson’s “image and likeness” he wrote “We reject Anson’s analysis as fantasy”.

Yes, you’ve read it right – the judge rejected Anson’s appraisal of Michael Jackson’s image and likeness as sheer fantasy. Here is a quote from the Tax Court memo:

“We reject Anson’s analysis as fantasy. He:

– valued the wrong asset,

– included unforeseeable events in his valuation, and

– miscalculated the assets’ value.”

Of Anson’s credibility the judge said:

“As the Commissioner’s only expert witness, Anson’s credibility was an especially important part of the case. And it suffered greatly at trial. When asked whether he or his firm had previously been retained by the Commissioner to write an intellectual-property valuation report in Whitney Houston’s estate-tax case, Anson replied: “No. Absolutely not.” That was a lie. [ ]

Anson also testified that neither he nor his firm ever advertised to promote business. This was also a lie. In the midst of trial, Anson touted his testimony in the Hollywood Reporter which called CONSOR Chairman Weston Anson “the expert of the century [that] will be testifying on behalf of the IRS.”

As Anson was touting himself in the Hollywood Reporter, the latter presented the case in the craziest manner possible, leading the public into thinking that the Estate valued all Michael Jackson’s assets at a mere $2,105 while Anson’s estimation was close to $1billion. So no wonder that the original HR source quoted by the judge is actually no longer found on the Internet.

Here is a piece from the Judge’s memo starting with a quote from the Hollywood Reporter:

“The big discrepancy in the value of the Jackson estate will be sure to bring testimony tailor made for a Hollywood blockbuster. While CONSOR valued the intellectual property assets of the Jackson estate at a total close to $1 billion, the estate initially valued the assets at time of death at a mere $2,105.“

And in a lecture given before trial Anson referred to his valuation in this case, stating, “I’m sitting today [ ] in a deposition in what’s known as the ‘Billion Dollar Tax Case.’ When asked at trial whether he had in fact referred to this case as a billion-dollar case, Anson replied with his own question: “Would you like to be called the lawyer of the century?”

The judge explained:

“…there is nothing wrong about marketing one’s services or taking on another case for the IRS while working on this one. But Anson did undermine his own credibility in being so parsimonious with the truth [ ], as well as in not answering questions directly throughout his testimony.”

And when the judge stated that Weston Anson consciously overvalued Michael Jackson’s assets the whole thing began to smack of a scam:

We note that Anson’s overbroad description of the asset he was valuing was conscious.

We have his earlier draft report, in which he based his valuations solely on the image-and-likeness rights defined by California law. We conclude from this that he tried to reach a higher number by broadening the rights he valued.

It turned out that not only did Anson broaden the valuation of Michael Jackson’s image and likeness to the point of it becoming a fantasy, but sometimes – when evaluating MJ’s unreleased songs, for example – his appraisal was based on Wikipedia as his ‘primary source’ in addition to ‘an interview that is two decades old and a book whose own sources are unclear’:

His primary source was Wikipedia though he also relied on a deposition Jackson gave back in 1993, a book, Michael Jackson: For the Record, and a 2015 report from the Estate showing previously unreleased songs at the time of death that have since been released.

So this is how the so-called independent IRS auditor made his evaluations? By studying Wikipedia as his primary source? And it is as a result of these findings that the IRS wanted the Estate to pay more than $700 mln? What an amazing stuff!

Surprisingly, many of the IRS auditor’s arguments coincide with the constant criticism of the Estate by MJ fans so that it often looks like either Anson repeats the fans’ arguments or the fans echo Anson’s populist declarations.

The latter seems a much more likely scenario and this means that Anson’s ideas were somehow imposed on the MJ fan community so that the unsuspecting and often well-meaning fans would ‘rise as one in their struggle against the horrible Estate executors’ who undervalued the great (truly great) Michael Jackson. Little did they know that someone was deliberately stirring up enmity towards the Estate to minimize the Estate’s chances in defending their case against the IRS and undermine their ability to generate income for Michael Jackson’s children in principle.

In other words, by seeding all that discord some forces used the MJ fan community for their own ulterior motives and this also adds to the list of all those strange coincidences enumerated above.

Continued

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Robson, Safechuck file claim of abuse with estate

Messaggio da soulmum » 21 giugno 2021, 9:19

Part 2

ANSWERS TO SOME QUESTIONS
It would be interesting to hear some of Judge Holmes’ answers to the most frequent fans’ reproaches addressed to the Estate on a regular basis. For example:

Why doesn’t the Estate release one album after another, though rumor has it that there are hundreds of unreleased songs in Michael’s vault?
Hundreds of unreleased songs is a rumor on which the IRS appraiser capitalized very well – he turned it into millions of dollars which according to his projection the Estate could potentially make and therefore had to pay taxes for.

The judge didn’t agree:

The first major disagreement between the experts is how many unreleased songs Jackson had at the time of his death. The experts came up with two very different numbers.

Anson believed that Jackson had an enormous number of unreleased songs on the day he died. At one point in his review he thought there were more than 153, though he noted that some sources hinted that the actual number of unreleased songs could be much higher — possibly over 200. At another point in his report he said that there were 133 unreleased songs at the time of death. But, in any event, he was sure there were at least 105. [ ]

After Jackson’s death, Sony engaged in an extensive search for unreleased songs to evaluate for possible future release. Jackson was [ ] known to over-record songs on his albums. He kept these unreleased recordings in his personal vaults.

Sony’s corporate spelunkers crawled through these vaults and found 7,000 to 10,000 pieces of tape. These were mostly tailings and very little pay dirt. There were only 2 completed and unreleased recordings and approximately 25-30 full vocals with some music. The Estate has confirmed a total of 83 songs — fragments of lyrics, tunes, and vocals — that were unreleased at the time of Jackson’s death.

They also found that there was often a reason for an unreleased song to remain unreleased, or a “full vocal” not to be a “song”. Sony executive John Doelp credibly testified that once a vocal was identified, Sony had “to take a step back” and ask whether it was commercially viable.

Doelp described the process as follows: “If it’s a demo vocal, it’s very possible that it’s just a bad performance. There could be notes that are flat * * * [or] not well recorded. * * * It could just not sound good, and then the song itself just might not be good or just not up to Michael’s standards.”[ ]

The most compelling reason for this finding is that Jackson was in a dire financial position for the last several years of his life and yet did not release any of these songs. We know that he was searching high and low — even going to usurious lenders — to bring in money. It is inconceivable that he wouldn’t use unreleased songs to boost that income, and we find it more likely than not that he did not do so because he thought the vast majority were commercially nonviable; and we further reason that if Jackson himself thought this, so would hypothetical reasonable buyers and sellers.»

And finally:

“Since we believe that a reasonable investor would believe that there were 22 marketable unreleased songs at Jackson’s death, using the average of 11 unreleased songs per album, we believe there would only be two albums’ worth of posthumously released songs.”

However the biggest reason for the fans’ discontent with the Estate is their estimation of Michael Jackson’s image and likeness at the meagre $2,105.

Indeed, how dare they?
Judge Holmes explains it in another thrilling piece of his memo:

The Estate reported Jackson’s image and likeness on its return as worth only $2,105. This might seem absurd when one recalls Jackson’s fame, but the Estate’s position was based on an appraisal from Moss Adams, a large and reputable accounting firm. And Moss Adams did focus entirely on the value of the Estate’s opportunity to license merchandise with Jackson’s image and likeness.

What Moss Adams discovered was that in the years before Jackson died and when he was in dire need of income, he had earned close to nothing from his image and likeness. … [The] allegations had a dramatic effect on Jackson’s ability to win sponsorships and merchandising deals once they became public. The fact that he earned not a penny from his image and likeness in 2006, 2007, or 2008 shows the effect those allegations had, and continued to have, until his death.

Moss Adams did not rely only on this historical financial data. It also looked at Jackson’s scores on the Davie-Brown index — a quantitative measure of a celebrity’s reputation derived from public surveys. Jackson’s Davie-Brown scores showed [] that he was one of the most recognized celebrities in the world but one who ranked among the lowest in trustworthiness as well as other important characteristics that corporations consider when looking to use someone’s image and likeness to promote their products. Taking all this information into account, Moss Adams — using a DCF analysis — determined the value of Jackson’s image and likeness was $2,105.

With this valuation in hand, Moss Adams went to the Estate. The Estate was surprised. Moss Adams was, after all, valuing the image and likeness of one of the best known celebrities in the world — the King of Pop — at the price of a heavily used 20-year-old Honda Civic. Moss Adams nevertheless gave this valuation to the Estate to rely on for the estate-tax return.

When asked if he stood by his opinion at trial — over seven years after the report — Dahl (a former principal of Moss Adams) responded that he “absolutely does.” He emphasized that though Jackson’s image and likeness may have increased in value after he died, all information available at the time of his death showed that [he had] serious significant issues when it came to the issue of licensing image and likeness in a non-music setting.” In the end, the Estate deemed this valuation credible and relied on it while filling out its return.

[ ] in the course of preparing for trial the Estate brought in two more experts to value Jackson’s image and likeness. The main expert was Jay Fishman — managing director of Financial Research Associates. Fishman valued Jackson’s image and likeness at just over $3 million.

The $3 mln was the sum finally used by the Estate in their litigation with the IRS.

But still, how come Michael Jackson could sell out 50 concerts nearly instantly but his image and likeness was evaluated at so low a sum?
Judge Holmes explains:

…. even in London, one can see the pattern that had long since marked Jackson back home — a great appreciation for his music and performance, but little for his personal reputation. Despite the near instant sellout of dozens of performances, AEG Live was utterly unable to find a tour sponsor. Potential sponsors did not want to tie their own reputations to Jackson’s …[ ] …which as we learned from credible testimony is a driving force behind the purchasing of branded merchandise, and which caused him to not be able to market his image and likeness.

Historical data shows that in the years before he died, Jackson had no merchandising deals despite his success in selling his music. Anson fails to adequately acknowledge this fact.[ ]

Anson simply glossed over Jackson’s having been accused multiple times of the most heinous acts in his analysis of each supposedly foreseeable revenue stream.

Well, being accused of some acts doesn’t mean that they were committed.

What stands out to me in this last paragraph is the mind-boggling double standard so clearly manifested by the IRS – when the two scumbags fantasize about the ‘most heinous’ acts allegedly done to them, their uncorroborated and contradictory story is considered enough for stigmatizing Jackson for life, but when it comes to levying taxes on Michael Jackson’s Estate the same accusations are simply glossed over and are regarded as insignificant trash.

This is a type of Orwell’s double-think at its worst.

John Branca says about the outcome of the IRS case:

“With years of disputes cleared and a pandemic-forced delay on projects lifting, the estate’s leaders feel like they are in an excellent spot to again start promoting Jackson’s legacy.

“We’re at an absolute turning point,” Branca said. “I think people have come to realize that Michael was innocent of any charges and unable to protect himself. We’ve got a wonderful Broadway play coming, we’ll be reopening our Cirque du Soleil show soon and we’ve got some surprises coming.”

And this is what the Forbes article says about Branca:

….in Judge Holmes’s narrative John Branca seems to be a strong factor in Jackson’s financial success.

The executor faced a challenging problem after Jackson’s sudden and unexpected death [ ]. His executor and team did pretty well. According to this story by Madeline Berg of Forbes Jackson was the highest paid dead celebrity of 2020 at $48 million. He has been on top of the list every year since 2010 except for 2012 when Elizabeth Taylor knocked him down to second place. The great success that the team had in rehabilitating Jackson’s image and monetizing the various pieces is fascinating….”

I fully agree and am glad that the judge and others worded it so clearly. The success of the Estate’s executors is indeed fascinating. And even incredible. Especially when you keep in mind the formidable forces John Branca and his team had to confront.

It is high time all of us grew up and gave the heroes their due. Because Branca, the late Howard Weitzman and all the others in that team did the impossible.

Rispondi