A STORY on how Michael Jackson allegedly ‘paid out $200 million in hush money to 20 sex abuse victims’
Updated and corrected on 04/08/15
Page after page the Google search results show the extent of the disease spreading on the Internet and claiming that the Robson/Safechuck legal team says that Michael Jackson allegedly paid “$200 million in hush money to silence 20 sex abuse victims”.
The screenshot on the right is page 6 out of ten or more Google pages reproducing the above story by all sorts of media outlets. Considering that each page has standard ten listings on it, at least 100 media sources are involved in spreading the fabricated story, not to mention the various TV channels also retelling the lie.
If I’m not mistaken the first to introduce it were the “Mirror” (a UK tabloid with some reputation dragging behind it) and the good old Stacy Brown who reminds us of himself each time some hearing is supposed to take place in the Robson/Safechuck case.
The Mirror calls Michael Jackson “Jacko” and claims that “a wealth of evidence was excluded from the criminal proceedings against Jackson in 2005 due to discovery rules in civil cases”:
“Wade Robson and James Safechuck claim they were both sexually abused by Jacko and are seeking unspecified amounts in punitive damages.
The pair brought their legal actions in 2013 and 2014 – after the statutory deadline – but hope Judge Mitchell Beckloff will allow them to proceed. However, any payout would be dwarfed by the £134million lawyers claim that Jackson, who died in 2009, allegedly shelled out in order to keep silence.
Crucially, if Judge Beckloff finds in the pair’s favour, they would be able introduce a wealth of evidence excluded from the criminal proceedings against him in 2005 due to discovery rules in civil cases. It would include graphic details of the alleged abuse but also how much each was paid to keep quiet”, said the Mirror.
From the same story we find out that the news is reported not by the lawyers themselves but by a “source close to the legal team”:
“A source close to their legal team said: “The judge during Jackson’s criminal case ruled much of the prosecution evidence could not be heard.
“They thought it was pivotal to the case and was crucial in Jackson receiving a not guilty verdict. The team thinks if Judge Beckloff allows their cases to proceed it will allow the evidence to be heard and prove beyond doubt he was guilty.”
And finally we learn that the big disclosure and ensuing discussion were to take place on Tuesday, April 7, 2015:
Los Angeles Superior Court is expected to rule on Tuesday whether two alleged victims cases can bring claims against the Thriller star’s estate.
If the judge agrees, damning evidence barred from the King of Pop’s original child sex abuse trial could be heard for the first time.”
Well, all of it is very interesting of course, only I wonder why no journalist asked a number of questions crossing the mind of an average concerned reader. For example:
– How come the lead prosecutors in the 2005 case Tom Sneddon and Ron Zonen hid this ‘wealth of evidence’ from public view and never leaked a single piece of it to the press?
We could understand their silence if they hadn’t known, but according to this news they knew everything all right and presented all the evidence to the judge, were rebuffed for some reason and still kept silent, so untypically for themselves. The prosecutors, investigators and policemen never mentioned it at any of their numerous press-conferences and interviews, so are we supposed to think now that “mad dog” Tom Sneddon (the unofficial nickname for the Santa Barbara District Attorney) was protecting the good name of Michael Jackson by keeping silent about some “$200mln paid out to 20 victims”?
– And what about the press? Where were they, same as the vigilant FBI, Department of Children and Family Services or the veteran investigative reporter like Diane Dimond? How could all of them make so terrible an oversight and overlook the judge’s ruling that should have been listed on the open official page of the court?
– And why did the judge allow the testimony of June Chandler and Blanca Francia (whose son reportedly received $2mln for two incidents of tickling) but simultaneously ruled against the testimony of 20 victims whose abuse must have been much worse if it really paid them $10mln each?
– And where on the LA Superior Court official site is there the ruling of the judge who took so horrible a decision that made it impossible to hear all this damning prosecution evidence at the 2005 trial? Can we have the date of the ruling and a direct link to it, please?
We as researchers of false allegations against Michael Jackson know the true worth of all these “20 victims” stories (it is zero), but all others should have these questions asked and answered or otherwise the fooling and cheating process will never end. The public wants to know and we should be the first to demand the answers!
HEARING ON “APRIL 7”
Another thing which would be necessary to clarify is why the Mirror and everybody else referred to a hearing at the LA Superior Court on Tuesday April 7, however the official page for the respective case does not list the date.
The only April hearing indicated there is April 10, so it is absolutely unclear what April 7th hearing the Mirror had in mind when they made their story and whether it was meant to take place at all.
Whatever the case APP (the Australian Associated Press news agency) has already obtained information that the above ‘hearing’ brought about a new delay in the case.
Now the Estate will have to wait until May when the judge is going to look into the reply of Robson/Safechuck legal team to the Motion for Summary Judgment made by the Estate sometime at the end of March.
Note on SUMMARY JUDGMENT:
- It is a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to judgment as a Matter of Law.
- Any party may move for summary judgment; it is not uncommon for both parties to seek it.
- A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when the outcome is obvious.
- A party may also move for summary judgment in order to demonstrate to the judge, via sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material factual issues remaining to be tried. If there is nothing for the factfinder to decide, then the moving party asks rhetorically, why have a trial?
The APP news agency presents the delay as if it were Robson and Safechuck who would “have to” wait now, while in reality the postponement is needed by their lawyers who want more time to get themselves ready to oppose the Estate’s Motion for Summary Judgment:
Aussie’s Michael Jackson case delayed
PETER MITCHELL AAP
APRIL 08, 2015 4:01AM
AUSTRALIAN dance choreographer Wade Robson will have to wait a few more months to find out if he can pursue a slice of alleged sexual abuser Michael Jackson’s $US1.5 billion ($A2.0 billion) estate.
LEGAL teams for Robson, another alleged Jackson victim, James Safechuck, and the late King of Pop’s estate were scheduled to appear before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff on Tuesday.
However, the court date was pushed back to May.
Robson and Safechuck missed a statutory deadline when they filed their claims more than a year after Jackson’s 2009 death and Judge Beckloff will rule if their cases can proceed.
Robson, 32, and Safechuck, 36, both allege Jackson abused them when they were children.
A lawyer for Jackson’s estate, Howard Weitzman, has labelled Robson’s delayed allegations as “outrageous and pathetic”.
In addition to Radar Online and several media outlets which in August 2014 published Robson’s court documents and claimed that his lawsuit was worth $1.62 billion, the one and a half billion demand was also reported by Examiner.com which as it turns out is property of no other than Philip Anschutz-owned AEG (it was acquired by the company in early 2014).
I hope you will agree that Philip Anschutz must value his reputation too much to let his media report some unverified news and sums, and this makes the $1.62 billion wanted by Robson all the more credible to us:
Michael Jackson rape and molestation case: Wade Robson seeks $1.62 billion
From the vehement denials of Wade Robson’s supporters that “it’s preposterous to even imagine that they would be claiming the entire worth of the estate” I get the impression that Robson’s lawyers realized that they had asked for too much and are now trying to sweep the original sums demanded by their claimants somewhat under the rug.
However I suggest we operate in exactly these very original sums – they were reported alongside the salacious details of the 111 pages of certain Robson documentation seen by the same “sources”, so we either have to believe all or none of it.
The APP source explains to us that $1.6 US billion dollars is roughly equivalent to $2 billion Australian dollars. In Australian dollars the sum is much easier to remember, so now none of us will forget that each of the guys wants a billion of Australian dollars – which incidentally amounts to everything the Estate has.
WHAT THE ESTATE SAYS
In reply to the Stacy-Brown-and-Mirror story spreading in the media like a pandemia of flu the Estate made the following statement:
We have received a number of inquiries from the community regarding the most recent Stacy Brown story. As many of you are aware, the Estate generally prefers not to legitimatize the lies and rumors spread in the media or expand the coverage by other media of those stories. However, the Estate has asked that we share with you the following statement that was issued by Howard Weitzman, attorney for the Estate of Michael Jackson, in a response to a request for comment yesterday:
“We are aware of recent false “reports” regarding Michael Jackson having, among other things, paid over $200 million to 20 “victims.” There is not a shred of evidence to support these ludicrous “reports.” It is unfortunate that, even in death, Michael cannot be free of these types of allegations, but we are confident that the truth will prevail in the end, just as it did in 2005 when a jury fully exonerated him.”
The Estate is steadfast in its defense of Michael in courts and that will not change regardless of what lies and rumors are spread by journalists with their own agendas.
WHAT THE COUSIN SAYS
As a final touch to the above news let me also recall that in October 2013 James Safechuck’s unsuspecting cousin Tony shared with the Twitter audience the following tweet:
“my cuz/I were 2 of the kids that used 2 hang out with him! Great person, it’s all bullshit, no settlement happened”
After introducing some grammar into the above sentence it would read as follows:
“My cousin and I were two of the kids that used to hang out with him! Great person, it’s all bullshit, no settlement happened.”
I think all of us should remember this remarkable evidence from Tony Safechuck. Its main beauty is its spontaneity as no one asked Tony Safechuck to express his views on the subject and he wrote it as a spontaneous reaction to Robson’s allegations. Mind you, all spontaneous statements are extremely valued in the investigation of sex abuse cases, whether they are in favour of the accused or against him.
And the next valuable point about Tony Safechuck’s tweet is its date – it is October 16, 2013. This was the time when James Safechuck was only thinking of joining Robson’s lawsuit, and the tweet makes it clear that at that moment Jimmy’s cousin Tony was still unaware of his bullshit, sorry, plans.
James Safechuck disclosed his plans in May 2014 (this date is also easy to remember as it was several days prior to releasing the Xscape album) and ever since then Tony Safechuck has been keeping mum about the way he and Jimmy hang out together with Michael Jackson, and what a Great person he was, and that all of it was ‘bullshit’, and that no settlements ever happened.
Of course, if Tony Safechuck is summoned to court he will have to explain his little tweet but while he is keeping silence we can reflect on the power of money and what it does to some people – especially if the sum at stake is a billion Australian dollars.