Skip to content

MJ Estate Answer to Robson’s Civil Complaint

October 24, 2015

Funny, but the constant need to look into some legal cases brought against Michael Jackson during his lifetime and even after his death has turned us into diligent students who have to continuously study the procedural rules for criminal and civil cases under the US law.

As part of this self-education program here is the MJ Estate’s preliminary answer to Robson’s civil complaint. The answer is short and impressive, and is actually the first document that concerns Robson’s claim proper, as all motions prior to that focused solely on determining whether his civil claim was legally valid at all. 

As you know the probate claims filed by Robson and Safechuck were dismissed as they didn’t meet even the basic requirements set by the law, however Robson’s civil complaint was allowed by the judge to go further. Now it has entered a discovery stage and the next target in view is the summary judgment the motion for which may come from either of the sides.

Legal dictionary says that summary judgment is:

  • a procedural device used during civil litigaiton to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. 

The motion for a summary judgment may be supported by declarations made under oath, excerpts from depositions under oath and all other discovery (evidence) that would be admissible at trial under the Rules of Evidence:

  • Unlike with pretrial motions to dismiss, information such as affidavits, interrogatories, depositions, and admissions may be considered on a motion for summary judgment. Any evidence that would be admissible at trial under the rules of evidence may support a motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment in the United States applies only in civil cases. If the civil case survives the summary judgment it is only then that it goes to a trial.

Given the absurdity of Robson’s story I am surprised that his case has gone past the initial stage at all. However legal sources explain that

  • “at the early stages of litigation the court must view the facts set forth in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff”

and this is apparently why judge didn’t dismiss the case from the start of it. And now that it took Robson three amended versions to finally state his complaint, the Estate are giving their answer to it.

The document is retyped for easier handling and the original is embedded at the end of this post.

Filed on October 9, 2015 

Defendants MJJ Productions, Inc.’s and MJJ Ventures, Inc’s

answer to the third amended complaint of Wade Robson

Action filed: May 10, 2013

Defendants MJJ Productions, Inc., and MJJ Ventures, Inc., (“the Corporate Defendants”) hereby answer the Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Wade Robson as follows: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL DENIAL

This case has no merit in fact or law. Wade Robson’s allegations are directly contrary to his sworn testimony in a 2005 criminal trial where Michael Jackson was vindicated of all wrongdoing by a unanimous jury of twelve. Robson was twenty-three-years-old when he testified in 2005. He was subjected to vigorous and repeated cross-examination by a very zealous prosecutor handling the case, but Robson’s testimony never wavered.

In his complaint for money damages, Robson does not claim that he made a mistake when he testified in 2005 or that he suffered from a “repressed memory”. Rather, Robson simply claims that he chose to lie to a criminal jury in 2005. Yet, a decade later, and almost four years after Michael Jackson’s tragic death, Robson changed his story knowing that Michael Jackson is no longer here to defend himself. Robson recanted his testimony in a criminal trial for the sole and express purpose of taking money from Michael Jackson’s heirs and beneficiaries. After all, Robson’s complaint does not and cannot seek anything other than money.

There is no just or equitable way for a Court in this State to allow Robson to recover here – either he is perjuring himself today in an effort to obtain money, or he perjured himself and obstructed justice in a criminal proceeding a decade ago. There is no middle ground between those two positions – a recovery here would make a mockery of California’s system of justice.

All of the above being said, the Corporate Defendants are one hundred percent confident that Robson did tell the truth in 2005, when his sole motivation was to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Accordingly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), the Corporate Defendants generally and specifically deny each of the allegations contained in the Third Amended Complaint, generally and specifically deny that Robson has sustained any injury or loss by reason of any act or omission of the Corporate Defendants, and generally and specifically deny that Robson has been damaged in any amount whatsoever.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to state a course of action)

1. The Third Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the Corporate Defendants because, among other things, the Third Amended Complaint does not explain what duty the Corporate Defendants supposedly owed to wade Robson and how that duty was supposedly breached.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statutes of Limitations)

2. Robson’s claims are barred entirely by applicable statutes of limitations. Specifically, and without limitation, Robson cannot prove that his claims are within the scope of the expanded statue of limitations of Code of Civil Procedue section 340.1.

THIRD AFFIFMATIVE DEFENSE

(Violation of Due Process and Other Constitutional Principles of Fundamental Fairness)

3. Under the specific and unique circumstances of this case, any recovery by Robson would violate the Corporate Defendants’ right under the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions and by other principles of fundamental fairness, embodied in those charter documents. In particular, and by way of example only, Robson waited almost four years after Michael Jackson had died before he made his scurrilous and frivolous allegations. The nature of these false allegations necessarily makes it impossible for the Corporate Defendants to fully defend themselves without the assistance of Michael Jackson himself. The impossibility of fully and completely defending against Robson’s false allegations is further magnified by the fact that Robson himself steadfastly denied these allegations during the entirety of Michael Jackson’s life. Indeed, Robson and his family denied the allegations under oath on multiple occasions, including in a 2005 criminal trial where Michael Jackson was frivolously accused of misconduct and then exonerated by a unanimous jury of twelve. Accordingly, the Corporate Defendants could not possibility have been on notice, prior to Michael Jackson’s death, that Robson would bring claims like those here and that they should have been prepared to defend against such claims.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unclean Hands, Bad Faith, and Inequitable Conduct)

4. As a result of Robson’s own affirmative claims that he perjured himself and obstructed justice in prior judicial proceedings, and other inequitable conduct by him and his associates, all claims in the Third Amended Complaint are barred in whole or in part by unclean hands, bad faith and inequitable conduct.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Causation)

5. Robson cannot show that any acts or omissions of the Corporate Defendants caused him any damages. In particular, and by way of example only, when Michael Jackson was frivolously accused of wrongdoing in 1993 and investigated by authorities regarding such wrongdoing, both Robson and Robson’s family, including his mother Joy Robson, publicly and prominently defended Michael Jackson and rejected the allegations of wrongdoing out of hand, including false allegations that Michael Jackson had engaged in wrongdoing with Wade Robson himself. Given that Joy Robson necessarily knew more than the Corporate Defendants about the relationship between Wade Robson and Michael Jackson, and given that Joy Robson did not take any steps to “protect” Robson (because no such steps were necessary), Wade Robson cannot possibly prove his absurd allegations that the Corporate Defendants’ supposed failure to take “reasonable steps” to prevent the alleged abuse is what caused him damage.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to File a Creditor’s Claim and Code of Civil Procedure #366.2)

6. Wade Robson already petitioned to file a claim against the Estate of Michael Jackson, based on these exact same false allegations. The Court dismissed that petition with prejudice on May 26, 2015, and held that Robson could file no such claim against the Estate as a matter of law (as set out in the Court’s May 26, 2015 ruling dismissed Robson’s petition against the Estate), which clearly precludes Robson from recovering based on his false allegations.

7. In light of the above, and given the specific allegation of the Third Amended Complain and prior complaints, this action against the Corporate Defendants is truly an action based on the alleged personal liability of Michael Jackson himself, and not an action based on any alleged “corporate” conduct of the Corporate Defendants. This is a disguised action for money damages against the Estate of Michael J. Jackson, deceased (the Corporate Defendants are a substantial part of the rest of the Estate of Michael J. Jackson, deceased, under administration of the Superior Court, Case No. BP 117321), and is precluded for all the same reasons that the prior petition to file a claim against the Estate of Michael J. Jackson, deceased, was precluded as a matter of law.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Waiver)

8. As a result of Robson’s knowledge, conduct, words and actions, Robson has waived any and all of the alleged rights asserted in the Third Amended Complaint and in each and every claim therein.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Join Indispensable Parties)

9. Robson’s claims are barred because he has failed to join indispensable parties who are responsible for his alleged harm.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Latches)

10. Robson’s claims are barred entirely by the doctrine of laches.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

( Estoppel)

11.Robson’s claims are barred entirely by the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Lack of Damages)

12. Robson’s claims in the Third Amended Complaint are barred in whole or in part, because Robson suffered neither damages nor injury; any damages or injuries alleged are attributable to causes other than any asserted acts or omissions of the Corporate Defendants.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Speculative Damages)

13. Robson cannot recover any of the damages alleged in the Third Amended Complaint because such damages, if any, are too speculative to be recoverable.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel)

14. This action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Reservation of Rights)

15. The Corporate Defendants have insufficient information upon which to form a belief as to whether it has additional, unstated affirmative defenses. The Corporate Defendants reserve the right to assert additional defenses in the event they are appropriate.

WHEREFORE, the Corporate Defendants respectfully pray for judgment against Wade Robson as follows:

  1. That Wade Robson take nothing by way of his Complaint and that judgment be rendered in favor of the Corporate Defendants and against Wade Robson;
  2. For costs of suit incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees due to the frivolous nature of the case and
  3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: October 9, 2015                                            

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 

On every single cause of action and issue so triable, the Corporate Defendants demand a trial by a jury of their peers.

DATED: October 9, 2015                                              

KINSELLA WEITSMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT LLP

By: …… (signature)…………

Howard Weitzman

Jonathan P. Steinsapir

Attorneys for Defendants MJJ Productions, Inc., and MJJ Ventures, Inc.  

~

The response is a powerful one and doesn’t even need any comment.

The points that make me happiest are that Estate are one hundred per cent confident that Robson was telling the truth at the 2005 trial, when truth (and not money) was his sole motivation, and that now they demand a trial by jury and do not even consider a possibility of reaching a settlement with the liar.

The only suggestion I would make is that the Estate include Victor Gutierrez into the list of people to be deposed. In his book he claims that in June 1992 he had a long discussion with Joy Robson and shared with her his most horrible innuendoes about Michael, but she didn’t seem to care. And if she didn’t care why should the MJJ companies do, especially since they knew that there was not a grain of truth in those innuendoes?

View this document on Scribd
33 Comments leave one →
  1. sanemjfan permalink
    July 17, 2016 2:02 pm

    Helena, yesterday 3T tweeted an email from Wade Robson asking for he and his family to attend MJ’s memorial service on July 7th, 2009. I’m assuming he must have forgotten about it until now, or maybe he couldn’t find it until now, but either way this is the first time he has publicly acknowledged this email. Better late than never! Here are his tweets:

    Like

  2. June 19, 2016 1:56 pm

    I was shocked to be reminded that WR was 23 yo in 2005. The estate should go on to an
    offensive stance claiming costant harassment.They should look into the possibilöity of re-suing VG as his book is a goldmine for all who wilfully smear MJ.

    Like

  3. nemoran permalink
    June 18, 2016 2:00 pm

    “You can compare all these versions yourself (or wait until I make a post about it which I am planning to do).”

    Geez I read about her in the Chandler’s book, Dimond’s book and Gutierrez’s book. She is also mentioned in the King of Pop’s darkest hour as giving an interview to hard copy.
    She was all over the place. You should definitely write a post about her as Robson’s BS about what Norma Staikos said is based on Murdoch’s alleged comments of course after she was fired, sued the company and only after the Chandlers accused MJ.
    It’s ridiculous that Robson’s star witnesses are Blanca Francia and Murdoch when he is accusing the companies of negligence.
    If he had been abused Francia and Murdoch would have been the most negligent (after his own mother and sister) as both says that they either saw or heard things which made them believe MJ was abusing kids.
    But of course Robson couldn’t get any money from Francia or Murdoch so instead of accusing them he is using them to bolster his case against the companies. Hypocrisy at its very best…or worst.

    Like

  4. November 14, 2015 1:07 pm

    “I actually never read anything she said. What did she say and where and to whom and when?” – nemoran

    The summary of her statement is provided in the 1108 motion (like all the rest of them). A different version of Orietta Murdock’s story was published in Diane Dimond’s book. Still one more came from Gutierrez. You can compare all these versions yourself (or wait until I make a post about it which I am planning to do).

    Like

  5. nemoran permalink
    November 14, 2015 7:18 am

    “Orietta Murdoch was an outrage – even a perfunctory look showed that she said one lie on top of another without bothering about the credibility of her stories.”

    I actually never read anything she said.
    What did she say and where and to whom and when?

    Like

  6. November 5, 2015 5:09 pm

    “What I find most interesting is that the only one that is writing about it is Ivy from Daily Michael. The Trolls of Wade Robson and their counterparts in the tabloids must have been shocked silent.” – lynande51

    Lynande51, I am actually also a bit surprised. However it always seemed to me that AEG tried to distance itself from the horrible things done to Michael by their Randy Phillips. And their attorneys always tried to present their case against Katherine Jackson as something they were “forced to do” – like “if she hadn’t started it we would have been Michael Jackson’s best friends”. And this was most probably the main reason for their absolutely vicious campaign against Katherine in which they tried to turn against her not only the public but the majority of fans too.

    However no one in this world is 100% evil. All come in different variations of Devil and God in each of us. Each human being is the battlefield between the two and it surely depends on a person himself who will win.

    Like

  7. November 5, 2015 4:44 pm

    “But how can something VG wrote or said be considered evidence?” – Nemoran

    This question should have been addressed to Sneddon, and not to me. But I suppose that the question is rhethorical and doesn’t require an answer, correct?

    If there is no police interview or sworn testimony where Norma Staikos herself said I told him/her not to leave his/her kids alone with MJ then why would a judge even consider such a claim. Doesn’t Robson have to prove that Staikos indeed said that?

    Even if Robson has Orietta Murdock’s statement on the above, we can see how much credit Sneddon himself was giving to her statements if he withdrew Orietta Murdock from the list of witnesses HIMSELF (see my first post about Stacy Brown’s lies and its point about a “very special notice” filed by Sneddon, please: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/stacy-browns-lies-about-20-victims-and-200-million-allegedly-paid-by-michael-jackson/

    It is an absolute must for us to go through all motions connected with those “prior bad acts” and when you see the whole picture a lot will become much clearer. And only then we look into each of those personalities. Orietta Murdoch was an outrage – even a perfunctory look showed that she said one lie on top of another without bothering about the credibility of her stories. Her lies are full of contradictions, so I am not surprised that Sneddon withdrew her from the witness list – she could have ruined the case even further.

    “Any tabloid hack or court proven liar like VG can be considered credible so someone can be sued based on what they say and write?”

    Another question which doesn’t require an answer, but – yes, I am afraid so. We are living in times when anyone can say anything and this will be considered the truth. The times of sheer disaster.

    Like

  8. November 5, 2015 4:29 pm

    “Wasn´t VG sentenced to pay 2.7 m$ to MJ. I know this coward flew to South America and declared bankruptcy, but can the Estate still demand the money from him?” – appleh

    Appleh, a good idea. I don’t know whether it is possible, but that would serve Gutierrez right. Someone should ask the Estate about it.

    Like

  9. D.Koutris permalink
    November 3, 2015 6:52 am

    I am a strong believer that we pay for our sins here in this life and if not us directly it will be someone that we love dearly.I have great faith that God and life has his mysterious ways of getting back to those people.W.R he has a family and one day his son gonna read and see all the tributes that his father did for M.j till i think 2012 and how he put his hand on the bible and defend Michael only because he wanted to say the trough,and than his father change his story for money and he went and hurt tree innocent children that they just lost their father. As much as i know that nothing will come out money ways for him i feel for all the children involved.Last night i was watching M.J tap dancing when he was very young i could believed what a talent it’s mind blowing.This man he was a rare creature no one can touch him.In all those talent shows they all looking for something different something unique we had him and we lost him and we never see another talent and human like him he was the epitome of what a man sould be hurt but no hate even his haters.

    Like

  10. November 2, 2015 7:11 pm

    I can’t wait until they blow a hole through Wade’s “claim”

    Like

  11. November 2, 2015 7:10 pm

    In reply to Victoria J.
    1. How rude are you!
    2. Obviously, she/ he can’t go make people follow them. You obviously clicked follow. Just simply hit unfollow

    Like

  12. appleh permalink
    November 1, 2015 9:08 am

    “But most of all I would want liars like Stacy Brown, Gutierrez, Dimond be made responsible for their lies. I cannot believe it that they keep doing it and no one is able to stop them.”

    Wasn´t VG sentenced to pay 2.7 m$ to MJ. I know this coward flew to South America and declared bankrupty, but can the Estate still demand the money from him ?

    Like

  13. Dess permalink
    November 1, 2015 4:58 am

    There will always be people who hate other people and they say and do terrible things to hurt their target and when they succeed (and now that Michael has gone we are the target)they are happy.That’s how these people get pleasure by making others suffer.If these people din’t exist the world will be a so much of a better place.We have to ignore them they don’t deserved a tear from nobody.Lets save our tears for Michael and for that giant of love that we lost.There is so much so much love out there for this special human being from rich people poor people lawyers,doctors, presidents,young,old,black, white all religious you named.I love him more than my self but i do handle everything so much better because of him.I think Michael learn to live with the haters but he could not live with betrayal and lies people who were around him for his money and his fame.If the haters use their head then they would not make comments like that Michael Jackson he became famous when he was still a black man why should he change his color if there was no problem? for more fame?you can not go any higher than Michael.

    Like

  14. zee permalink
    October 31, 2015 5:57 pm

    If someone were to ask me how I feel abt mj haters, I would say I feel extremely sad for them becos hating Michael means you don’t see his true and beautiful nature and not seeing that means not being inspired by him and that also means that you miss out in a beautiful plan. Most of this hatred is motivated by mostly jealousy or racism. Some are so thoughtless that they don’t seek facts in whatever they read, they just hear anything and start judging from there without even thinking of the basic things. One even said that michael injected splotches into his system, that he didn’t have vitiligo. Most say the most disgusting things and leave you wondering if they are not the least bit disgusted by their words..just goes to show you how twisted and dirty this people are. Most times I just sit back and think of the kind of humiliation he had to endure thru out his life and then I just start crying, becos its seriously too much for one person to handle,yet he smiled thru it all just like his fav song ‘smile’
    It even really surprises me how people can be capable of hate. These people think they have the right to dissect his life and make it to be watever they want forgetting that he was only human. Michael was beautiful in every way, both inside and outside. Those who search for lies find it and those who search for the truth get it. Wise people don’t believe all they read, they search for sense in everything.

    Like

  15. lynande51 permalink
    October 28, 2015 12:03 pm

    Norma already answered those questions in front of the grand jury in 1994.I’m sure that the Estate attorney’s still have those.

    Like

  16. nemoran permalink
    October 28, 2015 11:04 am

    @Helena

    “As to Gutierrez, we know that Sneddon took information from him from a newspaper report which said that the whole of Sneddon’s office read Gutierrez’s book. And how much of Gutierrez’s lies Sneddon incorporated into his “summaries” only God knows. Probably most of it.”

    But how can something VG wrote or said be considered evidence?
    If there is no police interview or sworn testimony where Norma Staikos herself said I told him/her not to leave his/her kids alone with MJ then why would a judge even consider such a claim

    Doesn’t Robson have to prove that Staikos indeed said that?
    Or that Robson’s mother was indeed told not to sleep in the main house?

    Doesn’t Robson have to name his sources?
    Don’t those sources have to have credibility?

    Any tabloid hack or court proven liar like VG can be considered credible so someone can be sued based on what they say and write?

    Like

  17. D.Koutris permalink
    October 28, 2015 4:35 am

    Tom Mesereau said it it was a big mistake the settlement the first time and he offer his help if the estate ask for it.Can you believe this family?The way they supported Michael all the years that he was alive and even after is death. And they set down the two families and had dinner or lunch i don’t know in 2008 in Lass Vegas. And what about all the tributes to Michael from WR after his death.Which every way you look at it they are liars.But for some strange reason i feel that his mother and sister are upset with him.Can you imaging tree of them in court?He better stop dreaming about the money that hes gonna get before its too late than is gonna have a real nervous break down.

    Like

  18. lynande51 permalink
    October 27, 2015 11:30 pm

    Oh and the conversation that Norma didn’t have where she didn’t say what he said she did was supposedly to Orietta Murdoch

    Like

  19. lynande51 permalink
    October 27, 2015 11:21 pm

    The statements that are attributed to Norma Staikos were originally written in the Gutierrez book so we know it was actually him that said it and not Norma.
    Here is a video on You Tube of different things from 1994. Close to the end of the video is a clip of Norma going in to testify in front of the grand Jury being chased all the way by none other than Diane Dimond asking that same idiotic question. So Norma did testify in front of the Grand Jury.

    Like

  20. lynande51 permalink
    October 27, 2015 9:55 pm

    When the allegations first came out and Wade Robson went on the Today show I really believe that he and his “associates” thought that it was over, that they would get money to go away.
    They got that idea because someone thought that Weitzman and Branca would be in favor of a settlement. They thought that because someone thought it was important that Weitzman’s signature was on the Chandler document so they erroneously believed that he would settle. They are now finding out just how wrong they were.
    I don’t think the Estate will settle for anything less than what they said. They want him to have nothing, pay the legal fees and compensate them for their losses and time consumed on this nonsense.
    What I find most interesting is that the only one that is writing about it is Ivy from Daily Michael. The Trolls of Wade Robson and their counterparts in the tabloids must have been shocked silent.
    It surprises me that they have not been rejoicing since they have always said that they want Wade to have his day in court. Well he will. It just won’t be the one that they thought it would be.

    Like

  21. October 27, 2015 4:59 pm

    “WR´s case is weak. He should really be afraid of a trial.” – katrina22

    Robson’s case is sheer lunacy. Whichever way you look at him he is a liar all right. And any normal person will say that it is impossible for a 22 year man not to know that “rape” he alleges is sexual abuse. And he is claiming it now without batting an eye-lid!

    But the more I think about it the more I realize that a mere dismissal of this case at a pre-trial state will be half a solution only. The media will make it look like the case was dismissed due to a technicality, and will continue writing their crazy stories, for example, about hundreds of millions paid out as “hush money” to dozens of alleged “victims” – no, hundreds – no, thousands of them!

    And there will be no end to it, because there is no end to lies – lies are endless in principle.

    And though all of us would most probably prefer not to hear any more of these dirty stories in court, it looks like it would be much better if the trial did take place and all the people who make their living out of smearing Michael were summoned and made to answer for what they are doing to him.

    But most of all I would want liars like Stacy Brown, Gutierrez, Dimond be made responsible for their lies. I cannot believe it that they keep doing it and no one is able to stop them.

    “is he counting on AEG´s helping hand?”

    Robson and Safechuck have not only AEG behind their backs but the whole crowd of those who were utterly humiliated by Michael’s victory at the 2005 trial. All organizers of Michael’s lifelong witch-hunt and its participants (except Sneddon) are still there and are still the key players in this mad circus.

    Like

  22. October 27, 2015 4:05 pm

    “But did Sneddon get that stuff from actual depostions/ police interviews/ grand jury testimonies or simply from VG and Andersen?”-nemoran

    Nemoran, if we read Sneddon’s original 1108 motion attentively we will see that nowhere does he say that his claims about alleged victims are based on anyone’s depositions. All he says is that he is seeking admission of evidence that “seven alleged victims were abused” and that “this motion is based on the accompanying summaries of the anticipated testimonies” of third parties. No word about depositions and statements from any alleged “victims” themselves – because there were none.

    No victims and no statements, only third parties claiming things about them.

    The only one statement came from Jason Francia. Over here it is important to note that a couple of weeks after the motion the defense said that they had not yet received any discovery concerning this witness.

    This tells us that Jason Francia was not deposed. If he had been deposed it would have been done in the presence of the defense and they would have had the transcript of it. But they didn’t, and were still waiting for the prosecution to share their “discovery” with them.

    The same with the others – Sneddon had only their interviews with the police. Because if there had been depositions of Ralph Chacon or Adrian McManus, for example, Thomas Mesereau would have had their transcripts and would have referred to them when he was cross-examining these people. But he didn’t.

    The only depositions both parties referred to were the depositions taken during the 1993 case. And those were made available to the defense as the discovery rules require it. I even made a post about the discovery rules and Sneddon’s manipulation with them: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/did-sneddon-really-want-to-introduce-michael-jacksons-photos-at-the-2005-trial/

    As to Gutierrez, we know that Sneddon took information from him from a newspaper report which said that the whole of Sneddon’s office read Gutierrez’s book. And how much of Gutierrez’s lies Sneddon incorporated into his “summaries” only God knows. Probably most of it.

    Like

  23. nemoran permalink
    October 27, 2015 8:47 am

    @Helena

    “Most of those innuendoes were summarized in Sneddon’s 1108 motion. Some come from Gutierrez and Andersen. ”

    But did Sneddon get that stuff from actual depostions/ police interviews/ grand jury testimonies or simply from VG and Andersen?
    The Quindoys were never deposed but they were interviewed by the police in the Phillipines, right?

    Like

  24. October 26, 2015 2:58 pm

    WR´s case is weak. He should really be afraid of a trial. The Estate lawyers arguments are strong. WR should be afraid of a trial, if so will he be .liable for the costs of defence legal costs?. And can he be countersued? Certainly he must have thought of these possibilities
    Or is he counting on AEG´s helping hand?

    Like

  25. October 26, 2015 11:18 am

    “Do we know the sources of those claims Robson used for “reason to know”?” – nemoran

    Nemoran, I’ve seen all those stories before and in open sources too. Most of those innuendoes were summarized in Sneddon’s 1108 motion. Some come from Gutierrez and Andersen. In any case when I read Robson’s and Safechuck’s complaints I found a source for each of them, so it’s nothing “exclusive” – just the same old stuff from MJ’s haters.

    Jolie Levine was the first I chose to speak about in this connection. The subject will hopefully be continued. At the moment I am at a different computer so cannot say which “quote” comes from where.

    Like

  26. nemoran permalink
    October 26, 2015 9:39 am

    @Helena

    Do we know the sources of those claims Robson used for “reason to know”?
    Like the one where Norma supposedly told someone don’t leave your kid alone with MJ.
    Where did those claims came from?

    I’ve never seen them before. And given how much trash they threw at MJ sure we should have heard those claims.
    Not even Sneddon or Dimond ever claimed that Mj’s companies were somehow involved in a cover-up.

    Like

  27. October 26, 2015 4:37 am

    “This accusation,could have only been made, for public consumption and media exposure, tabloid hits to smear MJ and his family in the wrongful death case, imo. This would look ludicrous in court. This will get shot down by the judge because it is nonsensical, and the tabloid hacks he is working with, will leave it as though, he attempted to fight this in court and lost. The real mission was completed by Robson.”- nannoris

    I absolutely agree. The real mission was smearing Michael and it was completed the moment he broke his story in the media (at the beginning of the AEG trial by the way).
    Now even if the judge tosses it out, the public will still speculate. This is what slander is all about as it never really washes off. Probably the most effective way to neutralize it would be Robson’s public admission that he lied and preferably with an explanation why he did it and who sponsored the project.
    I’m dreaming of a time when “Hi, we know it’s a lie but why did you tell it?” would be the question he is haunted with wherever he goes.

    “I would like the public to see , who is funding this , where the bills are going, just like the estate said they would too. And I would hope in some way, Robson is made to pay the estates legal fees, even if it is tossed out before trial.”

    Right! If they find where the bills are going (really going) it would the end of this case – only it must be so complex a scheme that it won’t be easy to unravel it.

    Like

  28. nannorris permalink
    October 25, 2015 5:49 pm

    I think that when you look at what Robson has said , he , his lawyers and the rest of his family, doesnt and never has thought , they have to defend this in court., nevermind in front of a jury.
    This accusation,could have only been made, for public consumption and media exposure, tabloid hits to smear MJ and his family in the wrongful death case , imo.
    This would look ludicrous in court .
    This will get shot down by the judge because it is nonsensical, and the tabloid hacks he is working with , will leave it as though, he attempted to fight this in court and lost.

    The real mission was completed by Robson, in my opinion, after he ran to the TODAY show, passed Go, as they say in MONOPOLY game ,and ran to Hawaii to cash his check..and maybe a little more with tabloid story money ,hoping for , possible settlement money due to negative press, with all those big endorsement deals the estate had. , which thankfully he will never get
    After all, he wouldnt be the first person to take money for lies when it comes to MJ..
    It isnt a new concept.

    When ,some might consider ,huge sums of money are involved , they seem to leave their integrity at the door.
    Whatever he got, it wasnt enough, if his family is selling MJ stuff for a few thousand dollars here and there.
    .

    After his very weak appearance on the TODAY show , it has been left to lawyers , whoever is paying for them and tabloids to present to the public , during the wrongful death suit, and after
    I just wonder which group went looking for who , first .
    Robson to AEG?
    AEG, possible to Robson?
    Which group involved the tabloids .
    .I dont have first hand knowledge , but it looks very suspicious to me.

    I am glad the estate lawyers are being so blunt with this suit , .., but I hope that some of this discovery comes out when the judge does his summary.
    I would like the public to see , who is funding this , where the bills are going, just like the estate said they would too. And I would hope in some way , Robson is made to pay the estates legal fees, even if it is tossed out before trial.

    Like

  29. October 25, 2015 3:43 pm

    “Please DELETE me from receiving this BS anymore. Don’t care about any of it” – Victoria J

    Don’t know what you are talking about, but if you signed up to receive the posts you can easily sign off too. In any case neither of these jobs can be done by the admins – we have no access to it.

    Like

  30. October 25, 2015 3:24 pm

    “Will the Estate compare Robson’s lawsuit to his, his mother and his sister’s testimony and argue like you did that Robsons wasn’t even in Neverland between Feb 5 Feb 10 1990 how could he be abused there then? It’s not just that he denied being abused. It’s that what he claims now is simply impossible. If they told the truth then Robson is lying now.”- nemoran

    Nemoran, I hope very much that the Estate lawyers are taking their job seriously and are also doing their research. And comparing the testimonies of the three Robsons at that trial is obviously the first thing to do. And if these attorneys are worth anything at all they will see the discrepancies. So I hope very much that they will raise it with the judge.

    Here is a reminder of some posts:
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/wade-robsons-fake-story-of-home-alone-at-neverland/
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/the-missing-bed-in-wade-robsons-stories/

    Like

  31. October 25, 2015 11:36 am

    The Estate hit WR hard and WR has to pay their costs.That is good news.

    Like

  32. nemoran permalink
    October 25, 2015 11:31 am

    Will the Estate compare Robson’s lawsuit to his, his mother and his sister’s testimony and argue like you did that Robsons wasn’t even in Neverland between Feb 5 Feb 10 1990 how could he be abused there then?

    It’s not just that he denied being abused. It’s that what he claims now is simply impossible if his sister and mother told the truth in court in 2005, and Robson claims that they did believe MJ was innocent so they didn’t have any reason to lie under oath!
    If they told the truth then Robson is lying now.

    If the Estate does not make this argument to the judge then fuck them.

    Like

  33. Victoria J permalink
    October 25, 2015 9:04 am

    Please DELETE me from receiving this BS anymore. Don’t care about any of it❗️❗️

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: