Recently you might have seen two Radar Online articles reporting the recent developments in Robson v. MJ Estate case. You might also have realized the extremely biased headlines and questionable choice of words in those articles. This post is going to cover the recent developments as well as the biased reporting about those developments.
Do you wonder what is going on in Robson v. MJ Estate civil case? They are having a dispute about interrogatories and request for admissions (RFAs). California Civil Code of procedure says a party can serve 35 interrogatories and 35 RFAs. Robson has served 143 interrogatories and 93 RFAs. If you do the math that’s more than 4 times the allowed interrogatories and more than 2.5 times the allowed RFAs. Estate wants to answer 35 interrogatories and 35 RFAs – as the law requires them to do. Robson lawyers on the other hand want them to answer it all. There have been discussions among the parties and they have agreed that Estate will answer 35+8 (43) interrogatories instead of the original 143 sent. However they cannot agree about RFAs. Robson lawyers want all 93 where as Estate lawyers want it to limit it to the first 35 RFAs. In order to send more than 35 RFAs, lawyers need to justify the need for the extra items. Estate argues Robson side wasn’t able to justify why they sent so many questions while Robson lawyers disagree with that. Motions have been filed about it, a hearing is set for November 6th and the judge will rule about this dispute sometime soon.
UPDATE: October 1 2014 Hearing Transcript : https://www.scribd.com/doc/244181549/Robson-Oct-1-2014-Hearing-Transcript
Link to previous July 2014 case updates: http://www.dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/276-robson-v-estate-case-updates
Civil case updates
Estate had filed two demurrers (dismissal request stating there’s no legal basis for a lawsuit) and parties are getting ready for the demurrer hearing. Most current documents (added September 24th) are Estate’s replies to Robson’s opposition to Estate’s demurrer requests. As I prepare this post court system isn’t showing Robson’s opposition documents (I’ll update this post if they become available) therefore this post is done based on what the Estate reply documents state about Robson’s opposition and their reply.
Hearing for these two demurrers is set for October 1st.
Doe1 (MJ) Demurrer
Estate had filed a demurrer to dismiss MJ as Doe 1 defendant on the civil case simply arguing Doe1 / MJ is deceased and no court has jurisdiction to have a case or have power to enter judgment against him.
After 2 years we have some new information about MJ Estate vs Tohme lawsuits.
As you might remember Tohme filed a complaint against MJ Estate asking for fees he’s owed. These were 10% from Neverland refinancing, 10% from any future transaction about Neverland, 15% of income from services he provided (plus interest when applicable). Details of Tohme’s complaint can be found here: http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/estate-v-tohme/100-tohme-complaint-against-mj-estate
Estate had also filed a complaint against Tohme asking for accounting all actions and transactions done by Tohme, return of any money and property (of Michael) Tohme has and cancellation of the three agreements Michael had with Tohme. Details of Estate’s complaint can be found here: http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/estate-v-tohme/99-estate-complaint-against-tohme
Tohme and Michael had 3 agreements:
It's the Estate's request for a demmurrer of Safechuck's case. It does not contain Safechuck's lawsuit, but it does refer to some elements of it so we can learn from it:
- Safechuck alleges MJ molested him between 1988 and 1991.
- Safechuck admits he learnt about MJ's death shortly after he died and he was aware of his Estate. (No "I had no idea
about the administration of the Estate" claim here as in Robson's claims.)
- He learnt about Robson's allegations shortly after May 1, 2013.
- Safechuck's lawyer, Maryann Marzano (same as Robson's lawyer) said in their lawsuit that she's been working on Safechuck's case 8 months before they filed in May, 2014. Which would mean she's been working on it since September, 2013.
- He claims he did not testify in 2005 because he was concerned his mother would find out he was sexually abused by MJ. He
claims regardless ultimately he told his mother in 2005 that MJ was a "bad man" and that he "had been abused by MJ".
- He claims he did not initially connect various anxiety issues he suffered to the alleged abuse until mid-2013.
- He claims he became concerned about having pedophilic urges when his son was born and that he was prescribed Xanax during his wife's pregnancy in 2010.
- He claims he did not link these anxiety issues to his alleged abuse until he saw Robson in 2013 and went into therapy on May 20, 2013, discussing the alleged abuse.