As reported in the previous update, Judge ruled on first Safechuck demurrer on August 2016. Judge granted Estate’s demurrer request but also gave Safechuck the chance to amend his complaint.

The new lawyers that represent Robson, Safechuck and Jane Doe amended both Robson and Safechuck complaints adding claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent supervision, negligent retention/hiring, negligent failure to warn, train or educate and breach of fiduciary duty.

Very quickly Estate filed a second demurrer to Safechuck’s amended complaint. Below you will find a short summary. You can read the scanned document here :

Estate argues that Safechuck failed to list valid causes of action in his complaint. Even from the start Estate points to the obvious - how Safechuck (plus Robson and Jane Doe of course) tries to make this all about the MJ Companies to keep their lawsuits alive. safchuckdemurrer1

Read more ...

The last time I reported on the Robson case, Robson changed lawyers and wanted to amend his complaint. Judge Beckloff allowed Robson to amend his complaint for the 4th time. This restarted the whole process of initial reply, demurrer and so on. (Previous updates here and here).

On November 14th, 2016 Estate filed their initial reply to the newly amended Robson complaint. It can be found at this link :

The initial answer document is a short document that includes the preliminary statement and general denial of the claims. In 2015, Estate had filed a similar initial reply to the previous complaint (Link)

When you compare the 2015 Answer document (for 3rd complaint) to the 2016 Answer document (for 4th complaint), you will see several similarities. But the interesting thing is the Estate’s change in the words they are using and how stronger they get. It seems that just like the fans, the Estate is getting tired with this absurd never ending cycle of Robson’s case.

First, the Estate start their answer by calling Robson’s accusations “meritless sham” - both the old answer and the new answer mention Robson’s testimony in 2005 and how Robson recanted his testimony now for the sole purpose of getting money from the MJ Estate – which would mean taking money away from Michael’s kids. This time the Estate calls the 2005 trial as meritless as well.

Read more ...

Another day, another complaint, another press release, another media rounds. This results in another installment of picking apart a radio interview of Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe lawyers. Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe lawyers are regulars of this show. The hosts of this show are known to be negative towards Michael as they have done blast shows against him back in 2005. This time Finaldi came to discuss the recent complaint filed by Jane Doe.

Like I did last time I invited MichaelJacksonAllegations and a friend to help me with commentary. (You can read our previous blog post by clicking here). The audio was posted on the radio show website on October 27th.

Note: There were two male hosts on the show. I didn’t try to differentiate between them.

Hosts: Often we have attorneys from the law firm Manly, Stewart and Finaldi. Finaldi is coming on now. They filed a lawsuit. In Los Angeles county superior court they have filed a lawsuit on behalf of a woman that they are calling Jane AA Doe. Supposedly a child sexual abuse victim of Michael Jackson. A girl. She was victimized when she was 12 years old and this began in 1986. This continued until she turned 15 and reached puberty. She also claims that there were cash payments were made to her. Let’s get Vince and talk about this case. A little bit of startler, it’s a female. A girl.

Finaldi: Good afternoon how you guys are doing

Hosts: Fine. First time I heard Michael Jackson molesting a girl.

Finaldi : Well you never know what you are going to hear if you live around long enough. But considering his behaviors that we know he had engaged in, it’s not surprising to me. It is important to understand that the sexual behaviors of pedophiles are different from the blueprint of sexually normal individuals. So it’s not surprising in the context of who he actually was.

Commentary: Allow me to fix that statement: If you push long enough and dangle promise of enough money, anyone can make accusations even though how unbelievable it might be.

Read more ...

Several weeks ago we examined a LA based talk radio legal show that Robson/Safechuck/Doe lawyer Vince Finaldi was on. Soon after we published our blog post, I was alerted to another radio interview that Finaldi took part in. This interview actually took place on September 15, 2016 but it went unnoticed. While MichaelJacksonAllegations and a friend were helping me to dissect this interview, Jane Doe filed her complaint. So we focused on that unexpected development first, putting this interview on the backburner. Now we are finally ready to publish another commentary.

In this interview Finaldi is discussing Robson’s amended complaint.

Read more ...

On October 1st Robson and Safechuck’s new lawyer was on a radio show, talking about the amended complaint at Robson case and the below exchange happened with the interviewer. (You can read the full interview and our commentary at this blog post).

Alan Gurvey: Don’t people suspect that under those circumstances there is a pay off when people testify? I know with my cases there is a lot of interest whether one side or the other, I always question the interest. I won’t have a witness testify because I know they are not going to be honest because of one reason or another.

Vince Finaldi: You know what I can say number one is, hang tight and watch the press in about 2 - 3 weeks. That’s all I’m going to say about that.

4 weeks later on October 25th, they delivered on their threat. There was a woman this time. She was claiming to be abused as a child and she also claimed she was paid money to keep silent. She had letters and checks from Michael to prove her claims. TMZ reported it first. As usual the law firm did a press release with the complaint file and exhibits attached. The lawyers did several media interviews as well.

While a female accuser was an unexpected twist, these lawyers attempt to fish for more so called victims didn’t surprise us much. In July when Robson first hired these lawyers, one of the very first thing they did was to send Estate a letter (and of course did a press release with the letter attached to alert the media). In that letter they referred to media – actually let me correct myself – tabloid stories about multiple accusers and settlements and asked Estate to publicly release the names of the “little boys” that alleged abuse and the settlement monies paid. They did this even though the same question was asked and answered during past discovery and it have shown that the only accusers and/or settlements were already publicly known (Chandler, Francia and Arvizo). Completely ignoring the discovery, these lawyers started their fishing as well as trying the case in media from day one.

Read more ...