As you might know Robson has two cases against MJ Estate, one of them is a creditor’s claim filed at probate court and second one is a civil case. Below is brief information about both cases.

Probate case:  Robson is asking to be allowed to file a late creditor claim (9103 motion). Estate opposed to it. Estate says if late filing of creditor claim is granted, they would likely deny the creditor’s claim and Robson said if that’s the case he would add Executors as Doe 4 and Doe 5 in his civil case.

Civil case: Civil case has been initially brought against Doe defendants. In his second amended complaint Robson named Doe 2 and Doe 3 as MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures. Doe 1 is for MJ. Estate filed a demurrer in the civil case. Judge decided to keep Doe1 as a placeholder for the time being pending the outcome of the probate claim. Judge granted the demurrer request of the corporate defendants but gave Robson the chance to amend his complaint.

(Legal explanation: Judge sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. Sustain a demurrer means law does not recognize a legal claim for the facts stated by the complaining party. Leave to amend means the plaintiff may correct errors filing a corrected, amended complaint.).

Robson served his third amended complaint on December 16, 2014. However the online system does not show this document. Estate and Robson agreed to several extensions and Estate’s response to the third amended complaint was due March 10, 2015. Luckily this document is available at the online system.

Read more ...

 {socialbuttons}

In the last few months there have been few hearings and few developments in Robson/ Safechuck cases against MJ. I have been reading both MJ fan comments as well as Robson/Safechuck supporters’ comments on forums, blogs, Facebook and Twitter. Based on comments from both sides, I decided to do a post of explaining some basic information about legal process for these claims.

I have seen MJ fans disappointment and Robson/Safechuck supporters happiness that the judge did not express skepticism about Robson/Safechuck claims.  However both parties are missing the point that is not how the law works. Judges are supposed to be impartial and reside over a case making sure that the law is followed. So Judges aren’t supposed to side with either party and it’s not their job to decide guilt/ innocence/ liability. That is the job of a jury.

Furthermore as it was mentioned multiple times in documents and hearings, the judge is required to accept everything Robson/Safechuck alleges as true. So that explains why the Judge won’t be expressing any skepticism about the claims. However this in any way isn’t a proof of veracity of the allegations.  

Here judge is mentioning the pleading rules and how he is required to treat everything Robson/Safechuck alleges as true.

Read more ...

{socialbuttons}

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

Document link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/241210020/Robson-Estate-Reply-Doe-1-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.

Read more ...

{socialbuttons}

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.

Read more ...

{socialbuttons}

document here : https://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/jackson2901-signed.pdf

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.

Read more ...