Michael Jackson's accusers file suit against his company

[Cicada 5]

A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal has breathed new life into the child molestation cases brought by “Leaving Neverland” subjects Wade Robson and James Safechuck against Michael Jackson’s corporation. The plaintiffs allege that MJJ Productions Inc. staff were complicit and aided Jackson in grooming, sexual abuse and cover-up.

A tentative ruling, issued Monday, says the men have a legal case that can be tried, with allegations that both were molested by Jackson after the pop megastar befriended them when they were children and then groomed and sexually abused each for several years, until they reached puberty.

Michael Jackson's accusers could finally get their day in court against company they say was complicit

Under a tentative ruling, Michael Jackson corporations would go to trial over molestation allegations by Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who claim employees were "co-conspirators and collaborators."

www.latimes.com

 

[CM156]

I've been on-again-off-again following this case for quite a while now because of the interesting legal issues it raises.

 

[Trunkage]

I've been on-again-off-again following this case for quite a while now because of the interesting legal issues it raises.

Without trying to make you do work, and sorry if this does, what do you mean?

I have shut my eyes to anything MJ related since I get yelled and screamed at by fans who disagree with my take

 

[CM156]

Without trying to make you do work, and sorry if this does, what do you mean?

One area of law I'm interested in (that doesn't apply to my day to day stuff) is the statute of limitations. When something falls outside the SoL but a new law changes it, that's something I want to pay attention to.

I have shut my eyes to anything MJ related since I get yelled and screamed at by fans who disagree with my take

What's your take? I promise no yelling.

 

[Gordon_4]

One area of law I'm interested in (that doesn't apply to my day to day stuff) is the statute of limitations. When something falls outside the SoL but a new law changes it, that's something I want to pay attention to.



What's your take? I promise no yelling.

Well since he mentioned fans yelling at him, I presume his take was that Jackson was as guilty as sin and paid shitloads of hush money.

 

[Baffle]

Well since he mentioned fans yelling at him, I presume his take was that Jackson was as guilty as sin and paid shitloads of hush money.

I think anything negative at all gets you piled on with those crazy kids; on this one it's about a million people insisting you watch a YouTube video that proves his innocence (I have not watched the video).

 

[Trunkage]

One area of law I'm interested in (that doesn't apply to my day to day stuff) is the statute of limitations. When something falls outside the SoL but a new law changes it, that's something I want to pay attention to.

Did they 'extend' it due to covid like they have with other cases

What's your take? I promise no yelling.

Well, I think there is enough evidence that they slept in the bed together and by the sounds of things multiple times. That doesn't mean that anything happen but I don't approve of Ghandi doing the same thing either. And there was money and gifts given to parents and children

So, it's still grooming with the possibility of pedophilia. I'm wary of any adult stranger paying children to play with them. I'm even more wary of celebrities abusing their resources for their own benefit. See also the current controversy with Colleen Ballinger

 

[CM156]

Did they 'extend' it due to covid like they have with other cases

From what I understand, this was unrelated to covid.

Well, I think there is enough evidence that they slept in the bed together and by the sounds of things multiple times. That doesn't mean that anything happen but I don't approve of Ghandi doing the same thing either. And there was money and gifts given to parents and children

Yeah, I agree that's pretty sus.

 

[Trunkage]

From what I understand, this was unrelated to covid.

well, that is interesting. Any good video explainers?

Yeah, I agree that's pretty sus.

Well, that's the problem isnt it? It's sus but no further real proof. Unfortunately, without any video evidence, it'll end like a lot these types of cases. In nothing, unless the perpetrator confesses. And its a bit late for that