Torchde Team | June 30, 2023
The child molestation lawsuits for accusers Wade Robson and James Safechuck against Michael Jackson’s corporations may be revived by the California Court of Appeal. According to a 35-page tentative ruling, the men have a legal case that can be tried in civil court. Instead of keeping their cases separate, their cases will be combined when it goes to trial. This action, if finalized, could further expose the Michael Jackson accusers’ case for what it really is – a money grab. Is the ruling unfair or is it a case of the appellate courts doing their duty?
Many feel that the new ruling is unfair considering how the lawsuits have been dismissed several times since 2013. Not to mention, Michael Jackson is now deceased and when alive was thoroughly investigated and “vindicated in a court of law in 2005.” Anyone who has looked into this case knows how many lies, inconsistencies, and errors the accusers have presented. Nevertheless, to ensure a fair trial and proper application of the law, it’s the appellate courts’ responsibility to review the procedures and decisions of the trial court. The appellate court doesn’t examine the case as a whole, or the false statements of witnesses but they highlight the actions and rulings of the judge. If there is one ruling that’s inaccurate or doesn’t apply by law, the whole judgment is dismissed.
In 2021, the overall summary judgment was that Judge Young did not find the companies to be negligent because the two men had no connections to MJJ Productions or MJJ Ventures and there was no evidence proving otherwise. The Michael Jackson accusers had also failed to prove a “special relationship” where the defendant would be liable. In lamen terms – they couldn’t even get their stories straight regarding their relationships with Jackson or his companies. Judge Young’s adjudication summary reads: “Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, on the negligence causes of action because Defendants did not owe Robson a legal duty.” and “Defendants contend that the undisputed evidence demonstrates that the Corporations had no ability to control the behavior of Michael Jackson, and as a result, there is no special relationship.” These lines apparently raised an issue with the appellate court because by law – companies ARE RESPONSIBLE and have a duty to protect children from sexual abuse.
The tentative ruling states that “a corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from a duty to protect them merely because the person abusing the children solely owns the company.” So despite Safechuck’s and Robson’s failure to prove that the companies were negligent, the duties listed in the judgment were still legally inaccurate and might be reversed.
It’s possible that the appeal status wouldn’t be where it is now had the official argument been what the evidence always showed. The companies had no reason to control Jackson because abuse did not happen. The Michael Jackson accusers have no thread of credibility.