THREAD: Estate's Renewed Demurrer Motion in Safechuck's Case
This week, MJ's team has filed the anticipated demurrer motion in Safechuck's case, refreshing claims that the prior judge & appellate never ruled on.
A tentative in-person hearing on this demurer will be Oct 16 2020.
The estate argues JS' claims are fatally defective—"No amendment can cure these defects."
1. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 2. Negligence 3. Negligent Supervision 4. Negligent Retention/Hiring 5. Negligent Failure to Train, Warn, Educate 6. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
The estate summarizes how James never bothered appealing the original dismissal against the estate.
Instead, James (like Wade) shifted their financially motivated claims by "artfully attempting to recharacterize the alleged misconduct as 'negligence' of the two corporations."
The estate contends that James' allegations are "rife with easily proven falsehoods" and refers to the claims as "legal fiction" but acknowledges that the Court, in deciding the demurrer, has to treat the pleadings as if undisputed to determine the legal substance of the causes.
The estate rightfully points out how the companies cannot be directly liable for any alleged molestation.
Therefore, Wade/James (after Finaldi took over) withdrew the molestation claims in favor of "failure to protect" as a way to shoe-in a hopeful payout from the companies.
The estate explains that the negligence causes all fail because no facts establish the corporations had duty to protect, given existing legal precedent, why they befriended MJ, and especially when the alleged conduct had nothing to do with the corporations (solely owned by MJ).
Another argument from Safechuck (and one attempted by Finaldi in almost every failed depo) is that the companies were supposed to be "mandatory reporters."
Safechuck provided no supporting facts that the corporations or staff were child care custodians or directly supervised MJ.
Continuing, the estate argues that the "negligent supervision & negligent hiring" is also without merit.
The corporations obviously "did not hire, retain, or supervise MJ—their owner, president, sole shareholder, and sole reason for existence."
Another preposterous claim by JS.
Regarding "Negligent Failure to Train, Warn, or Educate," the estate again explains that it lacks any legal basis or foundation, even using Finaldi's own filings to sell the point.
The companies were established to conduct MJ's music business, not to train or educate families.
Another claim is for "Intentional Infliction of emotional distress." (Finaldi originally hinted at removing this when he removed the molestation claims.)
James fails to support any of this, especially how the companies supposedly conducted "extreme & outrageous conduct."
Finally, the estate contends that Safechuck has no grounds to allege that the corporations now being sued were his fiduciaries.
Even stretching it to an "employer" relationship would fall flat, since James has no evidence of any employment in 1988-1992 with MJ or his companies.
In the footnotes the estate includes:
- Reference to James' 2nd amended complaint where negligent supervision was dismissed. JS admits in 3rd complaint the corporations were "incapable of supervising" him.
- Why Pamela L. v. Farmer is misplaced—very different circumstances.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From the original 11-page handwritten memo of Jordan's allegations, sold to the media in '93.
"Jordan stated he & Evan met with MJ & attorneys, and confronted him with ALLEGATIONS in AN EFFORT TO MAKE A SETTLEMENT and AVOID A COURT HEARING."
They never wanted court of any kind.
This is the same meeting detailed in Ray/Evan's book, where they outright admit to demanding $20M and how, had MJ just paid Evan it, he could've remained unscathed.
Instead, MJ staunchly refused any such demand including Evan's subsequent $1M pleading he sought later that month.
On August 5, 1993 following the failed meeting:
"I would like you to continue to negotiate...if those negotiations are not successful then as your client I am instructing you to file a complaint against MJ"
(By that, Evan meant filing a CIVIL case against MJ to allege such 💰.)
In Wade's suit he depicts himself as a superstar on an unmatched trajectory to fame & fortune if not for the realization of "abuse" in his 30s.
"It is not a question of whether Robson would have [continued to be] successful."
But he was already in major career decline by then.
By 2009, Wade openly admitted that he and his wife were depleting all of their time and money attempting to write failed short films and screenplays. Including the one filmed at NL.
"I spend most of my time saying no to jobs, probably to my own demise."
In 2010, a student spent time with Wade and Amanda to interview them for a paper and oral narrative.
At that point Wade said he was already far removed from the entertainment industry and for years had been out of that career's spotlight, allegedly to avoid Hollywood burnout.
"Plaintiffs’ new counsel, John Carpenter, has a problem: no matter which way one cuts it, his clients are inveterate liars... Carpenter has taken to a new tack, to poison the jury pool by making numerous false and misleading statements to the press."
In illustrating Carpenter's media rounds, she quotes his Daily Mail interview that the biopic "is normalizing very dangerous behavior—sure it will be used by padophiles."
Which is particularly ostensive, considering LN promoted extremely pro-pedophilia normalization throughout.
From Carpenter's TMZ interview, he suggested that the defense had access to "incriminating evidence" that they were not handing over.
Keller notes: "No such evidence was provided to Mr. Mesereau. No such evidence existed, and all responsive documents were already produced."
Keller puts into writing what should had been obvious to everyone since 1993:
"The photos...were the result of a court-ordered search based on a false statement in what became a discredited criminal investigation."
The body search ruined state's case—evidenced by the following:
36 days elapsed from the body search on Dec. 20, 1993 until the time of the civil settlement on Jan. 25, 1994.
At no point in those 36 days did either DA (Garcetti/Sneddon) present the pics/affidavits/Jordan's recorded interview/officer testimony to the court as cause to arrest.
Larry Feldman and Lauren Weis stated that Jordan remained cooperative with investigators until July 6.
By then, a full 198 days (6.5 months) elapsed without ever proffering the pictorial evidence in court as suspicion of a crime, or as reasonable justification to charge MJ.
Once again TMZ distorts reality in it's guilt promo over the defense's motion to quash what is now the 3rd attempt since 2013 for the men to get MJ's body pics.
Back in 2013 LAPD itself had already declined the subpoena requests indicating they are exempt from public disclosure.
Yes, the defense also filed a motion to quash these subpoenas as part of their own in-depth justifications as to why the request should be court-denied. Just as they did back in 2017-2018.
A hearing has been reserved for June 6 at 8:30 to discuss this motion with the judge.
Defense argues the subpoenas are invalid as:
A) Identical to previous ones quashed in 2018.
B) Unreasonable, oppressive, fundamental privacy rights.
C) Improper circumvention of Chandler protective order.
D) Never served consumer notices about affecter personal information.
Several noteworthy observations from Mesereau's "Complex Civil Case Questionnaire" filed this week.
The filing is to argue that these consolidated cases (Wade/James) have "all the hallmarks of a complex case," which is what Judge Whitaker suggested in the Feb. 28 status hearing.
Tom estimates 65-75 witnesses for the consolidated civil trial.
By comparison, the 2005 criminal trial saw 144 witnesses from Feb. 28 to June. 3.
The estimate relates to the abuse timespans, complex causes alleged, 30-35+ year gap in making the claims, LN participation & more.
At the case management conference on Feb. 28, the judge left open the possibility of designating the case complex, but could potentially still oversee the case throughout all pretrial motions.
Mesereau seeks in this filing to determine the court's preference of the two options.