fShare
36

The last time we reported on Safechuck case, judge had granted Estate’s second demurrer but have given Safechuck 15 days to amend his complaint. (Link) Not surprisingly Safechuck amended his complaint. At that time Jane Doe’s case was recently filed and had to go through a review by the judge. After that happened Jane Doe named MJ Companies as defendants and amended her complaint to copy the latest Safechuck complaint. So this prompted another set of demurrers for both of these cases. Estate have filed the demurrers on April 3rd and a hearing is set for May 31st.

Although this will be first demurrer for Jane Doe, it would be the 3rd civil case demurrer for Safechuck (and 5th demurrer overall for Safechuck if you add the probate claim). We have been reporting on those demurrers for quite a while so we won’t do another summary post as the main arguments stay the same. Rather we will simply point out the new and interesting developments. You can find the demurrer motion documents below:

MJ Estate First Demurrer to Jane Doe - https://www.scribd.com/document/345086855/MJ-Estate-First-Demurrer-to-Jane-Doe

MJ Estate Third Demurrer to Safechuck - https://www.scribd.com/document/345086946/MJ-Estate-Third-Demurrer-to-Safechuck

MJ Estate reserve the right to challenge Jane Doe using a pseudonym

MJ Estate questions if Jane Doe was right to use a pseudonym when she filed her lawsuit. Both Robson and Safechuck were able to file lawsuits under their own names. Given how public and accessible Robson is on social media, it is safe to assume he isn’t receiving any serious backlash from MJ fans. If the most visible and well-known Robson doesn’t need to go into hiding, it is curious why Jane Doe needed to file her lawsuit anonymously. MJ Estate is reserving their right to challenge this.

A little note: Due to a slip up by Robson/Safechuck and Doe lawyers, we here at Daily Michael have some idea about Jane Doe’s identity. However we weren’t able to independently confirm or deny our suspicions. Therefore we won’t be disclosing any unconfirmed suspicions we have.

Jane Doe refuses to dismiss MJJ Ventures from her complaint.

Jane Doe claimed that her abuse started in 1986 and continued until 1989. In her copy/paste complaint she included both MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures as defendants. However the MJJ Ventures didn’t exist until 1991.  So it makes no sense to make claims against a company that didn’t even exist at the time of the alleged abuse.

Safechuck and Doe now alleges that MJ Companies were created in part to “provide for welfare and the safety of the minor children”.

If you are keeping track over the last few months, these lawyers keep changing their claims about the MJ Companies. First the companies were loan out corporations established to act as Michael’s primary business entity. Then they had “youth programs” that Michael served as a mentor to train minors in entertainment industry. Later they claimed the companies were “most sophisticated child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization”. Now the latest claim is that they were created in part to “provide for welfare and the safety of the minor children”. Their desperation and willingness to make blatantly untrue claims have no bounds. What’s next? Will they claim the MJ Companies were child day care centers and Michael worked there as a nanny? Totally absurd.

Safechuck and Doe alleges that the unnamed board of directors and officers of MJ Companies had authority on Michael.

Another blatantly untrue claim. In their opposition to Robson amending his complaint, MJ Estate provided information about the history of MJ Companies. MJJ Productions were incorporated in 1979 and MJJ Ventures were incorporated in 1991. Michael was appointed as the sole director of the companies at their incorporation. Michael had 100% of stock in both companies at all times. In June 1994, as the sole shareholder Michael expanded the size of Board of Directors for both companies from one to four. He appointed John Branca, Sandy Gallin and Marshall Gelfand to the Board of Directors and they remained on Board of Directors until 1997.However the board of directors had no power over Michael. Michael as the 100% shareholder could have fired the board of directors at any time.

Even if we assume the board of directors had authority and control over Michael and could fire him, this doesn’t help Jane Doe or Safechuck. Jane Doe claims to be abused between 1986 and 1989. Safechuck claims to be abused between 1988 and 1992. At those time periods Michael was the sole director of the companies. He didn’t appoint Branca, Gallin and Gelfand as board of directors until June 1994. So it’s no surprise that Doe and Safechuck couldn’t name the non-existent board of directors.

Safechuck and Doe alleges that Norma Staikos and Jolie Levine’s primary responsibilities were “safety, welfare and well-being of all minor children” entrusted to MJ Companies.

One minute Staikos was like madame running the “most sophisticated child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization”, the next her duty was to protect children from Michael. It makes no sense. Also another fun fact; Jane Doe doesn’t even claim to meet or speak to Staikos or Levine. 

Tidbits

  • -   In a copy/paste fail, Jane Doe’s amended complaint claim MJ Companies placed Michael “in charge of young boys”. MJ Estate shades this mistake by saying “but not young girls like Ms. Doe apparently”.
  • -   MJ Estate also points out another copy/paste claims of Michael mentoring and training minors for the music and entertainment industry. There are no claims that Jane Doe was ever involved or mentored /trained in the entertainment industry.
  • -   MJ Estate mocks the “most sophisticated child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization” claims by providing a link to a UNICEF website and inviting the judge to read it to “learn about the nonfictional child sex trafficking rings”. All through out the documents they make subtle jabs to the fictional claims of Safechuck and Doe. 
  • -   In Robson’s case, the online case summary system show an opposition to “non-party deponents motion for protective order”. Jordan Chandler’s sister and girlfriend had filed a motion for protective order not to be deposed. It looks like Robson/Safechuck/Doe are still trying to depose the Chandlers. A hearing on this matter is set for July.