fShare
30

Today – May 31st 2017– is the latest demurrer hearing for Safechuck. (3rd in civil case and 5th overall if you consider the probate claim). With Jane Doe unexpectedly dismissing her case, all eyes are now on Safechuck. (Previous post about demurrer can be found here)

Unlike Jane Doe, Safechuck is still fighting to survive demurrer. However each new argument by Safechuck and his lawyers get more desperate than the last. In this post I will focus on Estate’s reply in support of their demurrer and their brilliant job in highlighting the stupidity of Safechuck’s claims. If you take the time to read the document, you will realize that this case has reached a dead end and now Safechuck and his lawyers are desperate trying to twist the law by making absurd arguments to survive another day.

Link to the document: https://www.scribd.com/document/349975885/Mj-Estate-Safechuck-Demurrer-Reply

The death knell of the case – Safechuck admits MJ Companies had no control over Michael’s access to children.

This is a previously known information and MJ Estate had demonstrated that Michael was the sole shareholder/owner of the MJ companies at all times. However Safechuck argues that it wasn’t needed for MJ Companies to have control over Michael. Estate presents a lengthy legal argument to disagree with this.

As Safechuck knows no company can control their sole shareholder/owner, he resorts to desperate arguments. He argues that it doesn’t matter if no one can hire or fire the president, they have the duty to supervise the president. The absurdity is that this argument requires Michael to supervise himself. In other words, according Safechuck Michael or anyone who “reasonably suspects they have criminal tendencies”, should not allow himself to work at his company, fire themselves and warn others about their criminal propensities. Try to imagine this actually happening in a real life to fully realize the absurdity.

Throwing shade at the newly made nonsense of “objective” and “subjective”

In his documents Safechuck claims despite “subjective” organization of MJ Companies, there is an “objective” duty to supervise the company president. Estate has quite the shade with their reply – we don’t know what subjective and objective means in this context but the companies were objectively organized per law and Michael was objectively president.

safechuckobjective

Desperation shows and obvious lies

In his latest document, Safechuck claims he was an employee of the MJ Companies “at all relevant times”. His previous more detailed and specific claims claimed his employment was at 1994-1995 – after any alleged abuse ended.

Criminal background check on Michael in 1992

Safechuck argues that he was under the custody & control of MJ Companies. Estate had previously disagreed with this argument as almost at all times Safechuck’s parents were present. Anyway, this time around Safechuck extensively relies on a newly decided case. The interesting thing in that case was the court found that a sports organization for children should have run criminal background checks on the coaches.

For a moment even if we assume this also applied to MJ Companies back in the day, it still would mean nothing. Safechuck claims to be abused between 1988 and 1992. So if Michael Jackson the sole shareholder and owner of the MJ Companies decided to run a criminal background check on himself before he hired himself at his own company (yes that’s their illogic) or even at 1992 , the background check would reveal nothing.

Negligent hiring, supervision and retention claims should all fail.

Regardless of the why companies were established or whether they can control Michael or not, all the negligent hiring, supervision and retention claims should fail. The simple reason is Michael and Safechuck’s contact did not arise from any employment relationship between Michael and Companies or Safechuck and Companies. Safechuck’s employment claims is dated 1994/1995- after any abuse. However as everyone knows Safechuck’s friendship with Michael developed outside any involvement of the MJ Companies. So he cannot really claim his alleged abuse would be any different if the MJ Companies did not exist.

Beckloff is known to take a few weeks before he rules so most likely we will have to wait to hear his decision. Let’s hope this will be the end of Safechuck case as well.