Several weeks ago we examined a LA based talk radio legal show that Robson/Safechuck/Doe lawyer Vince Finaldi was on. Soon after we published our blog post, I was alerted to another radio interview that Finaldi took part in. This interview actually took place on September 15, 2016 but it went unnoticed. While MichaelJacksonAllegations and a friend were helping me to dissect this interview, Jane Doe filed her complaint. So we focused on that unexpected development first, putting this interview on the backburner. Now we are finally ready to publish another commentary.

In this interview Finaldi is discussing Robson’s amended complaint.

Read more ...

Another day, another complaint, another press release, another media rounds. This results in another installment of picking apart a radio interview of Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe lawyers. Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe lawyers are regulars of this show. The hosts of this show are known to be negative towards Michael as they have done blast shows against him back in 2005. This time Finaldi came to discuss the recent complaint filed by Jane Doe.

Like I did last time I invited MichaelJacksonAllegations and a friend to help me with commentary. (You can read our previous blog post by clicking here). The audio was posted on the radio show website on October 27th.

Note: There were two male hosts on the show. I didn’t try to differentiate between them.

Hosts: Often we have attorneys from the law firm Manly, Stewart and Finaldi. Finaldi is coming on now. They filed a lawsuit. In Los Angeles county superior court they have filed a lawsuit on behalf of a woman that they are calling Jane AA Doe. Supposedly a child sexual abuse victim of Michael Jackson. A girl. She was victimized when she was 12 years old and this began in 1986. This continued until she turned 15 and reached puberty. She also claims that there were cash payments were made to her. Let’s get Vince and talk about this case. A little bit of startler, it’s a female. A girl.

Finaldi: Good afternoon how you guys are doing

Hosts: Fine. First time I heard Michael Jackson molesting a girl.

Finaldi : Well you never know what you are going to hear if you live around long enough. But considering his behaviors that we know he had engaged in, it’s not surprising to me. It is important to understand that the sexual behaviors of pedophiles are different from the blueprint of sexually normal individuals. So it’s not surprising in the context of who he actually was.

Commentary: Allow me to fix that statement: If you push long enough and dangle promise of enough money, anyone can make accusations even though how unbelievable it might be.

Read more ...

Robson/ Safechuck lawyers continue their attempt to try these cases in the media. Over the weekend Vince Finaldi took part in a legal radio show at a local LA talk radio station. Robson case was one of the topics discussed at the show. I prepared a transcript of the radio show. This way no fan will need to go to the radio website to listen to the show. Keep in mind that I type the transcript as I listen so it’s not perfect.

In addition to providing the transcript, I also wanted to add some commentary about the statements at the radio show. Therefore I invited MichaelJacksonAllegations and a friend to help me with that. So here we start.

Alan Gurvey: We want to welcome now Vince Finaldi with Manly, Stewart and Finaldi. He is been in the news recently because of a few clients he represents. Importantly he represents two gymnasts who are alleging sexual abuse by a former USA gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar. He also represents Wade Robson. Wade Robson is or was celebrity choreographer worked with Nysnc and Britney Spears. He is alleging that Michael Jackson operated a sophisticated child sexual abuse ring. What’s interesting is that next week we are having Tom Mesereau on the show. Tom actually defended and won the case with Michael Jackson in 2005. I talked to Tom last week on the phone. He was telling me Wade Robson was his key witness and one of the reasons why Jackson was acquitted of charges. First Vince Finaldi welcome to Gurvey’s Law.

Vince Finaldi: Thanks for having me guys.

Alan Gurvey: It is great to have you. Let me ask you, just follow up on that. Let’s talk about Wade Robson first and the Michael Jackson situation and then we’ll talk about Larry Nassar. So give us a little background. I don’t know if you dispute it or not. But the record seems to suggest that back in 2005 Wade Robson did not say anything that would harm Michael Jackson. In fact he was the first witness that really helped him. How did things change now fast forward to 2016?

Read more ...

On October 1st Robson and Safechuck’s new lawyer was on a radio show, talking about the amended complaint at Robson case and the below exchange happened with the interviewer. (You can read the full interview and our commentary at this blog post).

Alan Gurvey: Don’t people suspect that under those circumstances there is a pay off when people testify? I know with my cases there is a lot of interest whether one side or the other, I always question the interest. I won’t have a witness testify because I know they are not going to be honest because of one reason or another.

Vince Finaldi: You know what I can say number one is, hang tight and watch the press in about 2 - 3 weeks. That’s all I’m going to say about that.

4 weeks later on October 25th, they delivered on their threat. There was a woman this time. She was claiming to be abused as a child and she also claimed she was paid money to keep silent. She had letters and checks from Michael to prove her claims. TMZ reported it first. As usual the law firm did a press release with the complaint file and exhibits attached. The lawyers did several media interviews as well.

While a female accuser was an unexpected twist, these lawyers attempt to fish for more so called victims didn’t surprise us much. In July when Robson first hired these lawyers, one of the very first thing they did was to send Estate a letter (and of course did a press release with the letter attached to alert the media). In that letter they referred to media – actually let me correct myself – tabloid stories about multiple accusers and settlements and asked Estate to publicly release the names of the “little boys” that alleged abuse and the settlement monies paid. They did this even though the same question was asked and answered during past discovery and it have shown that the only accusers and/or settlements were already publicly known (Chandler, Francia and Arvizo). Completely ignoring the discovery, these lawyers started their fishing as well as trying the case in media from day one.

Read more ...

Estate's Opposition to Robson's request to amend his complaint: https://www.scribd.com/document/326200053/Estate-Opposition-to-Robson-4th-Amendment-Complaint

First allow me to provide a brief history of Robson’s civil case against MJ Companies to better explain the developments in this case.

Robson filed his original complaint against Doe defendants on May 2013 with only one cause of action of childhood sexual abuse. On February 2014, Robson amended his complaint to name the Doe defendants as MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures (aka MJ Companies). Estate filed a demurrer on June 2014 and a demurrer hearing was held on October 2014. During that demurrer Estate argued that corporations cannot engage in childhood sexual abuse. Judge granted Estate’s demurrer but gave Robson a chance to amend his complaint.

December 2014, Robson filed his third amended complaint, this time alleging several causes of actions against the MJ Companies including a negligence claim. On March 2015, Estate filed a second demurrer and the hearing for the second demurrer was on July 2015. This time judge denied Estate’s demurrer saying that it requires a factual determination in a proceeding beyond demurrer.

In a demurrer the Judge needs to accept everything alleged in the complaint as true and only determines if there is a legal basis for the lawsuit. Defendants cannot bring counter evidence about the claims in the complaint, they can only argue legal aspects. Therefore in his demurrer ruling, Judge was saying he needs more information to decide and that could only happen after discovery when both sides present their evidence, witnesses etc. That information would allow the Judge to determine if these claims have any merit at all and if it can satisfy the exception conditions. So the dismissal issue will get revisited at summary judgment.

Read more ...