Although much is known about Robson’s claims and inconsistencies, a lot less is known about Safechuck. Even those who believe Jackson is innocent, say that Safechuck seems to be the most credible of the two. It is for that reason that it is important to learn more about Safechuck’s civil case and his specific allegations. In this video we will discuss the legal road that Safechuck took and why his case was eventually dismissed in 2017 and we will upload a separate video where we will look more closely at the actual allegations and the inconsistencies in his story. Both Robson’s and Safechuck’s cases have been going in circles for quite some time before they were finally thrown out. And even though they didn’t even survive the demurrer stage, it shows that Safechuck and his lawyers are willing to go to any length to keep their lawsuit alive in order to pressure the Estate into settling the case out of court. Safechuck, who hired the same lawyers as Robson, first filed a probate claim in 2014. Probate code requires any claim to be filed within 60 days of knowledge of administration of the Estate and the creditor’s actual knowledge of the existence of the facts giving rise to the existence of the claim. Robson provably perjured himself by claiming he didn’t know an administrative estate for Michael Jackson existed to get around the statute of limitations, but Safechuck openly admits he heard from news reports that John Branca would be managing Jackson’s business affairs. Given Safechuck didn’t file his probate claim until 2014, in no way he could not satisfy the 60 days rule of probate. <h4>START CIIVIL CASE, FIRST COMPLAINT & FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT</h4> In June 2015, the Judge reviewed filings and allowed the start of Safechuck’s civil case against Jackson’s companies MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures and his complaint was filed in July. In September the judge dismissed his probate claim against the Estate. Safechuck then amended his civil complaint in October of 2015. The specific abuse allegations are redacted. The complaint has a general “childhood sexual abuse” claim and briefly mentions “duty of care” as a legal argument. Safechuck and his lawyers claimed that Jackson “used his corporate entities to facilitate the wrongful conduct alleged in the complaint” and that “through MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures” Jackson coordinated and paid for Safechuck to train and learn about film making and employed Safechuck to act as wardrobe, body double and intern for Jackson’s videos”. <h4>FIRST DEMURRER</h4> In December of 2015, the Estate filed their demurrer against the complaint, claiming that Safechuck failed to allege any duty of care that Jackson’s companies had towards him. A demurrer is filed in the early stages of a court case and challenges the legal sufficiency of a cause of action in a complaint or of an affirmative defense in an answer. If a cause of action in a complaint does not state a cognizable claim (in other words the claim is nonsense) or if it does not state all the required elements, then the challenged cause of action or possibly the entire complaint can be thrown out at the demurrer stage as not legally sufficient. In very short, Safechuck alleged that Jackson abused him and the estate said ‘so what?’ It does not challenge the content of the actual allegations yet, that doesn’t happen until summary judgment, which is when the Estate would have presented counter evidence. In the first demurrer hearing in June 2016, the Judge made a note of how he approaches Robson’s and Safechuck’s cases differently. During the Robson demurrers the judge said he focused on the timing and statute of limitations. But with the Safechuck demurrers, even though timing was an issue as well, the Judge questioned why the Jackson companies would have had any kind of duty of care towards Safechuck because where Robson indeed had an employment relationship with Jackson companies during the alleged abuse, Safechuck did not. Safechuck’s then lawyers also argued that if someone had warned Safechuck’s parents about Jackson’s alleged abusive behavior, “they would have done what any parent would have done. They would have extracted their child out of the clutches of (and this is a direct quote) a known sexual abuser”. However we know that neither Safechuck’s parents nor Robson’s parents extracted their kids even after the 1993 Chandler allegations and the accompanying law enforcement investigation and interviews that came with it. A criminal inquiry into Jackson apparently wasn’t enough for them to cut their ties with him. So the argument that they would have picked up their kids and cut ties with Jackson if someone from the Jackson companies had warned them is implausible. <h4>RULING FIRST DEMURRER</h4> The Judge ruled on the demurrer in August of 2016 and agreed with the Estate, stating that Safechuck first needed to establish that Jackson’s companies indeed had a duty of care towards him and gave Safechuck 30 days to amend his complaint. <h4>SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT & SECOND DEMURRER</h4> Safechuck then switched to a new law firm along with Robson. The new lawyers amended both Robson’s and Safechuck’s complaints, adding claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, several negligence claims and breach of fiduciary duty. Shortly after, the Estate filed a second demurrer to Safechuck’s amended complaint. The Estate argued that Safechuck failed to list valid causes of action in his complaint and points out the obvious - how Safechuck tries to make this about the Jackson companies to keep his lawsuit alive. The Estate also points out how Safechuck’s complaint is filled with easily proven falsehoods. For example, Safechuck made allegations against MJJ Ventures with respect to his alleged abuse in the 1980’s, but MJJ Ventures didn’t even exist until 1991 and Safechuck wasn’t hired by Jackson until 1994, 2 years after the alleged abuse ended. Most of the legal arguments in the Estate’s demurrer motion were similar to the previous motions in the Safechuck case. For example negligent hiring, supervision and retention claims don’t make any sense. Jackson established the companies and Safechuck stated in his complaint that Jackson was the president, owner and 100% shareholder of said companies. So as a matter of law, these claims cannot be successful since “the companies” could not have had control over Jackson, but rather Jackson had full control over the companies. Also, the relationship between Jackson and Safechuck was a personal relationship, not a business relationship. The Jackson companies were irrelevant to how this relationship began and grew. As a result, the companies did not have a duty of care towards Safechuck. Overall, duty of care and mandated reporter claims apply to schools, churches, day care centers etc., but Jackson’s companies were none of those. Furthermore Safechuck’s parents were present for most of his interactions with Jackson and Safechuck was therefore under his parent’s care. During the second demurrer hearing in December of 2016, the lawyers admitted that the Safechuck and Robson complaints were drafted off a complaint they used in a clergy case, a complaint they used across California for years. When we read the amended complaints, they read like a copy/paste from a church or school case. Many of the arguments made no sense in regards to the Jackson situation. Estate lawyer Steinsapir points out that this boilerplate complaint doesn’t work in this situation. Priests have supervisors. Even the school presidents have supervisors such as superintendents or a board of trustees. Jackson, as the President, owner and 100% shareholder of his own companies, did not. The amended complaints of both Robson and Safechuck basically claim that Michael Jackson the employer should have supervised Michael Jackson the employee and that Michael Jackson the alleged abuser should have warned about Michael Jackson the alleged abuser. Needless to say that no secretary or personal assistant could have controlled Jackson, their employer. <h4>RULING SECOND DEMURRER</h4> At the end of January of 2017, Judge Beckloff ruled on the Estate’s demurrer to Safechuck’s second amended complaint. This is the first time that the judge evaluated the new claims by the new lawyers and Judge Beckloff’s questioned almost everything in the amended complaint. The Judge wasn’t buying any of it. The ruling showed that the Judge mainly focused on is the issue of control. According to the law, Safechuck was required to show that Jackson’s companies had control over Jackson and had prior knowledge of any wrongdoing. The Estate demonstrated that Michael was the 100% shareholder, owner and president of the companies and had full control over the companies’ activities. Safechuck admitted to this. The Judge pointed out that there were no claims in Safechuck’s complaint that someone controlled Jackson. The Judge stated that although some of the companies’ employees were mentioned, none of them were alleged to have control over Jackson. The judge also wasn’t convinced that Safechuck was placed into the custody of the Jackson Companies but states that according to Safechuck’s allegations, Jackson was inviting him to places and that would place Safechuck into Jackson’s care. The Judge pointed out that there were several times where Safechuck's parents were present as well, meaning he would have been in his parent’s custody. Furthermore the Judge stated that the companies arranging and paying for the trips didn’t mean that they owed Safechuck a duty of care or that Safechuck was in their custody. Safechuck’s attempts to portray Jackson’s companies as a school created nothing but confusion. The Judge commented that while some claims seemed to be geared towards a school or youth program, some weren’t. Judge Beckloff questioned if Safechuck was alleging that the Jackson companies were offering some sort of a youth program. If Jackson’s companies were, as Safechuck alleged, schools, that would not make them merely civically, but also criminally liable for any alleged molestation. So if Safechuck really believed that, then why didn't he file a criminal complaint? But as we all know, a criminal case can only bring you justice and no money. As for Safechuck’s allegations that MJ Companies were mandated reporters, Judge Beckloff flat out stated that nothing supported that claim. The Judge granted the Estate’s demurrer but gave Safechuck another chance to amend his complaint. This time around, the Judge gave Safechuck only 15 days to amend his complaint. <h4>THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT & THIRD DEMURRER</h4> Needless to say that Safechuck amended his complaint. The Estate filed their demurrer on April 3rd and a hearing was set for May 31st. It was the 3rd civil case demurrer for Safechuck and 5th demurrer overall for if you take the probate claim into account. The main arguments stayed the same. Safechuck and his lawyers kept changing their claims about Jackson’ companies. First the companies were loan out corporations established to act as Michael’s primary business entity. Then they had “youth programs” and Jackson served as a mentor to train minors in entertainment industry. Later on they claimed the companies were “most sophisticated child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organizations”. Now in this latest amended complaint the companies were created in part to “provide for welfare and the safety of the minor children”. Their desperation and willingness to make blatantly untrue claims truly have no bounds. Next thing you know Jackson’s companies were day care centers and Jackson worked there as a nanny. Safechuck alleged that the unnamed board of directors and officers of Jackson’s companies had authority over Jackson. This is another blatantly untrue claim. In their opposition to Robson’s amended complaint, the Estate provided information about the history of Jackson’s companies. MJJ Productions was incorporated in 1979 and MJJ Ventures in 1991. Jackson was appointed as the sole director of the companies at their incorporation. Michael was the 100% stockholder of both companies at all times. In June 1994, as the sole shareholder, Jackson 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 the Board of Directors until 1997. However, the board of directors had no power over him. Jackson could have fired the board of directors at any time. Even if we assume the board of directors had authority and control over Jackson and could fire him, this wouldn’t have helped Safechuck. Safechuck claims to be abused between 1988 and 1992. In those years Jackson was the sole director of the companies. He didn’t appoint Branca, Gallin and Gelfand until June of 1994. This is likely why Safechuck couldn’t give names of the non-existent board directors. Safechuck alleged that Norma Staikos and Jolie Levine’s primary responsibilities were “safety, welfare and well-being of all minor children” entrusted to Jackson’s Companies. One minute Staikos was like a madame running the “most sophisticated child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization”, the next moment her duty was to protect children from Jackson. It made no sense. You will realize that by this time, the case had reached a dead end and thus Safechuck and his lawyers were now desperately trying to twist the law by making absurd arguments to survive another day. Because Safechuck knows that no company can control their sole shareholder/owner, he resorts to desperate arguments. As the Estate had demonstrated that Jackson was the sole shareholder/owner of the companies at all times, Safechuck argued that it wasn’t needed for the companies to have control over Jackson. He argues that despite “subjective” organization of Jackson’s companies, there is an “objective” duty to supervise the company president. The absurdity is that this argument requires Jackson to supervise himself. In other words, according Safechuck, Jackson would “reasonably suspect that he had criminal tendencies and should not allow himself to work at his own company, fire himself and warn others about his criminal propensities. It’s unnecessary to point out the absurdity in this. Safechuck also claimed he was an employee of Jackson’s companies “at all relevant times”, while in his previous, more detailed and specific claims state that his employment was in 1994 and1995 – two years after any alleged abuse ended. Safechuck argued that he was under the custody & control of Jackson’s companies. The Estate had previously disagreed with this argument since nearly all times Safechuck’s parents were present. Safechuck now extensively relies on a newly decided case. In that case was the court found that a sports organization for children should have run criminal background checks on their coaches. If we assume for the sake of argument that this also applied to Jackson’s companies back in the day, we are back at Jackson being the sole owner and shareholder of the companies between 1988 and 1992 so by that logic Jackson should have run a criminal background check on himself before he hired himself at his own company. Finally, as we pointed out in our video about the 1994 settlement with the Chandlers, a general negligence claim will prompt the insurance company to be involved for a possible settlement, since insurance companies will not finance settlements over sexual abuse. Both Safechuck’s and Robson’s complaints have general negligence claims. If we may believe both man that they did not sue for money but rather for closure, healing purposes and shananigns like that, then what it the purpose of filing a general negligence claim, if not to try and force the estate to settle their cases for millions of dollars? <h4>RULING THIRD DEMURRER & DISMISSAL</h4> Judge Beckloff ruled on June 28, 2017 on the Estate’s demurrer and dismissed Safechuck’s case. Safechuck of course appealed this decision but the odds of his appeal being successful is very slim.
Unlock with Patreon
