Although much is known about Robson\u2019s 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\u2019s civil case and his specific allegations.\r\n\r\nIn 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.\r\n\r\nBoth Robson\u2019s and Safechuck\u2019s cases have been going in circles for quite some time before they were finally thrown out. And even though they didn\u2019t 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.\r\n\r\nSafechuck, 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\u2019s actual knowledge of the existence of the facts giving rise to the existence of the claim.\r\n\r\nRobson provably perjured himself by claiming he didn\u2019t 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\u2019s business affairs. Given Safechuck didn\u2019t file his probate claim until 2014, in no way he could not satisfy the 60 days rule of probate.\r\n<h4>START CIIVIL CASE, FIRST COMPLAINT & FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT<\/h4>\r\nIn June 2015, the Judge reviewed filings and allowed the start of Safechuck\u2019s civil case against Jackson\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nThe specific abuse allegations are redacted. The complaint has a general \u201cchildhood sexual abuse\u201d claim and briefly mentions \u201cduty of care\u201d as a legal argument.\r\n\r\nSafechuck and his lawyers claimed that Jackson \u201cused his corporate entities to facilitate the wrongful conduct alleged in the complaint\u201d and that \u201cthrough MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures\u201d 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\u2019s videos\u201d.\r\n<h4>FIRST DEMURRER<\/h4>\r\nIn December of 2015, the Estate filed their demurrer against the complaint, claiming that Safechuck failed to allege any duty of care that Jackson\u2019s companies had towards him.\r\n\r\nA 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 \u2018so what?\u2019\r\n\r\nIt does not challenge the content of the actual allegations yet, that doesn\u2019t happen until summary judgment, which is when the Estate would have presented counter evidence.\r\n\r\nIn the first demurrer hearing in June 2016, the Judge made a note of how he approaches Robson\u2019s and Safechuck\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nSafechuck\u2019s then lawyers also argued that if someone had warned Safechuck\u2019s parents about Jackson\u2019s alleged abusive behavior, \u201cthey 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\u201d.\r\n\r\nHowever we know that neither Safechuck\u2019s parents nor Robson\u2019s 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\u2019t 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.\r\n<h4>RULING FIRST DEMURRER<\/h4>\r\nThe Judge ruled on the demurrer in August of 2016 and agreed with the Estate, \u00a0stating that Safechuck first needed to establish that Jackson\u2019s companies indeed had a duty of care towards him and gave Safechuck 30 days to amend his complaint.\r\n<h4>SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT & SECOND DEMURRER<\/h4>\r\nSafechuck then switched\u00a0 to a new law firm along with Robson. The new lawyers amended both Robson\u2019s and Safechuck\u2019s complaints, adding claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, several negligence claims and breach of fiduciary duty.\r\n\r\nShortly after, the Estate filed a second demurrer to Safechuck\u2019s 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\u00a0 about the Jackson companies to keep his lawsuit alive.\r\n\r\nThe Estate also points out how Safechuck\u2019s complaint is filled with easily proven falsehoods. For example, Safechuck made allegations against MJJ Ventures with respect to his alleged abuse in the 1980\u2019s, but MJJ Ventures didn\u2019t even exist until 1991 and Safechuck wasn\u2019t hired by Jackson until 1994, 2 years after the alleged abuse ended.\r\n\r\nMost of the legal arguments in the Estate\u2019s demurrer motion were similar to the previous motions in the Safechuck case. For example negligent hiring, supervision and retention claims don\u2019t 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 \u201cthe companies\u201d could not have had control over Jackson, but rather Jackson had full control over the companies.\r\n\r\nAlso, 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\u2019s companies were none of those. Furthermore Safechuck\u2019s parents were present for most of his interactions with Jackson and Safechuck was therefore under his parent\u2019s care.\r\n\r\nDuring 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.\r\n\r\nEstate lawyer Steinsapir points out that this boilerplate complaint doesn\u2019t 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n<h4>RULING SECOND DEMURRER<\/h4>\r\nAt the end of January of 2017, Judge Beckloff ruled on the Estate\u2019s demurrer to Safechuck\u2019s second amended complaint. This is the first time that the judge evaluated the new claims by the new lawyers and Judge Beckloff\u2019s questioned almost everything in the amended complaint. The Judge wasn\u2019t buying any of it.\r\n\r\nThe ruling showed that the Judge mainly focused on is the issue of control. According to the law, Safechuck was required to show that Jackson\u2019s 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\u2019 activities. Safechuck admitted to this.\r\n\r\nThe Judge pointed out that there were no claims in Safechuck\u2019s complaint that someone controlled Jackson.\u00a0The Judge stated that although some of the companies\u2019 employees were mentioned, none of them were alleged to have control over Jackson.\r\n\r\nThe judge also wasn\u2019t convinced that Safechuck was placed into the custody of the Jackson Companies but states that according to Safechuck\u2019s allegations, Jackson was inviting him to places and that would place Safechuck into Jackson\u2019s 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\u2019s custody. \u00a0Furthermore the Judge stated that the companies arranging and paying for the trips didn\u2019t mean that they owed Safechuck a duty of care or that Safechuck was in their custody.\r\n\r\nSafechuck\u2019s attempts to portray Jackson\u2019s 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\u2019t. Judge Beckloff questioned if Safechuck was alleging that the Jackson companies were offering some sort of a youth program.\r\n\r\nIf Jackson\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nAs for Safechuck\u2019s allegations that MJ Companies were mandated reporters, Judge Beckloff flat out stated that nothing supported that claim. The Judge granted the Estate\u2019s demurrer but gave Safechuck another chance to amend his complaint. This time around, the Judge gave Safechuck only 15 days to amend his complaint.\r\n<h4>THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT & THIRD DEMURRER<\/h4>\r\nNeedless to say that Safechuck amended his complaint. The Estate filed their demurrer on April 3rd and a hearing was set for May 31st.\r\n\r\nIt 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.\r\n\r\nSafechuck and his lawyers kept changing their claims about Jackson\u2019 companies. First the companies were loan out corporations established to act as Michael\u2019s primary business entity. Then they had \u201cyouth programs\u201d and Jackson served as a mentor to train minors in entertainment industry.\r\n\r\nLater on they claimed the companies were \u201cmost sophisticated child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organizations\u201d.\r\n\r\nNow in this latest amended complaint the companies were created in part to \u201cprovide for welfare and the safety of the minor children\u201d. Their desperation and willingness to make blatantly untrue claims truly have no bounds. Next thing you know Jackson\u2019s companies were day care centers and Jackson worked there as a nanny.\r\n\r\nSafechuck alleged that the unnamed board of directors and officers of Jackson\u2019s companies had authority over Jackson. This is another blatantly untrue claim. In their opposition to Robson\u2019s amended complaint, the Estate provided information about the history of Jackson\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nIn 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.\r\n\r\nEven if we assume the board of directors had authority and control over Jackson and could fire him, this wouldn\u2019t 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\u2019t appoint Branca, Gallin and Gelfand until June of 1994. This is likely why Safechuck couldn\u2019t give names of the non-existent board directors.\r\n\r\nSafechuck alleged that Norma Staikos and Jolie Levine\u2019s primary responsibilities were \u201csafety, welfare and well-being of all minor children\u201d entrusted to Jackson\u2019s Companies.\r\n\r\nOne minute Staikos was like a madame running the \u201cmost sophisticated child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization\u201d, the next moment her duty was to protect children from Jackson. It made no sense.\r\n\r\nYou 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.\r\n\r\nBecause 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\u2019t needed for the companies to have control over Jackson. He argues that despite \u201csubjective\u201d organization of Jackson\u2019s companies, there is an \u201cobjective\u201d duty to supervise the company president. The absurdity is that this argument requires Jackson to supervise himself. In other words, according Safechuck, Jackson would \u201creasonably 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\u2019s unnecessary to point out the absurdity in this.\r\n\r\nSafechuck also claimed he was an employee of Jackson\u2019s companies \u201cat all relevant times\u201d, while in his previous, more detailed and specific claims state that his employment was in 1994 and1995 \u2013 two years after any alleged abuse ended.\r\n\r\nSafechuck argued that he was under the custody & control of Jackson\u2019s companies. The Estate had previously disagreed with this argument since nearly all times Safechuck\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nIf we assume for the sake of argument that this also applied to Jackson\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nFinally, 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\u2019s and Robson\u2019s 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?\r\n<h4>RULING THIRD DEMURRER & DISMISSAL<\/h4>\r\nJudge Beckloff ruled on June 28, 2017 on the Estate\u2019s demurrer and dismissed Safechuck\u2019s case. Safechuck of course appealed this decision but the odds of his appeal being successful is very slim.