|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Jun 30, 2023 9:23:29 GMT
#MJInnocent been tweeting for 3 days.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jun 30, 2023 11:32:34 GMT
For some reason twitter won't let me read and takes me straight to sign in join up page. Cleared cookies etc as that worked in the past but not now. Can someone link to respects twitter page or tscm for me please. See it works thats way. Typical when there's things to read Twitter is once again no longer free to view without an account. Same happens to me no matter what I do. Was very different yesterday! Fritter will scrape off Twitter for you. Available on Play Store.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jun 30, 2023 13:23:14 GMT
The tentative ruling is worse than I thought. Victory for Wade/James all across the board. The Court sided with every single one of their arguments (except for the Chandler/Spence thing).
Basically it comes down to this in a nutshell:
“To establish a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff must show that the ‘defendant had a duty to use due care, that he breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.’ ”
The Court now said the duty of care existed and whether the companies breached it or the abuse is the proximate or legal cause of the injury is up to a jury to decide. Yet, even in points where they said it was up to the Jury to decide they gave their needless 2 cents in which they were hostile to absolutely every argument the Estate made.
Just some examples:
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Jun 30, 2023 13:34:30 GMT
Thanks respect. This is crazy. The judges are obviously judging this based on their opinion that mj is guilty and they dont like him. Theres no logical other reason for such comments. How can the companies have hired mj when he was the company!!
So this supreme court is the california one or THEE supreme court. Can the estate appeal or take it anywhere else? Or can they file to have it dismissed based off anything else or is it certain now to go to trial. Its just a case of when not if?
And how can they say there as a duty of care when no one is making claims of seeing abuse. Its like the company is responsible for non excistant abuse that was never claimed. Ie you should have had a duty of care to the kids but a duty of care from what? The company should have been a mind reader. The whole ruling seems to be based off we think mjs a pedophile. His staff should have known even though there were no allegations pre 93 that he was because theu should have been mind readers for what might have happened years later.
Tbh i bet those 2 are rather worried at the mo cause you should be careful what you wish for. I bet they are praying for a settlement. You really think they want to be cross examined?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2023 14:24:38 GMT
All of those points above should be well able to be addressed by MJ's legal team, if people like Respect et al can do so without any professional background.
The legal team and arguments from the MJ side will be a Berlin wall from hell for the accusers to achieve what they need to above based on what is public knowledge, let alone what ever ace in the hole or additional un-disclosed information the MJ team may or may not have.
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,413
|
Post by TonyR on Jun 30, 2023 14:33:16 GMT
Call me Mr Fool Himself if you like, but this could be the beginning of the end for all this nonsense.
Maybe people will see this for the charade it is
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2023 14:43:10 GMT
Call me Mr Fool Himself if you like, but this could be the beginning of the end for all this nonsense. Maybe people will see this for the charade it is I think it very well could be. All of the above is based on taking the allegations at face value too, like.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jun 30, 2023 14:52:11 GMT
Thanks respect. This is crazy. The judges are obviously judging this based on their opinion that mj is guilty and they dont like him. Theres no logical other reason for such comments. How can the companies have hired mj when he was the company!! So this supreme court is the california one or THEE supreme court. Can the estate appeal or take it anywhere else? Or can they file to have it dismissed based off anything else or is it certain now to go to trial. Its just a case of when not if? And how can they say there as a duty of care when no one is making claims of seeing abuse. Its like the company is responsible for non excistant abuse that was never claimed. Ie you should have had a duty of care to the kids but a duty of care from what? The company should have been a mind reader. The whole ruling seems to be based off we think mjs a pedophile. His staff should have known even though there were no allegations pre 93 that he was because theu should have been mind readers for what might have happened years later. Tbh i bet those 2 are rather worried at the mo cause you should be careful what you wish for. I bet they are praying for a settlement. You really think they want to be cross examined?
I can only hope they can try to get it dismissed maybe on other grounds.
"And how can they say there as a duty of care when no one is making claims of seeing abuse. Its like the company is responsible for non excistant abuse that was never claimed."
Well, there are people like Blanca Francia who did claim to have seen things. This ruling said basically for company liability any employee's supposed knowledge of abuse suffices. But it still baffles the mind because does this then mean that if an empoyee notices something suspicious but keeps it to himself, many years later the company he used to work for can be found liable for something he never told them?
BTW, Blanca is still alive. Why don't they press criminal charges against her then? Or at least civil? She's still alive and they claim this is about holding those accountable who "knew but did nothing". So why? Instead they use her as their witness. I guess she just doesn't have much money.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jun 30, 2023 14:53:48 GMT
All of those points above should be well able to be addressed by MJ's legal team, if people like Respect et al can do so without any professional background. I am not a legal expert and Jonathan Steinsapir is a more than competent lawyer. I don't think it's his fault or the Estate's fault.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2023 15:02:02 GMT
All of those points above should be well able to be addressed by MJ's legal team, if people like Respect et al can do so without any professional background. I am not a legal expert and Jonathan Steinsapir is a more than competent lawyer. I don't think it's his fault or the Estate's fault. Perhaps I wasn't clear - what I meant was if fans such as yourself are able to do what you do with no professional background, then one can only imagine what the hired team can do. I'm saying that MJ's team very well may scorch the earth and leave no survivors with this thing.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jun 30, 2023 15:23:25 GMT
Thanks respect. This is crazy. The judges are obviously judging this based on their opinion that mj is guilty and they dont like him. Theres no logical other reason for such comments. How can the companies have hired mj when he was the company!! So this supreme court is the california one or THEE supreme court. Can the estate appeal or take it anywhere else? Or can they file to have it dismissed based off anything else or is it certain now to go to trial. Its just a case of when not if? And how can they say there as a duty of care when no one is making claims of seeing abuse. Its like the company is responsible for non excistant abuse that was never claimed. Ie you should have had a duty of care to the kids but a duty of care from what? The company should have been a mind reader. The whole ruling seems to be based off we think mjs a pedophile. His staff should have known even though there were no allegations pre 93 that he was because theu should have been mind readers for what might have happened years later. Tbh i bet those 2 are rather worried at the mo cause you should be careful what you wish for. I bet they are praying for a settlement. You really think they want to be cross examined? It's the Appeals Court - 2nd Appellate District, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Jun 30, 2023 16:01:32 GMT
Well, there are people like Blanca Francia who did claim to have seen things. This ruling said basically for company liability any employee's supposed knowledge of abuse suffices. But it still baffles the mind because does this then mean that if an empoyee notices something suspicious but keeps it to himself, many years later the company he used to work for can be found liable for something he never told them?
--------- But blanca admitted on the stand she didnt see anything. So this case is going go come down to her on the stand like 05 talking out both sides of her mouth. Getting cross examined and saying i didnt see anything or tell anyone?
Totally agree re liability. Imho the only way the companies are liable is if blanca saw something went to her boss or as far as she could go. Ie one below MJ and said ive seen this and the boss did nothing and covered it up. Someone cant be liable for something they have no knowlege of.
|
|
|
Post by amaya on Jul 1, 2023 1:00:28 GMT
Call me Mr Fool Himself if you like, but this could be the beginning of the end for all this nonsense. Maybe people will see this for the charade it is God I hope so. I can't take this shit anymore. My mental health has been a roller coaster ever since WR first filed his claim... fuck, that was ten years ago? Why is this still a thing? I genuinely don't know how all of you old-school, long-time fans handled decades of this and were able to stay hopeful then and even now. I need to try to cultivate that hope for myself, but being a life-long pessimist it isn't easy.
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Jul 1, 2023 4:10:28 GMT
while i'm somewhat worried about this case. fans shouldn't tell other fans they need to post and talk about Michael being innocent. today a fan harassed another fan telling them they need post about Michael's innocence.
i know some fans are worried but i feel telling other fans they need to post and talk about Michael innocence is a bit much.
everything pretty much has been debunked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2023 6:14:15 GMT
while i'm somewhat worried about this case. fans shouldn't tell other fans they need to post and talk about Michael being innocent. today a fan harassed another fan telling them they need post about Michael's innocence. i know some fans are worried but i feel telling other fans they need to post and talk about Michael innocence is a bit much. everything pretty much has been debunked. Yeah, TonyR
|
|