Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 19:18:08 GMT
This is the law that applies in its current form. From next year the "26" in the bolded will change to 40. That means from now on it is not the (b)(2) section of the law that will apply (like so far) but (2) and (3). (1) doesn't apply because MJ is dead.
This is incredibly loose then. To date, they havent been able to credibly even remotely prove part 2. I think theyre hoping for a settlement. Still.
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Oct 16, 2019 19:53:53 GMT
With this law change it still appears like they'll have a lot of hurdles. They've not proven that anybody who worked for MJ knew of abuse and kept quiet.
The irony of all this is they depose the likes of Blanca Francia as she can help with their case. Yet she is one of the people they should sue. She claims she witnessed abuse and said nothing. However, because she has a story that involved Wade she is excused and used in their bid for millions. If it was truly about justice then Wade should be absolutely disgusted by the woman.
In a radio interview a couple of years ago that Finaldi gave, this exchange happened:
Host: 'Are you suing any individuals that worked for the production company?'
Finaldi: 'Not yet but we got several Does that are listed and we can substitute the names of people that we find liable during this process.'
The very people they use to help with their case are the ones who's names should be substituted in.
I hope the Estate include the list of lies told and the contradictions in LN in future paperwork.
Edit: I also wonder if they can use 1993 and 2005 as examples of how both men could have come forward and told police they'd been abused.
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Oct 16, 2019 20:11:05 GMT
On a general point, where does the age thing stop? What are the chances of it eventually being increased to 50 in the future? And so forth? I understand genuine victims find it incredibly difficult to come forward, but there also needs to be protection for the innocent. The bill's author said it was ridiculous that someone abused as a child could run out of time. This sounds like a hint at doing away with statutes altogether. I actually saw some comment that there shouldn't be statutes which is just ridiculous. Doing away with the statutes would mean anybody who falls on hard times could sue their former school or work place 50 years after having left. However, these are excellent points: 'The bill was opposed by the California Civil Liberties Advocacy, which argued in a letter to lawmakers that the proposal will “negatively impact civil defendants because the availability and reliability of evidence diminishes over time.” The group also maintained that “extending the statute of limitations in civil suits is more in the interests of the plaintiffs’ lawyer industry than that of the abuse survivors, in which the negative effects will be felt in the decades to come.' www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-13/child-sexual-abuse-allegations-extension-filing-allegations-california-lawThe second sentence reminds me of Finaldi and co. They brag on their website about the amounts they've gotten from settlements. I actually saw some comment that there shouldn't be statutes which is just ridiculous. Doing away with the statutes would mean anybody who falls on hard times could sue their former school or work place 50 years after having left. What's to stop people suing their school and accusing a deceased staff member of having abused them decades and decades later? Edit: Also, that article cited that the law comes on the back of the Catholic priest scandal and Larry Nassar. I think in Wade's appeal papers (and presumably James) they cited the Catholic Priest scandal. Finaldi's law firm took on some of those cases. However, that scandal actually fit the duty of care rule as churches were being made aware of the abuse and then sending the priests to work at different churches instead of reporting them to police. Whereas with MJ there is nothing at all similar and the man faced two police investigations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 20:19:01 GMT
On a general point, where does the age thing stop? What are the chances of it eventually being increased to 50 in the future? And so forth? I understand genuine victims find it incredibly difficult to come forward, but there also needs to be protection for the innocent. The bill's author said it was ridiculous that someone abused as a child could run out of time. This sounds like a hint at doing away with statutes altogether. I actually saw some comment that there shouldn't be statutes which is just ridiculous. Doing away with the statutes would mean anybody who falls on hard times could sue their former school or work place 50 years after having left. However, these are excellent points: 'The bill was opposed by the California Civil Liberties Advocacy, which argued in a letter to lawmakers that the proposal will “negatively impact civil defendants because the availability and reliability of evidence diminishes over time.” The group also maintained that “extending the statute of limitations in civil suits is more in the interests of the plaintiffs’ lawyer industry than that of the abuse survivors, in which the negative effects will be felt in the decades to come.' www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-13/child-sexual-abuse-allegations-extension-filing-allegations-california-lawThe second sentence reminds me of Finaldi and co. They brag on their website about the amounts they've gotten from settlements. I actually saw some comment that there shouldn't be statutes which is just ridiculous. Doing away with the statutes would mean anybody who falls on hard times could sue their former school or work place 50 years after having left. What's to stop people suing their school and accusing a deceased staff member of having abused them decades and decades later? Edit: Also, that article cited that the law comes on the back of the Catholic priest scandal and Larry Nassar. I think in Wade's appeal papers (and presumably James) they cited the Catholic Priest scandal. Finaldi's law firm took on some of those cases. However, that scandal actually fit the duty of care rule as churches were being made aware of the abuse and then sending the priests to work at different churches instead of reporting them to police. Whereas with MJ there is nothing at all similar and the man faced two police investigations. Thats the thing about the Catholic Church. The scum were full fucking aware of what has been going on for generations, and simply moved priests around instead of reporting them. This act has been passed to help clerical abuse victims. And rightly so. The Church has been despicable in its handling of child abuse cases. Where as our 2 diphsits are going down this line because they think it will work. The POPE knew about priests and didn't act!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 20:22:27 GMT
With this law change it still appears like they'll have a lot of hurdles. They've not proven that anybody who worked for MJ knew of abuse and kept quiet. The irony of all this is they depose the likes of Blanca Francia as she can help with their case. Yet she is one of the people they should sue. She claims she witnessed abuse and said nothing. However, because she has a story that involved Wade she is excused and used in their bid for millions. If it was truly about justice then Wade should be absolutely disgusted by the woman. In a radio interview a couple of years ago that Finaldi gave, this exchange happened: Host: ' Are you suing any individuals that worked for the production company?' Finaldi: 'Not yet but we got several Does that are listed and we can substitute the names of people that we find liable during this process.'The very people they use to help with their case are the ones who's names should be substituted in. I hope the Estate include the list of lies told and the contradictions in LN in future paperwork. Edit: I also wonder if they can use 1993 and 2005 as examples of how both men could have come forward and told police they'd been abused. Wade has stated he lied in 2005 to help MJ. Also because he was scared etc. This whole scam goes out the window. He knew in 2005, didnt act. Well, "act".
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Oct 16, 2019 20:23:54 GMT
On a general point, where does the age thing stop? What are the chances of it eventually being increased to 50 in the future? And so forth? I understand genuine victims find it incredibly difficult to come forward, but there also needs to be protection for the innocent. The bill's author said it was ridiculous that someone abused as a child could run out of time. This sounds like a hint at doing away with statutes altogether. I actually saw some comment that there shouldn't be statutes which is just ridiculous. Doing away with the statutes would mean anybody who falls on hard times could sue their former school or work place 50 years after having left. However, these are excellent points: 'The bill was opposed by the California Civil Liberties Advocacy, which argued in a letter to lawmakers that the proposal will “negatively impact civil defendants because the availability and reliability of evidence diminishes over time.” The group also maintained that “extending the statute of limitations in civil suits is more in the interests of the plaintiffs’ lawyer industry than that of the abuse survivors, in which the negative effects will be felt in the decades to come.' www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-13/child-sexual-abuse-allegations-extension-filing-allegations-california-lawThe second sentence reminds me of Finaldi and co. They brag on their website about the amounts they've gotten from settlements. I actually saw some comment that there shouldn't be statutes which is just ridiculous. Doing away with the statutes would mean anybody who falls on hard times could sue their former school or work place 50 years after having left. What's to stop people suing their school and accusing a deceased staff member of having abused them decades and decades later? Edit: Also, that article cited that the law comes on the back of the Catholic priest scandal and Larry Nassar. I think in Wade's appeal papers (and presumably James) they cited the Catholic Priest scandal. Finaldi's law firm took on some of those cases. However, that scandal actually fit the duty of care rule as churches were being made aware of the abuse and then sending the priests to work at different churches instead of reporting them to police. Whereas with MJ there is nothing at all similar and the man faced two police investigations. Thats the thing about the Catholic Church. The scum were full fucking aware of what has been going on for generations, and simply moved priests around instead of reporting them. This act has been passed to help clerical abuse victims. And rightly so. The Church has been despicable in its handling of child abuse cases. Where as our 2 diphsits are going down this line because they think it will work. The POPE knew about priests and didn't act! There were hundreds of victims in that and Nassar's case as well. Yet we have Finaldi claiming MJ secretly ran the most sophisticated child abuse procurement ring ever. By that logic there should be hundreds and hundreds of victims. Finaldi also claimed the competition Wade won, and subsequent meet and greet, was setup as a way to procure minor children for MJ to abuse. Using that logic also means there should have been competitions and meet and greets numerous times every year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 20:24:58 GMT
Thats the thing about the Catholic Church. The scum were full fucking aware of what has been going on for generations, and simply moved priests around instead of reporting them. This act has been passed to help clerical abuse victims. And rightly so. The Church has been despicable in its handling of child abuse cases. Where as our 2 diphsits are going down this line because they think it will work. The POPE knew about priests and didn't act! There were hundreds of victims in that and Nassar's case as well. Yet we have Finaldi claiming MJ secretly ran the most sophisticated child abuse procurement ring ever. By that logic there should be hundreds and hundreds of victims. Finaldi also claimed the competition Wade won, and subsequent meet and greet, was setup as a way to procure minor children for MJ to abuse. Using that logic also means there should have been competitions and meet and greets numerous times every year. I think we are supposed to be waiting for all the other competition winners to come forward. Any day now....
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Oct 16, 2019 20:31:13 GMT
With this law change it still appears like they'll have a lot of hurdles. They've not proven that anybody who worked for MJ knew of abuse and kept quiet. The irony of all this is they depose the likes of Blanca Francia as she can help with their case. Yet she is one of the people they should sue. She claims she witnessed abuse and said nothing. However, because she has a story that involved Wade she is excused and used in their bid for millions. If it was truly about justice then Wade should be absolutely disgusted by the woman. In a radio interview a couple of years ago that Finaldi gave, this exchange happened: Host: ' Are you suing any individuals that worked for the production company?' Finaldi: 'Not yet but we got several Does that are listed and we can substitute the names of people that we find liable during this process.'The very people they use to help with their case are the ones who's names should be substituted in. I hope the Estate include the list of lies told and the contradictions in LN in future paperwork. Edit: I also wonder if they can use 1993 and 2005 as examples of how both men could have come forward and told police they'd been abused. Wade has stated he lied in 2005 to help MJ. Also because he was scared etc. This whole scam goes out the window. He knew in 2005, didnt act. Well, "act". Yes, I wonder if this would go against him. He wasn't suffering in silence like the cases mentioned in on this page. He instead testified at MJ's trial and in his favour. It baffles me how so many people don't find it suspicious in any way that he defended MJ for years and then when the man dies say he was abused and sue his Estate. Somehow, 'victims defending their abusers happens often' has become the rhetoric. Something based on absolutely no proof whatsoever. I see psychologists saying it's normal to defend your abuser. Based on what? Show me the studies. How many psychologists ever had ONE person come to them and say they defended their abuser under oath, changed their mind and filed a lawsuit? How many psychologists have come across somebody who over the period of 20 years fooled family, friends, PIs, defence lawyers and withstood a withering cross examination without slipping up once? I feel this 'defending your abuser is normal' thing has different groups of people being grouped in together. Like, a child/adult once denying abuse is being seen as defending their abuser when they may be saying no out of shame or guilt etc. Which is very, very different to defending your abuser under oath and praising him and saying he's the reason you believe in human kind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 20:35:10 GMT
Wade has stated he lied in 2005 to help MJ. Also because he was scared etc. This whole scam goes out the window. He knew in 2005, didnt act. Well, "act". Yes, I wonder if this would go against him. He wasn't suffering in silence like the cases mentioned in on this page. He instead testified at MJ's trial and in his favour. It baffles me how so many people don't find it suspicious in any way that he defended MJ for years and then when the man dies say he was abused and sue his Estate. Somehow, 'victims defending their abusers happens often' has become the rhetoric. Something based on absolutely no proof whatsoever. I see psychologists saying it's normal to defend your abuser. Based on what? Show me the studies. How many psychologists ever had ONE person come to them and say they defended their abuser under oath, changed their mind and filed a lawsuit? I feel this 'defending your abuser is normal' thing has different groups of people grouped in together. Like, a child/adult once denying abuse is being seen as defending their abuser when they may be saying no out of shame or guilt etc is very different to defending your abuser under oath and praising him and saying he's the reason you believe in human kind. Thats whats annoyed me about people saying "you don't understand abuse". I dont, but i do understand that Wade Robsons praising of his abuser on TV, all his life and defending him when he had a position to take him down once and for all doesnt quite fit into the "you dont undertsand" narrative
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 8:10:36 GMT
Little annoyed MJ has been left off the new "Legends" playlist on Spotify, but so has Madonna and George Michael. Jackson 5 are there though.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Oct 17, 2019 9:11:10 GMT
Little annoyed MJ has been left off the new "Legends" playlist on Spotify, but so has Madonna and George Michael. Jackson 5 are there though. Which playlist is this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 9:43:12 GMT
Little annoyed MJ has been left off the new "Legends" playlist on Spotify, but so has Madonna and George Michael. Jackson 5 are there though. Which playlist is this? One that appeared at the top of the screen on the desktop app? Only saw it today
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Oct 17, 2019 9:52:41 GMT
One that appeared at the top of the screen on the desktop app? Only saw it today Oh I get a different one, but I imagine they vary by person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 10:24:40 GMT
One that appeared at the top of the screen on the desktop app? Only saw it today Oh I get a different one, but I imagine they vary by person. Do I cancel my subscription or not?
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,468
|
Post by TonyR on Oct 18, 2019 8:35:31 GMT
Little annoyed MJ has been left off the new "Legends" playlist on Spotify, but so has Madonna and George Michael. Jackson 5 are there though. Cancelled.
|
|