Michael Jackson’s Employees Were Not Legally Obligated To Prevent Sex Abuse, Lawyer Argues In Court

LA – According to an attorney testifying before an appeals court on Wednesday, employees at companies controlled by Michael Jackson were not required by law to shield youngsters from the pop icon.

Jonathan Steinsapir, an attorney for the Michael Jackson estate, disputed a potential ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in California, which indicated that it was inclined to reinstate cases that had previously been dismissed involving two men who claim that Jackson sexually assaulted them for years when they were boys.

According to Steinsapir, the court’s rationale “would require low-level employees to confront their supervisor and call them paedophiles.”

According to Holly Boyer, the plaintiff’s Wade Robson and James Safechuck, should be held accountable for that duty.

Boyer informed the three judges in the videoconference session that “we do require that employees of the entity take those steps because what we are talking about is the sexual abuse of children.” We’re dealing with kids who are 7 and 10 years old and completely unprepared to defend themselves against their guru, Michael Jackson.

Boyer continued, “The defendant’s staff left the lads alone in this lion’s lair. The obligation to safeguard and warn is explicit.

Jackson passed away in 2009. Safechuck sued in 2014 after Robson had sued in 2013. After sharing their tales in the 2019 HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland, ” the two men gained additional notoriety.”

Employees at companies controlled by Michael Jackson were not required by law to shield youngsters from the pop icon.

The lawsuits were rejected in 2021 by a court that determined that Jackson’s two firms, MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc., of which he was the only shareholder and owner, could not be expected to operate similarly to the Boy Scouts or a church where a child in their care could expect their protection.

According to Steinsapir, evidence in the untried cases demonstrated that the parents did not expect Jackson’s staff to serve as monitors. He claimed that a deposition from Robson’s mother revealed that, when she initially brought her 7-year-old son into the pop star’s presence, she was completely unaware of the existence of the businesses.

They didn’t seek protection against Michael Jackson from the companies, according to Steinsapir.

Steinsapir said it was illogical for the corporations to be accused of careless hiring since they were hiring in the complaint and the court’s potential ruling.

“Anyone who might have a propensity for crime has a duty not to hire himself?” said Steinsapir.

Steinsapir frequently referred to the men’s claims as unsubstantiated and inaccurate, even though the hearing only addressed the legal requirements of businesses rather than the veracity of their claims.

When Jackson was 5 years old, Robson, a choreographer now in his 40s, first met him. He later made three Michael Jackson music video appearances.

Jackson allegedly raped him for seven years, according to his lawsuit.

When Safechuck, now 45, met Jackson while filming a Pepsi commercial, he was 9 years old, according to what he said in his suit. He said Jackson pampered him with gifts and frequent phone calls before engaging in sexual assaults.

The Associated Press normally does not identify anyone who claims to have been sexually abused. However, Robson and Safechuck have spoken out and given their consent for the publication of their names.

The men’s cases have already recovered from a 2017 dismissal that occurred because the statute of limitations had passed. The appeals court reinstated them due to a new California statute that temporarily enlarged the scope of sexual assault prosecutions. 2015 saw the dismissal of Jackson’s estate or the assets he left behind as a defendant.

The Michael Jackson estate has vehemently and repeatedly disputed that he molested any of the boys and has emphasized that both Safechuck and Robson testified to authorities that they had not been mistreated during Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial, in which Jackson was found not guilty.

Three judges heard the matter on Wednesday, but no decision was reached right away.

It “seems to me that these corporations were in an excellent position to prevent these injuries,” said Justice John Wiley. Wiley suggested they might have demanded that a chaperone be there for the kids.

Steinsapir responded, “Could my law firm tell me who I’m allowed to be with in my own home?” Steinsapir emphasized that the claimed molestation incidents occurred in Jackson’s home, not at work.

Attorney Boyer for the plaintiffs replied, “Michael Jackson’s workers staffed these houses. They established policies and procedures that allowed Jackson to be alone with these kids.

SOURCE – (AP)