MJ’s firms rushed to court docket.
Apr. 4 2024, Printed 12:00 p.m. ET
Michael Jackson’s accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, have been referred to as out by the late pop star’s firms over subpoenas they fired off demanding “lurid” images from the prison investigations into Jackson.
In response to court docket paperwork obtained by RadarOnline.com, MJ’s firms blasted Robson and Safechuck for trying to acquire data from the Los Angeles Police Division, Los Angeles County District Lawyer’s Workplace, and the Santa Barbara County District Lawyer’s Workplace.
Article continues beneath commercial
Jackson’s firms are combating the accusers.
Attorneys for MJ’s firms stated the accusers issued the subpoenas final month — regardless of the court docket beforehand shutting down the subpoenas in 2018.
Robson and Safechuck filed bombshell lawsuits in 2013 accusing Jackson of sexually assaulting them as youngsters. Robson claimed the alleged abuse began when he was 7 and continued of years.
Article continues beneath commercial
Robson claimed the abuse from Jackson began when he was 7.
Article continues beneath commercial
Safechuck alleged Jackson began assaulting throughout his Unhealthy Tour and it went on for a number of years.
Each males initially had their lawsuits dismissed because of the claims being introduced previous the statute of limitations. They each filed an attraction of the choice.
Through the attraction, a brand new legislation was enacted that allowed victims to deliver instances previous the statute of limitations.Consequently, the upper court docket overturned the preliminary resolution to dismiss Robson and Safechuck’s instances and stated they may proceed to trial.
Article continues beneath commercial
James Safechuck stated he was assaulted on Jackson’s Unhealthy Tour.
MORE ON:
Michael Jackson
Article continues beneath commercial
As we first reported, the 2 accusers just lately joined forces and shall be taking up Jackson’s firms in a consolidated trial. The events are within the strategy of getting ready for trial.
Within the latest movement, Jackson’s firms argued the subpoenas ought to be shut down.
Article continues beneath commercial
The movement learn, “Past violating the clear language of the Court docket’s July 2018 Order, Plaintiffs’ subpoenas search extremely delicate personal paperwork associated to non-parties, are an try to bypass the protecting order in one other case from one other court docket, and fail to adjust to California legislation on pre-subpoena notices to shoppers.”
Attorneys for MJ’s firms added, “Particularly, California’s statutory and customary legislation acknowledge privateness rights to photographs of deceased individuals. Plaintiffs’ demand for sure paperwork—together with images of Michael Jackson’s genitalia and bare physique taken by police—represents an egregious violation of those privateness rights, and is just past the pale.”
Article continues beneath commercial
The pop star’s firms are asking the court docket to step in.
Article continues beneath commercial
The legal professionals stated they knowledgeable Robson and Safechuck they need to again off the subpoenas however they nonetheless persevered.
“Plaintiffs’ March 2024 Subpoenas are an appalling intrusion and violation of those privateness pursuits and don’t have any authentic goal. These subpoenas search, in related half, a extremely delicate and discrete set of paperwork,” the movement learn.
Article continues beneath commercial
By no means miss a narrative — join the RadarOnline.com publication to get your day by day dose of dope. Each day. Breaking. Movie star information. All free.
The legal professionals added, “Right here, there isn’t a authentic justification for Plaintiffs’ gross try to violate the privateness of a person who has been deceased for nearly a decade and to disturb his household’s “peace of thoughts and tranquility” with our “sensation-seeking tradition.”
They continued, “Plaintiffs’ subpoenas have to be quashed insofar as they’re looking for these lurid photographs of Mr. Jackson. Certainly, permitting Plaintiffs to proceed with these subpoenas is especially inappropriate given the circumstances surrounding the images.”
Robson and Safechuck have but to reply.