plaintiffs, wade rosen, testified. but, he testified in defense of michael jackson, saying that he had not been a victim of molestation or anything inappropriate. so, given that he is now a plaintive, iggy surprise that when he came forward with a different story and it continues to have likes today, even with the appellate court? you know, let s go way back to 1993 when he was a little boy and i kept hearing his name come up over and over from people who worked with him in mjj productions, and mjj ventures. in my book, you mentioned my book, i wrote about many of the employees at mjj productions who told me that we were lavished with gifts, and anything they want it and so this is the crux of their claim, that people within that entity aided and abetted michael
responsible for what its priests did, and the boy scouts are responsible for what their scouts did, that s what the appellate court rule, that the same supplies to the estate of michael jackson. i want to unpack that. they can sue the estate again? or he can be tried postmortem. this is about the courses. unpack why there is a distinction and whether the state can be challenged. what we know are, is the state is not a part of the lawsuits that are being revived. these are against two entities, that michael was the sole venture of. one was mjj productions. what the court is allowing for
saying he was not a victim of molestation or anything inappropriate. gim given he is a plaintiff with this, were you splized he was there with a different story? you know, let s go back to 1993 when he was a little boy and i kept hearing his name come up over and over. maybe eventualens wasn t started then. i write about many of the employees at mjj productions who told me, we were lavishing gifts on them. and their mothers. anything they wanted. this is the crux of their claim. people in the entity aided and abetted michael jackson in the abuse of them.
Two men who alleged Michael Jackson abused them when they were children have had lawsuits against companies owned by the late pop star approved by a California appeals court. The ruling overturns a decision made in 2021 dismissing the charges against MJJ Productions, on the basis that it had no legal duty to protect James Safechuck and Wade Robson from Jackson as it had no power to control him. The new judgement found a corporation facilitating child abuse by an employee had an obligation to protect victims, regardless of the abuser s ownership status.