Misconceptions and Misunderstandings – Can Wade Win?

On September 24th 2015, Judge Beckloff denied MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures demurrer to have Wade Robson’s civil case thrown out. On the 9th of October 2015 the companies filed their response – DEFENDANTS MJJ PRODUCTIONS, INC.’S, AND MJJ VENTURES, INC.’S ANSWER TO THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT OF WADE ROBSON – and included a demand for a trial by jury. It’s early days yet, but a trial by jury would favor Wade’s case. More on that later, but a trial is not a foregone conclusion. There are possible motions for summary judgment by either side to consider, and Judge Beckloff is reportedly keen to see both sides negotiate a settlement to avoid a long and costly trial*.

Let’s crack in to the response to Wade’s third amended complaint by the MJJ company lawyers. This is how it was prefaced.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL DENIAL
 This case has no merit in fact or law. Wade Robson's allegations are directly contrary to his sworn testimony in a 2005 criminal trial where Michael Jackson was vindicated of all wrongdoing by a unanimous jury of twelve. Robson was twenty-three years-old when he testified in 2005. He was subjected to vigorous and repeated cross-examination by a very zealous prosecutor handling the case, but Robson's testimony never wavered.

In his complaint for money damages, Robson does not claim that he made a mistake when he testified in 2005 or that he suffered from a "repressed memory." Rather, Robson simply claims that he chose to lie to a criminal jury in 2005. Yet, a decade later, and almost four years after Michael Jackson's tragic death, Robson changed his story knowing that Michael Jackson is no longer here to defend himself. Robson recanted his testimony in a criminal trial for the sole and express purpose of taking money from Michael Jackson's heirs and beneficiaries. After all, Robson's complaint does not, an cannot, seek anything other than money.

There is no just or equitable way for a Court in this State to allow Robson to recover here - either he is perjuring himself today in an effort to obtain money, or he perjured himself and obstructed justice in a criminal proceeding a decade ago. There is no middle ground between those two positions - a recovery here would make a mockery of California's system of justice.

All of the above being said, the Corporate Defendants are one hundred percent confident that Robson did tell the truth in 2005, when his sole motivation was to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Accordingly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), the Corporate Defendants generally and specifically deny each of the allegations contained in the Third Amended Complaint, generally and specifically deny that Robson has sustained any injury or loss by reason of any act or omission of the Cor rate Defendants, and generally and specifically deny that Robson has been damaged in any amount whatsoever.

First of all I was struck by the appeal to emotion in these statements. There are quite a few hot button phrases in there which will appeal to fans, but have little relevance to the case as I believe it will be argued by Wade’s lawyers. A few of those phrases are:

  • “Michael Jackson was vindicated of all wrongdoing by a unanimous jury of twelve”
  • “He was subjected to vigorous and repeated cross-examination by a very zealous prosecutor handling the case”
  • “he chose to lie to a criminal jury”
  • “Robson changed his story”
  • “Michael Jackson is no longer here to defend himself”
  • “Robson recanted his testimony”
  • “sole and express purpose of taking money from Michael Jackson’s heirs and beneficiaries”
  • “Corporate Defendants are one hundred percent confident that Robson did tell the truth in 2005”

That Michael Jackson was found not guilty in 2005 is undisputed. What is also undisputed about the 2005 trial is that it was proven Michael Jackson behaved exactly as an acquaintance molester would, as was underscored in an ABC news story which stated the jurors “suspected the singer had molested other children” and they “all felt that he was guilty of something”. Wade’s team of lawyers has access to the transcripts, witness statements as well as other pieces of evidence from the 2005 trial. Although Jackson was acquitted, there is a wealth of information in regards to his behavior with boys.

In a 2011 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, it was outlined why acquaintance molesters get away with what they do for so long and why they are rarely caught.

Those who study these kinds of offenders [acquaintance molesters] say they typically get away with abusing children for a long time because of a confluence of elements:

First, the molester is good at what he does because he’s had years of practice, typically dating to his own adolescence.

Second, his victims — usually boys — are often compliant.

And third, the adults around him either aren’t paying attention to the signals or don’t want to believe the truth.

That “Michael Jackson was vindicated of all wrongdoing by a unanimous jury of twelve” is clearly untrue. He was vindicated legally in that he was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the 2005 charges, but far more questions were raised about his behavior with boys in the years prior than were answered by his acquittal.

The statements directed at Wade for lying come from a place of total misunderstanding by the Jackson company lawyers. Wade, in his complaints, has made it absolutely crystal clear that he was a compliant child victim.

Compliant child victims make catching and convicting an acquaintance molester very difficult. A compliant child victim will return willingly to, and even initiate sex with, their abuser. They see the abuser as a “friend”, even as part of their family. They may be getting things from their abuser they don’t get anywhere else: affection, love, even gifts or money. They don’t want to see their “friend” get into trouble so will keep quiet about the abuse.

That Jackson and Wade had a close bond is undisputed. Wade idolized Jackson from a very young age; at age two his mother played a video tape of Jackson’s The Making of Thriller. Wade was instantly fascinated with the video and watched it every day. He quickly began to emulate Jackson’s dance moves. Over the next few years, even before they had met, his fascination with Jackson and dancing and being like him grew into an obsession.

For Wade, winning a dance competition at age five and gaining the opportunity to meet Jackson backstage after his Brisbane, Australia concert as part of the Bad tour would have seemed like a dream come true. That Jackson invited him to dance on stage at a subsequent concert, as well as spend hours with Jackson in his hotel room afterwards (Wade’s mother was present on that occasion), not only would have cemented Jackson into Wade’s psyche but also allowed Jackson to further groom the boy. From that moment on Wade only wanted to emulate his hero even more.

When seven-year-old Wade and his family traveled to the United States in 1990, they took up Jackson’s offer to contact him if they were ever in the country. Norma Staikos obligingly organized for the family to meet Jackson at a Van Nuys recording studio where Jackson was working.

Norma Staikos, Jackson’s gatekeeper, would have received dozens, if not hundreds, of requests every week from people wanting to meet with Jackson. Due to Jackson’s hectic schedule, most would have been rejected outright, many of the requests that passed Staikos’s eagle eye and made it to Jackson would have also been rejected. That Staikos passed on a request from a young boy’s family to Jackson, and that he, a busy recording artist and businessman agreed to the meeting, is testament to Jackson’s intentions towards the Australian boy he remembered from two years previously. Jackson could have easily declined, citing work commitments as a reason for disappointing the family, yet he dropped everything and made time for the entourage.

Jackson invited the family to Neverland, where without delay Wade was in the bed with his idol, albeit with his sister there too, while the rest of the family were in the guest cottages on another part of the grounds. The next night, when Wade’s sister had decamped from the bed the thirty-two-year old man and seven-year-old boy shared, Jackson began his abuse. Wade didn’t complain to anybody during or after the abuse, in fact it can be concluded that he was a willing participant, wanting to keep his “friend” happy, when Jackson implored Wade afterwards “We can never tell anyone what we are doing. People are ignorant and they would never understand that we love each other and this is how we show it.”

Jackson, knowing what he did was wrong, cunningly used Wade’s desire to be a dance professional as leverage to keep the boy quiet about the abuse, telling the boy: “If anyone were to ever find out, our lives and and careers would be over.”

Using the word “our” also had significance; instilling in Wade that if he ever spoke about the abuse his big “friend” would be in trouble, something Wade would clearly want to avoid. Jackson cemented Wade’s loyalty by reminding him frequently of the danger of either of them speaking out.

Wade didn’t have a problem complying, swearing to Jackson that he would “never tell a soul”.

Thus, a covenant was formed between Jackson and Wade at that very first visit. Wade returned to Jackson many times over the years, and every time he did Jackson abused him. Wade didn’t mind. In one court document Wade said he enjoyed the sex with Jackson and looked forward to it. For many people, that sentence was hard to take, but the truth is that compliant child victims can, and do, enjoy the pleasurable feelings they experience. This would particularly apply for a “gentle, loving” abuser like Jackson.

Jackson continued to cultivate Wade’s adulation by keeping in constant contact with the boy and his family when they returned to Australia. This was underscored in an article on the Robsons which appeared in a 1991 edition of the Australian entertainment magazine Variety Today:

The family have scores of facsimiles with messages and drawings from Michael. Wade has also covered his wardrobe door with photographs of himself with the superstar, one of which bears the following message: “I’ve found a new inspiration. God has a special plan for your Wade. Just fulfill it. I love you. Michael Jackson.”

Ken Lanning, a (now retired) FBI expert in acquaintance molesters, has written about compliant child victims in the chapter he authored for the 2005 book Viewing Child Pornography on the Internet titled Compliant Child Victims: Confronting an Uncomfortable Reality.

In this chapter, Lanning describes why children who have been abused remain silent.

In theory, the law recognizes the developmental limitations of children and affords them with special protection. The repeated use, however, of terms such as rape, sexual violence, assault, attack, sexually violent predator, and unwanted sexual activity, when discussing or inquiring about the sexual exploitation of children assumes or implies in the minds of many that all child victims resist sexual advances by adults and are then overpowered by coercion, trickery, threats, weapons, or physical force. Although cases with these elements certainly exist, when adults and children have sex, lack of “consent” can exist simply because the child is legally incapable of giving it. Whether or not the child resisted, said no, and was overpowered are, therefore, not necessarily elements in determining if a crime has occurred. Understanding this is especially problematic for the public (i.e., potential jurors) and professionals (i.e., physicians, therapists) who lack specialized training in criminal law and may not rely on strict legal analysis.

The sad reality is, nonetheless, that such victim behavior does have significance in the perception of society and in the “real world” of the criminal justice system. Society’s lack of understanding and acceptance of the reality of compliant child victims often results in the following:

• Victims failing to disclose and even denying their sexual victimization.
• Incomplete, inaccurate, distorted, even contradictory victim disclosures when they do happen.
• Lifetime of victim shame, embarrassment, and guilt.
• Offenders being able to have numerous victims over an extended period of time.
• Ineffective prevention programs that not only do not prevent victimization, but also make the first four problems worse.

Wade’s experience as a compliant child victim is quite difficult for many people to take in. Why would Wade keep quiet, and even deny, the abuse took place? Why would Wade get on the stand and support his abuser? Why would Wade continue to support his abuser even as an adult? For most people, this seems as though he is now lying for money, but that’s not the case. Lanning writes:

Because victims of acquaintance exploitation usually have been carefully seduced and often do not realize or believe they are victims, they repeatedly and voluntarily return to the offender. Society and the criminal-justice system have a difficult time understanding this. If a neighbor, teacher, or clergy member molests a boy, why does he “allow” it to continue and not immediately report it? Most likely he may  not initially realize or believe he is a victim. Some victims are simply willing to trade sex for attention, affection, and gifts and do not believe they are victims. The sex itself might even be enjoyable, and the offender may be treating them better than anyone else ever has. Many of these victims never disclose their victimization. Younger children may believe they did something “wrong” or “bad” and are afraid of getting into trouble. Older children may be more ashamed and embarrassed.

Victims not only do not disclose, but they often strongly deny it happened when confronted. In one case, several boys took the stand and testified concerning the high moral character of the accused molester.  When the accused molester changed his plea to guilty, he admitted that the boys who testified on his behalf were also among his victims.
In my experience, some of the more common reasons that compliant victims do not disclose are:
• The stigma of homosexuality.
• Lack of societal understanding.
• Failure to tell when they should have.
• Presence of positive feelings for the offender.
• Embarrassment or fear over their victimization.
• The belief they are not really victims.

This puts Wade’s denials on the witness stand at the 2005 molestation trial into perspective. The two strongest motives that would apply to Wade, based on his complaints, would be the presence of positive feelings for the offender (Jackson) – Wade obviously had a deep love for Michael, that cannot be denied; and the belief that he wasn’t a victim – Jackson brainwashed Wade into thinking that the molestation was his idea and that it was how they expressed their “love”.

Lanning goes on to say:

If necessary, an education expert witness can explain the dynamics of these “consenting” victim patterns of behavior to the court. I have personally done so in several cases in the United States with the admissibility of my testimony upheld by appellate courts.

If the Jackson company lawyers are relying on a jury to also be “one hundred percent confident that Robson did tell the truth in 2005”, after Wade’s lawyers have put an expert such as Lanning on the stand to explain Wade’s seemingly contradictory behavior between his disclosure in 2013 and his testimony in 2005, they will be in for a shock.

Wade’s disclosure can also be explained not for the love of money, but by typical victim behavior as outlined by Lanning:

Some compliant victims eventually disclose due to significant changes later in their lives such as marriage or the birth of a child.

The birth of Wade’s son was a strong factor in him finally coming forward, as he explained in his complaint.

Check out  Wade Robson - The Marathon - February 2016 Update

The reply’s notion that Wade’s complaint has the “sole and express purpose of taking money from Michael Jackson’s heirs and beneficiaries” is also therefore incorrect. Wade made a complaint about Jackson, Jackson’s companies and Jackson’s employees failing to keep him safe from a child molester. If the case is proven, Wade is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. Compensation for the abuse he has suffered at the hands of Jackson, and punitive to send a message to those who would facilitate the abuse of children through their employment and companies for permitting the culture in which that is acceptable.

Anybody who suggests Wade would not be entitled to compensation would need to argue for the abolition of the entire civil damages system in the United States, an absurd position to take. It matters not that Jackson’s “heirs and beneficiaries” would be left with less money from the Estate, that is a matter Jackson should have considered before he molested Wade (assuming Wade’s allegations are proven). The court won’t even consider that Jackson’s “heirs and beneficiaries” will be out of pocket.

As for the fact that “Michael Jackson is no longer here to defend himself”, that is also irrelevant. This is an action against his companies, which are still registered and active. Again, more emotive language from the Jackson company lawyers.


The reply also includes the defenses that long time Jackson lawyer Howard Weitzman plans to use should the claim go to trial. I’m not a lawyer, so I stand to be corrected on any comments I’ve made here, but I have carefully researched legal definitions and I believe I have them right. Let’s look at each one closely.

 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (Failure to State a Cause of Action)
1. The Third Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the Corporate Defendants because, among other things, the Third Amended Complaint does not explain what duty the Corporate Defendants supposedly owed to Wade Robson and how that duty was supposedly breached.

As we don’t have access to Wade’s Third Amended Complaint we can’t be certain of what he claimed, however from other documents in the case we have learnt that several employees seemingly had knowledge of Jackson’s proclivity for sexual activities with boys, yet still organised for Wade to be brought to Jackson and spend time alone with him. That is a clear breach of a duty of care owed to Wade by Jackson’s employees.

In other court documents Wade’s lawyers refer to Californian Penal Code 266(j), which states:

266j. Any person who intentionally gives, transports, provides, or makes available, or who offers to give, transport, provide, or make available to another person, a child under the age of 16 for the purpose of any lewd or lascivious act as defined in Section 288, or who causes, induces, or persuades a child under the age of 16 to engage in such an act with another person, is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a term of three, six, or eight years, and by a fine not to exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000).

Section 288 is extensively detailed here, but part (a) would be the applicable section:

288. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (i), any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.

It’s quite clear that if any of Jackson’s employees had knowledge that Jackson’s young companions were being abused, and subsequently arranged transport or accommodation for those companions, they were committing a felony. That they might have done so is only relevant at this stage for the purposes of this lawsuit to show liability, and any such charge against any of Jackson’s employees is barred by the statute of limitations.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (Statutes of Limitations)
 2. Robson's claims are barred entirely by applicable statutes of limitations. Specifically, and without limitation, Robson cannot prove that his claims are within the scope of the expanded statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1.

Section 340.1 of the Californian Code of Civil Procedure states:

In an action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse, the time for commencement of the action shall be within eight years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse, whichever period expires later.

Eight years after the plaintiff (Wade) reached the age of majority (18) was on September 17, 2008. On the face of it, Wade doesn’t meet the first part of the requirements for filing a civil lawsuit for sexual abuse as he was thirty one years old when he filed.

For the second part, after Wade had a nervous breakdown at the end of April 2011, he started seeing a cognitive psychologist on May 16, 2011. After a month of treatment, where Wade discussed Michael Jackson but not the sexual aspect of their relationship, Wade felt well enough to work again.

A month after a second breakdown in March 2012, Wade began insight-oriented psychotherapy to try and find out why he was psychologically distressed. Insight-oriented psychotherapy, also known as psychodynamic therapy, is where there are conversations between the therapist and the client which helps people through understanding and expressing feelings, motivations, beliefs, fears and desires (think of the traditional psychologist’s couch).

On May 8, 2012 Wade first revealed to his therapist the sexual component of his relationship with Michael Jackson. Wade filed well within that time limit imposed by section 340.1; “within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse”.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (Violation of Due Process and Other Constitutional Principles of Fundamental Fairness)
 3. Under the specific and unique circumstances of this case, any recovery by Robson would violate the Corporate Defendants' rights under the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions and by other principles of fundamental fairness embodied in those charter documents. In particular, and by way of example only, Robson waited almost four years after Michael Jackson had died before he made his scurrilous and frivolous allegations. The nature of these false allegations necessarily makes it impossible for the Corporate Defendants to fully defend themselves without the assistance of Michael Jackson himself. The impossibility of fully and completely defending against Robson's false allegations is further magnified by the fact that Robson himself steadfastly denied these allegations during the entirety of Michael Jackson's life.
 Indeed, Robson and his family denied the allegations under oath on multiple occasions, including in a 2005 criminal trial where Michael Jackson was frivolously accused of misconduct and then exonerated by a unanimous jury of twelve. Accordingly, the Corporate Defendants could not possibly have been on notice, prior to Michael Jackson's death, that Robson would bring claims like those here and that they should have been prepared to defend against such claims.

It’s true that the time that has elapsed has made it more difficult for the MJJ companies to mount a defense against Wade’s allegations, however because Wade was a compliant child victim, he could not bring a claim any earlier. His denial to himself of the abuse, his feelings for Jackson, and his lack of understanding of the way he felt prevented him from bringing this suit any earlier.

There needs to be fairness on both sides, Wade had no knowledge of what was behind his nervous breakdowns and why he had them until he began to discuss what happened with a trusted professional. When Michael Jackson was alive, and for years after he died, Wade had those feelings and secrets well hidden away deep in his psyche so they had no effect on him. Wade, only after therapy, gradually came to understand and admit that he was sexually abused as a child and that this childhood sexual abuse caused psychological injury, illness and damage. When they did, he began his process of finding out why he felt the way he did; and it was Michael Jackson’s sexual abuse of him.

To say that the MJJ lawyers had no idea that there may be another molestation allegation against Jackson (or his companies) is far fetched. Even without the Arvizo allegations, there is the matter of the Chandler and Francia allegations. Weitzman was certainly involved in and had an intimate knowledge of the Chandler accusations. That those cases were settled by Jackson would have been an indication that similar cases would arise.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (Unclean Hands, Bad Faith, and Inequitable Conduct)
 4. As a result of Robson's own affirmative claims that he perjured himself and obstructed justice in prior judicial proceedings, and other inequitable conduct by him and his associates, all claims in the Third Amended Complaint are barred in whole or in part by unclean hands, bad faith, and inequitable conduct.

Wade has a powerful reply to the accusation that he perjured himself on the stand. Many people would say “how could Wade not know he was being abused?”

Tom Mesereau asked Wade on the witness stand:

Q. You’re aware of the allegations in this case, are you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And are you aware, as you sit here today, that there’s been allegations that Mr. Jackson molested you?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever molest you at any time?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever touch you in a sexual way?

A. Never, no.

Q. Mr. Robson, has Mr. Jackson ever inappropriately touched any part of your body at any time?

A. No.

Later during questioning, Mesereau asked again:

Q. And at no time has any sexual contact ever occurred between you and Mr. Jackson, right?

A. Never.

To reiterate, Mesereau wanted to make sure Wade was being honest:

Q. Is everything you’ve said the complete and honest truth?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever do anything wrong with you?

A. No.

The argument could be made that Wade was being totally honest on the stand when Mesereau asked “Did Mr. Jackson ever do anything wrong with you?” and Wade answers “No.” – for the simple fact that Wade didn’t consider the abuse “wrong”. Wade was a willing participant and thought it was an expression of “love”!

Ron Zonen cross examined Wade for the prosecution, and referred to an incident that security guard Charli Michaels witnessed:

Q. Was there ever an occasion where you were on the dance floor with Mr. Jackson and he was showing you a routine and he grabbed your crotch in a manner similar to how he would grab his own crotch while doing those performances?

A. No, that’s not true.

Q. You have no recollection of that?

A. No.

Q. That didn’t happen?

A. No.

Wade also denied during the cross examination that sexual abuse ever happened on his first visit to Neverland when he was seven years old. He also denied they so much as touched when they shared a bed:

Q. On the occasions that you stayed in bed with Mr. Jackson, would you ever cuddle in bed?

A. No.

Q. Would you lie next to one another?

A. No.

Q. Would you touch?

A. No.

Wade was again questioned by Jackson lawyer Tom Mesereau, and again denied any inappropriate touching or sexual abuse occurred with him or any other child. Mesereau asked about Wade being shown sexually explicit material:

Q. When you were a young child, did Michael Jackson ever show you any sexually explicit material?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see Michael Jackson show sexually explicit material to any child?

A. No.

Wade lied on the stand because he had been so expertly trained to do so. Remember Jackson’s admonition to a young Wade; “If anyone were to ever find out, our lives and and careers would be over.”

At the time of the Chandler allegations Jackson had been in constant contact with then 11-year-old Wade, saying that if he ever told anyone about what they did, it would ruin both of them “and we would go to jail for the rest of our lives. Our lives and careers would be over. We’ve got to fight this. We’ve got to beat them together.”

Wade loved Jackson unconditionally as a father and mentor and did not want anything harmful to happen to him. When finally brought in for questioning, Wade denied any sexual abuse.

Jackson repeated his technique to brainwash Wade before Wade’s appearance as a witness at the 2005 trial. The pop star continued to call his erstwhile young companion constantly to perform similar role playing as he did during the Chandler investigation, making statements such as “They are making up all these lies about you and I, saying that we did all this disgusting sexual stuff. They are just trying to take us down, take away my power and my money, take away our careers. We can’t let them do this. We have to fight them together.”

Note Jackson’s careful use of words. He uses the phrase “we did” rather than “I did” and the words “we” “us” and “our”, a technique often used in sales to build loyalty.

Remember at this point Wade was a highly successful choreographer with a lot to lose, Jackson was a mentor who Wade didn’t want to see hurt or damaged in any way (and certainly not be sent to prison). This ensured the abuse was compartmentalized and well hidden from Wade’s conscious self. Wade answered many of the questions he was asked truthfully.

“..did Michael Jackson ever molest you at any time?”

“…has Mr. Jackson ever inappropriately touched any part of your body at any time?”

“Did Mr. Jackson ever do anything wrong with you?”

Wade could truthfully answer no to these questions; Wade didn’t think he had been molested or inappropriately touched, and he certainly didn’t think that Jackson did anything wrong.

Wade’s performance on the stand was based on an unconscious necessity –  to protect himself and his “friend”.

 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (No Causation)
 5. Robson cannot show that any acts or omissions of the Corporate Defendants caused him any damages. In particular, and by way of example only, when Michael Jackson was frivolously accused of wrongdoing in 1993 and investigated by authorities regarding such wrongdoing, both Robson and Robson's family, including his mother Joy Robson, publicly and prominently defended Michael Jackson and rejected the allegations of wrongdoing out of hand, including false allegations that Michael Jackson had engaged in wrongdoing with Wade Robson himself. Given that Joy Robson necessarily knew more than the Corporate Defendants about the relationship between Wade Robson and Michael Jackson, and given that Joy Robson did not take any steps to "protect" Robson (because no such steps were necessary), Wade Robson cannot possibly prove his absurd allegations that the Corporate Defendants' supposed failure to take "reasonable steps" to prevent the alleged abuse is what caused him damage.

While it can be suspected by some that Joy Robson “pimped her son” to Jackson,  it has not been proven that she knew anything about Jackson’s sexual attraction to boys in the same way that Jackson’s employees were. This may be a valid defense depending on the depositions, as well as witness statements, that the MJJ lawyers collect.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (Failure to File a Creditor's Claim and Code of Civil Procedure§ 366.2)
 6. Wade Robson already petitioned to file a claim against the Estate of Michael Jackson based on these exact same false allegations. The Court dismissed that petition with prejudice on May 26, 2015, and held that Robson could file no such claim against the Estate as a matter of law. This lawsuit against the Corporate Defendants is simply an attempt to end-run the law (as set out in the Court's May 26, 2015 ruling dismissing Robson's petition against the Estate which clearly precludes Robson from recovering based on his false allegations.
 7. In light of the above, and given the specific allegations of the Third Amended Complaint and prior complaints, this action against the Corporate Defendants is truly an action based on the alleged personal liability of Michael Jackson himself, and not an action based on any alleged "corporate" conduct of the Corporate Defendants. This is a disguised action for money damages against the Estate of Michael Jackson, deceased (the Corporate Defendants are a substantial part of the res of the Estate of Michael J. Jackson, deceased, under administration of the Superior Court, Case No. BP117321) and is precluded for all the same reasons that the prior petition to file a claim against the Estate of Michael J. Jackson, deceased, was precluded as a matter of law.

Wade Robson’s case against Michael Jackson’s Estate failed due to the statute of limitations in probate law, this is a civil case with a different set of statute of limitations. This is comparing apples to oranges.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (Waiver)
 8. As a result of Robson's knowledge, conduct, words and actions, Robson has waived any and all of the alleged rights asserted in the Third Amended Complaint and in each and every claim therein.

I believe the MJJ lawyers are saying here that Wade had knowledge of the sexual abuse for so long, and even perjured himself on the stand in the 2005 molestation trial, so he has waived his right to compensation for the abuse suffered at the hands of Jackson and his companies.

Check out  Wade Robson Interview

In other words, “Robson lied!”, and as such, he shouldn’t be allowed to bring this action.

The reasons Robson perjured himself are very clear. As outlined in the section under the fourth affirmative defense (unclean hands, bad faith, and inequitable conduct), Wade was psychologically incapable of admitting that Jackson sexually abused him. Wade had compartmentalized the sexual aspect of his relationship with Jackson, reinforced by Jackson’s admonition that “their lives would be over” if it was ever revealed. This helped to keep those memories buried deep in his psyche.

It was not until May 8, 2012 that Wade came to realize that what Jackson did was sexual abuse. Before that date, any and all “lies” regarding their sexual contact were only to protect himself and his “friend”. As a compliant child victim, the guilt and shame from his participation in the sex, combined with the  prevented

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (Failure to Join Indispensable Parties)
 Robson's claims are barred because he has failed to join indispensable parties who are responsible for his alleged harm.

Section 389 of the Californian Civil Code outlines that indispensible parties need to be joined to a civil suit.

389.
(a) A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if
(1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or
(2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may
(i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to
protect that interest or
(ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party.
(b) If a person as described in paragraph (1) or (2) of
subdivision (a) cannot be made a party, the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed without prejudice, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the court include:
(1) to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties;
(2) the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided;
(3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate;
(4) whether the plaintiff or cross-complainant will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.
(c) A complaint or cross-complaint shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons as described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.
(d) Nothing in this section affects the law applicable to class actions.

I’m not sure what the MJJ lawyers are trying to say here. Wade has included Does 3-50 in his complaint, are they saying he needs to name them? This appears to be a “just in case” defense, in that if the Doe’s names are revealed and Wade’s team misses someone who should have been in there the MJJ lawyers will have a Gotcha.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (Laches)
 10. Robson's claims are barred entirely by the doctrine of laches.

This is an interesting defense. The doctrine of laches says that a claim must be filed in a timely manner. This is true, and Wade’s claim was filed 17 years after the abuse ceased, and 4 years after Jackson himself died. However, as mentioned above Wade’s response will once again be covered by his status as a compliant child victim who was held back from disclosing his abuse through Jackson’s brainwashing.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (Estoppel)
 11.Robson's actions are barred entirely by the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

The doctrine of equitable estoppal is based on principles of fair play and essential justice and arises when one party lures another party into a disadvantageous legal position. This may be due to an action, silence, or concealment of material facts. Wade once again can reply to his apparent “silence, action or concealment of material facts” as being a consequence of his being a compliant child victim as well as Jackson’s brainwashing.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (Lack of Damages)
 12. Robson's claims in the Third Amended Complaint are barred in whole or in part, because Robson suffered neither damages nor injury; any damages or injuries alleged are attributable to causes other than any asserted acts or omissions of the Corporate Defendants.

Here the MJJ lawyers are saying that even if Wade suffered any damages or injury, they weren’t caused by anything he alleges in his complaint against the MJJ companies, and if there was no damages or injury caused by the MJJ companies the claims should be disallowed.

As I understand it, Wade’s whole case is based around the fact that Jackson’s private and corporate life was so tightly intertwined. Jackson was MJJ Productions Inc, and MJJ Productions Inc was Jackson, and one could not exist without the other. MJJ Productions was responsible for even the most intimate parts of Jackson’s life; organizing even the minutiae of his existence. In that regard, Jackson could not have done what he did without the help of MJJ Productions and it’s employees.

In Wade’s second amended complaint, as he did in his original complaint, it is alleged that Jackson partook in actions as defined in Sections 286(b)(1), 286(b)(2), 286(c)(2)(A), 286(c)(2)(C), 288(a), 288(b)(1), 288a(b)(2), 288a(c)(1), 288a(c)(2)(A), 288a(c)(2)(B), 288a(c)(2)(C), 288a(c)(3), 289(h), 289(i), 289(j) and 647.6(a)(1).

Each allegation is prefaced with the words “DECEDENT, together with his co-conspirators, alter egos, aiders and abettors and agents Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that occurred when Plaintiff was under the age of eighteen (18)…”

These allegations in turn are sodomy with a person under 18 – 286(b)(1), sodomy by a person over 21 with a person under 16 – 286(b)(2), act of sodomy when act is accomplished against the victim’s will by means of duress – 286(c)(2)(A), act of sodomy where the victim is 14 years of age or older and the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by duress – 286(c)(2)(C), lewd or lascivious act on a victim under the age of 14 years – 288(a), lewd or lascivious act on a victim under the age of 14 years by use of duress – 288(b)(1), oral copulation of a person under 16 by a person over 21 – 288a(b)(2), a person who performs oral copulation with another person who is under 14 years of age and more than 10 years younger than he – 288a(c)(1), oral copulation on a person accompanied by duress – 288a(c)(2)(A), oral copulation on a person under 14 accompanied by duress –  288a(c)(2)(B),   oral copulation on a minor over 14 accompanied by duress – 288a(c)(2)(C), act of oral copulation where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat – 288a(c)(3), an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 18 years of age – 289(h), sexual penetration by a person over 21 with another person who is under 16 years of age – 289(i), sexual penetration with another person who is under 14 years of age and who is more than 10 years younger than he – 289(j), and molesting a child under 18 years of age – 647.6(a)(1).

Michael Jackson allegedly performed oral sex, anal sex, masturbation and penetration on Wade. As Wade states in his complaint; “Defendants’ conduct alleged above would cause a reasonable person to suffer severe mental and emotional distress.”

It was only possible for Jackson to perpetrate these alleged crimes with the help of his companies. To say that Wade would suffer no damages or injury is absurd. In any case, Wade sought treatment and counseling for the emotional distress that he claimed to suffer and his doctor has verified that there is indeed damages and injury.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (Speculative Damages)
 13. Robson cannot recover any of the damages alleged in the Third Amended Complaint because such damages, if any, are to speculative to be recoverable.

What the MJJ lawyers are saying here is that Wade’s claims – for emotional distress, negligence, future lost earnings etc can’t be calculated so he shouldn’t receive anything.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppal)
 14. This action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppal.

Literally “a matter judged”, res judicata is the principle that a matter may not, generally, be relitigated once it has been judged on the merits. The MJJ lawyers are trying to say that this claim has already been litigated in probate court, when clearly it hasn’t (the only thing that happened was that the claim didn’t meet the statute of limitations for probate law and was not allowed to proceed).

Collateral estoppal is similar, once an issue of fact has been determined in a proceeding between two parties, the parties may not relitigate that issue even in a proceeding on a different cause of action. The “issue of fact” however was the timeliness of the claim in a probate court, which has no relevance to a claim in a civil court.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 (Reservation of Rights)
 15. The Corporate Defendants have insufficient information upon which to form a belief as to whether it has additional, unstated affirmative defenses. The Corporate Defendants reserve the right to assert additional defenses in the event they are appropriate.

This is a catch-all to ensure the MJJ lawyers can add further defenses at a later time.


The lawyers for the MJJ companies conclude with:

WHEREFORE, the Corporate Defendants respectfully pray for judgment against Wade Robson as follows:
 1. That Wade Robson take nothing by way of his Complaint and that judgment be rendered in favor of the Corporate Defendants and against Wade Robson;
 2. For costs of suit incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys' fees due to the frivolous nature of the case; and
 3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

In other words, this is what they hope will happen. Only time will tell. Overall, the MJJ lawyers need to get past the certain inclusion of an acquaintance molester expert who will tell the jury that Wade behaved exactly in line with a how a compliant child victim, who has been brainwashed by his abuser, would behave. How a compliant child victim will defend his “friend”, to not want to see his “friend” go to jail, to deny the abuse by his “friend”, and how a major life event such as having a child will help them see that the “love” from their “friend” was actually abuse.

If the MJJ lawyers think they have the “magic bullet” which will win them case with a slam dunk by saying “Wade lied then, or now”, they are sorely mistaken. If Ken Lanning or any other competent expert testifies, they are certainly going to struggle to convince a jury that Wade is lying for money. Far from being “a mockery of justice” as the reply contends, Wade’s position is completely in keeping with how a child can be so thoroughly indoctrinated that, even as adults, they deny abuse to themselves and others and allow their molester to escape justice while alive. Now that Jackson is dead, his victims should be allowed the peace, closure and healing they deserve.

The irony here is that the MJJ lawyers harp about Wade seeking money, yet we know any damages awarded would have a negligible effect on the income of Jackson’s heirs. The real issues here are twofold. The first is that Jackson’s reputation is directly tied to the earning power of his likeness. If it is shown, without doubt (for most people) that Jackson was a child molester then a lot of people’s incomes from fees and commissions will be adversely affected. The other factor is that there are more victims out there, and if Wade prevails they may be emboldened to come forward. If Wade can be squashed like a bug, other victims will be discouraged. It’s obvious why the Jackson machine wants this all to go away.


 

*It has been reported to us by sources close to both sides that a settlement won’t happen, with it being described “as likely as the Jacksons coming out and saying Michael’s death was a hoax”.

  • To’Shari

    The very last part has me scratching my head. Sorry for sounding ignorant but does this imply that this lawsuit can raise Michael from the Dead??? I believe it won’t come to that but I would love to see that and the fans will finally realize, Mikey was playing everybody (who believed him) for a major fool. Too many lies came from this man and those close to him. One of these days alot of stuff with strong evidence(s) will come out; though there’s already evidence out there but ones that can really bring his estate down. They can’t keep all the things he did buried forever…..(no pun intended)

    • Frankly

      One of the biggest misconceptions is that many of Michael Jackson’s victims can easily come forward. Michael spent huge amounts of resources and money to pre-emptively squash his victims before they could even catch their breath.

      We are hoping and praying that the entire truth about serial pedophile Michael Jackson and his pedophile empire comes out.

      • To’Shari

        Agreed! Also, What have me wondering now, with the “Pizza-gate” (Satanic Child sex/trafficking) scandal that’s been exposed and going viral via youtube and other outlet. With very well known and powerful politicians (& hollywood incl) been involved in this sick twisted crime, this had me thinking of what Pellicano (sp), Michael former PI said about Michael did worse things to children. I wonder if Michael may had any connections to this “Pizza-gate”?? (obviously this has been going on for years and now brought to light) I know it sounds a little wild but you never know…. I still want to know what Pellicano meant by his statement, what he found out.

        • ShawntayUStay

          I don’t think Pizza Gate is real. That’s just fake news.

  • bla

    When he was a grown ass adult he still believed that ” he will go to jail if he acussed mj of molesting him and this was in 2005 back when everyone was against Mj , and Wade didn’t know that getting anally fucked by a 30 year old when a kid is not abuse at 26 years of age. i don’t buy it and don’t give me those american paranoid propagnda anlysis of ”experts on child abuse”. This is bullcrap. And Wade is dumb as fuck, doesn’t he know that those mj companies are multi bilionaires , even if he was a real victim and even if milions of real victims came out he wouldn’t stand a chance lol .

    • Andreas Moss

      You’re missing the point, bla. Wade has been quite open about that he simply was in denial that it was sexual abuse, not that he was in denial it was sex. He has even said he (at least at times) enjoyed the molestation, which has been difficult for him to admit. Michael insisted it was their secret. it was “love” even though society wouldn’t understand, and he could never share it with anyone, as bad stuff would happen to them both. Imagine being told this as a child by your idol and father figure.

      Another factor that complicates things is that it can be immensly difficult to bite the hand that feed. Many of these boys gained a lot of status and a lot of perks by being ‘special friends’ with Michael Jackson, and going against all that obviously meant throwing it all away, and looking at it all their memories in a more painful light. Still, as victims get older the more they understand their naive way of understanding the events that happened might have been wrong. Like Safechuck realizing he wasn’t really the one initiating the first molestation, even though Michael tricked him into believing he did.

      Both Wade Robson and James Safechuck has explained having children themselves disentangled the dissonance, and they then fully realized that it was abuse, as they saw their own children potentially in the situation they were in. Does that not make a lot of sense?

      Anyway. Its quite absurd some people think Wade claims Michael raped him for 7-8 years but just didn’t understand it until he was 30 years old. I see those type of comments all the time. Its sad.

      • bla

        I saw a video of Wade saying after MJ’s death that he was a great human being and the most important thing ”a great father to his children ” if he was really abused he is basicly saying that a child molester is a great father . I don’t care wade most take full responsibility for his actions he was an adult when he said that MJ didn’t abuse him and it’s his fault for doing that not Jackson’s there is no such thing as ”brainwashing” but stupidity .
        I don’t know if he was a child molester or not , this site has intresting theories but
        there are a lot of people who get falsely accused . People like you should watch a movie called ”The Haunt ” and stories of people who got falsely accused of child molestation there are a lot on the interent just look how easy it is to convict someon of molestation .
        http://www.ejfi.org/Courts/Courts-22.htm

        Michael was lucky that he was rich, if he wasn’t he would be in jail , even if he was innocent .

        • ShawntayUStay

          I’ve seen “The Hunt”… It was definitely disturbing how they so quickly wanted to demonize someone for an allegation that turned out to be false. However, you’re ignoring the fact that MJ had been accused of molestation multiple times and he admitted to doing things with kids that are at best, strange, and at worst, implications of pedophilia; there is really no reason to insist on sleeping in the bed with other people’s children. Unless you get sexual gratification from it and you this can’t stop the impulse.

          As for Wade, well, sure…He definitely had some “explaining” to do because he is seeming monetary damages. But to say that he couldn’t be brainwashed by a skilled pedophile who had already added three “notches” to his belt previously in the form of Manny Lewis, Jonathan Spence, and James Safechuck…that’s ridiculous. Add the article explained, Wade was a baby fanboy when he first came to Neverland, in awe of MJ. He could be persuaded to do whatever MJ wanted because he was not only a child but a fan.

          I bet YOU could be persuaded to cater to Michael Jackson’s every whim as well, being a hardcore fan, right? Lmao. So why be incredulous about Wade?

          MJ basically controlled Wade’s life after his first time meeting MJ. MJ wanted this young boy so bad that he sponsored work visas for the three Robsons to come over and live in America. He also got wade a contract on his record label. If Wade felt that MJ did all of this stuff for him, why wouldn’t he easily think “the least he could do” was keep the abuse a secret and always be a “willing participant”?

          I agree that it will probably be an uphill battle with a jury if all Wade has to rely on is the theory of “compliant victim” because I think many people will think “So what” but realistically speaking — outside a courtroom — that’s the truth. He was one.

          • FED UP

            Wade WAS a compliant victim. Remember, not only do we have Wade’s credible claims, but also MANY, MANY others, and much supporting facts to go along with all of this,everything’s against pedophile Jacko. Only Jacko, who has a well documented HISTORY of LYING and manipulation, claims all these, INDEPENDENT victims are lying. Nothing supports this. As for money, since when did a victim of pedophilia NOT accept monetary compensation??? MJ freaks &mj camp act like this is unique only to MJ.And who pays THAT kind of Money to silence “liars”, as Jacko did? Inside or Outside a courtroom, MJ was GUILTY AS SIN, as anyone can see,and the facts show it plain as day. Even the 2005 jury reached this conclusion after looking at the evidence, but they STILL LET THAT GUILTY MONSTER WALK!!!

          • FED UP

            Jacko’s perverse activities with children were not simply “weird”.Weird is eating frozen chicken, standing while sleeping, living in a coffin, etc, etc. Sleeping with unrelated children is PEDOPHILIA, soaking naked in HOT TUBS with unrelated naked children is PEDOPHILIA, taking pictures of nude boys is PEDOPHILIA, phone sex with boys is PEDOPHILIA, owning books created by pedophiles of nude boys is PEDOPHILIA, and so on, so forth. Stop apologizing for the TRUTH. MJ was a serial PEDOPHILE, just like water is wet!

      • bla

        ******** ”The Hunt” not haunt very good movie

    • Thanks for your comment bla. Your use of the term “anally fucked”, and other fans saying he was “anally raped”, or even “why doesn’t Wade realize he was raped?” highlights one of the biggest hurdles for fans in understanding what kind of person Michael Jackson really was. “Anally fucked” or “raped” suggests a perpetrator who is a violent and forceful rapist, and we can all safely say that Michael Jackson wasn’t those things. It’s easy to dismiss Wade (and James’s, and Jason’s, and Gavin’s, and Jordan’s) claims on the basis that MJ “wasn’t like that”.

      The truth is that MJ was a gentle pedophile who used bribery, emotional blackmail, targeted attention on boys emotional and material needs and gentle persuasion to get boys to cooperate with his sexual advances.

      Wade and the other boys wanted to please MJ. There was no violence involved and MJ never forced himself on his young friends. Even our use of the word “molester” could be too strong considering the techniques MJ used.

      For most people this is hard to take in as our education has always been that kids will fight or scream if touched sexually. This isn’t always the case, and it’s how many pedophiles get away with their crimes.

      Add in the fact that Wade had been brainwashed for years by MJ “not to tell” – think about some of the values that have been indoctrinated in you by your parents since you were young and imagine how hard it is to discard those values even as an adult – and there was a very strong taboo on Wade speaking out about what they shared.

      Of course, as stated before, just because a child is willing to have sex with an adult doesn’t mean a law isn’t broken. On the contrary, an adult has no right to have sex with a child either morally or under law. But by calling Jackson a rapist (in the non-statutory sense) or implying that violence is involved by using terms such as “anally fucked” shows at a minimum ignorance and at a maximum an attempt to mislead others.

      • FED UP

        However, Wade has stated that he WAS anally penetrated by Jackson. Its most likely true of many others too,even if they have not stepped forwards yet. Certainly this would be the hardest act for a male victim to admit. A lot of molesters don’t use violence to molest children and they don’t really need to, doesn’t make them ‘nice’ at all. What he did epitomizes molestation. The fact that they are manipulating and coercing a vulnerable, innocent, undeveloped brain into something so detrimental to them that their bodies and minds are not even ready for is more than damaging enough. Also, MJ targeted straight boys, causing them to be confused about their sexual orientation. Molesters lie and decieve these children, and MJ even has a track record of DUMPING these same children at 15 usually, hurting them tremendously.

        • I agree with you Fed Up, I am merely pointing out that fans, in order to soothe their own minds and to convince waverers, try to frame these allegations in the context of violent rape so that they can easily dismiss them as something that MJ wouldn’t be capable of. When fans use terms such as “anally fucked”, “raped” and even “molested” they are using their own internal dictionary which suggests a perpetrator who is far darker and more violent and compassionless than MJ could ever be. They can then say to themselves (and others) that “MJ wasn’t capable of that, he was too nice.”

          (By the way, our use of the ‘nice’ part of ‘nice guy molesters’ comes from a description used by professionals in the field, it is merely a descriptor to differentiate them from situational molesters and a way to alert parents and caregivers not to drop their guard merely because someone who wants to spend time with their child appears harmless.)

          The language used when describing MJ’s acts of abuse needs to be measured and calm if we are to win over the doubters. If we use language that immediately makes people dismiss MJ as being incapable of that abuse then there is no hope of convincing people of exactly what MJ was.

          • Ali

            Obviously Jordan Chandler and his advisers choose the “nice guy molester” beacuse it fits more into Michael Jackson’s personality and people are more likely to believe it ,you don’t have to be a genius to invent a love story between a boy and a man to gain some millions. You can tell Larry Feldman studied child abuse cases and a “profile of a pedophile” and invented with Jordan a sex tale . And you can also see it in Jordan’s interview always saying that it “graduated” . the only reason Jordan didn’t say that he was “anally fucked” is beacuse it can be proved by cross exmination.

          • This is a fantasy Ali. People can’t just “make things up” about a celebrity and get paid millions.

            Firstly, you need a credible story. Celebrities have a phalanx of lawyers and private investigators who can cut through any bullshit or holes in someone’s story. Look at how quickly MJ’s lawyers dispatched charlatans like Joseph Bartucci and Daniel Kapon whose claims were bogus.

            Then there was that boy who Rodney Allen, a pedophile himself, put forth as a victim of MJ. That boy was thoroughly coached, even down to the most intricate details of the layout of MJ’s home, yet he was quickly found out.

            Then you need evidence. Jordan correctly described Michael Jackson’s genitals, which was a very powerful addition to his testimony. In fact, it was so powerful, shortly thereafter Jackson agreed to a settlement. Even Jackson’s lawyers agree with that part of the story, with a member of his 1993 legal team Carl Douglas saying this in September 2010:

            There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side…

            Which particular part of Jordan’s interview with Dr Gardner http://www.mjfacts.com/psychiatric-interview-with-jordie-chandler/ makes you think Jordan is a liar? I suggest to you that MJ did not initiate anal sex with Jordan because he was not far enough along the grooming path.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Are you really serious? Do you really believe that the Chandler allegations would have gone as far as they did, ending with a $15.3 million settlement (which is monumentally huge for a “lie”), if there was at least a little truth in it all? That is a very large payout for a lie that, according to fans and MJ, had zero evidence. Fans say all the time that nobody had anything on MJ in 1993 so that was the reason he was never arrested, but when you look at the facts and the players in 1993, you will see that MJ’s lawyer, Johnnie Cochran, worked in the Los Angeles County DA’s Office for years and was very friendly with Gil Garcetti. Cochran negotiated an agreement whereby MJ could come back to the states without the fear (and embarrassment) of being arrested — as long as he submitted to the body search; Sneddon agreed because he really played “second fiddle” to Garcetti in terms of jurisdiction. Also, Feldman and Cochran were friends for years as well, so it’s not surprising that there would be a little quid pro quo action between the two sides regarding cooperating with police; if Feldman could guarantee Cochran that Jordie wouldn’t be forth coming to police, Cochran could guarantee a swift and easy settlement for millions. MJ wanted everything to go away because he was afraid of the criminal and career repercussions if everyone found out his “secret”.

            The evidence supports likely guilt, not likely innocence. You act as if it would be so easy to just pull a guy off the street, let alone a mega popular celebrity, and be able to pin the “pedophile” label on them. When you look deep, MJ really was acting strangely with specific types of children. Anthony Pellicano, who now basically acknowledges that MJ was a molester, thought it would be a good idea to tell the world that MJ really did have one-on-one sleepovers with little boys, doing this sleepover thing after he spend thousands of dollars on the boy and his family. Apparently, Pellicano thought he was doing the smart thing by firing the “man-boy sleepover” shot first, LOL. How is this arrangement kosher, plying the boy and family with gifts and trips only in order to beg and plead with the mothers (June Chandler and Stephanie Safechuck, James’s mother, for example) for the sons to sleep in his bedroom until they relent? (In the case of Wade Robson’s and Brett Barnes’s mothers, no begging was necessary; they offered their kids up on the first night and within the first week, respectively, of meeting MJ…smdh).

            So how does the evidence comport with a grand conspiracy? Seriously…it doesn’t.

    • bla

      yeah , i know
      Pedophile comes from greek , pedo=child phile=love. funny thing they hunted gays back in the day just as they hunt pedophiles today, maybe in the future we will see pedophiles fighting for their rights lol if the teenagers weren’t forced to have sex with him, i don’t see any problem with it , some people have this sexual orientation deal with it .and it’s not abuse or rape as the media tries to potray this to be. Yeah i would love to be masturbated by michael and get 20 million dolars for that “abuse”. I wonder what has jordan chandler done with all that money or is doing with all that money. I’m jealous of him lmao.

      • if the teenagers weren’t forced to have sex with him, i don’t see any problem with it , some people have this sexual orientation deal with it

        It is highly unlikely that the age of consent will be lowered any time in the future, and no normal person wants to see that anyway. The problem is that children’s brains are still developing until the end of adolescence, they cannot make decisions like adults do. Any consent that teenagers give isn’t based on the same reasoning and logic that adults use, and consent is more easily gained from children because they can be coerced, tricked or manipulated into giving it by an adult whose brain is far more developed.

        Pedophiles are skilled at exploiting immature children and learn very quickly how to get their sexual needs satisfied using the techniques they’ve learned to get children to comply.

        While some children’s brains may be sufficiently developed by 13, 14 or 15 we need a cut off of the age of consent for the overall safety of children.

        Another point is that you never see children advocating to have sex with adults, only the other way around. That should tell you something about the motives here.

        Whether anybody would enjoy being masturbated by Michael Jackson or not isn’t the point. It was against the law, and no amount of dissembling can get around that.

        And one last thing – any further pedophile supporting comments won’t be approved bla. There are other places on the net for that, I suggest VindicateMJ.

      • Pea

        Hmm… Looks like Disqus is having more malfunctions because this comment by you, bla, has got an upvote from me that cannot be undone. I certainly didn’t upvote your pedophile apologetics, so as a “heads-up” to readers, that is the result of a glitch.

      • ShawntayUStay

        Um I’m confused. Why did you previously act as if Wade was an unconscionable liar and MJ just an innocent victim of extortion, and now you say that MJ did it (in a roundabout way) and the boys he abused should be grateful? So if they are not “grateful” like you think they should be and instead they want to seek legal redress, why get angry at them? MJ still did, right? So what’s the problem? You sound like a pedophile supporter, not a MJ fan.

      • fudhux

        What you just said is disgusting and disturbing. You are a pedophile supporter. Like ShawntaUStay said you just contradicted yourself : you don’t believe that MJ is a pedo but you don’t see a problem with him being one. So if one day you are conviced that MJ was a pedo and that he abused kids ( which is the case) , you won’t have any problem with that ?!

        • Andreas Moss

          Its kind of funny. Hehe as long as it is victimblaming in some form he does not give a damn if Michael is guilty or not. (Its probably trollish sarcasm though.)

          Its true however that Michaels relationship to his ‘special friends’ seemed to be quite complex, especially the longer lasting ones, and in the longer run some of them seemed to have went along with it, perhaps even found some enjoyment in it, partially at least, but it still seems like most of them were initially manipulated, brainwashed and groomed into it doing these things with Michael, and keeping quiet about it, and its not unlikely many of them felt forced against their will.

          If we are to take James and Wade by the word, there seems be an argument that they felt tricked, used and abused still. At least the way they see it now, looking back at it. I don’t think we should see what Wade said as “enjoyment” as his only feeling about it as a child. Its difficult to say.

          One of those testimonies said that a chauffeur said he observed Jackson and Wade in the backseat, it was quite dark so Jackson probably didn’t think he was being observed, but Jackson was kissing and hugging and touching at Wade, while little Wade was more interested in a toy, and was just passivly sitting there accepting it. He wasn’t engaging with Jackson. Very strange. I do hope Wade some day will get to tell his story.

          • FED UP

            ABSOLUTELY, Wade NEEDS to tell his story

      • FED UP

        LIAR! MJ masturbated his victims, gave and had ORAL sex with them, and ANALLY penetrated them! Stop with your lies! And yes, most of us already know the some MJ fans are themselves ALSO pedophiles, its rather obvious.

  • Sam, according to his testimony at the 2005 trial, Wade spent over 300 nights alone with Jackson over seven years.That would be a conservative estimate, so to say he didn’t spend as much time around MJ as the other special friends is incorrect. MJ also had Wade brought over from Australia first class four times in two years for sleepovers before his family moved to the United States.

    Which claims of Wade are not supported by the evidence? I’d like to hear your thoughts.

    • sam

      Well for one, his claim of being molested on the 2nd night he stayed at Neverland goes against MJ’s usual pattern of behavior and the pattern of most pedophiles, which is that they groom their victims before harming them. It also contradicts his sister’s testimony which is that she stayed with her brother and MJ on the second night. His claim of MJ calling him everyday rehearsing with him during the Chandler scandal was contradicted by a former neverland employee who stated on twitter that Jackson was very paranoid during that time period about the possibility of his phone calls being tapped by the police, so there’s no way that he was making those kind of calls. His claim of MJ showing him porn makes no sense as he had already been molested so there was no point of showing him adult material which is used by child molesters to groom their victims. His claim of being in bed with MJ at his hideout and getting molested contradicts all the witnesses at trial that stated that there were no beds at MJ’s hideout, and the list goes on. His story is all over the place and this will create reasonable doubt for any jury.

      • Pea

        LOL. I can’t believe you are quoting, as a sole source on all of Jacko’s 1993 phone calls, a “former Neverland employee” (link please?). Jacko may have been paranoid about eavesdropping (being someone who’d listened in on his employees phone calls before, he would know), but that “former Neverland employee” cannot testify with total certainty that Jacko never made/took a call the employee didn’t themselves witness.

        As for Wade Robson, you are simply repeating the arguments advanced by Helena from Vindicate MJ. While I can give babushka props for her prolificacy, a lot of what she writes is utter nonsense because, in spite of her intelligence, she doesn’t know how to think properly.

        For instance, you mention the claim about the second night sleeping in Jacko’s bedroom. Helena is just choosing to believe Chantal Robson’s version of events over Wade’s — and it is over a completely inconsequential element of the story. There’s still no disputing that when 7-year-old Wade and his sister stayed in Jacko’s bedroom during that first visit, there was a time when Wade was with Jacko in bed while Chantal was elsewhere — and that fact doesn’t conflict with his claims.

        Of course, the VMJ crowd would counter and say that he’s playing off the truth to make his lie more digestible. That’s a reasonable assumption until you consider that it would have been far easier for Wade to say molestation happened at a time when his sister absolutely wasn’t around. The story Wade does tell is very consistent with pedophile MO: profilers are often able to differentiate pedophiles from situational molesters because the former acts more riskily, such as molesting a kid while they are in bed with a sleeping sibling. So, even if we argue that Chantal’s memory is more accurate, it doesn’t preclude Jacko from fondling Wade with Chantal present but sleeping. Wade said it all started with touching on the outside of clothes; that could feasibly be done without disturbing her. However, I would err on the side of Wade being the accurate version of the story; as babushka ironically points out, a victim never forgets how they were abused.

        As for the grooming, I find it hilarious that fans want to invalidate Wade by saying the Jacko he describes “doesn’t fit Michael’s pattern”. LOL. By your logic, you’re also admitting that the accusers painting stories of seduction must be telling the truth. Yes, that is an especially silly line of reasoning, considering that the VMJ crowd believes Wade was also reading a bunch of CSA Survivor and pedophile profiling books to make his “lies” consistent with anecdote and research, respectively.

        So, if that is a dominant fan perspective, Sam, why would Wade claim it all started so suddenly? Wouldn’t it have been far easier for Wade to study the stories of Jacko’s other accusers (as well as those books!) and make the progress of his alleged abuse slower? Yet he didn’t. Could it be that Wade is telling the truth?

        Also, Michael Jackson’s accusers and ‘special friends’ were never 7-year-olds, and it seems very plausible (and logical) to me that, for a skilled pedophile, “negotiating” sexual activity would be easier with a younger kid. All Jacko had to rely on was the fact Wade was a massive MJ fanboy. It was then a one-two punch.

        “His claim of MJ showing him porn makes no sense as he had already been
        molested so there was no point of showing him adult material”

        There’s no rule that a pedophile has to show a kid porn prior to molestation and saying otherwise is a strawman. Again, if Wade is merely copying other accusers (e.g., Gavin) or CSA info, why would he deviate from the expected script? (According to VMJ, Wade’s alleged “surprise” at seeing the pornography at the trial is “proof” that he lied — even though, of course, Wade could’ve feigned surprise — as he claimed he denied abuse on the stand to protect Jacko — and she also has no idea how he appeared when he said he didn’t know Jacko owned porn. Apparently courtroom spectators like J. Randy Taraborrelli didn’t find the Robsons or Barnes good witnesses for Jacko.) James Safechuck also said Jacko showed him porn and it was well after he was molested for the first time. When porn was shown is totally irrelevant.

        Finally, about the bed…. “The Missing Bed” was what was on Vindicate MJ, and it’s another irrelevant issue Helena foamed at the mouth over. Jacko had two apartments, as Wade pointed out at the trial: the Hideout in Century City and a condo in the Westford Building on Wilshire Boulevard in L.A. The papers mention the Hideout by name but Wade was usually at the Westford Building — that was the condo across the street from the Holiday Inn. Helena et al. have harped on the fact Blanca Francia pointed out there was no bed at the Hideout on Wilshire. But the Hideout wasn’t on Wilshire, and Blanca conflated the two places in her memory; Jason Francia said it was the Hideout, not the Wilshire condo, that had the sleeping bag.

        In other words, Wade would know better than Helena if the Wilshire condo had a bed — and if he slept in one with Jacko.

        So, anyway, if you have some more evidence disputing Wade’s claims, please come back. But I’d be careful relying on VMJ’s “analysis”, LOL.

        • Kat

          Let’s not forget that Wade and Jackson first met when he was only five. It was in Australia. If I remember correctly Wade had won some dancing competition and got to meet Michael Jackson or something of that kind. They stayed in touch and when Wade’s family first came to America, Joy Robson felt so comfortable with Jackson that she let her two children spend the night with him right away. It’s not crazy to suggest that MJ communicated with the family a lot. He probably exchanged letters and phone calls with Wade and the folks. It’s the same pattern that dominated his relationship with Brett Barnes, another Australian favorite. From that perspective it could be said that Jackson groomed the boy for two whole years until they met in person again and molestation could begin right away. From that perspective it doesn’t in the slightest contradict the typical behavior of a pedophile!

          • Pea

            Chantal stated that Jacko and Joy had a relationship prior to that first visit, but I don’t believe that is true — and, to her credit, Helena at VMJ proved that. Wade said on the stand that after that meeting in Australia, they’d fell out of touch with Jacko. I believe that is the true story. Later on, after that first family visit to Neverland — in the interim before they moved out to the States — that was when Jacko had lots of contact with the Robsons.

            So, essentially, you have Joy the Parental Pimp allowing her kids to sleep in the same bed with a veritable stranger on that first visit. She can’t justify that with that earlier meeting in 1988 because that was 2 years prior.

            For Wade, I believe he was molested immediately because he was very young and in awe. This is an unsubstantiated allegation, but I’m sure you’ll recall that Evan Chandler was contacted by a German woman named “Ulrike” who claimed her 6-year-old was given a “spittle kiss” by Jacko. Assuming her story is true, that’s another very young boy Jacko pounced upon rather quickly.

            And, again, it was just touching outside of the clothes. I don’t know how much grooming is required for something like that. In fact, as far as grooming is concerned, Michael Jackson groomed his Fanboy “special friends” over the radio and television!

          • Kat

            Yes, you might be right, Pea, I don’t know for certain what happened. I just thought it’s not out of the realm of possibility that there were letters and phone calls exchanged, considering that it was his behavioral pattern with other boys. Very young children are easier to groom and manipulate, and Wade was one of his youngest victims. A child of only seven doesn’t have a real understanding of what sex is, Wade might have thought that MJ was just ‘touching him lovingly’… Joy Robson and June Chandler definitely pimped out their sons, both of them.

    • michaeljeffrey

      Didn’t Robson say in 2005 he only spended 20 nights at Neverland? Or was this another boy? Correct me, if I’m wrong.

  • Ali, I’m going to ask you questions about your answers so that you can develop some critical thinking. You want to look at everyone’s behavior except Michael Jackson’s. I want you to think about this – the claims against him were bogus, yet he reacted as if he were guilty by paying off his accusers, refusing to submit to law enforcement questioning, and continuing to be obsessed with boys and having them in his bed.

    You know that Jordan Chandler disccused what would be said in this interview with his lawyer.

    What is your source for Jordan discussing with Larry Feldman or Barry Rothman what he would discuss with Dr Richard Gardner?

    Jordan obviously is making a mixture of fantasy and reality.

    You say “obviously”. Why? Which parts are fantasy and which parts are fantasy? How do you tell the difference? If it were in any way fantasy, why didn’t MJ take it to court where a young boy could be easily crushed under cross examination by MJ’s lawyers?

    Joseph Bartucci and Daniel Kapon didn’t even ever met Michael in their life. So that’s why they were “dismissed quickly”.

    They were just two examples. According to fans, Jordan lied, Jason lied, why weren’t they discredited by Jackson’s legal team?

    You may thing that all rich people can have good lawyers and it may seem impossible for a dentist to exort millions from a billionair superstar.

    Can you give us any more examples of anyone falsely accusing a celebrity of child molestation and receiving millions of dollars? Even one?

    But Evan was a very smart man, and even in his tapes he said that he found the “nastiest son of a bitch” as a lawyer. And that he checked this case inside and out ,and there is no way he could “lose”.

    Evan was talking about getting his son away from June and MJ. There was no hint of money being mentioned in the transcript. http://www.mjfacts.com/evan-chandler-phone-transcript-with-david-schwartz/
    That’s a dead end for you.

    Yeah about the genitilia, that was the prosecution’s smartest and the most evil move they did spreading to the media that the description did match even when 2 jury’s said that it didn’t . Also look at this conversation between the lawyer and Evan Chandler quoted from your favorite book (All that glitters)
    “Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis* told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.“

    “Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”

    “No, that’s good for us!”

    ‘Why?”

    “Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!”

    “Ha!”

    “Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”

    “That’s very good.”

    “Good? It’s terrific! You stick with the teeth, kid. I’m sticking’ with the law.” [9; page 202-203]

    Once again, if it didn’t match why would MJ risk his career, his reputation and tens of millions of dollars by paying off the Chandlers? That makes zero sense. Please don’t say “to make it all go away”. If that were true, MJ would have immediately stopped sharing his bed with young boys so that he could never go through the supposed pain of being accused ever again.

    Please, please try and use your brain more effectively.

  • michaeljeffrey

    True. I did a lit of research on Robson & he definitly wasen’t as close as the other boys. Robson is a boy I have doubts about, also his age is a mystery. Jackson usually started to molest boys when they were pre-teens or teenagers. 7-years old is very young and I have found only like 5 pictures of them

  • I don’t believe for a moment that any of Michael Jackson’s victims were murdered in satanic rituals. That’s a bizarre claim to make.

    • CandyC

      It has been suggested that MJ was a satanist, there is actually some proof of it, quite surprisingly. While it’s probably best to take Franklys claim with a grain of salt for now until further information becomes available there is a four part series on YouTube that paints Michael as a satanist, it proof is quite damning actually:

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ztsRe7lEg0g

  • ShawntayUStay

    Where did you get the information that Michael Jackson was involved in child pornography? No one ever alleged he took indecent photos or videos of them.

    • CandyC

      I actually don’t find the child pornography thing too hard to believe — there were a load of tapes/books on the bookshelf in his room that disappeard because someone tipped them off before the police raid in 1993. I think Bill Dworin said that. Michael also owned a Polaroid camera and had partially nude photos of his “special friends” amongst his belongings from the information I’ve gathered. So it’s definitely possible he owned or even participated in things like that. If you’ve ever noticed, Michael seemed to film almost everything.

      The empty bookshelf is definitely suspicious, obviously they did not want anyone to know the contents of those tapes, so they had to be incriminating in some way. They were probably destroyed and never seen again, just like that mysterious diary Katherine Jackson desperately wanted, hmm…

      • ShawntayUStay

        Oh yes, you’re right, Candy :-). I meant the idea that he ran a child porn operation wherein he was making loads and loads of indecent material.

        It’s true that he filmed everything, but nothing was found in 2003. The raid was 8 or so months after the alleged molestation and MJ was in Las Vegas at the time, so I can’t see any opportunity to hide anything like he did in 1993. They found no child porn on any computer, so it’s unlikely, imo, that he was consuming “commercial” child porn (i.e. the stuff online) or running a child porn operation.

        • CandyC

          I agree with you Shawntay, I don’t believe he ever went that

          • ShawntayUStay

            Hmm, that’s a good question, Candy. It’s entirely possible nothing was removed from Neverland in 1993, if I’m being honest with myself. Alternately, it’s possible that the removal happened. I just don’t know. We have the anecdotes from security guard Robert Wegner about being asked by Pellicano to delete the visitor logs. We also have the testimony pf Gary Hearne back in 1994 where he claims to have removed two briefcases from the Hideout on the instruction of Pellicano. Then there’s the claim by various guards and maids about MJ’s room being swept clean prior; this was in Victor Gutierrez’s book. But then you have to consider the source: all evidence points that the story is from notoriously untrustworthy Adrian McManus, so I have my doubts about its veracity.

            Then you think why didn’t MJ get rid of the three naked kid books, two of which were in his closet filing cabinet? If he was cleaning videos, briefcases, and the like from his various homes, why didn’t those get removed as well?

            But that’s just my thoughts about it. 🙂

  • CandyC

    Where are the stories that he participated in those things? People on this website have done quite a bit of sleuthing on Michael and have yet to find something like that. What’s your source?

  • To’Shari

    As far as Michael actually participating in Satanic rituals,I can’t prove that, but I do know he been around people who were known to be satanists (Sammy Davis Jr for example) and a book of Aleister Crowley was found in his home library. But the one I felt was a weird illumanti-type, looked sort of satanic in the beginning was during the 1996 earth song performance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJqIEU6RfUo. That when I knew something about that performance wasn’t right; it felt kinda creepy. With the pizza-gate is concern, Whether or not its real, it started with the email exposure of John Podesta (Hillary Clinton Campaign Chairman) from wikileaks and him using food words like pizza in what appear to be code words when describing kids and Comet Pong Pizza in DC having an underground tunnels connecting to certain locations or places where children are held for pedofiles and being apart of a child traffic ring (though C.P.Pizza denied having an undergournd tunnel). But hopefully everything will unravel and more concrete information will come out. On further discussion, I don’t have snap-chat and I do enjoy reading everybody thoughts here and like to continue discussing Michael and whatever related to him within this mjfacts forum and twitter (though I’m not on twitter as much) 🙂