Wade Robson – The Marathon Part II

Things have changed considerably in Wade Robson’s case against the Michael Jackson companies, so much so that we’ve decided to create this new page for updates. Our old page is still up and gives a good overview of the case up until early 2016, and there are other stories on the Wade Robson case available here.

A major development in September 2016 was a change in lawyers for Wade — he has dropped Gradstein & Marzano and picked up Manly, Stewart & Finaldi. No reason has been given for the change; however, we do know Wade’s new lawyers specialize in sexual abuse cases. Many of their previous cases, often involving teachers or priests, have been settled for tens of millions of dollars. Whether a settlement is the end goal in Wade’s case is unclear — his lawyers have requested a jury trial.

In early September, Manly, Stewart & Finaldi drafted a new fourth amended complaint to more accurately reflect claims against Jackson’s corporations, rather than his Estate as earlier complaints did. Dropped from the complaint are claims of:

  • childhood sexual abuse;
  • sexual battery, assault and battery; and
  • negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Added are claims of:

  • negligent supervision;
  • negligent retention/hiring;
  • negligent failure to warn, train or educate; and
  • breach of fiduciary duty.

That the sexual abuse claims have been dropped does not mean that Wade is saying that the sexual abuse did not happen, rather this new complaint reflects the reality that it is impossible for a company to molest a child.

In response to this new fourth amended complaint, the Michael Jackson Estate lawyers have countered that Wade should have filed his new claims earlier; that his negligence claims are unsupportable; and that any changes now would cause an unacceptable delay in the trial.

It’s important to understand that this case hinges on California civil law regarding time limits on claims for damages for childhood sexual abuse, more specifically Code 340.1(b)(2). In this Civil Code, no action for liability for childhood sexual abuse may be commenced against any entity after the alleged victim’s 26th birthday unless three conditions are met. These conditions, as they would apply to this case, are:

Firstly, that the companies knew, or had reason to know, of any unlawful sexual conduct by Michael Jackson;

Secondly, that Jackson had engaged in unlawful sexual conduct. (Note that at this stage of the case, the judge considers all claims by Wade to be true);

Finally, that those within the companies failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid further acts of unlawful sexual conduct by Jackson including, but not limited to, preventing him being around children in any company organized setting that required the child or children to be present.

In hearings related to the third amended complaint, Judge Mitchell Beckloff was satisfied that all the elements were shown to have existed — those within the Jackson companies knew or had reason to know that Jackson had engaged in unlawful sexual conduct; that the unlawful sexual conduct had actually happened; and that someone else in the company had control over Michael Jackson. Bearing in mind that at the demurrer stage the court must construe all allegations of the complaint liberally and allow all reasonable inferences and implications in Wade’s favor, Beckloff considered his claim that Norma Staikos had a degree of control over Jackson to be justified.

In the new fourth amended complaint, Vince Finaldi has emphasized that the Jackson companies had a duty of care toward Wade. It is alleged that rather than protect children, the companies aided and abetted the abuse by drawing children into Jackson’s orbit so that they could be abused. Finaldi defines Jackson as both president/owner and representative/agent of the Jackson companies and says that the companies served dual purposes — firstly as entertainment companies, but also as thinly-veiled, covert operations designed to locate, attract, lure and seduce child sexual abuse victims. Under this second purpose, Jackson and a select few managing agents/employees “designed, developed and operated what is likely the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known.”

The Estate’s reply is strong. They offer that the Jackson companies had no existence or purpose other than to conduct his business affairs. In other words, as child sexual abuse is not a part of Jackson’s business affairs, the companies cannot be held liable for anything that happened to Wade. On the face of it, this makes perfect sense but the assertion is false. In court testimony and documents from the 2005 trial it was shown that Jackson company employees were used extensively to organize Jackson’s private life: from Norma Staikos handling invitations for children to come to Neverland, to Orietta Murdock organizing transport for his guests, and Jolie Levine buying gifts on behalf of the pop star being just a few examples. Under United States corporate law, mixing private affairs and company business together dilutes or even cancels protections offered under that law. This is how it works: Jackson was using his companies to perpetuate a fraud, deceiving parents into believing that his companies were purely involved in entertainment while they were in fact being used to organize his personal affairs — including getting closer to children both physically and emotionally. When a company is used like this it becomes the owner’s “alter ego”, and protections previously offered under a company structure no longer apply. Things aren’t as cut and dried as the Estate lawyers make them out to be. Jackson using MJJ Productions Inc staff for private purposes stretches back to at least 1984 when secretary Mary Coller was directed to organize sleepovers with ten-year-old Jonathan Spence at Jackson’s then home, Hayvenhurst.

The Estate response also makes clear that Jackson was not in a position to be hired or fired from the companies. Nobody working for the companies “hired Michael Jackson, supervised him, or could fire him. They did not and could not.” On the evidence provided by the Estate this appears to be true. Attached to the Estate’s reply are documents which show that Jackson owned one hundred percent of both MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures and, on paper, had complete control over them. That Jackson’s employees knew that he was engaged in inappropriate behavior with children is certain: Norma Staikos warned Orietta Murdock (another employee) to never leave her son alone with Jackson; Jolie Levine, Jackson’s one-time executive assistant, described Jackson to police as a “chicken hawk”, slang term for a pedophile; another employee, Charmayne Sternberg, was highly suspicious of Jackson’s behavior with Wade Robson. That Jackson had total control presents problems with the third condition in Code 340.1(b)(2) mentioned above, and Wade’s lawyers need to conclusively prove that Norma Staikos (or another employee) had enough control over Jackson’s movements and could stop him from having contact with children without resorting to something so drastic as firing him.

If the Estate can prove that nobody could control Michael Jackson and what he did in the context of his companies, then this case is all over for Wade. It would be assumed that the Estate would apply for summary judgment on this point and the case would be dismissed on that point alone.

Even if Wade’s lawyers can avoid that stumbling block, they still need to prove that Wade’s abuse was a direct result of being employed by Jackson’s companies. Wade’s abuse started before he was employed by either MJJ Productions or MJJ Ventures; the Estate lawyers contend that any alleged abuse occurred as a result of a personal friendship while Wade was in Jackson’s personal care. This is not necessarily a great defence by the Estate — in Judge Beckloff’s demurrer ruling he remarked that a business relationship was established when Wade’s residency in the United States, and involvement with Michael Jackson, was facilitated and promoted by the companies who also employed Wade and his mother so that the sexual abuse could be continued.

The Estate lawyers want to minimize Wade’s employment by the companies, and for very good reason. If they can convince the court that the abuse occurred as a result of a personal relationship, then not only are the companies not liable, but also the staff can be exonerated for not reporting their suspicions to law enforcement. If there was no “special relationship” between Wade and the Jackson companies there is no duty for Jackson’s staff to be ‘Good Samaritans’ — the Estate lawyers quote Conti v. Watchtower Bible & Trade Society of New York, Inc., 235 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1226 (2015) “[W]here the issue is whether the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from harm caused by a third party, the absence of a special relationship is dispositive (settles it)” and requires no further analysis. They argue that the Jackson companies owe no duty of care to Wade because the companies had nothing to do with Wade, just as bystanders have no duty to intervene in a mugging. This is untrue. Wade was employed by Jackson’s companies, and Norma Staikos apparently knew Wade well enough to pass on items from Jackson.

norma-these-are-wades-2

 

Check out  Strange Bedfellows

Wade’s lawyers can argue that whilst Wade was working and in the care of Jackson’s companies then those companies had an in loco parentis duty of care. In loco parentis  is a Latin term meaning “in [the] place of a parent” or “instead of a parent,”  and refers to the legal responsibility of some person or organization to perform some of the functions or responsibilities of a parent such as keeping them safe and providing them with care when there is a “special relationship” .  The Estate lawyers argue that a “special relationship” is restricted to schools, day care centers, or other youth organization such as the Boy Scouts and wouldn’t apply to the Jackson companies. Yet as we have seen Jackson did act in loco parentis not only with Wade but many boys. Jackson took on the role of Wade’s mentor, teaching him music production and dance. As a consequence, they spent a lot of time together away from the boy’s parents, with Jackson responsible for his young protege’s welfare. If a school had an in loco parentis responsibility for children in their care for several hours a day, then Jackson certainly would too if he and Wade spent days and nights together in their respective roles of tutor and pupil.

Several minor issues are also covered in the Estate’s reply. One issue is, as they put it, “Plaintiff and his mother were fully aware of the investigation and participated in the investigation, but adamantly denied that any abuse had occurred and continued their close personal relationship with Michael Jackson for years despite the reporting.” This is entirely true, yet there are problems with this statement.  At the time of that investigation, Wade was 11-years-old – logically, there should be little stock put into a young boy’s defense of a man who would’ve had the motive and the opportunity to coerce him to lie. As for Wade’s mother, even if we suspect her of knowing about what was going on, she states that she did not believe that Michael Jackson was a child molester because of the assurances she was given by Jackson’s employees. The Estate lawyers try to subtly tie Joy Robson’s supposed knowledge of the accusations to the same knowledge the company employees had, however they are not equivalent. There is is a vast difference between Jackson’s employees who knew he was a molester, and said so to each other and law enforcement; and a mother who was given the impression by those same employees that it was safe to leave her child with the entertainer.

Another point the Estate’s lawyer brings up is Wade’s testimony at the 2005 trial. His defense of Jackson in 2005 may have some relevance as to his credibility as a witness but any good child abuse victim expert will be able to neutralize any seeming damage to his current allegations very quickly: delayed disclosure and defending their abuser is quite common for acquaintance molester victims. Wade revealed he did not believe until 2013, after disclosing to a therapist, that he had been abused; prior to that he was convinced that the sexual relations he and Jackson shared were consensual and love-based. His denials on the stand of sexual abuse came easily because of that realization; his untruthful replies to questions such as “Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever touch you in a sexual way?” a result of brainwashing by his adult friend who convinced him that others wouldn’t understand, that the sex they had engaged in was normal, and that they could both be ruined if anyone found out about it.

Both sides’ arguments will be heard on October 7th 2016. Judge Beckloff may deny the motion to amend the complaint, in which case the original third amended complaint will prevail. In that case, the Estate plan to file for summary judgment on November 23. Based on their reply  it appears they feel they have a better chance of fighting the original third amended complaint. Their reply to the third amended complaint  is short, sarcastic, nasty, and dismissive — indicating confidence that the complaint could be easily beaten. Some of the replies to causes of action are just a brief sentence or two. The Estate contends that Wade was “telling the truth in 2005”; that now he is saying he “chose to lie to a criminal jury in 2005”; and that he changed his story merely because “Michael Jackson is no longer here to defend himself.” Compare their brief reply to the effort they have put into trying to prevent the fourth amended complaint being approved.

Another insight into the tactics of the Estate lawyers was revealed in their choice of doctor for Wade’s independent medical examination. The examination was performed on August 22nd, 2016 and was conducted by Harrison G Pope, Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Pope is a highly cited academic whose main research focuses on substance abuse. He has also written extensively about repressed memory and the recovered memory controversy, arguing that repressed memory does not exist. In this 1994 interview in the publication Currents in Affective Illness, he addresses what he believes repressed memories to be and dismisses them as not possible.

When I say “repression,” I mean a phenomenon in which one experiences severe trauma, such as repeated rape, and then banishes the memory from consciousness and is not able to recall it until many years later. Some call this “strong repression,” to distinguish it from ordinary forgetfulness. I would grant that a child could have something happen when he or she was four-years-old that would be forgotten as part of the normal process of infantile amnesia. But what I would not grant, and I think this is where the debate is, is that someone could be repeatedly raped over a period of years … and then completely expunge all of those traumatic memories from consciousness only to recall them years later.

The Estate have made a clear mistake. They appear to still believe that Wade suffered from “repressed memories” and that he had forgotten his abuse until 2013. The claim of “repressed memory” is based on preliminary media reports from then and doesn’t reflect reality: Wade has consistently said that he remembers everything that happened. He did not believe he was ever raped (Michael Jackson was never violent), thought he was a willing participant, and even said he enjoyed the sex. It wasn’t until he had therapy that he realized that Jackson had used him for his own lustful pleasures. Dr. Pope recognizes this when asked specifically about a situation just like Wade’s:

CURRENTS: But if an adult has sex with a child and the child doesn’t know what to call the activity or doesn’t know that the activity is inappropriate — that is, has no explicit memory of the activity although perhaps has implicit (experiential) memory of it — then when the child subsequently learns what the activity was, could he or she be said, not so much to have recovered as to have reconsidered the memory? That is, “Oh, is that rape? That happened to me.” In that sense, perhaps the person had a “reconsidered” rather than a “recovered” memory.

POPE: Yes, that sounds plausible. I believe that kind of phenomenon could occur.

Dr. Pope makes it clear that we can’t compare Wade’s memories of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of Jackson with “recovered” or “repressed” memories – they are very dissimilar. From this, we can conclude that Wade’s independent medical examination won’t be revealing any bombshell information the Estate can use to discredit Wade’s previous or current testimony on the abuse he suffered.

In conclusion, Wade’s case is still looking good if, and only if, it can survive summary judgment on the issue of whether anyone in the Jackson companies had the power to do something to prevent Jackson’s continued abuse of Wade. Should the Estate prevail, it will be on that technicality alone, not because of any other deficiency in the suit. Interesting times lie ahead.

Update: On the 7th of October 2016 Judge Beckloff approved the fourth amended complaint.

Check out  The Evidence Keeps Adding Up
  • Frankly

    The truth is much more than has been whittled down in this suit. There is no question that the companies were aware and facilitated the
    sexual abuse. You do not work in such an environment and not know that
    something wrong is going on. I’ll go further to say I would not be
    surprised if it came out that many employees were instrumental in
    silencing victims and their families.

    Michael Jackson was not only a pedophile, but ran an multi-national pedophile ring. There is so much more to the usual narrative of “Michael Jackson molested underage boys.” The man was running a business with similarly minded pedophiles and psychopaths, some of who enjoyed molesting and hurting children, and some who looked at it purely as a business.

    The repressed memory term is always used as a “gotcha” by the Jackson defense. As you effectively summarized, there are many facets to a victims experience and memory in being abused, and how they internalize it. In the way MJ operated, there is a stealthiness and manipulation to a degree that closely resembles hypnosis, mind control, etc. It’s hard to describe, but is similar to the conduct of those written about serial-pedophiles, psychopaths, rapists, etc.

    How can a victim like Wade Robson cope with such abuse at the hands of such a manipulative, calculating, and conniving adult? He was also given “hope and promise” of a career if he went along with / kept quiet about the abuse. There is such manipulation, not unlike an employer sexual abusing an employee who fears retaliation, and decides to keep quiet, and normalize the abuse internally.

    Add in the fact that Michael regularly used alcohol / drugs to ply his young victims, and you have a very complex psychological barrier to the truth, and the way a victim could handle or block those memories. It is truly sickening what Wade and other victims have gone through.

    • FreeThinker888

      Very insightful! You seem privy of some additional information that most of us don’t know about (although I had thoughts about that before):

      “Michael Jackson was not only a pedophile, but ran an multi-national pedophile ring. There is so much more to the usual narrative of “Michael Jackson molested underage boys.” The man was running a business with similarly minded pedophiles and psychopaths, some of who enjoyed molesting and hurting children, and some who looked at it purely as a business.”

      I think you’re right and I hope everything will come to light soon. MJ’s case (and by that I mean everything about him and how he turned into this monster) is/will be the biggest lesson to the world.

  • Ada Yanira Lugo

    Wade Robson is an idiot! Now that Jackson is dead he thinks that it’s easier to cash money from Jackson’s fortune. While he was enjoying the commodities that Jackson provided him Wade was very happy and even spoke to help Michael during his trial. 7 years pass, Michael is dead and now he remembers and knows that he was molested. Ha, ha, idiot! Wade is needing money and recognition, because people don’t even remembers who the hell he is!

    • If Wade wants money that, in and of itself, is not an indication that he was not molested by Michael Jacckson.

      • Harry

        Your theories and assumptions are no indication that Michael did anything inappropriate either

  • Fudhux

    Hi everyone ! It’s been a long time since I posted a comment here ! I just wanted to know if anyone has information a bout Wade ‘s case . The trial is supposed to take place in march right ? I havent heard anything about it . Does anyone know ? Thank you !

    • Pea

      Fudhux, I believe the trial has been pushed back because of the new theories advanced by Wade’s current attorneys; they’d stated that Jacko’s companies owed a duty of care to Wade, but the Estate says that is ridiculous because the compaies couldn’t control the behaviors of the boss (Jacko). The Estate requested to be able to go all the way back to filing a demurrer (the first defense against a claim), so the trial will likely come much later if at all.

    • Pea

      UPDATE:

      Wade Robson was given a trial date for 2018, and that was due to the fact the Estate wanted to file the demurrer, etc. His lawyers say they will be exposing some of the information they find, so perhaps we’ll get more explosive details in time.

      http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/michael-jackson-child-sex-syndicate-trial-date-set-article-1.2996883

      Personally, I think the case will be dismissed. I don’t know how they’ll prove their claims against Jacko’s companies.

      • Fudhux

        Thank you Pea . And yes , this is going to be hard to prove but who knows what kind of proof Wade has ? Maybe he has undeniable proof because you have to be pretty confident to go ahead with such a lawsuit . I don’t think his lawyers would advise him to do that if they didn’t have anything to back up their claims .. What do you think ?
        But I really do hope that this is going to expose MJ big time if this trial takes place .

        • Pea

          That would seem to be the logic: one must have something to justify their lawsuits or they wouldn’t bring them (how embarrassing would that be, right?). However, I think in many cases — not necessarily most of them — the plaintiff may only have allegations that they then hope to leverage to receive compensation. A “good” trial lawyer is one who can avoid trial at all costs, and if Wade’s attorneys, especially the first set, thought his allegations were enough to embarrass Jacko’s Estate, they could still bring the lawsuit. It doesn’t mean they have anything tangible.

          I think Wade was “confident” in the sense that his claims are true; he just may not have any real evidence of them.

          If you note what his current attorneys said in the article, it seems they are hoping to find something in discovery to bolster their largely theory-based case. That may lead to some interesting facts emerging in public — the kind that could help put some puzzle pieces together — but nothing “explosive” enough to win Wade a trial judgment.

          I personally think the case is dead in the water, and it will likely be dismissed: Jacko’s employees may have facilitated his abuses of boys and didn’t warn parents he was a pedophile, but his companies are not like churches or schools hiding the peccadilloes of a dirty employee. It may seem like an unfair technicality, but it is important overall: companies can get passed to new owners (like beneficiaries) and the new owners shouldn’t have to worry about the company losing value because of the actions of a previous owner.

          Simply, I just don’t think Wade has a case at this point. The companies aren’t responsible for what Jacko did.

          • Wade Robson Allys

            What you need to understand is that these lawyers have brought cases to trial and won. I actually think that is their main goal. They have done it many times before. As for MJJ Inc. They do have a duty of care when dealing with minors. Especially when a employee brings up allegations to the executives of said company and nothing is done, here is a link https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1370&dat=19960424&id=WZMVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1QoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3204%2C3351255&hl=en Just like Penn State who knew of nefarious activities going on and who were told of such activities, MJJ Productions may find themselves in the same predicament. Also if MJ used Neverland Ranch as a charity and received tax benefits, than this also creates a whole new dimension because charities that cater to children usually fall under the mandated reporter provision. This case is not over by a long shot. Wade’s last attorneys did not specialize in child sexual abuse cases. I believe they were over their head when it came to these claims and Stewart, Manly and Finaldi are a better suited for these claims

          • Pea

            From what I understand, Manly, Stewart & Finaldi tout as their C.V. nearly $2 billion in settlements, so I am fairly confident that they seek a settlement in this case as well. I doubt they want to go to trial regardless of what they say.

            The current argument put forth by Wade’s attorneys is that because Wade was employed by MJJ Productions and/or MJJ Ventures, those companies — owned by Jacko — should’ve “protected” him from the alleged pedophile boss (Michael Jackson). If that is the case, it does not help Wade (and it has largely failed James Safechuck) for them to draft a boilerplate “stock” complaint, typically filed against a school or church for hiding a pedophile employee, but filling Jacko’s and his companies’ names into the blanks. It’s sloppy, lazy lawyering because those are not the facts of his case.

            To me, it suggests that they saw an opportunity to represent a client against a multimillion-dollar brand, especially since Jacko paid out money over sex abuse before, and believed they could do a better job at getting money than the previous attorneys. I don’t think this was a well-thought out “gig” for them at all. Jacko’s employees may have had an moral duty to protect Wade and other boys, but, as far as I can see, his companies did not. These lawyers are stretching….

            As for Wade, perhaps he fired Marzano, et. al., because they’d failed to close the deal and secure a settlement, so he switched to attorneys more experienced not only in CSA but in extracting millions in damages. I also suspect Wade’s original attitude back in 2013 — that he’d be some survivor’s advocate who wouldn’t be “silenced” with money — has completely changed or was false to begin with. Remember, he was writing a book, and when no one was interested in it, he filed a suit and has given only one statement since. It’s… weird.

            I am open to this case succeeding, but it looks like a “loser” at this point.

          • Wade Robson Allys

            First you have zero knowledge to why Wade parted ways with his previous attorneys that is pure speculation. Second the new firm does have a great deal of success with settling cases but they also have a great deal of success in the court room. Next MJ productions was him employer and like any company that employs children they can be held liable if said child is harmed especially if the agents of said company had knowledge that harm had occurred. I previously posted an article in which a former employee went to the executives of MJJ Productions and alerted them of possible crimes. If this can be shown to be true and no action was taken than liability may be established. As for Finaldi etc. wanting to settle this case, I believe a trial would bring a great deal of publicity to their firm that money cannot buy. Mesereau didn’t defend Jackson because he thought it would be an easy case to win, he defended Jackson because he knew no matter what happened he had won just by representing him. His name would now be known worldwide and a trial can make that happen. Also I believe many civil attorneys prefer going to trial, it is what they studied years to do. Settlements are clean and neat but most people who become lawyers like to argue cases it is in their nature. As for the book, Good on him. It shows exactly what most men/women go through when coming to terms with the abuse. Most abuse victims want to tell their stories and he was in a position to tell it in a large way. So he realized that may not be the correct Avenue and changed paths. Disclosure is not a easy or cut and dry process. He decided to get a lawyer and sue and I applaud him for that. He had two nervous breakdowns and had a family to take care of. He could either sink into trauma and despair or protect and provide for his family and future. The fact that this whole thing is messy proves even further how legitimate it is because that is how those coming to terms lives are, messy and erratic

          • Pea

            You’re complaining that I’m speculating, but you do the same thing throughout your entire comment.

            Mesereau himself said he defended Jacko because he believed he was innocent, so there’s no need to speculate about his motives when he gave them. You also have no knowledge at all about what “most lawyers” want to do — are you aware that, in spite of lawyers supposedly enjoying argument or studying for years to function in court, the vast majority of criminal cases end in plea deals that avoid trial completely? The same can be said for civil cases: most end in settlement agreements. Trials are expensive and time-consuming.

            From my perspective, there are only a few explanations about why Wade Robson abandoned his previous lawyers, and his being unsatisfied with their ability to get the case settled may be one of them. That explanation gets a boost because he went to attorneys who brag about their $2 billion in settlements. Now, it could be that Marzano, et. al., pointed him in the direction of his current lawyers because they have a history of suing non-human entities over CSA, but that doesn’t mean Wade wants to go to trial — he may still want a settlement.

            I am not entirely convinced he wants to go to trial to bring light to Jacko’s abuses of “special friends” — he’s clearly no longer dedicated to that, in my opinion. And I also think Finaldi, et. al., are not concerned about a trial publicizing their firm. With $2 billion in settlements collected, they don’t need a win over Jacko’s Estate at trial to validate their “skill”.

            Irrespective of any of that, Wade’s case and his current arguments are not very strong. Beckloff has indicated, even back when Marzano was his head attorney, that they need to prove that agents of Jacko’s companies who knew of his being a pedophile (such as Norma Staikos) could control him. But the Estate counters by saying how could any employee control the boss — how could any of those employees hire or fire Jacko if he was the president and sole shareholder of his companies?

            I agree with the lawyers that a “secondary function” of Jacko’s companies was to facilitate and support his sexual relationships with young boys; that’s pretty obvious because those employees and the ones at Neverland confess to having seen or heard things or bought things for and reached out to boys he was friends with. However, Jacko — the boss — essentially using his companies’ employees as secretaries or personal assistants does not confer upon them a duty to protect Wade. Jacko hired Wade (and the other employees who allegedly “knew” things) — he can’t fire himself to protect Wade from his pedophilia, nor would he ever institute safeguards to protect boys from himself. And the other employees couldn’t do either as well.

            The current arguments are absurd. Wade doesn’t have a valid claim against Jacko’s companies, even though I believe he was one of Jacko’s victims.

          • Wade Robson Allys

            First of all how do you know what Wade Robson is or isn’t dedicated to? Have you ever spoken to him? Ask for Tom Mesereau’s motivation I go on his actions not his words. Tom Mesereau could have easily defended Jackson and asked only for his personal costs to be covered however he decided to get paid Millions upon millions of dollars to defend Michael Jackson. Tom Mesereau also promotes the fact that he defended Michael Jackson almost every chance he gets. Do you realize how much it would cost to get that sort of publicity? Money cannot buy that sort of publicity and by his own actions he understood what Michael Jackson did for his career especially when it comes to obtaining other high-profile clients. Next this obsession of thinking that Manly Stewart & Finaldi are only interested in settling cases when they are one of the few firms that specializes in bringing awareness to institutional child sexual abuse is an insult. Those cases in no way are easy to prove or to receive settlements on. Tom Mesereau however defends clients that have more than just questionable backgrounds and he does it for millions upon millions of dollars. Also this assumption of why Wade Robson decided to change law firms is just that an assumption. His previous attorneys brought that case as far as they probably could have brought it. They were not experts in cases that involve child sexual abuse. I can understand why Wade decided to go with a law firm that’s specialized in child sexual abuse cases. But what you need to understand is that before the Catholic Church Scandal broke there were very few if any law firms that would go up against the Catholic Church. They understood that in many ways it would almost be career suicide. Again if you don’t think that Manly Stewart & Finaldi carefully thought over representing Wade Robson you’re being incredibly naive. I am sure they understood there would be backlash which they are all ready recieving. Now let’s get to this ridiculous idea that Wade Robson does not have a valid claim. Wade Robson was employed by MJJ Productions as a child. Just like any employer that employs children they have a duty of care to make sure those under their employment are not harmed or taken advantage of. Just because Michael Jackson was the owner of said Corporation does not mean that he is immune of placing said Corporation in jeopardy of a lawsuit. The other thing you fail to realize is that this was not a case of accidental abuse this was a case of intentional abuse. Abuse that was caused by the owner of the corporation intentionally. What it seems like Finaldi, etc. are trying to convey is that there was also a duty of care from those employed by Michael Jackson to also make sure that no unintentional or intentional harm came to Robson while employed by MJJ Productions. If his employees help to orchestrate and facilitate the abuse than this shows the corporation served a dual purpose. This would bolster the case but the fact that in 1993 Wade Robson was encouraged by Anthony Pelicano to share the fact that he had shared a bed with his employer shows the inappropriate actions the CEO of MJJ Productions engaged in. Just like a boss who sleeps with a subordinate it places the subordinate in a very compromising position and yes companies get sued for this activity all the time. The other point that will be shown is Wade Robson’s unwillingness to testify in 1993 and how his employer coached and pressured his testimony, another big problem for the defense. The fact that MJ flew him over and helped Wade get citizenship to the US because he wanted to employ Robson and mentor him furthers his case. The fact that other complainants aka Jordan Chandler mentioned Wade in his claims also bolstered his story. The fact that an ex employee who’s own son received a settlement stated she saw Wade and his employer sharing a shower bolsters his claim. I could go on and on. Lastly it seems you are quite critical of Wade Robson and his fight for justice. I believe Wade is telling the truth and telling it at a great risk. Why not just support him and give him the benefit of the doubt, I think that is the least we can do

        • Wade Robson Allys

          Stewart, Manly and Finaldi are quite careful on who they will and won’t represent. The lawyers for MJ are cleverly placing the idea of Summary Judgement more so as a possible out vs a absolute dismissal of the case. A summary judgement can go both ways and it even allows the possibility of a settlement. I believe Wade wants this case to go to trial as well as his lawyers. Because it allows all the information to be presented and also gives the other complainants a leg up if Wade succeeds in his claim. Make no mistake this is great news for the Victims.