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  Jimmy Safechuck - The Civil Complaint

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  How Innocent Was Michael Jackson Really?
  • 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.

  • Verity

    Here’s an interview with Vince Finaldi (from Manly, Stewart & Finaldi) where he talks about the Robson case. He seems to be able to hold his own when dispelling one of the interviewers’ concerns about Wade’s motives. Apparently some of the facts he possesses are ‘explosive’. I really hope that this case will go to trial. Even if Wade doesn’t win (which I hope he does), at least the ‘explosive’ facts will be out there for all to see and quite satisfyingly, they’ll be in the floons’ teeth.

    …and gosh, I am the only one who wishes Anthony Pellicano would reveal what he knows exactly?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-DhyXSRajc

    • yaso

      I doubt Anthony Pellicano will reveal any details regarding his time working for Jacko or his other clients, because it will be incriminating to Pellicano as well that he covered up for such crimes.

  • Pea

    Just an update:

    The so-called “Jane Doe” accuser has requested to dismiss her own lawsuit, according to the LA Superior Court website (see photo):

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DALSUpyUAAEyufn.jpg

    Of course, this dismissal could also have been a decision by the Finaldi, et al., team.

    I have been skeptical about this “accuser” from the beginning (because Jacko preferred boys), and I remember radio silence from Diane Dimond and mistrust of “Jane” by Stacy Brown — it is not that the opinion of either of them matter, but as dedicated anti-Jacko journos, one would expect a bit more support? Rather, the lack of support indicated incongruity with their own research and mine, too. And that of fans as well (though they won’t admit it).

    Who knows, at this point, why it’s being dismissed (without prejudice, meaning she could technically re-file; it also means there was no under the table pay-off). One wonders if the lawyers were duped, or if she fears the repercussions if her identity is made public — it would open her up to public challenges to her frankly thin, thread-bare story….

    I would not be surprised if all of them — Wade and James, too — end up with dismissals. James is certainly next.

    • Fudhux

      This is so weird. Why would she go , hire a laywer, go through everything just to dismiss it later ? She probably lost money by doing that. This really makes me doubt her. I thought she had proof but clearly I dont think she does …. The whole ” he tought I was a boy ” argument was weird.
      I do hope that Wade and James prove their stories because they are believable. I am sure they have solid proof of an unhealthy relationship.

      Do you know why she dismissed it Pea ? ? I know you have more information in general !

      • Pea

        Sorry, Fudhux, I don’t have any more info on her case, just what it says on the LA Superior Court website, “Status: Dismissed”. Hopefully more info will emerge in the coming weeks?

        To be honest, I believe this accuser was some kind of obsessive fan, like Billie Jean Jackson who filed lawsuits repeatedly against Jacko for child support and visitation rights to Paris, Prince, and Blanket….

        I think Manly, Stewart, and Finaldi are an honorable child sex abuse law firm, in general, so they likely won’t say in public why they disbelieve her (assuming they do). But when you victim shop, you’re bound to get some unsavory people wanting a piece of the pie.

        Wade and James have an uphill battle; James will likely be dismissed, Wade as well. It’s unfortunate, but sex abuse by acquaintance, nice guy molesters often leaves zero evidence. Jacko was very slick….

        • silverspirit

          I’d forgotten about that Billy Jean person. Her real name is Lavon Powlis, There was also another woman in the UK claiming to be MJs lover and swears she’s the mother of his kids. MJ sure does attract some crazy people.

        • BrendaS

          I don’t know if she is an obsessive fan or not but I don’t think it’s fair to put her in the same category as those ladies. The letters handwritten by Michael Jackson addressed to her place her in an entirely different category not to mention the cancelled checks.

          Her case received a significant amount of media. It was around the same time as Conrad Murray ´s comments regarding Michael Jackson and young girls. The checks made all the difference. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were discussions behind closed doors between the parties to quiet the attention. The letters plus the checks raised eyebrows.

          But the case at hand isn’t if Michael abused children, it’s about his companies protecting the children, right? If that’s the case, I can agree with you that Wade and James have an advantage because they were both employed of Michael’s companies as well as family members.

          Fans very well could have been victims. Every boy who has accused Michael started out a fan. Michael often visited his fans at their homes, called his fans and wrote letters to them. The list is long. Jane Doe stated she first met him standing outside Hayvenhurst. Late one night Michael visited a five year old girl and her male cousin because they left fan letters at Hayvenhurst. Or how about the boy and his sister that met Michael because of a fan letter?
          Michael befriended them and ended up dedicating The Way You Make Me Feel to the eight year old girl. If Michael was a predator, fans came to him like lambs to the slaughter.

          • Pea

            While I agree that the checks she managed to keep all these years certainly, at the very least, give her more credibility than — say — someone like Shana Mangatal, they still don’t tell much of a story.

            Admittedly, it is difficult to imagine why Jacko would give a person aged 16-19 (at the time) $150,000, $130,000, and $600,000. But only because of the prior settlement with Jordan Chandler can anyone really say that it is “certainly” over abuse. Jacko was pretty generous, for instance, and maybe “Jane Doe” was a bright girl — those funds could’ve taken her through a prestigious university. (Although, in the early 1990s, tuition and other expenses for top schools would’ve been only about $100,000 for four years.)

            The timing of the checks is also peculiar and bodes well for her, I agree (why $600K in December 1993?) — but in viewing Jacko under a presumption of innocence, it still isn’t saying much.

            I would need to know how Jacko funded the lifestyles of “platonic” special friends before I assume that money given to a lone girl accuser indicates evidence of sex abuse. It just isn’t very clear at this point. Her rescinding her lawsuit, which was D.O.A. anyway, doesn’t help anyone in trying to figure out what the truth may be. Ending it doesn’t necessarily indicate she lied, a point I made in a more recent comment, but one could argue she may not have wanted to expose her identity for fear she’d be exposed as someone distorting Jacko’s “generosity”.

            It seems strange to me that she’d sue for money when she’d gotten so much of it in the past…. she’s had ample opportunity to say something happened in 2003 then in 2013…. but now she’s disappeared.

            All of it is odd. I have no clue as to her overall credibility, just that she isn’t helping herself.

          • BrendaS

            This isn´t the vindicate MJ website. There are much better places to view Michael under the presumption of innocence. Jane brought her “receipts“ and deserves the same consideration as Wade, James and the other accusers. This isn’t a court of law. This is (was?) a website that considered that the allegations against Michael may have had merit.

            Anything is possible. Michael may have just been generous enough to give a child close to a million dollars out of the kindness of his heart. Perhaps that’s the reason James family received a million dollars allegedly. But likely?

            Cases get dismissed. It was either Wade or James case that was dismissed at one point. I was inclined to think the media coverage could have brought the Estate to the negotiating table regarding Jane. That story was everywhere. It was new and she had paperwork. It’s a shame but Michael accused of molesting boys is sadly becoming white noise after nearly 25 years of accusations and no convictions. But copies of checks and creepy letters? If I was the Estate I would have ended it before the possibility of female victims watching the news came forward. So you make a call to her attorneys to work something out and get the company handling your social media out muddling the water. Just a guess.

            I didn’t believe the story about thirty four children being paid off when I first read it but now …. I don’t know.

            What happened to the writers on this site? There hasn’t been an article written in a very long time.

          • Pea

            I’m not necessarily representative of every opinion held by the owner of MJFacts, so suggesting that this has suddenly become Vindicate MJ because I have (understandably) questioned the story of a completely unknown, anonymous accuser is a bit much. VMJ doesn’t operate under a presumption of Jacko’s innocence but a total unwavering, unquestioning belief in it.

            But, really, if you’d prefer an echo chamber in which everyone agrees with you, you should probably make your own Michael Jackson’s “guilt” blog….

            As for “Jane Doe”, correct: she has checks and she has letters, the latter of which I don’t find “creepy” insofar as them being able to “convict” Jacko within the context of her anemic story. (They don’t, in my opinion.) But she dismissed her own case, and, assuming it is not re-filed (and I think it could be), what else can anyone make of those? They are just checks and letters… with a thin story. It is only in the context of her lawsuit’s allegations that they really look sinister.

            And why should I feel bad for saying that?

            From my perspective, in all the years of truly obsessive reporters (Dimond, Gutierrez, Brown, etc.) tracking his relations with kids, none of them noticed females. In fact, they stated he didn’t even like them. To be sure, that is not to say that they couldn’t have missed a gender-atypical victim. But the point I am making is that I have every right to be skeptical of a random, anonymous female accuser when Jacko’s prima facie obsession was with young boys.

            So, yes, I don’t view her as having a similar “merit” as male accusers simply because girls weren’t a part of Jacko’s public pedophile persona. I need to be convinced. *shrugs*

            (And, for the record, this isn’t some kind of sexism. I don’t believe all of Jacko’s male accusers [e.g., Gavin Arvizo], and I am a bit crest-fallen by Wade Robson’s handling of his story so far.)

            “I was inclined to think the media coverage could have brought the Estate to the negotiating table regarding Jane. That story was everywhere. … If I was the Estate I would have ended it before the possibility of female victims watching the news came forward.”

            I understand, but, in my opinion, I don’t think the coverage was any greater than what Wade received when he first came out — James, too. And the Estate didn’t settle with either of them. I don’t know why she decided to dismiss her case, but I don’t know if she was “silenced” by the Estate. It is common in civil cases for a plaintiff to dismiss their case only to file it again; it allows them not to have to make repeated amendments to the suit but re-state the claims in completely new ways. All of them — Wade, James, and “Jane Doe” — are floundering because of the statutes, so it might be a strategy of some sort to make the case more successful.

            I don’t see why the Estate would settle with her. I am sure they looked into those invoices she shared and, even if they thought Jacko was a pedophile (and there’s no way they don’t!), the context she gave those checks may not have been provable, allowing them to continue ahead in filing their demurrers. That said, of course we can’t know. I just think it seems unlikely….

            “What happened to the writers on this site? There hasn’t been an article written in a very long time.”

            The world of Jacko has slowed considerably, and the folks associated with the website are sitting back and seeing what happens. Also, interest has waned a bit.

          • BrendaS

            Who am I responding to: someone who represents the viewpoint of the owners of this website or someone expressing their opinion?

            I said she brought enough receipts to be given the same consideration as Wade and James. I wasn’t directing that comment to you as an individual but as a representative of the site.

            I’m curious about the viewpoint of the owners regarding Jane Doe.

          • Pea

            Aren’t you demanding, Brenda?

            Are you suggesting that if, in fact, I did represent the viewpoints of the owner of MJFacts, it would suddenly be another Vindicate MJ? Because that would still be wrong — perhaps I should’ve added that as a point, too.

            As for the viewpoint of the owner about the female accuser, yes, it is similar to mine albeit more generous. Unfortunately, correspondence with Vince Finaldi somehow broke down when he was questioned about the seeming uphill battle James Safechuck had (previously, Finaldi had no problem at all gabbing and sharing info) and questions about why the “Jane Doe” case was dismissed were not returned. Apparently they don’t like being “challenged” (and I use that word very loosely)…. In other words, it did not impart an optimistic impression of the case or the players involved.

          • BrendaS

            Similar but different? Thanks for clearing that up.

            It’s a shame the relationship with Finaldi broke down. Have you tried to repair it? Your source was your edge.

          • Pea

            Yes. The consensus at this point is caution.

            As for the relationship, I wasn’t involved only informed about it. But I can imagine a billion-dollar lawyer, with the prospect of more money to be collected, doesn’t like to even be reminded (?) that his case may stink. (“Question mark” denoting that he never was challenged, only asked for a status update that he evidently [mis]took as a challenge.)

            MJFacts continues to be open, naturally, but resigned.

          • BrendaS

            Now, if I’m answering you as an individual…. Your opinion is your opinion. Yes, you’re entitled to your opinion. We’re not determining guilt or innocence.

            I am curious about the mention of Dimond, Gutierrez, and Brown. I dismiss Gutierrez out of hand because he’s gross. But Dimond and Brown are interesting.

            Brown was there when Michael was calling underage Tatum his girlfriend. I wonder if the Jackson family considered underage girls a problem. They were so obsessed with Michael not being gay. Jermaine took credit for telling Michael about Tatum in his book. What in the world was he doing telling a grown Michael about a “beautiful” twelve year old? Why would he think Michael would find that interesting? There were plenty of young girls hanging around Hayvenhurst. This was the time Michael was playing bagboy for a cashier wearing pigtails at the local grocery. Did the Jackson’s, who were Brown’s main source, overlook all the little girls that were around because the boys were the sticking point because they considered that homosexual (which it wasn’t)?

            As for Dimond, how could a hack like Ian Halperin find girls who had slept in Michael ´s bedroom but she couldn’t? She’s a far better investigative reporter and writer. I think it was part bias and part writing. Instead of writing about the girls she knew, she stuck to her narrative to make it more compelling.

            As for media coverage: Wade could still get coverage but he is under the gag order, right? James didn’t get the coverage the girl did.

            I don’t know why she requested to dismiss her case. They could be re-writing it. She could have gotten a book deal. They could have settled. She could have gotten an unbelievable deal to tell her story. The tabloid press pay amazing sums of money. Lifetime movie? Who knows?

          • Pea

            I mentioned the main Jacko journos because they — especially Diane Dimond — were integral in shaping the public narrative about Jacko’s peccadilloes. It is therefore from that context that I defend my right to skepticism regarding a female accuser who continues to be nameless (well, somewhat) and faceless and unknown.

            A girl is out of Jacko’s publicly known norm. Do you not understand that viewpoint? Yes, fans suggested Jacko liked girls as much as boys, but it was defensive in order to downplay the boys — not to mention fans who insisted upon Jacko’s egalitarianism believe a female accuser even less than a male one! Talk about comedy; at least I’m consistent!

            Anyway, I don’t doubt that all of the Jacko journalists — and Stacy Brown is worse than Gutierrez, who at least doesn’t camouflage his bent and wrote possibly the best book on Jacko’s troubles — wore blinders to a degree. Dimond has increasingly lost my favor; she was also totally mum on this female accuser and Brown expressed doubts, too, thinking that possibly she was a “put up” by the Estate to invalidate Wade Robson.

            No, none of them believe in girls. Not that they are right or that girls didn’t exist, but I would think they’d jump on any opportunity to paint him as a pedophile, regardless of the alleged victim’s sex.

            By the way, was the girl at the supermarket really so much younger than Jacko? My understanding was that he was teenaged and so was she. That would not be very unusual. I also kind of think the Tatum O’Neal issue is a bit of a dead horse, as he claims he covered his eyes and pretty much failed.

            I think we can all agree he was perverted, but I personally need more than a bunch of checks and fan letters….

            “As for media coverage: Wade could still get coverage but he is under the gag order, right? James didn’t get the coverage the girl did.”

            James got enough coverage; he was also in dozens of pictures with Jacko when he was a boy which validated his “loved boy” story. “Jane Doe” got less than Wade Robson. I don’t know the salience of bringing up media coverage anyway? Seems like no one in the media cares at all!

            “I don’t know why she requested to dismiss her case. They could be re-writing it. She could have gotten a book deal. They could have settled. She could have gotten an unbelievable deal to tell her story. The tabloid press pay amazing sums of money. Lifetime movie? Who knows?”

            If the lawyers are any tell, I can imagine they knew the case was a loser from a statutory standpoint and won’t re-file. But I personally believe it is being re-written; they don’t seem like they’d give up. According to the case summary for “Jane Doe’s” case, the dismissal was filed May 16 following the Estate’s April 3rd Demurrer filing (they filed no response). I suspect, given that timing, that there was no settlement, which would have likely been filed with the Court anyway. They are likely strategizing for a re-file, if not getting rid of it for good.

            Why do you believe her so? She doesn’t even have a documented and visual history, unlike Wade or James.

          • BrendaS

            You love to argue, don’t you, lol. You just spent a lot of words arguing a point I conceded in the first two sentences of my reply. I’m not trying to change your opinion about Jane Doe. Okay? That’s not my interest.

            I am interested in reconciling the anomalies in the Michael Jackson story. And one of the biggest anomalies was the no girls. I’m not talking about victims of possible abuse. The narrative was no girls period. And that was why I chose to discuss Dimond and Brown. They implied no girls but facts bare out there were girls around (I’m not listing the girls because if you can pick up an obscure reference like the cashier, you already know). How to reconcile? Hence my post. I put forth an answer.

            Visual history is another anomaly. We know girls were present. That’s a fact. So where are the pictures? Do they exist? Pictures have to be purchased. Was there a market? Is there a market now?

          • BrendaS

            I don’t see my latest comment. Is everything okay?

          • Pea

            Yes. I am the only moderator here at the moment; your patience is required.

      • Pea

        I just wanted to provide a little more information about the dismissal….

        Based on some research I did, this dismissal could mean that Finaldi et al may re-file the case; it was dismissed without prejudice, which allows for a “do over” if a plaintiff wants it (the re-filing can also be blocked by the judge if he sees that there is no hope for success — in my opinion, I believe Beckloff has been interested in these cases from the beginning and would allow chances to re-file and “start over”).

        That is a common occurrence in civil cases. If you look at the case summary for Jane Doe, it contains many continuances. Dismissing an entire action, as was done here, can also be a method of prolonging a case to allow for additional time to gather materials.

        I also wanted to clarify that a dismissal without prejudice does not mean that the plaintiff didn’t get a settlement, although, in this case, the request came right after the Estate filed a demurrer, and that makes it unlikely, in my opinion, that there was a settlement made. In Jordie Chandler’s case, for example, all of the actions that required willful acts were dismissed with prejudice by Plaintiffs when the Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release was signed; the last cause of action — Negligence — remained dismissed without prejudice until all of the settlement payments were received.

        So, it may not be over just yet.

        • Fudhux

          Thank you for your information Pea ! I do hope that , if she was molested like she says, that she will re file . Because she just lost a bit of credibility by dismissing it in my opinion. I think we were looking forward to what she had to day about MJ being a girls molester !

          We shall see !

  • Pea

    Oh, that is the writer of that MJUpbeat site…. I don’t know if she is “scamming” people by asking for help to fight an eviction, but the whole use of GoFundMe is problematic. Since when do people think it is appropriate to beg for handouts? One could argue she is in a particularly rough spot, but she doesn’t have family to help her?

    It’s just not cool, IMHO.

    • silverspirit

      Her sordid tale about living with rats and constant changing of her eviction time line screams “BS”! How do they afford the net? Good ? as to why family are not helping them? Government assistance? How about she get a job? MJf fans are the most gullible for falling for this type of thing.

      GoFundMe is rife with scammers, just like Geraldine Hughes tried to get $$ from fans for a fake movie for yrs now. I would think that is a crime, no? Someone needs to police that site more, imo.

    • silverspirit

      I never read that site before today. http://home.mj-upbeat.com/2017/03/07/michael-jackson-website-mj-upbeat-com-status-update-over-80-mj-photos/ Yet, she has all the time the world to spew poo & hate on the net. tsk, tsk!

  • Pea

    New update:

    Judge Beckloff dismissed James Safechuck’s case, citing that Jacko’s companies cannot be held liable for the conduct of their owner, Michael Jackson.

    http://mynewsla.com/crime/2017/07/07/sex-abuse-by-long-dead-michael-jackson-judge-rejects-lawsuit/

    Recall the core argument: MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures supposedly had a duty to the kids who came into Jacko’s world, especially ones with whom his employees interacted (i.e., the employees should’ve acted against Jacko since they knew he was a pedophile, and because they didn’t, they failed the kids who were allegedly molested).

    This will also likely affect the outcome of Wade’s case, too, due to continued copy/paste arguments between the complaints — “Jane Doe” already dismissed herself.

    In my view, these accusers should just speak their truths publicly. It is silly to sue a dead man for money….

    • Wade Robson Allys

      Pea I have no idea what your motive is and nether do I care. But what I do know is that James and Wade are the Victims of Michael Jackson not you, me or anyone else. It is THEIR decision to choose the path. Why is that important, hmmm well when they were children being Raped by Michael Jackson they didn’t have the choice. However now as grown men who are beginning to come to terms with their abuse they do have a choice and guess what it is their’s to make. When a victim of any form of abuse comes forward and seeks justice you don’t belittle their method you support their courage.

      • Michael Jeffrey

        Maybe you just misunderstand Pea. She doesn’t attack Wade’s or James’ way to seek justice. She is moreso just speaking the truth. You can’t sue a dead man successfully. To be fair, we have to admit that Wade & James both can’t prove that they were molested and the abuser who could admit it died 8 years ago. So what is left?
        Attention in the public I would say. Especially James could convince a lot of people. He was around Jackson 24/7 for years and appears in dozens of photos. Don’t you think James could change the public opinion about Jackson? I think so.
        Furthermore, James explained that he came to terms with his abuse due seeing Wade Robson on TV. I guess, James could help many other obvious victims like Jonathan Spence or Brett Barnes as well. To make a silent lawsuit against an estate won’t help anyone. It needs to be discussed. Besides of that, wanting money from the estate gives the public impression that this is all about money & no abuse happend.

        • Wade Robson Allys

          How about just saying I support you and leaving it at that.

          • Michael Jeffrey

            When a small group of people (and the truth is that only very few people believe that Jackson was a pedo) supports you, it won’t help you. You need the majority, that’s always the case and in my opinion that’s the only way James could become very visible as an abused boy.
            But whatever.

          • yaso

            Do you think that very few people believe Jacko was guilty?! I thought more and more people realized the truth about Jacko in the past couple of years?!

          • Pea

            People may think Jacko was weird — to the point they will indulge themselves in laughing at a pedophile joke at his expense or wondering why he was sleeping with boys — but they are not fully committed to his being an actual pedophile.

            As far as “very few people” goes, it is true: those who actively believe Jacko was a pedophile are very small. I’ve watched it dwindle over these past 8 years after peaking just after his death, when people were the most curious about his story. Many have moved on — I don’t blame them because what more is really left when you’ve uncovered all the secrets?

            Right now, and I think this is what Michael Jeffrey was hinting at, it seems the only passionate people are fans and those who love Jacko more than “hate” him. Most don’t care anymore, and, whether wrong or right, it’s because it was a long time ago and there is enough evidence on both sides for them to decide, “I just don’t know.”

  • Michael Jeffrey

    I don’t think Jackson was interested in 5-year-olds sexually. Wade knew him since 5, the molestation started at 7, Jonathan knew him since the age of 5,the sleepovers started at 12, Brett Barnes had contact with Jackson since the age of 5, met him at 9.
    Jackson abused more boys than we all know. The only 5-year-old that had a odd friendship with him was Bryton Mcclure. Did you mean him by “Burger King boy?”
    https://michaeljacksonandtheboys.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/michael-jackson-bryton-mcclure-1992-2004/

  • Pea

    Another update:

    In spite of James Safechuck’s case being dismissed and it suggesting a potentially doomed outcome for Wade’s case (due to repeated copying/pasting between all of the lawsuits), the New York Daily News says Finaldi, et al., are searching for Jordie Chandler, who they believe is “hiding” from them.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/confidential/michael-jackson-accuser-sought-article-1.3309673

    Choice quote:

    Lawyers for Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, who, as children, were companions of Jackson, and now claim they were sexually abused by the singer, say that they believe Chandler has left the U.S. to avoid them, according to a source close to the case.

    Robson and Safechuck believe that if they can find Chandler — who’s never spoken about his experience with Jackson — they can convince him to end his silence, says the source.

    “Wade and Jimmy want to look Jordie in the eye and talk to him about what they suffered,” said the source. “They feel that they may appeal to him to finally tell his story.”

    Speaking from his office in Irvine, California, lead attorney Vince Finaldi confirmed that his investigators are on the hunt for Chandler.

    “He’s a key piece of the puzzle surrounding this case, and we’re not going to stop until we find him,” said Finaldi, whose team has tracked down dozens of former members of Jackson’s staff and entourage, including maids, security guards and Neverland office staffers.

    Insiders say they have trekked to Greece to find Jacko’s ex-chief of staff Norma Staikos, who oversaw provisions and contracts for many of Jackson’s child companions and their families.

    • Wade Robson Allys

      The case is set for March 2018 Judge Beckloff has made no indication that this case will be dismissed. What you seem to not include is that Judge Beckloff went out of his way to make a point that Jame’s employment did not fall within the existence of the corporations being sued. It seems Pea you are hoping for a dismissal how about just a little hope. But I guess being correct on your hunches is more important

      • Pea

        If you’ll remember, there was a March 2017 trial date set at one time, too, and that was pushed back another year. The date is simply a placeholder on the court calendar, existing primarily under the assumption that it will be reached.

        Of course it would be nice if Wade got to trial, but, being realistic here, it doesn’t seem likely. And I don’t think there is a problem with my acknowledging that….

        I was reading a transcript of part of the Safechuck demurrer hearing on a fan website, and Finaldi was quoted as saying there was “no way to separate” Wade’s case from James’s case — that the two were connected because the arguments and claims are identical. Helpfully or not, it was a point that all parties — Finaldi, et al., the Judge, and the Estate — agreed upon.

        http://dailymichael.com/images/safechuck/JSDemRule.jpg

        Does it not seem likely that if James failed to establish that Jacko’s companies (via the employees Jacko hired) could control his behavior and prevent abuse, Wade, too, will also fail?

        Going out and trying to hunt down Jordie Chandler is not going to make Wade’s lawsuit against Jacko’s companies, via these current arguments, succeed. It would likely only be to force a settlement from the Estate through a threat to reveal the sordid details of Jordie’s abuse to the public. It’s woefully transparent.

        Again, Jordie should be left alone because he clearly doesn’t want to be found.

        I hope Wade succeeds in court because Jacko should be exposed, but I won’t hold my breath. I just wonder what motivated him to try to write a book, which failed, and then file a claim too late. All we now have is utter radio silence from Wade — and I grant that it is his right, but it is not a good look. It makes him look like he was vengeful because he didn’t get a job and lashed out because the Jacko-connection that used to get him through doors suddenly lost its magic. I mean, for Christ’s Sake, he said he never could work in the entertainment industry again because of Jacko’s abuse; now he is working!

        But we’ll see what happens….

        • Wade Robson Allys

          Actually it was Wade’s lawyers who requested a later date to gather more information. That request was challenged by Michael Jackson’s lawyers and the request by Michael Jackson’s lawyers was denied. Again you are speculating at best. Judge Beckloff could easily dismissed both cases at the same time using your logic. The key in Judge Beckloff ‘ s ruling was the mentioning of the time frame of the corporations existence and how it related to Jame’s case. There would be zero reason to include that point unless it was relevant. I know it is hard because it seems like being right is more important to you than justice for these men but try having a little faith. Also put out the fact these are just your opinions not forgone conclusions. You like myself are not the end all and be all on this topic.

          • Pea

            You didn’t dispute anything I wrote in my comment, Mike. Trial dates are routinely set far in advance under the assumption they may be reached; they often are pushed up or back depending upon what transpires in the interim.

            So, as I said, a March 2018 trial date is no singular reason for “hope”; it is standard operating procedure. If that was not the case, it would make the Estate’s recent summary judgment filings moot (recall: if they won summary judgments, there would be no trial starting in March next year!).

            “The key in Judge Beckloff ‘ s ruling was the mentioning of the time frame of the corporations existence and how it related to Jame’s case. There would be zero reason to include that point unless it was relevant.”

            You can read Beckloff’s ruling for yourself here: https://www.scribd.com/document/353219745/Safechuck-Ruling-Demurrer-Dismissal

            Because a demurrer is supposed to assume all plaintiff facts as “true”, Beckloff accepted that James was employed by Jacko’s companies (only MJJ Productions, since MJJ Ventures was incorporated later in 1991), even though he put James’s employment in quotes. But that issue was not a “key” in his ruling. The “key” was that Finaldi, et al., failed to provide evidence that Jacko’s companies could control his behavior.

            According to the judge, case law and interpretations by the CA Supreme Court demanded that if James (and Wade, for that matter, since their arguments are identical) wanted to survive not having filed his lawsuit before his 26th birthday, he’d have to establish that the companies were in a position to prevent the abuse but failed to do so.

            Beckloff decided that in spite of employees allegedly knowing that Jacko was a pedophile (e.g., Norma Staikos), it was obvious that an owner of a corporation has complete control over the corporation and its employees. Given his ruling — given that he demands that Finaldi, et al., be able to prove a company could control its owner — it is likely that Wade will fail, too.

            “I know it is hard because it seems like being right is more important to you than justice for these men but try having a little faith.”

            LOL. It is not about being “right” but being accurate and grounded; it does not look good. And define “justice”? I don’t think Wade Robson is interested in “justice” at all. Is “justice” money — trying to take money from Jacko’s children? Is “justice” harassing Jordie Chandler, whose family and life were ruined, in order to save a failing case? No, it’s not. It’s not any kind of “justice” I support, especially if he wins and then disappears without saying anything to CSA survivors and his supporters.

            I personally think it is time for Wade to stop using his abuse to try to get things from Michael Jackson. It’s getting kind of old….

          • Wade Robson Allys

            What has happened to this site? Was it sold to create disinformation? Who the hell are you to decide how any victim decides to get legal vindication. Why Money Pea have you lived through abuse. Many victims cannot support their families because of the emotional wreckage caused by the abuse. Many victims have to seek years of therapy just to function. And when they do function it is still a relentless struggle. As for Michael Jackson’s children and their Billion Dollar inheritance if it was not for the silence of these victims there would be no inheritance. It was through their abuse and hardships that Michael Jackson was able to stay out of jail and his legacy was able to make millions. I have zero idea where the admin.for this site has gone because he or she needs to return quickly. What you are spouting sounds like MJ vindication sites verbatim.
            Next your argument about the trial date just being a place holder. What was missing in the James Safechuck case….hmmm a trial date. Do you really think Judge Beckloff is incompetent. Because using your logic Judge Beckloff would have to be incompetent. Throw out the James Safechuck case which was filed after the Robson case but yet allow the Robson case which again using your logic is nothing more than a duplicate of the Safechuck case to continue. Does not make sense.

          • Pea

            The website was not “sold”. I am here to moderate comments while the owner/admin is too busy with real life business to do so. Differing opinions are always allowed here, as groupthink would get mighty boring….

            As far as the charge of my sounding like a fan website, hardly. I suggest you read Beckloff’s decision I linked in my earlier comment. I’m merely explaining, in a “nutshell” format, what it was — but don’t take my word for it; you can read it yourself. The problem for Wade, as was the problem for James, since they are both suing Jacko’s companies rather than Jacko himself, is the issue of control. And Beckloff decided that there was no precedent (but, in fact, only precedent to the contrary!) supporting a corporation, especially through its employees, being able to control the conduct of its owner.

            That’s why his case was dismissed. And unless the lawyers somehow alter the argument in Wade’s filings, Wade may also be sent packing.

            “Throw out the James Safechuck case which was filed after the Robson case but yet allow the Robson case which again using your logic is nothing more than a duplicate of the Safechuck case to continue. Does not make sense.”

            You need to re-read that transcript I posted in an earlier comment. It was Finaldi who said they were identical and linked, not me, and the judge and the Estate lawyers agreed. Hence the idea that because James’s case was dismissed so, too, would be Wade’s.

            As for money equaling justice, it doesn’t, and Wade Robson is not broke like other victims, so that logic immediately fails. And, yes, I do seriously question his motives at this point; I believe he’s cynical. It isn’t hard to imagine where he’s picked up the habit: his mother was equally cynical when she pimped her son to a pedophile and hid him from the cops when Jacko was accused of abuse, all in exchange for Wade’s success in showbiz. Wade’s been using his body almost all his life; if it’s true that he’s as cynical as I suspect he is, this is nothing new for him, just a different narrative.

          • Wade Robson Allys

            Again who are you to decide what means justice and what does not. Do you realize the amount of victims you are insulting with your flawed logic. Let’s see a majority of the Catholic Church Victims, A majority of victims that have civil settlements against school districts, youth organizations, the list goes on and on. Wade has every right to sue for money just like any human that may have been physically harmed by a corporation or organization. You talk about Joy pimping out her son but I know this may hard for you to comprehend Wade was a child. He does not bear responsibility for a parents lack of judgement. Why this site is important is because it gives the other side to these allegations and part of that other side is giving information on how victims respond to abuse and how child predators work. I want to make this crystal clear I’m believe you are a shill and here to spread hate against the victims, my proof is your statements. My advice is that anyone who looks at Pea’s commentary please be aware you may being played.

          • Pea

            Not sure why you feel the need to personally attack me, Mike; I am certainly not reciprocating. Nor will I defend myself against truly baseless, guttural, and pointless ad Hominems. But I will say that I am not a “shill” and you saying so is not only ridiculous but demonstrates a woefully binary thinking about the entire topic of Michael Jackson.

            Anyone who reads our exchange will see that I did two things: (a) reiterate the statutory problems plaguing these cases, as outlined in Beckloff’s recent decision (not to mention the very website post our comments are under!); and (b) voice my personal concerns (not the concerns of this website or its owner(s)) about Wade Robson. I have every right to express number (b). While I have always believed Wade was a victim of Jacko, I have never been able to silence a small voice that questioned his motives from the very beginning of this legal drama.

            None of the above makes someone a “shill” — instead, it shows an ability to think critically and independently.

            And, by the way, I realize Wade was a child and I don’t blame him for what his mother did; I was merely pointing out that he may be the product of his rearing, that his cynical mother shaped him into a cynical man.

            As for “money for justice”, while I understand money can be a legitimate compensation for some CSA victims, in the main, it just is not. I’ve never believed civil court was a good place, especially since Michael Jackson is dead.

            Now, with all that said, Wade has every right to continue. But I believe his shameless attorneys should leave Jordie Chandler alone. They should not keep searching for him until he is “found” because he has nothing to do with the core issue at hand in this case, which is whether Jacko’s companies were responsible for Wade’s abuse. Looking for him is disgusting, and for someone like you to be so blase about that in order to support Wade is a bit disturbing. Jordie owes no one — especially not the likes of Wade Robson! — anything and should not be stalked or harassed now that he’s finally achieved a modicum of normalcy and peace.

            Anyway, this conversation is over. Take care.

          • Wade Robson Allys

            Shameless attorneys do you realize that these attorneys have exposed dozens upon dozens of crimes against children. Pea they are not sitting behind a computer screen playing attorney they are attorneys who could of chosen any form of civil litigation to specialize in. Do you have any knowledge to the history of the Catholic Church and the courageous attorneys who have risked their careers and possibly their lives to go after one of the biggest religions on the planet.
            Next Jordan Chandler is more than capable of either denying or allowing his deposition to be taken. Let’s not forget it was not Wade Robson who drove him into hiding it was a group of unhinged, amoral, sociopathic MJ fanatics that achieved that goal. Your disdain for Wade Robson again shows your lack of commitment to the real issue and that issue is to allow any child that was RAPED by Michael Jackson to seek justice in any legal forum they see fit. The fact that the admin is allowing you any position on this site is reckless. I have read your previous posts and what you seem to be doing is playing a role and that role is to undermine the hard work that this site and other sites have been doing. How do I know 4 years of running a support page for the VICTIMS of Michael Jackson deal with it on a daily basis can spot a shill a mile away. When I come to think of it I prob. one of the few authorities on the topic of MJ shills. So did you talk to any of the attorneys representing Wade or James, oh wait they are not responding to your arm chair legal macerations anymore. And it does not surprise me. Again you are not fooling me for one second.

          • Pea

            Seriously, you need to stop denigrating this website just because you have an (apparently constitutive) inability to tolerate differing opinions.

            I’m only going to respond to a few points, just for the sake of people reading these comments. Then, like I said earlier, this conversation is truly over.

            “Next Jordan Chandler is more than capable of either denying or allowing his deposition to be taken. Let’s not forget it was not Wade Robson who drove him into hiding it was a group of unhinged, amoral, sociopathic MJ fanatics that achieved that goal.”

            Jacko’s Wackos have absolutely forced Jordie Chandler into a low-key existence; however, it has always been lawyers — not fans — that have made Jordie leave America (Sneddon in 2004 and now Finaldi, et al., in 2017). It is not Wade’s place to disrupt Jordie’s life and make him run, especially when his case would not be helped by anything Jordie would say. (Wade’s case is about whether the corporations could control the behavior of its owner, not about whether he was molested, which would be helped by additional victim testimony.)

            Jordie clearly doesn’t want to be found, so Finaldi saying that they “won’t stop” until he is is foul. You are free to disagree.

            “Your disdain for Wade Robson again shows your lack of commitment to the real issue and that issue is to allow any child that was RAPED by Michael Jackson to seek justice in any legal forum they see fit.”

            I don’t have a “disdain” for Wade; I’ve believed in his victimhood years before he’d ever admitted it, so it has nothing to do with his credibility. I am merely questioning his motives for filing a lawsuit four years in. Will he really not be silenced with money, as he insisted, and be someone to alter the narrative around Jacko’s love of children, or was he lashing out cynically because his connection to Jacko stopped benefiting him? Perhaps the latter felt like a contract broken between he and Jacko and he was out for vengeance. Not saying that is the absolute explanation, but it is not impossible either.

            You are free to disagree.

            As for the choice of legal forums, just because someone is an alleged victim does not mean I have to believe that a lawsuit is the best choice, in my opinion. I personally think speaking out is more empowering, especially when many civil suits end in a bunch of settlements with confidentiality agreements. Again, you are free to disagree.

            “The fact that the admin is allowing you any position on this site is reckless.”

            Beyond the fact the admin/owner has known me for years which speaks to my credibility (and against your paranoia), Comment Moderator is a fairly low-level MJFacts position….

            “How do I know 4 years of running a support page for the VICTIMS of Michael Jackson deal with it on a daily basis can spot a shill a mile away. When I come to think of it I prob. one of the few authorities on the topic of MJ shills.”

            I’ve been in the MJ Community mire way longer than you have. My authority (on anything MJ, in general, obviously) would beat yours in a fight.

            “So did you talk to any of the attorneys representing Wade or James, oh wait they are not responding to your arm chair legal macerations anymore.”

            As I said in an earlier comment to someone else, I never spoke to Vince Finaldi; that was the owner of the website via email and phone. I was only told about it. Finaldi was asked about the progress of James’s case following the last time the Estate’s demurrer was sustained and apparently didn’t like it (arrogance?). When asked about why “Jane Doe’s” case dismissed, he did not respond to the site’s requests for comment.

            So, in actuality, you’re bashing the efforts of this website to keep non-Jacko-apologetics-style information and updates open and flowing to the public; you’re not hurting me at all because your premise was false.

    • yaso

      I totally agree, Jordie Chandler went through alot. He was the FIRST kid to come forward publicly exposing Jacko’ pedophilia to the whole world when they ALL denied. The crazed fans made his life hell for a very long time. Whether to cooperate with Wade’ lawyers or not, it’s his choice. He should be left alone in peace.

  • Michael Jeffrey

    I’ve found a picture of Wade and Jackson (since we only have like 5) and added it to my post about him. I thought some of you may want to see or use it. It was taken in 1992, so Wade was either 9 or 10 years old (depending on the month the photo was taken).
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/818ca4f6620fe3d22da884b175888936bcf83887f4514dac0100d4b2248e338e.jpg

  • yaso

    My focus is mainly concerning the general public Not Jacko’ fans because they are hopeless. I think the general public mania following Jacko’ death has largely diminished, in those day, No one was allowed to say a negative comment on Jacko like he was a saint or a hero. After Wade Robson, Jimmy Safechuck and most probably as years went by, many people moved on and started to look at him objectively without the overwhelming sympathy or guilt that followed his death. Many of MJ’ fan sites have been shut down except 2 or 3, If you went to general sites like Daily mail, TMZ and many others, most of the comments about him are negative and his defenders are being shut down and downvoted. However his rabid fans are mostly active on youtube, Facebook and Twitter like closed communities, Not like before when the general forums were swarmed by positive comments about Jacko, Not anymore.

    • Andreas Moss

      The thing with the general public is that they have incredibly little info to begin with. When I’ve seen people comment on reddit(where its basically anybody jumping into a thread) they almost don’t know anything at all.

      They might just wrestle with the idea that they “heard he slept in bed with children, which isn’t normal” and the claim “what parents would take money instead of taking him to court”, and things like that. Its not really scraping the surface.

      Or he doesn’t seem like the type(too nice, too fragile, etc), or for some he does seems like the type(weird, surgeries, creepy, etc).

      So they feel probably/probably not.

      I do think there’s a fog with the Jackson cases that most other cases don’t have though. That makes this topic a bit unique. I am not sure if people care that much. I’m still not sure why I find it interesting still. I guess it just touched upon a lot of other interesting topics, and I suspect there’s a lot more to what happened than is currently known.

      • yaso

        People don’t care that much, The only people who are still passionate or care about this subject to do their research are either his fans (of course) and some people on this site who were probably Ex fans.

        Other than that, The public don’t really care about Jacko, but their opinion on him has lowered so much in recent years from what i’ve observed, and i think many of them believe he was guilty even if they don’t know the details we know or care to prove their opinion. They are not deluded/blind like his fans to not see the non sense that went on in Jacko’ life.

        I rarely visit reddit to be honest, but i know that Jacko’ fans are very active there like they are on FB or Twitter.

        • Andreas Moss

          Its possible the public doesn’t care about Jackson, but another quite likely theory is also that the cases really are a bit confusing to newcomers due to too many different versions of events and so on, so they just give up because its too much to learn. You have to put in some hours. People typically want easy clear answers. Like a “yes” or “no”. Its the same with journalists I suspect. Too much to unpack for an article due to next Wednesday.

          I was never a fan of Jackson by the way. I find him to be an interesting person, but his music was never for me.

  • Pea

    Just an update:

    For those interested, here is the Estate’s recent Motion for Summary Judgment against Wade Robson: https://www.scribd.com/document/353417846/Mj-Estate-Summary-Judgment-for-Robson

    It was uploaded by fans, but it is much better to read the document yourself instead of their propagandist write-up of its contents. (Unfortunately, the fan who owns the document routinely only supplies Jacko’s side; it’s problematic in terms of knowing the whole trajectory of the legal arguments but some information is better than none.)

    In the document, which is quite vigorously written, the Estate reiterates the same points that eventually led to the dismissal of James Safechuck’s lawsuit:
    (a) that Jacko’s companies couldn’t control the conduct of their sole shareholder and owner (Michael Jackson); and
    (b) that Wade was not exposed to Jacko as an “inherent part” of the environment created by the relationship between Jacko and MJJ Productions and/or MJJ Ventures.

    (NOTE: Wade must prove both of the above in order to go to trial.)

    To understand (b), simply think about children abused by Catholic priests: the victims are exposed to the priest because when they attend church the priest is there. Furthermore, the priest has a pre-established credibility by virtue of him being a part of the Church.

    According to the Estate, Wade cannot dispute their point (b) since Wade was only exposed to Jacko because Joy Robson repeatedly sought out Jacko’s attentions and believed, of her own accord and without thinking of his companies, that Jacko was safe and trustworthy….

    • silverspirit

      Thanks for the update with the real information as apposed to the usual intentional omissions by an MJ fan that really never works for him in the the real world.