Lies run sprints. The truth runs marathons.
That’s what Michael Jackson reminded us when he was accused of child molestation. It was, of course, mere rhetoric on Jackson’s part to fire up fans to come to his defense – in his heart he must have known that over time his secrets would be revealed. Or was he totally delusional and did he really think that the vows taken by the boys he was intimate with would truly keep them quiet forever? I’m leaning toward the latter, his narcissism surely gave him confidence that he could silence them well into adulthood. He was certainly manipulative enough.
Update 18th February 2016
Although Wade Robson had a hearing date scheduled for his case on the 16th of February, this didn’t go ahead. Here’s why. In March 2015 the MJ companies (MJJ Productions, Inc and MJJ Ventures, Inc) lodged a demurrer with the intention of having the case thrown out, which was denied by Judge Beckloff. An appeal against that decision was lodged by the MJ companies on 23rd November last year, and the decision came through on the 17th of February 2016. The appeal by the MJ companies was denied, and the case will be moving forward. We expect the judges opinion to be available soon, if so we will publish it.
Appellate Court Case Information
Update 28th September 2015 – As anticipated, James Safechuck Jr’s probate case was dismissed because it did not meet statute of limitations deadlines. His civil case against Jackson’s companies will continue to work it’s way through the system.
Wade Robson’s civil case is now at the summary judgement phase. What is summary judgement?
When one party believes that there are no important facts in dispute, he will file a motion for summary judgment. A typical summary judgment motion has three parts. For the purposes of this explanation, let’s assume that the defendants (Jackson’s companies) filed the motion for summary judgement, and that the plaintiff (Wade Robson) must now respond.
Part 1: These are the facts: First, the defendants, Jackson’s companies, will present a version of the facts. The defendant usually attaches photos, signed statements from witnesses, and any other evidence to back up their statements about the facts.
Part 2: This is the law: Next, the defendant will argue about the state of the law. The defendant’s attorneys will write up a memorandum that discusses the statutes and cases that govern the parties and attempt to convince the judge that, under the law, the defendant is entitled to win the case.
Part 3: Even if…: In the last part of the summary judgment motion, the defendant will anticipate what the plaintiff (Wade) will argue, and will try to prove that even if the plaintiff is correct in his arguments, the defendant will still win the case. For example, Wade is alleging that Norma Staikos had control over Jackson’s company MJJ Productions and that she knew that there was a possibility that Jackson was abusing boys. The company lawyers may present affidavits and other proof that she might have known about the abuse, but never had any control to stop Jackson.
Next, the plaintiff responds: In his response, the Wade can either try to show that the defendant’s arguments about the law are incorrect, or that there is evidence that there could be more than one version of the facts.
The judge’s decision: After all the papers and supporting evidence has been submitted, the judge will review all the paperwork and make a decision. The judge will grant the motion, agreeing with the defendant, if (1) the defendant’s arguments about the law were correct, and (2) even assuming the plaintiff’s version of the facts were true, the defendant is still entitled to win. The judge will deny the motion if there is evidence from Wade’s side that presents any questions of fact that should be put to the test of a trial.
– See more at Findlaw
In his ruling, Judge Beckloff made reference to what needs to be covered when making a claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, subdivision (b) (2) (the entire section can be viewed here).
Our Supreme Court explained the component parts of section 340.1, subdivision (b) (2) in Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 545-546:
“The words of subdivision (b) (2) create three conditions that must be met before it applies to a particular case: (1) the nonperpetrator defendant “knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice”; (2) that the perpetrator–“an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent”–had engaged in “unlawful sexual conduct”; and (3) “failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding placement of that person in a function or environment in which contact with children is an inherent part of that function or environment.” Moreover, the “unlawful sexual conduct” refers to the acts specified in section 340 .1, subdivision (e), which defines “‘ [c]hildhood sexual abuse'” in terms of seven provisions of the Penal Code describing various prohibited sexual acts against minors.”
Beckloff ruled that although the first two components had sufficient facts alleged in Wade’s third amended complaint to survive demurrer, the third element would need to be tested in court. (It should be noted here that “…the court must construe all allegations of the complaint
liberally and allow all reasonable inferences and implications in favor of plaintiff [Wade].”)
…there is a factual dispute this court cannot address on demurrer as to the third element – failing to take reasonable steps to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct – an element that necessarily “implies that the [nonperpetrator defendant] was in a position to exercise some control over the [perpetrator].”
Was Norma Staikos in a position to exercise some control over Jackson? She was Executive Vice President of MJJ Productions and certainly had some authority over the running of the company. It is alleged she fired an employee against the wishes of Jackson, and controlled access of persons to Jackson’s vault of recorded music without reference to Jackson himself, so it’s plausible she could have said “no” to Jackson when it came to organizing young boys for sleepovers. For more details, see the Norma Staikos story.
The next scheduled date for Wade’s case is a status conference on the 16th of February 2016.
Document: Ruling on Submitted Matter
Update 19th August 2015 – Wade’s civil case (against Jackson’s companies, for facilitating the abuse) has proceeded to Status Conference stage. Status conferences are to allow the sides to sort things out, see where the case is, just in case an actual civil trial can be avoided. This is dependent on the demurrer being denied.
According to statements they’ve issued in the past, the Estate, which now controls Jackson’s companies, is unwilling to offer Wade a settlement to prevent the case going to trial. We don’t know if they will still feel that way as time progresses. My feeling is that the Estate will try and drag this case out for as long as they can, a common tactic when the defendant has deep pockets, in an effort to wear Wade down or to give them time to get the right witnesses and evidence in place to help them win.
Wade for his part has always said “it isn’t about the money,” so I hope he can stick to that and get his story out. If he is offered a settlement by the Estate he will probably reject it, but I wouldn’t blame him if he accepted it. If he has a choice between facing years of grinding litigation, or going back to a normal life with his family, he would make a choice that’s best for his family. This would tarnish his claims somewhat but as true Realists we would like to see Wade heal and be around the people he loves rather than satisfying our quest for the truth about Jackson. There will be other boys (now men) who will come forward in the future to further prove Jackson was a molester.
Update 28th May 2015 – Judge Beckloff has had to deny Wade Robson’s claim against the Estate (his Probate claim) because he couldn’t fit it into existing statute of limitations for the offenses Wade is claiming. One would assume that the same will happen to James Safechuck’s claim.
Judge Beckloff said that although it’s quite reasonable to believe that Wade was brainwashed and threatened by Michael Jackson, that ceased when he died and Wade took an unreasonable amount of time to file.
Both Wade and James still have the civil case in play against Michael Jackson’s companies. The next hearing for that case is 30th June 2015.
It should be noted that the case was not dismissed because it was based on lies or that the case didn’t have any merit. The following sentence at the top of this post still applies.
Unfortunately for Jackson, his fifth and sixth accusers have joined the first four accusers (Terry George, Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia and Gavin Arvizo) and broken their vow that they would never tell. Thus, nearly six years after his death, the truth marathon keeps pushing forward regardless, while the lie that Jackson wasn’t a pedophile ran out of puff a long time ago.
What followed after Wade and James came forward was a flood of misinformed pronunciations, misinformation and lies from certain commentators, Jackson fans as well as sections of the media. We have the latest documents1 from the Los Angeles Superior Courthouse which torpedo most of those lies and misconceptions. We’ve posted before about issues in the Wade Robson case, however in this post, using the new documents, we’ll clear a few more things up.
What is happening is that Wade Robson has filed a late creditor’s claim against the Estate of Michael Jackson for an unspecified amount in relation to the harm he suffered as a result of Jackson’s alleged abuse. There are strict time limits on creditor claims against an estate; however, it is being argued by Wade’s lawyers that these time limits shouldn’t be applied because of Jackson’s fraudulent and unjust acts which prevented Wade from filing any claim — not just against Jackson’s estate, but also against Jackson himself when he was alive.
The judge is currently deciding whether the late claim will be permitted, if he decides it won’t be then that will be the end of the matter (in the courts). If Judge Mitchell Beckloff allows the late claim to proceed, the Estate have already stated that they will refuse it. In that case, Wade will take his claim to Civil Court where it will work it’s way through the system.
Jackson’s fraudulent act of brainwashing Wade into believing that the acts between them were consensual is one prong of the equitable estoppel argument, Jackson’s threats are another prong of Wade’s equitable estoppel argument. So both elements are covered – fraudulent acts and threats. Robson can use either or both.
So, in any case, this is all the judge needs to rule on.
However, rather than taking on the equitable estoppel argument, the Estate insists it is not applicable and insists on focusing solely on the timeliness of Wade’s claim.
Based on Wade’s answers in his deposition, the Estate argues that Wade did indeed know about the administration of the Estate. As evidence, they proffer the following:
- Wade read about the controversy over the “second will”;
- Wade was aware of the guardianship arrangements of Paris, Prince and Blanket;
- Wade attended the memorial at the Staples Center after Jackson died;
- Wade knew in 2010-2011 there was some dispute as to who was running the Estate;
- In 2010 Wade was approached to work with Cirque du Soleil and met with John Branca to discuss his plans for the Immortal show;and
- Wade knew that John Branca was a co-executor of the Estate.
The answer is very simple. According to the documents filed, when Robson stated that “he did not understand or was even aware that an Estate had been opened for administration” he was providing an opinion rationally based on his lay-persons perception; he genuinely did not understand what is meant by the administration of an estate or what it entails. He also did not even understand that it was possible to make a claim against the Estate until it was explained to him by legal counsel.
That puts paid to the ignorant comments such as “How could Wade not know about the Estate?”. Obviously the Estate and the administration of the Estate are two distinct things – knowledge of one does not automatically assume knowledge of the other.
All of this is, of course, irrelevant if the equitable estoppel argument is successful.
As for fan arguments that one of the reasons Wade supposedly needs money is “because he was passed over for the Immortal Tour in favor of Jamie King”, this has also been proven untrue. The fact of the matter is that Wade was approached, through his agent Julie McDonald, to work with Cirque du Soleil. In early 2011, Charles Joron of Cirque du Soleil was considering an offer for Wade but it had to be presented to and validated by the Estate. Wade met with John Branca in his office in the first quarter of 2011. At that meeting Wade and Branca discussed creative concepts and their respective visions for the show. It should be noted here that Wade was under the impression that Branca “ran the entertainment business side of the Estate”. According to the court documents, Wade had previously been offered the job at Cirque du Soleil, but had quit for whatever reason, so this was the second time he had been approached for the task. In the end he declined the Cirque show as he felt the producers and the Estate would face an uphill battle to “resell” him to whoever made the final decision to hire him.
Wade wanted to do the show badly, as he’d stated in an email dating to May 21, 2011, however due to his gig at the time – directing a major motion picture – as well as the emotional distress he was starting to feel, apparently for no reason but established now by experts to be due to the abuse by Jackson he suffered, he felt he could not give 100% of his creative output to the task of the Immortal show.
So, it’s a falsehood when fans spread the lie that Wade was ever “fired” from either Cirque du Soleil or his major motion picture directing debut.
The other point clarified is “How could Wade NOT know it was abuse?”
For us, the answer was confronting, and disturbing. In essence, Wade is saying that his impression at the time was that he and Jackson had loving, mutual sex. Jackson had indoctrinated Wade into thinking that they were in love, that the way they expressed their love was through sexual acts. Thus Wade saw absolutely nothing wrong, at the time, with the fellatio, masturbation and anal sex he enjoyed with Jackson. In his mind it was not rape; it was never molestation. Instead, with Jackson’s goading, it was a couple expressing their love through intimate physical contact.
After detailing the sexual acts in his April 30, 2013 declaration, Wade chased the list with the following statement that underscored not only the effects of Jackson’s insidious instruction but also simple bodily physiology:
“The most distressing thing for me is admitting to myself that it felt good. I feel overwhelming guilt and shame that I looked forward to being with Doe 1 sexually, because it makes me feel like I am responsible. My life has been a lie.”
– Unredacted Robson Declaration, p. 4, para. 16, lines 9-11
Unpleasant as it is to discuss, obviously the anal sex would have been delicately introduced – if Wade would have said no Jackson would not have gone that far (remember Jackson ceasing any behavior that Jordan Chandler objected to).
Now, it must be stated here that sex between adults and children is never an expression of love, and Wade has come to realize that now, too. No matter how you dissect it, Jackson’s actions were rape because they were with a minor. What Jackson did damaged Wade mentally and emotionally (and would damage any child) in ways that he only came to understand once he had therapy. Before that, what occurred between him and Jackson Wade viewed as completely acceptable.
What Jackson made Wade think is that what they had was mutual love, and they expressed that love through sex which was perfectly natural. What Jackson also had to explain to Wade was that others were “conditioned” to believe what they were doing was wrong – hence the need for secrecy and the threats that disclosure would result in terrible things happening to them both.
This would have absolutely influenced Wade’s decision to lie in 1993 and 2005 when asked about his relationship and activities with Jackson. Wade openly admits he lied and the reasons can be gleaned from these documents.
One, he loved Michael Jackson, he loved Michael Jackson’s attention and he looked forward to being with Jackson sexually.
Two, he imagined that Jordan (in 1993) and Gavin (in 2005) would have also equally enjoyed being with Michael but were “betraying” him and were trying to destroy him or just wanted his money. This was reinforced by Jackson’s daily coaching.
Three, Wade felt no compunction in lying for Jackson to protect both Jackson and himself. Wade knew that sex between a minor and an adult was illegal, yet Jackson’s indoctrination left him with the feeling that those that drafted those laws wouldn’t have understood the special relationship that he and Jackson had. For Wade, it was easy to dismiss the reason those laws were put in place, and to give testimony where he denied he and Jackson were doing anything sexual.
Four, Wade felt that if he admitted to having sex with Jackson, his life would have been destroyed. He was made to feel that he, rather than Jackson, was the instigator in the sexual relationship (according to Jackson’s brainwashing) so he felt he would have been vilified. In the 2005 trial, Wade said he “felt like he was 11 years old again”, full of fear, shame and guilt. Wade felt as though he had somehow convinced Jackson to have sex with him, so if he told, it would be his fault that Jackson got into trouble. This shows the depth of Jackson’s depravity, allowing a young boy to believe abuse was his own fault.
Five, lying for Jackson cemented his loyalty to Jackson, allowing him to stay friends with someone he idolized and lionized, setting him apart from the “traitors” who had tried to bring his mentor down.
As can be seen,Wade willingly lied in 1993 and 2005, to protect both himself and Jackson. He was so indoctrinated by Jackson “not to tell a soul” about what they had done, it took until May 8 2012 for him to break the bond he had with Jackson.
Once Wade broke that bond and told his therapist about his sexual relationship with Jackson, it took another year of therapy for him to tie the abuse to the emotional and mental damage he had felt since he was a child. He finally realised it was sexual abuse, not consensual sex.
Once Wade knew that Jackson had caused his psychological damage, he wanted justice. Let’s hope he gets it.
As for those who doubt Jackson chased young Wade, read the following exchange:
SB:“Oh, he wasn’t from ‘N Sync, Wade?”
MJ:”No, he’s a choreographer for Britney Spears and ‘N Sync. See I taught Wade.”
SB:”Really?”
MJ:”Yeah, I taught Wade. All the stuff you see Britney Spears and ‘N Sync doing, that whole style came from me ’cause I taught Wade. Wade’s from Australia and I brought him to America.”
Quite obviously it was Jackson who brought the Robsons to the US, not the Robson’s chasing after Jackson. After all, here is Jackson boasting about it.
* The documents are
- 04/10/2015 Supplement ( SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF ADD’L UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Claimant - 04/03/2015 Response (RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO MOTION )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner - 04/03/2015 Declaration – Probate (OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RONALD J. ZONEN )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner - 04/02/2015 Creditor’s Claim ($ UNDETERMINED )
Filed by Claimant - 03/24/2015 Memorandum – Other (OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Claimant - 03/24/2015 Declaration – Probate (OF MARY ANN R. MARZANO IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Claimant - 03/24/2015 Proof of Serv of Ntc by Mail (OF CLAIMANT WADE ROBSON’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Claimant - 03/24/2015 Declaration – Probate (OF CLAIMANT WADE ROBSON IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Claimant - 03/24/2015 Statement of Facts (OF ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Claimant - 03/24/2015 Response (TO SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Claimant