WADE ROBSON Is Requested To Admit That HE IS A LIAR
Sometimes it is just enough to reread some court documents to stop looking into the behavioral intricacies of the ‘poor boy’ Wade Robson and see the simplicity of the case in all its brutal nakedness.
This refreshing change took place with me when I was looking for the $1,62 billion sum the ‘poor boy’ allegedly demands now and in the process happened to reread not only his present court documents but also the testimonies of the whole Robson family at the 2005 trial.
You cannot imagine what an eye-opening experience it was. Indeed, the present documents read best of all against the background of these testimonies, thus opening your eyes not only to the glaring falsity of Robson’s current story but also to his incredible ego, cynicism, ingratitude, jealousy, callousness, and his lust for money of course.
The three documents from the year 2005 are the testimonies of the 22-year old Wade Robson, his mother Joy Robson and his 25-year old sister Chantal Robson.
The two documents from Robson today are his ‘Second Amended Complaint’ filed on February 19, 2014 and certain ‘Special Interrogatories and Requests for Admission‘ filed on July 25, 2014.
Same as the first claim the amended one doesn’t elaborate on any “sexual acts” (as it is heavily redacted) but enumerates probably all paragraphs of the California Penal Code on various types of molestation, thus implying that the complaint covers the whole spectrum of them. The advantage of this paper is that it gives Robson’s story.
The “Special Interrogatories” introduce you to a broad range of subjects on which the Claimant wants information from the “Corporation” (MJJ Productions). Its 143 points range from identifying “all business entities in which Decedent had an ownership interest during the time period from approximately 1990 through 1997” to “all persons to whom the Corporation paid consideration to settle claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress by Decedent”. To put it in one word the Claimant’s interrogatories want everything.
The document a curious mind will be most interested in is “Requests for admission” which in its 93 points invites the Defendants to admit various things including the alleged ‘sexual acts’ of which the MJJ Productions and the Estate were evidently supposed to know.
Most of the requests for admission are insane, even the most innocent ones. Here is a sample of a request to admit that “the Decedent told Robson that he would become a film director”. So what?
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No.17: “Admit that, during the time period from approximately 1990 through 1997, DECEDENT told Wade Robson that Wade Robson would become a film director”.
.
Naturally the “Requests for Admission” look like the most captivating part of the collection, but believe it or not, after comparing them with the testimony of three Robsons at the 2005 trial the document impressed me most not by the encyclopedia of alleged sex crimes enumerated there but by presenting all the good Michael did to the family as something sinister and vile.
This is what strikes you most after comparing the glorious stories all Robsons told about their friendship with Michael at the 2005 trial and the dry statements of Robson’s present claim where all the good Michael did to them is turned upside down and presented in the vilest manner possible.
For example, the list requests the admission that the “Responding party arranged for Wade Robson to dance in one or more of Decedent’s music videos”, applied for visas for the family when they came to settle in the US, helped Robson’s mother with her employment and ensured that payment be made to her though her temporary visa did not allow for it, released an album for Wade on the Michael Jackson’s record label and committed many more malicious acts.
This list of crimes against humanity reads best against the background of the family’s testimonies because it is only when comparing these two that you realize that it was the burning desire of the family to get all these malicious things Robson is now complaining about.
The enormity of his today’s lies and ingratitude is monumental and beyond any possible description. At least I lack the necessary words suitable for print in order to describe it.
Therefore I will simply make my own first list of Requests for Admission (13 points) and address it to Robson and his family and also to those of you who are still sitting on the fence and “don’t know what to think of it”, poor things.
To make it easier for everyone I will try to follow the pattern of the document submitted to the court by Robson’s attorneys. The only difference is that my points will be more detailed than the single-line requests from WR which are only mystifying the public by their total scarcity of detail.
Some of the requests will be made for information sake only as they are necessary for describing the scene of the crime (Robson’s crime, naturally).
Request for admission No.1
Admit that in his claim Robson defines the time of Michael Jackson’s invitation to spend a weekend at Neverland as February 1990. However in their 2005 testimonies the time of their first visit to Neverland mentioned by the family varies – Joy Robson (mother) speaks of January 1990 and Wade and Chantal Robson remember it as the year 1989.
Now admit that the difference of opinion over this starting point of the story, same as over several other matters in it, makes it clear that back in 2005 the three members of the family did not try to agree with each other about each other’s testimonies, and that their testimonies were spontaneous and they were not coached by Michael Jackson or anyone on who should say what.
Request for admission No. 2
Robson at age 5
Admit that Wade Robson and his mother got acquainted with Michael Jackson after the dance contest in 1987 in Australia as meeting MJ was the prize for winning the contest. Basically it was a meet-and-greet event only.
Michael enjoyed seeing Wade Robson in his “Bad” outfit and offered him to take part in his show the next day. The second time they met him was the day after the evening performance when Wade and his mother went to his hotel room and talked for a couple of hours about what Wade wanted to do.
After Michael left Australia they weren’t in contact with each other for two years. Wade Robson continued to dance with his troupe, Johnny Young Talent company in Australia, Brisbaine.
So admit that Michael Jackson was not trying to keep up his ties with the Robson family in any way at all.
In his 2005 testimony Wade Robson described it as follows:
8 I met him first when I was five years old.
9 I think it was ‘87. And Michael was touring, he was
10 doing the “Bad” tour. And I was imitating him as a
11 dancer at that point. And he was holding these —
12 it was in connection with Target or something like
13 that, holding these dance, like, contests all around
14 wherever he traveled. So I entered one of the dance
15 contests and ended up winning it, went on to the
16 finals and won that, and then the prize was to meet
17 Michael.
18 So I met him after one of his concerts in
19 Brisbane, Australia. And it was just like in a
20 meet-and-greet sort of room. And we met, and I was
21 in my whole, you know, “Bad” outfit and everything.
22 He was sort of laughing and tripping out on my
23 outfit and asked if I danced. I said, “Yeah.” And
24 he asked me to perform with him in the show the next
25 night.
26 So after — it was like the end of the
27 concert, I pulled up, performed in the show with
28 him. The next — the next — I think within the
1 next couple of days, my mother and I went to visit
2 him at his hotel room, and we stayed for a couple of
3 hours. It was in Brisbane, Australia. Just talking
4 about what I want to do. And then that was kind of
5 it at first.
6 And then for the next two years, we didn’t
7 have any contact at all. And I continued pursuing
8 my dance career in Australia. And then the company
9 that I was with, the dance company, was traveling to
10 America to do a performance at Disneyland.
11 So we all went.
Request for admission No.3
Admit that the performance at Disneyland of the Johnny Young Talent School where Wade Robson was dancing was scheduled for one day only – it was January 26 which was Australia Day celebrated there.
The dance school was invited by Disneyland and Michael had nothing to do with it. In fact he didn’t even know that the whole Robson family had arrived in the US. The family included Wade, his sister, mother, father and two grandparents.
Here is Wade Robson’s performance on January 26, 1990 (an interesting sight):
Request for admission No.4
Admit that since the complaint is not mentioning January 26 as the date of the performance it produces the impression that the family had the telephone number of Michael Jackson or his secretary Norma Stakos, and that they contacted him just after the performance and “on the following day” met him.
In reality the family managed to get Norma Stakos’s telephone number only on the seventh day after the performance (on Thursday, February 1st) and called her hoping that Michael would recollect the boy he had met in Australia two years before that. To their great joy he did remember him and Norma Stakos arranged for a visit to Michael Jackson’s recording studio the next day after that telephone call, which was Friday, February 2, 1990.
Compare it with the text of the claim:
“When Plaintiff was 7 years old, Plaintiff and his family took a trip to California because Plaintiff’s dance company, Johnny Young Talent School, was invited to perform at Disneyland.
Plaintiff’s mother, father, sister (not brother) and maternal grandparents accompanied Plaintiff as the idea was to also turn the trip into a family vacation. After the performance, Plaintiff’s mother contacted Norma Staikos (Decedent’s personal assistant at MJJ Productions”) and a meeting was arranged for Plaintiff to meet with Decedent at a recording studio in Van Nuys, California on the following day, February 2, 1990. Following that meeting Decedent invited the entire family to stay the weekend at his ranch in Santa Barbara County, “Neverland”, which they did.”
Admit that Robson’s claim omits the above crucial details creating the impression that the family didn’t seek Michael during the period of January 26 – February 1 but had a sort of a pre-arranged visit with him.
It also creates the impression that they took the invitation to his recording studio and then to Neverland in a matter-of-fact way (while in reality it was their wildest dream coming true).
Request for admission No.5
Admit that in her 2005 testimony Joy Robson confirms that there was no pre-arranged visit and they were “calling around” after Wade’s performance trying to get Michael’s number before being eventually put to Norma Stakos. So it was the family’s ardent desire to see Michael and not the other way around.
4 Q. Do you remember the first time you visited
5 Neverland?
6 A. Yes. It was in January of 1990.
7 Q. And how did you end up visiting Neverland?
8 A. When we were here, we called around, trying
9 to find Michael again. He had told us if we
10 returned to the United States to contact him. So we
11 called around, and we eventually were put onto his
12 personal assistant, which at that time was Norma
13 Stakos, and they called Michael.
14 He remembered us, and said he would like to
15 see us again. So we met him at a recording studio
16 where he was working at the time.
24 Q. And when you came here, there were no
25 arrangements when you first came here to meet with
26 Mr. Jackson?
27 A. No.
Request for admission No.6
Admit that in his 2005 testimony Wade Robson provides even more details about their insistence to establish contact with Michael. It turns out that they cleverly took with them the whole video collection of Wade’s dance stuff for the previous two years to show it to Michael and make him interested in his talent. And when Michael checked out all his videos he was really excited about what he saw.
Wade Robson said about it:
12 As I said, we’d had no contact with
13 Michael or anything. Somehow my mother got in
14 contact with Michael’s secretary at that time, who
15 was Norma Stokes.
21 A. She talked to Michael about — we wanted to
22 see if we could hook up with him again and meet him
23 again. She talked to Michael. Michael remembered
24 me from when I met him when I was five years old,
25 wanted to meet me again.
26 So I was out there with my mother, sister,
27 my father, and grandparents. We all went to meet
28 him at Record One Recording Studios. And this
1 was — this was ‘89.
6 A. We met up with him. He was in between, you
7 know, working on music and that sort of thing. He
8 was doing a photo shoot at the time at the studio.
9 We took some photos with him. My family and I all
10 went into his — sort of like the green room, and
11 played him some videotapes of all the dancing stuff
12 that I’ve been doing over the last two years. And,
13 you know, he was just really excited, checking out
14 everything I had done. And then by the end of the
15 time, he invited my family and I up to the ranch
16 that weekend.
Request for admission No.7
Admit that in his testimony Robson makes it clear that Michael invited them for a weekend in Neverland after he had seen the collection of videos of Wade dancing and was really inspired by his talent.
Robson did indeed have an exceptional talent for dancing like Michael Jackson. Here is another video of his performance on Star Search in Australia in 1990:
.
Admit that you are very much excited by what you’ve seen (same as I am). So it doesn’t surprise us in the least that Michael was also excited and inspired by Wade’s talent. Michael surely realized his potential and knowing his ever-present desire to help others we can be sure that he was thinking of how to help Wade Robson too and give him a start in his career.
His belief in Wade Robson’s talent explains very well the note he wrote at some point to Robson encouraging him by words: “You are my biggest inspiration now”.
Joy Robson also testified that Michael’s interest in Robson was because he saw Wade’s potential and that for Michael it was like looking in the mirror at his old self:
18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why did you allow Wade to
19 spend a lot of time with Michael Jackson?
26 A. They enjoyed each other. They — they were
27 very similar people. I remember Michael telling me
28 early on that it was like looking in the mirror, he
1 saw himself all over again. His interest was
2 because he saw Wade’s potential. And Wade loved
3 everything that Michael did and wanted to learn as
4 much as he could.
Request for admission No.8
Wade Robson on Star Search in 1990
Admit that even when Wade Robson still lived in Australia he took every effort to look like Michael Jackson. Even his hair looked like Michael’s and his “Australian” image strikes you as a total replica of MJ, only a little one.
Actually the nickname of “little one” was given by MJ to Wade Robson when he first saw him in 1987 when Wade was 5 and the name stuck.
“Australian-born Wade, who won National acclaim as a dancer `Downunder’ on popular talent show Starsearch rose quickly to the forefront of young performers in Australia after winning a Michael Jackson dance competition in Brisbane. The win led to him dancing with his idol on stage at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre and pint-sized Wade – tagged `Little One’ by Michael – stole the show and won the superstar’s heart.”
http://onwiththeshow.com.au/the-inside-story-on-life-in-michael-jacksons-shadow-1995/
Joy, Chantal and Wade Robson present Wade’s first album QUO
As a side note let us also admit that as soon as Wade Robson arrived in the US his image dramatically changed.
He dyed his hair and shaved his head thus making it clear that he was looking for a different image for himself and pursuing a career different from a simple imitation of MJ and his dance.
Let us also admit that Michael surely supported him in this independent pursuit of his identity, or otherwise Robson would have kept to his old Michael Jackson style.
Request for admission No.9
Admit that Wade Robson’s present complaint does not say a word how Wade and Chantal Robson found themselves in Michael Jackson’s room on the first night they were in Neverland and doesn’t explain that the children themselves pleaded with their parents to let them stay there.
The complaint omits that all of them including MJ were in the parents’ room discussing Wade’s costumes and it was getting late, but the children wanted the joy to go on and pleaded with their parents to let them stay with MJ and they agreed asking for his permission first. He said: ‘Oh, absolutely. If they’d like to stay, that’s fine.’
Joy Robson described it as follows:
8 A. Well, the first — the first night they had
9 been out doing the usual thing at Neverland,
10 playing. And later that night, they all came back
11 to the suite where my husband and I were staying,
12 and my parents were with us, as well. We were all
13 talking in the suite.
14 And Wade had been impersonating Michael for
15 some time and had lots of costumes of Michael’s that
16 we had made. And Michael was looking at them, and
17 we were just all discussing those.
18 And then it was getting late, and my
19 children said to me, both Chantel and Wade, my
20 daughter, said, ‘Can we stay with Michael.’
21 And my husband and I sort of looked at
22 Michael, and said, ‘Well, if that’s okay with you.’
23 And he said, ‘Oh, absolutely. If they’d like to
24 stay, that’s fine.’
25 Q. And did you allow your son and daughter to
26 stay in his room?
27 A.Yes.
In his testimony Wade Robson even explained why they wanted to stay with Michael – they found a new friend and didn’t want to leave his side. “It’s the same way with any child”, said Robson.
2 I remember Chantel,
3 my sister, wanted to as well.
28 What caused you to ask him if you could stay with
1 him in his room?
2 A. Well, it’s the same way with any child.
3 When you — you know, when you have a best friend or
4 a new friend that you found, you always want to stay
5 in the same room with them.
Request for admission No.10
Now admit that from this point on the Robsons’ testimony at the 2005 trial differs dramatically from everything Wade Robson is claiming now.
Wade’s testimony of 2005 says that on the first night (Saturday, February 3rd) he slept in MJ’s bed on the ground floor and his sister Chantal was with them, same as the next night. To be more precise according to him she was in the same bed with them the “entire time”.
In the process of describing it Wade also makes it clear that it wasn’t sleeping “with” Michael Jackson – it was just sleeping in his bed.
21 Q. All right. Now, the first time that you
22 slept with Mr. Jackson you were seven years old; is
23 that correct?
24 A. I slept in the same bed with him. But, yes,
25 I was seven.
26 Q. Did you understand my question to mean
27 something other than that?
28 A. Sounded like it.
1 Q. All right. But you slept in the same bed
2 with him when you were seven years old; is that
3 correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Was anybody else in that bed with you?
6 A. My sister, Chantal Robson.
7 Q. She was ten years old; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is it true that there was not another adult
10 anywhere in that room at the time you crawled into
11 bed with Mr. Jackson?
12 A. True.
13 Q. And in fact, you continued to sleep with Mr.
14 Jackson through the balance of that week during your
15 seventh year; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Was your sister there the entire time during
18 that week as well?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Was she in that bed with you as well?
21 A. Yes.
Today he also says that the first night Chantal was with them, but the next night she allegedly “expressed concern about it”, suggested they both sleep upstairs and when Wade declined she went upstairs alone, and this is when the “sexual activities” allegedly began.
The Second Amended Claim (points 10-11) says about it:
“The first night of the weekend, on or about February 3, 1990, Plaintiff and his sister slept in Decedent’s bedroom in the same bed with Decedent downstairs.
The next night, Plaintiff’s sister, who was 3 years older than Plaintiff, expressed concern about sleeping in the same bed with Decedent, and suggested they both sleep upstairs. Plaintiff declined and again slept with Decedent downstairs. The sexual activities began on or about that night, February 4, 1990. <text redacted.>
That was the beginning of Decedent’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff which over the next 7 years would regularly include sexual acts as described in paragraph 22 below. “
What a horrible, horrible story. So the abuse started the very next night and the girl couldn’t see it because she was in the bedroom upstairs and this is when the nightmare for poor Wade Robson began?
Yes, it would be horrible indeed if only Chantal Robson were not telling a totally different story.
Request for admission No.11
The problem is that in her testimony at the 2005 trial the nearly 26-year old Chantal is saying the opposite of what Wade is saying now.
She says that it was on the first night that she didn’t want to invade Michael’s privacy and eventually went upstairs expecting her younger brother to follow her (he either declined or had already fallen asleep by the time she went there).
Her explanation of why she decided to do it is understandable – it was their first visit to Neverland and in contrast to others she saw Michael for the second time in her life, so her natural reserve took the upper hand and she decided to leave MJ not to invade his privacy.
However by the second night they already had a much closer friendship with Michael and her previous considerations didn’t bother her that much, and the children were evidently so tired that both of them – Wade and Chantal – fell asleep in Michael’s bed without thinking whether it was appropriate or not. She says that there was no “idea” behind her sleeping downstairs on the second night – they simply fell asleep there and that’s that.
So the resume of the story is that it was not on the first, but SECOND night that Chantal slept in Michael’s bed.
And let me remind you once again that now Wade Robson claims that the alleged abuse started that very second time he stayed in MJ’s room.
Let us also remember that back in 2005 Chantal didn’t know that he would claim anything like it ten years later and therefore explained it the way it really was. Please note how insistent she is on her words:
19 Q. So the very first night that you
20 went to Neverland you spent the night in Mr.
21 Jacksons bedroom?
22 A. In his bedroom, yes.
23 Q. And on that first night, you slept
24 downstairs in the bedroom, correct?
25 A. No.
26 Q. You slept upstairs?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Did you — or I’ll rephrase that.
1 Were you interviewed by Scott Ross, an
2 investigator for Mr. Jackson, on May 2nd, 2005?
3 A. Yes. Not quite sure if that was the date,
4 but, yes.
5 Q. That was just a few days ago?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. And did you tell Mr. Ross that you recalled
8 the first night that you slept downstairs, and Wade
9 went upstairs and slept with Mr. Jackson?
10 A. No. It would be the other way around.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. Michael and Wade slept — Michael and Wade
13 slept downstairs and I slept upstairs on the first
14 night.
15 Q. All right. So Mr. Jackson and Wade slept
16 together separately from the area that you slept in?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Why was that?
19 A. Because I left and went upstairs.
20 Q. Why did you leave and go upstairs?
21 A. Because I was a little older at that point
22 and I felt like I was interfering in Michael’s
23 bedroom, so I left and went upstairs.
24 Q. Because you wanted to give Mr. Jackson some
25 privacy?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. And he was alone with your brother at that
28 time?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And your brother was seven years old?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And that night, your brother slept in the
5 same bed with Michael Jackson?
6 A. Yes. I told him to come up with me.
7 Q. You told him to come up with you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Was that because you felt like he shouldn’t
10 be sleeping in a bed with a grown man?
11 A. Not at all.
12 Q. Then why did you tell him to do that?
13 A. Because I didn’t want to make Michael feel
14 like two people were invading his space.
15 Q. Something about that first night made you
16 feel uncomfortable, didn’t it?
17 A. No, not at all.
18 Q. Didn’t you say you felt more comfortable the
19 second night to Mr. Ross when you spoke to him a few
20 days ago?
21 A. Comfortable with my friendship with Michael,
22 yes.
23 Q. And that next night, you slept in the same
24 bed with Michael Jackson?
25 A. I did.
22 Q. Whose idea was it that you sleep in Mr.
23 Jackson’s bed?
24 A. It was actually our idea.
25 Q. Sorry?
26 A. My brother and I. It was actually not an
27 idea. We just fell asleep.
Request for admission No.12
Admit that Wade’s own sister who was three years older than Wade and was ten at the time, spoke of a totally different timeline which disproves in principle his present theory of ‘how the abuse started’.
He claims that it started on the second night. And she says that on that very night the ten-year old she slept with the seven-year old Wade in one bed.
A special beauty of the situation is that Chantal’s testimony has a priority over Wade’s current story as she testified ten years ago when she was yet unaware that her innocent statement would contradict Wade Robson’s later claim.
Chantal had no reason to lie about where she slept on those nights. Whichever way it was, it turned out that one night she was together with Wade and the other night she was not, and it is only the succession of those nights which was different.
Also admit that at the time of her testimony in 2005 it didn’t make any difference which of the nights she slept downstairs and it was only the fact that Wade was alone with Michael at least on one of those occasions that had any significance for the jury. Whether it was the first or second night didn’t matter then.
It is only today that it matters very much.
Admit that by insisting on her story in 2005 Chantal could even produce a negative impression on the jurors as they could think that the members of the family were not quite consistent in what they said and she was not winning anything by contradicting her brother. However she repeatedly insisted it was the way she described it and since she was the older and more responsible of the two we can fully believe what she said.
Also admit that these small differences in their accounts make it clear once again that before the testimony in 2005 the members of the Robson family did not sit down to agree about the most basic facts and this means that nobody was coaching them prior to their testimony – neither Michael, nor anyone. If someone had been coaching them their theories would have been fully consistent with each other.
Request for admission No.13
Admit that since Chantal was adamant that the second night she slept in Michael’s bed it means that the ‘abuse’ did not start on February 4, 1990 and that Wade Robson is horribly lying to us now.
In fact, this mismatch in his story is the direct evidence of his lies.
If you were abused in your childhood things like that just don’t get forgotten. They imprint in your memory in their full entirety – in time, space and relation to all other events of the period up to the smallest details. You remember them in succession and how one thing entailed another. You remember the oddest of details, the expression of the face, the thoughts racing through your mind and sometimes even the smells.
It is simply impossible to forget on ‘which night it happened’ (if it happened at all). Only those who have never gone through this experience can think that it’s like riding a bicycle and it doesn’t matter whether it was the first or second day of your stay in the country.
No, the timing matters very much and once it happened to you, you will never forget. Never.
So let us finally admit that Wade Robson’s “Second Amended Complaint” is telling lies from the very start of it. It begins with a big lie and goes on with them throughout his claim.
In short, Wade Robson is a LIAR. And hereby he is requested to admit it.
Vindicating Michael 
Opportunistic bottom feeders took total advantage of his generosity and i m sure he did help him with leads on his dancing career but now he wants more his interview with matt laur was a absolute joke he basically repeated everything matt said inconsistencies through out i m sure this is his truth as he says but not the correct truth
LikeLike
As I read the defense by the estate against Robsons claims, I notice in number 4, the estate says that Robson is now saying he lied , so he can attempt to collect money and they refer to the ” inequitable conduct by him and his associates” ……I am just wondering who they are referring to as his associates …His lawyers? I could be wrong , but I dont think they would say that about opposing counsel..
I think even if they meant counsel, I think they would refer to them as counsel.
I wonder who exactly they are talking about, as his associates
..I personally feel he already got paid by someone , or maybe more than one person.,to actually come up with this far fetched stuff and they continue to help him push this garbage .
Just like Evan Chandler said he had paid people to be in place and it had cost him a fortune, it wouldnt surprise me , if someone like Blanca Francia , was paid by Evan via VG, as an incentive to start selling stories ,before Hardcopy, things like that .
I would like to know who Evan was referring to also.
.I wonder if they are talking about tabloid people , or people that were involved in the wrongful death suit
LikeLike
The Estate has started their defense against Robson in the civil case he filed against MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc. Here is their reply to Robson’s Third Amended complaint: http://ru.scribd.com/doc/285207028/MJ-Estate-answer-to-Robson-Civil-Complaint
The reply itself is very clearly cut, but what is no less important is that the Estate demands a trial by a jury and this puts a stop to all our apprehensions that they could have agreed to settle this claim.
And it is not only a demand for a trial but also for a compensation by Robson of their attorneys’ fees and “any other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper” (meaning additional compensation for the lawsuit being frivolous). It would be great if all liars were ordered to pay for the lies they tell.
Here are some excerpts from the Estate’s reply:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL DENIAL
This case has no merit in fact or law. Wade Robson’s allegations are directly contrary to his sworn testimony in a 2005 criminal trial where Michael Jackson was vindicated of all wrongdoing by a unanimous jury of twelve. Robson was twenty-three-years-old when he testified in 2005. He was subjected to vigorous and repeated cross-examination by a very zealous prosecutor handling the case, but Robson’s testimony never wavered.
In his complaint for money damages, Robson does not claim that he made a mistake when he testified in 2005 or that he suffered from a “repressed memory”. Rather, Robson simply claims that he chose to lie to a criminal jury in 2005. Yet, a decade later, and almost four years after Michael Jackson’s tragic death, Robson changed his story knowing that Michael Jackson is no longer here to defend himself. Robson recanted his testimony in a criminal trial for the sole and express purpose of taking money from Michael Jackson’s heirs and beneficiaries. After all, Robson’s complaint does not and cannot seek anything other than money.
There is no just or equitable way for a Court in this State to allow Robson to recover here – either he is perjuring himself today in an effort to obtain money, or he perjured himself and obstructed justice in a criminal proceeding a decade ago. There is no middle ground between those two positions – a recovery here would make a mockery of California’s system of justice.
All of the above being said, the Corporate Defendants are one hundred percent confident that Robson did tell the truth in 2005, when his sole motivation was to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Accordingly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), the Corporate Defendants generally and specifically deny each of the allegations contained in the Third Amended Complaint, generally and specifically deny that Robson has sustained any injury or loss by reason of any act or omission of the Corporate Defendants, and generally and specifically deny that Robson has been damaged in any amount whatsoever.
From AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES:
… Robson waited almost four years after Michael Jackson had died before he made his scurrilous and frivolous allegations. The nature of these false allegations necessarily makes it impossible for the Corporate Defendants to fully defend themselves without the assistance of Michael Jackson himself. The impossibility of fully and completely defending against Robson’s false allegations is further magnified by the fact that Robson himself steadfastly denied these allegations during the entirety of Michael Jackson’s life. Indeed, Robson and his family denied the allegations under oath on multiple occasions, including in a 2005 criminal trial where Michael Jackson was frivolously accused of misconduct and then exonerated by an unanimous jury of twelve.
… Robson cannot show that any acts or omissions of the Corporate Defendants caused him any damages. In particular, and by way of example only, when Michael Jackson was frivolously accused of wrongdoing in 1993 and investigated by authorities regarding such wrongdoing, both Robson and Robson’s family, including his mother Joy Robson, publicly and prominently defended Michael Jackson and rejected the allegations of wrongdoing out of hand, including false allegations that Michael Jackson had engaged in wrongdoing with Wade Robson himself. Given that Joy Robson necessarily knew more than the Corporate Defendants about the relationship between Wade Robson and Michael Jackson, and given that Joy Robson did not take any steps to “protect” Robson (because no such steps were necessary), Wade Robson cannot possibly prove his absurd allegations that the Corporate Defendants’ supposed failure to take “reasonable steps” to prevent the alleged abuse is what caused him damage.
… the Corporate Defendants respectfully pray for judgment against Wade Robson as follows:
1. That Wade Robson take nothing by way of his Complaint and that judgment be rendered in favor of the Corporate Defendants and against Wade Robson;
2. For costs of suit incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees due to the frivolous nature of the case and
3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
On every single cause of action and issue so triable, the Corporate Defendants demand a trial by a jury of their peers.
Date: October 9, 2015
LikeLike
Hard to explain… But…
All of this is like ((somebody(s))’premeditated’ the possible scenarios on both sides, of such a case ahead of time: imagined any arguments that would arise against him attempting this charade or gaining from it…from both a defense and plaintiff point of view…
BEFORE it was even filed. Like writing a retrospective script for ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ after the defendant had already been lynched… and you want to consider how someone would defend those who did the lynching.
Like ((somebody(s)) considered how the ‘Devils Advocate’ would argue on behalf of such despicable people and spoke to those arguments for the perception of anyone paying attention ahead of time. Common sense dictates he would have considered what anyone would say about his supposed confession that he lied on the witness stand after placing his hand on the Bible. He has to be prepared for the reasonable question of whether he
was lying ‘then’ or ‘now’. To me it’s like this person is playing both the roles of an ‘angel’ and the ‘devil’. (Yeah, we hung that guy, but we are good people and were in a state of mind that we were protecting all those innocents out there from future harm.)
To me, the whole thing stinks of ‘screen play’ and using whatever is ‘ambiguous’ to
create a different version of events to surprise the audience. Hollywood Law and Justice. And really, it may not even matter if it goes through or not… because a ‘made for tv’ movie.. or some way to extrapolate this into future projects… might be the ultimate goal. Call me cynical if you must.
‘The phrase ‘playing the devil’s advocate’ means taking a position one does not necessarily agree with just for the sake of argument’
LikeLike
It’s clear this person confused the things, if we consider the comment was left on April 23, after April 21 hearing and the subject of the same. I was just adding information about it!
LikeLike
This one? So what?
Future Hearings
06/30/2015 at 08:30 am in department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Hearing on Demurrer(to Third Amended Complaint;)
My reaction to it was a surprise that the reader called it “a court date of June 30, 2015 !!!!!!” Considering the exclamation marks it sounded like a trial was set for June 30, while actually it is a hearing on the demurrer of the Estate to Robson’s third amended complaint.
LikeLike
Helena there was a hearing for Wade for June 2015 even before the April 21 hearing happened…
LikeLike
Okay. And I have read William Wagener’s yesterday from the probate court room:
LikeLike
From what I read there is a court date of June 30, 2015 !!!!!!
LikeLike
I also believe there is a possibility that Wade Robson was molested as a child by another person. There is even some proof of it. If I have an opportunity I’ll write about it.
LikeLike
Does anybody know what is going on with the jimmy safechuck one?
LikeLike
I believe there is a possibility that Wade Robson was molested as a child BUT NOT BY MJ! There are wayyyy too many holes in his story. The sad thing is that the more you believe a lie, the more it becomes the truth.
For all the ppl out there who believe that MJ was a pedophile, know that he was assessed by 2 professionals who came to the conclusion that he is not a pedophile. The FBI investigated him for 10, possibly more than 10, years and found NO EVIDENCE that he was a pedophile. 10 years is a long time to investigate someone….another thing I want to point out is that the burden of proof in a civil case is a hell of a lot lower than a criminal case. I don’t know how it is in the states, but here in Canada, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, whereas in a civil trial, it’s on a balance of probabilities which is more than likely or less than likely that “x” happened. Ppl need to keep this in mind as well. OJ simpson was also found not guilty in his criminal trial but was liable for damages in the civil trial. I sincerely hope the truth will finally come out that MJ was NOT a pedophile.
Thank you for this post and sorry if I seem as though I am ranting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
love
LikeLike
I absolutely agree. The settlement is simply out of the question! We should never allow the Estate to go for it. NEVER. Robson’s story should be shred into pieces and it doesn’t matter how much time, money and effort it will take. And Thomas Mesereau and Susan Yu are the only option of course.
LikeLike
“Why is a settlement bad?” – Gerri
But why should a settlement be made with a liar? To agree with him just for the sake of agreement? It is no better than appeasing an agressor.
LikeLike
Why is a settlement bad? We all know Michael settled in 1993 because he couldn’t go through a trial, why would we suddenly care if the Estate decided to do the same, save money on a trial and paying Wade and Jimmy to go away? It’s a non issue.
LikeLike
Oh thank god it was misinformation! I wouldve freaked if they settled!
LikeLike
Now we know for sure that it was a misinformation given to Tom Mesereau.
The WR case is still registered and can be seen publicly now.
Go to the LA court website: http://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/casesummary.aspx?
Enter case number BC508502 and you will see that the next hearing is on April 10.
LikeLike
It is also possible the case was simply dismissed. If the settlement rumors are true, im going to be REALLY angry!
LikeLike
I found two links. I’m not American but I think it will be useful, just I want to help.
http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=24747.0 – Pearl Jr
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan-king/2015/02/14/tom-mesereau-on-king-jordan-radio-feb-13-2015-part-2 – King Jordan radio
Much love, respect to you all here. Greetings to all of you. God bless everyone. I pray.. sighhh
LikeLike
Can any of our American readers verify if this is true? Mesereau said on the show that he was told by Pearl Jr. that there is no court listing, so he just assumed that there could have been a confidential settlement. We need to find out if this is correct.
LikeLike
To the poster below, i hope to god they dont settle this case! I really wish they would take up TM’s offer to defend the case! Time to take the gloves off and show that NO money will be made off MJ and his legacy!
LikeLike
“Just been listening to King Jordan’ Radio show interview with the amazing Tom Messareau. At 1.58, my heart breaks, since it would appear that due to the lack of any court listing for Wade Robeson/Jimmy Safechuck v MJ Estate, that that weasel Weitzmann has settled!!!! The final nail has just gone in Michael’s coffin!!!
I HATE this!! We are all so helpless here!! Even in his death we have to sit back & watch whilst they destroy him even further!!! I came here because I thought I could, with all the other millions of his fans fight to get Justice for the man, but we are not even considered nor our voices listened to!!
With Murray swanning around as if nothing had ever happened & now this!!! I dread to think of the headlines when the media find out!!!
Why didn’t they take up TM’s offer to defend the case?? Once again they settled to make it all go away, so they could keep on racking on the money from all the crap stuff they sell along with $ony!!!
I feel physically sick!!!
I loathe Branca & McLain” – I pray this isn’t true sighhhhhhhhhh
LikeLike
„We’re putting love back into the world.. To remind the world that love is important! Love is important. To love each other!” ~MJ
Yes, brilliant Michael we’re sending our truly LOVE to you & love you!
Genius Michael Jackson truly is a part of me! I ❤ you MJ! I’m here for MJ forever!
Happy Love Day to you all! Wish all of you Happy Valentine’s Day 2015!
My big hugs to all of you! It’s All For LOVE! ~MJ
LikeLike
From Glaucia
But some people believe that Michael was a criminal, but talented and they “separate” his talent and his personal life, which is absurd.
——————–
I agree it is absurd..
That is like saying Charles Manson was a monster but a great little dancer and we should all acknowledge that ..
Michael was and lived his art They are one in the same
..Healing the World was his mission
The reason Evan Chandler did this , is precisely because something as horrific as child abuse TRUMPS everything..
You really cant compartmentalize something like this
So I think , yes the people that stroke Chantal are Hippocrates /Opportunists sifting through what they need to advance their own careers , from MJ , the Robsons, good little soldiers for AEG,, since they are in the entertainment business..
.
.
, BUT the fact SHE is showing up for a Justin Timberlake concert is astounding, because it is like showing up to get a slap in the face..Who would put themselves in a position , where you are celebrating someone who did such things to a family member.
You wouldnt be there., even if it were required for your career, in some way ..
I think Wade family are supporting him ,not just because of family,or their ties to the dance community /AEG, but out of fear, as well, , that he might take his life..He was unstable and in a precarious mental state ..
His father killed himself over depression , so this is a real possibility for them .
His cousin recently took his life too over depression.
..
As far as his accusations , it is pretty amazing that his ego even seems to come through in them.., because they seem to be the biggest , most over the top ever .Just mind boggling
.
The previous accusations are nothing compared to Wades.
Wades account would seem that MJ just met him and attacked him the moment they were alone ..
And then , after being attacked ,, explains that it is love.., and this could effect their careers..He is 7 yrs old ..ridiculous.
You would have to have mental health issues to think anyone could possible believe that after his testimony
As far as this lawsuit ,
Im sure they read his testimony.and Gavins testimony as well as Francia ..We know Jordans doesnt add up either.
They dont want to refer to the actual testimony , only the allegation because they know these were all shot down..
That is why he was on tv soliciting for new people to hop on board.
I dont think his lawyers actually ever want to go to trial, but are playing a game of chicken with the estate , hoping they will blink first
I would be curious as to Wade mental state these days ..I dont think he got the reaction he envisioned by making these accusations.
His fifteen minutes of fame are over for now , and as much as he keeps saying he wants a low key non materialistic life, I find that goes against his ego.
LikeLike
I just checked out the article and it seems like the proof is in the pudding that Robson is indeed lying. He should admit it like a man and tell the truth and not stup to J. Chandler’s level of being a spineless coward.
LikeLike
Innocence
LikeLike
Susannerb, actually judges should care about the evidence contradicting the claimant’s story – it is their direct responsibility to do so. But these days I don’t really know. After Katherine’s appeal was refused as I hear, I no longer believe in the justice system – neither in my country (where it is a complete travesty), nor in the US.
It seems that we find ourselves in a situation when search for the truth should be taken into the hands of people themselves, at least those of us to whom the notion of truth is essential and no abstract matter.
If they refuse to do it, it will have to be done by us, so we need to go on no matter what – both in Robson and AEG cases. If the circumstances allow for it I will make my own reconstruction of the events between AEG/Murray and Michael, this time on the basis of the documents available to us from the AEG trial.
And a similar inquiry should be done in respect of Robson’s claims irrespective of the judge’s decision. We shouldn’t leave it the way it is. Every single person should know that he is lying now.
LikeLike
I know what I’m talking about because I myself had one incident like that in my childhood, when I was 5 or 6. More than 50 years have passed since then and I still remember every detail of it. I may be not sure of my exact age as pre-school children usually don’t realize it that much, but the circumstances of the incident itself are absolutely clear – where it happened, how, what I felt before and after, and many more details of it.
It is like a flashback when you are once again a small girl and practically see your old self in that surrounding. And the experience is so terribly new to you (involving shock, confusion and fear) that everything that goes with it imprints in your memory forever. If the abuse turns into a routine matter there might be some confusion about the later incidents, but not the first time.
The closest analogy to it is that girls don’t forget their very first sexual experience. Though the analogy is not full of course as for the abused child the flashback is much more vivid and intense.
I agree that victims are different but strong emotion always works in one way. It imprints the picture the way it was. If you found yourself in a life-threatening situation at least once in your life you will never forget the circumstances. And no one – and I mean no one – will be able to convince you that you were attacked in a town street if it actually happened to you on a lonely road in the countryside.
Search your memory for incidents like that and you will realize that it is impossible to place the incident into a different surrounding and change all other details that went with it.
This is why the story told by Robson about the alleged first time is so crucial. What he says is a lie – no doubt about it.
LikeLike
I don’t agree with the assertion that “if you’re abused in your childhood, things like that don’t just get forgotten”. Each case and victim is different. I think it’s wrong to make a assumption like that, because not always victims of childhood sexual abuse remember all the details of their abuse, especially a young child. Chantal was a child too. I find really telling that Robson’s parents let their two kids sleep with a man that they hardly knew. I think Michael had a big heart and wanted to please the children.
However, i agree with the point about Robson family story in 2005 trial being more genuine because they don’t seem rehearsed at all. The questions were very detailed both from the prosecution and the defense. Now, Wade Robson and Chantal Robson want to tell a different story, so their credibility is compromised because if people want to assume that they lied during their testimony in a criminal trial, this means that they could be lying now.
As for dancers with MJ avatar offering “support” to Wade and Chantal and she liking their comments, show how hypocrites people can be. Some people don’t have morals, and i will never understand how can these people rationalize their actions. Like chucky Kaplow participating in tributes to Michael Jackson and giving his support to Wade Robson for his supposed sexual abuse story. But some people believe that Michael was a criminal, but talented and they “separate” his talent and his personal life, which is absurd.
LikeLike
Great, Helena. These testimonies of the Robson family in 2005 are so extremely contradictory to this new claim that I wonder if any of the lawyers and judges in this case read them, as it should be so embarrassing for them. Or do they simply not care about it and just try how far they can go with it? Unfortunately most people don’t know what they said in the 2005 trial, it was never reported, because the media only reported pro-prosecution. So it’s up to us to spread word of it. Thanks for doing this!
@JoleneLee: Safechuck is not very important to us because he doesn’t actually have his own case, he just parrots Robson’s allegations, he is represented by the same law firm, and we never heard him personally accusing Michael. All of this makes it very obvious that Robson just needed him to bolster his case because it is too weak. I wonder what it needed to convince him to join the case.
LikeLike
I can completely get and see how there needs to be a request on Wade being a liar but I hear & know so little about Jimmy Safechuck! I would like to know more about him compared to Wade.
LikeLike
I have also read the entire Robson familys testimony.
.And lets not forget all the interviews Wade did (65 or so) all stating what a wonderful person MJ was , and his mother did interviews also ..
They BOTH helped Jermaine with his book.
All the Tabloid stories tie in together, with Brett and his family testified for MJ, as well as Mac..
Mac father was not asked to come in but he did write LOST BOY and although he criticizes MJ , he doesnt believe he ever committed any crimes.
When you read the testimony , it seems obvious to me, that they is no way any of the Robsons want, or expect to go to court and try and explain this..
There is no way they can disclaim all they have said .
At this stage I just think blood is thicker than water .
But for Chantal to be tweeting pictures from Justin Timberlakes concert , when he is working with the estate , and he honors MJ with human nature sing along…..it makes no sense to me ,
Because otherwise she couldnt and wouldnt stand for a tribute to the man who supposedly hurt her brother.
Same as when she receives comforting words on fb from dancers using mj likeness because they want everyone to know they worked with him..
How do you “like” a comment using a picture of the man who hurt your brother.?
It just doesnt add up.
Seems to me people familiar with the entertainment industry know this is some kind of big business power struggle..
MJ is a brand and this is what they counted on in 93.
Wade would like people to believe he was coached and in 93 and 2005 .but the truth just rolls off his tongue..
He doesnt even need to think about it.
This is why after Harvey Levin read his testimony , he stopped writing stories about it essentially
He would like to say he had no idea , was brainwashed etc, and yet he is ,extremely specific in his testimony
I am always struck by how many people claim, they were the light of MJ life and yet the Chandler family had to push their way into his sphere, even drive themselves up to Neverland,, the first time…
MJ didnt even bother to send a car for them
Ive seen pictures of Wade waiting in line for mj new album to come out , to buy.
He is not that special , that MJ would even bother sending him an album.
He lets this person who supposedly could bring him down,even put him in jail.. wait in line with everybody else .
The Robosn family makes plans to come to American and they include hunting him down like a bill collector , and asking for his help., just like the Chandlers , and the Arvizo too.
Arvizo used his illness.
Now they all want to consider it sinister ..ridiculous.
Most times, the Robsons were at Neverland without mj , entertaining family and friends , over the YEARS…Wade said he was surprised to run into him at one time there.
The Chandlers used to entertain their family and friends too when MJ wasnt there.
And they all enjoyed the beautiful grounds and the exceptional food, as I recall. Chantal saying in testimony..
Mac , the same thing.He and his family would come and go as they pleased .
I have even seen footage of a group of fans outside his gates and he drives through and they start to cry so he lets them in.
Almost reckless with no thought of protecting himself from potential predators but
MJ was generous and hospitable to a fault..
So when I look at this testimony and the bad actor I saw on the TODAY show, it makes me feel all the more , this is to sabotage the estate and devalue MJ and what the Jacksons may have gotten over the AEG trial.,
He could have just decided to this on his own ,I suppose, because he is very bitter about being dismissed by the estate , just like any other employee who couldnt perform his duties., , but it certainly is suspicious timing.
If he is so keen on speaking out, why not speak out before you file your claim, for money?
What difference would it make , there obviously was a reason they chose that route ..
This is more than someone deciding to “speak his truth”.
There was a game plan
I cant believe he would want to go before a jury , he wants to tell his filth hiding behind a lawyer and court papers where you can essentially say anything.
And if the suit doesnt go his way , he can stop it at any time.
He knows the estate wont go after him becasue it is just more negative publicity
Joe Jackson said he already got paid, and his lawyer was quick to threaten Joe with legal action.
He didnt go back on tv and confront Joe accusation,, .He hid behind his lawyer
People he has known for 20 years and he gives them no warning , yet he claims to have compassion..
he is a absolute narcissist .
This is why , I think he either already got paid , or was hoping for a quick settlement..
There is no way he could walk into court with this story ..
Speaking of stories , there was another Stacy brown story yesterday I believe..It is always interesting to me how they tend to coincide with court cases , in this case Mrs Jackson losing her appeal..
Anyway another great article , you lay it out beautifully
LikeLike