Dispelling The Myth That James And Wade Are After An Easy Payday
March 15, 2020
The assertion that Wade and James orchestrated elaborate schemes to secure monetary gain through historical sexual abuse lawsuits is fundamentally flawed. Contrary to popular belief, filing a lawsuit does not guarantee financial remuneration; the onus lies on the claimant to secure a successful outcome. Notably, historical child sexual abuse cases pose inherent complexities, given stringent statutes and the intricate nature of the crimes. Conviction rates in such cases tend to be low, with substantial hurdles in securing justice due to a lack of physical evidence, limited witness testimony, and delayed reporting by victims.
In the US legal system, the doctrine "it is better for ten guilty people to escape than for one innocent person to suffer" underscores the gravity of litigating historical sexual abuse cases. These factors contribute to the daunting and protracted nature of pursuing legal recourse for historical abuse, with minimal likelihood of financial gain.
Moreover, a historical review of civil lawsuits against Michael Jackson further refutes the notion of baseless legal actions pursued solely for financial ends. Legal actions brought forth by former employees of Jackson failed to yield favorable outcomes and, in some instances, incurred significant financial penalties.
Furthermore, settlement agreements reached by the Chandlers and the Frances materialized under unique circumstances, during Jackson's lifetime and in the shadow of potential criminal charges. These facts underscore the multifaceted realities of civil litigation in historical sexual abuse cases and challenge the oversimplified narrative equating such lawsuits with financial gain.
It is essential to clarify that neither Wade Robson nor James Safechuck sought damages amounting to $1 billion or more in their lawsuits. Contrary to this misconception, the complaint documents filed by the plaintiffs do not specify a precise monetary figure. Instead, they include a "prayer of relief," a legal term denoting a request for reparation or specific damages without quantifying the sum.
The exact financial compensation for the claims cannot be ascertained until the conclusion of the civil trial. Monetary awards are determined based on the severity of harm caused by the sexual abuse endured and the associated legal costs. Consequently, the plaintiffs themselves are unaware of the specific amount they would receive in the improbable scenario that the lawsuits proceed to trial and result in a favorable verdict. This realization further weakens the assertion that their claims are solely motivated by monetary gain.
The process of filing a civil historical sexual abuse lawsuit is fraught with challenges and impediments, particularly in the cases of Wade Robson and James Safechuck. Several significant obstacles hindered their legal pursuit:
1. The decision of Wade Robson and James Safechuck to file their lawsuits approximately 25 years after the alleged abuse did not confer any advantage, as Michael Jackson's supporters suggest. Instead, it posed a significant disadvantage due to the expiration of their claims under the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations dictates the timeframe within which a person can file a legal complaint; surpassing this timeframe renders the claims invalid.
Two legal actions were initiated by Wade and James: a Probate Claim against Jackson's Estate and a civil lawsuit against MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, Michael Jackson's companies. These filings occurred in 2013 for Wade and 2014 for James. However, despite their efforts to extend the timeframe for their cases, their lawsuits were dismissed in 2015 due to being out of statute. Similarly, their Civil Lawsuits against the companies faced dismissal in 2017 as they did not meet the exceptions to pass the statute of limitations. The legal complexities were compounded by their inability to prove that the companies had legal control over Jackson's behavior, rendering them legally responsible for his actions, thus disqualifying them from the 340.1(b)(2) exception, ultimately resulting in dismissal.
It is important to recognize that filing the lawsuits many years later was not a privilege but rather a hardship, as it hampered memory accuracy and impeded evidence collection, as plaintiffs bear the burden of proof. However, in October 2019, California signed AB 218, significantly extending the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse cases. Subsequently, in January 2020, an appeals court decision reversed the dismissals of the Wade/James cases, allowing them to resubmit. It is important to note that these legal developments were unforeseeable at the time of their initial lawsuits.
2. Filing a lawsuit for historical sexual abuse does not align with seeking a quick financial gain, particularly in the context of financial distress. Complaints related to historical abuse differ significantly from those involving recent abuse, particularly under CCP 340.1 cases or similar statutes in other states. Legal proceedings in historical abuse cases typically encounter specific legal obstacles, leading to prolonged timelines characterized by multiple complaints and appeals. For instance, Wade's civil case, initiated in May 2013, continued through four amended complaints until December 2017. With the ongoing legal processes, Wade's lawsuit has extended over eight years, while James' lawsuit has persisted for seven years. Given the protracted nature of these legal proceedings, it is improbable that these lawsuits were initiated hastily due to financial exigencies.
3. The passing of Michael Jackson also presents a drawback for Wade Robson and James Safechuck as they are unable to pursue the criminal trial route due to Jackson's demise. Consequently, their only avenue for legal action is through a civil lawsuit, a common recourse in many child sexual abuse cases. Victims have every right to seek financial compensation for the injuries they have suffered, often achieved through pursuing civil suits.
In their claim against Jackson's estate, they essentially targeted Jackson as an individual, as the estate represents him in death. However, due to the limited time for filing creditors' claims against a person's estate, Wade and James crossed that threshold. This scenario mirrors that of many church abuse cases, where victims faced challenges in seeking compensation after the perpetrators had passed away. In such cases, victims are able to prosecute the church for negligence, yet are unable to directly persecute the perpetrators or their estates for the abuse suffered.
Lacking the ability to sue Jackson as an individual, they turned to sue MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures for negligence in allowing the abuse, contending that several employees should have been aware and taken steps to prevent or report the abuse. This includes individuals responsible for various tasks such as organizing trips, transportation, and booking accommodations, with Norma Staikos, Jackson's personal assistant, being mentioned as one of the defendants due to her involvement in these activities.
To hold these individuals legally responsible, the companies must adhere to specific employment statutes, demonstrating a direct relationship between the plaintiffs and the companies during the time of the abuse. Wade was able to establish such a relationship through a contractual arrangement involving various projects during the time of the abuse. However, James' status as an employee was less defined, leading to complications in progressing his lawsuit. If James were deceiving, he might have falsely claimed abuse during that time to establish a more direct employee relationship with the companies.
In addition to the previously discussed issues, there are further limitations related to the companies' internal policies. Firstly, as Jackson was the sole shareholder, no employee had the authority to control his actions. Consequently, the defendants (companies) lacked the ability to influence Jackson regarding his alleged actions of sexual abuse, leading to the dismissal of the lawsuits due to the absence of a legal duty of care between the parties. Secondly, the employment relationship between the plaintiffs and their employers (interpreted as the studio or company record company) did not possess a fiduciary nature, signifying the absence of a legal duty of care to hold the companies responsible for the alleged incidents.
These key factors represent the primary reasons behind the dismissal of the lawsuits in 2020 and 2021, impeding their progression to the trial stage. These challenges would not have arisen if Jackson were alive, as the plaintiffs could have directly sued him (not his estate), potentially increasing their chances of seeking financial compensation. Importantly, the dismissals do not affirm that Michael Jackson did not commit the alleged actions. Rather, they establish a lack of legal foundation for holding the companies accountable, stemming from issues related to the statute of limitations (under previous laws) and the corporate structure of Jackson's companies. The dismissals resulted from summary judgments and objections, each determined by legal technicalities. While Wade and James are appealing these decisions as of November 2021, the likelihood of their lawsuits proceeding to trial with these substantial obstacles in place remains highly improbable.
While they may attempt to argue for the continued existence of liability, their prospects appear challenging. Unlike the Catholic Church and its individual dioceses, which acknowledge their legal authority and responsibility over employed priests, Jackson's estate may contest that MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures do not bear legal liability or responsibility as third parties due to Jackson's legal ownership, notwithstanding the practical roles of other individuals involved in day-to-day operations. These stringent legal statutes represent significant hurdles for the plaintiffs.
Still, it's a challenging process.
When a civil trial begins, it doesn't take long to reach a verdict, usually just a few months. It is the pretrial process that can be time-consuming, especially in cases of historical abuse. One advantage is that the burden of proof in a civil trial is less than in a criminal trial. In a civil trial, you only need to prove your case by a balance of probabilities, meaning that it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff alleges occurred. Additionally, only a majority of the jurors (three-quarters of the jury) must be in agreement to reach a verdict.
However, the sworn testimony of Wade and James denying any abuse will create problems for them. While today people may be more knowledgeable about grooming and the denial present in victims of sexual abuse, many individuals are not yet aware or sympathetic. Certainly, the defense will make use of their past statements.
Furthermore, there are several elements in a negligence claim, all of which need to be proven for the case to be successful. The majority of the jury might believe the allegations under the balance of probabilities standard, but could also find that one or more of the elements necessary for a negligence claim against the companies are not met.
Here is an explanation of the elements necessary for a successful negligence claim: findlaw.com
1. Because it's the truth.
2. As both explained in the Oprah After Neverland Special (Min 36:08), it's an opportunity to advocate for their younger selves, and in Wade's case, to confront an experience that profoundly affected his life, by speaking the truth this time. Even if they don't win, the process of being in a trial and fighting can be positive for their recovery.
Filing a lawsuit also lends more credibility to their accusations. It brings their allegations into a court of law and before Jackson's estate. This doesn't mean that if you're a victim of sexual abuse and don't sue, you're lying, because as we've seen, the difficulty of these cases can discourage anyone from coming forward, and there are other inhibitors that make people reluctant to disclose abuse. What it means is: if you're willing to take your case to court, you are willing to prove the validity of your claims. These are not just internet comments, TV show interviews, or gossip. It's something that puts you in the position of having to face someone in court.
If they had publicly disclosed abuse and weren't trying to fight legally, they would still face criticism. For some fans, it's never enough.
Neither Wade nor James have received any money for their involvement in Leaving Neverland or other interviews. Even if their intention was to create a documentary, they would not have waited for five years after disclosing their abuse to film it (in 2017) and an additional two years for it to be released (in 2019). The idea for the documentary originated from Dan Reed's interest in their stories. He reached out to Wade and James and had to persuade them, not the other way around. When Wade revealed the abuse in 2013, he only participated in one TV interview, and James had not done any interviews from 2014 until 2019. At the premiere of Leaving Neverland, they only had a maximum of five interviews. None of this indicates a desire for fame or financial gain.
Wade also has a foundation through which he personally donated money, with all donations going directly to the Hawaii Community Foundation. Although he attempted to write a book, he ultimately did not pursue it. If his goal was to profit from Jackson's possessions, it would have been better for him to remain attached to Jackson, rather than to speak out against him. Additionally, Wade auctioned off two articles of clothing (a fedora from the "Smooth Criminal" music video and the gloves from "BAD") in 2011 to fund his therapy, which he had received from Jackson. He could have sold these items without making "false allegations" of sexual abuse, as there would have been interest due to their authenticity. Accusing Michael Jackson does not lead to wealth; in fact, it is more likely to close doors, as many people in the industry continue to support him. Even before disclosing the abuse, Wade had collaborated with artists such as Demi Lovato, One Direction, David Guetta, Nicki Minaj, and more, and gained nothing by accusing Jackson that he did not already have or experience before.
One of the reasons why Wade decided to move from Hollywood to Hawaii was because he did not find happiness in that lifestyle. He now aims to focus his career on smaller projects and maintain a lower profile, which contradicts the allegations that he seeks attention. Despite what fans may claim about Wade seeking to start a career as a guru, the negative publicity about him on the internet is overwhelming, including videos, tweets, comments, and websites portraying him as a liar, opportunist, and greedy. Most people would shy away from such intense scrutiny. Wade did not have this bad reputation, perpetuated by defenders of Jackson, before accusing MJ.
As for James Safechuck, the absence of any seminars, book deals, or ventures in the seven years since coming forward further discredits the financial motives attributed to him. His established position as the Director of Innovation and Technology at a company also undermines the claims of financial desperation driving his allegations.
In conclusion, the evidence suggests that neither Wade Robson nor James Safechuck have leveraged the allegations against Michael Jackson for quick financial gain. Their lack of financial profiteering, coupled with their background actions and choices, makes a compelling case that they are seeking justice.
With permission, the following article was translated and enhanced from The Truth about Michael Jackson.