Clarifying Wade Robson's Statement About Michael Jackson's Estate

March 18, 2020

There has been a significant misunderstanding regarding Wade Robson's statement in his affidavit. Many have misinterpreted his words, leading to a false narrative. Wade Robson was not referring to the existence of Michael Jackson's estate in the sense of its physical existence or presence. Instead, he was addressing his legal knowledge concerning the Estate, specifically pertaining to the ability to take legal action against it for a particular reason.

In his statement, Wade clarified the following:

On March 4, 2013, I met with my lawyers Gradstein & Marzano for the first time and was made aware of the fact that I could possibly file a claim against Doe 1's Estate. Prior to March 4, I did not understand or was even aware that an Estate had been opened for administration or that I could seek to make a claim. This was an enormous revelation for me because up until recently I was psychologically incapable of admitting to myself or anyone that I had been the victim of childhood sexual abuse, let alone seek redress for the psychological injury, illness and damage that was caused by Doe 1. Doe 1's sexual abuse of me as a child, the things he said to me and the trauma be caused made it impossible for me to act on my rights until now.

View the document: drive.google.com

In this paragraph, Wade is clarifying that his lack of knowledge about the Estate does not pertain to its mere existence, but to his understanding of its potential liability for abuse. He emphasizes the distinction between acknowledging an entity's existence and recognizing its potential for being sued under specific circumstances. Wade also points to his prior acknowledgment, during a deposition, of his contact with John Branca for the Cirque show and his awareness of Branca's role in executing entertainment projects under MJ's estate. It's crucial to note that he never contested his knowledge of the Estate itself.

As elaborated in post 10, the filing of a late claim hinged, in part, on the statutory criteria for genuine awareness of the Estate's administration. Wade crafted his statement and his legal representatives contended that the threshold for actual awareness had not been crossed until Wade's meeting with them, when he discovered he could file a claim. However, the judge ruled in contrast to this interpretation based on California's probate code. The undisputed facts, explicitly stipulated by Wade's legal team, confirmed that the standard for actual awareness had been met in February 2011 or during the last quarter of 2011. Once again, the legal benchmark for genuine awareness was upheld.

Attorney John Teufel, Esq, similarly argued this point in a conversation with Charles Thomson, on Twitter.

The exchange unfolded as follows:

@CEThomson: In his 2013 sworn statement in In support of his late creditor's claim, Robson claimed that he did not know that Jackson's estate existed until 2013. This was a lie. He had been pestering the estate for a job since 2011.

@JohnTeufelNYC: Don't you think it's more likely he is saying he didn't know the estate as a legal entity that could be sued by him existed? Obviously he knew MJ was dead and an entity had formed to handle his assets, which happens whenever anyone dies.

@CEThomson: Consequently, in a 2015 summary judgement, the judge rejected Robson's argument - which, according to the law on summary judgements, he could only do if he found that no rational juror could believe it. Further explanation here:

@JohnTeufelNYC: Okay these are "undisputed facts," i e. facts agreed on by all parties. Are you a lawyer? You are misunderstanding how summary judgment works. It is not about credibility, it is about a LEGAL argument and whether alleged facts fit the law.

Continued...

@JohnTeufelNYC: Again I'd like to read the actual decision. Everyone who defends him uses this line, that a judge found no rational Trier of fact could believe him. Id like to read it in context.

@CEThomson: It's not in the judgement, it's in the law. The law on summary judgements says the judge could only reject Robson's claim if he found no rational juror could believe it. By rejecting Robson's claim, the law says he was ruling no rational juror could believe it.

@JohnTeufelNYC: That's incorrect. It is not that no rational juror could believe it. It's that no rational jury could find in his favor even given the truth of his statement. It's a LEGAL standard, not a fact finding one. And also, that's not how people are using the non existent "quote."

Update: Charles Thomson has now deleted his claims from Twitter.

When a statute of limitations expires, understanding the nuances of invoking the actual knowledge exception becomes crucial. As previously discussed in post 10, despite rejecting Wade's legal arguments, the Judge refrained from making a definitive determination regarding his veracity.

It's evident that Wade's previous remarks did not specifically pertain to the mere existence of the Estate.