I don't think Wade did the interview for media or public support. I'm thinking it's a way to force Estate into settlement. Pay attention to his statement in which he said this is not about money, I'm not going to go away. Some can argue that it actually means "until you pay me , I'll keep talking about it on the media".
Sunwalker7;3824998 said:
Is there anything the Estate can do about this? Like, can they for example countersue Robson because he’s making false claims that damage Michael’s reputation and therefore damage the Estate’s income? I have no clue how this works according to California law, I’m just furious if Robson can say these things about Michael and not face any consequences for it.
the only way Estate can sue is through showing actual damages and actual malice. In other words they would only have a case if they actually lost income due to Wade's accusations and they can prove that Wade is knowingly lying.
I think Tmez said that even if Wade is lying now he can always say that it was a suggestion by his therapist and he believed it to be true. there goes the knowingly part. Similarly I don't think Michael's income is being affected - especially given that not many people seems to believe wade's accusations.
respect77;3825021 said:
Yes, and Katherine & Michael's children should sue him for emotional distress!
You can only sue for emotional distress if you are actually distressed. In other words to sue for emotional distress you need to show that if affected you like you can't sleep, eat, function, get panic attacks and so on. It's not enough to say "I'm emotionally distressed", it needs to be proved.
bouee;3825027 said:
I know he's not a defense lawyer, but according to him, not much : if the case is thrown out, the estate wouldn't want to "re open the file" by suing robson + robson would have an easy defense saying he was convinced by his therapist, he thought his accusations were true. All they can do is fight the claim . Since Robson filed a lawsuit 10 days after the creditors claim,we can assume that's what the Estate is doing.
Estate's first step will be to try to get the creditor claim and the lawsuit dismissed (demurrer) based on law. Such as saying the time to file the creditors claim has passed, statue of limitations has passed on a sexual abuse claim and so on. If they succeed it's all good and over. They can say that there was no legal basis for Wade's claims and the court dismissed his frivolous claims.
That's the first step. Don't expect Estate to entertain his claims and go into an innocent - guilty battle unless it's absolutely necessary.
Pimboli;3825031 said:
no, he isnt. But isn't the Estate=Michael Jackson? Can't they sue on his behalf?
you can't defame the dead. Also as public figure (even when alive) any defamation would require to prove an actual damage and an actual malice - which is a hard standard to achieve.
Petrarose;3825075 said:
Guys, I see we have a lot of information on what Wade said in 09 when Michael died, etc., but remember according to Wade's head he only UNDERSTOOD that what Michael did to him was molestation in either 2 years ago, when his kid was 18 months, or last year March, so showing what he did prior to 2011 is not as strong as showing what he did from 2011 onwards. I know, I know, Wade made it up. However, if we show all the tributes, words, actions he did before he UNDERSTOOD, he could say they do not count because he was still in his DON'T UNDERSTAND mode. You see his head works different from most people
la_cienega;3825076 said:
^ I think they still do count though, if he'd always known and been conscious about it then it shows he's a very confused mixed up person and also shows that without MJ here to coach him he seemed to be just fine winging these praises off by himself.
Big Apple2;3825085 said:
Ain't nobody gonna fall for that. LOL!
Two years ago, he was what, 28 years old, and had gone through several rounds with Michael's legal issues. Interviewed during the Chandler era. Interviewed by various media outlets. Interviewed by TMez as a defense witness. A very harsh cross-examination by Ron Zonen. Yet he STILL thinks folks will believe he remembered everything but at the time didn't understand it was abuse. A GROWN MAN, who remembered everything but didn't understand it was abuse. PLEASE!
He was better off going the "repressed memory" route. As far as I'm concerned (and apparently many others), he messed up with his "I remember everything" interview.
Petra is right. Wade's claim now "oh I know it all the time but I just understood what it is". But you are also right that it's probably not going to be convincing.
Now it makes sense that a 7 year old to think "this is love" or be scared with " we can go to jail for the rest of our lives" but a 22 year old (when he testified in 2005) would know better.
I saw a comment on a TMZ Youtube video yesterday. It's kinda blunt but it said "what's so hard to understand a d*ck in your mouth?" And I totally agree with that. A 22 year old will understand that. A 22 year old will know the difference between sex and love, the concept of abuse and who goes jail and who doesn't.
Also TMZ pointed out in their TMZ Live yesterday that 2005 cross examination is pretty direct to the point. Wade answers No to whether they lay together, whether they cuddled, whether they kissed.
so it wasn't a vague questioning that asked "did Michael abuse you" and he replied no because he didn't understand what "abuse" was. He was asked very direct and easy questions and he replied "no".
