‘Gross Attempt’: Michael Jackson’s Accusers Wade Robson and James Safechuck Slammed by Late Pop Star’s Companies Over Subpoenas Seeking 'Lurid' Photos
MJ's companies rushed to court.
April 4 2024, Published 12:00 p.m. ET
Michael Jackson’s accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, were called out by the late pop star’s companies over subpoenas they fired off demanding "lurid" photos from the criminal investigations into Jackson.
According to court documents obtained by RadarOnline.com, MJ’s companies blasted Robson and Safechuck for attempting to obtain records from the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, and the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office.
Robson and Safechuck accused the late pop star of molesting them.
Lawyers for MJ’s companies said the accusers issued the subpoenas last month — despite the court previously shutting down the subpoenas in 2018.
Robson and Safechuck filed bombshell lawsuits in 2013 accusing Jackson of sexually assaulting them as children. Robson claimed the alleged abuse started when he was 7 and continued of years.
Robson claimed the alleged abuse from Jackson started when he was 7.
Safechuck alleged Jackson started assaulting during his Bad Tour and it went on for several years.
Both men initially had their lawsuits dismissed due to the claims being brought past the statute of limitations. They both filed an appeal of the decision.
During the appeal, a new law was enacted that allowed victims to bring cases past the statute of limitations.As a result, the higher court overturned the initial decision to dismiss Robson and Safechuck’s cases and said they could proceed to trial.
Safechuck said he was allegedly assaulted on Jackson's 'Bad' Tour.
As we first reported, the two accusers recently joined forces and will be taking on Jackson’s companies in a consolidated trial. The parties are in the process of preparing for trial.
In the recent motion, Jackson’s companies argued the subpoenas should be shut down.
The motion read, “Beyond violating the clear language of the Court’s July 2018 Order, Plaintiffs’ subpoenas seek highly sensitive private documents related to non-parties, are an attempt to circumvent the protective order in another case from another court, and fail to comply with California law on pre-subpoena notices to consumers.”
Lawyers for MJ’s companies added, “Specifically, California’s statutory and common law recognize privacy rights to images of deceased persons. Plaintiffs’ demand for certain documents—including photographs of Michael Jackson’s genitalia and naked body taken by police—represents an egregious violation of these privacy rights, and is simply beyond the pale.”
Diplo's ex-fling recruited celebrity attorney Mark Geragos, whose clients include MJ, Winona Ryder, Chris Brown, and Colin Kaepernick.
The lawyers said they informed Robson and Safechuck they should back off the subpoenas but they still persisted.
“Plaintiffs’ March 2024 Subpoenas are an appalling intrusion and violation of these privacy interests and have no legitimate purpose. These subpoenas seek, in relevant part, a highly sensitive and discrete set of documents,” the motion read.
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Never miss a story — sign up for the RadarOnline.com newsletter to get your daily dose of dope. Daily. Breaking. Celebrity news. All free.
The lawyers added, “Here, there is no legitimate justification for Plaintiffs’ gross attempt to violate the privacy of a man who has been deceased for almost a decade and to disturb his family’s “peace of mind and tranquility” with our “sensation-seeking culture.”
They continued, “Plaintiffs’ subpoenas must be quashed insofar as they are seeking these lurid images of Mr. Jackson. Indeed, allowing Plaintiffs to proceed with these subpoenas is particularly inappropriate given the circumstances surrounding the photographs.”
Robson and Safechuck have yet to respond.
