Michael Jackson’s lawyers have claimed that Wade Robson “withheld documents” pertinent to his alleged sexual assault lawsuit.
The 34-year-old professional dancer has been in a long standing legal battle with the legal team for the late King of Pop over claims the ‘Thriller’ hitmaker sexually assaulted Wade when he was a child, and Michael’s lawyers now claim Wade has “repeatedly misrepresented” the contents of his documents.
In documents obtained by People – that were originally filed in the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles on December 27 – Michael’s lawyers claim: “[Robson has] withheld documents that should have been produced years ago, has repeatedly misrepresented the status of his document production and redacted the entire content of numerous emails for no plausible reason.”
The celebrity choreographer first met the late star when he was five years old, and had previously made allegations against his companies MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures – which both distribute the singer’s multimedia entertainment – saying that both organisations served sinister dual purposes.
In a complaint motion filed last year, Wade’s lawyer Vince Finaldi wrote: “The thinly-veiled, covert second purposes of these businesses was to operate as a child sex abuse operation specifically designed to locate, attract, lure and seduce child sexual abuse victims.”
Wade claims Michael and his inner circle within the two companies “designed, developed and operated what is likely the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organisation the world has known.”
The ‘So You Think You Can Dance’ judge also said that he loved Michael like a father and didn’t believe he was being sexually abused until he entered psychotherapy following a breakdown in 2012 that has left him unable to work.
Wade’s molestation claims against Michael’s estate were previously dismissed because he waited too long to file a complaint in court.
But his complaints against MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures argue the companies were negligent because they “breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect minor children in their charge”.