Myth: Wade Robson Begged The MJ Estate To Hire Him For Cirque Du Soleil
March 26, 2020
There is a common myth that Wade Robson begged the Michael Jackson Estate to hire him for the Cirque du Soleil shows and, after being turned down, retaliated by filing a false “Michael Jackson abused me” lawsuit. This claim simply isn’t true.
In reality, Wade had already been approached to work on a Michael Jackson–themed Cirque du Soleil production. In late 2010, his agent, Julie McDonald, was contacted about the opportunity. Then, in February 2011, Wade met with John Branca, one of the Estate’s executors, to discuss creative ideas and their respective visions for the show.
It is important to emphasise that Wade did not seek out this role. He was approached through his agent, and it was Wade himself who later chose to step away from the opportunity. This is the opposite of the “begging for a job” narrative that continues to circulate.
These details, all documented in the case filings, set out a clear and verifiable timeline.
Below, I will walk you through the key statements from the document:
Moving Party's Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence
17. Robson was approached, through his agent Julie McDonald, to work with Cirque du Soleil ("Cirque") on a Michael Jackson themed show (Immortal) at the end of 2010.
Evidence: Steinsapir Decl., Ex. A (Robson Depo.) at 18:23-19:18 and 20:2-8.
Opposing Party's Response and Supporting Evidence
17. Undisputed.
Moving Party's Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence
18. In a writing authored by Robson about the Cirque show in May 2011, he explained that he "always wanted to do this MJ show, badly."
Evidence: Steinsapir Decl., Ex. E
Opposing Party's Response and Supporting Evidence
18. Undisputed in part; Disputed in part. Robson did make the statement that he "always wanted to do this MJ show, badly," except that the Executors fail to include the other portions of Robson's e-mail communication which provide the context in which the statement was made, and further evidences the beginning of Robson's "unravelling."
The e-mail communication states: "My first mistake was that I imagined I had the capacity to give all of myself to the MJ Cirque Show, Directing my first film and being a brand new Father. I always wanted to do this MJ show, badly. But then when I needed to come to that Montreal meeting with ideas, I knew that I did not have one iota of creative space to think about ideas for the show at that time. I was so 100% consumed by the directing gig. I didn't say anything to you when we spoke last because I was still trying so hard to convince myself that I could do it. Because I wanted to do it so badly."
Evidence: Email sent by Robson on May 21, 2011, which was produced in this action and bates-stamped as ROBS-00094. (Mariano Decl., Ex. C)
Further, in his Declaration filed in support of his Petition ("Robson Decl."), Robson stated:
"23. In November 2010 my first son was born. Shortly after that, I got the job to direct my first major studio feature film. Doe l's prophecy was coming true, now I just had to fulfill my end of the bargain, I thought.
24. Between April and August 2011,I had my first nervous breakdown which included feelings of extreme stress, anxiety, fear, depression and insomnia. As a result, I removed myself from the film. I started therapy with Dr. [DOCTOR'S NAME REDACTED] and spoke to him about my past with Doe 1, but I did not mention the sexual abuse, because at that time I still did not see it as sexual abuse. Between July and March 2012 I immersed myself in work once again. I thought I was back to "invincible status".
25. In March 2012, I had my second and final nervous breakdown which again included feelings of extreme stress, anxiety, fear and depression."
Evidence: Robson Decl., ¶ 23-25.
Moving Party's Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence
19. On February 22, 2011, Robson's agent, Julie McDonald, wrote to Robson on February 22, 2011, and told him that he needed to "call John Branca, the person in charge of MJ's estate."
Evidence: Steinsapir Decl., Ex. F
Opposing Party's Response and Supporting Evidence
19. Undisputed, except that it is irrelevant and non-material because this fact addresses the elements of Prob. Code § 9103 and/or CCP § 366.2, and the Estate is estopped from asserting either of these statutes of limitation as a bar to Robson's claims because of the wrongful conduct and unclean hands of Jackson.
Moving Party's Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence
20. On February 8, 2011, Ms. McDonald was told by Charles Joron of Cirque that that any offer Cirque would make had to be "presented and validated by the Estate and, as such, is subject to their approval." She forwarded this email to Robson the same day.
Evidence: Steinsapir Decl., Ex. G.
Opposing Party's Response and Supporting Evidence
20. Undisputed, except that it is irrelevant and non-material because this fact addresses the elements of Prob. Code § 9103 and/or CCP § 366.2, and the Estate is estopped from asserting either of these statutes of limitation as a bar to Robson's claims because of the wrongful conduct and unclean hands of Jackson.
Moving Party's Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence
21. Robson met with Branca about the Cirque show at Branca's office in the first quarter of 2011.
Evidence: Steinsapir Decl., Ex. A (Robson Depo.) at 22:3-9, 23:21-24:9.
Opposing Party's Response and Supporting Evidence
21. Undisputed, except that it is irrelevant and non-material because this fact addresses the elements of Prob. Code § 9103 and/or CCP § 366.2, and the Estate is estopped from asserting either of these statutes of limitation as a bar to Robson's claims because of the wrongful conduct and unclean hands of Jackson.
Moving Party's Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence
22. Prior to meeting Mr. Branca in 2011, Robson was aware that John Branca was referred to as one of the Executors of the Estate.
Evidence: Steinsapir Decl., Ex. A (Robson Depo.) at 20:24-21:6; Ex. B at pp. 9-10 (Response to Request for Admission No. 15)
Opposing Party's Response and Supporting Evidence
22. Undisputed, except that the Executors fail to include the other portions of Robson's deposition testimony which evidence what Robson understood John Branca's role to be:
"Q. And is it fair to state that before you met with Mr. Branca that you were aware that he and John McClain were co-executors, use your phrase, I think, like running the business of the estate?
A. Yeah, I was aware that they were running the -- so my -- to my knowledge, running the entertainment business of the estate."
Evidence: Robson Depo., 22:10-16.
(Marzano Decl., Ex. A)
Moving Party's Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence
23. Prior to meeting with Branca in 2011, Robson was aware that Branca and John McClain were co-Executors and were "running the entertainment business of the Estate."
Evidence: Steinsapir Decl., Ex. A (Robson Depo.) at 22:3-16
Opposing Party's Response and Supporting Evidence
23. Undisputed in part; Disputed in part. The Executors misstate Robson's deposition testimony. What Robson actually testified to is as follows:
"Q. And is it fair to state that before you met with Mr. Branca that you were aware that he and John McClain were co-executors, use your phrase, I think, like running the business of the estate?
A. Yeah, I was aware that they were running the -- so my -- to my knowledge, running the entertainment business of the estate."
Evidence: Robson Depo., 22:10-16.
Moving Party's Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence
24. At his meeting with Branca in 2011, Robson and Branca discussed creative concepts for the Michael Jackson Immortal show along with their respective visions for the show.
Evidence: Steinsapir Decl., Ex. A (Robson Depo.) at 23:21-24:19
Opposing Party's Response and Supporting Evidence
24. Undisputed, except that it is irrelevant and non-material because this fact addresses the elements of Prob. Code § 9103 and/or CCP § 366.2, and the Estate is estopped from asserting either of these statutes of limitation as a bar to Robson's claims because of the wrongful conduct and unclean hands of Jackson.
Moving Party's Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence
25. Robson had previously dropped out of the Cirque show so he knew that "it might be an uphill battle with [the] producer & estate 'reselling' me."
Evidence: Steinsapir Decl, Ex. H
Opposing Party's Response and Supporting Evidence
25. Undisputed, except that it is irrelevant and non-material because this fact addresses the elements of Prob. Code § 9103 and/or CCP § 366.2, and the Estate is estopped from asserting either of these statutes of limitation as a bar to Robson's claims because of the wrongful conduct and unclean hands of Jackson.
In May 2011, Wade wrote an email expressing regret for taking on the project without being certain he could manage it properly. He admitted feeling overwhelmed by the number of commitments in his life at the time, including directing Step Up 4 and becoming a father for the first time. He also described feeling emotionally fragile and not quite himself during those months.
Wade went on to acknowledge that he had withdrawn from the project suddenly and without warning, and he expressed remorse for doing so. Despite this, he reaffirmed his interest in the work and said he hoped for another chance to show his commitment.
Overall, the email offers a glimpse into the pressures and personal challenges that influenced Wade’s decisions during that period
Wade Robson's email:
Francois,
Whichever way this goes, this is a long overdue call.
My first mistake was that I imagined I had the capacity to give all of myself to the MJ Cirque Show, Directing my first film and being a brand new Father.
I always wanted to do this MJ show, badly. But then when I needed to come to that Montreal meeting with ideas, I knew that I did not have an iota of creative space to think about ideas for the show at that time. I was so 100% consumed by the directing gig.
I didn't say anything to you when we spoke last because I was still trying so hard to convince myself that I could do it. Because I wanted to do it so badly.
But after we spoke, I came to the realization that because of the directing gig, I couldn't give to the show as I needed to. So I pulled out of your show.
Now, I absolutely did the wrong thing by not calling you, explaining to you why and apologizing. I know that and I am extremely sorry. I was not myself for the last couple of months. That's the only way I can explain it. But no excuses. My bad.
Look, the Directing gig didn't work out. It was consuming me in an unhealthy way that I wasn't ok with being a brand new father. Maybe it just wasn't the right time. Maybe I just wasn't ready to direct a studio film. Either way, I removed myself from the project.
I am really sorry for the back and forth. But now that I no longer have the film conflict, I'd love nothing more than to choreograph the MJ show. I understand completely you being upset and nervous about that idea now.
But if you are at all interested in the possibility, I promise you 100% that this time, once I'm in, I'm in. You will not have to worry about my commitment level ever again. I have learned a lot through this process. I have learned what I did wrong. Mistakes that I have made. This has all happened for a reason. I know that I am meant to do this show. I am passionate to do this show. I want to make it amazing for me, for you, for Cirque and of course, for Michael.
Why should I believe that this job is not going to be too much for you?
Because of all that I have learned through this process. Directing a film was a completely new realm that I ended up not being ready for. But dance and choreographing is what I
have done my entire life. I know how to do this. And there are very few subjects I know more about than Michael Jackson.
Wade Robson
Director / Choreographer
Light Tree Productions
It was ultimately Cirque du Soleil’s decision—not the Estate’s—to not rehire Wade for the project. A common assumption is that Wade later sued the Estate out of anger or retaliation for not being brought back onto the show.
However, that assumption needs to be challenged. Filing a child‑molestation lawsuit is neither a simple nor a quick way to gain money or seek revenge. These cases are legally complex, emotionally exhausting, and often financially draining. Wade, like James Safechuck, has spent years trying to get his case heard, only to be repeatedly blocked by complicated legal processes.
Looking at the email in which Wade expressed regret and emotional strain, two points stand out. First, he was clearly not in a stable emotional state, which is consistent with his later descriptions of the psychological impact of his childhood trauma. Second, feeling overwhelmed, he stepped away from two major projects at once.
The suggestion that Wade acted out of financial motivation does not align with his behaviour. Walking away from two promising opportunities—both professionally and financially—contradicts the idea that money was his primary concern.
Why would Wade want to be involved in an MJ show if he was abused?
People often argue that “no real victim of sexual abuse would want to work on a show dedicated to the person who abused them”. This claim oversimplifies the reality of grooming and the psychology of child sexual abuse.
The question of why Wade chose to stay connected to Michael Jackson, even while later alleging abuse, is not straightforward. To understand it, it helps to look at how abusive relationships with children can form and how victims often respond.
Child sexual abuse does not follow one simple pattern. The relationship between an abuser and a child can be emotionally complex. It is not always based on threats, fear or violence. In many cases, abusers create a sense of closeness and trust. They may offer affection, attention, opportunities, or a feeling of being “special”. These tactics can make a child feel bonded to the abuser, even while harm is taking place.
This is sometimes described as trauma bonding. It refers to the emotional attachment that can develop between a victim and the person harming them. Trauma bonding does not explain every detail of every case, but it is a recognised pattern seen in many situations, including child abuse, domestic abuse, hostage situations and human trafficking.
Research across these areas shows that:
In a unique prospective study, Lindsay, Brubacher, and Lamb (2011) observed that while the experience of negative emotions and fear of retaliation were concerns of sexually abused children contemplating disclosure, it was primarily the concern that their perpetrator(s) would be punished. (i.e., incarcerated) that actually served to delay disclosure. The nature of this relationship exemplifies the frequently observed phenomena of survivors' protective attachment to their abusers. While the tendency to protect a parent can be viewed as a normative product of attachment, a survivor's desire to protect an abuser can be understood as a consequence of traumatic bonding (DeYoung & Lowry, 1992; Freyd, 1996; Walker, 1979).
And:
One of the many negative effects of child sexual exploitation is the trauma bond, the deep bond that can develop between a victim and his or her abuser. A traumatic bond can develop for all sorts of reasons and can cause enormous damage to a child's health and well-being (...) The trauma bond is the connection that forms between a victim and their abuser(s), which is often built during long-term abuse. Victims may develop a deep sense of loyalty to their abuser, which can feel like genuine love and affection.
And:
Tom’s understanding of his ability to disclose the abuse and finally report it to the authorities was linked with what he saw as Mr. Y’s gradual relinquishment of control over him and his own efforts to remove himself both physically and psychologically from Mr. Y’s control. The sexual abuse stopped, according to Tom, because “(Mr. Y) lost interest in me completely. He realised he had no more control over me, I was past my sell-by date. However, the emotional bond continued to the extent that Tom invited Mr. Y to be his best man and accepted a gift of land on which he built his home.
(..)
Drawing on the concept of traumatic bonding in understanding the grooming process is particularly helpful given the focus in traumatic bonding literature not only on child-adult relationships but also on adult-adult relationships.
(..)
Tom's case illustrates how the grooming relationship evolved across the lifespan. During childhood, Mr. Y showered him with attention, gifts and outings; during adolescence, Mr. Y was his confidante, his career advisor, his chauffeur who gave him daily lifts to school; and during adulthood, Mr. Y was the person he brought his girlfriend to, who provided him with the land on which to build his home. Thus, as Tom developed from child to adolescent to adult, so too did the grooming relationship with Mr. Y evolve according to Tom's develop- mental needs. Mr. Y, in adapting his response to Tom according to Tom's developmental needs, reinforced the bond and consolidated his standing in Tom's eyes. Although Tom's needs changed as he got older, his need for affection remained. While Tom was glad of the abuse ending, he also described it as a rejection of sorts “[Mr. Y] lost interest in me completely. I was past my sell-by date." Mr. Y was able to capitalize on Tom's relational needs until Tom succeeded in having these relational needs met in other ways in his life.
The relationship between Wade and MJ was undeniably intense, shaped by a mix of admiration, manipulation and emotional confusion. From a young age, Wade looked up to MJ, forming a bond that often resembled a pupil–mentor relationship. Over time, this connection became distorted, leading Wade to believe he was part of a loving and consensual relationship — a belief made even more difficult to untangle because of the sexual abuse he experienced.
For someone subjected to abuse through such calculated manipulation, separating emotionally from the perpetrator can be extremely difficult, especially when these beliefs take root in childhood. Wade’s situation is particularly striking, as these dynamics began influencing him from the age of seven.
This challenge was made even harder by his continued desire, well into adulthood, to stay connected to MJ and take part in his world. In many ways, this mirrors the patterns seen in Stockholm syndrome, where victims form deep emotional bonds with those who harm them. Such bonds can make it incredibly hard to break away and can prevent individuals from speaking openly about their abuse.
With permission, the following article was translated and enhanced from The Truth about Michael Jackson.
