Dangerous Incorporated
Guests
Ok so some of you will probably groan "oh not again", but please here me out as I try to show evidence as to why I think the will is not real or at least not valid. If you guys can debunk my points, great, another mystery is HIStory. If not, then Joe is right and John Branca does not have Michael Jackson or his Estate in Branca's best interest.
Here is a copy of the Will for you to verify the points I make:
http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0701_mj_will_wm_01.pdf
First, all 3 children's name's in the will are incorrect.
The names in the Will are:
WRONG!
The children's real name are:
Prince's Birth Certificate:
Paris' Birth Certificate:
Blanket's Birth Certificate:
Any other names that are incorrect?
It states that Deborah Jean Rowe JACKSON is no longer married to Michael. Why put Jackson as her last name then? Also JEAN is NOT Debbie's middle name!
Apart from Debbie's name, you would think that Michael would see that his children's names are all incorrect. I know I would be able to tell if all 3 of my kids names are documented correctly. Especially regarding something as important as a Will. But wait, Michael didnt sign his initial next to Article I concerning his children.
Oddly enough, only the Articles pertaining to the executors and the estate giving them full power and authority have initials next to them. The initials all look like this:
except for the final initial for the witnesses which looks like this:
Speaking of witnesses, the purpose of the witnesses is to attest to the identity, date and location to that of the Will. The Will apparently was signed on July 7th 2002 in L.Al. But how could the witnesses observe MJ signing the Will in L.A. if he was actually in New York from July 6-9 2002 for a Anti-Sony/Tommy Mottola campaign?
6th July 2002:
[youtube]EzGCZUT9DG4[/youtube]
[youtube]vYTUszGjDOg[/youtube]
[youtube]2VR7LpRWw0o[/youtube]
9th July 2002:
[youtube]3UKOpQUkbMc[/youtube]
Branca's answer to this is that it was clerical error and the witness who signed it forgot where he was. I've never been unaware of my location especially when signing official legal documents and if you are not alert enough to know your own location, are you qualified to verify if Michael is of sound mind, his location and the date? What about the other witnesses, they weren't alert enough to pick up the error either.
Also no where does Michael state or sign that he is of sound mind or impaired. Only the lawyers who state, 'to the best of our knowledge', which isnt very good as they dont know the kids names or where they are.
So has Michael signed documents before while being impaired or not of sound mind? Perhaps you'll recall what is known as the 'drug deposition':
[youtube]_ssyxkxvHhE[/youtube]
So yes Michael has been under the influence of medication while signing documents before. But what about back in 2002? Well there is a letter to Michael dated July 2002 regarding Demerol from a doctor as well as pictures of prescription pills under alias' for Michael dated 2002:
So what else happened in 2002? A judge ordered Michael to undergo a physical examination due to him missing a court appearance from a spider bite:
After Michael died, these pictures resurfaced with the story attached that the marks on Michael's leg was due to needles. Why did this happen? To paint a picture of Michael as a drug abuser? That would be a good cover story for the murderous plotters. Oh and courtesy of AEG too:
[youtube]x3cP9Rm3dMc[/youtube]
How is it they have this picture?
So are there any connections between John Branca and AEG?
Yes.
For one, AEG is co-partners with the Grammy Museum:
John Branca is on the Board of the Grammy Museum:
http://www.grammymuseum.org/interior.php?section=support&page=soundstagesponsors
Well you may say that is a coincidence. Ok thats fair enough.
But what about when Katherine asked Branca for a copy of Michael's AEG contract? Branca refused. Katherine had to ask a judge for it. Branca's lawyer responded that Katherine's request was "voluminous and burdensome'. Why would Branca refuse Katherine's request and want to hide the AEG contract from her? That act is in AEG's best interest. Branca should have immediately agreed being that Katherine has Michael's best interest at heart. The contract has been released to the public but is blacked over in many parts. Here is the AEG contract:
http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/AEG contract.pdf
Now you may say that contesting the 2002 Will is redundant as the 1997 will has the same percentages distributed and the same executors of the trust.
Not true. In 1997, Michael was a married man with 1 child. How can both Wills be identical? None of us have seen the 1997 will which is also in Branca's possession. Perhaps Katherine is a co-executor of the estate in the 97 Will. The family wants the 97 Will, the estate wants the 02 Will. There is a reason why Branca fought so hard to keep Katherine off the board. If Katherine was a co-executor, she can veto any decisions Branca makes that she doesnt like such as selling the ATV catalogue in Sept 2010 (which is what this is all about).
An interesting quote by Marty Bandier, CEO and chairman of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, called Branca the "number one music publishing lawyer in the country." Interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Branca
So apart from the ATV catalogue, why else would Branca and Co want to keep a Jackson family member from being a co-executor? Well with full power and authority, they can create a second trust. And this second trust doesnt have to have anything to do with the Jackson family at all. There is nothing in the Will that says this can't be done. Also there is nothing in the Will regarding the children inheriting the estate once they turn 18. Only while under guardianship do they retain an allowance. Once they're 18, they dont get any money from their father's estate.
If all of this doesnt make you question Branca, I'll leave you with this.
In 2003, Branca was investigated and it was discovered that Branca had an offshore account in which Sony transfered funds to Branca while Branca was representing Michael. Branca was then fired. Mesereau questioned the investigator about Branca in court in 2005.
Branca didnt follow instructions such as returning original documents including the 2002 Will. Nor did he resign as executor as Barry Siegel did.
Branca therefore didnt comply with the 2003 instructions and therefore is acting in a fraudulent manner. He should NOT have a copy of MJ's 2002 Will and should not be a co-executor per Michael's instructions of 2003.
I'd like to thank a few friends who helped me with certain points.
Here is a copy of the Will for you to verify the points I make:
http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0701_mj_will_wm_01.pdf
First, all 3 children's name's in the will are incorrect.
The names in the Will are:
- Prince Michael Joseph Jackson Jr
- Paris Michael Katherine Jackson
- Prince Michael Joseph Jackson II
WRONG!
The children's real name are:
- Michael Joseph Jackson Jr (no Prince)
- Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson ('-')
- Prince Michael Jackson II (no Joseph)
Prince's Birth Certificate:
Paris' Birth Certificate:
Blanket's Birth Certificate:
Any other names that are incorrect?
It states that Deborah Jean Rowe JACKSON is no longer married to Michael. Why put Jackson as her last name then? Also JEAN is NOT Debbie's middle name!
Apart from Debbie's name, you would think that Michael would see that his children's names are all incorrect. I know I would be able to tell if all 3 of my kids names are documented correctly. Especially regarding something as important as a Will. But wait, Michael didnt sign his initial next to Article I concerning his children.
Oddly enough, only the Articles pertaining to the executors and the estate giving them full power and authority have initials next to them. The initials all look like this:
except for the final initial for the witnesses which looks like this:
Speaking of witnesses, the purpose of the witnesses is to attest to the identity, date and location to that of the Will. The Will apparently was signed on July 7th 2002 in L.Al. But how could the witnesses observe MJ signing the Will in L.A. if he was actually in New York from July 6-9 2002 for a Anti-Sony/Tommy Mottola campaign?
6th July 2002:
[youtube]EzGCZUT9DG4[/youtube]
[youtube]vYTUszGjDOg[/youtube]
[youtube]2VR7LpRWw0o[/youtube]
9th July 2002:
[youtube]3UKOpQUkbMc[/youtube]
Branca's answer to this is that it was clerical error and the witness who signed it forgot where he was. I've never been unaware of my location especially when signing official legal documents and if you are not alert enough to know your own location, are you qualified to verify if Michael is of sound mind, his location and the date? What about the other witnesses, they weren't alert enough to pick up the error either.
Also no where does Michael state or sign that he is of sound mind or impaired. Only the lawyers who state, 'to the best of our knowledge', which isnt very good as they dont know the kids names or where they are.
So has Michael signed documents before while being impaired or not of sound mind? Perhaps you'll recall what is known as the 'drug deposition':
[youtube]_ssyxkxvHhE[/youtube]
So yes Michael has been under the influence of medication while signing documents before. But what about back in 2002? Well there is a letter to Michael dated July 2002 regarding Demerol from a doctor as well as pictures of prescription pills under alias' for Michael dated 2002:
So what else happened in 2002? A judge ordered Michael to undergo a physical examination due to him missing a court appearance from a spider bite:
After Michael died, these pictures resurfaced with the story attached that the marks on Michael's leg was due to needles. Why did this happen? To paint a picture of Michael as a drug abuser? That would be a good cover story for the murderous plotters. Oh and courtesy of AEG too:
[youtube]x3cP9Rm3dMc[/youtube]
How is it they have this picture?
So are there any connections between John Branca and AEG?
Yes.
For one, AEG is co-partners with the Grammy Museum:
http://www.grammymuseum.org/interior.php?section=about&page=partnersThe Recording Academy and AEG proudly present The GRAMMY® Museum
John Branca is on the Board of the Grammy Museum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_BrancaAdditionally, he is on the Board of the Grammy Museum
http://www.grammymuseum.org/interior.php?section=support&page=soundstagesponsors
Well you may say that is a coincidence. Ok thats fair enough.
But what about when Katherine asked Branca for a copy of Michael's AEG contract? Branca refused. Katherine had to ask a judge for it. Branca's lawyer responded that Katherine's request was "voluminous and burdensome'. Why would Branca refuse Katherine's request and want to hide the AEG contract from her? That act is in AEG's best interest. Branca should have immediately agreed being that Katherine has Michael's best interest at heart. The contract has been released to the public but is blacked over in many parts. Here is the AEG contract:
http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/AEG contract.pdf
Now you may say that contesting the 2002 Will is redundant as the 1997 will has the same percentages distributed and the same executors of the trust.
Not true. In 1997, Michael was a married man with 1 child. How can both Wills be identical? None of us have seen the 1997 will which is also in Branca's possession. Perhaps Katherine is a co-executor of the estate in the 97 Will. The family wants the 97 Will, the estate wants the 02 Will. There is a reason why Branca fought so hard to keep Katherine off the board. If Katherine was a co-executor, she can veto any decisions Branca makes that she doesnt like such as selling the ATV catalogue in Sept 2010 (which is what this is all about).
An interesting quote by Marty Bandier, CEO and chairman of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, called Branca the "number one music publishing lawyer in the country." Interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Branca
So apart from the ATV catalogue, why else would Branca and Co want to keep a Jackson family member from being a co-executor? Well with full power and authority, they can create a second trust. And this second trust doesnt have to have anything to do with the Jackson family at all. There is nothing in the Will that says this can't be done. Also there is nothing in the Will regarding the children inheriting the estate once they turn 18. Only while under guardianship do they retain an allowance. Once they're 18, they dont get any money from their father's estate.
If all of this doesnt make you question Branca, I'll leave you with this.
In 2003, Branca was investigated and it was discovered that Branca had an offshore account in which Sony transfered funds to Branca while Branca was representing Michael. Branca was then fired. Mesereau questioned the investigator about Branca in court in 2005.
After the investigation, Michael sent a letter to Branca firing him in February 2003 which stated:MESEREAU: Why did you investigate Mr. Branca?
LEGRAND: I requested -- well, let me back up. After consultation with my partner, Mr.Gibson, and discussion with I believe Mr. Joss at Paul Hastings, Mr. Gibson and I instructed the firm Interfor to investigate Mr. Branca, because Mr.Konitzer had indicated in several conversations that he was very concerned about Mr. Branca and that Mr. Jackson had expressed concern about Mr. Branca’s loyalty.
Also, there was -- Mr. Schaffel related information that also was negative of Mr. Branca. So we made collectively the decision to ask Interfor to further the background investigation, to conduct investigation into Mr. Branca.
MESEREAU: But at the time, Konitzer didn’t know that you were also investigating him, right?
LEGRAND: That’s correct.
MESEREAU: At the time, Schaffel didn’t know you were also investigating Schaffel, right?
LEGRAND: That’s correct.
MESEREAU: At the time, Weizner didn’t know you were also investigating Weizner, right? …
LEGRAND: That’s correct. We did not inform them of the scope of -- the full scope of Interfor’s actions at our request.
MESEREAU: And the investigator’s report indicated it appeared that Sony was involved in that account, right?
LEGRAND: The investigator’s report indicated that Sony had transferred money to the account.
MESEREAU: Sony had transferred money to that account for the benefit of Mr. Jackson’s lawyer, right?
LEGRAND: That’s what was indicated in the report. …
MESEREAU: You investigated Mr. Branca because, in your words, you thought he was involved in self-dealing, right? …
LEGRAND: Again, you know, I want to be clear. I consulted with my partner and, you know, other lawyers, and we collectively made a decision to -- that it was prudent to have our investigator look into the possibility of such actions being taken by Mr. Branca.
MESEREAU: Isn’t it true that you were trying to investigate offshore accounts owned by Branca and someone named Tommy Motolla?
LEGRAND: Yes.
MESEREAU: Who was Tommy Motolla?
LEGRAND: He was a very powerful figure in the record industry at one time. I believe he was the president of the Sony Entertainment Division in the U.S. I’m not sure of his exact title or position.
MESEREAU: Were you concerned that Tommy Motolla and Mr. Jackson’s lawyer, John Branca, were working together to defraud Michael Jackson? …
LEGRAND: Based on the suspicions that were expressed to me and my partner, we asked Interfor to look into these rumors.
MESEREAU: Was it your belief when you started this investigation that Al Malnik, Tommy Motolla, John Branca and people at Sony were trying to find a way to get Mr. Jackson’s interest in that music catalog?
AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative; leading; relevancy.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
LEGRAND: I’m not sure that I would include Al Malnik in that group, but I certainly was concerned that Branca and Motolla, in particular, had set the stage, so to speak, for Sony to be able to obtain Michael’s interest in the Sony/ATV joint venture.
Branca didnt follow instructions such as returning original documents including the 2002 Will. Nor did he resign as executor as Barry Siegel did.
Branca therefore didnt comply with the 2003 instructions and therefore is acting in a fraudulent manner. He should NOT have a copy of MJ's 2002 Will and should not be a co-executor per Michael's instructions of 2003.
I'd like to thank a few friends who helped me with certain points.
Last edited: