Latest on MJJC

Is Michael's Will Really Valid?

  • Thread starter Dangerous Incorporated
  • Start date

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:
  • 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:
michael-cert.jpg


Paris' Birth Certificate:
paris-cert.jpg


Blanket's Birth Certificate:
bc.png


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:
12235770.png


except for the final initial for the witnesses which looks like this:
13024318.png


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:
mj3.jpg



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:
Michael-pierna.jpg


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:
0.jpg

[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:
The Recording Academy and AEG proudly present The GRAMMY® Museum
Click to expand...
http://www.grammymuseum.org/interior.php?section=about&page=partners

John Branca is on the Board of the Grammy Museum:
Additionally, he is on the Board of the Grammy Museum
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Branca
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.
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.
Click to expand...
After the investigation, Michael sent a letter to Branca firing him in February 2003 which stated:
jacksonfiringbrancaletter.jpg


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:
DI congratulations on an excellent dissection of the will with good backup info.
A judge decides on the validity of a will, right?
So I guess these points were not observed or were considered minor technicalities?
I think legal counseling is needed here!
 
Correct me if I am wrong but as I judge has accepted the will and the proceedings gone forward, I guess that the will has already been determined as valid.

But still some answers

1. The children's names are wrong.

Yes they might be wrong but it does not matter. when looking to issues like this courts overlook any typographical error can happen due to misunderstanding or misinformation of the preparer of the will. They will look to determine the intent of the person. As the sentence starts with "I have 3 children" the intent is obvious.

2. Debbie's name is wrong.

Her middle name is Jeanne. As mentioned in the "Michael Joseph or Michael Joe thread" as far as the middle names go, it is legal to use the full one (Jeanne), a short version (Jean) or just an initial (J). Furthermore above intent rule still applies "my marriage" makes it obvious who he is talking about. Also See Prince's birth certificate where she is listed as Jeanne and then look to Paris's birth certificate where she is listed as Jean- both acceptable and legal as I said. As far as her being called Jackson is also possible- divorced women can choose to keep their married name or return to the maiden name. Debbie could have just kept the married name.

3. The witness who signed it forgot where he was.

Not completely true. The witness "forgot" was the story that the tabloid published. Their lawyer said that "The witness thought he was supposed to write place of residence on the will" . This could be a reasonable explanation. Also as far as I know writing the wrong place on the will does not make it invalid either.

4. How can both Wills be identical?

They are identical in the sense that a)they have the same executors and b) they have the same distribution rate of 40% to kids, 40% to mom and 20% to charity. But they are different because 1997 will does not include at least Blanket (or even perhaps Paris) as a beneficiary. This is said several time repeatedly that the only difference was the addition of Blanket and declaring this will will not make any difference in regards to the management of the estate as the 1997 will still lists Branca and McCain as executors.

5. why else would Branca and Co want to keep a Jackson family member from being a co-executor?

Well because Michael did not want them to be an executor? It's reported that Michael did not want to be in business relationships with his family.

Furthermore executors can sell any assest and can distribute the earnings in anyway. Perhaps they don't want a family member because they are afraid that they would liquidate all the assets and give katherine 40% so that she can leave it to her sons/daughters?

6. Branca did not return the will.

Are we sure that he had the will to start with? Now firstly he was not the one that prepared the will - he refered another lawyer that was an expert in wills and estate to prepare the will. I personally find it odd that an entertainment lawyer(Branca) will have the copy of the will when there's a seperate will lawyer included and Michael also had a manager and a personal lawyer as well. Yes I know that he filed the will with the courts but it could simply be that after MJ died the lawyer that prepared the will might have bought it to Branca and McClain as they are listed the executors. This we don't know for sure.

7. He did not resign as an executor.

Well being an executor is not a job that you are hired or should resign. An executor position does not require any employment relationship between the parties - just the ability and willingness to do the job at hand.Futhermore Michael did not need to ask anybody to resign from the position of executor - he could simply name new executors and the old ones will become irrelevant. There was a 7 year gap that he did not receive the resignation letters , wanted them to leave the executor position but yet did not name any alternative executors? If he wanted or thought that Branca did (or did not) leave the executor position why didn't he name alternative executors? Do you believe that he fired Branca and he left behind an estate/trust with no one designated to run it? This just does not make sense to me at all.

8. Michael has been under the influence of medication while signing documents.

This is a slippery slope IMO. First of all you'll need to show evidence that he was under influence on that exact time - the sony videos that you posted the day bedore and after shows a coherent an alert MJ. Furthermore you'll need to prove that he was stoned out of his mind all through 1997-2009 that he never could do any other will to invalidate this one.
 
Last edited:
Maria MJ said:
DI congratulations on an excellent dissection of the will with good backup info.
A judge decides on the validity of a will, right?
So I guess these points were not observed or were considered minor technicalities?
I think legal counseling is needed here!
Click to expand...


I Co-Sign. I believe this "WILL" is 100% Fraudulent. Michael would have never wrote up such CRAP its per Garbage. Michael would never put his Mother out front first of all to fight with what he already knew where "SHARKS" he would have never thrown her in water with sharks. I have been researching this too for the last two days, Im finding some pretty interesting things, more than likely I believe this Will is going to end up as the "Motive" for Michael's Murder. I found a site that listed Inconsistancies in this "Will" they even noted the type of paper is not "Will" paper, it ONLY 5 Pages and something about something being "typed" in. I remember M2AF saying "Michael put Everything in A Trust, I cant remember exactly but I remember that, not a Will only a Trust or something to that effect, that Thread is one that was removed in the two weeks after his Death. I not sure wheter they are not observing your finding or just overlooked, thats why its so important what "JOE JACKSON is Doing" I am realizing what he is doing, I dont believe it has nothing to do with him being Greedy, I believe he is after Michael Murderers and he is smoking them out, because the more I read the more I believe he is setting things up for the "Will Validity" trial. He is sacrificing himself and his reputation even more Just to get this "Will in Court" and I dont blame him at all.
 
MJ#1WhoIsIt said:
I Co-Sign. I believe this "WILL" is 100% Fraudulent. Michael would have never wrote up such CRAP its per Garbage. Michael would never put his Mother out front first of all to fight with what he already knew where "SHARKS" he would have never thrown her in water with sharks. I have been researching this too for the last two days, Im finding some pretty interesting things, more than likely I believe this Will is going to end up as the "Motive" for Michael's Murder. I found a site that listed Inconsistancies in this "Will" they even noted the type of paper is not "Will" paper, it ONLY 5 Pages and something about something being "typed" in. I remember M2AF saying "Michael put Everything in A Trust, I cant remember exactly but I remember that, not a Will only a Trust or something to that effect, that Thread is one that was removed in the two weeks after his Death. I not sure wheter they are not observing your finding or just overlooked, thats why its so important what "JOE JACKSON is Doing" I am realizing what he is doing, I dont believe it has nothing to do with him being Greedy, I believe he is after Michael Murderers and he is smoking them out, because the more I read the more I believe he is setting things up for the "Will Validity" trial. He is sacrificing himself and his reputation even more Just to get this "Will in Court" and I dont blame him at all.
Click to expand...


The problem is that Joe and Katherine are too old. Can they fight against sharks like Branca etc? There are so many other ppl behind Branca.... . Well the will is fake and I remember too that MJ put everything to family TRUST. Branca showed up with this fake will right after MJ death.
 
Asedora said:
The problem is that Joe and Katherine are too old. Can they fight against sharks like Branca etc? There are so many other ppl behind Branca.... . Well the will is fake and I remember too that MJ put everything to family TRUST. Branca showed up with this fake will right after MJ death.
Click to expand...
Yes, i remember Mj created new trust after he got that brilliant lawyer few years back.
 
The trust is still valid and in place.
 
**thumbs-up** to ivy's post.Yay for common sense.

Dangerous Incorporated, can you er outline what you think this means? Like who do you think faked the will and why? Cause i've read the 'fake-will' theory a bunch of times and im mostly confused, i don't see how theres anything major in there that will lead to any money going to anyone other than who mj wanted it to go to.
If you were just throwing out all the inconsistencies then thats fine.

I think theres a thread about this below us somewhere, but isn't there a court date regarding the 'revocation of will' on the 28th?
 
ivy said:
1. The children's names are wrong.

Yes they might be wrong but it does not matter. when looking to issues like this courts overlook any typographical error can happen due to misunderstanding or misinformation of the preparer of the will. They will look to determine the intent of the person. As the sentence starts with "I have 3 children" the intent is obvious.
Click to expand...

This kind of error SHOULD NOT HAPPEN especially regarding a final will a testimony. I know all 3 of my childrens names and I would make sure their names are 100% correct especially regarding a something as inmporatant as a Will. This is also Michael Jackson we're talking about. Michael was smart enough to know that he should dot every I and cross every T as to not allow any interference regarding his will after his passing as he would not be there to defend his will or his kids. Adding the name Prince in the will would be like adding the name Blanket it the will. Its clear that who ever wrote up the will did not have all the facts right. Whoever wrote this will up made SOOO many mistakes in this Will, they clearly werent of sound mind themselves.

I have 3 children is vague. Would Michael want his money going to any 3 children? No he wants it to go specifically to HIS 3 children. And this is not a typographical error. If they spelt 1 name wrong, then yes I can understand it being a typo (eg. Pariz) but every childs name is wrong. Bottom line is the will was not put together very well at all or it was rushed together quickly just to get Michael to sign it.
ivy said:
2. Debbie's name is wrong.

Her middle name is Jeanne. As mentioned in the "Michael Joseph or Michael Joe thread" as far as the middle names go, it is legal to use the full one (Jeanne), a short version (Jean) or just an initial (J). Furthermore above intent rule still applies "my marriage" makes it obvious who he is talking about. Also See Prince's birth certificate where she is listed as Jeanne and then look to Paris's birth certificate where she is listed as Jean- both acceptable and legal as I said. As far as her being called Jackson is also possible- divorced women can choose to keep their married name or return to the maiden name. Debbie could have just kept the married name.
Click to expand...

Debbie has not kept her married name. She is Deborah Jeanne Rowe. I can understand having an abbreviation say in a contract where there isnt enough room to write the whole name but this is a Will. There is no need to abbreviate. They couldnt add 2 extra letters? There is plenty of room to write her full legal name. If they took out the incorrect Prince, Joseph and Jackson, maybe they could fit in the extra 2 letters in Jeanne.
ivy said:
3. The witness who signed it forgot where he was.

Not completely true. The witness "forgot" was the story that the tabloid published. Their lawyer said that "The witness thought he was supposed to write place of residence on the will" . This could be a reasonable explanation. Also as far as I know writing the wrong place on the will does not make it invalid either.
Click to expand...
Branca being a lawyer should still have picked up on this. He knows better. He should have seen it and corrected the error. This explanation is reasonable for someone who has no legal expertise but not for Branca who co-signed the Will. It doesnt make it invalid, but it makes it suspicious.
ivy said:
4. How can both Wills be identical?

They are identical in the sense that a)they have the same executors and b) they have the same distribution rate of 40% to kids, 40% to mom and 20% to charity. But they are different because 1997 will does not include at least Blanket (or even perhaps Paris) as a beneficiary. This is said several time repeatedly that the only difference was the addition of Blanket and declaring this will will not make any difference in regards to the management of the estate as the 1997 will still lists Branca and McCain as executors.
Click to expand...

Nobody has seen this will except....oh Branca!!! How do you know there isnt a Jackson family member listed as a co-executor? As I said in the first post, the Jacksons want the 97 will for a reason and the executors want the 2002 will for a reason. Plus Michael was a married man in 1997.
ivy said:
5. why else would Branca and Co want to keep a Jackson family member from being a co-executor?

Well because Michael did not want them to be an executor? It's reported that Michael did not want to be in business relationships with his family.

Furthermore executors can sell any assest and can distribute the earnings in anyway. Perhaps they don't want a family member because they are afraid that they would liquidate all the assets and give katherine 40% so that she can leave it to her sons/daughters?
Click to expand...

Same vice versa ;)

You're claiming it's reported that Michael didnt want to be in a business relationship with his family. Thats not factual. It's known that Katherine has been involved in Michael's deals before. The reason Michael did this was to make sure his best interest was considered. Michael only trusted Katherine.

Being that executors can sell any assest (SONY/ATV), and Branca was already fired for conspiring against Michael with Tommy Mottola to aquire Michael's half of Sony/ATV, Im sure Michael would want one person to look out for his best interest as Branca clearly isnt. Michael claimed in 2007 that he would NEVER sell Sony/ATV. You watch what happens in Sept. It will be sold by Branca.

This is the real reason Branca doesnt want Katherine on board. Katherine would not sell all of MJ's assests because it wouldnt benefit and support Michael's children.

The fact that there is nothing discussed in the will regarding the will after the children reach 18 or the children ever being in charge of Michael estate when the reach legal age.

All highly suspect.
ivy said:
6. Branca did not return the will.

Are we sure that he had the will to start with? Now firstly he was not the one that prepared the will - he refered another lawyer that was an expert in wills and estate to prepare the will. I personally find it odd that an entertainment lawyer(Branca) will have the copy of the will when there's a seperate will lawyer included and Michael also had a manager and a personal lawyer as well. Yes I know that he filed the will with the courts but it could simply be that after MJ died the lawyer that prepared the will might have bought it to Branca and McClain as they are listed the executors. This we don't know for sure.
Click to expand...

Branca was the one who had the will and presented it after MJ passing. This is fact. Whether Branca prepared the will or not, he signed it and should have noticed all the inconsistencies in it.
ivy said:
7. He did not resign as an executor.

Well being an executor is not a job that you are hired or should resign. An executor position does not require any employment relationship between the parties - just the ability and willingness to do the job at hand. Futhermore Michael did not need to ask anybody to resign from the position of executor - he could simply name new executors and the old ones will become irrelevant. There was a 7 year gap that he did not receive the resignation letters , wanted them to leave the executor position but yet did not name any alternative executors? If he wanted or thought that Branca did (or did not) leave the executor position why didn't he name alternative executors? Do you believe that he fired Branca and he left behind an estate/trust with one designated to run it? This just does not make sense to me at all.
Click to expand...

The whole Will doesnt make sense to me. It is not a standard will by any means. All we know is what is written in the termination letter to Branca in 2003. Branca has not complied with that termination letter to this date. If Michael did not assign another as an executor, thats his choice. Perhaps Michael was content with the 1997 will knowing he had a family member as an executor (thats if that is the case....nobody has seen this Will except Branca!) There was a 7 year gap and Michael didnt sign another Will after the Trial. Many think that is strange.
ivy said:
8. Michael has been under the influence of medication while signing documents.

This is a slippery slope IMO. First of all you'll need to show evidence that he was under influence on that exact time - the sony videos that you posted the day bedore and after shows a coherent an alert MJ. Furthermore you'll need to prove that he was stoned out of his mind all through 1997-2009 that he never did any other will to invalidate this one.
Click to expand...

Will no matter what, there is a history of MJ on pills and there is proof that he was on pills in 2002. Was Michael incoherent everytime he went out in public? No. But he still signed documents under the influence. The drug deposition shows that. Also how do we really know that Will was signed in July? Especially being there is doubt as to where Michael was when he allegedly signed the Will.

Despite all of this......the fact that Branca was secretly receiving funds from Sony in an offshore account along with Tommy Mottola (and we all know how MJ feels about him) all while still representing MJ just so he could try and aquire the catalogue from Michael. This was a deceptive act. Its all about the ATV catalogue which is why MJ was murdered. He gave up Neverland but he said he would never give up Sony/ATV. Well now they can and there is no opposition to do so.

There are too many inconsistencies for this Will to be valid or real. If this is a real Will then Michael should have got a new lawyer who knows how to write up a legal Will.

I dont know why ivy you are defending Branca or the Will so much. Who are you working for?
 
funkyfish said:
**thumbs-up** to ivy's post.Yay for common sense.
Click to expand...


Common sense? Hows this for common sense. Michael fired Branca for trying to steal his ATV catalogue along with Tommy Mottola from him Branca was paid by Sony to do so all while representing Michael.

In 2007, Michael stated he would never sell the ATV catalogue.

So why would Michael rehire a man 4 years later who tried to steal Michael's catalogue and then 8 days later, Branca is in charge of the ATV catalogue. Can nobody see this as being suspicious?

Branca has shown he is deceptive and doesnt have Michael's interest at heart.

This is also evident by that fact that Branca was protecting AEG's interest by not allowing Katherine to have Michael's AEG contract. Shouldnt Branca be more concerned about Michael's interests? Well we know he hasnt in recent history.

Perhaps some people need to read the court document again from Mesereau:
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.
Click to expand...

Ive now shown to you why Michael fired Branca and how it is possible that Branca still had a copy of Michaels will when he shouldnt have and how he is still an executor when he should not be.

Branca can now create a 2nd trust that has no benefit to Michael's children. I find it strange that the will does not give the children control of the estate when they reach legal age. Once the kids hit 18. They get no money from their Dad. Im sure Michael would have wanted his children to benefit from this and not get left with nothing when their 18 while lawyers are supported by Michaels money.

Do you really think that after Branca was discovered that he was trying to get Michael's share of ATV for Sony while Michael was alive, that he not going to do it now that Michael is dead?
 
Last edited:
so everything should be a conspiracy theory - including my posts?

You wrote your opinions and I responded to you explaining my logic why I believe that. You may choose to agree with some or do not agree with anything. That is your call. I respect your opinions. It's important to remember that a lot of things that you say also based on hearsay and speculation and cannot necessary be accepted as truth.

For example how can we know that Debbie did not keep her married name? Did anyone here saw her driver's licence for instance? Or perhaps she was Jackson in 2002 and then later changed her name. Like I said we can't know it for 100% sure and can just speculate.

Some things are also useless to argue as well - yes I'll agree with you in regards to the names in the will is sloppy with mistakes but in legal sense it does not matter. We can argue about that for days but it wont change the fact that there's a supreme court rulling that says as long as the intent is clear the names do not matter (you can even write nicknames on the wills)

I could have answered your post but I chose not to as I saw your very last sentence. (I respect everyone here- even though I may not agree with them and I will never resort to name calling or use innuendos and will not tolerate if that is done to me). I thought this was a platform that we wrote our opinions and read other people's and learned from them. If the person is going to have a closed mind there's no need for me to spend more time on it. Just a personal advice - if you are not going to listen to other people's opinion with an open mind and just throw out accusations about their motives, do not start threads asking questions such as is michael's will valid?. If you have already made up your mind and cannot even phantom the possibility of any other way, why are you wasting your time? you could just rename the thread to "Michael's will is invalid and do not dare to write the opposite"

edited to add this

Dangerous Incorporated said:
Branca can now create a 2nd trust that has no benefit to Michael's children. I find it strange that the will does not give the children control of the estate when they reach legal age. Once the kids hit 18. They get no money from their Dad. Im sure Michael would have wanted his children to benefit from this and not get left with nothing when their 18 while lawyers are supported by Michaels money.
Click to expand...

This is pure speculation on your part. The Micheal Jackson Family Trust is private and no one knows the details of it. There's 3 possibilities in regards to the trust 1)the children can get full control/ownership when they are 21 or 25 or 2)they could get a control in the management of the estate when they are 21 or 25 or 3) the estate can be run by executors/ professional management team and the kids can be paid an allowance for the rest of their lives.

I'm curious to see the document/ information that you base your statement that "children will not get control and will not be paid after 18" argument.
 
Last edited:
Dangerous, your post, with documents, is brilliant, and chilling. . . . . We've been "told" that the earlier will is identical. We don't actually know this. And there is so much more that is irregular.

And Ivy? An attorney's job is to see that everything in every document is exactly correct. Every "t" crossed and "i" dotted. The fact that someone signed "L.A." when in New York is incredibly sloppy. Unbelievably so. That the will of the world's most famous person would have errors is simply outrageous!
 
Victoria83 said:
And Ivy? An attorney's job is to see that everything in every document is exactly correct. Every "t" crossed and "i" dotted. The fact that someone signed "L.A." when in New York is incredibly sloppy. Unbelievably so. That the will of the world's most famous person would have errors is simply outrageous!
Click to expand...

Victoria believe me I agree that the will is really sloppy and yes you would expect a better job from any lawyer. All I'm saying that those sloppy mistakes do not make it invalid.
 
Dangerous Incorporated said:
Branca can now create a 2nd trust that has no benefit to Michael's children. I find it strange that the will does not give the children control of the estate when they reach legal age. Once the kids hit 18. They get no money from their Dad. Im sure Michael would have wanted his children to benefit from this and not get left with nothing when their 18 while lawyers are supported by Michaels money.

Do you really think that after Branca was discovered that he was trying to get Michael's share of ATV for Sony while Michael was alive, that he not going to do it now that Michael is dead?
Click to expand...

Well,I believe that they can do anything with MJ money now and kids will get nothing in the end of this show because it will set up like MJ estate will be still under control of the same ppl. This is more likely what will happen. If it will happen we all will be aware that it is a fraud because Michael wouldn't leave his kids with no control under his estate. Branca is a son of a bitch. There are huge money under Hollywood mafia control and nobody will give Jackson’s or MJ kids to control anything. Anybody can call it speculation for now but in the end you will see.
 
ivy said:
Victoria believe me I agree that the will is really sloppy and yes you would expect a better job from any lawyer. All I'm saying that those sloppy mistakes do not make it invalid.
Click to expand...

Yeah it doesn't make it invalid cuz the valid one was burned or whatever they did with it. It disappeared and of course they have just this one which is “valid’. How in the world is possible to make huge mistakes like this in world super mega star will? Did these lawyers go to school? Ask yourself how it was possible? Do you have an answer?
I didn't go to a special lawyer school and English is not my first language but still I cannot imagine how it was possible to make mistakes like that.
 
Asedora said:
The problem is that Joe and Katherine are too old. Can they fight against sharks like Branca etc? There are so many other ppl behind Branca.... . Well the will is fake and I remember too that MJ put everything to family TRUST. Branca showed up with this fake will right after MJ death.
Click to expand...



From what Im hearing The Jackson have the Team Ready if this "Will is Challenged", its not going to take much to prove this "Will" a Fake and if its Fake like someone posted months ago "Both Wills Are Fake". I believe the stuff that would come out in this trial would shame all Michael's Business Associates.



ivy said:
The trust is still valid and in place.
Click to expand...


Think about this Ivy, as been posted months ago too "No One Really knows whats in The Trust but Branca, certainly if this "Will is Fraudulent then it goes without saying The Trust they will Present is Equally FAKE and Fraudulent".





Dangerous Incorporated said:
Common sense? Hows this for common sense. Michael fired Branca for trying to steal his ATV catalogue along with Tommy Mottola from him Branca was paid by Sony to do so all while representing Michael.

In 2007, Michael stated he would never sell the ATV catalogue.

So why would Michael rehire a man 4 years later who tried to steal Michael's catalogue and then 8 days later, Branca is in charge of the ATV catalogue. Can nobody see this as being suspicious?

Branca has shown he is deceptive and doesnt have Michael's interest at heart.

This is also evident by that fact that Branca was protecting AEG's interest by not allowing Katherine to have Michael's AEG contract. Shouldnt Branca be more concerned about Michael's interests? Well we know he hasnt in recent history.

Perhaps some people need to read the court document again from Mesereau:


Ive now shown to you why Michael fired Branca and how it is possible that Branca still had a copy of Michaels will when he shouldnt have and how he is still an executor when he should not be.

Branca can now create a 2nd trust that has no benefit to Michael's children. I find it strange that the will does not give the children control of the estate when they reach legal age. Once the kids hit 18. They get no money from their Dad. Im sure Michael would have wanted his children to benefit from this and not get left with nothing when their 18 while lawyers are supported by Michaels money.

Do you really think that after Branca was discovered that he was trying to get Michael's share of ATV for Sony while Michael was alive, that he not going to do it now that Michael is dead?
Click to expand...


and not only what you are saying is Correct DI, but back to you talking about "Common Sense" if the 2nd Will is being called "Valid" now it automatically "VOIDS" the 1st, they should have known this is not Lets Make A Deal, Branca had to know even people not educated in Law knows if a 2nd Will was Surposedly Written by Michael with the "SAME" Attorney, that Attorney no matter who the presiding Attorney was had to stamp "VOID" on the 1st, he just cant say well if the 2nd dont work we can still use the 1st, this is not the Wild Wild West Dodge City, maybe if the Attorney and the Benefactor wasnt the same two people on both, but thats not the case Branca involved with both Wills and according to him so was Michael, I dont care how Branca wants to say the 2nd only was Amended to add another Child if thats the case then it was not necessary for the 2nd just amend the 1st. I just believe Branca has dug a hole for himself thats going to bring down his whole Posse.



Victoria83 said:
Dangerous, your post, with documents, is brilliant, and chilling. . . . . We've been "told" that the earlier will is identical. We don't actually know this. And there is so much more that is irregular.

And Ivy? An attorney's job is to see that everything in every document is exactly correct. Every "t" crossed and "i" dotted. The fact that someone signed "L.A." when in New York is incredibly sloppy. Unbelievably so. That the will of the world's most famous person would have errors is simply outrageous!
Click to expand...


Absolutely I Agree, and you know Vic we dont always Agree but Im with you on this, and on top of that Branca is surpose to be the "Superman of All Entertainment Attornies" noted everywhere Who's Who and to have made a Catastropy Mistake like this what does this say for him Administering The Estate of all Estates as Michael Estate is being called. This is what Attornies do cross T's and dot I's. I really wouldnt be surprise if Branca committs Suicide this year. He looks like he about to Fall Apart in every picture I have seen of him lately.


And they are going to have to Deal with Michael being on National Television during the time they are saying he signed the LA Will, its no way around it and that alone will DESTROY any Creditabilty they present to a Jury. Just with the Facts as few as they are from LAPD and The Feds its apparant Michael Killers Did Not Think This All The Way Through. I mean for God's Sake its A Homicide, I'll put my child's College Fund on they NEVER even believe it would get that far, they belive it wouldnt get past "Accidental Overdose Case Close".
 
Last edited:
ivy said:
so everything should be a conspiracy theory - including my posts?
Click to expand...
What? No only what is suspicious. I think your taking it personally.
ivy said:
You wrote your opinions and I responded to you explaining my logic why I believe that. You may choose to agree with some or do not agree with anything. That is your call. I respect your opinions. It's important to remember that a lot of things that you say also based on hearsay and speculation and cannot necessary be accepted as truth.
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion and Ive stated mine in response to yours. You can respond to mine again if you want. After all this is discussion board. This is how we nut things out ;)
ivy said:
For example how can we know that Debbie did not keep her married name? Did anyone here saw her driver's licence for instance? Or perhaps she was Jackson in 2002 and then later changed her name. Like I said we can't know it for 100% sure and can just speculate.
Click to expand...
We know this from letters and court documents as recent as July 2009 that have been made public that Debbie's last name is Rowe not Jackson. What I said was fact.
504x_custom_1247605812170_pageone.jpg

504x_custom_1247605821386_pagetwo.jpg


ivy said:
I could have answered your post but I chose not to as I saw your very last sentence. (I respect everyone here- even though I may not agree with them and I will never resort to name calling or use innuendos and will not tolerate if that is done to me). I thought this was a platform that we wrote our opinions and read other people's and learned from them. If the person is going to have a closed mind there's no need for me to spend more time on it. Just a personal advice - if you are not going to listen to other people's opinion with an open mind and just throw out accusations about their motives, do not start threads asking questions such as is michael's will valid?. If you have already made up your mind and cannot even phantom the possibility of any other way, why are you wasting your time? you could just rename the thread to "Michael's will is invalid and do not dare to write the opposite"
Click to expand...
This seems like a cop out. Its a discussion board. I have not taken a dig at you. And if you feel I have. I apologise. You gave your opinion and in return I gave mine back. If I have proof in retort to your comments I will give it just like it showing that Debbie's last name is not Jackson. If y ou can proove me wrong, by all means please. I believe I said so in the first paragraph of the first post. I'd rather be prooved wrong in my doubts and know that Michael's kids will be financially stable for the rest of their lives as this is where the money should be going. Not to someone who has double crossed MJ in recent past.


ivy said:
This is pure speculation on your part. The Micheal Jackson Family Trust is private and no one knows the details of it. There's 3 possibilities in regards to the trust 1)the children can get full control/ownership when they are 21 or 25 or 2)they could get a control in the management of the estate when they are 21 or 25 or 3) the estate can be run by executors/ professional management team and the kids can be paid an allowance for the rest of their lives.

I'm curious to see the document/ information that you base your statement that "children will not get control and will not be paid after 18" argument.
Click to expand...

I believe other members have already addressed this so there is no need for me to do so.
 
Like I said I find that "who are you working for" a not so nice innuendo. I'm all for discussion and I'm okay with different opinions then mine but I as I never resort to name calling I do not tolerate anything similar done to me either.

I agree with you and Victoria83 that the will is really done in a sloppy way. I would really expect better work than any lawyer for any client.

As for answers
1. Debbie's name

In the 2005 molestation trial testimony when asked to state her name Debbie identified herself as herself as Deborah Rowe Jackson, but said she preferred "Ms. Rowe."
http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/michael-jackson-trial-rowe-rowe-rowe/

and full transcript where she states her name as jackson
http://deargavinarvizo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Debbie-Rowe-Testimony.txt

so either I guess we can see that at least by 2005 she was still legally named Jackson, this might be true or false as of now.

But as I said this errors in the names arguments are quite useless. Yes it is sloppy work but in any case it does not matter. there's a supreme case rulling that as long as the intent is obvious errors in the names do not matter. They have even found use of nicknames acceptable as long as it is obvious who is mentioned by that nickname.

2. Branca also signed the will he should have seen and corrected the mistakes.

I don't think he was a witness to the will and signed it. See the below link for the witnesses signatures http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0701091mjwill5.html

John McClain, Berry Siegel is there but the first person's name starts with a T. Furthermore see the below document page 10 for John Branca's signature. It is not the same as the first witness so I would say that Branca did not cosign the will. We don't know if he was there.

http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/Michael%20Jackson%20Probate%201-22z_0.pdf

3. Nobody has seen the 1997 will.

True nobody did. We only have news from TMZ - apparently they saw it. There could be or not be different executors. Anything we can say is pure speculation.


4. Michael did not want his family mananing the estate versus he fired Branca and did not want him.

Once again you can make argument for each side here. We can't know what was in Michael's head. Yes he was close to his mother but had problems with his dad, yes he fired people but then rehired them in 2009. Both arguments are valid.

5. Branca was the one who had the will and presented it after MJ passing.

Yes he is the one who presented the will to the court but do we know for a fact that he had the will in his possesion during 2002-2009? I know that Joe had claimed it but is there any proof for this. Like I said it is also reasonable to that the lawyer who prepared it had it in his possesion and gave it to Branca after MJ died as he was listed as an executor.

6. Strange things about the will.

Wills are updated when there's a major change in life or situations. A 1997 will makes sense as he had Prince. I would expect to see a 1998 will that adds Paris and possibly removes Debbie. An 2002 update is also understandable to include Blanket. I don't think he would be content with the 1997 will as it did not include 1 or 2 of his children. I would logically expect to see a will done after Blanket's birth. so a 2002 will is reasonable. Did anything happened in the last 7 years that would require an update to the will? Himm I personally don't think so. All the children were included, the trust was already established and the ex-wife was left out of the will. Any reason you can think of?

Like I said if we go with the argument that "He fired Branca and did not want him as an executor" we should have seen one of the following 1) name new executors or 2) write a new will. But we don't see this. You see the wills, there's a lawyer that prepares it, there are 3 witnesses and some executors. If there was a newer will or other set of executors someone would have come forward and if Branca was left out at a newer will /newer executors he would not have that in his possession and he would not be able to hide it. So IMO there's no newer will, we only have the 1997 and 2002 wills.

Dangerous Incorporated said:
I believe other members have already addressed this so there is no need for me to do so.
Click to expand...

No please address this. All other members also offered speculation such as "Evil Branca can do anything he can want" but I'm curious to see the document/ information that you base your statement that "children will not get control and will not be paid after 18" argument. Is there any kind of documentation / proof for this or is this just your feeling?
 
Last edited:
I don't know Branca, or if the alleged "off-shore" account is genuine. I do know that it was brought up during the trial. Why? Was there some sort of reason why someone wanted Branca out? Don't know, but I do know that Michael dropped him very abruptly.

ivy said:
I agree with you and Victoria83 that the will is really done in a sloppy way. I would really expect better work than any lawyer for any client.

As for answers
1. Debbie's name

In the 2005 molestation trial testimony when asked to state her name Debbie identified herself as herself as Deborah Rowe Jackson, but said she preferred "Ms. Rowe."
http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/michael-jackson-trial-rowe-rowe-rowe/

and full transcript where she states her name as jackson
http://deargavinarvizo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Debbie-Rowe-Testimony.txt

so either I guess we can see that at least by 2005 she was still legally named Jackson, this might be true or false as of now.
Click to expand...

It is the number of mistakes that is causing concern. Not just one, or two. But several. An attorney's job is to see that important documents are done correctly. That seems very, very strange, or as if something was drawn up in haste for some reason. Just wondering about this.

ivy said:
But as I said this errors in the names arguments are quite useless. Yes it is sloppy work but in any case it does not matter. there's a supreme case rulling that as long as the intent is obvious errors in the names do not matter. They have even found use of nicknames acceptable as long as it is obvious who is mentioned by that nickname.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming it doesn't "matter" under the law. It still seems quite irregular that such an important document, for such a terribly important person, wouldn't be correct in all aspects. I'm adding that to a long list of "strangeness" surrounding Michael's death.

ivy said:
2. Branca also signed the will he should have seen and corrected the mistakes.

I don't think he was a witness to the will and signed it. See the below link for the witnesses signatures http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0701091mjwill5.html

John McClain, Berry Siegel is there but the first person's name starts with a T. Furthermore see the below document page 10 for John Branca's signature. It is not the same as the first witness so I would say that Branca did not cosign the will. We don't know if he was there.

http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/Michael%20Jackson%20Probate%201-22z_0.pdf
Click to expand...

Then why did he have the will, and not the attorney of record on the will? I signed my will at my attorney's office, with witnesses present. My attorney has a copy of my will, and I have a copy in a safe place. Also, why was no copy of any will found in Michael's house? In a safe or fire-proof box? It is very USUAL for the person whose will it is, to have a copy.

ivy said:
3. Nobody has seen the 1997 will.

True nobody did. We only have news from TMZ - apparently they saw it. There could be or not be different executors. Anything we can say is pure speculation.
Click to expand...

Then maybe the family knows that the executors are different? No way to know, since there is no info except for TMZ.

ivy said:
4. Michael did not want his family mananing the estate versus he fired Branca and did not want him.

Once again you can make argument for each side here. We can't know what was in Michael's head. Yes he was close to his mother but had problems with his dad, yes he fired people but then rehired them in 2009. Both arguments are valid.
Click to expand...

That the family were not executors is to be expected. Besides the strife that would cause, they wouldn't have had the technical expertise for such a huge job.

ivy said:
5. Branca was the one who had the will and presented it after MJ passing.

Yes he is the one who presented the will to the court but do we know for a fact that he had the will in his possesion during 2002-2009? I know that Joe had claimed it but is there any proof for this. Like I said it is also reasonable to that the lawyer who prepared it had it in his possesion and gave it to Branca after MJ died as he was listed as an executor.
Click to expand...

We don't know the answers to those things. I find it unusual that Branca was hired only eight days before Michael died, and ta-DAH! He was the one who turned up with the will. Branca may be perfectly, A-ok. There is just too much that is irregular not to raise some questions.

ivy said:
6. Strange things about the will.

Wills are updated when there's a major change in life or situations. A 1997 will makes sense as he had Prince. I would expect to see a 1998 will that adds Paris and possibly removes Debbie. An 2002 update is also understandable to include Blanket. I don't think he would be content with the 1997 will as it did not include 1 or 2 of his children. I would logically expect to see a will done after Blanket's birth. so a 2002 will is reasonable. Did anything happened in the last 7 years that would require an update to the will? Himm I personally don't think so. All the children were included, the trust was already established and the ex-wife was left out of the will. Any reason you can think of?
Click to expand...

Absolutely something happened that would seem to require an update in the will. In July, 2008, Michael agreed to do residency concerts -- an agreement that was apparently made with him sitting in a wheel-chair and not having performed in 12 years. That would just about do it? In terms of taking that opportunity to revisit the will and make whatever corrections he found appropriate.

ivy said:
Like I said if we go with the argument that "He fired Branca and did not want him as an executor" we should have seen one of the following 1) name new executors or 2) write a new will. But we don't see this. You see the wills, there's a lawyer that prepares it, there are 3 witnesses and some executors. If there was a newer will or other set of executors someone would have come forward and if Branca was left out at a newer will /newer executors he would not have that in his possession and he would not be able to hide it. So IMO there's no newer will, we only have the 1997 and 2002 wills.
Click to expand...

If there really is a newer will, then I'd expect whoever has it is rendered mute for the same reason that not ONE of the TII stage-crew, dancers, or anyone connected with the show has come forward to say they thought Michael was not in condition to do the concerts, or even survive them. We've all seen the photos of how thin Michael was. We've seen him going into and coming out of clinics, and not only Klein's clinic. Also the USLA medical center. We've heard the rumors that he wasn't attending rehearsals much at all. We've heard it said that the show was NOT going to be ready in time. And more, and more. I also find it very unusual that there was no corroborating copy of the will found in Michael's house. When a will is drawn up, many copies are made. And my own attorney advised me to retain a copy. Why are there no copies of Michael's will, apparently, in anyone else's possession? That is highly unusual.


ivy said:
No please address this. All other members also offered speculation such as "Evil Branca can do anything he can want" but I'm curious to see the document/ information that you base your statement that "children will not get control and will not be paid after 18" argument. Is there any kind of documentation / proof for this or is this just your feeling?
Click to expand...

I don't KNOW if Branca is evil, or not. We are looking at what can be known, and what can be speculated by a lot of the strangeness surrounding Michael's death. That's why at the top of this forum it says "contains heavy speculation."

There are codicils to the current will that no one outside of the attorney's office has seen, probably. So we cannot know if the children will have more control when they come of age. Personally, I truly hope Michael made it so, in his WILL.

We have had problems in this forum before from people demanding "proof." Please read again the guidelines posted at the top of the forum. We speculate here. If that is not tolerable, no reason to visit here, is there? This will NOT happen again.
 
Last edited:
Michael Jackson's father, Joe Jackson, has subpoenaed medical and other records from the UCLA medical center because he believes the records could reveal evidence of foul play in his son's death.

Brian Oxman, Mr. Jackson's attorney, sent 2 subpoenas to the hospital where Michael Jackson was pronounced dead asking for a number of medical records, including autopsy reports, autopsy photos, medications and prognosis assessments.

Joe Jackson reportedly said his entire family is behind the subpoenas , Katherine, the brothers and sisters, along with him. He says they all believe the medical records will show what was in Jackson's body when he passed and they believe the information will expose foul play.

The subpoena has outraged MJ's estate lawyers, who have filed a court motion to prevent Joe from getting hold of the autopsy, toxicology and other hospital reports.

According to legal papers just filed by Joe Jackson, MJ never signed his will and the named executors have committed fraud by attempting to conceal that fact.

Joe Jackson doesn't think that confusion over where the will was signed was a clerical mistake -- he thinks his son never signed the document. Jackson further claims John Branca and John McClain should be booted as administrators because they concealed what Joe Jackson calls a "fraud."

Joe through his lawyer claims Michael fired Branca in 2003 and believed the attorney embezzled MJ's money. Joe claims an "investigation" showed an improper relationship between Branca and Tommy Mottola and the two were "illegally funneling Michael Jackson's money to off-shore accounts in the Caribbean."

Oxman attached a copy of the investigation … conducted by a company called Interfor … which says "some sources in the entertainment industry think highly of Branca. However, other sources suggest that he has built his career on the strength of his clients to a point where there are rumors of irregularities involved in accounting fees.

The report goes on to suggest Branca contacted the justice department after he was fired by Michael and allegedly dropped a dime on the singer, suggesting MJ's new lawyer -- Alvin Malnik -- was utilizing "Jackson's financial resources and cash business to facilitate Malnik's comprehensive money laundering activities."

Howard Weitzman, lawyer for Branca and McClain, says "these claims filed by Joe Jackson are so outrageous that they don't deserve any response. John Branca and McClain will continue carrying out Michael 's wishes for the benefit of his mother, his children and charities."

A source close to the Jackson family said that the family are "keeping faith with the police" adding : "we still feel that there is more than one person responsible for Michael's tragic death."

The source further stated, "Joe won't give up on getting justice for his son and a lawsuit is his focus."

It was also suggested that if they (executors) get their way, how Michael Jackson died will be hidden forever.

http://www.superstarofpop.com/

Why would the executors want to hide how MJ died?
 
Last edited:
The family NEEDS those medical records, and they deserve to have them! The executors and the family seem to be adversarial, and that, alone, tells me there is something very fishy going on. The executors are supposed to be working FOR the beneficiaries. That would be Michael's mother, and his children. I think Michael would be rolling over right about now, at what is going on. The family would need the records to launch a civil suit for "wrongful death," or worse, and the executors know that. That pretty much rips it for me (see my post, just above).

The family thinks there is more than one person responsible for Michael's death? BINGO.

I see NO reason why the executors would block it, if they are legit. This is VERY telling. Thanks for posting.
 
ivy said:
Correct me if I am wrong but as I judge has accepted the will and the proceedings gone forward, I guess that the will has already been determined as valid.

But still some answers




3. The witness who signed it forgot where he was.

Not completely true. The witness "forgot" was the story that the tabloid published. Their lawyer said that "The witness thought he was supposed to write place of residence on the will" . This could be a reasonable explanation. Also as far as I know writing the wrong place on the will does not make it invalid either.
ivy said:
Tmz reported that, I heard it out of Harvey Levin's mouth, -

do you have a link for the version you are giving?

Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ivy said:
rowe-rowe-rowe/



2. Branca also signed the will he should have seen and corrected the mistakes.

I don't think he was a witness to the will and signed it. See the below link for the witnesses signatures http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0701091mjwill5.html

John McClain, Berry Siegel is there but the first person's name starts with a T. Furthermore see the below document page 10 for John Branca's signature. It is not the same as the first witness so I would say that Branca did not cosign the will. We don't know if he was there.

http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/Michael Jackson Probate 1-22z_0.pdf

3. Nobody has seen the 1997 will.

True nobody did. We only have news from TMZ - apparently they saw it. There could be or not be different executors. Anything we can say is pure speculation.
Click to expand...

The other person that signed the will is Trudy Green, his manager. There are several interesting points about her as she was named by Carol Davis, Justice system.net as part of a conspiracy to bankrupt MJ along with Branca, Malnik, Koppelman, Mottola, Kaufman, Ratner in 2006. She was supposedly fired by July 15, 2002 according to RF, then he had her back & leaving in 2003 at the same time Branca was fired by FAX- so there are details missing. RF is only as good as his souces & I think an obvious one of his sources was Branca - he got alot of 'inside tips' right after MJ died which I think obviously came from team Branca. I have also searched the net looking for pics with MJ in New York with Green - I found none. She was there before at other interviews. Not sure what McClain looks like, but I also found none with Siegel. Siegel being an accountant, not being there, no big deal but the manager is usually there. MJ did an interview with Rita Cosby, Trudy was not there. She wasn't there at the events. I suppose I could have missed her. Karen Faye & Grace are both there. There were many pictures taken in New York. I think it's odd that they would do the will in NY at all, assuming it is valid. MJ would have been a big client, things in the will would have been gone over, why do it in NY? It could easily have waited till he got back. Its not like there would have been a rush. A week would have been no big deal.

107.jpg


And legally it may not be necessary to have a will notarized, but MJ was a big client, a very wealthy man, he wasn't just leaving a $50,000 or $800,000 or even a $2 million dollar estate- he was worth multi-millions - he should have gotten the royal treatment & getting a notary is such an easy thing to do. Saves all the questions doing it right.

TMZ talked about getting the 97 will, I don't think they actually saw it - I think reporters just took Weitzman's or Hoffman's word. But I did find a couple links that it was recorded:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/06/michael.jackson.wrap/index.html
Levitch said Monday that a second will has surfaced and that it was written in 1997.
The lawyer said that he hasn't looked at it and that it was given to the court for safekeeping. However, the 1997 document will have no bearing unless the later one is discredited, which the lawyers don't expect.

links on Trudy Green:

http://www.artistshousemusic.org/videos/background+on+trudy+green


http://books.google.com/books?id=sB...snum=9&ved=0CB4Q6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://popdirt.com/michael-jackson-cleaning-house/13741/

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2009-06-26-mj-archive_N.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57706,00.html
dated july 15, 2002


news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/dickclark/dcpgreene121901cmp.pdf

http://www.mjfanclub.net/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=666&Itemid=79
MJ thanks Howard kaufman & Trudy Green, John Branca etc for Brit Spears MTV award

http://www.geocities.com/mj2megam/Arhiva.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80404,00.html
firing of Branca by fax, Trudy Green left, fired Barry Siegel -3-6-2003

http://www.artistshousemusic.org/videos/background+on+trudy+green


http://books.google.com/books?id=sB...snum=9&ved=0CB4Q6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://popdirt.com/michael-jackson-cleaning-house/13741/

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2009-06-26-mj-archive_N.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57706,00.html
dated july 15, 2002


news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/dickclark/dcpgreene121901cmp.pdf

http://www.mjfanclub.net/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=666&Itemid=79
MJ thanks Howard kaufman & Trudy Green, John Branca etc for Brit Spears MTV award

http://www.geocities.com/mj2megam/Arhiva.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80404,00.html
firing of Branca by fax, Trudy Green left, fired Barry Siegel -3-6-2003
 
wow guys, great job, thanks Dangerous Incorporated for re-starting the discussion.
I think this is important that we do not take for granted anything

Victoria83 said:
Absolutely something happened that would seem to require an update in the will. In July, 2008, Michael agreed to do residency concerts -- an agreement that was apparently made with him sitting in a wheel-chair and not having performed in 12 years. That would just about do it? In terms of taking that opportunity to revisit the will and make whatever corrections he found appropriate.
Click to expand...

Plus the trial? Michael could go to jail. His financial situation changed dramatically. People around were supporting him or turning their backs on him. He could be imprisoned, that WAS a real threat. I think in situation like that people take care of the things like the WILL.
 
How did a will with so many inconsistencies get passed a judge and got validated?
Do we know who the judge was? Beckloff?
 
daisy said:
wow guys, great job, thanks Dangerous Incorporated for re-starting the discussion.
I think this is important that we do not take for granted anything



Plus the trial? Michael could go to jail. His financial situation changed dramatically. People around were supporting him or turning their backs on him. He could be imprisoned, that WAS a real threat. I think in situation like that people take care of the things like the WILL.
Click to expand...

Of COURSE. That would be exactly the time to draft a new will, or update an old one. Plus, during the trial Branca was accused of having that offshore account, and I can't imagine that Michael would allow his name to stay on his existing will as executor. That is just common-sense!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top