Is Michael's Will Really Valid?

  • Thread starter Dangerous Incorporated
  • Start date
if you are free to feel whatever you want (love or hate, for or against) about someone , shouldn't the same freedom apply to other people as well ? plus this wouldn't be a forum and we wouldn't be having an intelligent discussion if there was no alternative views than our own.

aren't we all here to investigate / examine if michael's will is valid, if Branca is loyal or not? How can we do it without thoughts, information from every side, every point of view? How can we discover the truth if our minds are closed to other information, other opinions?

if the information presented is wrong, not sufficient etc we should all go ahead educate people, point errors, debunk it, explain our take so that we can all benefit from it. But labeling people and diving people into groups will not benefit us at all.

exactly , Branca is not a musician so we'd love his work or hated it. he is a famous and well-respected lawyer who worked with MJ for over 30 years and his name was in another will of 97...it is business and if Michael wanted him to continue working for him after death , then MJ has his own reasons ! reasons i donot think the family know anything about .
 
Only time will tell about Mr.Branca's loyalty.
if you are free to feel whatever you want (love or hate, for or against) about someone , shouldn't the same freedom apply to other people as well ? plus this wouldn't be a forum and we wouldn't be having an intelligent discussion if there was no alternative views than our own.

aren't we all here to investigate / examine if michael's will is valid, if Branca is loyal or not? How can we do it without thoughts, information from every side, every point of view? How can we discover the truth if our minds are closed to other information, other opinions?

if the information presented is wrong, not sufficient etc we should all go ahead educate people, point errors, debunk it, explain our take so that we can all benefit from it. But labeling people and diving people into groups will not benefit us at all.
100% :agree:
 
"There is a lot of conspiracy, a LOT of conspiracy going on....I don't want to say too much. I'm done." Michael



At the end of the video, when Michael holds up his hands and says, "I'm done". The way his tone is when he says that, and his sign of surrender at that moment, he sounds threatened or something. Or like he doesn't want to get himself into any trouble.

now this video right here is quite informative. it was uploaded just a few days ago. and i found out that the uploaders name was muzikfactory, and i remembered we have a thread here on that.

 
Last edited:
"There is a lot of conspiracy, a LOT of conspiracy going on....I don't want to say too much. I'm done." Michael






At the end of the video, when Michael holds up his hands and says, "I'm done". The way his tone is when he says that, and his sign of surrender at that moment, he sounds threatened or something. Or like he doesn't want to get himself into any trouble.

now this video right here is quite informative. it was uploaded just a few days ago. and i found out that the uploaders name was muzikfactory, and i remembered we have a thread here on that.



Good to see her vids back.:clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
From the same discussion, I heard the exact opposite. That the percentage going to the lawyers will bump up to 20% and the children will be getting even less.



And that is why Joe and Randy aren't handling the estate. Branca shouldn't handle the estate either. If Michael couldn't even trust his own family, what makes anyone think he'll trust Branca who he fired in the past also?

I guess eight days before Michael's death....he made a turn around again finally began to trust Branca again.....??? And let's not forget Branca's business connection to sony.

I wouldn't be surprised if Branca's the one helping Murray out with his fincances in court. We never did find out who Murray's "fat pocketed friends" are.


B I N G O


Watch Murray Walk(when ever the "trial" is to begin)
 
Thanks Kasume.
Sadly there are many people claiming that Michael was impaired or drugged when he made those statements.
Personally I don't believe that. No one can convince me I shouldn't trust Michael's own words. This was his desperate and tragic attempt to warn people about what he feared would happen to him.
 
Thanks Jrsfan. There have been plenty of articles about this but I'm glad there's a vid too. I haven't seen it before and I'm glad there's direct evidence of what was posted on Malnik.
I wonder why he didn't step out after Branca came up with the will.
Aren't executors supposed to have some documentation of their assigned role before the will is activated?
 
Interesting video but we don't actually hear Malnik saying that he has a 2004 will.

Anyway it was widely reported that Michael had a falling out with Malnik. If that's the case he could have signed a statement that would cancel / invalidate the 2004 will and the previous will become valid again.

Aren't executors supposed to have some documentation of their assigned role before the will is activated?

Court will notify the executors in the last valid will.
 
Article dated 1 July 2009:

Malnik has reportedly said in the past that he is Blanket’s biological father and also the executor of Jackson’s estate. He now categorically denies both statements.

“Of course I’m not the biological father,” he told Vieira, who also asked him if he would get involved in the disposal of the estate.

“Only if I’m asked to, and if it were court-authorized or Jackson-family authorized,” Malnik replied.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/31679938

Thanks Jrsfan. There have been plenty of articles about this but I'm glad there's a vid too. I haven't seen it before and I'm glad there's direct evidence of what was posted on Malnik.
I wonder why he didn't step out after Branca came up with the will.
Aren't executors supposed to have some documentation of their assigned role before the will is activated?

He did comment and was quoted in this article dated 6 July 09:

'After several years apart, Mr. Branca was rehired just a week before Mr. Jackson’s death.

“He really knows the ins and outs of the value of Michael’s assets, and what can be done with them for the ultimate benefit of the children,” Alvin Malnik, a lawyer and onetime financial adviser to Mr. Jackson.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/business/07finances.html?_r=1&dbk
 
Meantime, Al Malnik cleared up for me a confusion that’s been out in the media. He does not have a 2004 will from Michael Jackson and was never appointed his executor. Michael simply asked him if he’d be the executor of his will. “But I never heard anything about it again,” Malnik told me. Malnik did sign a notarized agreement making him godfather to Michael’s third child, Prince Michael II aka Blanket.



http://buzz.hollywoodreporter.com/2009/06/28/tmz-facebook-michael-jackson-*****-nancy-al-malnik/
 
Article dated 1 July 2009:

Malnik has reportedly said in the past that he is Blanket’s biological father and also the executor of Jackson’s estate. He now categorically denies both statements.

“Of course I’m not the biological father,” he told Vieira, who also asked him if he would get involved in the disposal of the estate.

“Only if I’m asked to, and if it were court-authorized or Jackson-family authorized,” Malnik replied.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/31679938



He did comment and was quoted in this article dated 6 July 09:

'After several years apart, Mr. Branca was rehired just a week before Mr. Jackson’s death.

“He really knows the ins and outs of the value of Michael’s assets, and what can be done with them for the ultimate benefit of the children,” Alvin Malnik, a lawyer and onetime financial adviser to Mr. Jackson.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/business/07finances.html?_r=1&dbk

I notice you have the Branca family Christmas vid on your channel, (I suppose it may not be your channel, but name is the same). Are you friends of the family?
 
I notice you have the Branca family Christmas vid on your channel, (I suppose it may not be your channel, but name is the same). Are you friends of the family?

Aargh privacy settings! Always forget to sort that, never know who might be snooping around - thanks for reminding me :flowers:
 
Aargh privacy settings! Always forget to sort that, never know who might be snooping around - thanks for reminding me :flowers:

I was actually checking to see what the honeysucklejasmine flower looked like in your nic - & there was your channel.

No need to block it IMO, unless there was something to hide. Also, you didn't answer the question, curious.
 
Last edited:
I was actually checking to see what the honeysucklejasmine flower looked like in your nic - & there was your channel.

No need to block it IMO, unless there was something to hide. Also, you didn't answer the question, curious.

Awww jrsfan, no need to get defensive – I wasn’t suggesting that you were snooping, just as you weren’t insinuating that I have some connection to John Branca as a means of explaining my support of him. I trust him. You don’t. It's that simple. We both love Michael – so how about we focus on that?

Now, as much fun as this intelligent conversation with you has been, it would be nice to get back on topic.


Meantime, Al Malnik cleared up for me a confusion that’s been out in the media. He does not have a 2004 will from Michael Jackson and was never appointed his executor. Michael simply asked him if he’d be the executor of his will. “But I never heard anything about it again,” Malnik told me. Malnik did sign a notarized agreement making him godfather to Michael’s third child, Prince Michael II aka Blanket.

http://buzz.hollywoodreporter.com/2009/06/28/tmz-facebook-michael-jackson-*****-nancy-al-malnik/

Thanks for the info marc_vivien, unfortunately the link is not working for me - do you happen to have another? :)
 
Wierd that the agreement by Malnik to be Blanket's godfather would be notarized, but Branca's 2002 will was not. A wealthy, important client's will should have been notarized. I wonder if the 1997 will was notarized?

according to a quick Google search in California wills cannot be notarized.

The Last Will itself does not have to be notarized, and in California, wills cannot be notarized.

http://www.legalzoom.com/wills-faq/notarize-wills.html

The California notary Public Handbook states, "The California State Bar advises that when a Notary is asked to notarize a document which purports to be a will, the Notary public should decline and advise the person requesting the notarization to consult a member of the California State Bar."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_California_State_can_a_notary_notarize_a_will

Plus remember notarization only verifies the identity of the person that signs the document, it doesn't make the documents legally binding or valid.
 
So does that mean if someone in California wants to present himself as ME drafting a will, and there are 3 witnesses verifying it's me signing, then the will is valid?
Or have I got this wrong?
 
Last edited:
So does that mean if someone in California wants to present himself as ME drafting a will, and there are 3 witnesses verifying it's me signing, then the will is valid?
Or have I got this wrong?

short answer : no that's fraud

long answer : witnesses - very similar to notaries - are the people who witness the signing of the document by that person. generally they would know the person's identity and confirm it. If they don't know the identity -again very similar to the notaries- will confirm identity through an official ID presented to them.

side note: do not think that having a document notarized makes it more secure etc. notaries generally do not know the people that came across them and when asked to notarize a document they ask for an ID to confirm the identity. So anybody with a fake ID can get a document notarized.

Now in your example if witnesses knowingly lie about the identity of the person they will be penalized for perjury. If they don't know it and duped somehow that will is still fraud.

Like I said before having a notary and/or witnesses doesn't make a will (or any other document) 100% valid automatically. It simply verifies the identity of the person signing the document and that those people saw that person sign the document. Whether the document is legally acceptable or not, whether there's a fraud or not , whether it will be binding or not is totally different aspect that's determined in a court of law (if needed).

look to Michael's will and Joe's lawsuit to see what I've been saying. We have 3 witnesses who say and gave statements saying that they saw Michael sign the will and Joe can still have a lawsuit regarding the will claiming fraud. You can simply see that having 3 witnesses doesn't make the will unchallengeable.

note: most states in USA do not require notarization of the wills.
 
Last edited:
I think this is your best argument - although the will could still be a composite of other wills, which I would think would be likely. I think Branca would have been asked to resign at the same time. The list of contingent beneficiaries of the nephews & cousins seems old & outdated as they were from the applehead club. Almost seems like it might be from an insurance policy of beneficiaries. Diana Ross in there too is outdated. Where is the 97 will?

I do remember reading in some article that Weitzman filed affidavits to the court from the witnesses saying they saw MJ sign the will but they gave no date of when they saw him sign it. I thought that was odd - I have looked for the article again, but so far I have not been able to find it.

to verify signature is the easiest of all - it's sent to the expert, authentication services etc. everyone has a certain way to write, certain pressure points etc. so experts can determine that very easily and quickly to a certainty

the other two need some sort of witnesses. saying that certain people were forcing him or he was impaired in someway. however I believe it's quite a hard thing to do in regards to Michael. First he was protesting Sony at that time and in the videos etc he's fine. Secondly 7 years passed after the will. so you not only have to prove that he was impaired and/or forced but also that went on 7 years so that he couldn't do any other will.

(remember anna nicole and her old husband. how he left her everything, that was impaired/forced thing. that lawsuit still goes on to this day).

and remember this : let's talk hypothetically let's assume that someway somehow he was forced to make the will and executors had that will in their hands. what stopped Michael from making another one? Remember you don't have to cancel the other will, a newer dated will automatically becomes the valid will. So in this theory he would need to have access to no lawyers at all - however he had 2 different lawyers after Branca, McMillan and Lopez.




first of all a fyi - they don't need to see the will. they could have simply written a new will that automatically cancels the older one.

- how would branca know that MJ didn't have a will dated later than 2002? Remember most recent will is the valid one. a faked will dated 2002 doesn't make that much sense. in that case you are betting that he didn't have a more current will and his oldest was done at 2001 or before.

and more importantly

- how could Siegel leave the executor position in 2003 if the will was faked in 2009?



Muzikfactory2 has this vid about MJ signature:

http://www.youtube.com/user/MUZIKfactory2

This article I got the link from Taaj2001 from her twitter. Great find, I think. But this article is interesting as it is questioning Barry Siegel's signature on the will & the resignation letter:

http://lawmarketingsystems.typepad.com/http://lawmarketingsystems.typepad....-the-michael-jackson-will-authentic-hmmm.html

July 02, 2009
Mina Sirkin, TV Legal Expert asks: Is the Michael Jackson will authentic? HMMM!

Mina Sirkin, an expert Trust and Estates attorney in Los Angeles says, "I have seen a lot of wills in my career, but the copy of Michael Jackson's will leaves me with way too many questions as a trust and estates lawyer!"

Los Angeles, CA--July 2, 2009 (PRNEWSWIRE)

While some believe everything they see filed in the courts as true, sometimes, you just have to ask questions about those documents. You should also ask questions about any document you see on the internet!

In Michael Jackson's case, the copy of Michael's signature on the will (copy) doesn't look like the copy of Michael's signature on the birth certificate of his son Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., also known as Prince Michael Jackson. Some people may say, it's just the size of the signature because it is in a small box, but look closer ...

See the Will and copy of signature of Michael Jackson on the copy filed with the court here:

Michael Jackson Will Copy

See copy of Birth Certificate Picture here: Copy of Birth Certificate of Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr.

See link to the matrimonial document allegedly signed by Michael and Lisa Presley: Link to Michael's Matrimonial Certificate to Lisa Presley

Just to clarify and be fair, I can't authenticate any of these. In fact, they are linked to copies of documents on the internet. Without a document examiner examining originals, the public can't make any conclusions as to the veracity of any of these documents.

I'm not a document examiner, but I'm sure if the original actually turns up, that there will be dozens of forensic document examiners looking at the original signatures on all documents Michael may have signed around 2002.

Now, looking at all the other flaws, I noticed that the press version of the copy of the will redacted all the names and addresses of the witnesses, but my pre-press copy has the names of all the witnesses.

Two of the three witnesses are John McLain and Barry Siegel. Barry Siegel, a CPA who ran the Provident Financial Management, appears to have declined to act as a co-executor. But the letter attached to the petition which looks like a declination is not current. It is dated in 2003. This is unusual in that in most cases where a nominated executor declines to serve as executor, he or she will usually sign a declination after the death of the testator. This might infer some incident which caused Siegel to refuse the duty of executor between July, 2002 and August, 2003.

Is it possible that perhaps Mr. Siegel would not want to become a fiduciary in the estate or the trusts as becoming a fiduciary would have also made him a fiduciary to Jackson's creditors? A fiduciary with knowledge of assets and perhaps no attorney-client privilege can actually put himself and the estate or trust in a very vulnerable position. Think about it.

Need I say that even the copy of the signature of Barry Siegel on the alleged declination letter dated 2003 doesn't looks like the copy of the Barry Siegel signature on the witness area dated 2002! Why on earth would there not be a current declination, and merely a declination referred to in the August 26, 2003 letter? Who would think of that one?

The addresses of John McClain, and Barry Siegel are both redacted. The signature of the third witness is not legible. In California, at least two witnesses are needed to authenticate a typed will. My guess is that Mr. McLain and Mr. Siegel will be available for comment to the media and to the court! (or in the words of Desi Arnaz, "they may have some esplaining to do... ."

"They say, why, why, tell em' that it's human nature...." -Michael Jackson

Mina Sirkin is a Family Trust Lawyer in Los Angeles, California. She was the expert on the Anna Nicole Smith case for CBS/KCAL9, Britney Spears Conservatorship and is currently the expert to CNN, Inside Edition (CBS), and KNX. Read more about Mina Sirkin.

http://SirkinLaw.com [Site may be down for maintenance 7/3/09] 818-340-4479. Press and Media Contact only: SirkinMediaContact@gmail.com or Karen Reyes for interview scheduling: 818-340-4479 and 818-438-7170.

Link to CNN video: Link to see Mina Sirkin on CNNhttp://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/sho ... ideosearch

Here is the copy of the will with Barry Siegel's signature:

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactihttp://hosted.ap.org/specials/interacti ... n_will.pdf

Barry Siegel's resignation letter & will; Siegel's letter is on page 12:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sectio ... onWill.PDF


Very interesting, I agree, the signatures are not the same. :scratch: Although I am not a handwriting expert. But Siegel's sig on the will seems to match the date written at the top of the page - the A in Los Angeles seems to be the same.

Now if we could just compare that to the affidavits that were file in court. Hmmmmmm.

Has this been discussed before? Did anyone see her on TV?
 
Last edited:
the most important point is below

Just to clarify and be fair, I can't authenticate any of these. In fact, they are linked to copies of documents on the internet. Without a document examiner examining originals, the public can't make any conclusions as to the veracity of any of these documents.

the validity of these signatures cannot be determined by just looking to the pictures and saying "oh it looks similar or not similar" because our writing changes in different situations.

and it's actually what I have said before.
 
the most important point is below



the validity of these signatures cannot be determined by just looking to the pictures and saying "oh it looks similar or not similar" because our writing changes in different situations.

and it's actually what I have said before.


Barry Siegel's sigs are very different though.

An expert would have to be one to check.

I am very surprised no reporters have ever interviewed them.
 
honeysucklejasmine;2977786 said:
Awww jrsfan, no need to get defensive – I wasn’t suggesting that you were snooping, just as you weren’t insinuating that I have some connection to John Branca as a means of explaining my support of him. I trust him. You don’t. It's that simple. We both love Michael – so how about we focus on that?

Now, as much fun as this intelligent conversation with you has been, it would be nice to get back on topic.



:)

Awww, honey - I did notice that you blocked billbranca's youtube account that night - marked it as offensive content.

Just sayin, that was wierd, especially since you're a physician in Great Britain.:smilerolleyes:

Actually, I liked bill from his blog. Must have confused him as he put it back up & you made yours disappear.:scratch:

I just don't trust John Branca - something's been going on for the last 15 years or so & I just don't think it could be anyone else.

Anyhow, Muzik published this from the Interfor report about defrauding MJ "by Mottola & Branca by diverting funds offshore":

http://muzikfactorytwo.blogspot.com/2010/11/to-buy-or-not-to-buy-michaels-new-album.html
 
Ivy - when a will is drawn up, who keeps the original document and are copies of that document sent out to other parties involved in the will or not? Does one of the executors keep the original, or the lawyer who drafted the document? If the lawyer retains the original, what happens to the document if that lawyer is no longer employed by the testator of the will?
 
Lawyer would have a copy for their records. The rest is determined by the person. They can have a copy, put it in a safety deposit box, give it to a relative, give it to a friend, give it to executor and so on. There's no "rule" about it. It's personal choice.

Regardless of who has the original when the person dies they have 30-45 days to file it with the court or send / give it to the executor named on the will.
 
Lawyer would have a copy for their records. The rest is determined by the person. They can have a copy, put it in a safety deposit box, give it to a relative, give it to a friend, give it to executor and so on. There's no "rule" about it. It's personal choice.

Regardless of who has the original when the person dies they have 30-45 days to file it with the court or send / give it to the executor named on the will.

Thanks. In MJ's case though, do we know who retained the original document? If we presume that the lawyer who drafted the will has the original, does that lawyer keep the original regardless of whether his employment is terminated in the future? If a new lawyer was employed some time after the will was drafted, would the redundant lawyer be required to pass the original will to the lawyer currently employed by the testator?

If the testator deemed the executors unfit/untrustworthy to carry out the demands of the will, do you agree that the testator would likely have the will destroyed rather than just draft a new will to supersede it?
 
Back
Top